Re: SP's and v4 block assignments
On Mar 18, 2011, at 4:03 PM, TR Shaw wrote: On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:49 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: This is not uncommon practice. I agree with you that it's undesirable, but, it's not uncommon among the access networks. I guess it's ok to expect a small fee when your consumer grade internet connection gets a static IP. Given that many large ISPs force you to get a business account if you want a static IP, and a higher price. I think both practices are relatively despicable, but, widespread enough that perhaps I am in the minority. Hopefully this will get better in IPv6. Owen, I doubt it will get better. Lots are into nickle and dime'ing for everyone to get an extra buck. Look at wireless, they charge for x Mega/giga bits per month from your hand help device (phone). Oh you want to tether, that will be more? Say what? Bits are bits but somehow tethered bits are different. Oh, its cause we can pretend and charge more for them Tom Well... Let's see: Verizon: $20/month for unlimited data service on iPhone 4 (without tethering) ATT: $29.95/month for unlimited data service on my iPad SPRINT: 4G Unlimited Everything plan: $127.45/month (all taxes, fees, handset insurance, etc. included) (3G $10/month less) Metro: $40/month for unlimited talk/text/web Where's the $/mbytes/month in those prices? Yes, they are now trying to charge more for tethering. I think the additional charges for tethering are because tethered tends to use significantly more bandwidth on average than non-tethered. I agree that charging for tethering is also somewhat despicable and I haven't added tethering to my plan for that reason. Rumor has it that there is now a tethering app. out for Droid that will bypass the $/tethering issue. I haven't tried it yet. Owen
RE: SP's and v4 block assignments
I doubt it will get better. Lots are into nickle and dime'ing for everyone to get an extra buck. Look at wireless, they charge for x Mega/giga bits per month from your hand help device (phone). Oh you want to tether, that will be more? Say what? Bits are bits but somehow tethered bits are different. Oh, its cause we can pretend and charge more for them I don't think it's a matter of pretending that some bits are different than others. The simple reality is that for the vast, vast majority of cell phone users, they will generate a tiny number of packets untethered, and a fair number of packets tethered. Given that many tower backhauls, especially in metropolitan areas, are already far above their data/channel capacity, it's obvious that this is (and always has been) an attempt to discourage tethering. As for charging for residential static assignments, I don't think it's all that odd, or 'despicable'. Allocating static assignments consumes engineer time for configuration and documentation. On a business class service, you can eat that cost fairly easily. On a low-yield residential circuit, there has to be some long term ROI because that work probably takes the margin out of the service for months. Nathan As always, these are my own views, and not that of my employer.
Re: SP's and v4 block assignments
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us wrote: As for charging for residential static assignments, I don't think it's all that odd, or 'despicable'. Allocating static assignments consumes engineer time for configuration and documentation. On a business class service, you can eat that cost fairly easily. On a low-yield residential circuit, there has to be some long term ROI because that work probably takes the margin out of the service for months. Engineer time is not an issue. If it requires an engineer for configuration and documentation, the provisioning process is already flawed. The reason to not want residential users to have static IPs is that these users represent large chunks of traffic which can be easily moved from one group of HFC channels to another when additional capacity must be created by breaking up access network segments. If many users had a static IP, this would be more difficult. Since most users don't have a static IP, the overhead of dealing with the few users who do is entirely manageable, especially when these users are paying a higher fee. -- Jeff S Wheeler j...@inconcepts.biz Sr Network Operator / Innovative Network Concepts
Re: Weekly Routing Table Report
On 19/03/2011, at 6:08 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Routing Analysis Role Account wrote: Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 1207 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 1 Is the report not getting the routes from the real 32bit ASNs or is the above figures really accurate? Its probably not getting the routes - I see 915 AS's in the routing table using 32 bit AS numbers (http://www.potaroo.net/tools/asn32/) Geoff
