Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 103

23 Sep 2011

      Dear All,

Thanks for all the replies! I would like to see more, to learn more!

Since I (Research Assistant) am not from network operations and
management domain, I am trying to model the transit pricing function. In
my research work, I am using a pricing model from this work! This
pricing model is as follows:-- Transit price = Constant * (aggregate
traffic)^0.75, which is exactly similar to the one described by Ryan
Malayter in his earlier message. Hence I am wondering, whether the
pricing should be a linear(CDR*[95th peak]) or sub-linear (like the
above)?

With Regards
Pradeep
Research Assistant
Institute IMDEA Networks
Madrid, Spain

On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 09:40 -0500, nanog-request@nanog.org wrote:
...
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
  nanog@nanog.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
  https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
  nanog-request@nanog.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
  nanog-owner@nanog.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit
      pricing (Florian Weimer)
   2. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
      building a nationwide network (Owen DeLong)
   3. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
      building a nationwide network (John Curran)
   4. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
      building a nationwide network (John Curran)
   5. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Randy McAnally)
   6. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Ryan Rawdon)
   7. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (chris)
   8. Commercial DNS service opinions? (Jay Ashworth)
   9. Re: Commercial DNS service opinions? (Christopher Morrow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:15:46 +0000
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
To: Pradeep Bangera <pradeep.bangera@imdea.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit
  pricing
Message-ID: <824o03ohjx.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
* Pradeep Bangera:
...
Question: Does this over-usage bandwidth charge a linear cost function
or is it sub-linear like the committed bandwidth pricing?
Percentile-based pricing is never linear.  It's not even a continuous
function of bandwidth usage.  This is inherent to the percentile
functional, so it doesn't matter how the quantity that comes out of that
is priced.
-- 
Florian Weimer                <fweimer@bfk.de>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstra?e 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:01:23 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>, nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
  building a nationwide network
Message-ID: <277A7743-14E7-4FC2-91D2-E0772F262DFF@delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
...
The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts.  It chooses the candidates that the membership will see.  The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias.  I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates.  But it seems like an easy enough thing to avoid.
This statement ignores the existence of the petition process and the relatively low threshold required to get a candidate not approved or selected by the nomcom onto the ballot if there is even a very limited desire to do so.
...
As for my use of "existing establishment":  I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate.  I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to.  In any case, this is just my impression.  If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful.
My inclination is that the lack of participation generally indicates that the majority are not upset by the way ARIN is doing things. I know that the beginning of my participation in ARIN was the result of my deciding that some of the ways ARIN was doing things needed changing.
...
...
ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members.
if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your reasoning
and your proposed alternative.
One of ARIN's governance strengths is the availability of petition at many steps, including for candidates rejected by the NomCom.  Likewise, as you noted, leaders are elected by the membership.  For these reasons I previously noted that "ARIN has a pretty good governance structure" and I continue to think so.  It could be improved by increased member involvement, as well as broader involvement from the community. (For instance, policy petitions should include responses from the entire affected community, not just PPML.)  But my criticisms should be interpreted as constructive, and are not an indictment of the whole approach.
OK, so you are aware of the petition process after all. That makes your statement at the top of this message somewhat perplexing.
I agree that increased member participation would be a good thing.
I do not believe that including petition responses from people who aren't willing to join PPML even if it's just long enough to support the petition in question would be useful. It takes almost no effort to join PPML, support a petition, and then leave PPML if you are that determined not to participate. Further, I think that it is reasonable to expect at least a modicum of participation in the policy process in order to participate in the petition process. Requiring supporters to be on PPML at the time they support the petition seems like a reasonable threshold to me. Finally, absent some mechanism such as requiring a PPML subscription, it might be somewhat difficult to avoid petition stuffing.
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:51:46 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
  building a nationwide network
Message-ID: <BCFADB61-9052-434E-BCA9-2EE7170EC339@arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500
Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> wrote:
...
As for my use of "existing establishment":  I'm of the impression
that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most
ARIN members don't actively participate.  I have my own opinions on
why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in
fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for
themselves if they wanted to.  In any case, this is just my
impression.  If you would rather share some statistics on member
participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more
useful.
i think our participation level in elections is quite high and i'll ask
for details and see them published here.
Paul -
Information regarding ARIN's last election is online here:
<https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html>
I've attached the relevant section regarding participation, and it should
  be noted that more than 12% of the potential electorate voted in last year's 
  election.  This is typical turnout for our elections, and while I have been
  told anecdotally that this is relatively high turnout for membership 
  organization, I do not have hard data points for comparison at this time.
I would encourage all NANOG members to confirm their designated member
  representatives with ARIN (i.e. the official organizational contacts) and 
  vote (or if someone else in your organization encourage them to do so) in
  the upcoming ARIN election for the ARIN Advisory Council and the ARIN Board 
  of Trustee positions.
FYI,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
