Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers ' http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me. and having one notation seems reasonable. what am i missing? It breaks any applications which recognize IP address-like objects by seeing a dot in an otherwise numeric token. For the purposes of parsing a string into internal representation, an application can treat IP addresses, netmasks and inverse masks identically. We all know that the Internet is awash in homegrown scripts written in PERL or TCL or bash or Ruby or Python. It is likely that many authors have, in the past 15 years, written scripts which contain regular expressions like [0123456789.]* to match a string containing only digits and the period. Those scripts will be confused by this AS number notation. Also, any script which recognizes IP address-like objects when it hits the first period in a numeric string. The real question is what does the notation 1.0 add that the notation 65536 does not provide? All I can see is that it adds the risk of broken scripts and the confusion of AS numbers that look like decimal numbers. If the IETF had really wanted to create a universal notation then they should have recommended that AS numbers be represented in the form AS65536 which is completely unambiguous. When IP addresses were created, it was important to indicate the boundaries between the network number and the host address. Originally, the periods represented this boundary for the three classes of IP address, class A, class B and class C. Long ago, we removed this classfulness attribute, but the notation remains because lots of applications expect this notation. So why on earth are we changing AS number notation today? --Michael Dillon
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
At 10:44 10/10/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers ' http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me. and having one notation seems reasonable. what am i missing? It breaks any applications which recognize IP address-like objects by seeing a dot in an otherwise numeric token. Well, it will break an applications that considers everything consisting of numbers and dots to be an IP address/netmask/inverse mask. I don't think many applications do this, as they will then treat the typo 193.0.1. as an IP address. It won't break applications that check if there are exactly 4 numbers in the 0-255 range and 3 dots. The alternative notation (x:y) is much worse in this respect. x:y is something (a community string). x.y is not. The real question is what does the notation 1.0 add that the notation 65536 does not provide? It is (for me, and I guess most other humans) much easier to read and remember, just as 193.0.1.49 is easier to read and remember than 3238002993. It also reflects that on the wire there are two 16 bit numbers, rather than 1 32-bit number. More important: I think it is a mistake to assume that using AS65536 will NOT break things: 1. If you are a 16-bit AS speaker (ASN16), then AS65536 is not just the next one in the line, it is an AS that will have to be treated differently. The code has to recognize it and replace it by the transistion mechanism AS. 2. Just as people having used the regexps that you mentioned, I'm also certain that people have used unsigned short int's or signed long int's in their code. In short, like it or not, you will have to check and update your tools anyway. If the IETF had really wanted The IETF process is open and you can still comment on the issue. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- 1160438400 + 381600 = 116082.
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
Using '.' as a delimiter will be somewhat annoying when used in regular expressions and likely to induce errors. Would '-' be a better choice? somehow we seem to have survived similar issues in IP quad representation. randy
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
Well, it will break an applications that considers everything consisting of numbers and dots to be an IP address/netmask/inverse mask. I don't think many applications do this, as they will then treat the typo 193.0.1. as an IP address. An application using [0123456789.]* will not break when it sees the above typo. 193.0.1. *IS* an IP address-like object and any existing code will likely report it as mistyped IP address or mask. It won't break applications that check if there are exactly 4 numbers in the 0-255 range and 3 dots. True, however my point is that I do not believe that all existing applications do this. Therefore, changing their input in an unexpected way will break them. The real question is what does the notation 1.0 add that the notation 65536 does not provide? It is (for me, and I guess most other humans) much easier to read and remember, just as 193.0.1.49 is easier to read and remember than 3238002993. It also reflects that on the wire there are two 16 bit numbers, rather than 1 32-bit number. In my experience, ISPs do not transmit numbers by phone calls and paper documents. They use emails and web pages which allow cut'n'paste to avoid all transcription errors. And I know of no earthly reason why a general written representation needs to represent the format of bits on the wire. How many people know or care whether their computer is bid-endian or little endian? 1. If you are a 16-bit AS speaker (ASN16), then AS65536 is not just the next one in the line, it is an AS that will have to be treated differently. The code has to recognize it and replace it by the transistion mechanism AS. And how is a special notation superior to if asnum 65535 then process_big_as else process_little_as In any case, people wishing to treat big asnums differently will need to write new code so the dot notation provides them zero benefit. 2. Just as people having used the regexps that you mentioned, I'm also certain that people have used unsigned short int's or signed long int's in their code. Typically ISPs are using apps written in higher level languages which are more likely to treat integers as 32-bit signed quantities. In any case, this is a length issue, not an issue of notation. In short, like it or not, you will have to check and update your tools anyway. My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to do such checking by simply testing it with large as numbers, not by inspecting the code. The dot notation requires that somebody goes in and updates/fixes all these old tools. --Michael Dillon
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
At 13:34 10/10/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to do such checking by simply testing it with large as numbers, not by inspecting the code. The dot notation requires that somebody goes in and updates/fixes all these old tools. I don't agree with you but this is a valid argument. I suggest you make it to the IESG before they decide. Henk -- Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746 -- 1160438400 + 381600 = 116082.
