BGP Session
Hi, So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how to set those up or which one I would need. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Re: BGP Session
I love the From: field :-)
Re: BGP Session
whats not to love… its DKIM’d everything /bill Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. On 16July2014Wednesday, at 1:12, Stephane Bortzmeyer bortzme...@nic.fr wrote: I love the From: field :-)
Re: BGP Session
On 07/16/2014 04:05 AM, Abuse Contact wrote: Hi, So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how to set those up or which one I would need. Just ask your hosting provider to announce it for you and route it from their border to your box? -- Brandon Martin
Re: Net Neutrality...
On 2014-07-16 04:04, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine broadband as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? That they understand that more than one person lives in a house. Spying on us? Presumably he means Internet of Things, and Snowden et. al. Graham. -- “If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” George Orwell, 1984
Re: Net Neutrality...
Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural Broadband Experiments. I don't think this needs translation, but please read carefully. *2.* We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage participation in the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entities—including competitive local exchange carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs, State and regional authorities, Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49 We were encouraged to see the diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties. Of the more than 1,000 expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not currently ETCs, including electric utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments. *22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they initially submit their formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but that they must obtain ETC designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding award. As stated in the Tech Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within 90 days of the public notice announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51 Any winning bidder that fails to notify the Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe will be considered in default and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural broadband experiment. Any funding that is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other applicants. We conclude this is necessary so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner. However, a waiver of this deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate that it has engaged in good faith to obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day timeframe.[52] *23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt a presumption that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected participant within a specified period of time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission will address the ETC application. Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54 We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section 214(e)(6).55 Although we are confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance broadband, and we expect states to expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest in providing voice and broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also recognize the need to adopt measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in situations where there is a lack of action by the state. == 52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to submit their ETC applications to the relevant jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice announcing winning bids, and will presume an entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15 days of release of the public notice. A waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an entity has an ETC application pending with a state, and the state’s next meeting at which it would consider the ETC application will occur after the 90-day window. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically support over the top VoIP so that we can help our customers get inexpensive telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.) --Brett Glass At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote: I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Re: Net Neutrality...
Here is the actual document for defining what the federal government considers to be an ETC. Keep in mind that state level boards actually make the designation based on these, and potentially state level regulations, so there is some variation based on the state(s) you operate in. Having said, that the requirements have not seemed overly onerous to us where we have considered them, which certainly isn't all 50 states. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-46A1.pdf 20. As described above, ETC applicants must meet statutorily prescribed requirements before we can approve their designation as an ETC.46 Based on the record before us, we find that an ETC applicant must demonstrate: (1) a commitment and ability to provide services, including providing service to all customers within its proposed service area; (2) how it will remain functional in emergency situations; (3) that it will satisfy consumer protection and service quality standards; (4) that it offers local usage comparable to that offered by the incumbent LEC; and (5) an understanding that it may be required to provide equal access if all other ETCs in the designated service area relinquish their designations pursuant to section 214(e)(4) of the Act.47 As noted above, these requirements are mandatory for all ETCs designated by the Commission. ETCs designated by the Commission prior to this Report and Order will be required to make such showings when they submit their annual certification filing on October 1, 2006. We also encourage state commissions to apply these requirements to all ETC applicants over which they exercise jurisdiction. We do not believe that different ETCs should be subject to different obligations, going forward, because of when they happened to first obtain ETC designation from the Commission or the state. These are responsibilities associated with receiving universal service support that apply to all ETCs, regardless of the date of initial designation. Its also worth noting that you do _not_ have to offer voice or life line services according the federal guidelines. 3947 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1)(A). The services that are supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms are: (1) voice grade access to the public switched network; (2) local usage; (3) Dual Tone Multifrequency (DTMF) signaling or its functional equivalent; (4) single-party service or its functional equivalent; (5) access to emergency services, including 911 and enhanced 911; (6) access to operator services; (7) access to interexchange services; (8) access to directory assistance; and (9) toll limitation for qualifying low-income customers. See 47 C.F.R. § 54.101. While section 214(e)(1) requires an ETC to “offer” the services supported by the federal universal service support mechanisms, the Commission has determined that this does not require a competitive carrier to actually provide the supported services throughout the designated service area before designation as an ETC. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Preemption of an Order of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 96-45, 15 FCC Rcd 15168, 15172-75, paras. 10- 18 (2000), recon. pending (Section 214(e) Declaratory Ruling). That was once a requirement that kept most WISPs from being able to participate, but is no longer. I don't personally see a large hurdle for WISPs in the federal language and I work with 4 I know of that have ETC status in 3 different states. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote: I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become Eligible Telecommunications Carriers, or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't
Re: Net Neutrality...
