(b) Would that prevent discussion here? ;-)
This is a trick question, right?
--- 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
Now that the networks are converging, how do you provide traditional
levels of reliability to the different services sharing the same
network?
Do you want the picture on the TV to stop because you download a big
file
on your PC? Do you want to be able to make phone calls when your PC is
There are two possible ways of having a tiered system
- one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay,
and the other is to offer a premium service to those
who do pay.
The only way I know of to offer a premium service
on the same network as a non-premium service is
to delay non-premium
This
unobstructed network was pioneered by Sprint on it's zero-CIR
frame relay network and they carried this forward into their
IP network as well. Other companies have carried forward this
architecture as well.
If I understand you correctly I highly doubt this is the case. If every
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:54:43 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
But there is another way. If you provide enough bandwidth
so that your peak traffic levels can travel through the
network without ever being buffered at any of the core
network interfaces, then everybody is a king. If you charge
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:12:31 -0800, Joe McGuckin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
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?
All providers in your
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle
with
the QoS settings on the provider's edge router
interface.
After all, they are paying for the access link.
eeek! I assume you mean tell the customer what
DSCP/whatever settings you honor, and let them
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:41:54 -0800 (PST), David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle
with
the QoS settings on the provider's edge router
interface.
After all, they are paying for the access link.
eeek! I
To me, this seems likely to lead to massive consumer dissatisfaction,
and a disaster of the
magnitude of the recent Sony CD root exploit fiasco.
Typical Pareto distribution models for usage mean that no matter
how popular tier 1 sites are, a substantial part of the user time
will be spent
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Dec 14 04:30:07 2005
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:32:06 +
Subject: [ppml] Fw: : - Re: Proposed Policy: 4-Byte AS Number
Policy Proposal
I'm also not thrilled with 2-byte only and 4-byte only ASN; there's
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception
except you pay, you get priority.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't.
hum... then what am i getting for my monthly 4000+
bills
To let customers decide priorities in your backbone is a bad idea, but I
don't think that's the issue here. Assuming the customer's link to the
network to be the primary bottleneck; there's nothing wrong with giving
customers the ability to prioritise traffic on their link, provided that
That's an example of the lack of plain English in the
proposal. Why don't we just talk about AS numbers greater
than 65535 or AS numbers less than 65536?
Because there is more to it than just that. :)
there is the matter of whether they are represented by 2 bytes, or 4
bytes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception
except you pay, you get priority.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't.
hum... then what am i getting for
On 13-Dec-2005, at 16:28, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
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
Joe Abley wrote:
You also want to check all the registries which are superordinate to
zones your server is authoritative for, and check that any IP addresses
stored in those registries for your nameserver are updated, otherwise
you will experience either immediate or future glue
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second
that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel
not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this
be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be
On 14-Dec-05, at 10:02 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
You also want to check all the registries which are superordinate
to zones your server is authoritative for, and check that any IP
addresses stored in those registries for your nameserver are
updated, otherwise you will experience either
On 14-Dec-2005, at 10:17, Joe Maimon wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
You also want to check all the registries which are superordinate
to zones your server is authoritative for, and check that any IP
addresses stored in those registries for your nameserver are
updated, otherwise you will
Hello;
My experience is that customers won't put a lot of effort into
understanding nuances of what they are
being offered, that they will always complain to the people they are
paying money to, and that if you think that a good use of your
bandwidth with your customers (a business's most
At 05:54 AM 12/14/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are two possible ways of having a tiered system
- one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay,
and the other is to offer a premium service to those
who do pay.
The only way I know of to offer a premium service
on the same
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception
except you pay, you get priority.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users aren't.
hum... then what am i getting for my monthly 4000+
Hi.
I agree with your comments re customers. (residential customers, in
particular)
At risk of being flamed, what I'd propose is that regulators should put
effort into understanding whether the basic service is broken. If it's
not broken then perhaps it is reasonable to allow
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 11:39:51AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 04:59:44AM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Since the model is based around cash, there is no perception
except you pay, you get priority.
