Last call for presentations and Draft programme for RIPE 72

[Benno Overeinder]

Colleagues,

A list of currently accepted RIPE 72 presentations is now published at:

https://ripe72.ripe.net/programme/meeting-plan/draft-programme/

There are still few slots remaining for a final RIPE 72 programme and
RIPE Programme Committee will accept new proposals until 15 April 2016.

This is our last call for you to submit your proposals.

You can find the CFP for RIPE 72 below, or at
https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/cfp/, for your proposals for
plenary session presentations, tutorials, workshops, BoFs (Birds of a
Feather sessions) and lightning talks.

Please also note that speakers do not receive any extra reduction or
funding towards the meeting fee at the RIPE Meetings.

Kind regards,

Benno Overeinder
RIPE PC Chair
https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/ripe-meetings/pc


>>><<<


Call for Presentations

A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers,
network operators and other interested parties get together.  Although
the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to meet
and network with others in their field.

RIPE 72 will take place from 23-27 May 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals from
the RIPE community for the plenary sessions, BoFs (Birds of a Feather
sessions), panels, workshops, tutorials and lightning talks at RIPE 72.
See the full descriptions of the different presentation formats,
https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/presentation-formats/.

Proposals for plenary sessions, BoFs, panels, workshops and tutorials
must be submitted for full consideration no later than 15 April 2016.
Proposals submitted after this date will be considered depending
on the remaining available space in the programme.

The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of network
engineering and operations, including but not limited to:

- IPv6 deployment
- Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations
- Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses
- Data centre technologies
- Network and DNS operations
- Internet governance and regulatory practices
- Network and routing security
- Content delivery
- Internet peering and mobile data exchange

Submissions

RIPE Meeting attendees are quite sensitive to keeping presentations
non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly discouraged.
Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful talks focus on
operational experience, research results, or case studies.  For example,
presenters wishing to describe a commercial solution should focus on
the underlying technology and not attempt a product demonstration.

Presenters should indicate how much time they will require. In general,
the time allocated for the different presentation formats is as follows:

- Plenary presentations: 20-25 minutes presentation with
  5-10 minutes discussion
- Tutorials: up to two hours (Monday morning)
- Workshops: one hour (during evening sessions) to two hours
  (Monday morning)
- BoFs: approximately one hour
- Lightning talks: 10 minutes

The following general requirements apply:

- Proposals must be submitted using the meeting submission system,
  https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/.

- Lightning talks should also be submitted using the meeting submission
  system (https://ripe72.ripe.net/submit-topic/submission-form/) and
  can be submitted any time up to and including the meeting week. The
  allocation of lightning talks will be announced on short notice---in
  some cases on the same day but often one day prior to the time slot
  allocated.

- Presenters who propose a panel or BoF are encouraged to include
  speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a
  neutral facilitator.

- All presentation proposals will only be considered by the PC if they
  contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated
  later on). For panels, proposals must contain a clear description, as
  well as the names of invited panellists, presenters and moderators.

- Due to potential technical issues, presenters/panellists should be
  physically present at the RIPE Meeting.

If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions,
please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net.


-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

Re: PlayStation Network blocking an IP

[Ken Chase]

No kidding, just like how every order on newegg of mine will always be cancelled
after the order is placed because of "problems with your order" if I do it
from my DSL provider's ip block.

/kc
--
Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org


On Sat, Apr 02, 2016 at 12:01:08PM +1300, Tony Wicks said:
  >Good luck with that! Sorry, long experience with them tells me that you are 
unlikely to get any help on that one.
  >
  >-Original Message-
  >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Velocity Lists
  >Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2016 11:31 AM
  >To: NANOG list 
  >Subject: PlayStation Network blocking an IP
  >
  >Can someone form Sony's Playstation network give me call or contact me 
offlist.
  >
  >One of our apartment complexes has been reporting errors of PS4s not working 
for a few days then they start working again.
  >
  >PSN Support is telling the users to call us.
  >We have diagnosed it and PSN is blocking the IP of the complex and it has 
nothing to do with us.
  >
  >
  >Velocity Online
  >Rodger Lewis rcle...@velocityonline.net
  >850-205-4638 x201
  >

RE: PlayStation Network blocking an IP

[Tony Wicks]

Good luck with that! Sorry, long experience with them tells me that you are 
unlikely to get any help on that one.

