- Test - lists.nanog.org

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 64 - San Francisco - Call for Presentations is Open!
by Tony Tauber 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Greetings NANOG Folks, NANOG 63 in San Antonio is still a fairly fresh memory (for those who were there). NANOG will hold its 64th meeting in San Francisco, CA on June 1-3, 2015, hosted by Netflix. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 64 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet, . Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. Key dates to track if you wish to submit a presentation: Key Dates For NANOG 64 Event/Deadline Date Registration for NANOG 64 Opens March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Opens for NANOG 64 March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #1: Presentation Abstracts Due March 30, 2015 (Monday) CFP Topic List and NANOG Highlights Page Posted April 13, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #2: Presentation Slides Due April 27, 2015 (Monday) Meeting Agenda Published May 4, 2015 (Monday) Speaker FINAL presentations to PC Tool <https://pc.nanog.org/> May 29, 2015 (Friday) On-site Registration May 31, 2015 (Sunday) Lightning Talk Submissions Open (Abstracts Only) June 1, 2015 (Monday) NANOG 64 submissions are welcome on the Program Committee Site <https://pc.nanog.org/> or email me if you have questions. See the detailed NANOG64 Call for Presentations <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog63/callforpresentations> for more information. You can also view the NANOG events calendar <https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o…> (including the key dates above and more) import in ICS format <https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o0u68%…> . Thanks, Tony Tauber Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

[NANOG-announce] Fwd: CFP Test
by Tony Tauber 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Greetings NANOG Folks, NANOG 63 in San Antonio is still a fairly fresh memory (for those who were there). NANOG will hold its 64th meeting in San Francisco, CA on June 1-3, 2015, hosted by Netflix. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 64 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet, . Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. Key dates to track if you wish to submit a presentation: Key Dates For NANOG 64 Event/Deadline Date Registration for NANOG 64 Opens March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Opens for NANOG 64 March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #1: Presentation Abstracts Due March 30, 2015 (Monday) CFP Topic List and NANOG Highlights Page Posted April 13, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #2: Presentation Slides Due April 27, 2015 (Monday) Meeting Agenda Published May 4, 2015 (Monday) Speaker FINAL presentations to PC Tool <https://pc.nanog.org/> May 29, 2015 (Friday) On-site Registration May 31, 2015 (Sunday) Lightning Talk Submissions Open (Abstracts Only) June 1, 2015 (Monday) NANOG 64 submissions are welcome on the Program Committee Site <https://pc.nanog.org/> or email me if you have questions. See the detailed NANOG64 Call for Presentations <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog63/callforpresentations> for more information. You can also view the NANOG events calendar <https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o…> (including the key dates above and more) import in ICS format <https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o0u68%…> . Thanks, Tony Tauber Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

FW: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
by Naslund, Steve 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

>That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. > >Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that to the company server. And let's say I want to do that 5 times during 12 >hour day (it's crunch time, we're doing lots of edits). BUSINESS CLASS SERVICE - You can get it but you have to pay for it. Also, not the average user's case. I know this. My support line does not ring with many (hardly any) people complaining about upload speed. Get over it, it is a provable fact. Is any service provider on here seeing this? > >On average, we're talking 20gbit/12 hours, or a shade under 500kbps, if we're talking averages. On the other hand, if I try to push a 2gbit file through a 500kbps pipe, it's going to take 4000 seconds (67 >minutes) -- that's rather painful, and inserts a LOT of delay in the process of getting reviews, comments, and doing the next round of edits. > >On the other hand, at 50mbps it takes only 40 seconds - annoying, but acceptable, and at a gig, it only takes 2 seconds. > Peak, average, whatever. Your local loop does not care. It does not have a "burst speed", it has a maximum transfer rate limited by the physics and electronics attached to it. You might want it to go faster and as a service provider I wish it would go faster because I would love to have lots of free bandwidth to sell you. If you want 50 mbps or 1 gbps on your ADSL circuit I can't help you at all. In fact, no one can because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TODAY. If you want gig Ethernet service at home break out your checkbook (and a shovel). >So, tell me, with a straight face, that "what matters is average transfer rate to the user experience." > >Miles Fidelman Straight face on- The user cares if his average data rate meets his needs more than he cares if he has a high upload speed the once a month he needs that. If your bottom line argument is that you need more bandwidth for less cost, then welcome to everyone else's world. Steven Naslund Chicago IL