RE: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
somehow we seem to have survived similar issues in IP quad representation. true but we don't typically user them in regex expressions as much (at least I haven't). Its more masks and inverted masks... Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking - Team Hong Nor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AW: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to do such checking by simply testing it with large as numbers, not by inspecting the code. The dot notation requires that somebody goes in and updates/fixes all these old tools. I don't agree with you but this is a valid argument. I suggest you make it to the IESG before they decide. Henk Yes, I agree too. Please make sure to introduce your proposal within time. If you need some (virtual) signatures of supporters just ask on the list :-) Gunther
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
Henk Uijterwaal wrote:
At 13:34 10/10/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation
for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be
checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone
who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to
do such checking by simply testing it with large as numbers,
not by inspecting the code. The dot notation requires that
somebody goes in and updates/fixes all these old tools.
I don't agree with you but this is a valid argument. I suggest you
make it to the IESG before they decide.
Henk
RFC2622 uses the following Flex macro for AS numbers --
INT[[:digit:]]+
ASNOAS{INT}
Note that this does not limit the length of the AS number. While
it's no guarantee that an RPSL tool wouldn't break with longer AS
numbers, it would seem less likely than with the . notation.
-Larry Blunk
Merit
Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
.. because they provide internet over fiber optic cables, which work by sending pulses of light down the cable to push packets .. http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/10/stories/2006101012450400.htm So they get slapped with tax + penalties of INR 241.8 million. Broadband providers accused of tax evasion Special Correspondent Commercial Tax Department serves notice on Airtel # Firms accused of evading tax on sale of `light energy' # Loss to State exchequer estimated at Rs. 1,200 crore Bangalore: The Commercial Tax Department has served a notice on Airtel, owned by Bharti Televentures Ltd., seeking payment of Rs. 24.18 crore as tax, interest and penalty for the sale of `light energy' to its customers for providing broadband through optical fibre cables (OFC). The department has been investigating alleged tax evasion by OFC broadband providers, both in the public and private sectors, for selling light energy to customers. While the assessment on Airtel was completed and a notice issued to it for alleged tax evasion during the year 2005-06, no assessment has been concluded on other OFC broadband providers, A.K. Chitaguppi, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, said. Other OFC broadband providers facing tax evasion charges are public sector BSNL and private sector VSNL, Reliance, Tata Teleservices and Sify. The Commercial Tax Department has estimated a loss of Rs. 1,200 crore to the State exchequer in this regard since OFC broadband providers have been operating in the State for several years. Mr. Chitaguppi said that OFC operates on light energy, which is artificially created by the OFC providers and sold to customers for the purpose of data transmission and information, on the OFC broadband line. Without such energy, data or information cannot be transmitted. Whoever sells light energy is liable to pay VAT as it comes under the category of goods, and hence its sale constitutes taxable turnover attracting VAT at 12.5 per cent, he said. Bharti Televentures had approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the demand notice, but failed to get a stay when the case was heard by Justice Shantanu Goudar on September 1. The judge rejected Bharti's plea seeking issue of an injunction against any initiatives from the Commercial Tax Department on the recovery of the tax. Bharti Televentures had contended in the High Court that re-assessment orders passed by State tax officials and the issue of demand notice was not valid as the disputed activity fell under the provision of service tax levied by the Union Government and did not attract VAT. The High Court is expected to take up the case for hearing again in the next few days. `Business venture' The Commercial Tax Department has argued that the OFC broadband operators are running a business venture after investing thousands of crores to put in place a state-of-the-art set-up to artificially generate light energy and supply it to its customers for their data transmission work. The characteristics of the light energy constitute a moveable property, which has to be categorised as `goods' as per the norms laid down by the Supreme Court. In the process of data transmission, other than light energy, no other elements are involved and the customers are paying for the same. This proves that light energy constitutes goods, which is liable for levy of tax. Therefore, the State has every legal competence and jurisdiction to tax it, the department has contended. It has taken serious note of the non-payment of taxes by the broadband service providers. Reporting a turnover and then claiming exemption is one thing. But some of the OFC operators don't even report their turnovers, Mr. Chitaguppi alleged.
