- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Undersea fiber cut after Taiwan earthquake - PCCW / Singtel / KT e tc connectivity disrupted
by Frank Coluccio 28 Dec '06

28 Dec '06

I would expect that some of the affected cables have lost dc power used to drive repeaters and amplifiers (10 kv d.c.) from their landing stations. Or that is at least the hope at this time. The WSJ today published a superb article along with a unusually detailed global route map. See intro along with some comments concerning the route map (tinyurl): -- Quake Damages Undersea Cables, Disrupting Internet Service in Asia By JASON DEAN December 27, 2006 2:36 p.m. [FAC: Assuming the link below works, the article below contains an excellent global view of what looks like most, if not all, of the major submarine cable routes around the world in use today. It's a keeper, IMO, so I suggest downloading it to your HD. Here's the pdf, which is probably subject to the same shelf life constraint: http://tinyurl.com/ya45oo ] BEIJING -- A big earthquake near Taiwan disrupted phone and Internet traffic across Asia Wednesday, highlighting the fragility of a global telecommunications system that still relies on vulnerable undersea cables to carry data. The magnitude 6.7 temblor that struck late Tuesday off Taiwan's southern coast cut several fiber-optic cables that carry communications traffic through a key nexus in Asia, connecting Hong Kong and Southeast Asia with Japan and, ultimately, North America. Continued at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116719850925860370.html?mod=djemTECH Enjoy! On Thu Dec 28 0:35 , Jared Mauch sent: > >On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:55:25AM +0000, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya wrote: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi, >> >> Information seems to suggest that these all have one or other faults >> due to the earthquake. Some probably have more serious problems then >> others. >> >> SMW3 (Sea-me-we 3). >> FNAL and FEA (FLAG North Asia Loop) ; >> RNAL = Reach North Asia Loop >> APCN2 (Asia Pacific Network 2) >> >> C2C - Singtel's coast to coast >> EAC = East Asia Crossing (EAC) >> >> Traffic is gradually coming back through ad-hoc setups and re-routes, >> but cable providers are saying minimum 3 weeks for full recovery. > > I've wondered how many boats/subs exist for these repairs >and if attempting to do them all in parallel is going to be a big >problem. With 6 systems having outages, it will be interesting to see >when various paths/systems come back online and if there is a gating >factor in underseas repair gear being available in the region. > > - jared > >-- >Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared(a)puck.nether.net >clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.

1 0

Re: DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware)
by Scott Weeks 27 Dec '06

27 Dec '06

--- pete(a)he.iki.fi wrote: From: Petri Helenius <pete(a)he.iki.fi> Geo. wrote: > I know this is kind of a crazy idea but how about making cleaning up > all these infected machines the priority as a solution instead of > defending your dns from your infected clients. They not only affect > you, they affect the rest of us so why should we give you a solution > to your problem when you don't appear to care about causing problems > for the rest of us? > :: Has anyone figured out a remote but lawful way to repair :: zombie machines? Lawful in which country? scott

3 2

DNS - connection limit (without any extra hardware)
by Luke 27 Dec '06

27 Dec '06

Hi, as a comsequence of a virus diffused in my customer-base, I often receive big bursts of traffic on my DNS servers. Unluckly, a lot of clients start to bomb my DNSs at a certain hour, so I have a distributed tentative of denial of service. I can't blacklist them on my DNSs, because the infected clients are too much. For this reason, I would like that a DNS could response maximum to 10 queries per second given by every single Ip address. Anybody knows a solution, just using iptables/netfilter/kernel tuning/BIND tuning, without using any hardware traffic shaper? Thanks Best Regards Luke

17 29

Home media servers, AUPs, and upstream bandwidth utilization.
by Roland Dobbins 27 Dec '06

