[NANOG-announce] NANOG 64 - San Francisco - Call for Presentations is Open!
Greetings NANOG Folks, NANOG 63 in San Antonio is still a fairly fresh memory (for those who were there). NANOG will hold its 64th meeting in San Francisco, CA on June 1-3, 2015, hosted by Netflix. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 64 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet, . Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. Key dates to track if you wish to submit a presentation: Key Dates For NANOG 64 Event/Deadline Date Registration for NANOG 64 Opens March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Opens for NANOG 64 March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #1: Presentation Abstracts Due March 30, 2015 (Monday) CFP Topic List and NANOG Highlights Page Posted April 13, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #2: Presentation Slides Due April 27, 2015 (Monday) Meeting Agenda Published May 4, 2015 (Monday) Speaker FINAL presentations to PC Tool https://pc.nanog.org/ May 29, 2015 (Friday) On-site Registration May 31, 2015 (Sunday) Lightning Talk Submissions Open (Abstracts Only) June 1, 2015 (Monday) NANOG 64 submissions are welcome on the Program Committee Site https://pc.nanog.org/ or email me if you have questions. See the detailed NANOG64 Call for Presentations https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog63/callforpresentations for more information. You can also view the NANOG events calendar https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o0u68%40group.calendar.google.comctz=America/Los_Angeles (including the key dates above and more) import in ICS format https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o0u68%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics . Thanks, Tony Tauber Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG) ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Barry Shein wrote: Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant changes to the protocol or human behavior. We ran significant Usenet servers with binaries for nearly 20 years and without for another 5 and the servers' traffic was heavily asymmetric. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Hey Barry - just to be clear, twasn't I who made the claim - I'm the one who asked for your input re. Scott's claim! With all due respect it's like people act purposely obtuse just to argue. If you're a Usenet server (and most likely client) then it'll be somewhat symmetric. Depending on how many nodes you serve the bias could easily be towards upload bandwidth as msgs come in once (ideally) but you flood them to all the other servers you serve once per server, the entire traffic goes out multiple times, plus or minus various optimizations like already have that msg oh for the love of all that is good and holy do I have to type the entire NNTP protocol spec in here just to make sure there isn't some microscopic crack of light someone can use to misinterpret and/or pick nits about??? What was the original question because I think this has degenerated into just argumentativeness, we're on the verge of spelling and grammar error flames. I don't know how anyone who claims to have run Usenet servers couldn't know all this, is it just trolling? -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On March 1, 2015 at 16:13 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote: On 01/03/2015 03:41, Barry Shein wrote: On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote: there were several reasons for asymmetric services, one of which was commercial. Another was that most users' bandwidth profiles were massively asymmetric to start with so it made sense for consumers to have more bandwidth in one direction than another. How could they have known this before it was introduced? because we had modem banks before we had adsl. And you are asserting that studies were done on user behavior over dial-up modems in order to justify asymmetric service? Well, maybe there was some observation and conclusions from those observations that people tended to download more than they uploaded, it's not inherently hard to believe. I'd've had questions about how well 56kb theoretical max predicted behavior at ~10x higher speeds of *DSL. But whatever you work with what you have. I still think a lot of the motivation was to distinguish residential from commercial products. We are talking about a product sold by regional monopolies, right? I say that was prescriptive and a best guess that it'd be acceptable and a way to differentiate commercial from residential service. Previously all residential service (e.g., dial-up, ISDN) was symmetrical. Maybe they had some data on that usage but it'd be muddy just due to the low bandwidth they provided. maybe it was symmetric on your modems; it wasn't on the modems I managed. Bandwidth or usage? Are you changing the subject? I was talking about bandwidth, bandwidth on dial-up modems was symmetric or roughly symmetric (perhaps 53kbps down and 33kbps up was common, effectively.) Which is why I said residential SERVICE ... was symmetrical. It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and bandwidth caps. let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created? Because Class A/B/C/(D) was obviously wasteful and inflexible compared to CIDR so it caught on. Yes some were projecting an eventual IPv4 runout 20+ years ago, and IPv4 was a cost factor particularly if you were planning on deploying millions of clients tho not a killer. At any rate NAT played well into the hands of any company which wanted to distinguish a residential from commercial IP service, only a tiny per cent could see their way around a non-static address via DDNS etc. Sure. once it became institutionalized and the market got used to it why not sell tiered bandwidth services at different price points, but that could have been true of symmetrical service also. my point is simply that there is often more to asymmetric services than extracting more money from the customer. Ok fine. But don't present it as if it never crossed the minds of telcos and cablecos that asymmetric service, no static ips, etc distinguished residential from commercial service. They do include all that with commercial services, right? Well there are these small business commercial services particularly from cablecos which are hybrids, asymmetric bandwidth with static IPs etc. It was a challenge early on, the internet particularly in those days just didn't distinguish such thing as residential vs commercial, bits were bits, other than raw link speed perhaps and even then some were buying 9.6kbps and 56kbps nailed-up leased lines for $1,000+/month while others got that kind of speed over dial-up modems for $20/mo (plus POTS) and faster (128kbps) over ISDN for around $100/mo or less. A very early way to distinguish was idle-out, if you weren't sending traffic you were dropped either from dial-up or your ISDN link shut down or whatever. And someone sending at you didn't (unless you had some exotic set-up) bring the link back up. Some sites would just drop your link if you were logged in more than so many hours straight (trust me on that) to see if anyone was really there to log back in, automating that was way into the few per cent. I had an ethernet switch at home with a built-in 56kbps modem which would keep a dial-up link up, keep redialing if it lost it. In theory it should have worked, in practice it was crap. But that was probably more like 1997 when consumer products catering to this stuff really started hitting the market (other than just modems.) So you couldn't run always available servers from those kinds of services, not even an SMTP incoming server unless you adapted to that, after a few minutes idle you went offline. Some of that was resource conservation but a lot of it was to differentiate residential from commercial service. You want to run a server host it somewhere that sells that or buy an always up link (e.g., leased line.) To some extent this is six vs half a dozen. One reason commercial
[NANOG-announce] Fwd: CFP Test
Greetings NANOG Folks, NANOG 63 in San Antonio is still a fairly fresh memory (for those who were there). NANOG will hold its 64th meeting in San Francisco, CA on June 1-3, 2015, hosted by Netflix. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 64 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet, . Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. Key dates to track if you wish to submit a presentation: Key Dates For NANOG 64 Event/Deadline Date Registration for NANOG 64 Opens March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Opens for NANOG 64 March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #1: Presentation Abstracts Due March 30, 2015 (Monday) CFP Topic List and NANOG Highlights Page Posted April 13, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #2: Presentation Slides Due April 27, 2015 (Monday) Meeting Agenda Published May 4, 2015 (Monday) Speaker FINAL presentations to PC Tool https://pc.nanog.org/ May 29, 2015 (Friday) On-site Registration May 31, 2015 (Sunday) Lightning Talk Submissions Open (Abstracts Only) June 1, 2015 (Monday) NANOG 64 submissions are welcome on the Program Committee Site https://pc.nanog.org/ or email me if you have questions. See the detailed NANOG64 Call for Presentations https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog63/callforpresentations for more information. You can also view the NANOG events calendar https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o0u68%40group.calendar.google.comctz=America/Los_Angeles (including the key dates above and more) import in ICS format https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o0u68%40group.calendar.google.com/public/basic.ics . Thanks, Tony Tauber Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG) ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: ...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in order to get that? Let’s say your current service is 10Mbps/512Kbps. Would you be willing to switch to 3Mbps/7Mbps in order to achieve what you want? What about 5.25Mbps/5.25Mbps? (same total bandwidth, but split symmetrically)? Any of those would be nice. Nicer would be something adaptive, but that's a pipe dream, I know. I'm aware of the technological limitations of ADSL, especially the crosstalk and power limitations, how the spectrum is divided, etc. The difference between 10/.5 and 5.25/5.25 on the download would be minimal (half as fast); on the upload, not so minimal (ten times faster). But even a 'less asymmetrical' connection would be better than a 20:1 ratio. 4:1 (with 10Mb/s aggregate) would be better than 20:1.