Someone has to pay for the Internet. The users
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 10:02:56AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
On 13-Dec-2005, at 16:28, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
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
On 14-Dec-2005, at 11:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
currently in the middle of such a safe, conservative
transition leads me to believe that there will -NEVER-
be a point w/ there are no queries to the old address.
(he says, 24 months into a transition...)
On 14-Dec-05, at 10:02 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
You also want to check all the registries which are superordinate
to zones your server is authoritative for, and check that any IP
addresses stored in those registries for your nameserver are
updated, otherwise you will experience
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service
for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario
and since congestion scenarios are most common on
end customer links, it makes sense to let the end
customers fiddle with the QoS settings in both
directions on
At 08:41 AM 12/14/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
QoS is for customers, not for network operators!
--Michael Dillon
That is probably the best way I have heard it put before!
Since network bandwidth is a zero-sum game, QoS is simply a method of
handling degraded or congested service in a
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:59:15AM -0800, Bob Snyder wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service
for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario
and since congestion scenarios are most common on
end customer links, it makes sense to let the
Daniel Senie wrote:
Actually, the cable providers have an alternative. Since the cable
network really is broadband in the meaning from before it was
coopted to mean high speed, cable operators are able to utilize many
channels in parallel. If they want their voice traffic to be
unimpeded,
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Do you really think the cablecos will be significantly less evil than the
telcos? I'm not as optimistic about the result of a legislated duopoly.
So far they seem to be not quite so evil (minus their port blocking for
some services, and
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 10:29:52AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
There are registries that store A records for nameservers that aren't
subordinate to the zones they publish. While it'd be probably
And for those that don't...some administrators (your predecessor
hostmaster? the admin of zones you
assuming you've got the old box and the new one running
concurrently, you could run tcpdump on the old box with a
filter to only catch dns requests to the old ip. Let it run
for 24-48 hours and you could see who/what was still
querying the old ip.
-e
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
From: Ejay Hire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Eric Kagan' [EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Gothcas of changing the IP Address of an Authoritative DNS Server
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:15:42 -0600
assuming you've got the old box and the new one running
concurrently, you could run
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
To me, this seems likely to lead to massive consumer dissatisfaction, and a
disaster of the
magnitude of the recent Sony CD root exploit fiasco.
Typical Pareto distribution models for usage mean that no matter
how popular tier 1 sites are, a
but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that
No, my claim is that users are not paying the full boat.
Almost all the telecoms are still in trouble in one way or
another, interest expense, billions $$ in bonds coming due
~2008, etc. They aren't making enough money. That may be a
- Original Message Follows -
From: Schliesser, Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Per Heldal [EMAIL PROTECTED], NANOG nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Two Tiered Internet
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:40:58 -0600
Hi.
I agree with your comments re customers.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that
No, my claim is that users are not paying the full boat. Almost all
the telecoms are still in trouble in one way or another, interest
expense, billions $$ in bonds coming due ~2008, etc.
--On December 13, 2005 8:17:43 PM -0800 Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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.
*IF* they have a
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that
i am not paying for it. my bills indicate that i -am-
paying for it. (regardless of priority... after all, the
Internet is best-effort ... and w/ QoS, i don't get that
Does anyone know if Level3 supports a BGP black hole
community from their customers, .e.g., 3356:666 ? I spoke with someone in
their NOC but they lacked clue.
Thanks,
-Erich
The telephone companies are asking for the same ability to sell
multiple
services over the same physical line. Cable companies didn't make
their
Internet service slower when they add more private services, why do
people expect the telephone companies to make their Internet service
worse
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
Because they're telephone companies.
Oh, that's right. I forgot. They're evil.