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
At 9:44 +0100 10/10/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It breaks any applications which recognize IP address-like objects by seeing a dot in an otherwise numeric token. I can't believe grown engineers are afraid of a dot. We all know that the Internet is awash in homegrown scripts written in PERL or TCL or bash or Ruby or Python. It is likely I find that more of a reason to do a change than to leave well enough alone. What's gonna happen when all of the current generation (the writers of the scripts) retire and close the door on their careers? How will the Internet live on? Shouldn't a technical beast be able to thrive on technical changes? But that question isn't germane to the issue at hand. The real question is what does the notation 1.0 add that the notation 65536 does not provide? Fair enough - my answer is it provides the same as the dotted quad for IP, it makes it easier for human to human conveyance. It also makes the transition from 2 byte to 4 byte more obvious in the interim. If the IETF had really wanted to create a universal notation The IETF really doesn't want to create anything. The IETF is just a forum where folks can gather to discuss an issue like this. (Pardon my second non-germane comment on this thread.) When IP addresses were created, it was important to indicate the boundaries between the network number and the host address. Originally, the periods represented this boundary for the three classes of IP address, class A, class B and class C. Long ago, we removed this classfulness attribute, but the notation remains because lots of applications expect this notation. So why on earth are we changing AS number notation today? For the same reason - to distinguish the boundaries between what the old engineers know from what the future young engineers will take for granted. The dot would outlast the old engineers just as the dotted quad persists into the CIDR age. Why on earth? Because there aren't [m]any IP addresses on the moon. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Edward Lewis+1-571-434-5468 NeuStar Secrets of Success #107: Why arrive at 7am for the good parking space? Come in at 11am while the early birds drive out to lunch.
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
Is it April 1st already? :-) - ferg -- Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .. because they provide internet over fiber optic cables, which work by sending pulses of light down the cable to push packets .. http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/10/stories/2006101012450400.htm So they get slapped with tax + penalties of INR 241.8 million. [snip] -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
In the process of data transmission, other than light energy, no other elements are involved and the customers are paying for the same. This proves that light energy constitutes goods, which is liable for levy of tax. Therefore, the State has every legal competence and jurisdiction to tax it, the department has contended. Sounds reasonable to me. Since the sale of energy is usually measured in kilowatt-hours, how many kwh of energy is transmitted across the average optical fibre before it reaches the powereda mplifier in the destination switch/router? I'd like to see some hard numbers on this. The light shining down optical fibres is laser light. There exist medical devices which are powered by laser light shining through the tissues. There are also some types of satellite devices which can receive power from ground-based laser beams. The crux of this issue is the actual measurement of power transmitted which will turn out to be very small. --Michael Dillon
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
I can't believe grown engineers are afraid of a dot. they are not. but they have enough free time on their hands to endlessly discuss a dot. randy
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
On Tue Oct 10, 2006 at 02:40:25PM +, Fergie wrote: Is it April 1st already? :-) Their reasoning is certainly barmy, but some dark-fibre customers in the UK get charged business property taxes on the fibre. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director|* Domain Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
On 10/10/06, Fergie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it April 1st already? :-) - ferg Sadly, I dont think taxmen ever had a sense of humor
ARIN to allocate from 96/8,97/8,98/8,99/8
Hello- This announcement is being sent to multiple lists. Apologies for any duplicates. ARIN was issued the IPv4 address blocks 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, and 99/8 by the IANA on Oct. 3, 2006. ARIN will begin issuing /20 and shorter prefixes from these blocks in the near future in accordance with ARIN's minimum allocation policy. Network operators may wish to adjust any filters in place accordingly. For informational purposes, a list of ARIN's currently administered IP blocks can be found at: http://www.arin.net/reference/ip_blocks.html Regards, Leslie Nobile Director, Registration Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) __
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
Sounds reasonable to me. Since the sale of energy is usually measured in kilowatt-hours, how many kwh of energy is transmitted across the average optical fibre before it reaches the powereda mplifier in the destination switch/router? Also, remember, it's _net_ energy delivered which matters... I'm sure the customer is delivering light back toward the ISP as well. -Bill
RE: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
But they clearly have too much time on their hands. Whodathunkit? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:51 AM To: Fergie Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy On 10/10/06, Fergie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it April 1st already? :-) - ferg Sadly, I dont think taxmen ever had a sense of humor
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
On 2006-10-10 09:41:37, Edward Lewis wrote: I can't believe grown engineers are afraid of a dot. People have been burned in the past, and this leads them to exaggerate the cost. But even if the cost is not as large as they fear, it is not zero. If you are in favor of a new notation because you think it will save work overall by reducing confusion, or because you prefer it aesthetically, or because you want change for the sake of change in order to flush out old tools, then you should write up your arguments and get them included in the document. It would be much more efficient to explain the benefits once in the RFC, rather than a thousand times whenever someone complains that they don't like it. Whatever the benefits are, it's apparent from the thread here that many operators are not convinced, and that they have concerns that may not have been considered. Although this subject is relatively on-topic for NANOG, talking about it here is not going to have any effect on the draft. If you feel strongly about it, you should join the IDR or IESG lists. -- Shields.