ETCs aside for a moment, the NTIA used to give out an awful lot of money for rural electrification, then for telecom - a lot of it going to small players, coops, and municipalities. A Probably still does - though I haven't followed the program in recent years. Yes, writing and selling a grant proposal can be tedious, but then again, so is a venture capital proposal, or dealing with banks. Or, for that matter, selling to large customers public or private. Miles Fidelman On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Bob Evans b...@fiberinternetcenter.com wrote: I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for internet services...pretty much just for LECs. Thank You Bob Evans CTO I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural ISPs a bad reputation. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote: Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund, as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ? It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs become Eligible Telecommunications Carriers, or ETCs, before they can receive money from it. An ETC is a telephone company which is regulated under the mountain of regulations, requirements, and red tape of Title II of the Telecomm Act. It has to report to both state regulatory agencies AND the FCC. It's a classification that doesn't fit ISPs at all, but they would have to subject themselves to this heavy-handed regulation before they could get a dime from the fund. The FCC just announced a rural broadband experiment in which it will fund ETCs, but not pure-play ISPs, to build out rural broadband; see http://www.fcc.gov/document/rural-broadband-experiments-order As part of this experiment, the FCC will pay telephone companies to overbuild us, even though the residents of the areas in question already have service. This is because, as far as the regulators are concerned, if they do not have their regulatory hooks in us, we don't exist and any service we provide does not count. The experiment also requires participants to tie up large amounts of money in escrow accounts so that they can obtain letters of credit guaranteeing performance. All of this is, alas, the regulators' way of attempting to destroy those whom they cannot regulate. IMHO, the USF is outmoded and should be disbanded. --Brett Glass -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134 -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Net Neutrality...
Wow, first time I ever saw this line so thanks for the text. partnerships among interested entities...that leaves it open to all. Unless, a bureaucrat wants to pull out this some other supporting documentssomething additional that is all encompassing like our equal opportunity, filed and registered bla-blah-blah, on the government list...and now you have to do this and this and this. Sometimes it's even referred to on page 681...723...it often becomes a battle of words. That cost money and demands time. Do you know how difficult it is to teach a lawyer somethings a simple as what an IP address is. Seen that happen before a lot ! Just saying.however, you did prove your point that it's possible. Well done. Thank You Bob Evans CTO Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural Broadband Experiments. I don't think this needs translation, but please read carefully. *2.* We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage participation in the rural broadband experiments from a wide range of entitiesâincluding competitive local exchange carriers, electric utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, WISPs, State and regional authorities, Tribal governments, and partnerships among interested entities.49 We were encouraged to see the diversity in the expressions of interest submitted by interested parties. Of the more than 1,000 expressions of interest filed, almost half were from entities that are not currently ETCs, including electric utilities, WISPS, and agencies of state, county or local governments. *22.* We remind entities that they need not be ETCs at the time they initially submit their formal proposals for funding through the rural broadband experiments, but that they must obtain ETC designation after being identified as winning bidders for the funding award. As stated in the Tech Transitions Order, we expect entities to confirm their ETC status within 90 days of the public notice announcing the winning bidders selected to receive funding.51 Any winning bidder that fails to notify the Bureau that it has obtained ETC designation within the 90 day timeframe will be considered in default and will not be eligible to receive funding for its proposed rural broadband experiment. Any funding that is forfeited in such a manner will not be redistributed to other applicants. We conclude this is necessary so that we can move forward with the experiments in a timely manner. However, a waiver of this deadline may be appropriate if a winning bidder is able to demonstrate that it has engaged in good faith to obtain ETC designation, but has not received approval within the 90-day timeframe.[52] *23.* We sought comment in the Tech Transitions FNPRM on whether to adopt a presumption that if a state fails to act on an ETC application from a selected participant within a specified period of time, the state lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission will address the ETC application. Multiple commenters supported this proposal.54 We now conclude that, for purposes of this experiment, if after 90 days a state has failed to act on a pending ETC application, an entity may request that the Commission designate it as an ETC, pursuant to section 214(e)(6).55 Although we are confident that states share our desire to work cooperatively to advance broadband, and we expect states to expeditiously designate qualified entities that have expressed an interest in providing voice and broadband to consumers in price cap areas within their states, we also recognize the need to adopt measures that will provide a pathway to obtaining ETC designation in situations where there is a lack of action by the state. == 52 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.3. We expect entities selected for funding to submit their ETC applications to the relevant jurisdiction as soon as possible after release of the public notice announcing winning bids, and will presume an entity to have shown good faith if it files its ETC application within 15 days of release of the public notice. A waiver of the 90-day deadline would be appropriate if, for example, if an entity has an ETC application pending with a state, and the stateâs next meeting at which it would consider the ETC application will occur after the 90-day window. On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically support over the top VoIP so that we can help our customers get inexpensive telephone service without ourselves having to be a telephone company.) --Brett Glass At 07:53 PM 7/15/2014, Bob Evans wrote: I think
Re: Net Neutrality...
Relevant article by former FCC Chair http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Net Neutrality...
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: Relevant article by former FCC Chair http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican free markets ideologue) on a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst. YMMV, of course. Eric
Re: Net Neutrality...
Barry, Your point is well made and applies to present conditions. I'm not sure the current Net Neutrality debate extends so much to access, though we should talk about that (Consumer access service policy: No servers at home!? Asymmetric bandwidth profiles!? What is this, the dark ages?). The problem as I understand exists within the realm of the backbone and content where scale is a concern. And your point still applies as some explicit value for adequate can be determined, i.e. 10 or 100g peer and transit links. Regarding neutrality, if public megacorp monetizes priority traffic, does that present a moral hazard for megacorp to allow interface saturation and push more content into priority service? What is the high water mark for priority services reaching best effort behavior, i.e. all traffic is priority contending for a single queue? Anyway, I feel like this horse is dead. I'd like to talk about neutrality in symmetry on consumer access services. I'd gladly trade my 30/5 for 15/15 with the ability to host services for the ~$60/mo I pay today. Jason On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Re: Net Neutrality In the past all attempts to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large -- to create the one true commercial content provider -- have failed. For example, AOL, Prodigy, various portals, MSN, Netscape, on and on. We can split hairs about who goes on the list but the result is clear since if even only one qualifies we know it failed. The point stands. To a great extent net neutrality (or non-neutrality) is yet another attempt to create a content competitor to the internet-at-large. This doesn't prove it won't work but the track record viewed this way is bad: 100% failure rate to date. Mere bandwidth can foil any such nefarious plans, assuming an enforceable zero bandwidth (or nearly so) isn't one of the choices. But just somewhat less bandwidth or as proposed prioritized bandwidth? Maybe not a problem/advantage for very long. Note: I'm using bandwidth measures below as a stand-in for all possible throughput parameters. For example if the norm have-not bandwidth were 100mb/s but the have bw was 1gb/s I doubt it would make much difference to many, many business models such as news and magazine distribution. Those services in general don't even need 100mb/s end to end (barring some ramp-up in what they view as service) so what do they care if they were excluded from 1gb/s except as a moral calumny? Do you think you could tell the difference between surfing news.google.com at 100mb/s vs 1gb/s? I don't. And if have-not-bw was 1gb/s and have 10gb/s it would make little difference to video stream services except perhaps when someone tried to ramp up to 4K or whatever. But, etc., there's always a new horizon, or will be for a while. So the key to network non-neutrality having any effect is bandwidth inadequacy for certain competitive business models. It only can exist as a business force in a bw-poor world. Right now the business model of concern is video streaming. But at what bandwidth is video streaming a non-issue? That is, I have 100mb/s, you have 1gb/s. We both watch the same movie. Do we even notice? How about 1gb/s vs 10gb/s? There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. 56kb dial-up is sufficient for displaying 512kx512k images, and 1mb/s is luxurious for that application, you couldn't gain a business advantage by offering 10mb/s modest-sized image downloads. There's simply no such open-ended extrapolation. Adequate is adequate. The internet views attempts at content monopoly as damage and routes around it. to paraphrase John Gilmore's famous observation on censorship. P.S. I suppose an up-and-coming bandwidth business model which vastly exceeds video streaming is adequate (i.e., frequent and complete) cloud backup. With cheap consumer disks in the multi-TB range, well, do the math. -- -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: Net Neutrality...
