- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
by Fergie 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

Bingo. Very well stated. - ferg -- Lamar Owen <lowen(a)pari.edu> wrote: [snip] On the operational end, the challenge becomes designing networks that in the presence of ubiquitous oversubscription degrade gracefully and allow certain features to have lesser degradation. Thus QoS. [snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

Whatever happened to intelligence in the applicattion [Was: Re: The Qo s PipeDream]
by Fergie 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

I think you just tossed a red herring into the discussion. :-) I would suggest that a semi-intelligent playback bufferring scheme in the VoIP application, plus a 'semi-lossless' link, would be just fine. ;-) Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network analogy? Not meaning to start a flame war here, but trying to stick all of the intelligence back into the network is not exactly a win-win proposal. - ferg -- Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: When you're running voip over a T1/E1, you really want to LLQ the VOIP packets because VOIP doesn't like delay (not so much a problem) nor jitter (big problem), nor packetloss (not so much a problem if it's less than a 0.1 percent or so). So combining voip and data traffic on a link that sometimes (more often now when windows machine have a decent TCP window) go full, even just in a fraction of a second, means you either go QoS or do what Skype does, crank up the jitter buffer when there is high-jitter, which means latency for the call goes up. [snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

5 4

RE: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]
by Hannigan, Martin 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

Hey there Fergie: > Martin, > > You can 'see' anything you'd like, buy your reality > does not match everyone else's -- my opinion, of course. > > QoS is a myth -- it doesn't exist. > > What you're obviosuly trying to tell us is that less-than-best- > effort is somehow good? Never sell it. > > This vein will come back and bite you guys who think like this. > I'm not sggesting that this be the way the Internet operate at all. The poster asked how this would work if it did (my interpretation) and where there is will (customers) and money (ISP's) there is always a way. The old school in me says "never!", but the experience in me says "possible". I think it *is* unlikely though. Consider the busy signal approach for a second though. Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has congestion or is never "busy". If you have a web server and a limited amount of memory or net you tune down the number of httpd's that are spawned and when they are all busy, your site doesn't answer and you get a 404. That's akin to a busy signal and is already in practice today. If I'm Google, for example, I buy thousands of servers so this does not happen. If I'm just plain old me and I am running some popular faq on my personal site, I accept the 404's because I am not going to pay for 100% performance. They can try again later, or, I can pay for more memory or more network to insure optimal performance. Hope that makes a little more sense. And let me turn the question around to you. If the Internet were to work like this, how would we do it? > - ferg > > > -- "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > > > What I'm interested in is how the two service > > providers will build a two tiered Internet. > > The PSTN is tiered both in architecture and operation. > Switching hiearchies and a seperate SS7 network which > is basically a billing network. > > I think the thought is service levels vs. congestion control. > For example, CO's have call overflow mechanisms to tandem switch > points which basically seek out excess capacity and use it as > overflow for call termination if and when possible. > > I could see an internet hiearchy where preferred traffic was > switch onto hicap overflow links with controlled congestion and > other traffic, non premium traffic, "got a fast busy". > > -M< > > -- > "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson > Engineering Architecture for the Internet > fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net > ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ > > >

3 2

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Table Analysis 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 17 Dec, 2005 Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 176367 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 99478 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 85692 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 21152 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18402 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 8710 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2750 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 76 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.5 Max AS path length visible: 22 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 9 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 12 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1491013440 Equivalent to 88 /8s, 223 /16s and 15 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 40.2 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 60.6 Percentage of available address space allocated: 66.4 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 84589 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 36929 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 15734 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 34682 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 17032 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2435 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 699 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 372 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 17 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 208551360 Equivalent to 12 /8s, 110 /16s and 61 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 77.4 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911 APNIC Address Blocks 58/7, 60/7, 124/7, 126/8, 202/7, 210/7, 218/7, 220/7 and 222/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 92989 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 56109 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 72484 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 27657 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10397 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3864 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 963 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 17 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 280523008 Equivalent to 16 /8s, 184 /16s and 113 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 69.7 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863 ARIN Address Blocks 24/8, 63/8, 64/6, 68/7, 70/6, 74/7, 76/8, 198/7, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 34652 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 23457 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 31660 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 21281 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 7439 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3890 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1228 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.1 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 22 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 228195904 Equivalent to 13 /8s, 153 /16s and 254 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 68.0 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 80/5, 88/6, 188/8, 193/8, 194/7, 212/7 and 217/8 LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 9949 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3320 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 8296 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 4783 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 657 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 209 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 124 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 22 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 23115264 Equivalent to 1 /8s, 96 /16s and 182 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 34.4 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 189/8, 190/8, 200/7 AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 1842 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 858 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1177 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 831 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 147 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 48 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 