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
Nothing new, we had a form of this long ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax Charging per fibre/mile is much the same brandon
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .. Sounds reasonable to me. Since the sale of energy is usually measured in kilowatt-hours, how many kwh of energy is transmitted across the average optical fibre before it reaches the powereda mplifier in the destination switch/router? I'd like to see some hard numbers on this. The light shining down optical fibres is laser light. There exist medical devices which are powered by laser light shining through the tissues. There are also some types of satellite devices which can receive power from ground-based laser beams. The crux of this issue is the actual measurement of power transmitted which will turn out to be very small. --Michael Dillon A Cisco ZX GBIC produces a max of 4.77 dBm (or less than 4mw). 4mw corresponds to 35 watt hours in one year. However, since the customer must beam back light as part of the exchange then you must track the number of pulses in both directions and determine the difference. Some days the customer gets more energy and some days it doesn't. That should affect the tax.
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
On Oct 10, 2006, at 4:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, it will break an applications that considers everything consisting of numbers and dots to be an IP address/netmask/inverse mask. I don't think many applications do this, as they will then treat the typo 193.0.1. as an IP address. An application using [0123456789.]* will not break when it sees the above typo. 193.0.1. *IS* an IP address-like object and any existing code will likely report it as mistyped IP address or mask. Actually, most code will parse it as equivalant of 193.0.0.1. Most of the IP address parsers I have encountered will do zero insertion in the middle, such that 10.253 is parsed the same as 10.0.0.253, 10.3.24 is parsed as 10.0.3.24, 192.159.8 is parsed as 192.159.0.8, etc. I'm not saying I think this is necessarily good, but, it is the behavior observed. The real question is what does the notation 1.0 add that the notation 65536 does not provide? It is (for me, and I guess most other humans) much easier to read and remember, just as 193.0.1.49 is easier to read and remember than 3238002993. It also reflects that on the wire there are two 16 bit numbers, rather than 1 32-bit number. In my experience, ISPs do not transmit numbers by phone calls and paper documents. They use emails and web pages which allow cut'n'paste to avoid all transcription errors. And I know of no earthly reason why a general written representation needs to represent the format of bits on the wire. How many people know or care whether their computer is bid-endian or little endian? Your experience differs from mine. There are lots of situations where ASNs are discussed on telephone calls and/or transcribed to/from yellow stickies, etc. As to matching bits on the wire, no, it's not necessary, but, it is a convenient side-effect. 1. If you are a 16-bit AS speaker (ASN16), then AS65536 is not just the next one in the line, it is an AS that will have to be treated differently. The code has to recognize it and replace it by the transistion mechanism AS. And how is a special notation superior to if asnum 65535 then process_big_as else process_little_as In any case, people wishing to treat big asnums differently will need to write new code so the dot notation provides them zero benefit. The dot notation is an improvement in human readability. It offers no benefit to machines as they don't care as long as they have a good parser for whatever notation is chosen. The notation is for the human interface. My point is that if we do NOT introduce a special notation for ASnums greater than 65536, then tools only need to be checked, not updated. If your tool was written by someone who left the company 7 years ago then you might want to do such checking by simply testing it with large as numbers, not by inspecting the code. The dot notation requires that somebody goes in and updates/fixes all these old tools. So will the colon notation for IPv6 addresses. Owen PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
Reasonable? I think you mean justifiable. On 10/10/06, Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds reasonable to me. Since the sale of energy is usually measured in kilowatt-hours, how many kwh of energy is transmitted across the average optical fibre before it reaches the powereda mplifier in the destination switch/router? Also, remember, it's _net_ energy delivered which matters... I'm sure the customer is delivering light back toward the ISP as well. -Bill
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
