February 2015 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Generating IPv6 list with filtergen.level3.net
by Smith, Courtney 28 Mar '15

28 Mar '15

Anyone out there know how to generate a IPv6 list Level3's filtergen? I tried Google but didn't find anything. () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

4 4

Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16
by Rogers, Josh 27 Mar '15

27 Mar '15

RFC7349 is a nice summary of everything we¹re still missing wrt MPLS and is relatively recent so should be close to up to date. In addition to the MPLS shortcomings, it also touches on recent IGP updates: >3.2.3.1. Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP) > > RFC 3630 [RFC3630] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering > capabilities to OSPF Version 2. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in > RFC 5329 [RFC5329] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks in OSPF > Version 3. > > RFC 5305 [RFC5305] specifies a method of adding traffic engineering > capabilities to IS-IS. New TLVs and sub-TLVs were added in RFC 6119 > [RFC6119] to extend TE capabilities to IPv6 networks. > > Gap: None. When you talk to your vendor, ask what code will support these RFC¹s. -Josh >On 2/21/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-request(a)nanog.org" <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> >wrote: > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Message: 1 >>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 09:00:07 -0500 >>From: Tim Durack <tdurack(a)gmail.com> >>To: Saku Ytti <saku(a)ytti.fi> >>Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org>, Juniper-Nsp >> <juniper-nsp(a)puck.nether.net>, "cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net" >> <cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net> >>Subject: Re: draft-ietf-mpls-ldp-ipv6-16 >>Message-ID: >> <CAE_ug16FGyQXsTuyP9o+uTDhdNpGBgFE6H5EbU4TDHb73Vm1UQ(a)mail.gmail.com> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >>On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:39 AM, Saku Ytti <saku(a)ytti.fi> wrote: >> >>>On (2015-02-19 11:06 -0500), Tim Durack wrote: >>> >>>> What is the chance of getting working code this decade? I would quite >>>like >>>> to play with this new fangled IPv6 widget... >>>> >>>> (Okay, I'd like to stop using IPv4 for infrastructure. LDP is the last >>>> piece for me.) >>> >>>Is there 4PE implementation to drive IPv4 edges, shouldn't be hard to >>>accept >>>IPv6 next-hop in BGP LU, but probably does not work out-of-the-box? >>>Isn't Segment Routing implementation day1 IPV4+IPV6 in XR? >>> >>>-- >>> ++ytti >>> >> >>I would gladly take OSPFv2/OSPFv3/ISIS+SR over LDP, but I'm seeing that >>is >>not all that is needed. >> >>I also need some flavor of L2VPN (eVPN) and L3VPN (VPNv4/VPNv6) working >>over IPv6. >> >>IPv6 control plane this decade may yet be optimistic. >> >>-- >>Tim:> >> > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

3 2

New BCOPs in Progress
by Chris Grundemann 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

Hail NANOGers! As most of you hopefully know, NANOG now has a BCOP Ad Hoc Committee and we are pushing forward with new BCOPs! http://nanog.org/governance/bcop We currently have three BCOPs in active development: eBGP configuration, shepherd Bill Armstrong Public Peering Exchange update, shepherd Shawn Hsiao Ethernet OAM, shepherd Mark Calkins All three of these nascent BCOPs will be presented in the BCOP Track on Monday: http://nanog.org/meetings/abstract?id=2348 We have also collected a list of Appeals (BCOPs that need to be written): http://bcop.nanog.org/index.php/Appeals If you would like to help out with any of these BCOPs (or others yet to be identified) please join the BCOP mailing list and reach out to the shepherd (if applicable of course): http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/bcop Our committee is brand new and we are still finding and smoothing wrinkles, etc. We would love your help in any capacity. As a BCOP shepherd or SME or just to point out potential pit falls or room for improvement, with the process, the wiki, a BCOP or anything at all really. This is a bottom-up, community led effort and it will only succeed with your help - join us in creating what I believe will be a vital and long-lasting institution! Cheers, ~Chris -- @ChrisGrundemann http://chrisgrundemann.com

6 10

Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
by Larry Sheldon 10 Mar '15

10 Mar '15

http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imp… -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

7 7

Multiple Spanning Tree Instance 0
by Graham Johnston 04 Mar '15

04 Mar '15

We are planning a migration from Rapid PVST+ to Multiple Spanning Tree to better support a mixed vendor environment. My question today is about MST Instance 0. In practice do you map any VLANs there other than VLAN 1? Thanks, Graham Johnston Network Planner Westman Communications Group 204.717.2829 johnstong(a)westmancom.com<mailto:johnstong@westmancom.com> P think green; don't print this email.

3 2

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
by Scott Helms 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

Steve, I'd be up in arms if all I had was a 1mbps uplink :) Having said that, the 10 mbps I get from Comcast right now is more than I need to do remote desktop, code check ins, and host of atypical uploading. I am absolutely not against good upstream rates! I do have a problem with people saying that we must/should have symmetrical connectivity simply because we don't see the market demand for that as of yet. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Steve Clark <sclark(a)netwolves.com> wrote: > Scott, > > Maybe if it the upstream bandwidth was there would be more applications to > use it. I know it is a real > pain to upload pics to Facebook, etc on my 1mbs uplink, or move things to > work across my VPN. > > Steve > > On 02/27/2015 02:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Daniel, > > Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding most > customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around. > If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and > they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this > business. > > Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top > 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream > than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k > residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH > (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum(678) 507-5000 > --------------------------------http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor(a)vocalabs.com> <dtaylor(a)vocalabs.com> wrote: > > > But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean. > > It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal > upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures > unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so. > > Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when > that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician. > > On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote: > > > This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given > symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, > especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto > deployment reality. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum(678) 507-5000 > --------------------------------http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund(a)medline.com> <SNaslund(a)medline.com> > wrote: > > How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating > > content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home > surveillance > but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is > that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. > This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to > readers, > artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video > creator > to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship. > > On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > > > Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one > creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to > download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 > > > down. > > > And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, > you need a *huge* pipe down. > > > Steven Naslund > Chicago IL > > > > > -- > Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc.dtaylor(a)vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 > > > > -- > Stephen Clark > *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* > Director of Technology > Phone: 813-579-3200 > Fax: 813-882-0209 > Email: steve.clark(a)netwolves.com > http://www.netwolves.com >

2 1

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
by Scott Helms 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

Steve, My point is that for lots and lots of people their uplink is not "so low". Even when I look at users with 25/25 and 50/50, many of the have been at those rates for >3 years we don't see changes in traffic patterns nor satisfaction as compared to users at similar download rates but lower uplink rates as long as we don't go below ~5 mbps on the uplink. On Feb 28, 2015 10:46 AM, "Steve Clark" <sclark(a)netwolves.com> wrote: > On 02/27/2015 04:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Daniel, > > > "50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of > the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes." > > Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream > speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and > unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is > growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. > > Scott, > > Who can foresee what APPs might come about if uplinks speeds weren't so > low. I liken it to > whoever said no one will ever need more than 640KB of memory. > > Regards, > Steve > > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum(678) 507-5000 > --------------------------------http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > > > -- > Stephen Clark > *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* > Director of Technology > Phone: 813-579-3200 > Fax: 813-882-0209 > Email: steve.clark(a)netwolves.com > http://www.netwolves.com >

3 2

One FCC neutrality elephant: disabilities compliance
by Mel Beckman 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/telecommunications-access-people-disabilities http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/title-iv-ada Section 255 of Title II applies to Internet providers now, as does section 225 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These rules have such unbelievable broad statements as: "Accessibility and usability must be assessed for individual products and services. Accessibility features that can be incorporated into the design of products or services with very little or no difficulty or expense must be put in each and every product or service." "...require network architecture to be designed in a way that does not hinder access by people with disabilities. Network architecture covers the public switched telephone network, and includes hardware or software databases associated with routing telecommunications services." "Telecommunications service providers and equipment manufacturers must provide the FCC with the name and contact information of the person (or persons) in their companies who are authorized to resolve accessibility complaints." "Each common carrier providing telephone voice transmission services shall, not later than 3 years after July 26, 1990, provide in compliance with the regulations prescribed under this section, throughout the area in which it offers service, telecommunications relay services" "The term "telecommunications relay services" means telephone transmission services that provide the ability for an individual who has a hearing impairment or speech impairment to engage in communication by wire or radio with a hearing individual in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of an individual who does not have a hearing impairment or speech impairment to communicate using voice communication services by wire or radio. Such term includes services that enable two-way communication between an individual who uses a TDD or other nonvoice terminal device and an individual who does not use such a device." Many news stories have been published about how ADA was exploited by scammers to extort money out of bricks-and-mortar businesses. Now these scams are coming to the ISP biz. http://www.adaabuse.com

4 5

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]
by Livingood, Jason 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

I¹m not sure who gets to definitively answer the question (I would guess that case law will develop around it but IANAL), but this sort of caveat has been in the Open Internet rules for awhile. In general it means ISPs can¹t block stuff like Facebook but have latitude to do stuff like block a site/IP address that may be the source of an attack, etc. - Jason On 2/27/15, 2:24 PM, "Bruce H McIntosh" <bhm(a)ufl.edu> wrote: > >On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote: >> What's a "lawful" web site? >> >Now *there* is a $64,000 question. Even more interesting is, "Who gets >to decide day to day the answer to that question?" :)

7 10

Re: Who is covered [was VZ...]
by Livingood, Jason 27 Feb '15

27 Feb '15

I have the same question. No one will know for sure until the rules are released, but my guess is it potentially covers more than people may initially think. For example, I would guess many ³transit² networks will be covered since they also provide in many cases retail access to schools, hospitals, government, business, etc. It¹s not much of a stretch to see how CDNs, hosters, and others may be covered by at least parts of this, such as transparency/policy disclosure, maybe measurement. Blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization could also apply in some critical ways, especially given the % of Internet traffic that uses CDNs for example. Again, the key may be that there will be ambiguity that may only be sorted out as case law develops around each of these areas. But IANAL so I¹m just guessing like the rest of us for now! ;-) - Jason On 2/27/15, 3:44 PM, "Adam Rothschild" <asr(a)latency.net> wrote: >I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to >"broadband access" providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor >CDNs. It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the full >documentation is released. > >FWIW, >-a > >[*] >http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-33 >2260A1.pdf > >On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:49 PM, McElearney, Kevin ><Kevin_McElearney(a)cable.comcast.com> wrote: >> [Sorry for top-posting] >> >> I actually think you are both right and partially wrong. It IS the ISPs >> responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and >> you paid for. This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring >> Broadband America. >> >>http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed- >>Me >> asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf >> >> That said, your ISP is NOT ³the Internet² and can¹t guarantee ³access >>the >> Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second." While ISPs do >>take >> the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they >> certainly don¹t control all levels of the QoE. ASPs may have >>server/site >> issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners >> contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance >> limitations, etc. >> >> What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and >> transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the >> consumer QoE. >> >> - Kevin >> >> On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, "Mel Beckman" <mel(a)beckman.org> wrote: >> >>>Bill, >>> >>>This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never >>>possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand >>>their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to >>>each customer in order to "do everything reasonably within your power to >>>make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per >>>second", then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per >>>month. >>> >>>Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet >>>distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP >>>practices. >>> >>>On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin >>><bill(a)herrin.us<mailto:bill@herrin.us>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second >>>Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within >>>your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice >>>at X megabits per second. >>> >> >

2 1