Re: The Cidr Report
On Fri, 09 May 2014 17:51:56 -0700, Owen DeLong said: Sounds like a Dish commercial (James Earl Jones voice): Now imagine it again, but with Jim Cummings instead... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLXTDirrQ5w (Sorry, I couldn't resist... :) pgphEjXN1tGcc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About NetFlow/IPFIX and DPI
Thank you Matt (offlist), Dan, Roland and Paolo for your answers ! Antoine. On 7 mai 2014, at 18:43, Paolo Lucente pl+l...@pmacct.net wrote: Please note NBAR/NetFlow integration wanted to be an example of using NetFlow/ IPFIX as a transport for DPI classification info (where classification could be performed with any other in-line technology than NBAR). Whether NBAR works or does not as a classification technology is out of scope for me here - and seems also out of the op request. Inline: On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 04:15:44PM +, Dobbins, Roland wrote: So, perhaps now we can de-conflate flow telemetry and 'DPI', since the real-life export, collection, and analysis of anything other than layer-4 information via flow telemetry isn't at all commonplace (if it in fact exists at all) on production networks), at this juncture. I disagree if anybody conflates here. I don't. I see two disjoint pieces: classification technology and transport of classification info to a central location. IPFIX, for example, is general (and standardized) enough to transport/encapsulate other info than just flow info, this might include DPI classification or other stuff. You can also read this as: if you have to travel some info, why re invent the wheel and not leverage a general-enough, standardized transport protocol (that btw you can contribute at any point to enhance if not satisfactory enough)? And please it's nice to have different positions - no need to escalate. Cheers, Paolo
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
That was an interesting read but it's not the whole story. Skip to the TL;DR if you'd like but I'll attempt to explain what happened. What he isn't saying is the roles of the companies involved have changed over the last 10 years. Mostly gone are the days that content providers and access networks each just gave a middleman/transit provider money to reach each other. Content provider has expanded to become content delivery network and access network has expanded their role to offer transit as well. If these networks have a large amount of traffic between them and are able to reach each other in multiple locations nationally what is the technical reason a 3rd party transit network is required instead of a direct peering relationship? From a purely technical perspective content and access at that scale can peer directly cutting out the middle man. The reality is an increasingly directly peered Internet doesn't sit well if you are in the business of being the middle man. Now if you will, why do transit companies themselves charge content companies to deliver bits? How is it fair to be in the business of charging companies to receive their bits and hand them to a settlement free peer on the hook to deliver them, but not fair for content to just bypass the transit company and enter a paid peering agreement with the company delivering the bits? In this case paid peering is mutually beneficial to both companies involved and is typically cheaper for the content company than it would cost to send that traffic over transit. What we have is a major shift in the market over the last 10 or so years. So why are these large nationally connected access networks charging Level 3 for ports? That's the elephant in the room here and to understand that you have to go back to where (to my knowledge) this dispute first went public. The most comprehensive description I have seen to date is the following Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR1sLLOYxnY I recommend the video before continuing. Level 3 is really both Level 3 transit and Level 3 CDN. Level 3 has already had a long standing precedent of justifying the right of an ISP to charge for content delivery. So what happens when Level 3 greatly expands their content delivery business and sends traffic to other ISP's over settlement free ports? The large access networks say hey, content delivery is a billable service, you should know and they ask Level 3 CDN for compensation. The middleman networks protest and say Charging for content delivery is only OK if we do it, but not when you do it! and their justification for this claim is made on the basis that unlike access networks they a) Have a large network and b) send a full table of prefixes. So lets look at the first claim. Are the transit networks large? Yes, but especially in the case of North American traffic destined for North America they are typically smaller overall than the largest access networks who arguably have the lions share of equipment tasked with delivering the bits beyond just the colo. The 2nd claim is mostly a strawman and this is why. Middlemen still carry traffic not destined to directly connected peers but how they bill for it is largely based on volume of traffic, not the number of prefixes exchanged. The big content providers and the big access networks make up a majority of the traffic on the Internet even if they don't make up a majority of the prefixes. TL;DR So the reason the ports are maxed out is the market has changed, access networks have attempted to change peering agreements to match the existing market conditions but the middleman networks are arguing they should be exempt from the long standing tradition of charging for content delivery they themselves helped to establish. Some middleman networks have responded by refusing payment to access networks for delivery and as a result, the paths have not been upgraded and remain congested. End of TL;DR The next part is (even) more opinion than fact so you are forgiven if you stop here. My opinion is this is a peering dispute more than something that should fall under net neutrality. If content companies sent letters to middlmen that said In your statements to the public you made the case that content delivery to ISP's should be settlement free so we have decided to take your offer and refuse any further payment to you from here forward how would they handle it? Likely those companies would not only find themselves congested but depeered. A bunch of people say charging at both ends is double dipping but really modern access networks are now at least partly filling the role of transit as well as last mile delivery. Where content transit and access all have a presence in the same colo, paying more money to send traffic through transit first instead of just directly to access because of some dated definition of what the roles of those companies are supposed to be doesn't make sense to me. Hijacking NN to attempt to bring litigation
Re: The Cidr Report
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Andrew D Kirch trel...@trelane.net wrote:
If the whole thing breaks, I'm taking a vacation.