25 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.5 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 12 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 2899712 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 44 /16s and 63 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 8.6 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 196/8 APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4134 1013 6467 205 CHINANET-BACKBONE 9583 842 77 12 Sify Limited 4755 753 259 71 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 1221 663 1374 477 Telstra Pty Ltd 4766 653 3927 287 Korea Telecom (KIX) 7545 511 108 71 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 17676 472 6836 102 Softbank BB Corp. 17488 430 26 11 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 9498 424 212 66 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 9443 400 88 85 Primus Telecommunications 4802 347 74 159 Wantree Development 2907 341 1764 318 SINET Japan 9929 331 217 49 China Netcom Corp. 7474 326 226 225 SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 17557 309 24 161 Pakistan Telecom 17974 283 68 19 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 4780 282 226 16 Digital United Inc. 18101 281 68 19 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet 9837 273 78 172 Powertel Ltd 9800 255 410 67 CHINA UNICOM ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7018 1459 6302 964 AT&T WorldNet Services 4323 1193 722 234 Time Warner Telecom 174 1061 5827 974 Cogent Communications 721 1031 21922 308 DLA Systems Automation Center 701 979 8118 821 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 6197 970 434 505 BellSouth Network Solutions, 2386 913 517 687 AT&T Data Communications Serv 18566 886 240 7 Covad Communications 1239 845 2804 599 Sprint 20115 660 536 344 Charter Communications 209 658 3622 525 Qwest 11492 634 89 11 Cable One 22773 592 1477 29 Cox Communications, Inc. 852 572 1092 380 Telus Advanced Communications 19262 568 1611 157 Verizon Global Networks 19916 563 49 54 OLM LLC 855 562 243 65 Canadian Research Network 3602 535 127 106 Sprint Canada, Inc. 3356 526 10617 404 Level 3 Communications, LLC 6478 516 1435 283 AT&T Worldnet Services RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 702 595 1958 473 UUNET - Commercial IP service 3301 303 1071 289 TeliaNet Sweden 3320 287 3487 241 Deutsche Telekom AG 8220 270 474 265 COLT Telecommunications 680 245 2040 239 DFN-IP service G-WiN 3246 229 486 221 Song Networks 8708 228 274 212 Romania Data Systems S.A. 6746 202 51 173 Dynamic Network Technologies, 1257 189 712 170 SWIPnet Swedish IP Network 3269 182 1829 68 TELECOM ITALIA 5515 180 840 127 Sonera Solution Autonomous Sy 786 173 1794 173 The JANET IP Service 5400 168 333 137 BT Ignite European Backbone 8866 167 37 11 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 6830 162 669 33 UPC Distribution Services 3215 161 1325 81 France Telecom Transpac 3300 160 169 93 AUCS Communications Services 24863 160 38 9 LINKdotNET AS number 12479 156 322 5 Uni2 Autonomous System 25186 147 211 103 France Telecom Transpac's Tra LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 393 739 170 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 22047 380 141 43 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 16814 295 18 7 NSS, S.A. 11172 294 106 76 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 14117 184 11 6 Telefonica del Sur S.A. 13999 175 52 9 Mega Cable S.A. de C.V. 7303 153 73 18 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 6147 150 118 21 Telefonica Del Peru 11664 142 22 13 Keytech SA 11556 130 64 3 Cable-Wireless Panama 19169 127 8 20 Telconet 10481 121 48 8 Prima S.A. 6503 118 148 78 AVANTEL, S.A. 18822 114 8 11 TELEFONICA MANQUEHUE 5639 112 12 9 Telecommunications Services o 21826 112 14 18 INTERCABLE 6505 106 88 79 Global One Communicaoes Ltda 11311 99 8 10 Sinectis S.A. 4270 94 17 9 Red de Interconexion Universi 14522 94 12 8 SatNet S.A. AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 3741 272 812 230 The Internet Solution 8452 146 44 7 TEDATA 5536 122 8 16 Internet Egypt Network 2018 117 298 103 Tertiary Education Network 15475 103 84 4 Nile Online 2905 74 155 67 The Internetworking Company o 6713 69 71 10 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 24835 64 34 6 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 20928 61 16 2 Noor Advanced Technologies AS 5713 38 151 34 Telkom SA Ltd 33774 33 4 24 AS Number for Telecom Algeria 15706 31 8 3 