[Nanog-futures] Proposed bylaws for NewNOG
The NewNOG governance working group, chaired by Steve Gibbard, has published a set of proposed bylaws for the corporation. These may be found at: http://www.newnog.org/docs/newnog-bylaws.pdf Please take a few minutes to review these and make any comments or suggestions. There will be a question on the ballot during the NANOG election next month to ratify these bylaws. Everyone eligible to vote in the NANOG election will also be eligible to vote on this. Thanks, Steve (for the NewNOG board) ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 2:34 AM, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com wrote: Jack Bates wrote: And yet, I'm pretty sure there are providers that have different pipes for business than they do for consumer, and probably riding some of the same physical medium. This creates saturated and unsaturated pipes, which is just as bad or worse than using QOS. The reason I'm pretty sure about it, is business circuits generally are guaranteed, while consumer are not. I'm pretty sure you are mistaken. The reason is, it's adding an additional layer of complexity inside the network for no good reason. Real ISPs have all sorts of different layers of complexity, for lots of reasons ranging from equipment performance to Layer 8 differences to mergersacquisitions to willingness-to-pay to marketing objectives to historical accident. An ISP that's also a telco-ish carrier will typically offer multiple services at Layer 1, Layer 2, MPLS, Layer 3, and other variants on transport. Copper's different economically from fiber pairs, SONET, Ethernet, CWDM, DWDM, some services get multiplexed by using bundles of copper or fiber, some get multiplexed by using different kinds of wavelength or time division, some get shared by packet-switching, some packet switches are smarter on some transport media than on others, some services will use edge equipment from Brand C or J or A because they were the first or cheapest to get Feature X when it was needed, some services are designed for Layer 9 problems like different taxes on different kinds of access services. An ISP that isn't an end-to-end vertically integrated provider will be buying stuff from other carriers that influences what services they offer, but the integrated providers often do that too. There are some kinds of service where the difference between business-grade and consumer-grade is mainly about options for types of billing, or for guarantees around how fast they'll get a truck to your place to fix things - that's especially common in access networks. Most consumer home internet service is running on DSL or cable modems, and that's going to behave differently than T1 access or 10 Gbps WAN-PHY or LAN-PHY gear. Different priced services may get connected to circuits or boxes that have different amounts of oversubscription. Different protocols give you different feedback mechanisms that affect performance. Or higher-priced services may have measuring mechanisms built in to them or bolted alongside, so that performance problems can generate a trouble ticket faster or get a refund on the bill, and come with a sales person who doesn't really understand how they work but is being pressured to provide 110% uptime. A common design these days is to have an MPLS backbone supporting multiple services including private networks and public internet, and the private networks may get dedicated chunks of the trunking, or may get higher MPLS prioritization. But separately from that, the IP edges may support Diffserv, and maybe the backbones do or maybe they don't, or maybe some parts of the trunking are only accessible to the higher-priority services. And maybe the diffserv gets implemented differently on the equipment that's used for different transmission media, or maybe the box that has the better port density doesn't have as many queues as the lower-density box, or maybe it's different between different port cards with the same vendor. A very common design is that businesses can get diffserv (or the MPLS equivalents) on end-to-end services provided by ISP X, but the peering arrangements with ISP Y don't pass diffserv bits, or pass it but ignore it, or use different sets of bits. It's very frustrating to me as a consumer, because what I'd really like would be for the main bottleneck point (my downstream connection at home) to either respect the diffserv bits set by the senders, or else to give UDP higher priority and TCP lower priority, and put Bittorrent and its ilk in a scavenger class, so VOIP and real-time video work regardless of my web activity and the web gets more priority than BitTorrent. -- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
caribbean cable ip contact
