_____________________________________________ From: <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 8:23 AM To: <scott.amyoony@conyersdill.com> Subject: The results of your email commands The results of your email command are provided below. Attached is your original message. - Unprocessed: move me. Thanks! _____________________________________________ From: <nanog-request@nanog.org> [mailto:nanog-request@nanog.org]=20 Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 12:19 AM To: <nanog@nanog.org> Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 30, Issue 4 Send NANOG mailing list submissions to =09nanog@nanog.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit =09https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to =09nanog-request@nanog.org You can reach the person managing the list at =09nanog-owner@nanog.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." - Ignored: Today's Topics: 1. Re: The Economist, cyber war issue (andrew.wallace) 2. Re: The Economist, cyber war issue (Randy Bush) 3. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Stefan Sp?hler) 4. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (William Herrin) 5. Re: XO feedback (Stefan Molnar) 6. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Matthew Walster) 7. Re: SPANS Vs Taps (Darren Bolding) 8. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Larry Sheldon) 9. Re: SPANS Vs Taps (Ricky Beam) 10. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Matthew Palmer) 11. Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right (Marshall Eubanks) 12. Re: Type of network operators? (Martin Hannigan) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:51:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com> Subject: Re: The Economist, cyber war issue To: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <862176.46872.qm@web59616.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8 There is a part 2 as well http://www.economist.com/node/16478792?story_id= =3D16478792 Andrew ----- Original Message ---- From: Jeroen van Aart <jeroen@mompl.net> To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Thu, 1 July, 2010 19:57:08 Subject: Re: The Economist, cyber war issue andrew.wallace wrote: > Article: http://www.economist.com/node/16481504?story_id=3D16481504 I know it's shortsighted, but any article with the word cyber in it, used i= n such a way as being about "cyber this-or-that", already lost its credibil= ity by virtue of using the word. It must be a of rather high quality to win= back its credibility. This economist article sadly does the opposite. Regards, Jeroen -- http://goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/ =20 ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 07:01:02 +0900 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Subject: Re: The Economist, cyber war issue To: "andrew.wallace" <andrew.wallace@rocketmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <m28w5uzwtd.wl%randy@psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII > There is a part 2 as well and this is a bug or a feature? ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:05:36 +0200 From: Stefan Sp?hler <lists@stefan-spuehler.org> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4C2D1130.9030704@stefan-spuehler.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 On 07/01/2010 02:04 PM, Gadi Evron wrote: > http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?h= pt=3DT2 >=20 >=20 > Interesting... > Finland isn't first. http://www.comcom.admin.ch/aktuell/00429/00457/00560/index.html?lang=3Den&m= sg-id=3D13239 ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 18:17:43 -0400 From: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: =09<AANLkTilh2hagwUvCoxQKCkbFhYpvd3c3HZrCwqfqseXi@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org> wrote: > http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?h= pt=3DT2 In the US, the Communications Act of 1934 brought about the creation of the "Universal Service Fund." The idea, more or less, was that every phone line customer contributed to the fund (you'll find it itemized on your phone bill) and the phone companies had to charge the same for every phone line regardless of where delivered in their territory but when initially installing an unusually difficult (expensive) phone line the phone company was entitled to reimburse its cost from the fund. In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" program) instead of improving rural communications... --=20 William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 15:21:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Stefan Molnar <stefan@csudsu.com> Subject: Re: XO feedback To: Net <funkyfun@gmail.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <20100701150758.T81245@clockwork> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=3DUS-ASCII; format=3Dflowed XO has many downs than ups. I am a current XO customer mainly due to the= =20 costs, having voice, PtP, Transit, and Co-Location. Here is my rundown. Internet Transit: Yes it works, and when their routing goes ape, no one=20 knows what is going on. They have a tendency not to do a "wr mem" on=20 their ciscos. Point to Point: Yes it works, but when they have to take an OC12 or some= =20 large circuit down you might be notified the day of. Also if you have=20 more than one circuit with them, finding what circuit will be hit takes=20 ages on their side. Co-Location: One crap shoot close to death. A "change control" group has= =20 to approve changes, adds, and you as a customer has zero say. Call Center: I feel like Mr. Bean is running the call center. Depending= =20 on who you call, and when they last did trainning you will get a wild=20 range of responces. Even for the simplest of things takes about 20 min to= =20 make a ticket, and some have taken past 40min. Voice: Random failures of not being able to reach cell phone carriers.