2 1

Routing objects
by Justin Wilson - MTIN 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Anyone out there messed with routing objects lately that would care to let me bounce a few sanity check things off them? Maybe someone bored wanting to talk to a fellow geek on Skype or phone for a few minutes. Thanks, Justin Justin Wilson j2sw(a)mtin.net http://www.mtin.net <http://www.mtin.net/> Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers http://www.thebrotherswisp.com <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> Podcast about xISP topics http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange

1 0

Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

18 million dollars revenue in three months so certainly pretty large sized. Any idea which DC this is? http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/police-could-charge-a-data-center-in…

8 8

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
by Rogers, Josh 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Correct. For those (who don¹tt already know) that are interested in learning about this, do some reading on Diplex Filters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplexer) which are used to ³split² the RF spectrum apart so that the lower portion and the higher portion can be amplified independently, before recombining the two portions. I believe this was done to accomplish unity gain in each direction independently. Also, I¹d like to note that there have been a few comments in this thread that lead me to believe some folks are confusing asymmetrical routing paths with asymmetrical speeds. Don¹t confuse the two as they have nearly nothing to do with one another. -Josh On 3/2/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-request(a)nanog.org" <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> wrote: >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 08:08:27 -0500 >From: Clayton Zekelman <clayton(a)mnsi.net> >To: Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> >Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> >Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality >Message-ID: <32D3C16D-0F4D-45BA-99F8-D41FE23D472C(a)mnsi.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be >designed to work on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to >deliver cable TV. It's not some conspiracy to differentiate higher priced >business services - it was a fact of RF technology and the architecture >of the network they were overlaying this "new" service on top of. > > > >Sent from my iPhone > >>On Feb 28, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> wrote: >>>On February 28, 2015 at 18:14 clayton(a)mnsi.net (Clayton Zekelman) wrote: >>>You do of course realize that the asymmetry in CATV forward path/return >>>path existed LONG before residential Internet access over cable >>>networks exited? >>You mean back when it was all analog and DOCSIS didn't exist? >>>Sent from my iPhone >>>>On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> wrote: >>>>Can we stop the disingenuity? >>>>Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from >>>>deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps. >>>>One can argue all sorts of other "benefits" of this but when this >>>>started that was the problem on the table: How do we forcibly >>>>distinguish commercial (i.e., more expensive) from non-commercial >>>>usage? >>>>Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth. >>>>Originally these asymmetric, typically DSL, links were hundreds of >>>>kbits upstream, not a lot more than a dial-up line. >>>>That and NAT thereby making it difficult -- not impossible, the savvy >>>>were in the noise -- to map domain names to permanent IP addresses. >>>>That's all this was about. >>>>It's not about "that's all they need", "that's all they want", etc. >>>>Now that bandwidth is growing rapidly and asymmetric is often >>>>10/50mbps or 20/100 it almost seems nonsensical in that regard, entire >>>>medium-sized ISPs ran on less than 10mbps symmetric not long ago. But >>>>it still imposes an upper bound of sorts, along with addressing >>>>limitations and bandwidth caps. >>>>That's all this is about. >>>>The telcos for many decades distinguished "business" voice service >>>>from "residential" service, even for just one phone line, though they >>>>mostly just winged it and if they declared you were defrauding them by >>>>using a residential line for a business they might shut you off and/or >>>>back bill you. Residential was quite a bit cheaper, most importantly >>>>local "unlimited" (unmetered) talk was only available on residential >>>>lines. Business lines were even coded 1MB (one m b) service, one >>>>metered business (line). >>>>The history is clear and they've just reinvented the model for >>>>internet but proactively enforced by technology rather than studying >>>>your usage patterns or whatever they used to do, scan for business ads >>>>using "residential" numbers, beyond bandwidth usage analysis. >>>>And the CATV companies are trying to reinvent CATV pricing for >>>>internet, turn Netflix (e.g.) into an analogue of HBO and other >>>>premium CATV services. >>>>What's so difficult to understand here? >>>>-- >>>> -Barry Shein >>>>The World | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | >>>>http://www.TheWorld.com >>>>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, >>>>Canada >>>>Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 >>>>*oo* >>-- >> -Barry Shein >>The World | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | >>http://www.TheWorld.com >>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, >>Canada >>Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