=== From  <https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html>
2010 VOTER STATISTICS
3,690 ARIN members as of 21 September 2010
2,834 Eligible voters* as of 21 September 2010
*ARIN members in good standing with properly registered Designated Member Representatives on record 1 January 2010
355 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Board of Trustees election.
356 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Advisory Council election.
364 unique member organizations cast a ballot in either the Board of Trustees or Advisory Council election
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:35:02 +0000
From: John Curran <jcurran@arin.net>
To: Jim Duncan <jduncan@juniper.net>
Cc: "vixie@isc.org" <vixie@isc.org>, "nanog@nanog.org"
  <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
  building a nationwide network
Message-ID: <AFB08AFB-3443-4AB1-9739-2BA9E6992F45@arin.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Jim Duncan wrote:
...
With my parliamentarian hat on:
A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum number of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates for election. it should never be a gating function; it is an important safeguard to allow the nomination of qualified individuals outside the nominating committee and "from the floor" before votes are cast. 
...
...
Although organizations may decide for themselves how a nominating committee will operate, it is inconsistent with the general principles of parliamentary process -- whichever standard you choose, Robert's, Sturgis, or another -- for all candidates to be forced to pass through the gauntlet of the nominating committee.
Jim -
I agree with you in principle regarding the NomCom's essential 
  function, but note that your requirement that the Nominating 
  Committee pass _all_ candidates minimally qualified is not the 
  only valid approach.  In the case of ARIN, the NomCom process
  provides a sufficient number of qualified qualified candidates
  but is specifically not required to provide all such candidates
  <https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/nomcom_faqs.html>
The protection of the parliamentary representation principle that
  you allude to (i.e. the freedom for members of an organization to 
  choose its own leadership) to is instead provided via a petition 
  process.  This mechanism provides a comparable safeguard by allowing
  anyone to be added to the ballot if they desire such and can show 
  some support in the community for their candidacy.
Note that ARIN's initial Bylaws only provided for direct selection 
  of new Board members by the ARIN Board from a list of candidates 
  chosen by the ARIN AC.  In subsequent years, this was changed to be 
  a separate NomCom, and a petition process requiring support of 15% 
  of the electorate was added. The petition threshold was then lowered 
  to 5% of the electorate, and then again recently lowered to be now
  2% of the electorate. The ARIN Board has reviewed the election process 
  in each of the recent years to see if any further changes are required.
Further evolution of this process is quite possible, and discussion
  here (or on an ARIN mailing list) will help inform the ARIN Board 
  about the community views on this matter.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:56:05 -0400
From: Randy McAnally <rsm@fast-serv.com>
To: "rpug@linux.com" <rpug@linux.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network
Message-ID: <CACA4923-5E3B-4A8A-A699-3F2634476E4D@fast-serv.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii
Not able to connect to 146.115.38.21 via fios or verizon 3g so the problem doesn't seem to be fios specific.
Sent from my IPhone (pardon the typo's)
On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, "Ryan Pugatch" <rpug@linux.com> wrote:
...
...
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug@linux.com> wrote:
...
Hi,
Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network?
Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us
(on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone.
it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some
semblance of destination address, port, protocol...
just sayin'!
-chris
(fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on)
HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443.  Sample IP: 146.115.38.21
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:35:16 -0400
From: Ryan Rawdon <ryan@u13.net>
To: rpug@linux.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network
Message-ID: <A323BE5B-FD0C-4AC5-8198-8CE7E3DDD632@u13.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote:
...
...
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug@linux.com> wrote:
...
Hi,
Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network?
Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us
(on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone.
it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some
semblance of destination address, port, protocol...
just sayin'!
-chris
(fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on)
HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443.  Sample IP: 146.115.38.21
...
From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result:
HTTP: timeout
HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page)
also can ping via ICMP just fine
Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:38:26 -0400
From: chris <tknchris@gmail.com>
To: Ryan Rawdon <ryan@u13.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network
Message-ID:
  <CAKnNFz-m+mrdbZPA8bwhoCBD+Bp-Ko6TAhP-voS4cn9BmQV6TA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
HTTP doesnt appear to be open from any network I try Verizon or otherwise so
I'm not sure its network related
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ryan Rawdon <ryan@u13.net> wrote:
...
On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote:
...
...
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug@linux.com> wrote:
...
Hi,
Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network?
Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to
us
(on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone.
it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some
semblance of destination address, port, protocol...
just sayin'!
-chris
(fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on)
HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443.  Sample IP: 146.115.38.21
From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result:
HTTP: timeout
HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page)
also can ping via ICMP just fine
Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is
handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Commercial DNS service opinions?
Message-ID:
  <25076238.2837.1316787458644.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Open, Super, Dyn?
Will any of them do hidden-master?
Off list; I'll summarize.
Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra@baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:40:37 -0400
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Commercial DNS service opinions?
Message-ID:
  <CAL9jLaaPc=YVOtKkL8G1p_TqFWPj8VyzGz=rapfNSy0vYREujA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
...
Open, Super, Dyn?
Will any of them do hidden-master?
Off list; I'll summarize.
recursive AND authoritative? or ?
End of NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 103
**************************************

Pradeep Bangera

tags

participants (1)