=20 Random issues where some trunk lines just go offline. But to XO it is=20 always the customer hardware. Another great feature if you have a trouble= =20 ticket and in part of correcting the issue if some other change was=20 introduced an automated system will back out any changes weeks later. It is one of those things in life you deal with because the tradeoff is=20 something execs see as the monthly OPEX costs. Stefan On Thu, 1 Jul 2010, Net wrote: > Hi, > > We're currently looking to buy transit from XO for one of our DCs. > Their pricing is very competative compared to some of the other > providers we've considered to date. > > I'm hoping to get some feedback on their services, support, peering > arrangements and the overall stability of their core backbone network > from folks who've had experience or currently using them. > > Any info would be greatly appreciated. > > Thanks in advance > > --=20 > Sent from my mobile device > > > ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 00:14:42 +0100 From: Matthew Walster <matthew@walster.org> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org> Message-ID: =09<AANLkTikywKRBHfsT88M4rDLc_52W4Atwj47elKBjsyzI@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUTF-8 On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: > In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal > service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" > program) instead of improving rural communications... As someone who's always been in the "tech" field, the amount spent on ICT in schools has always shocked and appalled me. Bring back the Acorn Archimedes and ECONET! M ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 16:24:38 -0700 From: Darren Bolding <darren@bolding.org> Subject: Re: SPANS Vs Taps To: "Bein, Matthew" <mbein@iso-ne.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: =09<AANLkTilK1925X0LPw319-PmhMpBzqZQ0parHx2jeCT0J@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Tap manufactures will be sure to tell you of many issues. The main concern I would have is that it is possible for a switch to drop frames of a SPAN. Your decision might be influenced based on your application and the impact of such errors (billing, lawful intercept, forensics). A tap vendors take: http://www.networkcritical.com/What-are-Network-Taps On a somewhat related note, I will mention that TNAPI from ntop is quite handy. http://www.ntop.org/TNAPI.html <http://www.networkcritical.com/What-are-Network-Taps>--D On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Bein, Matthew <mbein@iso-ne.com> wrote: > As I was doing a design today. I found that I had a bunch of 100 MB > connections that I was going to bring into a aggregation tap. Then I was > thinking, why don't I use a switch like a Cisco 3560 to gain more > density. Anyone run into this? Any down falls with using a switch to > aggregate instead of a true port aggregator?? > > > > Regards, > > > > Matthew > > --=20 -- Darren Bolding -- -- darren@bolding.org -- ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:25:52 -0500 From: Larry Sheldon <LarrySheldon@cox.net> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <4C2D2400.3050308@cox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 On 7/1/2010 18:14, Matthew Walster wrote: > On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: >> In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal >> service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" >> program) instead of improving rural communications... >=20 > As someone who's always been in the "tech" field, the amount spent on > ICT in schools has always shocked and appalled me. >=20 > Bring back the Acorn Archimedes and ECONET! Does anybody know how much the Big Sky Telegraph cost, and who paid for it? --=20 Somebody should have said: A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Requiescas in pace o email Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Eppure si rinfresca ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs http://tinyurl.com/7tp8ml =09 ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:50:40 -0400 From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com> Subject: Re: SPANS Vs Taps To: "Darren Bolding" <darren@bolding.org>, "Bein, Matthew" =09<mbein@iso-ne.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <op.ve6xyqngtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii; format=3Dflowed; delsp=3Dyes On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 19:24:38 -0400, Darren Bolding <darren@bolding.org> =20 wrote: > Tap manufactures will be sure to tell you of many issues. Well, there are issues on both sides... A true tap is an electronic mirror. It doesn't much care what the signal = =20 is; whatever it senses, it replicates. As the OP is talking about an =20 aggrigating tap, he's already using a switch. I've used NetworkCritical, = =20 NetOptics, and several other "cheap" taps. None of them are even remotely = =20 cheap. That said, use an ethernet switch... > The main concern I would have is that it is possible for a switch to drop > frames of a SPAN. Your decision might be influenced based on your > application and the impact of such errors (billing, lawful intercept, > forensics). Yes, a switch can drop traffic (inbound and out.) But so can a tap. And = =20 so can the thing listening to the tap. At work I'm configuring an integrate Broadcom 10G switch (SoC) as a pure = =20 mirror. The ports wired to the system form a trunk group which is the =20 destination for the mirror of the external ports. This is exactly what =20 you'll find inside $$$$$ commercial multiport aggrigating "taps". (and =20 btw, we've thrown over 1Mpps at it without issue; ~50% 64byte packets, the = =20 bane of any switch. (recorded) real world traffic, not some Spirent =20 simulation.) --Ricky ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 11:54:52 +1000 From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <20100702015452.GB7566@hezmatt.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii On Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 12:14:42AM +0100, Matthew Walster wrote: > On 1 July 2010 23:17, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote: > > In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal > > service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" > > program) instead of improving rural communications... >=20 > As someone who's always been in the "tech" field, the amount spent on > ICT in schools has always shocked and appalled me. Don't get me started on ICT in schools. Please. - Matt --=20 <Igloo> I remember going to my first tutorial in room 404. I was most upset when I found it. ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 22:33:57 -0400 From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv> Subject: Re: Finland makes broadband access a legal right To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: <00173191-2CCE-43A6-A928-139979306E08@americafree.tv> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII; format=3Dflowed On Jul 1, 2010, at 6:17 PM, William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Gadi Evron <ge@linuxbox.org> wrote: >> http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/01/finland.broadband/index.html?= hpt=3DT2 > > In the US, the Communications Act of 1934 brought about the creation > of the "Universal Service Fund." The idea, more or less, was that > every phone line customer contributed to the fund (you'll find it > itemized on your phone bill) and the phone companies had to charge the > same for every phone line regardless of where delivered in their > territory but when initially installing an unusually difficult > (expensive) phone line the phone company was entitled to reimburse its > cost from the fund. > > In 1996 a certain inventor of the Internet decided that the universal > service fund needed to pay for PCs in rural schools (the "E-Rate" > program) instead of improving rural communications... > > Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S.D.) invented the Internet ? Regards Marshall > > --=20 > William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 > > ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:18:45 -0400 From: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Type of network operators? To: Butch Evans <nanog@butchevans.com>, nanog@nanog.org Message-ID: =09<AANLkTimRAHmAUg2UC3_YuJuKxBfyoBTxng4PX3pydqm9@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Thanks. Your observations are good related to active posters. The overall list is very diverse. Aside from the active posters, the list is about 10K strong. Everything from AOL to people from Zoos, law enforcement, banks, and any industry you can think of. NANOG is not just a list, but an interesting hodge podge of builders and occupants of the Internet that sometimes make sense. :-) As Paul Wall might say, Drive Slow. Best, Marty On 7/1/10, Butch Evans <nanog@butchevans.com> wrote: > I have been on this list for about 2 weeks, just observing the > discussions. I have primarily worked with wireless service > providers in > the past who are fairly low budget operators. Some of the > things I've > observed about this group are: > > * This list seems to be populated by better funded operations > (whether > that means larger or just better at getting funding may remain > to be > seen) > > * Most of the operators on this list seem to be pretty good at > their > work and the questions seem to revolve around more complex > issues > > * There seems to be a number of corporate network operators on > this list > as opposed to access network operators (such as ISPs and such) > > I hope you all don't take this as an affront and get offended, > as that's > not my intent. I am just making some simple observations. > > Having said this, I wanted to introduce myself and see if this > is a list > that I need to participate in actively. I am a network engineer > and > consultant. I have worked in the past with Cisco, Juniper and > other > similar "higher end" type devices, but it's been a while since I > had > customers who use that gear. Most of my current customer base > are > smaller operators who can pinch a penny in half. :-) > > I do a lot of work with MikroTik RouterOS, ImageStream and other > Linux > based devices. I do engineering, training, hardware sales and > such for > networks all over the world. I am likely to continue to monitor > the > list for questions that are in my area of expertise, but > wondered if > these devices I mention are "common" to operators on this list. > I know > that I have not caught a discussion that involved any of them so > far > (other than one reference to an OpenBSD solution a day or two > ago). > > Anyway, hello to the list and I look forward to finding a home > among > this group. > > > > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog End of NANOG Digest, Vol 30, Issue 4 ************************************ - Done.