1 0

Charter/Comcast Enginner-Contact
by Lewis,Mitchell T. 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Any Charter or Comcast Network Folks out there, I would appreciate a contact off-list. I am in the charter new england territory to be transferred to comcast & am seeing unusual network issues. Thanks, Mitchell T. Lewis Mlewis(a)Techcompute.Net LinkedIn Profile: www.linkedin.com/in/mlewiscc Mobile: (203)816-0371 A computer will do what you tell it to do, but that may be much different from what you had in mind. ~Joseph Weizenbaum

2 2

Bufferbloat related censorship at Virgin Media
by Dave Taht 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

I have put this on a blog post, and my g+ also, here, and submitted the story to slashdot and reddit. How I spend my sunday afternoons these days! The linky version: http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2015/03/virgin-media-fixing-epidemic-of.html or g+: https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/E1yMgbWW81C --snip snip-- To whom it may concern at Virgin Media: My IP address is apparently now banned from accessing your site at all, for "advertising", on this thread: http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Up-to-152Mb/Bufferbloat-High-Latency-am… Believe me, I understand the degree to which advertising pollutes the internet. And certainly, given the brevity of my post, you could assume that I was just some random guy, selling snake oil. Nothing could be further from the truth. Admittedly, it was a short message, it was kind of late, and I was in a hurry, being that I have so many other networks to help fix. To clarify matters: I am the co-founder of the bufferbloat project, and I like to think, a world-wide acknowledged expert on the topic on this thread. In particular, I worked pretty hard on part of the DOCSIS 3.1 standard, which was ratified years ago, and has a specific section on it regarding technologies that can help fix *half* your bufferbloat problem. http://www.cablelabs.com/how-docsis-3-1-reduces-latency-with-active-queue-m… I admit to some frustration as to how long it is taking DOCSIS 3.1 to roll out. The cablelabs study that led up to the AQM component in the 3.1 standard - in which I participated and am cited in, is here: http://www.cablelabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Active_Queue_Management… And while I continue to favor fq_codel as the best solution for low and medium bandwidths - I have no problem with you somehow, soon, getting DOCSIS-pie out the door. If you continue to exist in denial of what your own R&D department for your own industry is saying, ghu help you! After giving this talk at uknof, the premier conference for network operators in the UK: https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/immF8Pkj19C *over two years ago*, I met with 6+ technical members of Virgin Media's staff, who all agreed they had a problem, understood what it was, and grokked the various means to fix it. Judging from the enthusiasm in the room, I figured you'd be rolling out fixes by now, but was wrong. A rather human readable explanation of what has gone into the pending 3.1 standard is in the IETF internet draft here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-white-aqm-docsis-pie/ Sadly, just DOCSIS-pie rolling out on the modems is not enough - you have to somehow, yourselves, fix the dramatic overbuffering on the CMTS side, as shown here: http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/disabling-shaping-in-one-direction-… These downlink problems have been discussed thoroughly on the bufferbloat.net bloat and the ietf aqm mailing lists, and rather than point at direct links I would encourage more people to join the discussions there, and browse the archives. As I have seen no visible progress on the CMTS front yet... The best way to fix bufferbloat for your suffering customers *now*, is to help them - and your customer service departments - recognise the problem when it occurs and propose sane ways to fix it with stuff available off the shelf which includes the free firmware upgrades distributed by openwrt, or nearly any linux derived product and by the products available downstream from those. I have no financial interest in *free firmware*. I'm just trying to fix bufferbloat on a billion+ devices and nearly every network in the world as fast as humanly possible. Furthermore, me and a whole bunch of Internet luminaries gave the theory and code away for *free* also, in the hope that by doing so that might more quickly get the megacorps of the world to adopt them and make the quality of experience of internet access for billions of users of the world vastly better. Fixing bufferbloat was a 50 year old network research problem, now solved, with great joy, thoroughly, by some of the best minds in the business, and the answers are now so simple as to fit into a few hundred lines of code, easy to configure for end-users and easily embeddible in your own devices and networks if only you would get on the stick about it. We have provided the code, are in the standardization process, and provided free tools to diagnose and fix your epidemic bufferbloat accurately on every kind of device you have. Two examples of fixing bufferbloat on cablemodems: http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/fixing-bufferbloat-on-comcasts-blas… http://snapon.lab.bufferbloat.net/~cero2/jimreisert/results.html And the *free* tool designed not only to accurately measure bufferbloat, but one that you can setup internally to test your networks and devices for it privately and quietly and then fix them with, is here: https://github.com/tohojo/netperf-wrapper So, now, a rant: Now, if me pointing a customer of yours that has correctly identified the root cause of his own problems, at the solutions both available now, and pending, is considered "advertising", then there really is an orwellian mixup between the definition of that word, and the truth, on your side of the water. Please, unblock my dtaht account and unblock my IP, and allow in better information about how customers of yours can solve the incredibly serious, and incredibly epidemic problem of bufferbloat. ... A problem that is now easy to solve with cheap gear now all over the market so that all your customers suffering can fix it for themselves if they so choose. And: I would like a public apology for blocking me, and a clear statement from Virgin, as to how, when, and where, they will begin to roll out their own fixes to bufferbloat across their subscriber base. And perhaps, you could publish some guidelines - like accurate up/download settings to use - to help your customers fix your problems for themselves. Sincerely, Dave Taht Co-founder, bufferbloat.net -- Dave Täht Let's make wifi fast, less jittery and reliable again! https://plus.google.com/u/0/107942175615993706558/posts/TVX3o84jjmb