27 Dec '06

I recently purchased a Slingbox Pro, and have set it up so that I can remotely access/control my home HDTV DVR and stream video remotely. My broadband access SP specifically allow home users to run servers, as long as said servers don't cause a problem for the SP infrastructure nor for other users or doing anything illegal; as long as I'm not breaking the law or making problems for others, they don't care. The Slingbox is pretty cool; when I access it, both the video and audio quality are more than acceptable. It even works well when I access it via EVDO; on average, I'm pulling down about 450kb/sec up to about 580kb/sec over TCP (my home upstream link is a theoretical 768kb/sec, minus overhead; I generally get something pretty close to that). What I'm wondering is, do broadband SPs believe that this kind of system will become common enough to make a signficant difference in traffic paterns, and if so, how do they believe it will affect their access infrastructures in terms of capacity, given the typical asymmetries seen in upstream vs. downstream capacity in many broadband access networks? If a user isn't doing something like breaking the law by illegally redistributing copyrighted content, is this sort of activity permitted by your AUPs? If so, would you change your AUPs if you saw a significant shift towards non- infringing upstream content streaming by your broadband access customers? If not, would you consider changing your AUPs in order to allow this sort of upstream content streaming of non-infringing content, with the caveat that users can't caused problems for your infrastructure or for other users, and perhaps with a bandwidth cap? Would you police down this traffic if you could readily classify it, as many SPs do with P2P applications? Would the fact that this type of traffic doesn't appear to be illegal or infringing in any way lead you to treat it differently than P2P traffic (even though there are many legitimate uses for P2P file-sharing systems, the presumption always seems to be that the majority of P2P traffic is in illegally- redistributed copyrighted content, and thus P2P technologies seem to've acquired a taint of distaste from many quarters, rightly or wrongly). Also, have you considered running a service like this yourselves, a la VoIP/IPTV? Vidoeconferencing is somewhat analogous, but in most cases, videoconference calls (things like iChat, Skype videoconferencing, etc.) generally seem to use a less bandwidth than the Slingox, and it seems to me that they will in most cases be of shorter duration than, say, a business traveler who wants to keep up with Lost or 24 and so sits down to stream video from his home A/V system for 45 minutes to an hour at a stretch. Sorry to ramble, this neat little toy just sparked a few questions, and I figured that some of you are dealing with these kinds of issues already, or are anticipating doing so in the not-so-distant future. Any insight or informed speculation greatly appreciated! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice All battles are perpetual. -- Milton Friedman

9 14

Undersea fiber cut after Taiwan earthquake - PCCW / Singtel / KT etc connectivity disrupted
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 27 Dec '06

27 Dec '06

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aYHaxhLE4rr0&refer=home Singapore Telecom, PCCW Say Internet Disrupted by Taiwan Quakes By Andrea Tan Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Singapore Telecommunications Ltd. Southeast Asia's largest telephone company, and Hong Kong's PCCW Ltd. said Internet service in Asia slowed down after three earthquakes hit southern Taiwan yesterday. ``The Taiwan earthquake has affected several submarine cable systems in Asia, causing cable cuts near Taiwan late last night,'' Singapore Telecom spokesman Chia Boon Chong said by telephone today. ``Some customers might experience a slowdown in data or Internet access. Traffic diversion and restoration works are currently in progress.'' Taiwan was jolted by three earthquakes yesterday, killing two people and injuring 42 others, the island's National Fire Agency said. The tremors damaged undersea cables, causing a disruption to Internet traffic and some telephone calls in the region for customers including Singapore Telecom, PCCW, Chunghwa Telecom Co., Taiwan's biggest telephone operator, and KDDI Corp., Japan's second-largest telephone carrier. PCCW, Hong Kong's largest phone company, said data capacity on its networks was reduced to 50 percent due to the quake. ``Data service to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and the U.S. were affected,'' said Hans Leung, a spokesman in Hong Kong. Two of Chunghwa Telecom's cables were damaged by the earthquake, resulting in ``near zero'' capacity for voice calls to Southeast Asia, apart from Vietnam, said Leng Tai-feng, the company's vice president of international business. ``The repairs could take two to three weeks,'' Leng said. ``We're doing our best to coordinate with other operators in the region to resolve the problem.'' Southern Taiwan The first earthquake, which was magnitude 6.7, occurred at 8:26 p.m. local time yesterday off Taiwan's south coast, the island's Central Weather Bureau said on its Web site. The second, magnitude 6.4, happened at 8:34 p.m. and the third, magnitude 5.2, occurred at 8:40 p.m. All three were centered in the same area, the bureau said. On Dec. 26, 2004, a magnitude 9.1 earthquake off Sumatra unleashed waves that destroyed coastal villages on the Indian Ocean from Indonesia to Sri Lanka, killing more than 220,000 people. Some of the areas have yet to recover. KDDI said its fiber-optic undersea cable in Taiwan was damaged, affecting fixed-line services to Southeast Asia. The company is re-routing phone calls to go through the U.S. and Europe and may take several weeks to two months to repair cables that are damaged, KDDI's Tokyo-based spokesman Haruhiko Maede said. KT Corp., South Korea's largest provider of fixed-line phone and Internet access service, said the outages affected overseas connections of the foreign ministry and Reuters, which use leased lines, said Kim Cheol Kee, a spokesman for Seongnam-based KT. KT is in discussions with foreign phone companies to redirect traffic elsewhere, Kim says. To contact the reporter on this story: Andrea Tan in Singapore at atan17(a)bloomberg.net Last Updated: December 26, 2006 22:57 EST -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