On 07/16/2014 08:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: Relevant article by former FCC Chair http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican free markets ideologue) on a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst. Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a hit piece. Doug
Re: Net Neutrality...
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a hit piece. Tim Wu is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor race in New York this year. -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.
Re: Net Neutrality...
On 07/16/2014 12:24 PM, Collin Anderson wrote: On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us mailto:do...@dougbarton.us wrote: Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a hit piece. Tim Wu is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor race in New York this year. Ah, gotcha. :) Thanks for that insight. Doug
Re: Net Neutrality...
On July 15, 2014 at 13:08 na...@brettglass.com (Brett Glass) wrote: At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote: There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model. Very true. And there's another factor to consider. Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined, range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to accept more input. (Yes, machines could digest more... which means that additional bandwidth to and from the home might be useful for the purpose of spying on us.) What does this imply about the FCC's proposal to redefine broadband as a symmetrical 10 Mbps? You can do the same sort of calculation for devices. Once the screen is updating at the screen refresh rate you are done, plus or minus getting a faster screen but as you note that's not open-ended. At some point you can't see faster refreshes anyhow. etc for other human interface devices. -- -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: Net Neutrality...
Le 16/07/2014 17:45, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit : On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: Relevant article by former FCC Chair http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican free markets ideologue) on a (Progressive) Democratic primary candidate for Lt. Governor of New York, not like a reasoned case by an informed policy analyst. YMMV, of course. I tend to agree ;-) Now, what's the ops content of this discussion? Might be a better choice to reroute this discussion to a suitable ISOC forum? I don't judge, but I think the debate is of great value, but not necessarily ``here'', but rather ``there''?---see you there? ;-) Cheers, mh Eric
Re: Net Neutrality...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer — traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points, or “off ramps,” and better quality of service. In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened the author neglected to say what planet he was on randy
Re: Net Neutrality...
On 7/16/14 3:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/ In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer — traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points, or “off ramps,” and better quality of service. In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened If one deliberately allows a path to become congested in the direction towards a receiver, It is the peer, not the receiving network who discards the traffic... the author neglected to say what planet he was on randy signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote: How would 4U of rent and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money? Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix would refuse to cover any of that out of the billions in fees it's collecting from subscribers. We can't raise our prices (that would not only cost us customers but be unfair to many of them; it would be forcing the non-Netflix users to subsidize Netflix). We simply need Netflix to pay at least some of its freight. So, to sum up, Brett, you feel that Netflix should be forced to bill their BrettGlassNet users extra to cover what they pay to BrettGlassNet to reach the users to deliver the content the users have requested instead of expecting you to bill the users for that yourself. Because Netflix refuses to do this and has enough of a market presence that you aren't succeeding so well telling your customers that they shouldn't care so much about Netflix, you're blaming Netflix for this problem? It's a shame to see a small provider acting so much like the big $CABLECO and $TELCO providers thinking that they have a right to extort money from content providers to avoid billing their subscribers more accurately. more (it costs more to serve each one). And Netflix is particularly out of line because it is insisting that we pay huge bandwidth bills for an exclusive connection just to it. It is also wasting our existing bandwidth by refusing to allow caching. The fact that some access provider was able to extort Netflix because they are a bigger 800# gorilla than Netflix shouldn't make you expect that you can extort Netflix in the same way, nor does it mean that by refusing to be extorted by smaller providers, Netflix is extorting you with their market position. In an ideal world, frankly, none of the access providers would be allowed to double-dip like this. You should have to bill your customers for the traffic you deliver to them. If they want