- Test - lists.nanog.org

Net Neutrality FCC COMMENTS OF THE INTERNET ASSOCIATION
by William Allen Simpson 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

http://internetassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Comments.pdf Really good, for those of us with the patience to ponder it. I tried writing my own FCC response, and was flummoxed by the difficulty. Official comment period ends today.

2 1

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
by Brett Glass 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote: >If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any? It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' "peering" scheme (again, I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amount of bandwidth that Netflix wastes, via uncached unicast streaming, would. But (and this is the point of the message which started this thread) they are sitting pretty as a monopoly and do not feel a need to work with ISPs to solve this problem. It's frustrating and is causing us to look for workarounds -- including going as far as to found a competing streaming service that is more ISP-friendly. >I took a look at your plans at http://www.lariat.net/rates.html. You use >the Netflix brand in your advertising (in the flyer) We don't "use" their brand, but do mention them as an example of a company that provides streaming media. (We also mention YouTube, Hulu, and Amazon Prime.) It's natural for them to be on that list because they have such a large market share that they qualify as a monopoly. They are attempting to leverage their market power against ISPs instead of working with us, which is a shame. Again, a customer of a small rural ISP ought to be every bit as valuable to them as a Comcast customer. We should receive at least the amount per customer that Comcast receives, especially because our costs are higher. >but none of your plans >are actually fast enough to provide Netflix service (up to 6 Mbps per >stream for Super HD). Netflix itself claims that you need only half a megabit to stream. (Whether that claim is accurate is another matter, but that is what they themselves say.) >Selling 1 Mbps is just not going to do it going forward, not even in rural areas. Unfortunately, due to the cost of backhaul (which the FCC is doing nothing about; it has refused to deal with the problem of anticompetitive price gouging on Special Access lines), that's what we can offer. The FCC has also failed to release enough spectrum (Shannon's Law) to allow us to provide much more to the average user; we have to budget access point bandwidth carefully. We do what we can and price as best we can. Most of our customers, given a choice of possible levels of service, choose 1 Mbps and in fact are satisfied with that because the quality is high. Remember, due to Van Jacobson's algorithm, a 10 Mbps TCP session that drops packets slows down (by a factor of 2 for each dropped packet!) to a net throughput of less than 1 Mbps very quickly. So, we concentrate on quality and our customers have a very good experience. Usually better than with cable modem connections with much higher claimed speeds. We're used to doing a lot with a little and watching every penny. But Netflix doesn't have the same attitude. It wastes bandwidth. Rural ISPs and their customers cannot afford to cover the cost of that waste. >I can say how we solve the backhaul problem. We only lease dark fiber and >then put our own 10 Gbps equipment on it. We can upgrade that any day to >40G, 100G or whatever we need, without any additional rent for the fiber. Nice if you can do that. We have not been able to obtain affordable dark fiber in our area. >Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul >using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/ That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade. Most of our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do know our options; we use carefully selected and engineered microwave and millimeter wave links throughout our network. Being a WISP is not easy; it employs every skill I've acquired throughout my entire life and is constantly challenging me to improve and learn more. --Brett Glass

4 3

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
by Brett Glass 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$, >that's your call, We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality is high, so going for a less reliable radio with a high nominal speed does not actually save money. Also, that 5 GHz radio is a "spectrum spammer" and hence is a bad neighbor. After 25 years of doing wireless, one learns what really works and what is a false economy. Believe me, we've learned some hard and expensive lessons. --Brett Glass

3 2

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
by Brett Glass 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: >Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned >AirFiber 5, which goes much longer. Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data sheet. It does not meet our standards for antenna gain or spectral efficiency. The 5 GHz band is in heavy use in our area (not only by us, but by many others). Such a radio simply couldn't survive in our RF environment. And even if by some miracle it could, the 5 GHz band is far too valuable for us to devote so much spectrum to a single backhaul. We use other bands and better equipment for high capacity point-to-point links. --Brett Glass

2 1

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
by Brett Glass 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't require money to change hands.) ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be "peering." It's merely establishing a dedicated link to an ISP while trying to avoid paying the ISP for the resources used. But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static route would work just fine. --Brett Glass At 09:35 PM 7/14/2014, Mike Lyon wrote: >So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with >them anyways cuz u have no ASN?

