Re: Let's talk about ICANN

2005-12-13 Thread Joseph S D Yao
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 09:03:59AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote: ... I would think that ICANN is off topic for NANOG? ... (a) Why would you think that? I would have thought it spot on. (b) Would that prevent discussion here? ;-) -- Joe Yao

Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Blaine Christian
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/ My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder.

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Blaine Christian
Before you complain... It did not require a subscription when I first saw it. On Dec 13, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Blaine Christian wrote: http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/ My commentary is reserved at

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Sean Donelan
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Blaine Christian wrote: http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/ My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder. Comcast has been advertising in press releases

Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server

2005-12-13 Thread Eric Kagan
Title: Message We need to move our Primary DNS server from legacy IP space provided by our upstreams toour ARIN Assigned IP space. I am looking for advice and any gotchas. I couldn't find any white papers to this affect or archived articles or postings. If someone does have a resource for

Re: Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server

2005-12-13 Thread Sam Crooks
I would think you would want to drop your DNS record TTLs for all domains being moved to something very low several days before the switch-over period. On 12/13/05, Eric Kagan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We need to move our Primary DNS server from legacy IP space provided by our upstreams to

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread John Dupuy
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104STORY=/www/story/12-12-2005/0004231957EDATE= Unlike traditional Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offerings that run on the public Internet, Comcast Digital Voice calls originate and travel over Comcast's advanced, proprietary

Re: Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server

2005-12-13 Thread Steven M. Bellovin
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Cr ooks writes: I would think you would want to drop your DNS record TTLs for all domains being moved to something very low several days before the switch-over period. More precisely, you want to change the TTL on the NS records, which are in the parent zone.

www.google.com latency/packet loss/very slow thru savvis

2005-12-13 Thread Erik Sundberg
hey is any one seeing a slow google to day... packet loss 22 hops... visual traceroute show that it goes from chicago to los angeles to singapore to italy to amsterdam and then finally to google in sunnyvale ca. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ping google.com PING google.com (72.14.207.99): 56 data bytes 64

Re: www.google.com latency/packet loss/very slow thru savvis

2005-12-13 Thread Chris Stone
On Tuesday 13 December 2005 02:46 pm, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ping google.com PING google.com (72.14.207.99): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 72.14.207.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=243 time=447.727 ms 64 bytes from 72.14.207.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=244 time=445.543 ms 64 bytes from 72.14.207.99:

Re: www.google.com latency/packet loss/very slow thru savvis

2005-12-13 Thread Mark Foster
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Chris Stone wrote: On Tuesday 13 December 2005 02:46 pm, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ping google.com PING google.com (72.14.207.99): 56 data bytes 64 bytes from 72.14.207.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=243 time=447.727 ms 64 bytes from 72.14.207.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=244

Re: www.google.com latency/packet loss/very slow thru savvis

2005-12-13 Thread Bill Sehmel
Erik Sundberg wrote: hey is any one seeing a slow google to day... packet loss 22 hops... visual traceroute show that it goes from chicago to los angeles to singapore to italy to amsterdam and then finally to google in sunnyvale ca. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ping google.com PING google.com

Re: www.google.com latency/packet loss/very slow thru savvis

2005-12-13 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 03:46:43PM -0600, Erik Sundberg wrote: hey is any one seeing a slow google to day... packet loss 22 hops... visual traceroute show that it goes from chicago to los angeles to singapore to italy to amsterdam and then finally to google in sunnyvale ca.

Re: www.google.com latency/packet loss/very slow thru savvis

2005-12-13 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 05:02:42PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: You'd be better off with an AS-PATH, but just follow the chain... Savvis - Singtel - Pakistan Telecom - Seabone - Google. Where I'm from, we call that a routing leak. Doesn't take too much work to guess where either.

Re: www.google.com latency/packet loss/very slow thru savvis

2005-12-13 Thread Christopher L. Morrow
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Oh and FYI it is still going on, though the route just changed 4 mins ago: [BGP/170] 00:04:21, localpref 200 AS path: 7473 17557 17557 17557 17557 5400 15169 I Singtel - Pakistan Telecom - British

Re: www.google.com latency/packet loss/very slow thru savvis

2005-12-13 Thread william(at)elan.net
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: [BGP/170] 00:04:21, localpref 200 AS path: 7473 17557 17557 17557 17557 5400 15169 I Singtel - Pakistan Telecom - British Telecom - Google. AS17557 is leaking its BGP table, and AS7473 is not

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Joe McGuckin
Sean, I think you are skirting the real issue here. Prioritizing traffic in order to provide reliable transport for isochronous services is one thing; Using QoS features to de-prioritize traffic from a competitor or a company who refuses to pay to access your customers is something completely

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread David Barak
--- Joe McGuckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? There are two possible ways of having a tiered system -

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Tony Li
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Christopher L. Morrow
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Marshall Eubanks
I know I would. Regards Marshall On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Tony Li wrote: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? One might argue

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Deepak Jain
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity. the last 2 times this has come up I think there was the suggestion that given other options at

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Stephen Sprunk
Thus spake Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote: What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? One might

Re: Two Tiered Internet

2005-12-13 Thread Christopher L. Morrow
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Thus spake Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] users might switch to alternate access methods. That works as long as there are alternate access methods, and as long as the telecom's don't 'cabal' and all do the same hideously bad thing...