more than your network can accommodate at what they currently pay, then they should have to pay. How you sort that out with your customers is your business. If you don't want your customers that don't use Netflix to subsidize your customers that use Netflix, use a usage-sensitive pricing or charge a premium service of some sort or whatever. That's between you and your customers (so long as you have competition and your customers have choice). If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. I don't think so. I think the reality is that access providers have been trying to find ways to force content providers to subsidize their business and avoid charging their customers accurately for a long time and that continuing to do so is damaging to everyone involved. Our best hope, unless Netflix changes its ways, is for a competitor to come along which has more ISP-friendly practices. Such a competitor could easily destroy Netflix via better relations with ISPs... and better performance and lower costs due to caching at the ISP. Your best hope is to see your competition forced to move to a pricing model that reflects the costs of delivering what their customers demand so that you can move to a similar pricing model without losing customers. It's not that I'm insensitive to your situation, just that I see this as an example of one of the many ways in which the current model has become utterly dysfunctional and attempting to perpetuate it seems ill-advised to me. If Netflix had a closed or limited peering policy, then I'd say shame on Netlfix. If Netflix only peered in an exchange point or two near corporate HQ and didn't have an extensive nationwide network, I'd say shame on Netflix. Reality is that Netflix is in most of the major peering centers already and continues to work aggressively to expand into more and more second-tier and third-tier peering centers. I'd say that is Netflix paying their share. Further, for providers that aren't in peering centers Netflix is in, they have offered a variety of alternative solutions and they pay a selection of transit providers to move the bits to providers they can't economically connect to directly. It seems to me that Netflix is being about as good a net citizen as is possible and I, for one, consider them an example that should be emulated. Access providers should have to face the reality that they are charging their customers to deliver bits they request to them. If the price they charge is insufficient to cover their costs in doing so, then they need to find ways to solve that problem. It is not Netflix fault that your customers want more bits from Netflix than they want from some other content provider, that's just Netflix having a successful business. I might have bought the idea that Netflix as a new product represents so much
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/16/14, 3:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , na...@brettglass.com wrote: If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones, will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty. I don't think so. I think the reality is that access providers have been trying to find ways to force content providers to subsidize their business and avoid charging their customers accurately for a long time and that continuing to do so is damaging to everyone involved. Indeed. We've heard this at each turn of the bandwidth crank from OMG JPG's! to OMG VoIP! to OMG HD! to OMG Quantum Teleportation! (ok, maybe not the last. yet.) Nobody's owed a business model, and we all know it's messy around the edges. Suck it up, and maybe your customers will too. Mike
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the solution is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the streams in encrypted form, passing a decryption key to the user via a separate, secured channel such as an HTTPS session. Then, it is not possible to obtain usable copies of the content by stealing either a Netflix server OR an ISP-owned cache. Problem solved. That works for individual sessions, but not for the cache scenario. Either everyone gets the same key (which is equivalent to no key at all) or the cache has to be able to participate in the encryption. Beyond that small fly in the ointment, I believe Netflix current model operates pretty much as you suggest. However, their cache boxes have to participate actively in the encryption in order to avoid providing the same decryption key to everyone for any given show. I suspect (though I don't know) that encrypted content is loaded onto the cache in a form encrypted with a key known to the software on the cache. That each streaming request causes said content to be decrypted and immediately re-encrypted with a user-specific key and/or session-specific key and then sent to the user. Hence the requirement that the cache be on a box run by Netflix, and probably part of the reason for the greater power requirements. Owen