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 23889 26 7 11 MAURITIUS TELECOM 8524 23 1 4 AUCEGYPT Autonomous System 16637 23 10 21 Johnnic e-Ventures 21280 23 4 4 Swift Global Kenya Ltd.Is an 10798 22 1 13 Standard Bank of South Africa 12455 18 6 5 Jambonet Autonomous system 12258 17 3 11 Vodacom Internet Company 15808 17 2 2 Communication Solutions Ltd i Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 4323 1193 959 Time Warner Telecom 18566 886 879 Covad Communications 9583 842 830 Sify Limited 4134 1013 808 CHINANET-BACKBONE 721 1031 723 DLA Systems Automation Center 4755 753 682 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 11492 634 623 Cable One 22773 592 563 Cox Communications, Inc. 19916 563 509 OLM LLC 855 562 497 Canadian Research Network 6197 970 465 BellSouth Network Solutions, 5668 475 447 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 7545 511 440 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 3602 535 429 Sprint Canada, Inc. 17488 430 419 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 19262 568 411 Verizon Global Networks 17676 472 370 Softbank BB Corp. 4766 653 366 Korea Telecom (KIX) 6467 407 361 E.Spire Communications, Inc. 9498 424 358 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. List of Unregistered ASNs (Global) ---------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 38976 UNALLOCATED 62.192.224.0/19 21166 Satgate autonomous s 38976 UNALLOCATED 62.192.232.0/24 21166 Satgate autonomous s 38972 UNALLOCATED 80.251.144.0/21 28947 CJSC InT, Ekaterinbu 38972 UNALLOCATED 80.251.151.0/24 28947 CJSC InT, Ekaterinbu 24413 UNALLOCATED 202.46.32.0/19 17623 China Netcom Corp. 24408 UNALLOCATED 203.119.26.0/24 9800 CHINA UNICOM 24408 UNALLOCATED 203.119.27.0/24 9800 CHINA UNICOM 24408 UNALLOCATED 203.119.28.0/24 9800 CHINA UNICOM 24406 UNALLOCATED 203.119.29.0/24 4808 CNCGROUP IP network: Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 132.0.0.0/10 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 137.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 158.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 192.43.230.0/24 7575 Australian Academic and Rease 192.44.0.0/24 5501 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft 192.44.0.0/19 702 UUNET - Commercial IP service 192.70.164.0/24 25689 National Research Council of 192.72.0.0/18 4780 Digital United Inc. 192.72.0.0/16 4780 Digital United Inc. 192.84.205.0/24 719 LANLINK autonomous system 192.119.135.0/24 270 NASA 192.172.0.0/19 721 DLA Systems Automation Center Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:19 /9:5 /10:8 /11:20 /12:85 /13:192 /14:343 /15:670 /16:8626 /17:2922 /18:4926 /19:11122 /20:12238 /21:10328 /22:13516 /23:14672 /24:95824 /25:328 /26:219 /27:199 /28:28 /29:12 /30:31 /31:3 /32:31 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 18566 870 886 Covad Communications 6197 784 970 BellSouth Network Solutions, 7018 719 1459 AT&T WorldNet Services 9583 662 842 Sify Limited 2386 634 913 AT&T Data Communications Serv 11492 625 634 Cable One 4323 570 1193 Time Warner Telecom 19916 557 563 OLM LLC 4766 458 653 Korea Telecom (KIX) 855 434 562 Canadian Research Network 7011 404 468 Citizens Utilities 702 377 595 UUNET - Commercial IP service 5668 367 475 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 1239 365 845 Sprint 6198 355 497 BellSouth Network Solutions, 6517 326 351 Yipes Communications, Inc. 15270 325 352 PaeTec.net -a division of Pae 22773 306 592 Cox Communications, Inc. 13609 298 340 Choice One Communications Inc 701 284 979 UUNET Technologies, Inc. Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 4:3 8:40 11:1 12:1623 13:2 15:11 16:3 17:3 18:3 20:43 24:710 25:1 30:2 32:69 38:189 40:54 44:3 47:3 52:4 55:1 56:3 57:33 58:101 59:112 60:167 61:762 62:803 63:1892 64:2937 65:2133 66:2885 67:601 68:691 69:1321 70:252 71:39 72:490 73:9 80:681 81:596 82:507 83:343 84:340 85:392 86:232 87:122 125:137 128:140 129:167 130:101 131:304 132:34 133:1 134:152 135:45 136:169 137:62 138:177 139:91 140:342 141:139 142:404 143:146 144:222 145:39 146:306 147:135 148:272 149:191 150:109 151:70 152:115 153:96 154:5 155:181 156:90 157:119 158:150 159:175 160:87 161:74 162:242 163:175 164:183 165:181 166:146 167:240 168:422 169:143 170:312 171:12 192:5722 193:3346 194:2450 195:1688 196:710 198:3900 199:3266 200:4306 201:477 202:6341 203:6626 204:3821 205:2109 206:2405 207:2938 208:2021 209:3421 210:1828 211:778 212:1256 213:1382 214:315 215:40 216:3796 217:1174 218:223 219:129 220:578 221:334 222:129 End of report

