Re: Two Tiered Internet
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, they could certainly pick up an IP address on a private network space on a different cable channel (i.e. frequency pair) and make use of that. The consumer's Internet service, being on other channels, is unaffected. Yes, the backhaul fiber network would need to be using multiple paths as well to make that work. I have no idea to what extent present cable plants make use of the ability to use multiple channels for data service. Clearly they use it for video carriers, and where there is/was telephone over cable before the present VOIP-based offerings, those also appear to have used separate channels. Allocating those separate channels for different services means that that bandwidth blocks they consume are off-limits to provide customer IP service. Would it be better to have a smaller amount of bandwidth that's isolated from all other services for normal customer IP service, or would it be better to have a bigger pipe with priority when there's congestion going to services other than normal customer IP service? The answer depends on how much traffic you expect to be prioritized. VoIP traffic at 80kbps probably isn't going to be a huge concern. Tiered services could be, but seperate channels could actually make the problem worse, since bandwidth that had been allocated to the standard services could be permanently allocated to the higher-tiered service to resolve peak load issues, reducing the bandwidth available to the standard service at all times. Bob
Re: Two Tiered Internet
[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 their link. So where would the payback be for this for the last-mile provider? Compared to the pain of setting this up and supporting it, what percentage of customers would actually use something like this? Just trying to educate users on this would be quite challenging. "Well, sir, the service allows you to select which of your traffic is important and should get priority..." "But all my traffic is important!" It gets more fun when the medium you use to get to the end customer is a shared medium, with some normal amount of oversubscription. Bob
Re: Replacing PSTN with VoIP wise? Was Re: Phone networks struggle in Hurricane Katrina's wake
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:41:40AM -0700, jc dill wrote: > It is sometimes the case in disasters that people from inside can call > out but that people from outside can't call in because the circuits into > the disaster area become overloaded. This would hold true especially in > the case where many people in the disaster area have no access to > working phones, so those with working phones can easily get a free > outbound circuit - meanwhile frantic friends and family clog up the > incoming circuits trying to reach phones that are out of service or > people who simply aren't near the phone and who can't answer but those > calls still tie up circuits each time they are attempted. It could also be deliberate; one comment I've heard in relation to emergency communications is that one message out can stop eight messages back in. If someone inside the affected area can speak to a friend/family member to say that they're ok, and they're in shelter X in town Y, that friend/family member can/will tell the others others concerned about the disaster victim this info, freeing up communication resources into the affected area. Prioritizing outgoing calls over incoming calls might help with this. Bob
Re: Halo 2 and broadband traffic
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 02:46:46PM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: > > > Has anyone actually noticed any increases in residential > broadband traffic due to Halo 2? This is lost in the noise of P2P traffic, which is the big bandwidth eater by far. I note that the story is essentially based around statements made by Sandvine. They aren't saying that the amount of broadband traffic is going to increase significantly because of online gaming; they're saying that broadband networks need to prioritize and QoS traffic from gamers, as more people game online. And oddly enough, Sandvine offers a box that does this! :-) They're jumping on the press coverage of Halo 2 to try and raise awareness of their product line. Not that what's being said doesn't have merit, but it's definately a PR push, and definately not a "End of the net predicted, film at 11" moment. Bob
Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 12:47:42AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > > On Jun 29, 2004, at 12:44 AM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > > >Of course, if you just happen to uphold INTERNET STANDARDS and only > >accept routes from where they should originate, I'll buy you a drink > >at the next NANOG for being a good netizien. :) > > P.S. That was a serious offer to any and all ISPs. > > Yes, I realize I am opening myself to buying quite a few drinks, but > that's the point, or at least the hope. Just let me know you are ... > uhhh ... "adhering to Internet standards" (in private e-mail) by the > end of the week to claim your drink. :) Of course, since you're doing this based on email that NAC sent, who has been enjoined from "directly or indirectly" preventing the customer from using their IP space, you may be opening NAC up to further liability. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea, but it needs to be clear that you aren't doing this at NAC's request, and even so, the judge may take a dim view of NAC's involvement. Bob
Re: The use of .0/.255 addresses.
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:41:50AM -0700, Tony Hain wrote: > > While it is often great sport to poke at MS, did you consider that this > might have nothing to do with classfullness or CIDR? I believe you will find > that 0 & -1 are invalid for whatever netmask the windows stack is given. You So you're saying that with 10.200.200.0/22, that 10.200.201.0, 10.200.202.0 and 10.200.203.0 are invalid host addresses? Setting up DHCP scopes for this space must be painful. Not to mention use of /32 addressing for loopbacks. I could almost forgive not handling /31 given that RFC3021 was onlyu published in 12/2000. Bob
Re: who offers cheap (personal) 1U colo?
