- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 07 May '01

07 May '01

> It appears that there is a lot of shooting from the hip going on here. > cable regulation is fraught with legal complications and is changing > rapidly right now, and the layman anaysis going on here isn't doing the > topic justice. Absolutely. My point is these folk really don't know what they are talking about. Ignore this discussion until it becomes fact based. > If there is any intrest, I believe that Martin County (Fl)'s 1999 > agreement with Adelphia is online someplace, I could track down a > URL for it. That would be a large step forward :) regards, fletcher

1 0

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 07 May '01

07 May '01

> > If so, I am confused. What is exclusive about these agreements? > > Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles > > and complete directly with the cable companies? I haven't seen a > > modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked > > other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video. > > Falcon Cable ... Morgan Hill, CA ... to name one of many. Livermore CA... > for another. San Jose .... and the list goes on... OK Roeland, spin me out the quotation/URL to the contract that says any of these municipalities gives exclusive access to cable companies to provide high speed IP via cable technology. I would be interested in hearing about contracts which are exclusive just for video, but that is off, off-topic. > I tried, in 1993, to drop a satellite head-end into a retirement > trailer^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmobilehome park. This was all private property. The > deal was a co-op where ech resident pays a monthly fee to the owners of the > park and we ran co-ax to feed all the residents, on a cost-recovery basis. > Upfront capitalization was amortised over 3 years. City council got wind of > it and threatened the park's owner with cancellation of their operating > permits becasue such a plant put the city at risk of violating their > exclusive franchise agreement with Falcon Cable, for cable TV provisioning. > This caused me to do some research into this. Yes, these exclusive contracts > still exist today as part of the cable franchise system. I should also tell > you that I worked for PacificBell Broadband, until 1997, where this also > became an issue. The LA beachhead was largely stone-walled becasue of this. Roeland, it is almost halfway through 2001. We are discussing today, not remote history. Further, we are discussing Internet access, not video. This is an IP list, not a CATV list. > Rights of way were granted, to cable operators, on a city-by-city basis, all > based on exclusive franchise agreements, nation-wide. At that time, all they > were pumping down those pipes were analog video. Now, that they are pumping > digital data streams, those contracts have not changed. What is > significantly different is that the telcos have no such exclusivity, per > city. This is not competition, it is market lock-out. Each cable operator > has a proprietary exclusive market lock on the city of operation. Many of > these contracts were bought by, what is now AT&T, when they bought all those > cable operators. Cable systems, plants, and rights of way, were specifically > excluded from regulatory effects and ignored by the 1996 telecom act. Roeland, show me a current contract that provides for exclusive access. We are post telco access of 1996 :) good luck, fletcher

1 0

Re: black hat .cn networks
by Justin Hinderliter 07 May '01

07 May '01

And, as an additional note, I'd called my brother out on the west coast to warn him to take a look at his webservers, especially NT and Linux platforms. He said at the time that he didn't see anything odd, but he'd look again. 30 minutes later, he's got 4 cats running in his office saying that all their NT webservers were hacked. A malenky of the ole in-out, in-out, droogies.

1 0

RE: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Roeland Meyer 07 May '01

07 May '01

> From: Greg Maxwell [mailto:gmaxwell@martin.fl.us] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 11:15 AM > > On Mon, 7 May 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: > > [snip] > > Cable operators are unregulated local monopolies. > > No. They are regulated, by the franchise agreement. If the > agreement isn't > strong enough to ensure the highest best use of public > right-of-way then > it's a failure of the local government for not making it so (or the > state/FCC for forbiding the local governments from placing certain > requirements in the agreement). The problem is that the local govs seldom "get it right" or, as mentioned earlier, simply don't care (the latter being more prevalent). Most of this is out of band, as far as state PUCs are concerned. Ergo, there is no recourse or appeal. This is a major disconnect in the system process.

1 0

Re: Looking for BGP resource utilization information...
by Richard A. Steenbergen 07 May '01

07 May '01

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 10:45:18AM -0400, Thomas Gainer wrote: > > Does anyone know of any good papers that explain memory resource > utilization during the BGP table construction. > > Post Note: Yes, I have read the RFC. I am looking for additional > resources. For traditional implementations of BGP. as described by the rfc (btw the rfc is pretty loaded with mistakes, draft-ietf-idr-bgp4-12 is a bit better though not perfect itself), I think the word you're looking for is "lots". Memory requirements will theoretically differ quite a bit between implementations, and depending on the routes you receive. For example every half-decent implementation I'm aware of uses an attriute hash to reduce memory requirements where multiple prefixes share common attributes. But if you receive routes with all unique attributes (for example by randomizing the med value or somesuch), you'd burn through memory a LOT quicker than normal (sh ip bgp sum and see where your memory is going :P). Traditional RIBs using patricia trees are also quite bad for BGP, in addition to burning memory they they are extremely inefficient for the actual BGP usage of insertions and deletions with a known prefix length. I'd say that 95% of the fault of slow converging and memory sucking BGP can rest squarely on the shoulders of bad implementations. If there are any papers on BGP memory usage and performance of the actual algorithms used, I'd love to see one. I did a quick check on citeseer and didn't turn up much of interest. The only things notable were the following, still not very useful: http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/422681.html http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/333036.html -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

RE: HR 1542
by Roeland Meyer 07 May '01

07 May '01

> From: Charles Sprickman [mailto:spork@inch.com] > Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2001 2:42 PM > > Adelphia is not a regulated public utility, that's the difference. Yes, and a number of us look at their "exclusive" agreements, with many municiplaities, and have been asking why they are not a regulated monopoly. Those contracts are as anti-competitive as it gets.