Notice the date: October 10. That is the Indian equivalent of our April 1. Joe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 10/10/2006 10:28:13 AM: .. because they provide internet over fiber optic cables, which workby sending pulses of light down the cable to push packets .. http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/10/stories/2006101012450400.htm So they get slapped with tax + penalties of INR 241.8 million. Broadband providers accused of tax evasion Special Correspondent Commercial Tax Department serves notice on Airtel # Firms accused of evading tax on sale of `light energy' # Loss to State exchequer estimated at Rs. 1,200 crore Bangalore: The Commercial Tax Department has served a notice on Airtel, owned by Bharti Televentures Ltd., seeking payment of Rs. 24.18 crore as tax, interest and penalty for the sale of `light energy' to its customers for providing broadband through optical fibre cables (OFC). The department has been investigating alleged tax evasion by OFC broadband providers, both in the public and private sectors, for selling lightenergy to customers. While the assessment on Airtel was completed and a notice issued to it for alleged tax evasion during the year 2005-06, no assessment has been concluded on other OFC broadband providers, A.K. Chitaguppi, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, said. Other OFC broadband providers facing tax evasion charges are public sector BSNL and private sector VSNL, Reliance, Tata Teleservices and Sify. The Commercial Tax Department has estimated a loss of Rs. 1,200 crore to the State exchequer in this regard since OFC broadband providers have been operating in the State for several years. Mr. Chitaguppi said that OFC operates on light energy, which is artificially created by the OFC providers and sold to customers for the purpose of data transmission and information, on the OFC broadband line. Without such energy, data or information cannot be transmitted. Whoever sells light energy is liable to pay VAT as it comes under the category of goods, and hence its sale constitutes taxable turnover attracting VAT at 12.5 per cent, he said. Bharti Televentures had approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the demand notice, but failed to get a stay when the case was heard by Justice Shantanu Goudar on September 1. The judge rejected Bharti's plea seeking issue of an injunction against any initiatives from the Commercial Tax Department on the recovery of the tax. Bharti Televentures had contended in the High Court that re-assessment orders passed by State tax officials and the issue of demand notice was not valid as the disputed activity fell under the provision of service tax levied by the Union Government and did not attract VAT. The High Court is expectedto take up the case for hearing again in the next few days. `Business venture' The Commercial Tax Department has argued that the OFC broadband operators are running a business venture after investing thousands of crores to put in place a state-of-the-art set-up to artificially generate light energy and supply it to its customers for their data transmission work. The characteristics of the light energy constitute a moveable property, which has to be categorised as `goods' as per the norms laid down by the Supreme Court. In the process of data transmission, other than light energy, no other elements are involved and the customers are paying for the same. This proves that light energy constitutes goods, which is liable for levy of tax. Therefore, the State has every legal competence and jurisdiction to tax it, the department has contended. It has taken serious note of the non-payment of taxes by the broadband service providers. Reporting a turnover and then claiming exemption is one thing. But some of the OFC operators don't even report their turnovers, Mr. Chitaguppi alleged.
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
On Oct 10, 2006, at 8:08 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: Sounds reasonable to me. Since the sale of energy is usually measured in kilowatt-hours, how many kwh of energy is transmitted across the average optical fibre before it reaches the powereda mplifier in the destination switch/router? Also, remember, it's _net_ energy delivered which matters... I'm sure the customer is delivering light back toward the ISP as well. -Bill From my reading of the article, it appears that they are attempting to tax at 12.5 percent, the ISPs entire service revenue because that revenue is derived from the delivery of light energy, thus making the IP service actually a utility product. It looks like the tax department is arguing that what is currently being billed/taxed as a service is actually a product and such product should be subject to VAT. It would be akin to California adding 7.75% to my ISP bill for sales tax. Owen PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