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, My customers do not want me to creatively find ways to extract additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include paying ransom to third parties. Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they paid Netflix for the content. You are in the delivery business. Now, if you didn't charge your customers at all and charged all the content providers, instead, a la the way it is done with various shipping companies where $BOX_STORE pays the shipping company to deliver their product and bills the customer separately for shipping (or builds the cost of shipping into the price), then no problem. However, that's not what you want. You want to double dip. You want to charge your customers to deliver the bits they ask for from Netflix (and everyone else), then turn around and ask Netflix (and possibly others) to also pay you for the same delivery. It would be like FedEx or OnTrac taking money from Amazon for a shipment and then showing up at my house and asking me to pay extra or they won't give me my package. We currently provide that: we guarantee each subscriber a certain minimum capacity to the Internet exchange at 1850 Pearl Street in Denver (to which Netflix does not directly connect) with a certain maximum duty cycle. But we can't guarantee the performance of a specific third party service such as Netflix. If Netflix wants us to do that, it is going to have to pay us, as it pays Comcast. That's only fair, because we would be doing something special just for it -- something which costs money. OK, so what's the problem? If I were Netflix, I probably wouldn't pay you, either. I'd suggest to any customers we had in common that they seek out a provider that was willing to build a better network. If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly Sorry, but explaining to the user that the reason their content isn't working as well as it should is because there is insufficient bandwidth from their ISP to Netflix is a simple statement of fact, not a smear campaign. Don't like it, build a network better suited to your customer's demands. considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly -- actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee. Go for it! If you can compete with Netflix on price and quality of content and user experience, you might succeed and you might even put them out of business. That's great for everyone. I suspect, instead, that you'll get a pretty quick lesson in economics, but I encourage you to try because it can't possibly harm me if you do so and there's good upside for me if you somehow succeed. This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order. ISPs might sign on, but what about their customers? Why would the customer want to pay what that service is likely to cost? Or do you think you can bury Netflix without customers signing up? Owen
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, My customers do not want me to creatively find ways to extract additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include paying ransom to third parties. Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they paid Netflix for the content. Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 14, 2014, at 06:46 , Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Jay Ashworth wrote: [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] Jay, Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too. But.. that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say? Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to: 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate demand. 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit networks in the middle. Well, there are multiple possibilities here... A: CUST-ACCESS_NETWORK-TRANSIT_A-TRANSIT_N-NETFLIX B: CUST-ACCESS_NETWORK-TRANSIT-NETFLIX C: CUST-ACCESS_NETWORK-NETFLIX In case A, it's pretty obvious that CUST $-ACCESS_NETWORK$-TRANSIT_A and NETFLIX$-TRANSIT_N It's not entirely clear what the economics would be between TRANSIT_A-TRANSIT_N, but most likely settlement free peering. In case B, it's fairly obvious CUST $-ACCESS_NETWORK and it's less clear wehter: B1: ACCESS_NETWORK$-TRANSIT-$NETFLIX (transit double-dip) B2: ACCESS_NETWORK$-TRANSIT and Transit is settlement free with Netflix (Access pays transit) B3: TRANSIT-$NETFLIX and Access is settlement free with Transit (Netflix pays transit) I'm sure in the real world there are likely examples of all three scenarios. In case C, we arrive at what I think most of the argument is actually about. Obviuosly, CUST$-ACCESS_NETWORK. The question is whether there should also be ACCESS_NETWORK-$NETFLIX, which is what Brett is claiming should happen and what at least one very large ACCESS_NETWORK has been able to achieve at least temporarily. In my opinion, this case is a case of Access Double Dip where the access network is being paid by both the customer and the supplier for the same delivery. As I said, this would be like paying for a product from $BOX_STORE and having $BOX_STORE bill me for shipping, and pay $CARRIER for deliver only to have $CARRIER show up at my door asking for even more money before they will fork over my package. 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network. I don't think that's really part of the argument here. 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys should pay. Not really, IMHO. (See above and below) 5. $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs are big enough to say Netflix pays - with Netflix making a visible stink about it. LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORK may be able to force Netflix to pay, but that's not the same as saying Netflix _SHOULD_ pay. It's more like recognizing that market power and a large customer base can often force an economic decision that is contrary to what _SHOULD_ happen by any other rational evaluation. 