1 0

RE: Home media servers, AUPs, and upstream bandwidth utilization.
by Joe St Sauver 26 Dec '06

26 Dec '06

Chris mentioned: #it might also be interesting to know how tcp-stack differences affect some #of the usage patterns as well. With the now widely deployed win* platform #tcp stach respecting tcp-reno things work according to well #understood/accepted models. Mac OSX, linux and Vista seem to NOT respect #tcp-reno, and may change the models somewhat... Will this cause more #spikiness on individual links? will this change in behaviour on a wide #scale (vista rollout to new computers or to existing platforms) causing #folks capacity planning models to fail? Capacity planning is a very important issue, but for other folks capacity *under*utilization is the flip side of that issue. For example, there are still scientific researchers who continue to be puzzled by low throughput for bulk data transfers, even with clean fast ethernet (or gig ethernet!) connections end-to-end. For example, looking at table 1 of http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/20061218/ we can see that on I2 95% of all bulk TCP data transfers are ~25Mbps or less -- however the top 1/10th of 1% successfully demonstrate 1Gbps throughput. The question then becomes one of "How do we help bridge that 'wizard gap' or transfer that expertise (of those who are demonstrably able to fully utilize the connections at their disposal) to all the other well-connected researchers out there?" Things like Web100, see http://www.web100.org/download/ are intended to help automate this for Linux users, although clearly there are still issues with applications (if you're curious, you can see the sort of improvements to SSH that were made by the folks at PSC at: http://www.psc.edu/networking/projects/hpn-ssh/ and there's a lot of fascinating empirical work that's been done with applications such as GridFTP (where encryption is not the bottleneck). So what about Vista? Well, it has (or should have, I'll withold any final assertions until I see what actually finally gets shipped to consumers) a number of TCP performance enhancements which are described at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/community/columns/cableguy/cg1105.mspx (last updated September 22nd, 2006). If the network traffic load feels different post-Vista, well, it very well may *be* different. :-) But that's all host-based -- what about at the network level? I'm intrigued to see things like jumbo frames accounting for a non-negligible fraction of traffic on Internet2 (e.g., roughly 7% or so of octets, see http://netflow.internet2.edu/weekly/longit/perc-b-jumbo-packets.png ), and I also notice that at least one alternative TCP/IP implementation has elected to commercialize in the form of a 1U gateway appliance that does its mojo network wide, rather than working to retrofit individual hosts with high performance TCP stacks on a host-by-host basis. I think those sort of things have tremendous potential to change the aggregate network behavior we all see over time. Regards, Joe St Sauver (joe(a)uoregon.edu) http://www.uoregon.edu/~joe/ Disclaimer: all opinions strictly my own.