Well there's of course back taxes charged for a period of ~ 3 years or more, plus interest and late payment penalties on those back taxes On 10/10/06, Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A Cisco ZX GBIC produces a max of 4.77 dBm (or less than 4mw). 4mw corresponds to 35 watt hours in one year. However, since the customer must beam back light as part of the exchange then you must track the number of pulses in both directions and determine the difference. Some days the customer gets more energy and some days it doesn't. That should affect the tax. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for generating light energy
A rather humorous article from a rhetorical perspective. The reporter emphasizes the innocence of generating light while ignoring its commercial aspects. Those light pulses are very valuable to recipients. This tax seems to parallel the U.S. Federal Excise Tax on photons and electrons (i.e., telephone service). I don't see anything unusual here other than a weak argument against taxing authority. If you want to argue against the concept of taxation, be my guest. But let's not obfuscate the real issue here. Tax evasion often results in assessment of hugh penalties. Just ask Spiro Agnew or Al Capone. This is news? matthew black california state university, long beach On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:58:13 +0530 Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: .. because they provide internet over fiber optic cables, which work by sending pulses of light down the cable to push packets .. http://www.hindu.com/2006/10/10/stories/2006101012450400.htm So they get slapped with tax + penalties of INR 241.8 million. Broadband providers accused of tax evasion Special Correspondent Commercial Tax Department serves notice on Airtel # Firms accused of evading tax on sale of `light energy' # Loss to State exchequer estimated at Rs. 1,200 crore Bangalore: The Commercial Tax Department has served a notice on Airtel, owned by Bharti Televentures Ltd., seeking payment of Rs. 24.18 crore as tax, interest and penalty for the sale of `light energy' to its customers for providing broadband through optical fibre cables (OFC). The department has been investigating alleged tax evasion by OFC broadband providers, both in the public and private sectors, for selling light energy to customers. While the assessment on Airtel was completed and a notice issued to it for alleged tax evasion during the year 2005-06, no assessment has been concluded on other OFC broadband providers, A.K. Chitaguppi, Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, said. Other OFC broadband providers facing tax evasion charges are public sector BSNL and private sector VSNL, Reliance, Tata Teleservices and Sify. The Commercial Tax Department has estimated a loss of Rs. 1,200 crore to the State exchequer in this regard since OFC broadband providers have been operating in the State for several years. Mr. Chitaguppi said that OFC operates on light energy, which is artificially created by the OFC providers and sold to customers for the purpose of data transmission and information, on the OFC broadband line. Without such energy, data or information cannot be transmitted. Whoever sells light energy is liable to pay VAT as it comes under the category of goods, and hence its sale constitutes taxable turnover attracting VAT at 12.5 per cent, he said. Bharti Televentures had approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the demand notice, but failed to get a stay when the case was heard by Justice Shantanu Goudar on September 1. The judge rejected Bharti's plea seeking issue of an injunction against any initiatives from the Commercial Tax Department on the recovery of the tax. Bharti Televentures had contended in the High Court that re-assessment orders passed by State tax officials and the issue of demand notice was not valid as the disputed activity fell under the provision of service tax levied by the Union Government and did not attract VAT. The High Court is expected to take up the case for hearing again in the next few days. `Business venture' The Commercial Tax Department has argued that the OFC broadband operators are running a business venture after investing thousands of crores to put in place a state-of-the-art set-up to artificially generate light energy and supply it to its customers for their data transmission work. The characteristics of the light energy constitute a moveable property, which has to be categorised as `goods' as per the norms laid down by the Supreme Court. In the process of data transmission, other than light energy, no other elements are involved and the customers are paying for the same. This proves that light energy constitutes goods, which is liable for levy of tax. Therefore, the State has every legal competence and jurisdiction to tax it, the department has contended. It has taken serious note of the non-payment of taxes by the broadband service providers. Reporting a turnover and then claiming exemption is one thing. But some of the OFC operators don't even report their turnovers, Mr. Chitaguppi alleged.