4 3

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by owen＠dixon.delong.sj.ca.us 07 May '01

07 May '01

A similar tactic was also used by PSI about 9 months ago. The evalutaion of the success of their maneuver is left as an exercise for the reader and the bankruptcy court judges. Owen > > On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 09:37:10AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: > > > > albert(a)waller.net (Albert Meyer) writes: > > > > > Didn't UUNet try this back in 96? A quick search of Boardwatch failed to > > > find the article, but ISTR that John Sidgemore eventually slunk back to the > > > playground and agreed to play nice. If UUNet couldn't pull it off back > > > then, I doubt that CW can now. ... > > > > I am completely fascinated by your assessment (that UUNet didn't pull it off). > > It is rare, but I agree with Paul here :) > > Unet is, for example, one of the few (if not the only) ISP in The > Netherlands that charges for *peering* (no, not transit, just peering). > > More and more clued people I know are avoiding UUnet because they > don't peer with the small but quickly growing ISPs. Most UUnet > customers are getting worse and worse connectivity as other ISPs stop > peering with UUnet, because UUnet is becoming less and less important. > A nice downward spiral. > > Greetz, Peter. > >

1 0

[Fwd: Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]]
by Steve Sobol 07 May '01

07 May '01

woops, this was supposed to go to the list. -------- Original Message -------- From: Steve Sobol <sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net> Subject: Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US] To: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman(a)civicnet.org> CC: sjsobol(a)NorthShoreTechnologies.net Miles Fidelman wrote: > Except that most of today's cable systems were built while municipalities > could, and did, grant exclusive franchises. Overbuilding an incumbant > cable operator is as expensive and risky as becoming a CLEC - probably the > reason that neither CLECs nor cable overbuilders are showing much > commercial success. Before being subsumed by SBC and forced to divest Americast, their cable-TV service, Ameritech did it. They reached a grand total of two Cleveland suburbs with the service. Maybe three. -- Tired of Earthlink? Get JustTheNet! Nationwide Dialup, ISDN, DSL, ATM, Frame Relay, T-1, T-3, and more. EARTHLINK AMNESTY PROGRAM: Buy a year, get two months free More info coming soon to http://JustThe.net, or e-mail me!

2 1

Re: HR 1542 [OT, anti-BS attempt, US]
by Fletcher E Kittredge 07 May '01

07 May '01

> Yes, and a number of us look at their "exclusive" agreements, with many > municiplaities, and have been asking why they are not a regulated monopoly. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ municipalities > Those contracts are as anti-competitive as it gets. Roland, about which country are you holding this discussion? I am located in the US and thought you were talking about the US. If so, I am confused. What is exclusive about these agreements? Can't you just file to become a CLEC, string fiber/copper on the poles and complete directly with the cable companies? I haven't seen a modern municipal cable contract yet that was exclusive and blocked other providers of high speed Internet access, or even video. Don't get me wrong, I am *very* much in favor of open access, have a good business selling IP over cable plant and would love to do it over Adlephia/TWAOL/AT&T plant, I just hate to see yet another bit 'o BS propagated. BTW, if you spend much time with regulators and lawyers, you will be aware that there is a major difference between the cable network and the PSTN. After the mid-1930's, the PSTN was built by a company which was guaranteed a specific, profitable rate of return. The cable network was built by many small entrepreneurs who were not guaranteed a profit nor even solvency. For that reason, the PSTN is more arguably a public resource. good luck, fletcher

3 2

Re: Cable & Wireless "de-peering"?!?
by Richard A. Steenbergen 07 May '01

07 May '01

On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:21:03PM -0700, John Payne wrote: > > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 07:31:25PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote: > > > > Not so fast. While each of his customers is more inconvenienced > > than each c&w customer, c&w has more customers. The net inconvenience > > (total number of people inconvenienced multiplied by the average > > inconvenience to each) might be nearly the same on both sides. As an > > added bonus, he has someone else to blame. > > That depends. Somebody that small (0.0001) is not going to be transit > free... so there isn't really a hole created. Sure, the smaller guy > is going to be paying more on transit rather than peering, but C&W > customers probably won't notice a thing, other than some relief on the > congested pipes to the public peering points. The number of customers affected is unimportant, what matters is the amount of traffic affected. I don't know about anyone else, but I think if I had just been "de-peered" the provider in question would be the LAST on my list to purchase transit from. In all likelihood the traffic is just going to go to another CW peer and to an FNSI transit. But to determine the true loser, you must know if this peer served a useful technical function. If this was a low-quality peer (congested, through a lossy atm nap, etc) or relieved no congestion elsewhere, the loser is FNSI. If on the other hand this peer was providing a better path, the traffic will be affected. Since billing is based on traffic, the loser is whoever can no longer bill their customers for something they got for free. Also, not that I care much about either FNSI or Clueless & Witless peering, but the argument that noone would be affected AND traffic would be reduced makes no sense. If there is a significant reduction in congestion then there must have been a significant amount of traffic flowing through the peer. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest argument for peering with FNSI is Pimp War (http://www.pimpwar.com) :P -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

7 6