if a clued engineer at caribbean cable happens to read this message, i would be thankful if they contacted me privately. thank you. randy -- From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com Subject: very strange internet behavior To: customersupp...@caribcable.com Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:14:08 -0400 [ this needs to be escalated to an internet engineer ] hi, i am an old senior internet geek vacationing on nevis's nesbit beach. the cottage has your tv and internet service. during what i suspect are the busy hours of the day, your internet service borders on useless. it is as if an overloaded NAT is in the middle. one can reach very few web sites. one can reach (ping, ssh, ...) some hosts and not others. and the hosts are in the same rack and same ip address space in a stateside colo. one can ping a host but not ssh to it. or i can be sshed into a host and yet not be able to ping it. very twisty stuff. if i turn on the tv, the cable seems to be working. i can run an openvpn tunnel to a stateside or japan-based host and then everything is reachable. of course i have to try three or four of my openvpn serving hosts before i find one which is reachable. this is not a great solution, and certainly not one available to the vast majority of your customers. from an engineer's point of view, i would love to understand what the cause of all this really is. randy
Re: Nevis Internet
Very interesting Randy, this sounds like what we endure on a regular basis in the eastern CaribbeanI too would like to know why myself since I have always wondered whether our local networks are set up. Rudi Daniel From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com Subject: very strange internet behavior To: customersupp...@caribcable.com Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:14:08 -0400 [ this needs to be escalated to an internet engineer ] hi, i am an old senior internet geek vacationing on nevis's nesbit beach. the cottage has your tv and internet service. during what i suspect are the busy hours of the day, your internet service borders on useless. it is as if an overloaded NAT is in the middle. one can reach very few web sites. one can reach (ping, ssh, ...) some hosts and not others. and the hosts are in the same rack and same ip address space in a stateside colo. one can ping a host but not ssh to it. or i can be sshed into a host and yet not be able to ping it. very twisty stuff. if i turn on the tv, the cable seems to be working. i can run an openvpn tunnel to a stateside or japan-based host and then everything is reachable. of course i have to try three or four of my openvpn serving hosts before i find one which is reachable. this is not a great solution, and certainly not one available to the vast majority of your customers. from an engineer's point of view, i would love to understand what the cause of all this really is. randy -- ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog End of NANOG Digest, Vol 32, Issue 62 * -- Rudi Daniel *danielcharles http://goog_470770575* consulting http://goog_470770575*ICT4Dev e Business and serviceshttp://goog_470770575 * http://goog_470770575*1-784 498 8277 http://goog_470770575* ** http://goog_470770575*h http://csisvg.ning.comttp://csisvg.ning.com *
Re: Nevis Internet
Very interesting Randy, this sounds like what we endure on a regular basis in the eastern CaribbeanI too would like to know why myself since I have always wondered whether our local networks are set up. well, here is the netalyzer report from caribbean cable on north nevis at a good time http://netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/restore/id=43ca253f-6723-1110f506-4d39-465b-8b1d of course, this is a rough state of the art measurement of services and performance. but i am not aware of a tool that will help diagnose connectivity issues such as i am seeing, see OP. anyone with clue on that please holler. it smells to me as if there is a middle-box or three which think they are too smart and just do not scale. but i really have no idea. randy
Randy in Nevis
Dont know if this may assist, but here is another from St Vincent...lime network. Sunday 19th sep. 2010 http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-6714-b0f7e7b0-d08e-4729-b491#BufferResult RD
Re: Randy in Nevis
http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-6714-b0f7e7b0-d08e-4729-b491#BufferResult wow! lime's buffering and 587 hacking make me like caribbean cable more and more. randy
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
