- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Two Tiered Internet
by Hannigan, Martin 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

> > but do i get "the Internet"? ... your claim is that No, my claim is that "users" are not paying the full boat. Almost all the telecoms are still in trouble in one way or another, interest expense, billions $$ in bonds coming due ~2008, etc. They aren't making enough money. That may be a market forces reality, but that doesn't mean the services aren't under priced. > > and as others have cleverly pointed out, what i really > am buying is full employment for the AP departments of > telco/isps. :) You're paying pensions for bankruptcy court employees in perpetuity and Michael Moore documentaries. :) I think the better questions for this thread may be: 1. Why NOT charge for priority access and transit 2. Is it inequitable to anyone, and why? 3. If there is an inequity, does it really matter?

3 2

Two Tiered Internet
by Blaine Christian 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/ My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder.

21 35

Re: Two Tiered Internet
by Fergie 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

You know, I sent an idiotic response to a serious topic, and I shouldn't have -- it is a serious issue which deserves a serious response. Anyone within earshot of The Great State of Texas (tm) should know that the sickening machinations of the incumbent teclo(s) and Cable Co.(s), and their trance-dance lobbying with Texas state legislature in the past year would leave a really, really bad taste in anyone's mouth. Now, before you turn a deaf ear to this, realize that Texas is very much asn incubator for every state in the union, and their PUC's, legislatures, etc., when it comes to overcoming existing obstacles in the incumbent telecommunications marketplace. What we're talking about here has NOTHING to do with technology, but EVERYTHING to do with protecting a revenue stream in the face of dispruptive technolog(y)(ies) that threaten the incumbents. So stop acting like it's a matter of actually introducing REAL methods of traffic metering, QoS, or other REAL technical methods to offer better-than-best effort. What these guys are talking about is penalization. Don't pretend otherwise. To do so is truly disingenious. Also, it's been kind of fun to watch all of the QoS experts come out of the woodwork on this thread to offer their technical genius on how to solve the proverbial problem. Please. This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever. In a previous life I also worked for Sprint, so I know what its like for a service provider's marketing department trying to create revenue streams -- they try toi shove stuff down everyone's throat. Some good technology, mostly bad. In any event, this whole 'distinguished service offering' is nothing more than a ruse. - ferg -- "Fergie" <fergdawg(a)netzero.net> wrote: Marketing. Bah. - ferg -- Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote: > I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is > Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks > at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. There are currently a couple of million IPTV users worldwide. Imagine how much more useful the conversation would be if it included people who have actually used it and could say what their experience has been instead of people leaping to conlusions based on inaccurate reports. http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns610/c647/cdccont_… -- "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

Re: Two Tiered Internet
by Fergie 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Marketing. Bah. - ferg -- Sean Donelan <sean(a)donelan.com> wrote: On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote: > I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is > Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks > at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. There are currently a couple of million IPTV users worldwide. Imagine how much more useful the conversation would be if it included people who have actually used it and could say what their experience has been instead of people leaping to conlusions based on inaccurate reports. http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns610/c647/cdccont_…

1 0

RE: Level3 Blackhole Community
by David Hubbard 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Their supported communities are available from their whois; I don't think blackhole is one of them but they do have one that will allow you to suppress your announcements to remote peers of your choice if that would help. David > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On > Behalf Of Erich Borchert > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:51 PM > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Level3 Blackhole Community > > Does anyone know if Level3 supports a BGP black hole > community from their customers, .e.g., 3356:666 ? I spoke > with someone in their NOC but they lacked clue. > > > > Thanks, > > -Erich > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Level3 Blackhole Community
by Erich Borchert 15 Dec '05

15 Dec '05

Does anyone know if Level3 supports a BGP black hole community from their customers, .e.g., 3356:666 ? I spoke with someone in their NOC but they lacked clue. Thanks, -Erich

2 1

RE: Two Tiered Internet
by Scott Weeks 14 Dec '05

14 Dec '05

----- Original Message Follows ----- From: "Schliesser, Benson" <bensons(a)savvis.net> To: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme(a)multicasttech.com> Cc: "Per Heldal" <heldal(a)eml.cc>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: RE: Two Tiered Internet Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:40:58 -0600 > Hi. > > I agree with your comments re customers. (residential > customers, in particular) > > At risk of being flamed, what I'd propose is that > regulators should put effort into understanding whether > the basic service is broken. If it's not broken then <flame :-> Regulators in what country? Atlantis? BFE? Do you mean the United States internet as opposed to the rest of the world's internet??? </flame> scott > perhaps it is reasonable to allow provider-prioritized > traffic. (i.e., if the provider offers a good SLA for > basic traffic and lives up to it even in the presence of > prioritized traffic) On the other hand, if the provider > doesn't guarantee a quality basic service then their > request to "prioritize" is in bad-faith; they will > effectively be de-prioritizing the basic service. > > Cheers, > -Benson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:tme@multicasttech.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 09:36 > To: Schliesser, Benson > Cc: Per Heldal; NANOG > Subject: Re: Two Tiered Internet > > Hello; > > My experience is that customers won't put a lot of effort > into understanding nuances of what they are > being offered, that they will always complain to the > people they are paying money to, and that if you think > that a good use of your bandwidth with your customers (a > business's most precious commodity) is to explain to > them why it's a good thing that your service is broken, > you're crazy. > > > On Dec 14, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Schliesser, Benson wrote: > > > > > Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > > >> If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine > for a second >> that cable providers started a service > that meant that every channel >> not owned by, say, Disney > , had a bad picture and sound. Would this >> be good for > the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? > > > So, the basic issue isn't relative priority. It's the > > absolute quality of the > common-denominator/lower-priority service (i.e., the > baseline). > > > If the provider enforces a solid SLA for non-enhanced > > Internet, then who > > would be upset if they also provide an enhanced option? > > Of course, I don't currently have an SLA for my personal > > cable-modem or DSL services... > > > > A friend of mine who is also on Cox (and on this list) > called up and complained enough to > get an SLA from them. I wish I had one. > > I test a lot of streaming here at home, and I notice when > Cox has one of their very frequent > 15 second outages. Or their also frequent 5 minute periods > of 80-90% packet loss. When > Verizon puts their FTTH out here to Clifton, I think I'll > get that too and try and multi-home > (through tunnels, as I'm certainly not paying either for > BGP). > > Hmm, maybe there's a product there... > > Regards > Marshall > > > Cheers, > > -Benson >