Dammit, I'm *on* vacation--don't break the whole thing!
Matt
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2014 8:52 PM
To: Patrick W. Gilmore
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
ROFLMAO — Party in Bellevue is more than likely to push it back up over
500K
again, isn’t it?
Sounds like a Dish commercial… (James Earl Jones voice):
When you put a bunch of network engineers in a party in Bellevue, you get a
bunch of drunk network engineers.
When you get drunk network engineers, you get interesting router
configurations.
When you get interesting router configurations you get disaggregation of
the
routing table for TE.
When you get disaggregation for TE, the routing table grows.
When the routing table grows, you hit half a million routes.
When you hit half a million routes, the internet starts to break.
Don’t break the internet. Don’t get half a million routes. Don’t let
network
engineers party in Bellevue.
(No, I’m not actually opposed to the party, but I thought you might find
the
commercial amusing).
Owen
On May 9, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
w00 h00! We did it!!
Is this excellent or what? We dipped below half a million again! I am
impressed.
Keep up the good work, everyone.
Party in Bellevue if we can keep it below 500K until then!
--
TTFN,
patrick
On May 9, 2014, at 18:00, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote:
This report has been generated at Fri May 9 21:13:53 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and
generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this
report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
02-05-14500388 283099
03-05-14500674 281707
04-05-14499055 282390
05-05-14500188 281852
06-05-14499505 282156
07-05-14499946 281901
08-05-14499340 282123
09-05-14499630 282356
AS Summary
47026 Number of ASes in routing system
19165 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
3777 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS28573: NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR
120042496 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only when
there is a precise match using the AS path, so as to preserve traffic
transit policies. Aggregation is also proposed across non-advertised
address space ('holes').
--- 09May14 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 499702 282290 21741243.5% All ASes
AS28573 3777 297 348092.1% NET Serviços de
Comunicação
S.A.,BR
AS6389 2965 58 290798.0% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
BellSouth.net Inc.,US
AS17974 2802 251 255191.0% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID
AS4766 2947 931 201668.4% KIXS-AS-KR Korea
Telecom,KR
AS18881 1970 37 193398.1% Global Village Telecom,BR
AS1785 2204 494 171077.6% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.,US
AS10620 2854 1358 149652.4% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO
AS18566 2047 565 148272.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath
Corporation,US
AS7303 1760 459 130173.9% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR
AS4755 1855 585 127068.5% TATACOMM-AS TATA
Communications formerly
VSNL
is Leading ISP,IN
AS4323 1639 421 121874.3% TWTC - tw telecom
holdings,
inc.,US
AS7545 2238 1076 116251.9% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG
Telecom
Limited,AU
AS7552 1252 146 110688.3% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel
Corporation,VN
AS22561 1306 241 106581.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel
Internet
Holdings, Inc.,US
AS6983 1326 306 102076.9% ITCDELTA - Earthlink,
Inc.,US
AS36998 1114 160 95485.6% SDN-MOBITEL,SD
AS4788 1045 148 897
Odd syslog-ng problem
Hey,
I got a weird problem with my syslog-ng setup, im logging from alot of
cisco machines and that works great.
The problem is that when i pass this further to a shell program, some
lines disapere.