1 0

Re: Whatever happened to intelligence in the applicattion [Was: Re: Th e Qos PipeDream]
by Fergie 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

As I wrote in a later message, that's more along the lines of what I was talking about. :-) Cheers, - ferg -- "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen(a)sprunk.org> wrote: > I think you just tossed a red herring into the discussion. :-) > > I would suggest that a semi-intelligent playback bufferring scheme > in the VoIP application, plus a 'semi-lossless' link, would be just > fine. ;-) Any competent VoIP application/device developer will use an adaptive jitter buffer. It's really not that tough, and most apps/devices have them today because working products sell better than non-working ones. My VoIP phone (full disclosure: I work for the vendor) operates just fine at home over a DSL line, across four ISPs, through two NATs, and to a gateway in Canada. The voice gets a little choppy when a 10MB powerpoint hits my Inbox (sadly, several times per day), but it self-corrects after a couple seconds. > Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network > analogy? Not meaning to start a flame war here, but trying to stick > all of the intelligence back into the network is not exactly a win-win > proposal. I think you'll get further by arguing that intelligent networks with small pipes cost more to maintain than dumb networks with fat pipes. Less likely to induce sleep in your bean-counters. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

1 0

Google to Open Research Facility in Pa.
by fergdawg＠netzero.net 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

This story was sent to you by: Fergie -------------------- Google to Open Research Facility in Pa. -------------------- By DANIEL LOVERING AP Business Writer December 15, 2005, 10:27 PM EST PITTSBURGH -- Google Inc., the leading online search engine company, will open a new engineering and research office in Pittsburgh next year to be headed by a Carnegie Mellon University professor, the company said Thursday. The facility will be charged with creating software search tools for Google. It is expected to create as many as 100 new high-tech jobs in the Pittsburgh area over the next few years, said Craig Nevill-Manning, director of Google's New York engineering office. The office will be headed by Andrew Moore, a Carnegie Mellon professor of computer science and robotics who currently runs a research laboratory of 30 students, programmers and faculty members. Moore, 40, is an expert in data mining and artificial intelligence. "Andrew Moore has built his career on the twin challenges of developing techniques to extract patterns from large data sets and applying these machine learning methods to real-life problems," said Randal Bryant, the dean of Carnegie Mellon's computer science school. The office will be one of several Google has opened near universities. The company recently joined Microsoft Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. in backing a $7.5 million Internet research laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. It also has facilities in New York, Phoenix, Santa Monica, Calif., and Mountain View, Calif., where the company is based. Google has overseas offices in Japan, Switzerland and India. * __ On the Net: Google: http://www.google.com Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.cmu.edu Copyright (c) 2005, The Associated Press -------------------- This article originally appeared at: http://www.newsday.com/technology/wire/sns-ap-google-carnegie-mellon,0,3281… Visit Newsday online at http://www.newsday.com

2 1

Re: Whatever happened to intelligence in the applicattion [Was: Re: Th e Qo s PipeDream]
by Fergie 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

I certainly don't endorse placing _all_ of the intelligence in the application, but look at it this way -- if you expect to have a 'stupid' CPE handset rely on 'intelligence' in the network for voice quality, you're probably going to be disappointed. And no amount of leveraging smoke-and-mirror QoS frobs to generate additional revenue will help you out. :-) $.02, - ferg -- Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> wrote: On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Fergie wrote: > Doesn't anyone really remember the whole smart-v.-stupid network > analogy? Not meaning to start a flame war here, but trying to stick > all of the intelligence back into the network is not exactly a win-win > proposal. Trying to stick it all in the application is not exactly a win-win proposal either. The problem with religious dogma is it leads to a lot of burning people at the stake, for more stupid analogies. Finding the right blend of what applications can do well, what the network can do well, and how they interact is the challange. For example, smart applications don't handle DDOS attacks very well, and regardless of how much network capacity you provision, there is always a DDOS that is bigger. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

Grant vs. Stern: animosity or respect?
by fergdawg＠netzero.net 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

This story was sent to you by: Paul "Fergie" Ferguson -------------------- Grant vs. Stern: animosity or respect? -------------------- ANDY EDELSTEIN December 15, 2005 There's a connection between the two provocative New York radio personalities who will soon be leaving their longtime gigs. Bob Grant was one of Howard Stern's radio heroes. As a Long Island high-schooler in the early 1970s, Stern avidly listened to Grant's afternoon talk show on WMCA. The once and future radio talk titans even met each other. Grant told Paul D. Colford, author of the 1996 Stern bio, "Howard Stern: King of All Media," about being approached at a public appearance by Ben Stern, Howard's father, his teenage son in tow. Father introduced son to Grant and told him of Howard's desire to go into radio. "I looked at this big, gawky kid and I said to him, 'Just be yourself,'" Grant recalled. Obviously, Stern took Grant's advice to heart. And in a 1985 interview with CNN's Larry King, when Stern was asked which broadcast personalities he liked, the soon-to-be king of all media could only name one: Grant. But, Colford notes, as Stern's popularity increased, he began changing his opinion of Grant - at least in public. Grant always thought Stern's new, more negative assessment was just "part of his act." Copyright (c) 2005, Newsday, Inc. -------------------- This article originally appeared at: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/ny-page8rail4551939dec15,0,7012429.sto… Visit Newsday online at http://www.newsday.com