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Velocity Lists
Sent: Saturday, 2 April 2016 11:31 AM
To: NANOG list 
Subject: PlayStation Network blocking an IP

Can someone form Sony's Playstation network give me call or contact me offlist.

One of our apartment complexes has been reporting errors of PS4s not working 
for a few days then they start working again.

PSN Support is telling the users to call us.
We have diagnosed it and PSN is blocking the IP of the complex and it has 
nothing to do with us.


Velocity Online
Rodger Lewis rcle...@velocityonline.net
850-205-4638 x201

PlayStation Network blocking an IP

[Velocity Lists]

Can someone form Sony's Playstation network give me call or contact me
offlist.

One of our apartment complexes has been reporting errors of PS4s not
working for a few days then they start working again.

PSN Support is telling the users to call us.
We have diagnosed it and PSN is blocking the IP of the complex and it has
nothing to do with us.


Velocity Online
Rodger Lewis rcle...@velocityonline.net
850-205-4638 x201

RE: Fri AM AT outage

[James Laszko]

Yes, LAX south is where we were seeing problems.  FIOS routing issues galore, 
even having issues getting some IPSEC tunnels to come to life after 4am.  
Biggest issues we had were the AT MIS and MIS PNT BGP sessions all went 
bye-bye for about 3 hours.


James

-Original Message-
From: Mel Beckman [mailto:m...@beckman.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 14:25
To: James Laszko
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Fri AM AT outage

Was this in SoCal? I had 40% packet loss Friday midnight to 11am on my FIOS 
sites. 

 -mel beckman

Re: Fri AM AT outage

[Mel Beckman]

Was this in SoCal? I had 40% packet loss Friday midnight to 11am on my FIOS 
sites. 

 -mel beckman

> On Apr 1, 2016, at 2:18 PM, James Laszko  wrote:
> 
> I just saw that some of our AT tickets were updated as "Frontier is 
> experiencing an outage in Oxnard, CA"
> 
> 
> James
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay R. Ashworth
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 13:43
> To: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Fri AM AT outage
> 
> I heard speculation from many quarters that this may have been related to the 
> Verizon splashcut to Frontier -- which, regardless of what Frontier was 
> telling us, I was pretty sure would be more than just varying which light 
> switch for a building sign was the one turned on.
> 
> Has anyone heard anything they're allowed to repeat, yet, which confirms or 
> denies?
> 
> On a related[1] topic: I see on Craigs that Frontier is hiring through a sub 
> for transport staff for their new NOC, which I think is going to be located 
> in SPBGFLXA89H; that building has about 3 completely empty floors, and has 
> for over 20 years.  (OK, it did when I toured it in 91; dunno what's there 
> now.  :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> [1]maybe
> 
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

RE: Fri AM AT outage

[James Laszko]

I just saw that some of our AT tickets were updated as "Frontier is 
experiencing an outage in Oxnard, CA"


James

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jay R. Ashworth
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 13:43
To: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Fri AM AT outage

I heard speculation from many quarters that this may have been related to the 
Verizon splashcut to Frontier -- which, regardless of what Frontier was telling 
us, I was pretty sure would be more than just varying which light switch for a 
building sign was the one turned on.

Has anyone heard anything they're allowed to repeat, yet, which confirms or 
denies?

On a related[1] topic: I see on Craigs that Frontier is hiring through a sub 
for transport staff for their new NOC, which I think is going to be located in 
SPBGFLXA89H; that building has about 3 completely empty floors, and has for 
over 20 years.  (OK, it did when I toured it in 91; dunno what's there now.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
[1]maybe

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Fri AM AT outage

[David Hubbard]

Hopefully the job posting includes replacing this guy:



http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/frontier-communications-pledges-smooth-take-over-of-verizon-fios-and-land/2271256


"I would never say we're 100 percent certain it will go perfectly," Mike Flynn, 
Frontier's regional president overseeing operations in Florida and the 
Carolinas. "But we're doing everything we can within our power … from the 
experience we've gleaned from every conversion we have done to make the next 
one better. So I'd just say we're pretty experienced at it."
He said customers may experience brief service interruptions in the early 
morning hours Friday, though the company is not expecting that to affect a 
significant numbers of customers.