3 2

RE: Home media servers, AUPs, and upstream bandwidth utilization.
by Frank Bulk 26 Dec '06

26 Dec '06

What hasn't been yet discussed is the upstream/downstream disparity on the link to the upstream provider. At least in our ISP operations, downstream peaks out at about 3x the upstream, and downstream only dips to the upstream utilization at the wee hours of the morning. I wouldn't mind if upstream utilization matched downstream rates as we're essentially paying for downstream utilization, not upstream. Are there more pieces to the bandwidth puzzle that would start getting messed up if ISPs and end-users were more symmetrical in their usage? Frank -----Original Message----- From: Frank Bulk Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2006 8:56 PM To: NANOG Subject: Home media servers, AUPs, and upstream bandwidth utilization. I recently purchased a Slingbox Pro, and have set it up so that I can remotely access/control my home HDTV DVR and stream video remotely. My broadband access SP specifically allow home users to run servers, as long as said servers don't cause a problem for the SP infrastructure nor for other users or doing anything illegal; as long as I'm not breaking the law or making problems for others, they don't care. The Slingbox is pretty cool; when I access it, both the video and audio quality are more than acceptable. It even works well when I access it via EVDO; on average, I'm pulling down about 450kb/sec up to about 580kb/sec over TCP (my home upstream link is a theoretical 768kb/sec, minus overhead; I generally get something pretty close to that). What I'm wondering is, do broadband SPs believe that this kind of system will become common enough to make a signficant difference in traffic paterns, and if so, how do they believe it will affect their access infrastructures in terms of capacity, given the typical asymmetries seen in upstream vs. downstream capacity in many broadband access networks? If a user isn't doing something like breaking the law by illegally redistributing copyrighted content, is this sort of activity permitted by your AUPs? If so, would you change your AUPs if you saw a significant shift towards non- infringing upstream content streaming by your broadband access customers? If not, would you consider changing your AUPs in order to allow this sort of upstream content streaming of non-infringing content, with the caveat that users can't caused problems for your infrastructure or for other users, and perhaps with a bandwidth cap? Would you police down this traffic if you could readily classify it, as many SPs do with P2P applications? Would the fact that this type of traffic doesn't appear to be illegal or infringing in any way lead you to treat it differently than P2P traffic (even though there are many legitimate uses for P2P file-sharing systems, the presumption always seems to be that the majority of P2P traffic is in illegally- redistributed copyrighted content, and thus P2P technologies seem to've acquired a taint of distaste from many quarters, rightly or wrongly). Also, have you considered running a service like this yourselves, a la VoIP/IPTV? Vidoeconferencing is somewhat analogous, but in most cases, videoconference calls (things like iChat, Skype videoconferencing, etc.) generally seem to use a less bandwidth than the Slingox, and it seems to me that they will in most cases be of shorter duration than, say, a business traveler who wants to keep up with Lost or 24 and so sits down to stream video from his home A/V system for 45 minutes to an hour at a stretch. Sorry to ramble, this neat little toy just sparked a few questions, and I figured that some of you are dealing with these kinds of issues already, or are anticipating doing so in the not-so-distant future. Any insight or informed speculation greatly appreciated! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins(a)cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice All battles are perpetual. -- Milton Friedman

2 1

Re: Home media servers, AUPs, and upstream bandwidth utilization.
by Frank Coluccio 26 Dec '06