My destination looks like this
destination hosts {
file(/var/log/ciscorouters/$HOST.log
owner(root) group(root) perm(0600) dir_perm(0700) create_dirs(yes));
program(/scripts/irc/syslog_wrapper_new.sh template(t_irctempl));
};
The /var/log/ciscorouters/$HOST.log writes correct, but the data thats
putted trough to /scripts/irc/syslog_wrapper_new.sh only get the first
line, if it gets flooded (like 5 rows per second).
Do anyone of you have any idea of what might be the problem?
Regards,
Peter
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
This is a lot of hand waving and self justification to attempt to validate the practice of [Access Network] trying to charge 3rd party entities to deliver the content that [Access Network]'s paying customers have requested over the service they already pay for, instead of [Access Network] having to themselves pay for the bandwidth because they know their customers can't leave them, and they know they have a big enough market presence that they can rent seek with impunity. Why pay for transit connectivity expansion, when it financially benefits you to instead let the links run over full, and charge the world individually for uncongested access to your captive customers? -Blake -Blake -Blake On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: That was an interesting read but it's not the whole story. Skip to the TL;DR if you'd like but I'll attempt to explain what happened. What he isn't saying is the roles of the companies involved have changed over the last 10 years. Mostly gone are the days that content providers and access networks each just gave a middleman/transit provider money to reach each other. Content provider has expanded to become content delivery network and access network has expanded their role to offer transit as well. If these networks have a large amount of traffic between them and are able to reach each other in multiple locations nationally what is the technical reason a 3rd party transit network is required instead of a direct peering relationship? From a purely technical perspective content and access at that scale can peer directly cutting out the middle man. The reality is an increasingly directly peered Internet doesn't sit well if you are in the business of being the middle man. Now if you will, why do transit companies themselves charge content companies to deliver bits? How is it fair to be in the business of charging companies to receive their bits and hand them to a settlement free peer on the hook to deliver them, but not fair for content to just bypass the transit company and enter a paid peering agreement with the company delivering the bits? In this case paid peering is mutually beneficial to both companies involved and is typically cheaper for the content company than it would cost to send that traffic over transit. What we have is a major shift in the market over the last 10 or so years. So why are these large nationally connected access networks charging Level 3 for ports? That's the elephant in the room here and to understand that you have to go back to where (to my knowledge) this dispute first went public. The most comprehensive description I have seen to date is the following Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR1sLLOYxnY I recommend the video before continuing. Level 3 is really both Level 3 transit and Level 3 CDN. Level 3 has already had a long standing precedent of justifying the right of an ISP to charge for content delivery. So what happens when Level 3 greatly expands their content delivery business and sends traffic to other ISP's over settlement free ports? The large access networks say hey, content delivery is a billable service, you should know and they ask Level 3 CDN for compensation. The middleman networks protest and say Charging for content delivery is only OK if we do it, but not when you do it! and their justification for this claim is made on the basis that unlike access networks they a) Have a large network and b) send a full table of prefixes. So lets look at the first claim. Are the transit networks large? Yes, but especially in the case of North American traffic destined for North America they are typically smaller overall than the largest access networks who arguably have the lions share of equipment tasked with delivering the bits beyond just the colo. The 2nd claim is mostly a strawman and this is why. Middlemen still carry traffic not destined to directly connected peers but how they bill for it is largely based on volume of traffic, not the number of prefixes exchanged. The big content providers and the big access networks make up a majority of the traffic on the Internet even if they don't make up a majority of the prefixes. TL;DR So the reason the ports are maxed out is the market has changed, access networks have attempted to change peering agreements to match the existing market conditions but the middleman networks are arguing they should be exempt from the long standing tradition of charging for content delivery they themselves helped to establish. Some middleman networks have responded by refusing payment to access networks for delivery and as a result, the paths have not been upgraded and remain congested. End of TL;DR The next part is (even) more opinion than fact so you are forgiven if you stop here. My opinion is this is a peering dispute more than something that should fall under net neutrality. If content companies sent
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