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On Mar 2, 2015, at 15:40 , Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: ...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in order to get that? Let’s say your current service is 10Mbps/512Kbps. Would you be willing to switch to 3Mbps/7Mbps in order to achieve what you want? What about 5.25Mbps/5.25Mbps? (same total bandwidth, but split symmetrically)? Any of those would be nice. Nicer would be something adaptive, but that's a pipe dream, I know. I'm aware of the technological limitations of ADSL, especially the crosstalk and power limitations, how the spectrum is divided, etc. The difference between 10/.5 and 5.25/5.25 on the download would be minimal (half as fast); on the upload, not so minimal (ten times faster). But even a 'less asymmetrical' connection would be better than a 20:1 ratio. 4:1 (with 10Mb/s aggregate) would be better than 20:1. If you would see that as a win, I can personally guarantee you that you are in the minority among consumers. I, even as an advanced user know that overall, my usage pattern would suffer greatly if my 30/7 were converted to 18.5/18.5. (I’m on CMTS instead of ADSL, as all ADSL will do in my neighborhood is 1536/384 (on a good day)). Sure, my uploads would be faster, but that’s less than 1% of what I do and I’m almost never sitting there waiting for my upload to complete. When I upload something large, I pretty much do it as a fire-and-forget. I get notified if it fails and I use software/protocols for large files that are capable of resuming where they left off or recovering from failure with relatively minimal retransmission of previously transferred data. As such, while I’d much rather have 30Mbps of upstream data than 7, if I were given the choice between 30/30 vs. 53/7, I’s probably still choose 53/7. I agree that adaptive is a nice pipedream, but in the realm of reality, fixed is what is currently implemented and due to where the incentives currently reside, likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. Owen
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
I don't usually chime in on the list, but since this seems to be another hot item, i'll pitch in my $0.005 (since the $$ has been going up these days). IIRC the entire reason we have asymmetry to begin with is because it was created to resolve an issue with older ADSL hardware. I believe the reason it gave such great benefits at the time of faster downloads while not so good downloads is because simply of the power used in each direction (it takes more power to send than receive delivering farther distances, etc). So in this sense, telecoms decided that if you wanted to use both sides of your connection, you're a Business Class user that needed to upload something with download like speeds. Then as cable operators see the telecom vendors charge for it in this very fashion, they decide it's a great idea to charge for it so that they can stay competitive (cable also had these issues but have long since been resolved). So it would seem that there ARE legitimate complaints from those who do not want to be in a Business Class service just because they want to have the ability to upload content just as they download content. Regardless of the amount, this is something that has been complained about for quite a long time. Times have changed, infrastructure _should_ be upgraded by now for major transport operators, Tier-1/2 carriers, all the way down to last mile (i realize many rural places being worked on). Asymmetry needs to die just like the equipment will, thus the non-sense charges, etc. The only ones still fighting for asymmetry in this conversation are the ones that stand to make money from it. Technical perspective says this is a non-issue and symmetry is how it works by default anywhere inside of Business Class. max On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Chuck Church chuckchu...@gmail.com wrote: Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance. On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical. Chuck
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
In message 000101d05567$74b58530$5e208f90$@gmail.com, Chuck Church writes: Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance. Just tell that to your child that has to submit a assignment before midnight or get zero on 20% of the year's marks. There are plenty of cases where uploads are time critical there are also time where it really doesn't matter. On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Once you get over a certain threshold more download speed doesn't buy as much as more upload speed. For movies you want the data there before you need to display it. It really doesn't matter if it is 30 seconds before or 20 minutes before, you only consume the data so fast. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical. If the network supported it this would be typical of a household with teenagers. People adapt their usage to the constraints presented. That doesn't mean they are necessarially happy with the constraints. Don't take lack of complaints as indicating people don't want things improved. As speed increases the importance of more speed decreases. We get to the point where thing happen fast enough. We also start to be limited by things other than link speed. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
That's fine and very practical and understandable. But it's no reason for the net not to keep marching forward at its own pace which I think is more what's being discussed. I'm pretty sure that prior to 2007 (year of the first iphone launch) not many people were clamoring for full, graphical internet in their pocket either. Then all of a sudden they were. And *poof*, down went Nokia and Motorola and Blackberry and others (anyone remember WAP?) who no doubt had reasoned very carefully and responsibly that would never happen, or not nearly at the pace it did. Surely they had no desire to fall from their respective perches or spend money needlessly. Give people a few sports scores and the weather etc on their phones and they'll be pretty happy. Of course there were also quite a few directions and predictions which failed, we tend to forget those. Such as that users would never stand for widespread CGN, ftp couldn't be made to work properly, etc etc etc. We still hear these predictions and to be honest they have my sympathy but I can't deny the reality of a present where the vast majority of users are NAT'd and seem reasonably satisfied. Predicting the past is much easier than predicting the future, no doubt about it. -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* On March 2, 2015 at 10:28 khe...@zcorum.com (Scott Helms) wrote: That's certainly true and why we watch the trends of usage very closely and we project those terms into the future knowing that's imperfect. What we won't do is build networks based purely on guesses. We certainly see demand for upstream capacity increasing for residential customers, but that increase is slower than the increase in downstream demand growth. In all cases but pure greenfield situations the cost of deploying DSL or DOCSIS is significant less than deploying fiber. Even in greenfield situations PON, which is a asynchronous itself, is much less expensive than active Ethernet. In short synchronous connections cost more to deploy. Doing so without a knowing if or when consumers will actually pay for synchronous connections isn't something we're going to do.
RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
Since this has turned into a discussion on upload vs download speed, figured I'd throw in a point I haven't really brought up. For the most part, uploading isn't really a time-sensitive activity to the general (as in 99% of the ) public. Uploading a bunch of facebook photos, you hit upload, and then expect it to take x amount of time. Could be 30 seconds, could be 30 minutes. Everyone expects that wait. Sending a large email attachment, you hit send, and then get back to doing something else. There just aren't that many apps out there that have a dependence on time-sensitive upload performance. On download, of course no wants to see buffering on their cat videos or watching Netflix. Thus the high speed download. Honesty, I'm willing to bet that even a random sampling of NANOG people would show their download data quantity to be 10x what their upload quantity is in a day. For average users, probably much more than 10x. Why some folks are insisting upload is vital just can't be true for normal home users. Those households trying to do 5 simultaneous Skype sessions aren't typical. Chuck
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
San Jose is most certainly not a pure coax network and is HFC. HSD does mean High Speed Data. On Mar 2, 2015 3:26 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Not so sure about that… 240.59.103.76.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR c-76-103-59-240.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. is most definitely a business class service from Comcast. Seems to match the entry for 24.7.48.153 pretty closely. I think the difference is the type of cable network in the particular area. HFC is Hybrid Fiber Coax. The network in San Jose doesn’t really have any fiber, so it’s likely not an HFC network. I’m not sure what HSD stands for other than possibly “High Speed Data”, but I suspect it’s more likely some cable-specific term for an all-copper alternative to HFC. Owen On Mar 2, 2015, at 03:39 , Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet) I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.201 70-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.3770-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming. ---rsk
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant changes to the protocol or human behavior. We ran significant Usenet servers with binaries for nearly 20 years and without for another 5 and the servers' traffic was heavily asymmetric. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: With all due respect it's like people act purposely obtuse just to argue. If you're a Usenet server (and most likely client) then it'll be somewhat symmetric. Depending on how many nodes you serve the bias could easily be towards upload bandwidth as msgs come in once (ideally) but you flood them to all the other servers you serve once per server, the entire traffic goes out multiple times, plus or minus various optimizations like already have that msg oh for the love of all that is good and holy do I have to type the entire NNTP protocol spec in here just to make sure there isn't some microscopic crack of light someone can use to misinterpret and/or pick nits about??? What was the original question because I think this has degenerated into just argumentativeness, we're on the verge of spelling and grammar error flames. I don't know how anyone who claims to have run Usenet servers couldn't know all this, is it just trolling? -- -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: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Odd how the graphing for the top 1000 Usenet servers showed exactly the pattern I predicted. On Mar 2, 2015 3:46 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant changes to the protocol or human behavior. We ran significant Usenet servers with binaries for nearly 20 years and without for another 5 and the servers' traffic was heavily asymmetric. On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: With all due respect it's like people act purposely obtuse just to argue. If you're a Usenet server (and most likely client) then it'll be somewhat symmetric. Depending on how many nodes you serve the bias could easily be towards upload bandwidth as msgs come in once (ideally) but you flood them to all the other servers you serve once per server, the entire traffic goes out multiple times, plus or minus various optimizations like already have that msg oh for the love of all that is good and holy do I have to type the entire NNTP protocol spec in here just to make sure there isn't some microscopic crack of light someone can use to misinterpret and/or pick nits about??? What was the original question because I think this has degenerated into just argumentativeness, we're on the verge of spelling and grammar error flames. I don't know how anyone who claims to have run Usenet servers couldn't know all this, is it just trolling? -- -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: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Personally? If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50. That way my uploads would take even less time. It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes, and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour. On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Daniel, The sold speeds are all actually less than the actual speeds. The PON customers are slightly over provisioned and the DOCSIS customers are over provisioned a bit more. On Mar 2, 2015 10:01 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: What do those 25 and 50Mb/s download rates amount to in practice? Statistically speaking, those might *be* symmetric. On 03/02/2015 08:41 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, For the third or fourth time in this discussion we are tracking and customer satisfaction for users who do have symmetrical bandwidth 24 mbps and have for a number of years. We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. On Mar 2, 2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto: dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. People don't miss what they have never had. On 03/02/2015 08:09 AM, Scott Helms wrote: That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for most of the technologies we use for broadband there simply is less upstream capacity than downstream. That upstream scarcity means that for DSL, DOCSIS, PON, WiFi, and LTE delivering symmetrical upstream bandwidth will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: Personally? If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50. That way my uploads would take even less time. It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes, and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour. On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 03/02/2015 06:22 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote: I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. People don't miss what they have never had. I would agree with that statement in a slightly modified form: People don't miss what they never had with their home Internet. At work, the story can be different because a business may well be spending the bucks for symmetrical service, or the applications in the business never go off-site.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Daniel, For the third or fourth time in this discussion we are tracking and customer satisfaction for users who do have symmetrical bandwidth 24 mbps and have for a number of years. We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. On Mar 2, 2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. People don't miss what they have never had. On 03/02/2015 08:09 AM, Scott Helms wrote: That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for most of the technologies we use for broadband there simply is less upstream capacity than downstream. That upstream scarcity means that for DSL, DOCSIS, PON, WiFi, and LTE delivering symmetrical upstream bandwidth will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto: dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: Personally? If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50. That way my uploads would take even less time. It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes, and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour. On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for most of the technologies we use for broadband there simply is less upstream capacity than downstream. That upstream scarcity means that for DSL, DOCSIS, PON, WiFi, and LTE delivering symmetrical upstream bandwidth will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: Personally? If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50. That way my uploads would take even less time. It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes, and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour. On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Hostnaming is not always straightforward, as there are variations of commercial service (some with static IPs, others with dynamic, some enterprise, branch office, SMB, etc.). FWIW: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net Are all SMB customers. -Jason On 3/2/15, 6:39 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet) I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.20170-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.3770-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming. ---rsk
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. People don't miss what they have never had. On 03/02/2015 08:09 AM, Scott Helms wrote: That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for most of the technologies we use for broadband there simply is less upstream capacity than downstream. That upstream scarcity means that for DSL, DOCSIS, PON, WiFi, and LTE delivering symmetrical upstream bandwidth will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: Personally? If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50. That way my uploads would take even less time. It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes, and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour. On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 02/27/2015 04:49 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level. Why? What's magical about symmetry? Is a customer better served by having a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps? If the option sells, it will be offered. It didn't. We offer symmetric DLS residentially and it went over like a lead balloon. Most people don't know what having a faster upstream would get them (symmetrical or not). Heck, most people only know that they got the cheapest connection with the fastest top-line bandwidth number because marketers don't know how to sell upstream bandwidth (or don't care to). -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
What do those 25 and 50Mb/s download rates amount to in practice? Statistically speaking, those might *be* symmetric. On 03/02/2015 08:41 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, For the third or fourth time in this discussion we are tracking and customer satisfaction for users who do have symmetrical bandwidth 24 mbps and have for a number of years. We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. On Mar 2, 2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. People don't miss what they have never had. On 03/02/2015 08:09 AM, Scott Helms wrote: That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for most of the technologies we use for broadband there simply is less upstream capacity than downstream. That upstream scarcity means that for DSL, DOCSIS, PON, WiFi, and LTE delivering symmetrical upstream bandwidth will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: Personally? If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50. That way my uploads would take even less time. It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes, and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour. On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711 -- Daniel Taylor VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet) I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.20170-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.3770-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming. ---rsk
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
My apologies for the implication. I meant that on the Internet as a whole it is unusual for such speeds to actually be realized in practice due to various issues. 8-10Mb/s seems to be what one can expect without going to distributed protocols. On 03/02/2015 09:06 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, The sold speeds are all actually less than the actual speeds. The PON customers are slightly over provisioned and the DOCSIS customers are over provisioned a bit more. On Mar 2, 2015 10:01 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: What do those 25 and 50Mb/s download rates amount to in practice? Statistically speaking, those might *be* symmetric. On 03/02/2015 08:41 AM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, For the third or fourth time in this discussion we are tracking and customer satisfaction for users who do have symmetrical bandwidth 24 mbps and have for a number of years. We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. On Mar 2, 2015 9:22 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: I'm clearly not a normal user, or I wouldn't be here. Normal users have never experienced high-speed symmetrical service. People don't miss what they have never had. On 03/02/2015 08:09 AM, Scott Helms wrote: That's not the norm for consumers, but the important thing to understand is that for most of the technologies we use for broadband there simply is less upstream capacity than downstream. That upstream scarcity means that for DSL, DOCSIS, PON, WiFi, and LTE delivering symmetrical upstream bandwidth will cost the service provider more which means at some point it will cost consumers more. WiFi is a special case, while there is no theoretical reason it must be asymmetrical but it works that way in practice because dedicated APs invariably have both higher transmit power and much better antenna gain. The average AP in the US will put out a watt or more while clients are putting out ~250 milliwatts and with 0 antenna gain. On Mar 2, 2015 8:58 AM, Daniel Taylor dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com wrote: Personally? If the price were the same, I'd go with 50/50. That way my uploads would take even less time. It isn't about the averaged total, it's about how long each event takes, and backing up 4GB of files off-site shouldn't have to take an hour. On 02/27/2015 03:11 PM, Scott Helms wrote: Daniel, 50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes. Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25? My point is not that upstream speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and unless the market changes won't be in the near term. Downstream demand is growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -- Daniel Taylor VP Operations Vocal Laboratories, Inc. dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com http://www.vocalabs.com/ (612)235-5711 tel:%28612%29235-5711