Bill Stewart wrote: A very common design is that businesses can get diffserv (or the MPLS equivalents) on end-to-end services provided by ISP X, but the peering arrangements with ISP Y don't pass diffserv bits, or pass it but ignore it, or use different sets of bits. It's very frustrating to me as a consumer, because what I'd really like would be for the main bottleneck point (my downstream connection at home) to either respect the diffserv bits set by the senders, or else to give UDP higher priority and TCP lower priority, and put Bittorrent and its ilk in a scavenger class, so VOIP and real-time video work regardless of my web activity and the web gets more priority than BitTorrent. I can understand you wanting this done on YOUR bottleneck, in the connection between the ISP and you. And you want it done to YOUR specifications. That is entirely reasonable. But would you want the ISP doing it elsewhere in the network, and done to their priorities, not yours? (A one size fits all congestion prioritization solution.) Further, would you be happy with an ISP that HAS a bottleneck elsewhere in their network - not just in the last mile to your door? IMHO it's stupid for an ISP to intentionally design for and allow bottlenecks to exist within their network. The bottleneck to the end user is currently unavoidable, and users with bandwidth intensive uses might prefer some prioritization (to their own specifications) on that part of the link. Bottlenecks within the ISP network and between ISPs should be avoidable, and should be avoided. Any ISP that fails to mitigate those bottlenecks will quickly find customers streaming to another ISP that will advertise no network congestion here, no traffic shaping that slows down traffic that might be important to YOU etc. jc PS. Bill, if you aren't using Sonic, give their Fusion service a look. It's better than Kadu. :-)
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
bleeping $whatever folk. qos is about whose packets to drop. who here is paid to drop packets? if this was $customer-list, i could understand wanting to drop some packets on the link you were too cheap to provision reasonably (which is pretty st00pid in today's pricing environment). but this is a net ops list. randy
Re: Randy in Nevis
I'm sure it's a lot better than our Afghanistan satellite systems (84% uptime on two of them, 41% on the third). Luckily we load balance the WAN ports so it's not *too* painful. Jeff On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: http://n1.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/summary/id=43ca253f-6714-b0f7e7b0-d08e-4729-b491#BufferResult wow! lime's buffering and 587 hacking make me like caribbean cable more and more. randy -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
Re: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency
Ubiquiti Networks - www.ubnt.com I have deployed numerous rural wireless provider nets with a variety of technologies and vendors and this is by far, the most cost effective and reliable last mile solution. IMHO, based on testing and real life lessons learned, unlicensed is the only way to go in rural. The benefits of licensed frequencies are typically lost in rural environments as there aren't many contending devices. The above N based equipment performs roughly at the same level as fixed wimax, without the expense of the wimax chipsets. Of course I am generalizing a bit and each deployment has it's own requirements and challenges to be considered. John On Saturday, September 18, 2010, Georges-Keny PAUL paulgk...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, My team is working on technical and technological specifications of a document for the deployment of Internet service on public frequencies in rural areas. We welcome your thoughts on the topic in terms of previous experiences and, well sure, you recommendation in terms of equipment. You should note that the environment in question is very mountainous with very precarious infrastructure conditions: no electricity, poor access, etc. We would like to deploy a service at minimal cost, using mainly open source software. All comments, suggestions, recommendations, draft, success stories are well come. Feel free to contact me for additional information. Warms regards, Georges-Keny PAUL
Da Shi wants to stay in touch on LinkedIn
LinkedIn I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Da Shi Da Shi Managing Director at 3z Canada Toronto, Canada Area Confirm that you know Da Shi https://www.linkedin.com/e/-voa23o-geaggbx4-2z/isd/1686347474/EeHY08Xk/ -- (c) 2010, LinkedIn Corporation
RE: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
IMHO it's stupid for an ISP to intentionally design for and allow bottlenecks to exist within their network. The bottleneck to the end user is currently unavoidable, and users with bandwidth intensive uses might prefer some prioritization (to their own specifications) on that part of the link. Bottlenecks within the ISP network and between ISPs should be avoidable, and should be avoided. Any ISP that fails to mitigate those bottlenecks will quickly find customers streaming to another ISP that will advertise no network congestion here, no traffic shaping that slows down traffic that might be important to YOU etc. jc I think the extent to which one favors prioritization or not will depend on who they are and what is going on at the moment. If I am an ISP that is not a telecom provider of circuits, I might be more in favor of prioritization. If I am a provider of bandwidth to others, I would be against it as I want to sell bandwidth to them. It might also depend on circumstances that vary from time to time. If an application suddenly