Nice discussion about history motivations. Not completely correct, but it's always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since both are open to intepretation. Personally, I am interested in the future, and specifically in market-driven solutions to our problems. Call me a capitalist if you like, but I believe in a functioning market, we can get a very good approximation of fair. If Company A and Company B have a mutual customer, and that customer needs both companies to perform a task, the market will find a way to make those two companies work together. Either that, or the customer will replace A or B, whichever the customer feels is underperforming, with Company C. We have that situation today. Streaming Company wants to send End User of Broadband Company some content. If Streaming Company sucks - not enough titles, lousy customer service, high price, poor performance, etc., etc. - End User is free to select Streaming Company 2. And contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of Streaming Company 2s available. Besides NF, there is Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, iPlayer, etc. They might have different models, but they all allow you to access streaming content, so choice is available. And here is where we get into the problem. Should End User believe Broadband Company sucks, they frequently cannot choose Broadband Company 2. I know I cannot, my choices are Comcast @ 100 Mbps or Verizon at 1.1 (yes, one-point-one) Mbps. So when Streaming Company sucks, but they suck because Broadband company is doing something I do not like, I cannot vote with my wallet and pick Broadband Company 2. I have no choice but to pick Streaming Company 2, even if I think the problem is Broadband Company's fault. (To be clear, I am not a NF subscriber - any more - and so this is not a NF/CC thing, I'm just talking generalities.) Put more succinctly, there is no functioning market. therefore there cannot be a market-based solution. Personally, I view that as about the most Un-American, Un-Capitalistic thing there is. Lots of people have suggested a simple, if very difficult, fix to this problem. Make the underlying physical infrastructure a regulated monopoly, i.e. a Utility. Then allow anyone to run services over that physical infrastructure. This is not pipe dream. The UK does it today. People there pick ISPs based on service, price, features, etc., not on who paid off my local PUC. And before anyone brings up the whole the UK is more dense than the US, I preemptively call BS. There is more choice, faster speeds, and lower prices in the middle of no-where UK than downtown manhattan. Please just leave that argument where it belongs, in the dung heap. Why can we not do something similar in the US? because the companies who own the lines have enough money to pay enough lobbyists to avoid even the promises they do make. (If anyone on this list is un-aware of things like the telcos promising ubiquitous high-speed BB years ago and never delivering, but never giving back their tax breaks or monopoly positions, you should be ashamed of yourselves.) But hey, a guy can dream, right? In the mean time, let's stop pretending that 'oh, L3 paid CC so they must be best friends'. L3 paid because They Had No Choice, and maybe because they see some long-term strategic benefit (e.g. they can charge others more later). This is not a functioning market. This is a few players with Market Power charging Rents, which any first year econ major will explain is a _very_very_very_ bad place for the market to be. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Odd syslog-ng problem
Off topic.
The issue is with the daemon, not your devices.
https://lists.balabit.hu/mailman/listinfo/syslog-ng
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Peter Persson web...@webbax.se wrote:
Hey,
I got a weird problem with my syslog-ng setup, im logging from alot of
cisco machines and that works great.
The problem is that when i pass this further to a shell program, some
lines disapere.
My destination looks like this
destination hosts {
file(/var/log/ciscorouters/$HOST.log
owner(root) group(root) perm(0600) dir_perm(0700) create_dirs(yes));
program(/scripts/irc/syslog_wrapper_new.sh template(t_irctempl));
};
The /var/log/ciscorouters/$HOST.log writes correct, but the data thats
putted trough to /scripts/irc/syslog_wrapper_new.sh only get the first
line, if it gets flooded (like 5 rows per second).
Do anyone of you have any idea of what might be the problem?
Regards,
Peter
--
jamie rishaw // .com.arpa@j - reverse it. ish.
...let's consider this world like a family and care about each other...
-Malala Yousafzai
Re: Odd syslog-ng problem
Another off topic (question) - what kind of fronted UI you use with syslog-ng?
I see log analyser based on PHP is common. In my tests it worked fine but it’s
major issue I saw was that I couldn’t sort all logs based on individual
hosts/devices.
What kind of open source web UI everyone is using, just wondering?
Thanks.
On 11-May-2014, at 12:19 am, jamie rishaw j...@arpa.com wrote:
Off topic.
The issue is with the daemon, not your devices.
https://lists.balabit.hu/mailman/listinfo/syslog-ng
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Peter Persson web...@webbax.se wrote:
Hey,
I got a weird problem with my syslog-ng setup, im logging from alot of
cisco machines and that works great.
The problem is that when i pass this further to a shell program, some
lines disapere.
My destination looks like this
destination hosts {
file(/var/log/ciscorouters/$HOST.log
owner(root) group(root) perm(0600) dir_perm(0700) create_dirs(yes));
program(/scripts/irc/syslog_wrapper_new.sh template(t_irctempl));
};
The /var/log/ciscorouters/$HOST.log writes correct, but the data thats
putted trough to /scripts/irc/syslog_wrapper_new.sh only get the first
line, if it gets flooded (like 5 rows per second).