7 7

Multi-Vendor Configuration Pusher
by Ryan Shea 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

I have a chunk of code for a multi-vendor configuration push tool under the Apache 2.0 license. Some of you may be interested. https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/ This is an easily extensible framework on top of paramiko and pexpect in Python for distributing configuration to (or running commands on) devices. Currently we have the following vendor targets: * aruba * brocade * cisconx * ciscoxr * hp (procurve) * ios * junos * generic ssh I have a thin wrapper around these vendor implementations which allows for threaded pushes and a couple small operational conveniences, but would appreciate any feedback <https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/issues/list> and testing. Please treat this as you would any *new* code -- do not consider it production quality. This project and Capirca <https://code.google.com/p/capirca/> go together like beans and cornbread, if you're into that sort of thing. Thanks, Ryan

2 1

Network infrastructure issue for Siebel CRM
by pradip vaghela 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

Hi All, Anybody has idea about probable issue in Network infrastructure for siebel application performance and availability issue. What are the checks to be perform in network devices for network confirmation. Regards, Pradip Vaghela +91-9320064180

1 0

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
by Brett Glass 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

At 07:32 PM 7/13/2014, Jima wrote: >I confess I might be splitting hairs, but what Internet exchange >exists at 1850 Pearl Street? The best I can ascertain is that >it's a Level3 datacenter, which doesn't seem (to me) to be the same thing. It's a well known regional Internet exchange point in a building which I believe is owned by Level3. It also has huge amounts of fiber cross-connecting it to 910 15th Street, a block from the Denver Convention Center, so that a presence at one is essentially equivalent to a presence at the other. But Netflix does not have a presence at either one. --Brett Glass

9 11

Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
by Brett Glass 15 Jul '14

15 Jul '14

Charles: Not trying to seize the last word here, but did want to make one final point. Just because I let each of my upstreams route for me does NOT mean I am single-homed; only that I handle multi-homing differently. There are commercial appliances available that do this, though I happen to have rolled my own so as to save money and obtain greater control. And, that being said, I'm happy to let the thread die because it's sort of an odd tangent. I see no reason why there should be any sort of "class distinction" between ISPs who undertake the messy business of doing BGP (I have the technical knowledge to do it, but no desire to add more to my plate) and those who choose to outsource that task and focus their efforts on the challenges of serving remote downstream customers. --Brett Glass At 10:30 PM 7/14/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: >Last comment on the thread. And the truth will set you free! >Please have your upstream provider peer with Netflix and all will be >right in the world. As a single-homed customer of said ISP, you are >subject to their rules. No need for your involvement in this old >routing protocol and numbers business, let them do it as it's their >business, not yours. I will not respond further and we can let >this thread finally die. > >- charles

1 0

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
by Dave Crocker 14 Jul '14

14 Jul '14

On 7/14/2014 9:09 AM, David Farber wrote: > Three years > > On Jul 12, 2014, at 9:28 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc2(a)dcrocker.net> wrote: ... > Also, although CSNet started with NSF money, it was required to become > self-funded within 5 years. Hmmm... I believe the point of confusion is the difference between the initial contract, versus the strategic requirement to become self-funded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSNET "CSNET was funded by the National Science Foundation for an initial three-year period from 1981 to 1984." and "A stipulation for the award of the contract was that the network needed to become self-sufficient by 1986." The wikipedia article confirms this distinction by citing the NSF itself: http://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf0050/internet/modest.htm "By 1986, the network was to be self-supporting." d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net

1 0