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 01:59:22AM -0500, Randy Bush wrote: somehow we seem to have survived similar issues in IP quad representation. Or domain names. I'm concerned by the kind of discussion I'm seeing here. RFC's are not law, and if your router vendor adopts this informational document in such a way that it breaks your scripts then that's an issue to take up with your router vendor(s). I don't see why there's any reason it can't be made so (excuse me for using what little Cisco configuration language I can remember): o 'conf t' accepts: router bgp 255.255.255.254 neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 255.255.255.255 o 'wr mem/term' writes out: router bgp 4294967294 # 255.255.255.254 neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 4294967295 # 255.255.255.255 or even: # BGP 255.255.255.254 router bgp 4294967294 # EZ-ASN: 255.255.255.255 neighbor 10.0.0.1 remote-as 4294967295 One or both of which probably won't break anyone's scripts. The point is that this is a configuration language versioning issue, which isn't something I think of the IETF having either a lot of interest or ability to define. As Shields has indicated, email the IETF mailing lists if you must. I'm in favor of people sending mail to lists to which I do not subscribe. But it's just /weird/ to ask the IETF to have this kind of role...one it has never had to my memory, and seeks constantly not to fulfill. -- ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area, covering topics from DNS to DDNS DHCP. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- David W. HankinsIf you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again. Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgpBgptt6Z5i1.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Kevin Loch wrote: Randy Bush wrote: - 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers ' draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt as an Informational RFC and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me. and having one notation seems reasonable. what am i missing? Using '.' as a delimiter will be somewhat annoying when used in regular expressions and likely to induce errors. Would '-' be a better choice? No. We already use . for number of ip resources so this is good. I suspect new tools config systems will also accept full 32bit number as well (just like its sometimes possible with ip addresses) which will give you way out if you do not like . in ASN. And regular ASNs 65k will work without 0. in this way as well. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Broadband ISPs taxed for 'generating light energy'
Perhaps five or six years ago, Lucent was experimenting with a fiber to the home application that took the received optical signal and passed it through a splitter on the customer's premises. One half of the received signal went to the optical network element's receive circuitry, and the other half to was channeled to support remote diagnostics, loopbacks and a return path via a MEMS-type mirror assembly. Speculation even existed, at the time, suggesting the use of a separate wavelength for powering purposes, only, thereby solving the lifeline dilemma. More recently I've come across this release from JDSU, below, which tempers what even I thought was a bizarre assertion on the part of the Bangalore government: From: http://www.globalexecutiveforum.net/Photonics.htm --snip: JDSU claims O-to-E conversion efficiency record JDSU announced that its Photonic Power Business Unit has achieved a world record in the conversion efficiency of laser light into electrical power. JDSU's 3 volt and 5 volt gallium arsenide (GaAs) Photovoltaic Power Converter (PPC) has achieved optical-to-electrical conversion efficiency greater than 50%. This breakthrough further enables the use of fiber optics to replace copper for power delivery where isolation from the surrounding environment is essential. Photonic Power is especially beneficial for cost-effectively driving electronic devices operating in high-voltage, RF/EMI and magnetic fields where traditional copper options are more complex or impractical. An efficiency of 50% pushes the boundaries of the maximum theoretical limit for photovoltaic power conversion. This improvement enables more power-hungry electronics such as transducers, transceivers and sensors to be powered over fiber. The higher power efficiency also permits remote electronics to be powered by fiber over longer distances such as tower-mounted installations for cellular and digital TV relay stations. Other applications are numerous including underground exploration and medical applications where the isolated power allows the operation of devices inside strong magnetic fields such as MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). With this breakthrough conversion efficiency, JDSU is better positioned to deliver solutions to the medical, industrial sensor, and wireless communications industries, said David Gudmundson, vice president of corporate development for JDSU. We believe that the delivery of power over fiber can provide strategic and competitive advantages to a variety of applications that require isolated power and are looking for copper wire alternatives. end snip-- Practical? Who knows. Off topic? Youbetcha. I wouldn't have even brought this up except to add some balance to what was already an OT and out of control thread ;) Frank A. Coluccio DTI Consulting Inc. 212-587-8150 Office 347-526-6788 Mobile On Tue Oct 10 13:30 , Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law sent: Feh. Any government with real tax mojo will tax both of them on the gross, not the net. This isn't the milquetoast VAT, you know. On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Roy wrote: However, since the customer must beam back light as part of the exchange then you must track the number of pulses in both directions and determine the difference. Some days the customer gets more energy and some days it doesn't. That should affect the tax. (OBSerious: I bet it's not true.) -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm --It's warm here.
XO outages?
Anyone know what's going on with XO? Seem to be having some big outage in the south east for phone and data; traces to equipment in Tampa stop at Virginia. Their customer support lines are as useless as usual with their 'unusually long hold times' which seem to be quite predictable at 60 minutes at a minimum every time I have ever called them. David
RE: XO outages?