Our Tampa office has been offline for nine hours and Frontier support is saying 
not to worry, it should be resolved in the next four days.

David


On 4/1/16, 4:42 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Jay R. Ashworth" 
 wrote:

>I heard speculation from many quarters that this may have been related to
>the Verizon splashcut to Frontier -- which, regardless of what Frontier
>was telling us, I was pretty sure would be more than just varying which light
>switch for a building sign was the one turned on.
>
>Has anyone heard anything they're allowed to repeat, yet, which confirms
>or denies?
>
>On a related[1] topic: I see on Craigs that Frontier is hiring through a sub
>for transport staff for their new NOC, which I think is going to be located
>in SPBGFLXA89H; that building has about 3 completely empty floors, and has 
>for over 20 years.  (OK, it did when I toured it in 91; dunno what's there
>now.  :-)
>
>Cheers,
>-- jra
>[1]maybe
>
>-- 
>Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
>Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
>Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
>St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Fri AM AT outage

[Jay R. Ashworth]

I heard speculation from many quarters that this may have been related to
the Verizon splashcut to Frontier -- which, regardless of what Frontier
was telling us, I was pretty sure would be more than just varying which light
switch for a building sign was the one turned on.

Has anyone heard anything they're allowed to repeat, yet, which confirms
or denies?

On a related[1] topic: I see on Craigs that Frontier is hiring through a sub
for transport staff for their new NOC, which I think is going to be located
in SPBGFLXA89H; that building has about 3 completely empty floors, and has 
for over 20 years.  (OK, it did when I toured it in 91; dunno what's there
now.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
[1]maybe

-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 02 Apr, 2016

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  588557
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  216385
Deaggregation factor:  2.72
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  288091
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 53275
Prefixes per ASN: 11.05
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   36612
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   15734
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:6406
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:178
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.3
Max AS path length visible:  37
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 40285)  34
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:   966
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 358
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  13295
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   10257
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:   40054
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:13
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:379
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2806633732
Equivalent to 167 /8s, 73 /16s and 213 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   75.8
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   75.8
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   98.1
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  192525

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   150775
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   41981
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.59
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  160950
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:65681
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5146
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   31.28
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   1183
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:903
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.5
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 35
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   1966
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  751627332
Equivalent to 44 /8s, 204 /16s and 236 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 87.8

APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:180018
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:89009
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.02
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   185195
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 87864
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:16394

Re: Capacity planning , transit vs last mile

[Blake Hudson]

Jean-Francois Mezei wrote on 4/1/2016 1:38 AM:

My question has to do with how does one determine that theshold where
you start to get more chaotic patterns and need more  capacity per
customer than if you had over 1000 customers ?

My goal is to suggest some standard to prevent gross underprovisioning
by ISPs who win subsidies to deploy in a region.

 From what I am reading, the old standard (contention ratio of 50:1 for
residential service) is no longer valid as a single metric especially
for smaller deployments with higher speeds.
While the formula provided by Baldur may very well be accurate, it 
allows projections on several data points (advertised speed, average per 
customer speed, customer counts, customers online @ peak) which may or 
may not turn out to be accurate or could be fudged to create misleading 
estimates. I think a simpler projection, taking harder numbers into 
account may be easier to implement as a requirement and less likely to 
be gained by someone. I think it would be sufficient to simply specify a 
minimum Mbps bound per customer (aka a committed information rate) for a 
network build. As you and others have stated, typical current use is 
currently ~1-2Mbps per household/customer. If we forecast growth to be 
30% per year, a 10 year build might anticipate using a last mile 
technology capable of providing ~13Mbps CIR [using the compound interest 
formula where A = 1Mbps * (1 + 0.3)^10years ] in 10 years time. This 
projection uses growth, which has historical precedent, and current 
usage, which you indicate is already being measured and reported. 
Something that is less static would be the technology improvements. An 
operator might be able to assume gpon now and 10G-pon in a few years (or 
DOCSIS 3.0 -> 3.1), to meet future requirements.