2 1

Re: [ppml] Fw: ":" - Re: Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal
by Robert Bonomi 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

> From ppml-bounces(a)arin.net Wed Dec 14 04:30:07 2005 > To: ppml(a)arin.net > From: Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:32:06 +0000 > Subject: [ppml] Fw: ":" - Re: Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number > Policy Proposal > > > I'm also not thrilled with "2-byte only" and "4-byte only" ASN; there's > too > > much chance of confusion with "2-byte" and "4-byte" ASNs which have a > > different enough meaning to warrant a better distinction. I'd prefer > > something like "legacy" vs. "expanded", "low" vs. "high", etc. > > That's an example of the lack of plain English in the > proposal. Why don't we just talk about AS numbers greater > than 65535 or AS numbers less than 65536? Because there is more to it than just that. :) there is the matter of whether they are represented by 2 bytes, or 4 bytes _in_transmission_. '0x00004F4F' is a '4-byte' AS number that has a value less than 65,536. It _should_ be treated identically with the 2-byte AS number '0x4F4F', as I understand the currently-proposed methodoloty, but there is no intrinsic reason why that _must _be the case. A two-byte AS number, and a 4-byte AS number with the SAME numeric value, _are_ distinguishable as =different= entities. > > 1. ARIN begin allocating AS numbers greater than 65535 > to those who specifically request them starting on $date. > > 2. On $date ARIN will not allocate AS numbers less than > 65536 unless a small number is specifically requested. > > 3. On $date, ARIN will no longer make a distinction > between AS numbers less than 65536 and larger ones. > > Guess what? I said it in plain English so I don't have to > define what is an "AS number less than 65536" or an "AS number > greater than 65535". I also don't have to invent silly new > notations so that AS2 looks different after the change. > A number is a number is a number. Is it? <grin> Do you represent AS 17 in two bytes, or four? if you use 2 bytes, do you, "somewhere down the road", change to representing it with 4 bytes? or do you deal with 'mixed-length' codes "in perpetuity"?

4 4

Imposter: Google to Open Research Facility in Pa.
by Fergie 16 Dec '05

16 Dec '05

All: I did not sent this crap to the list. As has happened before, someone obviously thinks it's funny to spam the list from a web-based e-mailer at tribuneinteractive with my name. - ferg ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- This story was sent to you by: Fergie -------------------- Google to Open Research Facility in Pa. -------------------- By DANIEL LOVERING AP Business Writer December 15, 2005, 10:27 PM EST PITTSBURGH -- Google Inc., the leading online search engine company, will open a new engineering and research office in Pittsburgh next year to be headed by a Carnegie Mellon University professor, the company said Thursday. The facility will be charged with creating software search tools for Google. It is expected to create as many as 100 new high-tech jobs in the Pittsburgh area over the next few years, said Craig Nevill-Manning, director of Google's New York engineering office. The office will be headed by Andrew Moore, a Carnegie Mellon professor of computer science and robotics who currently runs a research laboratory of 30 students, programmers and faculty members. Moore, 40, is an expert in data mining and artificial intelligence. "Andrew Moore has built his career on the twin challenges of developing techniques to extract patterns from large data sets and applying these machine learning methods to real-life problems," said Randal Bryant, the dean of Carnegie Mellon's computer science school. The office will be one of several Google has opened near universities. The company recently joined Microsoft Corp. and Sun Microsystems Inc. in backing a $7.5 million Internet research laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. It also has facilities in New York, Phoenix, Santa Monica, Calif., and Mountain View, Calif., where the company is based. Google has overseas offices in Japan, Switzerland and India. * __ On the Net: Google: http://www.google.com Carnegie Mellon University: http://www.cmu.edu Copyright (c) 2005, The Associated Press -------------------- This article originally appeared at: http://www.newsday.com/technology/wire/sns-ap-google-carnegie-mellon,0,3281… Visit Newsday online at http://www.newsday.com

1 0