Because they can't manufacture bandwidth that isn't there. Cable
co's provide broadband with a fraction of the loop capacity. For
telco's to offer premium service, they have
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:50:30PM -0700, Erich Borchert wrote:
Does anyone know if Level3 supports a BGP black hole community from
their customers, .e.g., 3356:666 ? I spoke with someone in their NOC
but they lacked clue.
According to whois -h whois.radb.net AS3356 | grep remarks
...
Their supported communities are available from their
whois; I don't think blackhole is one of them but
they do have one that will allow you to suppress your
announcements to remote peers of your choice if that
would help.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:28:06PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that
i am not paying for it. my bills indicate that i -am-
paying for it. (regardless of priority... after all, the
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to
install
fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in
ATT/SBC
and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum
game
is
I've been trying over and over to figure this one out, but I'm just hitting
the end of my wits. We have a remote office that can only get 768Kbps DSL,
which they've not totally maxed out. So management's solution now is to buy
a second DSL line, but they won't let me buy a dual WAN router (in
Tony Li wrote:
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to
install
fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC
and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is
Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks
at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that.
There are currently a couple of million IPTV users
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:14:46PM -0800, Tony Li wrote:
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to
install
fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in
ATT/SBC
and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they
Marketing. Bah.
- ferg
-- Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is
Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks
at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all
JM Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:45:09 -0500
JM From: Jeff McAdams
JM And, at that, only after extracting regulatory concessions at both the
JM state and federal levels basically giving them their monopoly back to
JM give them incentive to half-*ssed roll out that DSL that is, itself, a
JM mere
You know, I sent an idiotic response to a serious topic,
and I shouldn't have -- it is a serious issue which deserves
a serious response.
Anyone within earshot of The Great State of Texas (tm) should
know that the sickening machinations of the incumbent teclo(s)
and Cable Co.(s), and their
What I'm interested in is how the two service
providers will build a two tiered Internet.
To our experience, current QoS mechanism ( WRR +
multiple_Queue) could not differentiate service
quality when bandwidth is overprivisioned. If there is
congestion, why should I stay with it while there is
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
but do i get the Internet? ... your claim is that
No, my claim is that users are not paying the full boat.
Internet end-users are paying a larger share of the costs of the system
than broadcast radio or TV end-users are paying (which here in the US is
What I'm interested in is how the two service
providers will build a two tiered Internet.
The PSTN is tiered both in architecture and operation.
Switching hiearchies and a seperate SS7 network which
is basically a billing network.
I think the thought is service levels vs. congestion
Martin,
You can 'see' anything you'd like, buy your reality
does not match everyone else's -- my opinion, of course.
QoS is a myth -- it doesn't exist.
What you're obviosuly trying to tell us is that less-than-best-
effort is somehow good? Never sell it.
This vein will come back and bite you
Hey there Fergie:
Martin,
You can 'see' anything you'd like, buy your reality
does not match everyone else's -- my opinion, of course.
QoS is a myth -- it doesn't exist.
What you're obviosuly trying to tell us is that less-than-best-
effort is somehow good? Never sell it.
This
I could see an internet hiearchy where preferred traffic was
switch onto hicap overflow links with controlled congestion and
other traffic, non premium traffic, got a fast busy.
given an internet where the congestion is at the edges, where
there are no alternate paths, i am not sure i
somhow, this esacped into a private thread. i'm pretty
sure that there is a fairly high thermal component to this
thread and not too many photons... so this is it for me
on this thread...
- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
You start with a
Can we build, pay for, and sustain an Internet that never has congestion
or is never busy.
s/never/when there are not multiple serious cuts/
would we build a bank where only some of the customers can get
their money back? we're selling delivery of packets at some
bandwidth. we should
The [renamed] subject says it all.
Current pricing schemes in the the digital connectivity business
these days reflect nothing, and I mean nothing, that has to do
with nothing, and is indicative of nothing.
All wrapped up for your Christmas shopping pleasure in nothingness.
I hoped we all
65 matches
Mail list logo