26 Dec '06

>doesn't save much. A possible countermeasure is to not count off-peak >traffic (or not as much). Our charging scheme works like that, but >our customers are mostly large campus networks, This is similar to what some schools of economic study suggest in order to achieve equilibrium while attempting to rationalize theoretical models that are placed under stress. The problem here, of course, is that economists working on theoretical models don't have to concern themselves with physics, whereas first mile network providers do. Instead of devising variations of schemes that are based on traffic averaging- or 95 percentiles (designed primarily for colocation- and IX Point situations), access network providers must address customer facing bandwidth utilization and provisioning issues, and while the issues of upstream transiting and peering are related, they nonetheless are exogenous to the access network problem. The main problem areas affecting the original poster's concerns over the ability to send traffic in the upstream direction, as I see them: [a] the nature and being of telcos' DSL and MSOs' cable modem asymmetrical network designs, and, [b] the unrealistic expectations that most stakeholders have (or the bill of goods that have been successfully sold by incumbents to the community at large) that suggests that an equitable exchange of money for services could be obtained from a model that depends on entirely statistical probabilities. The ultimate answer to this problem is a lot of discussions and subsequent actions that will need to be taken. However, at the level of line granularity that exists at the CO hub or head end terminal gear, the 95 percentile pricing scheme is not relevant. Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile On Mon Dec 25 16:50 , Simon Leinen sent: > >Lionel Elie Mamane writes: >> On Mon, Dec 25, 2006 at 12:44:37AM +0000, Jeroen Massar wrote: >>> That said ISP's should simply have a package saying "50GiB/month >>> costs XX euros, 100GiB/month costs double" etc. As that covers what >>> their transits are charging them, nothing more, nothing less. > >> I thought IP transit was mostly paid by "95% percentile highest speed >> over 5 minutes" or something like that these days? Meaning that ISP's >> costs are maximised if everyone maxes our their line for the same 6% >> of the time over the month (even if they don't do anything the rest of >> the time), and minimised if the usage pattern were nicely spread out? > >Yes. With Jeroen's suggestion, there's a risk that power-users' >consumption will only be reduced for off-peak hours, and then the ISP >doesn't save much. A possible countermeasure is to not count off-peak >traffic (or not as much). Our charging scheme works like that, but >our customers are mostly large campus networks, and I don't know how >digestible this would be to retail ISP consumers. >-- >Simon.

1 0

RE: Curious question on hop identity...
by Joseph Jackson 24 Dec '06

24 Dec '06

I'm pretty new to the networking world. While I don't run a huge and complex network in a service provider market. We're just an enterprise network. I have read a lot of useful info about networking from the nanog list. But I do have to say that when I speak to the designers and such at larger companies and I mention NANOG most of them brush it off and say "The NANOG people are the past and what they have to say doesn't matter anymore". That's the general feel I get from others when it concerns NANOG. Joseph -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:19 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Curious question on hop identity... > Besides, why do you believe the text in an in-addr.arpa record? Or why do > you think the absence of an in-addr.arpa record is meaningful? Back in the old days, say 10 years ago, you could run a network by the seat of your pants using rules of thumb about interpretation of in-addr.arpa records. And you could be quite successful at running a network using such techniques because everybody else was doing pretty much the same thing. Because of this uniformity, you could make a lot of intelligent guesses and resolve problems. However, I think times have changed, there is no longer uniformity among the people making technical decisions about Internet networks and many rules of thumb don't work any more even though they are still out there in network operator folklore. In fact, most people making network architectural decisions about Internet networks don't participate in NANOG any more. Most people making network operational decisions also do not participate in NANOG anymore. It's not just that many people have left NANOG behind, but a lot of newcomers to the industry over the past few years have not joined NANOG because they don't get why it is relevant to them. Not that I'm complaining about the message quoted above. It is a great example of the useful information that one can find in this mailing list. I wish there were more messages like this one, i.e. people sharing info rather than complaints and pleas for help. --Michael Dillon

3 2

Re: today's Wash Post Business section
by Robert Bonomi 23 Dec '06

23 Dec '06

> From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Wed Dec 20 21:49:49 2006 > Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:48:06 -0500 > Subject: Re: today's Wash Post Business section > > > At 19:31 -0800 12/20/06, Thomas Leavitt wrote: > >Many people don't understand anything about how they access the Internet, they > >have a vague idea that they need to type a domain name into a box somewhere... > >so they type www.myspace.com into the Google search box, the result set pops > >up, and then they click on the first result to get to the web site in > >question... I've seen it more than once. > > > >Thomas > > Yeah, granted anyone looking for myspace might meet that demographic, > but how many neophytes would use Google for a "IP Who Is" "search"? > That's the listing I thought odd. Does MS-Windows come with a 'whois' client? Does MacOS come with a 'whois' client? How many people have a search engine as their 'home page' in their web browser? How many end-user types _don't_know_ about anything other than a web-browser/ mail-client for Internet access? With the 'forced education' most people get with regard to spam recieved in their mailbox, it's not suprising that the masses are using the tools they 'know how to use' to check up on things.

12 11