Regarding your question about how such a formula might scale, especially 
on the small end. I think it's a valid concern. This could be measured 
in today's rural HFC networks or wireless network where it may be common 
to have fewer than 50 customers sharing a 40Mbps-100Mbps access media. I 
think you'll find that at this small a scale, the 1-2Mbps per customer 
number probably still holds true. You obviously won't be able to sell 
1000Mbps service (or even 100Mbps) to these customers, given the access 
media limitations. This could be addressed elsewhere in your 
requirements. For example, if it were required that operators "...offer 
services capable of delivering 100Mbps service to each end user with a 
CIR derived from table A", the operator would be forced to provide a 
100Mbps+ pipe even if it were only serving 10 customers on that pipe 
that see ~ 20Mbps aggregate peak period usage today. That 80Mbps of 
overhead is not wasted, it's intentionally there for your users' future 
needs and to provide burst capacity. A smart operator would probably 
avoid such cases and attempt to aggregate users in ways that minimize 
expense and make the most of the access technology.


--Blake

Re: Capacity planning , transit vs last mile

[Mike Hammett]

"enough spectrum to broadcast 40mbps." 

I'd say you need better equipment. :-) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Jean-Francois Mezei"  
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 1:38:03 AM 
Subject: Re: Capacity planning , transit vs last mile 

On 2016-03-31 19:38, Baldur Norddahl wrote: 
> You will find that total data download per month is unrelated to service 
> speed except for very slow service. 

Yep. Netflix still takes 7mbps even if you are on a 1gbps service. 
However, with families, higher speed allow more family members to be 
active at same time and this could begin to have visible impact (if not 
already). 


Note that a rural coop deployed FTTP for their territory, but only offer 
40mbps max subscription because they can't afford the transit from the 
single incumbent who offers transit in their region. So I assume that 
with under 1000, service speed starts to matter when sizing the transit 
capacity. 


> If you have too few users the pattern becomes chaotic. 

My question has to do with how does one determine that theshold where 
you start to get more chaotic patterns and need more capacity per 
customer than if you had over 1000 customers ? 

My goal is to suggest some standard to prevent gross underprovisioning 
by ISPs who win subsidies to deploy in a region. 

>From what I am reading, the old standard (contention ratio of 50:1 for 
residential service) is no longer valid as a single metric especially 
for smaller deployments with higher speeds. 



For the last mile, GPON is easy as it is essentually 32 homes per GPON 
link. For cable, the CRTC would have its own numbers for number of homes 
per node. (BTW, Australia's NBN V2.0 plans to have 600 homes per node 
since they don't have budget to split nodes). 

But for fixed wireless and satellite, there needs to be some standard to 
provent gross oversubscription. 

Say you have a fixed wirelss tower with enough spectrum to broadcast 
40mbps. How do you calculate how many customers at average speed of 
15mbps can comfortably fit on this antenna ? 

I realise existing ISPs use monthly statistics of 95th percentile to see 
how much capacity is used and whether the link has reached saturation 
and there should be s stop sell or get more spectrum. 

But from a regulatory point of view, in evaluating a bid to serve a 
region, the regulator would need rules to establish whether the bidder 
will be able to serve the population with whatever solution the bidder 
proposes. 

Does the FCC have any such rules in the USA, or are its broadband 
deployment subsidies only based on the ISP marketing speeds that meet 
the FCC's definition of "broadband" ? (and no concern about whether 
those will be delivered or not). 

Re: Capacity planning , transit vs last mile

[Baldur Norddahl]

Hi

40 Mbps is plenty fast that even a family will not be using much more data
with higher speed. So that transit argument is a poor excuse.

A formula could be:

 [max speed sold to customers] * 2 + [number of customers] * [average peak
number]

The number 2 in the above is not well researched but I would expect it to
be in that ballpark.

The [average peak number] is 2 Mbps for our network. Others seem to claim
they get away with only 1 Mbps, but our users are doing 2 Mbps for sure. I
believe this is probably because we have many families. It does matter when
each customer is really a family of 5 compared to one single person.

The formula holds up for both few and large number of users. With few users
the left side of the formula dominates and with many users it is the right
side.