Do anyone of you have any idea of what might be the problem?
Regards,
Peter
--
jamie rishaw // .com.arpa@j - reverse it. ish.
...let's consider this world like a family and care about each other...
-Malala Yousafzai
--
Anurag Bhatia
anuragbhatia.com
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
The UK only does this with BT OpenReach since they were the telco monopoly that originated as a government entity. Virgin Media (well all the people who now form Virgin Media) built and operates their own fiber/HFC access networks, the same as MSOs in the US, and does not offer wholesale access and isn't treated as a utility. There are areas in the UK Virgin serves where the wholesale network does not, and areas where they offer much faster speeds, which is the same exact scenario as we have here. Just because Verizon isn't using VDSL/VDSL2 or hasn't brought FIOS to your area isn't Comcast's fault. The newer OpenReach wholesale fiber network is also partially subsidized by the government. I'm all for wholesale broadband access, but I wouldn't paint the situation in the UK as vastly different than here. We had the same thing the UK does now 10+ years ago with the CLECs and DSL providers like Covad, etc. but the regulations changed and dried up access. TWC did wholesale access during the same time; Earthlink Cable had quite a few customers back in the day through the arrangement, but it was complicated and ultimately your Internet pipe all still went through TWC. Phil On 5/10/14, 2:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: Nice discussion about history motivations. Not completely correct, but it's always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since both are open to intepretation. Personally, I am interested in the future, and specifically in market-driven solutions to our problems. Call me a capitalist if you like, but I believe in a functioning market, we can get a very good approximation of fair. If Company A and Company B have a mutual customer, and that customer needs both companies to perform a task, the market will find a way to make those two companies work together. Either that, or the customer will replace A or B, whichever the customer feels is underperforming, with Company C. We have that situation today. Streaming Company wants to send End User of Broadband Company some content. If Streaming Company sucks - not enough titles, lousy customer service, high price, poor performance, etc., etc. - End User is free to select Streaming Company 2. And contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of Streaming Company 2s available. Besides NF, there is Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, iPlayer, etc. They might have different models, but they all allow you to access streaming content, so choice is available. And here is where we get into the problem. Should End User believe Broadband Company sucks, they frequently cannot choose Broadband Company 2. I know I cannot, my choices are Comcast @ 100 Mbps or Verizon at 1.1 (yes, one-point-one) Mbps. So when Streaming Company sucks, but they suck because Broadband company is doing something I do not like, I cannot vote with my wallet and pick Broadband Company 2. I have no choice but to pick Streaming Company 2, even if I think the problem is Broadband Company's fault. (To be clear, I am not a NF subscriber - any more - and so this is not a NF/CC thing, I'm just talking generalities.) Put more succinctly, there is no functioning market. therefore there cannot be a market-based solution. Personally, I view that as about the most Un-American, Un-Capitalistic thing there is. Lots of people have suggested a simple, if very difficult, fix to this problem. Make the underlying physical infrastructure a regulated monopoly, i.e. a Utility. Then allow anyone to run services over that physical infrastructure. This is not pipe dream. The UK does it today. People there pick ISPs based on service, price, features, etc., not on who paid off my local PUC. And before anyone brings up the whole the UK is more dense than the US, I preemptively call BS. There is more choice, faster speeds, and lower prices in the middle of no-where UK than downtown manhattan. Please just leave that argument where it belongs, in the dung heap. Why can we not do something similar in the US? because the companies who own the lines have enough money to pay enough lobbyists to avoid even the promises they do make. (If anyone on this list is un-aware of things like the telcos promising ubiquitous high-speed BB years ago and never delivering, but never giving back their tax breaks or monopoly positions, you should be ashamed of yourselves.) But hey, a guy can dream, right? In the mean time, let's stop pretending that 'oh, L3 paid CC so they must be best friends'. L3 paid because They Had No Choice, and maybe because they see some long-term strategic benefit (e.g. they can charge others more later). This is not a functioning market. This is a few players with Market Power charging Rents, which any first year econ major will explain is a _very_very_very_ bad place for the market to be. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
I agree with your summary. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay person. http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/. my friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that as a good sign. randy
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