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the little guys you pay. And yes, they're making it a little easier by providing the CDN boxes. Perhaps, but that's not really what is happening here if you look at it in more detail. I don't deny that Netflix _COULD_ do this, just as $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs _HAVE_ apparently done this to Netflix. However, so far, Netflix seems to be trying as hard as they can to provide cost-effective alternatives for ISPs to accept their bits in a variety of ways and allowing the ISP to choose which solution works best for them. True, Netflix hasn't built out every single distant corner of the universe with their peering network, but I would say that by any reasonable view of the situation, they have aggressively built quite a network over a large fraction of their service geography and to their credit, they are continuing to aggressively expand that network. To the best of my knowledge (and I'm sure Dave will correct me if I am wrong), Netflix would prefer to deliver bits settlement free directly to as many ACCESS_PROVIDERS as possible, because it saves Netflix from paying transit costs and it saves ACCESS_PROVIDERS from paying additional circuit or transit costs and it provides a better customer experience all around. In cases where Netflix' network does not geographically overlap $ACCESS_PROVIDER's network, then one or both will need to
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 07/16/2014 05:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them. And now they pay to pump bits out from their servers to their customers. What's your point? Doug
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Brett, Why would Netflix pay your ISP? You are, Brett, a tiny ISP. Only 200 customers. That's barely a /24 of IP addresses. What will happen instead is that your customers will pay to subsidize the network of larger ISPs who do have that marketing power. This is the true risk. Of Netflix is also paying money to the ISP, how do we know the true cost of the connection? A big ISP can fight their way into a position where no other ISP can compete.
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/16/2014 8:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, My customers do not want me to creatively find ways to extract additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include paying ransom to third parties. Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they paid Netflix for the content. Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them. Miles Fidelman Yes, Netflix did pay the postage for shipping CDs out of the fee you paid them. However, the mailman drove over roads provided and maintained by taxpayers to place that CD into a mailbox that you bought, owned, and maintained. If the glut of CDs had required bigger postal vehicles, then Netflix would not have bought bigger vehicles for the postal service. If the CD didn't fit in your mailbox, then Netflix would not have paid for a bigger mailbox for you. -DMM signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Hello This is so simple. ISP offers xxMbps and should deliver that to the customer. Dear customer. If you cannot stream full quality, upgrade . Dear ISP stop promising xxMbps if you advertise a port cap lower than theoretical port bandwidth. Basically fraud. On Jul 16, 2014 7:19 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 06:46 , Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Jay Ashworth wrote: [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ] Jay, Quite agree with you on this stuff. I used to spend a good part of my time working with municipalities on planning fiber builds - so VZ's behavior on those matters leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth too. But.. that's kind of a different issue, wouldn't you say? Am I obtuse or does it all boil down to: 1. If both Netflix customers, and Netflix all connected to a single network - customers would be paying for their access connections, and Netflix would be paying for a pipe big enough to handle the aggregate demand. 2. The issue is that customers connect to one network (actually multiple networks, but lets stick with Verizon for now), and pay Verizon; Netflix buys aggregate capacity into other networks; with one or more transit networks in the middle. Well, there are multiple possibilities here... A: CUST-ACCESS_NETWORK-TRANSIT_A-TRANSIT_N-NETFLIX B: CUST-ACCESS_NETWORK-TRANSIT-NETFLIX C: CUST-ACCESS_NETWORK-NETFLIX In case A, it's pretty obvious that CUST $-ACCESS_NETWORK$-TRANSIT_A and NETFLIX$-TRANSIT_N It's not entirely clear what the economics would be between TRANSIT_A-TRANSIT_N, but most likely settlement free peering. In case B, it's fairly obvious CUST $-ACCESS_NETWORK and it's less clear wehter: B1: ACCESS_NETWORK$-TRANSIT-$NETFLIX (transit double-dip) B2: ACCESS_NETWORK$-TRANSIT and Transit is settlement free with Netflix (Access pays transit) B3: TRANSIT-$NETFLIX and Access is settlement free with Transit (Netflix pays transit) I'm sure in the real world there are likely examples of all three scenarios. In case C, we arrive at what I think most of the argument is actually about. Obviuosly, CUST$-ACCESS_NETWORK. The question is whether there should also be ACCESS_NETWORK-$NETFLIX, which is what Brett is claiming should happen and what at least one very large ACCESS_NETWORK has been able to achieve at least temporarily. In my opinion, this case is a case of Access Double Dip where the access network is being paid by both the customer and the supplier for the same delivery. As I said, this would be like paying for a product from $BOX_STORE and having $BOX_STORE bill me for shipping, and pay $CARRIER for deliver only to have $CARRIER show up at my door asking for even more money before they will fork over my package. 