- Test - lists.nanog.org

[NANOG] Erik Aran/SW/MTY/TELINOR is out of the office.
by earan＠axtel.com.mx 25 Apr '08

25 Apr '08

I will be out of the office starting 23/04/2008 and will not return until 12/05/2008. Estoy fuera de la ciudad para cualquier cuestion de Conectividad de Dx, Favor de contactar a Javier Rios al 81298278 o Ricardo Sanches ext 8111 _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

Re: [NANOG] Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost.WOW
by Scott Weeks 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

--- patrick(a)ianai.net wrote: From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> Perhaps we should have a list rule that anyone silly enough to be infected and spew spam gets their posting privs removed until they beg forgiveness? ------------------------------------ Publicly! >;-) scott ------------ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

Never seen before! Gucci Prada Chanel, Bally, Dsquared, Sold for less than cost�WOW
by nanog＠nanog.org 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

Ladies and Gentlemen, Get Ready for.. Thought I would let you know about the Fashion Footwear SPRING Sale! Men and Women Designer Shoes, Heels, Sandals and Boots, All Half-OFF, Buy Direct, Forget Department Store Prices, Get Exclusive 2008 D&G, Gucci, Versace, Prada, Chanel, Christian Dior, Dsquared, Uggs and More! FREE International Shipping on all Orders! http://cvamedios.com/sale/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

9 9

Re: [NANOG] [Nanog] attempt to capture nominet board
by Neil J. McRae 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

Yes strongly agreed and Randy thanks for raising this here. -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com> Sent: 24 April 2008 11:30 To: North American Network Operators Group <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: [Nanog] attempt to capture nominet board dear uk sisters, brothers, and undecideds, if you are a nomintet voting member or know someone who is, i strongly encourage you to read these two documents, <http://www.nominet.org.uk/governance/board/election/> and particularly <http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/28780_call_to_action_letter_web.pdf>, and to vote the candidates running against the greedy domainer slime trying to capture nominet. thanks for listening. randy _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

3 2

[NANOG] Comcast (AS 7922 -> 33491) issues?
by Darrell Hyde 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

I'm seeing tons of availability issues to networks with AS paths ending in "7922 33491". A couple of the prefixes in question are 98.214.0.0/15, 69.137.240.0/20, 73.117.0.0/16, and 67.175.0.0/16. I spoke with Abovenet earlier this morning - they say its due to L3 suppressing those announcements to some of their peers. Initially I thought they were just making things up, until I started seeing "% Network not in table" responses to BGP lookups on the router where I peer with Sprint: #show ip bgp 98.214.184.18 % Network not in table #show ip bgp 69.137.251.134 % Network not in table And yet... #show ip bgp 98.214.184.18 BGP routing table entry for 98.214.0.0/15, version 26493985 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to update-groups: 3 4 3491 7922 33491 63.218.31.1 from 63.218.31.1 (63.218.30.9) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 228787176 228787177 228794098 6395 3356 7922 33491 216.140.65.73 from 216.140.65.73 (216.140.9.56) Origin IGP, metric 160, localpref 100, valid, external #show ip bgp 69.137.251.134 BGP routing table entry for 69.137.240.0/20, version 26493909 Paths: (2 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table) Advertised to update-groups: 3 4 3491 7922 33491 63.218.31.1 from 63.218.31.1 (63.218.30.9) Origin IGP, localpref 100, valid, external, best Community: 228787176 228787177 228794098 6395 3356 7922 33491 216.140.65.73 from 216.140.65.73 (216.140.9.56) Origin IGP, metric 160, localpref 100, valid, external Based on what I'm seeing, someone out there has to be seeing similar behavior. Anybody? Bueller? D. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

2 1

Re: [Nanog] P2P traffic optimization Was: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]
by Laird Popkin 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

I would certainly view the two strategies (reverse engineering network information and getting ISP-provided network information) as being complimentary. As you point out, for any ISP that doesn't provide network data, we're better off figuring out what we can to be smarter than 'random'. So while I prefer getting better data from ISP's, that's not holding us back from doing what we can without that data. ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being proprietary for many good reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) that processes the network maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and percentages) to the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are near each other. The iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> To: "Laird Popkin" <laird(a)pando.com> Cc: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell(a)gmail.com>, "Doug Pasko" <doug.pasko(a)verizon.com>, nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 5:14:12 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: Re: P2P traffic optimization Was: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Laird Popkin <laird(a)pando.com> wrote: > > On Apr 23, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Alexander Harrowell > > <a.harrowell(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Christopher Morrow > > > <christopher.morrow(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It strikes me that often just doing a reverse lookup on the peer > > > > address would be 'good enough' to keep things more 'local' in a > > > > network sense. Something like: > > > > > > > > 1) prefer peers with PTR's like mine (perhaps get address from a > > > > public-ish server - myipaddress.com/ipchicken.com/dshield.org) > > > > 2) prefer peers within my /24->/16 ? > > > > > > > > This does depend on what you define as 'local' as well, 'stay off my > > > > transit links' or 'stay off my last-mile' or 'stay off that godawful > > > > expensive VZ link from CHI to NYC in my backhaul network... > > > > > > > > > > Well. here's your problem; depending on the architecture, the IP > addressing > > > structure doesn't necessarily map to the network's cost structure. This > is > > > why I prefer the P4P/DillTorrent announcement model. > > > > > > > > > > sure 80/20 rule... less complexity in the clients and some benefit(s). > > perhaps short term something like the above with longer term more > > realtime info about locality. > > > > For the applications, it's a lot less work to use a clean network map from > ISP's than it is to in effect derive one from lookups to ASN, /24, /16, > pings, traceroutes, etc. The main reason to spend the effort to implement > those tactics is that it's better than not doing anything. :-) > so.. 'not doing anything' may or may not be a good plan.. bittorrent works fine today(tm). On the other hand, asking network folks to turn over 'state secrets' (yes some folks, including doug's company) believe that their network diagrams/designs/paths are in some way 'secret' or a 'competitive advantage', so that will be a blocking factor. While, doing simple/easy things initially (most bittorrent things I've seen have <50 peers certainly there are more in some cases, but average? > or < than 100? so dns lookups or bit-wise comparisons seem cheap and easy) that get the progress going seems like a grand plan. Being blocked for the 100% solution and not making progress/showing-benefit seems bad :( -Chris _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