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Your point has been made here many times as has mine. There's enough upstream available on enough carriers that if there were some big upload unicorn out there waiting to be harnessed... they'd be able to do it. All that the consumer has ever had that could benefit is P2P and offsite backup. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Aled Morris al...@qix.co.uk To: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 9:17:33 AM Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality On 2 March 2015 at 14:41, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. perhaps because there are no widely-deployed applications that are designed with the expectation of reasonable upstream bandwidth. Average users haven't got into the mindset that they can use lots of upstream (because mainly, they can't.) Without really knowing what they could have, they're happy with what they've got. You've asked them if they're happy with the eggs, and in finding they were, declared nobody wanted for chicken. Aled
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
That's certainly true and why we watch the trends of usage very closely and we project those terms into the future knowing that's imperfect. What we won't do is build networks based purely on guesses. We certainly see demand for upstream capacity increasing for residential customers, but that increase is slower than the increase in downstream demand growth. In all cases but pure greenfield situations the cost of deploying DSL or DOCSIS is significant less than deploying fiber. Even in greenfield situations PON, which is a asynchronous itself, is much less expensive than active Ethernet. In short synchronous connections cost more to deploy. Doing so without a knowing if or when consumers will actually pay for synchronous connections isn't something we're going to do.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 2 March 2015 at 14:41, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: We see customer usage patterns and satisfaction being statically the same on 25/25 and 25/8 accounts. The same is true when we look at 50/50 versus 50/12 accounts. perhaps because there are no widely-deployed applications that are designed with the expectation of reasonable upstream bandwidth. Average users haven't got into the mindset that they can use lots of upstream (because mainly, they can't.) Without really knowing what they could have, they're happy with what they've got. You've asked them if they're happy with the eggs, and in finding they were, declared nobody wanted for chicken. Aled
Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]
On 02/28/2015 05:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: Home users should be able to upload a content in the same amount of time it takes to download content. This. Once a week I upload a 100MB+ MP3 (that I produced myself, and for which I own the copyright) to a cloud server. I have a reasonable ADSL circuit at home, but it takes quite a bit of my time to upload that one file. Even if the average BW was throttled to 512k, it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten so I can shut the machine down and go to bed. Cloud services are becoming the choice for all kinds of content distribution, and there are more content creators out there than you might think who need to do exactly what I need to do. Yes, I do remember the days of dialup, in particular I remember the quite interesting business model of free.org, which dramatically reduced my long distance bill that I had been paying to dial up Eskimo North (I'm in the Southeast US, incidentally). And then we got dialup locally, and my old Okidata 9600 modem got a workout. And, well, I still use my connection in much the same way as I used dialup, turning it off when I'm not using it. I almost never leave it up all night; if my router isn't online it can't be used for malicious purposes, etc. And, no, I have no alternatives to the ILEC's DSL here, as 3G/4G cell service simply doesn't get to my house (now on the ridge behind my house, great 4G bandwidth, but I'm down in a valley, and the shadowing algorithm's show the story; I ran a Splat simulation from the cell tower site; across the creek from my house is the edge of one of the diffraction zones where good service can be found, and my house is in a deep null) Thanks all for the interesting symmetry discussion; this has been enjoyable.
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Correct. For those (who don¹tt already know) that are interested in learning about this, do some reading on Diplex Filters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplexer), which are used to ³split² the RF spectrum apart so that the lower portion and the higher portion can be amplified independently, before recombining the two portions. I believe this was done to accomplish unity gain in each direction independently. Also, I¹d like to note that there have been a few comments in this thread that lead me to believe some folks are confusing asymmetrical routing paths with asymmetrical speeds. Don¹t confuse the two as they have nearly nothing to do with one another. -Josh On 3/2/15, 6:00 AM, nanog-requ...@nanog.org nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: -- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 08:08:27 -0500 From: Clayton Zekelman clay...@mnsi.net To: Barry Shein b...@world.std.com Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Message-ID: 32d3c16d-0f4d-45ba-99f8-d41fe23d4...@mnsi.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be designed to work on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to deliver cable TV. It's not some conspiracy to differentiate higher priced business services - it was a fact of RF technology and the architecture of the network they were overlaying this new service on top of. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: On February 28, 2015 at 18:14 clay...@mnsi.net (Clayton Zekelman) wrote: You do of course realize that the asymmetry in CATV forward path/return path existed LONG before residential Internet access over cable networks exited? You mean back when it was all analog and DOCSIS didn't exist? Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Can we stop the disingenuity? Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from deploying commercial services. As were bandwidth caps. One can argue all sorts of other benefits of this but when this started that was the problem on the table: How do we forcibly distinguish commercial (i.e., more expensive) from non-commercial usage? Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth. Originally these asymmetric, typically DSL, links were hundreds of kbits upstream, not a lot more than a dial-up line. That and NAT thereby making it difficult -- not impossible, the savvy were in the noise -- to map domain names to permanent IP addresses. That's all this was about. It's not about that's all they need, that's all they want, etc. Now that bandwidth is growing rapidly and asymmetric is often 10/50mbps or 20/100 it almost seems nonsensical in that regard, entire medium-sized ISPs ran on less than 10mbps symmetric not long ago. But it still imposes an upper bound of sorts, along with addressing limitations and bandwidth caps. That's all this is about. The telcos for many decades distinguished business voice service from residential service, even for just one phone line, though they mostly just winged it and if they declared you were defrauding them by using a residential line for a business they might shut you off and/or back bill you. Residential was quite a bit cheaper, most importantly local unlimited (unmetered) talk was only available on residential lines. Business lines were even coded 1MB (one m b) service, one metered business (line). The history is clear and they've just reinvented the model for internet but proactively enforced by technology rather than studying your usage patterns or whatever they used to do, scan for business ads using residential numbers, beyond bandwidth usage analysis. And the CATV companies are trying to reinvent CATV pricing for internet, turn Netflix (e.g.) into an analogue of HBO and other premium CATV services. What's so difficult to understand here? -- -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* -- -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* This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Can we stop the disingenuity? Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from deploying commercial services. As were bandwidth caps. One can argue all sorts of other benefits of this but when this started that was the problem on the table: How do we forcibly distinguish commercial (i.e., more expensive) from non-commercial usage? Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth. Not true. Asymmetric service was a response to users wanting more downstream bandwidth and willing to give up bandwidth upstream. It's simple math. A copper media supports so much bandwidth period. You can have that bandwidth in any direction you want and the users wanted it downstream. In our case at InterAccess Chicago, we offered SDSL to both residential and business customers. The distinction between business class and residential service was that business class came with public static addresses where that was an optional extra on residential service. There was also a acceptable usage agreement on the residential side about hosting high bandwidth commercial servers (which was not enforced unless an aggregious case occurred. It just turns out that most residential users found ADSL a better fit for what they did and I think in most cases that is still true. Originally these asymmetric, typically DSL, links were hundreds of kbits upstream, not a lot more than a dial-up line. That and NAT thereby making it difficult -- not impossible, the savvy were in the noise -- to map domain names to permanent IP addresses. Wrong again, the DSL was much faster than a dial up from the beginning. The original offering was SDSL with speeds ranging from about 128 kbit to 1.5 mbps which were much faster than any modem ever available. The other compelling thing about DSL was that it was an always on service that did not require you to have a phone line or ISDN line from the phone company that you paid for in addition to your ISP services. At the time, an ISDN circuit cost about $40 a month and there was about a 5 cent charge every time you dialed up a B channel. In our area there was not a per minute charge so it was to your advantage to leave your B channels nailed up. I remember customers running up thousands of dollars in calls when they misconfigured their equipment to dial on demand and racked up tons of calls. We originally offered SDSL at $80 per month at whatever speed we could get that line to run at (typically between 512K and 1.5 mbps) which was quite a bargin compared to the ISDN is replaced. Our focus was businesses but we offered residential service as well at $60 per month with private addresses. If I remember right, public IP addresses were a $10 a month option so you would hit the business price if you had more than two of them. As far as block services to residential users. We did block some ports toward the user to protect them from themselves. Especially port 25. Open mail relay was a huge issue back then so we default blocked it for residential users, however if you called support and asked it to be unblocked, we would give you the open relay caution and open it for you. If you spammed the world, you got dumped as a customer. In those days reputation matters and we tried to be good Internet cops when it came to abuse. When ADSL was originally offered we avoided it because most of our customers were businesses but we started losing business on the residential side because people would rather have the downstream bandwidth increase of the ADSL service. That is when we started offering the ADSL service targeted at residential users. We would have preferred doing all SDSL because then we would not have to dedicate card slots in the DSLAMs to two different services. It would have been much more efficient to be able to utilize every port on every slot rather than tie a card up with just a couple users. We did not really care which sold except that there is much less churn in business users so cost of provisioning is overall lower. The DSLAM backhaul was shared ATM circuits so the traffic was not any different to us other than the residential users hitting a NAT. If you wanted static addresses, they were always available. Free with business class service and an additional cost per public IP on the residential side. We had no problem with people having a web server at home on a residential service as long as it was not a huge commercial bandwidth hog. We adjusted the pricing of speeds and public address space in a way that made it more cost effective to buy the right service based on how you used the service. We really tried not to get into the business of policing the residential vs business class for three main reasons. 1. It was hard to do. Very labor intensive to try to monitor traffic. 2. The geeks beating up the residential service are also the early adopters and can be advocates for you if you
Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
18 million dollars revenue in three months so certainly pretty large sized. Any idea which DC this is? http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/police-could-charge-a-data-center-in-the-largest-child-porn-bust-ever
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 02/28/2015 07:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:34 AM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: [...] Until yesterday, there were no network neutrality rules, not for spam or for anything else. There still aren't any network neutrality rules, until the FCC makes the documents public, which they haven't yet. The rules themselves are public. The area of uncertainty is whether the Report and Order will pull in more rules than just the newly published 47CFR§8. For instance, there's 47CFR§6 which deal with 'telecommunications' carriers and the ADA. But as far as net neutrality is concerned, the actual rules dealing with the gist of it are embodied in 47CFR§8 Preserving the Open Internet. Link to the eCFR page on it was posted elsewhere on the list.
RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
I was an ISP in the 1990s and our first DSL offerings were SDSL symmetric services to replace more expensive T-1 circuits. When we got into residential it was with SDSL and then the consumers wanted more downstream so ADSL was invented. I was there, I know this. So was I and my experience was different. We decided that it would be more profitable as a small ISP to re-sell Bell Canada's ADSL than to try to unbundle central offices all over the place. The arguments from the business side had nothing whatsoever to do with symmetry or lack thereof. The choice of technology was entirely by the ILEC. What I am trying to tell you is that Bell Canada was way behind the curve in deployment to DSL technology. I am coming to you from the perspective of a guy who designed and built DSL networks not a reseller. By the time the LEC started selling you ADSL, the market had already spoken and ADSL was the customer's choice. The LECs looked at what us facilities based ISPs deployed and decided to start reselling the same thing. If they had the demand to resell SDSL, they would have (and they do, it is called a clear channel DS-1 port). It just makes no difference to them, a loop and a port is just a loop and a port. To that I will just say that if your average user spend as much time videoconferencing as they do watching streaming media then they are probably a business. No, you misunderstand. I don't dispute that the area under end-user traffic statistics graphs is asymmetric. But that the maximum value -- particularly the instantaneous maximum value which you don't see with five minute sampling -- wants to be quite a lot higher than it can be with a very asymmetric circuit. If someone works from home one day a week and has a videoconference or too, we still want that to work well, right? The bottom line is that you have to tell me how much downstream speed you want to give up to get more upstream speed. If you don't want that then you are just telling me you want more overall speed which is a different argument. Videoconferencing is a red herring argument because it is also asymmetric in most cases and the bandwidth of a videoconference does not even come close to that of a movie download where quality matters more than lag. And perfect symmetry is not necessary. Would I notice the difference between 60/60 and 60/40 or even 60/20? Probably not really as long as both numbers are significantly more than the expected peak rate. But 24/1.5, a factor of 16, is a very different story. If you don't like the up to down ratio, I get it. The problem is you either need more intelligent networks to automatically set this ratio based on usage (which is not actually easy, remember RSVP anyone?) or you have to try to please most of the people most of the time which is how it works today. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Average != Peak. What is peak? There is a question for you. If we get all the way down to the fundamentals of any network, peak is always 100%. There is either a bit on the wire or not. Your network is either 100% busy or 100% idle at any instantaneous moment in time. What matters is average transfer rate to the user experience and even that varies a lot depending on the app in question and how that app tolerates things like jitter, loss, and latency. It is about whether data is being buffered waiting for a transmission window and is the buffer being cleared as fast as it is being filled. A network is engineered to support some average levels because it would be very cost ineffective to engineer a wide area network to support peak transmission on all ports at all times. All studies of network traffic show that it is not necessary to build a network that way. Our networks are statistical multiplexers in their design and have been all the way back to the Bell System. You do know that not everyone can make a phone call at once, right (but who would you call if everyone was already off hook, get it?)? In fact, it is such a difficult problem that it is very hard to support inside a single data center class Ethernet switch. In the wide area, it would be incredibly expensive to design an entirely non-blocking network at all traffic levels. It could be built if you want to pay for it however. Why is this so hard to understand? Mike Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 03/02/2015 09:20 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: Average != Peak. What is peak? There is a question for you. If we get all the way down to the fundamentals of any network, peak is always 100%. There is either a bit on the wire or not. Your network is either 100% busy or 100% idle at any instantaneous moment in time. What matters is average transfer rate to the user experience and even that varies a lot depending on the app in question and how that app tolerates things like jitter, loss, and latency. It is about whether data is being buffered waiting for a transmission window and is the buffer being cleared as fast as it is being filled. A network is engineered to support some average levels because it would be very cost ineffective to engineer a wide area network to support peak transmission on all ports at all times. All studies of network traffic show that it is not necessary to build a network that way. Our networks are statistical multiplexers in their design and have been all the way back to the Bell System. You do know that not everyone can make a phone call at once, right (but who would you call if everyone was already off hook, get it?)? In fact, it is such a difficult problem that it is very hard to support inside a single data center class Ethernet switch. In the wide area, it would be incredibly expensive to design an entirely non-blocking network at all traffic levels. It could be built if you want to pay for it however. ::AWG:: Strawman Alert! Nobody's talking about taking poor Erlang behind the barn and shooting him. We're talking about being able to send upstream at a reasonable/comparable rate as downstream. Mike
RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
It is likely not to change when people don't have the available upload to begin with. This is compounded by the queue problems on end devices. How many more people would stream to twitch or youtube or skype if they didn't have to hear this, Are you uploading? You're slowing down the download! I can't watch my movie! Jack These are not people a service provider can help because obviously these people don't know what they are talking about. My conversation would go more like this: Q. Your Hypothetical Poor User - Are you uploading? You're slowing down the download! I can't watch my movie! A. Me - Hey genius, why don't you download a movie about networks because my upload does not affect your streaming movie download except for the insignificant amount of control traffic in the opposite direction. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
::AWG:: Strawman Alert! Nobody's talking about taking poor Erlang behind the barn and shooting him. We're talking about being able to send upstream at a reasonable/comparable rate as downstream. Mike Exactly, now you see the dilemma. What is reasonable/comparable? Is it reasonable to assume that users upload as much as they download when every traffic study I have ever done or seen tells me that is not the case? Is it reasonable for me to allocate my customers to 5M down/5M up when they really mostly use 8.5 down/1.5 up? I know it would make you happy to build my network so that you can twiddle the upload/download dials but is it reasonable to make all of my customers pay for that infrastructure rather than ask you to buy a more premium business class service if you want that? Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
On Mar 2, 2015, at 10:03 AM, Mike A mi...@mikea.ath.cx wrote: On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:53:33PM +, Naslund, Steve wrote: Don't know who this is but the legalities are pretty clear I think. The DC is not required to know what data is stored but if the cops can prove that someone DID know what was stored, that person can be criminally charged. IANAL but I have worked with LE on a similar case and that is how it was explained to us by the FBI. It will be hard to prove anyone knew however since anyone that knew and did not report it committed a crime. Charging the company will be a stretch unless they can prove that at least one corporate officer knew. Otherwise the company will fire whichever employee knew and say He should have told us. This is all about who knew what and when. True in the USA, I think; but what about Canadian law? AFAIK it's generally the same in Canada. If a provider is aware of (reported, accidental discovery or otherwise) the existence of child pornography on their network that existence must be reported to LE and the content must be cease to be publicly available. What I've done in the past when such a report is received is created an archive of the whole directory and subdirectories in question, collected all the customer data related to the account including logs of logins and file transfers and sent that directly to law enforcement and through https://www.cybertip.ca/ https://www.cybertip.ca/. Some information for Canadian service providers is in the reporting system itself: https://www.cybertip.ca/app/en/service_provider_report signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 28-Feb-15 21:55, Barry Shein wrote: On February 28, 2015 at 17:20 na...@ics-il.net (Mike Hammett) wrote: As I said earlier, there are only so many channels available. Channels added to upload are taken away from download. People use upload so infrequently it would be gross negligence on the provider's behalf. And as I said earlier it's push/pull, give people lousy upload speeds and they won't use services which depend on good upload speeds. And given lousy upload speeds the opportunities to develop for example backup services in a world of terabyte disks is limited. At 1mb/s it takes approx 100,000 seconds to upload 1TB, that's roughly one week, blue sky. OTOH, there are clever tricks you can play to reduce this. For instance, hash all every file before uploading, and if the server has seen that hash before (from another user, or from a previous run by the same user), the server just adds the to your collection of files available to restore--no second upload required. Yes, if you're the first person to backup a new version of Windows or a new movie torrent, your upload time is going to suck, but on average, the time to upload each new file will be close to zero. S -- Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:53:33PM +, Naslund, Steve wrote: Don't know who this is but the legalities are pretty clear I think. The DC is not required to know what data is stored but if the cops can prove that someone DID know what was stored, that person can be criminally charged. IANAL but I have worked with LE on a similar case and that is how it was explained to us by the FBI. It will be hard to prove anyone knew however since anyone that knew and did not report it committed a crime. Charging the company will be a stretch unless they can prove that at least one corporate officer knew. Otherwise the company will fire whichever employee knew and say He should have told us. This is all about who knew what and when. True in the USA, I think; but what about Canadian law? Popcorn and hyperhumongous drinks time. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