3. Somebody has to pay for what's in the middle (ports into transit networks, bandwidth across them). Those are additional costs, that wouldn't exist if everyone were connected to the same network. I don't think that's really part of the argument here. 4. Both parties can make reasonable claims about why the other guys should pay. Not really, IMHO. (See above and below) 5. $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs are big enough to say Netflix pays - with Netflix making a visible stink about it. LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORK may be able to force Netflix to pay, but that's not the same as saying Netflix _SHOULD_ pay. It's more like recognizing that market power and a large customer base can often force an economic decision that is contrary to what _SHOULD_ happen by any other rational evaluation. 6. Netflix is important enough to end users, that Netflix can tell the little guys you pay. And yes, they're making it a little easier by providing the CDN boxes. Perhaps, but that's not really what is happening here if you look at it in more detail. I don't deny that Netflix _COULD_ do this, just as $LARGE_ACCESS_NETWORKs _HAVE_ apparently done this to Netflix. However, so far, Netflix seems to be trying as hard as they can to provide cost-effective alternatives for ISPs to accept their bits in a variety of ways and allowing the ISP to choose which solution works best for them. True, Netflix hasn't built out every single distant corner of the universe with their peering network, but I would say that by any reasonable view of the situation, they have aggressively built quite a network over a large fraction of their service geography and to their credit, they are continuing to aggressively expand that network. To the best of my knowledge (and I'm sure Dave will correct me if I am wrong), Netflix would prefer to deliver bits settlement free directly to as many
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 16, 2014, at 17:14 , Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Owen DeLong wrote: On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote: At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote: ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers, My customers do not want me to creatively find ways to extract additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should be covering. Nor do they want me to subsidize Netflix subscribers from the fees from non-Netflix subscribers. They want to pay a fair price for their Internet that does not include paying ransom to third parties. Why should Netflix be covering those expenses? Your customers asked for the content from Netflix. They paid you to deliver it and they paid Netflix for the content. Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them. Because that was the contract you had with Netflix. Did you also pay the post office to bring the DVD to you? (To the best of my knowledge, Netflix never shipped CDs)? Yes, if you pay Netflix to pay the delivery charges, I have no problem with them paying your ISP. However, in this case, you're paying your ISP, so Netflix shouldn't have to. My point is your ISP shouldn't get to double-dip. Owen
Re: BGP Session
Wow -- be careful playing with public eBGP sessions unless you know what you're doing. It can affect the entire Internet. Since you're just connecting to a single upstream ISP, you wont qualify for a public AS number. So, you'll have to work with your upstream ISP to agree on a private AS number you can use. You will be setting up an eBGP session (which is a session between two different AS numbers, as opposed to iBGP, wherein the AS numbers are the same). As for running BGP on a dedicated server, it'll depend on the OS in use. Assuming Linux, take a look at Quagga, BIRD, and ExaBGP. http://www.nongnu.org/quagga/ http://bird.network.cz/ https://code.google.com/p/exabgp/ It may be a *lot* easier for you to just have your upstream ISP announce your IP space, and route it to your dedicated server, unless you need the ability to turn it off and on over time. Cheers, jof On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:05 AM, Abuse Contact stopabuseandrep...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, So I just purchased a Dedicated server from this one company and I have a /24 IPv4 block that I bought from a company on WebHostingTalk, but I am clueless on how to setup the /24 IPv4 block using the BGP Session. I want to set it up to run through their network as if it was one of their IPs, etc. I keep seeing things like iBGP (which I think means like a inner routing BGP) and eBGP (what I'm talking about??) but I have no idea how to set those up or which one I would need. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
FCC Counsel Jonathan Sallet spoke at the USA-IGF today - I've pulled it out as a clip https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf-usa-2014/videos/56799195 -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