Regards,

Baldur




On 1 April 2016 at 08:38, Jean-Francois Mezei 
wrote:

> On 2016-03-31 19:38, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> > You will find that total data download per month is unrelated to service
> > speed except for very slow service.
>
> Yep. Netflix still takes 7mbps even if you are on a 1gbps service.
> However, with families, higher speed allow more family members to be
> active at same time and this could begin to have visible impact (if not
> already).
>
>
> Note that a rural coop deployed FTTP for their territory, but only offer
> 40mbps max subscription because they can't afford the transit from the
> single incumbent who offers transit in their region. So I assume that
> with under 1000, service speed starts to matter when sizing the transit
> capacity.
>
>
> > If you have too few users the pattern becomes chaotic.
>
> My question has to do with how does one determine that theshold where
> you start to get more chaotic patterns and need more  capacity per
> customer than if you had over 1000 customers ?
>
> My goal is to suggest some standard to prevent gross underprovisioning
> by ISPs who win subsidies to deploy in a region.
>
> From what I am reading, the old standard (contention ratio of 50:1 for
> residential service) is no longer valid as a single metric especially
> for smaller deployments with higher speeds.
>
>
>
> For the last mile, GPON is easy as it is essentually 32 homes per GPON
> link. For cable, the CRTC would have its own numbers for number of homes
> per node. (BTW, Australia's NBN V2.0 plans to have 600 homes per node
> since they don't have budget to split nodes).
>
> But for fixed wireless and satellite, there needs to be some standard to
> provent gross oversubscription.
>
> Say you have a fixed wirelss tower with enough spectrum to broadcast
> 40mbps. How do you calculate how many customers at average speed of
> 15mbps can comfortably fit on this antenna ?
>
> I realise existing ISPs use monthly statistics of 95th percentile to see
> how much capacity is used and whether the link has reached saturation
> and there should be s stop sell or get more spectrum.
>
> But from a regulatory point of view, in evaluating a bid to serve a
> region, the regulator would need rules to establish whether the bidder
> will be able to serve the population with whatever solution the bidder
> proposes.
>
> Does the FCC have any such rules in the USA, or are its broadband
> deployment subsidies only based on the ISP marketing speeds that meet
> the FCC's  definition of "broadband" ? (and no concern about whether
> those will be delivered or not).
>
>
>
>

Re: Capacity planning , transit vs last mile

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2016-03-31 19:38, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> You will find that total data download per month is unrelated to service
> speed except for very slow service.

Yep. Netflix still takes 7mbps even if you are on a 1gbps service.
However, with families, higher speed allow more family members to be
active at same time and this could begin to have visible impact (if not
already).


Note that a rural coop deployed FTTP for their territory, but only offer
40mbps max subscription because they can't afford the transit from the
single incumbent who offers transit in their region. So I assume that
with under 1000, service speed starts to matter when sizing the transit
capacity.


> If you have too few users the pattern becomes chaotic.

My question has to do with how does one determine that theshold where
you start to get more chaotic patterns and need more  capacity per
customer than if you had over 1000 customers ?

My goal is to suggest some standard to prevent gross underprovisioning
by ISPs who win subsidies to deploy in a region.

>From what I am reading, the old standard (contention ratio of 50:1 for
residential service) is no longer valid as a single metric especially
for smaller deployments with higher speeds.



For the last mile, GPON is easy as it is essentually 32 homes per GPON
link. For cable, the CRTC would have its own numbers for number of homes
per node. (BTW, Australia's NBN V2.0 plans to have 600 homes per node
since they don't have budget to split nodes).

But for fixed wireless and satellite, there needs to be some standard to
provent gross oversubscription.

Say you have a fixed wirelss tower with enough spectrum to broadcast
40mbps. How do you calculate how many customers at average speed of
15mbps can comfortably fit on this antenna ?

I realise existing ISPs use monthly statistics of 95th percentile to see
how much capacity is used and whether the link has reached saturation
and there should be s stop sell or get more spectrum.

But from a regulatory point of view, in evaluating a bid to serve a
region, the regulator would need rules to establish whether the bidder
will be able to serve the population with whatever solution the bidder
proposes.

Does the FCC have any such rules in the USA, or are its broadband
deployment subsidies only based on the ISP marketing speeds that meet
the FCC's  definition of "broadband" ? (and no concern about whether
those will be delivered or not).