Part of it depends on if the DC was doing managed services as well. If they are just a space tenant then their exposure can be limited. But if it was their servers that will be a little different. Not saying it would make the difference, but opens another avenue to be argued. To me it’s like going after the Landlord of a rental apartment if someone is busted for drugs. How much can be proven that they knew? How much can they interfere with their business? Justin Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange On Mar 2, 2015, at 12:53 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: Don't know who this is but the legalities are pretty clear I think. The DC is not required to know what data is stored but if the cops can prove that someone DID know what was stored, that person can be criminally charged. IANAL but I have worked with LE on a similar case and that is how it was explained to us by the FBI. It will be hard to prove anyone knew however since anyone that knew and did not report it committed a crime. Charging the company will be a stretch unless they can prove that at least one corporate officer knew. Otherwise the company will fire whichever employee knew and say He should have told us. This is all about who knew what and when. Steven Naslund Chicago IL 18 million dollars revenue in three months so certainly pretty large sized. Any idea which DC this is? http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/police-could-charge-a-data-center-in-the-largest-child-porn-bust-ever
RE: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
Don't know who this is but the legalities are pretty clear I think. The DC is not required to know what data is stored but if the cops can prove that someone DID know what was stored, that person can be criminally charged. IANAL but I have worked with LE on a similar case and that is how it was explained to us by the FBI. It will be hard to prove anyone knew however since anyone that knew and did not report it committed a crime. Charging the company will be a stretch unless they can prove that at least one corporate officer knew. Otherwise the company will fire whichever employee knew and say He should have told us. This is all about who knew what and when. Steven Naslund Chicago IL 18 million dollars revenue in three months so certainly pretty large sized. Any idea which DC this is? http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/police-could-charge-a-data-center-in-the-largest-child-porn-bust-ever
RE: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
Given the size and that the data is stored in encrypted RAR files, I wonder if they just busted a Usenet service provider rather than a P2P / file sharing site. Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd Director of Operations | Purchase, NY 10577 OTA Management LLC | Phone: 914-460-4039 aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-694-5669 -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+mhuff=ox@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Naslund, Steve Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 12:54 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material Don't know who this is but the legalities are pretty clear I think. The DC is not required to know what data is stored but if the cops can prove that someone DID know what was stored, that person can be criminally charged. IANAL but I have worked with LE on a similar case and that is how it was explained to us by the FBI. It will be hard to prove anyone knew however since anyone that knew and did not report it committed a crime. Charging the company will be a stretch unless they can prove that at least one corporate officer knew. Otherwise the company will fire whichever employee knew and say He should have told us. This is all about who knew what and when. Steven Naslund Chicago IL 18 million dollars revenue in three months so certainly pretty large sized. Any idea which DC this is? http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/police-could-charge-a-data-center-in-the-largest-child-porn-bust-ever
Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
Canadian and US laws are similar. But I'll leave it up to the lawyers to figure it all out, happily I'm no where near this, but it being a small industry here, I suspect I have friends that are dealing with some crap right now On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Mike A mi...@mikea.ath.cx wrote: On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:53:33PM +, Naslund, Steve wrote: Don't know who this is but the legalities are pretty clear I think. The DC is not required to know what data is stored but if the cops can prove that someone DID know what was stored, that person can be criminally charged. IANAL but I have worked with LE on a similar case and that is how it was explained to us by the FBI. It will be hard to prove anyone knew however since anyone that knew and did not report it committed a crime. Charging the company will be a stretch unless they can prove that at least one corporate officer knew. Otherwise the company will fire whichever employee knew and say He should have told us. This is all about who knew what and when. True in the USA, I think; but what about Canadian law? Popcorn and hyperhumongous drinks time. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
Re: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
In article 1c6ee78f6c1e400289fa7797f3ba6...@pur-vm-exch13n1.ox.com you write: Given the size and that the data is stored in encrypted RAR files, I wonder if they just busted a Usenet service provider rather than a P2P / file sharing site. Unlikely. There aren't that many large usenet providers, none of them are based in Canada, and they are hyper-aware that they don't want child abuse material on their servers. There aren't that many cloud providers physically located in Canada either, but I have no idea which one it is. R's, John
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Naslund, Steve wrote: Average != Peak. What is peak? There is a question for you. If we get all the way down to the fundamentals of any network, peak is always 100%. There is either a bit on the wire or not. Your network is either 100% busy or 100% idle at any instantaneous moment in time. What matters is average transfer rate to the user experience and even that varies a lot depending on the app in question and how that app tolerates things like jitter, loss, and latency. That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that to the company server. And let's say I want to do that 5 times during 12 hour day (it's crunch time, we're doing lots of edits). On average, we're talking 20gbit/12 hours, or a shade under 500kbps, if we're talking averages. On the other hand, if I try to push a 2gbit file through a 500kbps pipe, it's going to take 4000 seconds (67 minutes) -- that's rather painful, and inserts a LOT of delay in the process of getting reviews, comments, and doing the next round of edits. On the other hand, at 50mbps it takes only 40 seconds - annoying, but acceptable, and at a gig, it only takes 2 seconds. So, tell me, with a straight face, that what matters is average transfer rate to the user experience. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
RE: Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
Here is what is going to hurt or help the cops case. The volume of information is so expansive that in order to store and analyze the data safely and securely, police had to purchase storage hardware similar to what was used by Canadian military forces in Afghanistan. To access the files, many of which are password protected, the cops developed password-cracking software in-house that is slowly sifting through the mountain of information. The key there is that the data was protected. Did the datacenter control that protection and have access to the data or did their customer maintain that control? Certainly a data hosting service is not required (or perhaps even allowed) to crack passwords to see what you are storing on their servers. Steven Naslund Chicago IL 18 million dollars revenue in three months so certainly pretty large sized. Any idea which DC this is? http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/police-could-charge-a-data-cente r-in-the-largest-child-porn-bust-ever
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
On 03/02/2015 09:33 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote: A. Me - Hey genius, why don't you download a movie about networks because my upload does not affect your streaming movie download except for the insignificant amount of control traffic in the opposite direction. Unless there is significant stupidly-done bufferbloat, where the insignificant amount of control traffic in the opposite direction is delayed because the big blocks of the upload are causing a traffic jam in the upstream pipe.
Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that
The backend is still symmetric. It's still something like 1.25 gigs up and 2.5 gigs down. You can only beat that going to AE. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.net To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 12:57:08 PM Subject: Symmetry, DSL, and all that Not a very informative discussion. Points of fact... From Verizon's January filings regarding 2014Q4: 1. Verizon has about eight million FIOS customers. 2. Fifty-nine percent of FiOS consumer Internet customers subscribed to data speeds of at least 50Mbps, up from 46 percent one year earlier. From a Verizon press release last summer, all FIOS speeds are now symmetric. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/verizon-fios-finally-symmetrical-upload-speeds-boosted-to-match-download/ ADSL development proceeded the development of the consumer Internet. The original patent was filed in 1988. DSL was designed originally to deliver video in an ISDN/ATM world. For that reason, it was asymmetric. -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
RE: Symmetry, DSL, and all that
The backend is still symmetric. It's still something like 1.25 gigs up and 2.5 gigs down. You can only beat that going to AE. Truth is, once the user is achieving what they consider to be acceptable performance they don't care if it is symmetric or not. Not a very informative discussion. Points of fact... From Verizon's January filings regarding 2014Q4: 1. Verizon has about eight million FIOS customers. 2. Fifty-nine percent of FiOS consumer Internet customers subscribed to data speeds of at least 50Mbps, up from 46 percent one year earlier. Eight million FIOS customers does not even come close to representing the bulk of users out there. In fact, it does not even represent the majority of high speed customers out there. From a Verizon press release last summer, all FIOS speeds are now symmetric. And no one cares. I don't even see Verizon commercials crowing about how great it is to have symmetry. If customers loved it that much don't you think they would market that way? http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/verizon-fios-finally-symmetrical-upload-speeds-boosted-to-match-download/ ADSL development proceeded the development of the consumer Internet. The original patent was filed in 1988. DSL was designed originally to deliver video in an ISDN/ATM world. For that reason, it was asymmetric. ADSL did not proceed the development of the consumer Internet in the commercial world. If it did, we would never have gone with dial-up modems. Patent dates have very little to do with commercial availability at all. Please give me an example of a purchasable service using ADSL prior to its use in Internet delivery. The number one reason ADSL succeeded and SDSL did not.you could put an ADSL signal on the phone line you already had in your house, SDSL required a new loop to be ordered. Faster to provision and it can be done without a truck roll. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Symmetry, DSL, and all that
Not a very informative discussion. Points of fact... From Verizon's January filings regarding 2014Q4: 1. Verizon has about eight million FIOS customers. 2. Fifty-nine percent of FiOS consumer Internet customers subscribed to data speeds of at least 50Mbps, up from 46 percent one year earlier. From a Verizon press release last summer, all FIOS speeds are now symmetric. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/verizon-fios-finally-symmetrical-upload-speeds-boosted-to-match-download/ ADSL development proceeded the development of the consumer Internet. The original patent was filed in 1988. DSL was designed originally to deliver video in an ISDN/ATM world. For that reason, it was asymmetric. -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that
Damn A key... I mean asymmetric. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 1:00:04 PM Subject: Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that The backend is still symmetric. It's still something like 1.25 gigs up and 2.5 gigs down. You can only beat that going to AE. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Fletcher Kittredge fkitt...@gwi.net To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 12:57:08 PM Subject: Symmetry, DSL, and all that Not a very informative discussion. Points of fact... From Verizon's January filings regarding 2014Q4: 1. Verizon has about eight million FIOS customers. 2. Fifty-nine percent of FiOS consumer Internet customers subscribed to data speeds of at least 50Mbps, up from 46 percent one year earlier. From a Verizon press release last summer, all FIOS speeds are now symmetric. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/verizon-fios-finally-symmetrical-upload-speeds-boosted-to-match-download/ ADSL development proceeded the development of the consumer Internet. The original patent was filed in 1988. DSL was designed originally to deliver video in an ISDN/ATM world. For that reason, it was asymmetric. -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134
RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Unless there is significant stupidly-done bufferbloat, where the insignificant amount of control traffic in the opposite direction is delayed because the big blocks of the upload are causing a traffic jam in the upstream pipe. Which has nothing at all to do with the asymmetry of the circuit at all. Buffer bloat is an issue in and of itself. I agree it can be an issue it just has nothing to do with the symmetry argument. In my opinion, it is just a reaction to customers who never want to see a packet lost but not understanding what the cost of that is. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that
The most important point is yes, that no one cares. If people wanted it, it would be sold to them. End. of. story. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Steve Naslund snasl...@medline.com To: Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net, NANOG list nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, March 2, 2015 1:19:29 PM Subject: RE: Symmetry, DSL, and all that The backend is still symmetric. It's still something like 1.25 gigs up and 2.5 gigs down. You can only beat that going to AE. Truth is, once the user is achieving what they consider to be acceptable performance they don't care if it is symmetric or not. Not a very informative discussion. Points of fact... From Verizon's January filings regarding 2014Q4: 1. Verizon has about eight million FIOS customers. 2. Fifty-nine percent of FiOS consumer Internet customers subscribed to data speeds of at least 50Mbps, up from 46 percent one year earlier. Eight million FIOS customers does not even come close to representing the bulk of users out there. In fact, it does not even represent the majority of high speed customers out there. From a Verizon press release last summer, all FIOS speeds are now symmetric. And no one cares. I don't even see Verizon commercials crowing about how great it is to have symmetry. If customers loved it that much don't you think they would market that way? http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/verizon-fios-finally-symmetrical-upload-speeds-boosted-to-match-download/ ADSL development proceeded the development of the consumer Internet. The original patent was filed in 1988. DSL was designed originally to deliver video in an ISDN/ATM world. For that reason, it was asymmetric. ADSL did not proceed the development of the consumer Internet in the commercial world. If it did, we would never have gone with dial-up modems. Patent dates have very little to do with commercial availability at all. Please give me an example of a purchasable service using ADSL prior to its use in Internet delivery. The number one reason ADSL succeeded and SDSL did not.you could put an ADSL signal on the phone line you already had in your house, SDSL required a new loop to be ordered. Faster to provision and it can be done without a truck roll. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
FW: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that to the company server. And let's say I want to do that 5 times during 12 hour day (it's crunch time, we're doing lots of edits). BUSINESS CLASS SERVICE - You can get it but you have to pay for it. Also, not the average user's case. I know this. My support line does not ring with many (hardly any) people complaining about upload speed. Get over it, it is a provable fact. Is any service provider on here seeing this? On average, we're talking 20gbit/12 hours, or a shade under 500kbps, if we're talking averages. On the other hand, if I try to push a 2gbit file through a 500kbps pipe, it's going to take 4000 seconds (67 minutes) -- that's rather painful, and inserts a LOT of delay in the process of getting reviews, comments, and doing the next round of edits. On the other hand, at 50mbps it takes only 40 seconds - annoying, but acceptable, and at a gig, it only takes 2 seconds. Peak, average, whatever. Your local loop does not care. It does not have a burst speed, it has a maximum transfer rate limited by the physics and electronics attached to it. You might want it to go faster and as a service provider I wish it would go faster because I would love to have lots of free bandwidth to sell you. If you want 50 mbps or 1 gbps on your ADSL circuit I can't help you at all. In fact, no one can because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TODAY. If you want gig Ethernet service at home break out your checkbook (and a shovel). So, tell me, with a straight face, that what matters is average transfer rate to the user experience. Miles Fidelman Straight face on- The user cares if his average data rate meets his needs more than he cares if he has a high upload speed the once a month he needs that. If your bottom line argument is that you need more bandwidth for less cost, then welcome to everyone else's world. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that