1 0

RE: Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server
by Gregory Hicks 14 Dec '05

14 Dec '05

> From: "Ejay Hire" <ejay.hire(a)isdn.net> > To: "'Eric Kagan'" <ekagan(a)axsne.com>, <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Subject: RE: Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:15:42 -0600 > > > assuming you've got the old box and the new one running > concurrently, you could run tcpdump on the old box with a > filter to only catch dns requests to the old ip. Let it run > for 24-48 hours and you could see who/what was still > querying the old ip. This topic comes up frequently on bind-users(a)isc.org ... Might query there but many of these responses have covered much of what is discussed there. Regards, Gregory Hicks > > -e > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] > On > > Behalf Of Eric Kagan > > Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:45 PM > > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an > > Authoritative DNS Server > > > > We need to move our Primary DNS server from legacy IP > space > > provided by our upstreams to our ARIN Assigned IP space. > I > > am looking for advice and any gotchas. I couldn't find > any > > white papers to this affect or archived articles or > postings. > > If someone does have a resource for this or find this > could > > be valuable, I can certainly gather all the info and > document > > it. Most of the Registrars I have seen now use the > > Authoritative DNS Server Host names for the domain name > > registrations vs the IP Address. For most of our > customers, > > we register and host the DNS. I have confirmed almost all > > > the customers have either Network Solutions, Tucows, Go > Daddy > > and Register.com. > > > > Can I simply change the IP address of our DNS server and > > update the DNS Host Record with our registrar with the new > IP > > and any A / NS records we have ? As long as other > customers > > domains have our DNS Server FQDN as the Host, they should > not > > need to make any changes, correct ? I would love to > think > > its that simple, but there is always a gotcha. Does > anyone > > know of any main registries using just the IP Address > where > > the customer might need to go in and make those changes > for > > each and every domain ? Any input, advice or ideas is > appreciated. > > > > Thanks > > Eric > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3400 San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: ghicks(a)cadence.com I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." - Benjamin Franklin "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton

1 0

Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server
by Eric Kagan 14 Dec '05

14 Dec '05

We need to move our Primary DNS server from legacy IP space provided by our upstreams to our ARIN Assigned IP space. I am looking for advice and any gotchas. I couldn't find any white papers to this affect or archived articles or postings. If someone does have a resource for this or find this could be valuable, I can certainly gather all the info and document it. Most of the Registrars I have seen now use the Authoritative DNS Server Host names for the domain name registrations vs the IP Address. For most of our customers, we register and host the DNS. I have confirmed almost all the customers have either Network Solutions, Tucows, Go Daddy and Register.com. Can I simply change the IP address of our DNS server and update the DNS Host Record with our registrar with the new IP and any A / NS records we have ? As long as other customers domains have our DNS Server FQDN as the Host, they should not need to make any changes, correct ? I would love to think its that simple, but there is always a gotcha. Does anyone know of any main registries using just the IP Address where the customer might need to go in and make those changes for each and every domain ? Any input, advice or ideas is appreciated. Thanks Eric

9 10

Re: Two Tiered Internet
by Daniel Senie 14 Dec '05

14 Dec '05

At 05:54 AM 12/14/2005, Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: > > There are two possible ways of having a tiered system > > - one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay, > > and the other is to offer a premium service to those > > who do pay. > >The only way I know of to offer a premium service >on the same network as a non-premium service is >to delay non-premium packets. This artificial packet >delay is known as "Quality of Service" or QoS because >it degrades the quality of service to some users in >order to allow other users unobstructed use of the >network. Actually, the cable providers have an alternative. Since the cable network really is "broadband" in the meaning from before it was coopted to mean "high speed", cable operators are able to utilize many channels in parallel. If they want their voice traffic to be unimpeded, they could certainly pick up an IP address on a private network space on a different cable channel (i.e. frequency pair) and make use of that. The consumer's Internet service, being on other channels, is unaffected. Yes, the backhaul fiber network would need to be using multiple paths as well to make that work. I have no idea to what extent present cable plants make use of the ability to use multiple channels for data service. Clearly they use it for video carriers, and where there is/was telephone over cable before the present VOIP-based offerings, those also appear to have used separate channels. So, there is a method possible other than packet prioritization. Just tossing a fatter pipe at the customer isn't a solution, however. It'd still get clogged with p2p traffic pushing pirated music and videos among residential users.

2 1