It is important to consider bias and factual accuracy of the material. George Ou was working for Comcast and ATT as a lobbyist at the time he produced the Youtube video. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: That was an interesting read but it's not the whole story. Skip to the TL;DR if you'd like but I'll attempt to explain what happened. What he isn't saying is the roles of the companies involved have changed over the last 10 years. Mostly gone are the days that content providers and access networks each just gave a middleman/transit provider money to reach each other. Content provider has expanded to become content delivery network and access network has expanded their role to offer transit as well. If these networks have a large amount of traffic between them and are able to reach each other in multiple locations nationally what is the technical reason a 3rd party transit network is required instead of a direct peering relationship? From a purely technical perspective content and access at that scale can peer directly cutting out the middle man. The reality is an increasingly directly peered Internet doesn't sit well if you are in the business of being the middle man. Now if you will, why do transit companies themselves charge content companies to deliver bits? How is it fair to be in the business of charging companies to receive their bits and hand them to a settlement free peer on the hook to deliver them, but not fair for content to just bypass the transit company and enter a paid peering agreement with the company delivering the bits? In this case paid peering is mutually beneficial to both companies involved and is typically cheaper for the content company than it would cost to send that traffic over transit. What we have is a major shift in the market over the last 10 or so years. So why are these large nationally connected access networks charging Level 3 for ports? That's the elephant in the room here and to understand that you have to go back to where (to my knowledge) this dispute first went public. The most comprehensive description I have seen to date is the following Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR1sLLOYxnY I recommend the video before continuing. Level 3 is really both Level 3 transit and Level 3 CDN. Level 3 has already had a long standing precedent of justifying the right of an ISP to charge for content delivery. So what happens when Level 3 greatly expands their content delivery business and sends traffic to other ISP's over settlement free ports? The large access networks say hey, content delivery is a billable service, you should know and they ask Level 3 CDN for compensation. The middleman networks protest and say Charging for content delivery is only OK if we do it, but not when you do it! and their justification for this claim is made on the basis that unlike access networks they a) Have a large network and b) send a full table of prefixes. So lets look at the first claim. Are the transit networks large? Yes, but especially in the case of North American traffic destined for North America they are typically smaller overall than the largest access networks who arguably have the lions share of equipment tasked with delivering the bits beyond just the colo. The 2nd claim is mostly a strawman and this is why. Middlemen still carry traffic not destined to directly connected peers but how they bill for it is largely based on volume of traffic, not the number of prefixes exchanged. The big content providers and the big access networks make up a majority of the traffic on the Internet even if they don't make up a majority of the prefixes. TL;DR So the reason the ports are maxed out is the market has changed, access networks have attempted to change peering agreements to match the existing market conditions but the middleman networks are arguing they should be exempt from the long standing tradition of charging for content delivery they themselves helped to establish. Some middleman networks have responded by refusing payment to access networks for delivery and as a result, the paths have not been upgraded and remain congested. End of TL;DR The next part is (even) more opinion than fact so you are forgiven if you stop here. My opinion is this is a peering dispute more than something that should fall under net neutrality. If content companies sent letters to middlmen that said In your statements to the public you made the case that content delivery to ISP's should be settlement free so we have decided to take your offer and refuse any further payment to you from here forward how would they handle it? Likely those companies would not only find themselves congested but depeered. A bunch of people say charging at both ends is double dipping but really modern access networks are now at least partly filling the role of transit as well as last
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
The pertinent question is what time period Level 3 was looking at / averaging when writing the blog post. Even if Comcast and Level 3 are not congested right at this moment, they were most definitely congested several years following their landmark agreement. A better question would be why that is/was. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote: Hi Jeff – I noticed the question posed here so thought I’d respond, perhaps at risk of stirring up a hornet’s nest given how long the last thread was. ;-) Anyway… there’s no congestion between Comcast and Level 3 connections, and we’re working collaboratively with Level 3. Given these facts, we have no reason to believe that Comcast is on their list. - Jason Comcast On 5/8/14, 1:18 PM, =JeffH jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.commailto:jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com wrote: Level 3 accuses five unnamed US ISPs of abusing their market power in peering http://gigaom.com/2014/05/05/level-3-accuses-five-unnamed-us-isps-of-abusing-their-market-power-in-peering/ ...I’d love to see Cogent, Google and other providers release their data next, so even if the FCC doesn’t want to pursue this, a growing cry of consumer outrage could push the agency to do something about a very real and difficult problem that’s crippling access to video content on 5 U.S. broadband networks. Level 3 didn’t name names, but based on the deals Netflix has signed and the complaints it has made about ATT, I’m confident that ATT, Verizon and Comcast are among the five.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