8 9

[NANOG] isotf.org / outages
by Matthew Walker 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

Can someone please recommend an alternate outages list, as it appears isoft.org is no longer functional. Thank You. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

Re: [NANOG] P2P traffic optimization Was: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]
by Laird Popkin 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

Replies below: - Laird Popkin, CTO, Pando Networks mobile: 646/465-0570 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christopher Morrow" <morrowc.lists(a)gmail.com> To: "Laird Popkin" <laird(a)pando.com> Cc: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell(a)gmail.com>, "Doug Pasko" <doug.pasko(a)verizon.com>, nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:47:57 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York Subject: Re: P2P traffic optimization Was: [Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010] On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Laird Popkin <laird(a)pando.com> wrote: > I would certainly view the two strategies (reverse engineering network information and getting ISP- > provided network information) as being complimentary. As you point out, for any ISP that doesn't > provide network data, we're better off figuring out what we can to be smarter than 'random'. So while I > prefer getting better data from ISP's, that's not holding us back from doing what we can without that > data. ok, sounds better :) or more reasonable, or not immediately doomed to blockage :) 'more realistic' even. - Thanks. Given that there are many thousands of ISP's, an incremental approach seemed best. :-) > ISP's have been very clear that they regard their network maps as being proprietary for many good > reasons. The approach that P4P takes is to have an intermediate server (which we call an iTracker) > that processes the network maps and provides abstracted guidance (lists of IP prefixes and > percentages) to the p2p networks that allows them to figure out which peers are near each other. The > iTracker can be run by the ISP or by a trusted third party, as the ISP prefers. What's to keep the itracker from being the new 'napster megaserver'? I suppose if it just trades map info or lookup (ala dns lookups) and nothing about torrent/share content things are less sensitive from a privacy perspective. and a single point of failure of the network perspective. - That's a good point. The iTracker never knows what's moving in the P2P network. We are comparing two recommendation models, which expose different levels of information. In the 'general' model, the iTracker knows nothing about the p2p network, but provides a recommendation matrix based purely on the ISP's network resources and policies. In the 'per torrent' model, the iTracker receives information about peer distribution (e.g. there are many seeds in NYC, and many downloaders in Chicago), in which case it can make peering recommendations based on that knowledge. The latter approach seems like it should be better able to 'tune' communications (to reduce maximum link utilization, etc.), but it requires the p2p network to provide real-time information about swarm distribution, which involves more communications, and exposes more details of the network to the iTracker, raising some privacy concerns. Admittedly the iTracker doesn't know what the swarm is delivering, but it would know (in network terms) where the users in that swarm are, for example. Latency requirements seem to be interesting for this as well... at least dependent upon the model for sharing of the mapping data. I'd think that a lookup model served the client base better (instead of downloading many large files of maps in order to determine the best peers to use). There's also a sensitivity to the part of the network graph and which perspective to use for the client -> peer locality mapping. - The network data is loaded into the p2p networks's Tracker, and used locally there, so there's no external communications during normal p2p network operation. The communication pattern in P4P (current, at any rate - it's still evolving) is that the P2P network's Tracker polls the P4P iTracker periodically to receive updated map files. In the case of the 'general' weight map, it could be one update every few minutes (or every day, etc., depending on how often the ISP cares to update network information). In the case of 'per torrent' optimization, it's an update per swarm every few minutes, which is much more messaging, so it might only make sense to do this for a very small number of the most popular swarms. It's interesting at least :) Thanks! -Chris (also, as an aside, your mail client seems to be making each paragraph one long unbroken line... which drives at least pine and gmail a bit bonkers...and makes quoting messages a much more manual process than it should be.) - Sorry - I reconfigured to send 'plain text' email. Does it show up OK? I'm using Zimbra's web mail interface. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

1 0

[NANOG] support.microsoft.com?
by Colin Alston 24 Apr '08

24 Apr '08

Has anyone else noticed strange things with support.microsoft.com? If I wget it ('http://support.microsoft.com/') from anywhere, I get an index.html fine. If I use lynx, I get gibberish (gzipped content, without a correct header) If I use Firefox or IE behind some Squid proxies in certain places, it doesn't understand the content either. Looks like either they are not correctly encoding the content based on browser capabilities. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

8 8

[Nanog] Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics [Was: Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010]
by Paul Ferguson 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- William Warren <hescominsoon(a)emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> wrote: >Here in comcast land hdtv is actually averaging around 12 megabits a second. Still adds up to staggering numbers..:) > Another disturbing fact inside this entire mess is that, by compressing HD content, consumers are noticing the degradation in quality: http://cbs5.com/local/hdtv.cable.compression.2.705405.html So, we have a "Tragedy of The Commons" situation that is completely created by the telcos themselves trying to force consumer decisions, and then failing to deliver, but bemoaning the fact that infrastructure is being over-utilized by file-sharers (or "Exafloods" or whatever the apocalyptic issue of the day is for telcos). A real Charlie Foxtrot. - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIDX5Rq1pz9mNUZTMRAovKAJ0SXpK/XrW73mkCGZhtLCO5ZGsspQCfbUY3 0DPluYrtq0Et/RbvJguq3WM= =furJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG(a)nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

9 19