Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit
*//Sorry for the earlier misguiding email subject//* 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 **************************************
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 18:51:59 +0200, Pradeep Bangera said:
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)?
Yes. :) I think you'll find actual contracts out in the wild that do it either way, and probably lots of variants as well, because the organizations buying the transit have differing motivations. Some will want to minimize their monthly expenses at all costs and hope they don't get a surprise billing spike due to high traffic, while others may very well be willing to pay 10% more a month for a "guaranteed no surprises" billing structure for budgeting reasons. Now, if you have a good model for "how likely is each method to result in surprises in the real world".... ;)
participants (2)
-
Pradeep Bangera -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu