February 2013 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: [rt-users] Ticket Image attach corruption
by Jay Ashworth 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joshua Lansford" <Joshua.Lansford(a)laserlinc.com> > On 02/07/2013 02:43 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > Question: do you guys make a point, at all, of evangelizing to > > distro > > maintainers and packagers that they package 4.x, or, more to the > > point > > pull 3.x*out* of repos? > > I checked and there are separate packages for rt4. I understand leaving > the 3.8 around as not to surprise folks when they do a system upgrade. Yeah. > It would have been nice if they had updated their wiki though. Quite a > bummer as I just went live. I am going to try and set up a duplicate > system on a virtual machine to test upgrade to 4.0. Thanks for > pointing this out. I will be following this guide: > http://blog.bestpractical.com/2011/07/upgrading-to-rt-4.html About the wiki, it's largely me you're complaining about, so you got the right guy: I did a large bolus of rework on it around 3.8 release time, and have not been using rt-due to job changes-since, so I haven't gotten around to reworking it again for 4.x. If I get a full-time $DAYJOB I'm in the running for right now, that will likely change, as I'll be rolling out 4.0 for there, and updating/merging the current doco to the wiki. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274

1 1

Global caches
by Kyle Camilleri 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

Dear Nanog Community, Some CDN providers such as Akamai and Google (often called Global Google Cache) are offering caches to ISPs. It is very convenient for small ISPs to alleviate bandwidth towards the provider, but also the CDN provider benefits by putting source of data closer to the user resulting in far better performance. Does anybody know of any other CDN providers that offer similar caches? Looking forward for your replies. Regards, Kyle

6 7

Google Public DNS having issues.
by Blair Trosper 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

...seems to be having trouble as reported by Systems Watch: https://twitter.com/systemswatch/status/299572918936039424 Indeed, it's inaccessible to me from Minneapolis, Tampa, SJC, and Seattle...both 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4. I know it's anycast, so I'm not sure which DCs are affected... Blair

2 1

Re: NANOG 57 Notes from Matthew
by Jay Ashworth 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

----- Original Message ----- > From: "david raistrick" <drais(a)icantclick.org> > sure would be nice if the nanog meetings were a bit better > announced....why do I aways find out about the orlando ones during or > after? I hadn't realized there was another one in Orlando, David; last Florida ones I knew about were Miami, and 10 in Tampa. FWIW, I have been banging on them to include the city name in *everything they post* about the meetings on the list, and they've been a lot better lately... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274

2 1

FYI: PBR-LB - Direct Server Return Load Balancing using Policy Based Routing (MEMO)
by Naoto MATSUMOTO 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

Hi All. Our Research Memo for Server ScaleOut Tips using Policy Based Routing is now available. PBR-LB - Direct Server Return Load Balancing using Policy Based Routing (MEMO) http://slidesha.re/VJvdbQ plz enjoy it if you are interested in this article. ;-) Best regard, -- SAKURA Internet Inc. / Senior Researcher Naoto MATSUMOTO <n-matsumoto(a)sakura.ad.jp> SAKURA Research Center <http://research.sakura.ad.jp/>

1 0

Link to documents mentioned during ARIN Update presentation Q&A
by John Curran 07 Feb '13

07 Feb '13

NANOGers - During the Q&A portion of the ARIN Update today given at NANOG 57, I referenced some letters sent and received with regards to legacy addresses. Since a few folks have asked for a URL pointer to them, here is it: <https://www.arin.net/resources/legacy/index.html> The particular question is in the FAQ section at the bottom (question #18); the links to the documents (in pdf form) are in the response text for that question. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN

1 0

NANOG 57 Notes from Matthew
by Jay Ashworth 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

I've created a skeleton page at Cluepon for this meeting; Matthew will be uploading his notes there shortly: http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/NANOG57 Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra(a)baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274

4 3

2013.02.06 NANOG57 day3 afternoon session notes posted
by Matthew Petach 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

I put the notes from the afternoon session up on my website--but thanks to a great suggestion by Jay, I'm also putting them up on the nanog.cluepon.net site on the wiki, so that as folks spot my typos, they can fix them themselves, rather than wonder why goodle.com doesn't resolve for them, etc. ^_^; http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2013.02.06-NANOG57-day3-afternoon-session.txt for now--not sure if the final URL for the notes on nanog.cluepon.net is set or not, so I'll wait to send it out until I'm sure I'm not just pointing at a temporary staging spot. :) Great conference, some really good material; looking forward to the next one; with any luck, I won't be a manager anymore by then, and won't be smack-dab in the middle of reviews. :) Thanks again, everyone--see you in 4 months! Matt