netadm wrote: http://www.serverpronto.com Given the thread was started for people who want to get a server for mail clear of blocklists, why would I want to use a provider on a number of blocklists per http://www.openrbl.org/, including a SBL/ROKSO listing? Bob
Re: wholesalebandwidth.com major sponsor of spammers refuses to accept email at abuse
German Valdez wrote: In that case you would be blocking all the networks in 29 economies in Latin american and caribbean region. The people doing this generally know this. They often also block big chunks of APNIC too. They often believe that the ratio of legitimate mail to spam coming from these networks for their customers is too poor to not block. They'll usually whitelist an address if one of their customers requests it. I'm not condoning the practice; I find it too extreme for my tastes. But there are a number of people doing it. Do a search at groups.google.com for "LACNIC group:news.admin.net-abuse.email" to see what people are saying/blocking. Bob
Re: Strange public traceroutes return private RFC1918 addresses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If RFC1918 addresses are used only on interfaces with jumbo MTUs on the order of 9000 bytes then it doesn't break PMTUD in a 1500 byte Ethernet world. And it doesn't break traceroute. We just lose the DNS hint about the router location. I'm confused about your traceroute comment. You're assuming a packet with a RFC1918 source address won't be dropped. In many cases, it will, and should be. Each organization is permitted to use the RFC1918 address space internally for any purpose they see fit. This often means they don't want people outside the organization to be able to generate packets with source addresses for machines they consider to be internal. It makes sense to drop such packets as they come in to your AS. Assuming that a packet with an RFC1918 source address will get dropped as it crosses in to a new AS, this will break traceroute hops, Path MTU Discovery, Network/Host unreachable, or any other ICMP that needs to be generated from a router with a RFC1918 address. Is everyone filtering RFC1918 at their edge? No. But my impression is that more and more places are. Certainly anyone who uses either Team Cymru's Bogon services or similar services (doesn't Cisco now do this in IOS as well?) will be blocking them... Bob
Re: Strange public traceroutes return private RFC1918 addresses
Matthew Crocker wrote: Search the archives, Comcast and other cable/DSL providers use the 10/8 for their infrastructure. The Internet itself doesn't need to be Internet routable. Only the edges need to be routable. It is common practice to use RFC1918 address space inside the network. Companies like Sprint and Verio use 'real' IPs but don't announce them to their peers on customer edge routes. Which (as discussed previously) breaks things like Path MTU Discovery, traceroute, and other things that depend on the router sending back ICMP packets to the sender if any ISP along the return path (properly) filters RFC1918 address space as being bogus. You can use RFC1918 space on any device that really has no need to communicate with the outside world, but generally, un-NAT'ed routers don't qualify for this, at least on their transit interfaces. I believe Comcast (and I'm going only on my experience as a customer) is or has moved from RFC1918 space to routable IP space for their routers, at least on interfaces I've been doing traceroutes through. Bob
Re: Verizon mail troubles
Andy Dills wrote: Verizon? Colo? ISP? Probably should have expressed that more clearly. Not colo'ing at Verizon, but an Internet colocation facility that also provides it's customers with T1 and Frame Relay connectivity to the Internet. But they've never had a sonet outage once in our entire time of doing business with them. So they do employ competent people. Plenty of them. But they aren't concerned with IP or SMTP. This is in NJ, also "native" ex-Bell Atlantic territory. And I agree they have competent people... But I would dispute "Plenty of them." In fact, I think this is where I saw the biggest problem: getting a response from a Verizon tech in a reasonable time when dealing with an outage. Most of the outages were "last mile" type outages, but we did have them mess up some frame relay connections out of the blue with a broken switch configuration. And if it should be a circuit from NJ to PA via their special "conduit" between the LATAs, it became a finger-pointing nightmare, since the NJ group would say it's the PA group, who'd disagree, and then there's the group responsible for the conduit, which is a separate group from either of them. And to be fair, this colo facility wasn't that large, buying T3's worth of T1's at a time, whereas the place I was at before had around 6-10K data and voice circuits worldwide that they managed, and the major IXCs had on-site personnel. But even without the on-site folks involved, dealing with the IXCs was a much better experience, more "polished," with good SLAs and escalation paths. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack a search for a Verizon Internet admin. :-) We now return you to your mail/worm discussion, already in progress. Bob
Re: Verizon mail troubles
Andy Dills wrote: Getting Verizon to do anything involving the internet, even if you possess the phone number of the department to call, is impossible. They do a good job with circuits. They do an abysmal job with IP and related issues. This must be a different Verizon than I dealt with at a colo/small ISP facility then, 'cause the Verizon I dealt with wasn't real great with circuits either. At least, compared to the job the IXCs did at a former job of mine... Bob
Re: NOAA warning for rf communications
On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 01:22, Rodney Joffe wrote: > I'm surprised that there has been no warning or discussion on NANOG... > > There is a high likelihood that things like 802.11, licensed and > unlicensed microwave links, and certainly satellite links will sustain > interference over the next few days. I assume that everyone on the list > is both aware, and prepared ;-) > > Oh, perhaps an alternative to paging or cellphone notifications to > support folks is a good idea ;-) > > http://www.astrobiology.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12850 > > The NOAA links seem saturated... http://www.sec.noaa.gov/ Don't expect warnings like this in the future; Congress is likely to drop the Space Environment Center's funding to 0. http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2003/10/03/3/ Bob