If we ignore why and how the few high speed options exist for a moment and accept that it's the way it is, then it seems reasonable that the place to put regulation is on them. At the same time cutting out middlemen is generally good for everyone but the middlemen. My current opinion then is to let ISPs cut out the middlemen but ensure that services which don't pay fees get reasonable access; regulate peering and transit agreements (not just for access providers but across the board). ISPs should be responsible to keep their links congestion free and have fair and reasonable terms to connect to their networks. They can sell direct access to their network to anyone as long as they aren't selling QoS. Comcast and Verizon can sell direct access to content providers but they cannot degrade service as leverage in negotiations. A side effect would be that if peering agreements must be public and there are stated terms for various types of peering many of the silky peering games that get played and the silky peering disagreements that cause problems would be more difficult. We could finally answer the age old question, is company X a 'tier 1'. -- Mike On May 10, 2014, at 14:42, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: Nice discussion about history motivations. Not completely correct, but it's always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since both are open to intepretation. Personally, I am interested in the future, and specifically in market-driven solutions to our problems. Call me a capitalist if you like, but I believe in a functioning market, we can get a very good approximation of fair. If Company A and Company B have a mutual customer, and that customer needs both companies to perform a task, the market will find a way to make those two companies work together. Either that, or the customer will replace A or B, whichever the customer feels is underperforming, with Company C. We have that situation today. Streaming Company wants to send End User of Broadband Company some content. If Streaming Company sucks - not enough titles, lousy customer service, high price, poor performance, etc., etc. - End User is free to select Streaming Company 2. And contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of Streaming Company 2s available. Besides NF, there is Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, iPlayer, etc. They might have different models, but they all allow you to access streaming content, so choice is available. And here is where we get into the problem. Should End User believe Broadband Company sucks, they frequently cannot choose Broadband Company 2. I know I cannot, my choices are Comcast @ 100 Mbps or Verizon at 1.1 (yes, one-point-one) Mbps. So when Streaming Company sucks, but they suck because Broadband company is doing something I do not like, I cannot vote with my wallet and pick Broadband Company 2. I have no choice but to pick Streaming Company 2, even if I think the problem is Broadband Company's fault. (To be clear, I am not a NF subscriber - any more - and so this is not a NF/CC thing, I'm just talking generalities.) Put more succinctly, there is no functioning market. therefore there cannot be a market-based solution. Personally, I view that as about the most Un-American, Un-Capitalistic thing there is. Lots of people have suggested a simple, if very difficult, fix to this problem. Make the underlying physical infrastructure a regulated monopoly, i.e. a Utility. Then allow anyone to run services over that physical infrastructure. This is not pipe dream. The UK does it today. People there pick ISPs based on service, price, features, etc., not on who paid off my local PUC. And before anyone brings up the whole the UK is more dense than the US, I preemptively call BS. There is more choice, faster speeds, and lower prices in the middle of no-where UK than downtown manhattan. Please just leave that argument where it belongs, in the dung heap. Why can we not do something similar in the US? because the companies who own the lines have enough money to pay enough lobbyists to avoid even the promises they do make. (If anyone on this list is un-aware of things like the telcos promising ubiquitous high-speed BB years ago and never delivering, but never giving back their tax breaks or monopoly positions, you should be ashamed of yourselves.) But hey, a guy can dream, right? In the mean time, let's stop pretending that 'oh, L3 paid CC so they must be best friends'. L3 paid because They Had No Choice, and maybe because they see some long-term strategic benefit (e.g. they can charge others more later). This is not a functioning market. This is a few players with Market Power charging Rents, which any first year econ major will explain is a _very_very_very_ bad place for the market to be. -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