Anyone know what's going on with XO? Seem to be having some big outage in the south east for phone and data; traces to equipment in Tampa stop at Virginia. Their customer support lines are as useless as usual with their 'unusually long hold times' which seem to be quite predictable at 60 minutes at a minimum every time I have ever called them. David Our NOC guys were told there is a fiber outage in Tampa. We have a few circuits down in Miami. There is also a Verizon Fiber cut in SE Mass (Taunton?) - some repair estimates are 36-48 hours. Eric
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
On 10-Oct-2006, at 12:01, David W. Hankins wrote: But it's just /weird/ to ask the IETF to have this kind of role...one it has never had to my memory, and seeks constantly not to fulfill. It's not so weird when you realise that the notation adopted has an impact on other IETF work (RPSL is the obvious example that springs to mind). Joe
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 02:53:53PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote: On 10-Oct-2006, at 12:01, David W. Hankins wrote: But it's just /weird/ to ask the IETF to have this kind of role...one it has never had to my memory, and seeks constantly not to fulfill. It's not so weird when you realise that the notation adopted has an impact on other IETF work (RPSL is the obvious example that springs to mind). I think you misunderstand me... It's not weird that this document exists. It is weird, to me, that people who have concerns about their router's configuration syntax expect to be able to take this up with the IETF, rather than their router manufacturer. -- ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area, covering topics from DNS to DDNS DHCP. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- David W. HankinsIf you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again. Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgpeITfRTo47o.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
On 2006-10-10 13:41:42, David W. Hankins wrote: It is weird, to me, that people who have concerns about their router's configuration syntax expect to be able to take this up with the IETF, rather than their router manufacturer. Personally, I care less about which notation we choose to express four-byte ASNs than that *everyone choose one notation*. Choosing a mediocre notation and using it consistently would be better than having to live forever with multiple notations. Operating a heterogenous network is hard enough already. As to whether this is within the scope of the IETF, note that they are already going far, far beyond this in the Netconf WG, which is defining a complete router configuration protocol. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/netconf-charter.html http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netconf-prot-12.txt -- Shields.
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
[This isn't meant to be flippant or anything else of the kind, it's a genuinely heartfelt thing, albeit maybe a bit off topic.] What all things computer related has needed from day one is a way of pronouncing (reading out loud) hexadecimal. My first computer was a 6502, and I've resented numbers larger than FF since then (been working with AMD Opterons for a couple of years now, disturbing). If you print and read in hex, you don't need dots or any other syntactic aids, the human eye/brain can easily group the requisite number of digits, at least for the time being. The problem is that from and including A we can't talk about the damned things any more -- we resort to spelling out each number, with no inherent and natural feel for what we're taling about. An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 24E (two-four-E) tonnes. An A380 has a maximum take-off weight of around 590 (five hundred and ninety) tonnes. Solve that, and we don't need any new notations beyond subtle groupings, just like we group thousands and millions in decimal notation. - Per
4-Byte ASNs from the perspective of the 2-Byte world
On a related note, but not directly on the topic of the format of 4 Byte AS numbers, I prepared some notes about the view of 4-Byte AS numbers from the perspective of the 2-Byte AS realm, in the format of a presentation. These notes may be helpful to some of the NANOG audience: http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2006-10-11-asns.pdf thanks, Geoff
Re: that 4byte ASN you were considering...
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 09:23:54PM +, Michael Shields wrote: Personally, I care less about which notation we choose to express four-byte ASNs than that *everyone choose one notation*. Choosing a Totally, and I would be surprised if that were not the eventual outcome. In the absence of any other format, the dotted quad will probably bubble up into user interfaces eventually. I think everyone else is wrong that there is going to be some sort of heinous y2k doomsday scenario here in regards to breaking their current-day scripts or operational practices, or if there were that this is an issue to take up with the IETF rather than the vendors making said changes. As to whether this is within the scope of the IETF, note that they are already going far, far beyond this in the Netconf WG, which is defining a complete router configuration protocol. Netconf absolutely, and zeroconf too. These are machine languages, they aren't user interfaces. So this is just a level of indirection. If someone were suggesting a change to the netconf wire format that is not reverse compatible, that's obviously something that should be brought up at the IETF! But a change to the config file or web/scripting interface or whatever that you use to trigger Netconf into action? Totally not their bag. -- ISC Training! October 16-20, 2006, in the San Francisco Bay Area, covering topics from DNS to DDNS DHCP. Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- David W. HankinsIf you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again. Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins pgpSNKKJe8Itg.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: XO outages?
From: Tom Beecher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As much as I hate to ever defend that abomination that is XO, I can get to my colocated stuff in Nashville with no problem. Could be Tampa specific, I am hitting XO in DC, running down to Atlanta, and back up to TN without a problem. Yep, appears that this was an XO metro fiber cut in Tampa. Evidently the redundant routes weren't. Thanks to all that sent me info offlist, David David Hubbard wrote: Anyone know what's going on with XO? Seem to be having some big outage in the south east for phone and data; traces to equipment in Tampa stop at Virginia. Their customer support lines are as useless as usual with their 'unusually long hold times' which seem to be quite predictable at 60 minutes at a minimum every time I have ever called them. David