3 7

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
by Scott Helms 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

Steve, I'd be up in arms if all I had was a 1mbps uplink :) Having said that, the 10 mbps I get from Comcast right now is more than I need to do remote desktop, code check ins, and host of atypical uploading. I am absolutely not against good upstream rates! I do have a problem with people saying that we must/should have symmetrical connectivity simply because we don't see the market demand for that as of yet. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Steve Clark <sclark(a)netwolves.com> wrote: > Scott, > > Maybe if it the upstream bandwidth was there would be more applications to > use it. I know it is a real > pain to upload pics to Facebook, etc on my 1mbs uplink, or move things to > work across my VPN. > > Steve > > On 02/27/2015 02:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Daniel, > > Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding most > customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases around. > If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build it and > they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this > business. > > Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie top > 10% of uploaders. We also see less contended seconds on their upstream > than we do on the downstream. These observations are based on ~500k > residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH > (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum(678) 507-5000 > --------------------------------http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor <dtaylor(a)vocalabs.com> <dtaylor(a)vocalabs.com> wrote: > > > But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean. > > It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of equal > upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take extra measures > unrelated to the generation of that content to be able to do so. > > Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken when > that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master musician. > > On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote: > > > This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers are given > symmetrical connections. It might change at some point in the future, > especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de facto > deployment reality. > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum(678) 507-5000 > --------------------------------http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve <SNaslund(a)medline.com> <SNaslund(a)medline.com> > wrote: > > How about this? Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating > > content at 5 mbps....Period. Only realistic app I see is home > surveillance > but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway. The truth is > that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see. > This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to > readers, > artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video > creator > to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship. > > On 2015-02-27 12:13, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > > > Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content. If each one > creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up. But to > download all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 > > > down. > > > And when you expand to several billion people creating new content, > you need a *huge* pipe down. > > > Steven Naslund > Chicago IL > > > > > -- > Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc.dtaylor(a)vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 > > > > -- > Stephen Clark > *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* > Director of Technology > Phone: 813-579-3200 > Fax: 813-882-0209 > Email: steve.clark(a)netwolves.com > http://www.netwolves.com >

2 1

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
by Scott Helms 28 Feb '15

28 Feb '15

Steve, My point is that for lots and lots of people their uplink is not "so low". Even when I look at users with 25/25 and 50/50, many of the have been at those rates for >3 years we don't see changes in traffic patterns nor satisfaction as compared to users at similar download rates but lower uplink rates as long as we don't go below ~5 mbps on the uplink. On Feb 28, 2015 10:46 AM, "Steve Clark" <sclark(a)netwolves.com> wrote: > On 02/27/2015 04:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: > > Daniel, > > > "50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of > the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes." > > Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream > speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and > unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is > growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. > > Scott, > > Who can foresee what APPs might come about if uplinks speeds weren't so > low. I liken it to > whoever said no one will ever need more than 640KB of memory. > > Regards, > Steve > > > > Scott Helms > Vice President of Technology > ZCorum(678) 507-5000 > --------------------------------http://twitter.com/kscotthelms > -------------------------------- > > > > > -- > Stephen Clark > *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* > Director of Technology > Phone: 813-579-3200 > Fax: 813-882-0209 > Email: steve.clark(a)netwolves.com > http://www.netwolves.com >

3 2