++1 Andrew Fried andrew.fr...@gmail.com On 5/10/14, 2:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Nice discussion about history motivations. Not completely correct, but it's always fun to argue over history, and over motivations, since both are open to intepretation. Personally, I am interested in the future, and specifically in market-driven solutions to our problems. Call me a capitalist if you like, but I believe in a functioning market, we can get a very good approximation of fair. If Company A and Company B have a mutual customer, and that customer needs both companies to perform a task, the market will find a way to make those two companies work together. Either that, or the customer will replace A or B, whichever the customer feels is underperforming, with Company C. We have that situation today. Streaming Company wants to send End User of Broadband Company some content. If Streaming Company sucks - not enough titles, lousy customer service, high price, poor performance, etc., etc. - End User is free to select Streaming Company 2. And contrary to popular belief, there are plenty of Streaming Company 2s available. Besides NF, there is Hulu, Amazon, iTunes, iPlayer, etc. They might have different models, but they all allow you to access streaming content, so choice is available. And here is where we get into the problem. Should End User believe Broadband Company sucks, they frequently cannot choose Broadband Company 2. I know I cannot, my choices are Comcast @ 100 Mbps or Verizon at 1.1 (yes, one-point-one) Mbps. So when Streaming Company sucks, but they suck because Broadband company is doing something I do not like, I cannot vote with my wallet and pick Broadband Company 2. I have no choice but to pick Streaming Company 2, even if I think the problem is Broadband Company's fault. (To be clear, I am not a NF subscriber - any more - and so this is not a NF/CC thing, I'm just talking generalities.) Put more succinctly, there is no functioning market. therefore there cannot be a market-based solution. Personally, I view that as about the most Un-American, Un-Capitalistic thing there is. Lots of people have suggested a simple, if very difficult, fix to this problem. Make the underlying physical infrastructure a regulated monopoly, i.e. a Utility. Then allow anyone to run services over that physical infrastructure. This is not pipe dream. The UK does it today. People there pick ISPs based on service, price, features, etc., not on who paid off my local PUC. And before anyone brings up the whole the UK is more dense than the US, I preemptively call BS. There is more choice, faster speeds, and lower prices in the middle of no-where UK than downtown manhattan. Please just leave that argument where it belongs, in the dung heap. Why can we not do something similar in the US? because the companies who own the lines have enough money to pay enough lobbyists to avoid even the promises they do make. (If anyone on this list is un-aware of things like the telcos promising ubiquitous high-speed BB years ago and never delivering, but never giving back their tax breaks or monopoly positions, you should be ashamed of yourselves.) But hey, a guy can dream, right? In the mean time, let's stop pretending that 'oh, L3 paid CC so they must be best friends'. L3 paid because They Had No Choice, and maybe because they see some long-term strategic benefit (e.g. they can charge others more later). This is not a functioning market. This is a few players with Market Power charging Rents, which any first year econ major will explain is a _very_very_very_ bad place for the market to be.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
In these situations, I find it helps to mentally implement structural separation. So you have level3-Transit and Level3-CDN as separate companies. Netflix pays Level3-CDN to make content available locally in many cities. It is up to the ISP to find the most efficient way to connect to the Level3-CDN node(s). As a CDN, does Level3 offer free peering with ISPs who only have to pay for ports in a big switch ? ? Similarly, if there were Comcast-Transit and Comcast-ISP, and I purchase transit from Comcast-Transit, does it offer good connectivity around the world, or is it just a shell company that serves the Comcast-ISP ?
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
On May 10, 2014 at 22:34 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay person. http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/. my friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that as a good sign. Yeah, well, for extra credit integrate Akamai into that story. -- -Barry Shein The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
Re: Odd syslog-ng problem
It's hard to say without seeing the actual script. Is your script running
as a daemon or are you counting on syslog-ng to start your program per
message. If the latter, that's probably not the best strategy.
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Peter Persson web...@webbax.se wrote:
Hey,
I got a weird problem with my syslog-ng setup, im logging from alot of
cisco machines and that works great.
The problem is that when i pass this further to a shell program, some
lines disapere.
My destination looks like this
destination hosts {
file(/var/log/ciscorouters/$HOST.log
owner(root) group(root) perm(0600) dir_perm(0700) create_dirs(yes));
program(/scripts/irc/syslog_wrapper_new.sh template(t_irctempl));
};
The /var/log/ciscorouters/$HOST.log writes correct, but the data thats
putted trough to /scripts/irc/syslog_wrapper_new.sh only get the first
line, if it gets flooded (like 5 rows per second).
Do anyone of you have any idea of what might be the problem?
Regards,
Peter