1 0

2013.02.06 NANOG57 day3 morning session notes posted
by Matthew Petach 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

Huge thanks to the program committee for pulling another great set of talks together; this really has been a top-notch bunch of content! Notes are up at http://kestrel3.netflight.com/2013.02.06-NANOG57-day3-morning-session.txt As always, if my apache process wedges, let me know and I'll kick it; or, if people want to copy the notes to pastebin, twiki, or other more stable sites, that's totally cool; I don't have any particular ownership over these notes, they're just out there in case folks missed a talk and want to catch up before the streams are put up on the nanog site. thanks again for another awesome conference! Matt

1 0

Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard?
by Art Plato 06 Feb '13

06 Feb '13

I guess I should have clarified. We are looking at an FTTP overbuild. Eventually eliminating the HFC. FTTP makes more sense long term. We are also the local electric utility. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Scott Helms" <khelms(a)zcorum.com> To: "Art Plato" <aplato(a)coldwater.org> Cc: "Peter Kristolaitis" <alter3d(a)alter3d.ca>, nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 1:15:40 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? I've set up several open access systems, usually in muni scenarios, and its non-trivial outside of PPPoE based systems (which had the several operator concept baked in) because the network manufacturers and protocol groups don't consider it important/viable. Trying to do open access on a DOCSIS network is very very difficult, though not impossible, because of how provisioning works. Making it work in many of the FTTx deployments would be worse because they generally have a single NMS/EMS panel that's not a multi-tenant system. On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Art Plato < aplato(a)coldwater.org > wrote: That is actually one of the big picture scenarios we are reviewing, with the ISP component being the last to go if there is a fair and competitive market the arises for our constituents. We won't allow the return of the old monopoly play that existed back then. This is too vital for the growth of our business community. We also view it as a quality of life issue for our citizens. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Kristolaitis" < alter3d(a)alter3d.ca > To: nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 12:53:51 PM Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? There isn't any reason that you couldn't offer ALL of those services. Spin off the layer 1 & 2 services as a separate entity as far as finance & legal is concerned, then treat the muni ISP as just another customer of that entity, with the same pricing and service that's offered to everyone else. If there is enough competition with the layer 1 & 2 services, the muni ISP may or may not have that many customers, but it'll still be there as an "ISP of last resort", to borrow a concept from the financial system, ensuring competitive and fair pricing is available. - Pete On 01/30/2013 09:37 AM, Art Plato wrote: > I am the administrator of a Municipally held ISP that has been providing services to our constituents for 15 years in a competitive environment with Charter. We aren't here to eliminate them, only to offer an alternative. When the Internet craze began back in the late 1990's they made it clear that they would never upgrade the plant to support Internet data in a town this size, until we started the discussion of Bonds. We provide a service that is reasonably priced with local support that is exceptional. We don't play big brother. Both myself and my Director honor peoples privacy. No information without a properly executed search warrant. Having said all that. We are pursuing the feasibility of the model you are discussing. My director believes that we would better serve our community by being the layer 1 or 2 provider rather than the service provider. While I agree in principle. The reality is, from my perspective is that the entities providing the services will fall back to the original position that prompted us to build in the first place. Provide a minimal service for the maximum price. There is currently no other provider in position in our area to provide a competitive service to Charter. Loosely translated, our constituents would lose. IMHO. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" < bill(a)herrin.us > > To: "Jay Ashworth" < jra(a)baylink.com > > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog(a)nanog.org > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 9:24:04 AM > Subject: Re: Will wholesale-only muni actually bring the boys to your yard? > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Jay Ashworth < jra(a)baylink.com > wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei" < jfmezei_nanog(a)vaxination.ca > >>> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or >>> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail >>> offering. Wholesale only. >>> >>> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not >>> involved in retail, but it them invites competition by allowing many >>> service providers to provide retail services over the last mile >>> network. > As long as they support open peering they can probably operate at > layer 3 without harm. Tough to pitch a muni on spending tax revenue > for something that's not a complete product usable directly by the > taxpayers. > > >> It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is >> a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact >> be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as >> subscribers? Especially if they're already built HFC in much to all of >> my municipality? > Not Road Runner, no. What you've done, if you've done it right, is > returned being an ISP to an ease-of-entry business like it was back in > the dialup days. That's where *small* business plays, offering > customized services where small amounts of high-margin money can be > had meeting needs that a high-volume commodity player can't handle. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------

5 11