appears that becomes wildly popular practically overnight and is a bandwidth hog, it might be difficult to move fast enough to accommodate that usage. I seem to remember that when Napster first appeared, it swamped many networks. If a situation occurs such as a disaster of national or global or even local interest, maybe the sudden demand swamps the existing infrastructure. If I were providing consumer access, I might provide two methods. The first would be no prioritization, just treat everything equally. The second might be a canned prioritization profile that a user could elect for application to their connection. This might not prioritize any specific content provider over another so much as prioritize certain protocols over another. So it might prioritize VOIP up, and p2p protocols down as an example. A value added situation might be one that allows a user to specify their own prioritization profile for some additional fee. In an emergency situation, a provider might possibly want to have some prioritization profiles on the shelf ready to apply if needed. This might prioritize traffic to certain government, emergency, and information services up and traffic to some other services and protocols down. Generally, I would want to see every network have enough bandwidth for every contingency but that is somewhat unrealistic because we don't have a crystal ball. What would be the demand today in the case of another 9/11/01 type of event? I don't think anyone really knows. In that case, not having some prioritization plan in place might render a network completely useless. Having one might allow some services to work at the expense of others. I would rather be connected to a network that would allow access to government sites, news and information sites, email, and voice communications at the expense of, say, gaming, streaming content, gambling, and porn for the duration of the emergency. It would also be better, in my opinion, for networks to have their own emergency plans than to put in place a mechanism where government dictates what gets done and when. You can flee a network that does something you don't like for one that has a plan more in line with your priorities, fleeing a government is more difficult.
Re: Specifications for Internet services on public frequency
On Sep 19, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Gammons wrote: Ubiquiti Networks - www.ubnt.com I have deployed numerous rural wireless provider nets with a variety of technologies and vendors and this is by far, the most cost effective and reliable last mile solution. IMHO, based on testing and real life lessons learned, unlicensed is the only way to go in rural. The benefits of licensed frequencies are typically lost in rural environments as there aren't many contending devices. The above N based equipment performs roughly at the same level as fixed wimax, without the expense of the wimax chipsets. Of course I am generalizing a bit and each deployment has it's own requirements and challenges to be considered. +1 UBNT. Can not beat the price/performance of the equipment. ($160 for a pair of dual-pol 802.11n equipment). - Jared
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid, Prioritized Traffic?
On Sep 17, 2010, at 5:20 46PM, Bill Stewart wrote: Sorry, fat-fingered something when I was trying to edit. On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote: No, they bought ATT, which [...] But yes, SBC is the controlling piece of the new ATT. Most of the wide-area ISP network is the old ATT, while much of the consumer broadband grew out of the SBC DSL side. Yup. As for the two /8s -- not quite. Back in the 1980s, ATT got 12/8. We soon learned that we couldn't make good use of it, since multiple levels of subnetting didn't exist. We offered it back to Postel in exchange for 135/8 -- i.e., the equivalent in class B space -- but Postel said to keep 12/8 since no one else could use it, either. This was all long before addresses were tight. When ATT decided to go into the ISP business, circa 1995, 12/8 was still lying around, unused except for a security experiment I was running.*However, a good chunk of 135/8 went to Lucent (now Alcatel-Lucent) in 1996, though I don't know how much. The ATT bits kept some fraction of 135; I don't know how much without dredging through ARIN Whois, but at least 135.63/16 is on my desktop. I know -- that's why I wrote a good chunk, but I sure don't know who got what. (FYI, I'm still a very part-time ATT employee.) If I remember correctly, which is unlikely at this point, 12/8 was the Murray Hill Cray's Hyperchannel network, which I'd heard didn't know how to do subnetting except on classful boundaries, so it could happily handle 16M hosts on its Class A, and in fact only had two or three. Good point. I don't remember what time frame that was true, though. I'm certain about why Mark Horton got 12/8 and 135/8, but I don't remember the years, either. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