On 03/02/2015 02:19 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: The backend is still symmetric. It's still something like 1.25 gigs up and 2.5 gigs down. You can only beat that going to AE. Truth is, once the user is achieving what they consider to be acceptable performance they don't care if it is symmetric or not. Not a very informative discussion. Points of fact... From Verizon's January filings regarding 2014Q4: 1. Verizon has about eight million FIOS customers. 2. Fifty-nine percent of FiOS consumer Internet customers subscribed to data speeds of at least 50Mbps, up from 46 percent one year earlier. Eight million FIOS customers does not even come close to representing the bulk of users out there. In fact, it does not even represent the majority of high speed customers out there. From a Verizon press release last summer, all FIOS speeds are now symmetric. And no one cares. I don't even see Verizon commercials crowing about how great it is to have symmetry. If customers loved it that much don't you think they would market that way? Hi Steve, I live in the Tampa Bay area and I see Verizon commercial all the time where other ISP customers are complaining that theirs ISP take so long to upload pictures, backups, etc. Plus there are commercial with people on an escalator where the up escalator is much slower than the down escalator and people are complaining up should be as fast as down. Regards, Steve http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/verizon-fios-finally-symmetrical-upload-speeds-boosted-to-match-download/ ADSL development proceeded the development of the consumer Internet. The original patent was filed in 1988. DSL was designed originally to deliver video in an ISDN/ATM world. For that reason, it was asymmetric. ADSL did not proceed the development of the consumer Internet in the commercial world. If it did, we would never have gone with dial-up modems. Patent dates have very little to do with commercial availability at all. Please give me an example of a purchasable service using ADSL prior to its use in Internet delivery. The number one reason ADSL succeeded and SDSL did not.you could put an ADSL signal on the phone line you already had in your house, SDSL required a new loop to be ordered. Faster to provision and it can be done without a truck roll. Steven Naslund Chicago IL -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com
Routing objects
Anyone out there messed with routing objects lately that would care to let me bounce a few sanity check things off them? Maybe someone bored wanting to talk to a fellow geek on Skype or phone for a few minutes. Thanks, Justin Justin Wilson j...@mtin.net http://www.mtin.net http://www.mtin.net/ Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers http://www.thebrotherswisp.com http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/ Podcast about xISP topics http://www.midwest-ix.com http://www.midwest-ix.com/ Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange
Re: FW: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Naslund, Steve wrote: That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that to the company server. And let's say I want to do that 5 times during 12 hour day (it's crunch time, we're doing lots of edits). BUSINESS CLASS SERVICE - You can get it but you have to pay for it. Also, not the average user's case. I know this. My support line does not ring with many (hardly any) people complaining about upload speed. Get over it, it is a provable fact. Is any service provider on here seeing this? And that proves what? I expect people understand that large uploads take time, and don't call customer support to complain about something that comes with their grade of service. (Some of us DO, however call customer support when a promised 25mbps upload speed drops to 100kbps - which mine has been known to do - but that's something broken.) On average, we're talking 20gbit/12 hours, or a shade under 500kbps, if we're talking averages. On the other hand, if I try to push a 2gbit file through a 500kbps pipe, it's going to take 4000 seconds (67 minutes) -- that's rather painful, and inserts a LOT of delay in the process of getting reviews, comments, and doing the next round of edits. On the other hand, at 50mbps it takes only 40 seconds - annoying, but acceptable, and at a gig, it only takes 2 seconds. Peak, average, whatever. Your local loop does not care. It does not have a burst speed, it has a maximum transfer rate limited by the physics and electronics attached to it. You might want it to go faster and as a service provider I wish it would go faster because I would love to have lots of free bandwidth to sell you. If you want 50 mbps or 1 gbps on your ADSL circuit I can't help you at all. In fact, no one can because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TODAY. If you want gig Ethernet service at home break out your checkbook (and a shovel). Umm... maximum transfer speed is also dependent on how many people you're sharing a channel with (can you say PON?) and the traffic characteristics of the folks you're sharing a link with. So, tell me, with a straight face, that what matters is average transfer rate to the user experience. Miles Fidelman Straight face on- The user cares if his average data rate meets his needs more than he cares if he has a high upload speed the once a month he needs that. In my experience, you're absolutely wrong. People care most when something doesn't perform when they most need it. (By analogy, people suddenly find that they care a lot about how well there car accelerates, or brakes, primarily when they're trying to get out of a bad situation.) If your bottom line argument is that you need more bandwidth for less cost, then welcome to everyone else's world. No. My argument is that you're full of it when you equate peak with average performance. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Symmetry, DSL, and all that
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 02:41:30PM -0500, Fletcher Kittredge wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net wrote: The most important point is yes, that no one cares. If people wanted it, it would be sold to them. End. of. story. I will repeat myself, speaking very slowly. Please see original message for citations. Verizon has eight million FIOS customers. As of last year, Verizon decided it was worth it to supply all of those customers with symmetric speeds. So, by your reasoning, people wanted it, so it was sold to them. Verizon is only one of many fiber-based ISPs selling symmetric speeds. What Fletcher Wrote, in spades. I will wager that most residential customers have never heard of symmetric speeds. I also will wager that they would like to be able to send large mail faster, upload to Yahoo! and other web hosting services faster, and so on. I know that *this* particular Cox Business customer would like faster uplink speeds, and doesn't see 20 MBps in either direction on the best days; since this is the threshold for broadband according to Uncle Charlie, Cox is not providing me broadband service. Before I got into this, I owned large to very large IBM mainframe computers. There *always* was latent demand for bigger and faster, much the same way an Interstate highway, on the day it is opened for service, is *always* over its design capacity immediately, on the day it is opened. -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mi...@mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin
Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
Not so sure about that… 240.59.103.76.in-addr.arpa. 7200 IN PTR c-76-103-59-240.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. is most definitely a business class service from Comcast. Seems to match the entry for 24.7.48.153 pretty closely. I think the difference is the type of cable network in the particular area. HFC is Hybrid Fiber Coax. The network in San Jose doesn’t really have any fiber, so it’s likely not an HFC network. I’m not sure what HSD stands for other than possibly “High Speed Data”, but I suspect it’s more likely some cable-specific term for an all-copper alternative to HFC. Owen On Mar 2, 2015, at 03:39 , Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 11:58:34AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote: business vs consumer edition products? (that'd be my bet) I think these are all residential customers, as business customers appear to use different subdomains and/or host naming conventions, e.g.: 24.7.48.153 c-24-7-48-153.hsd1.ca.comcast.net 24.10.217.142 c-24-10-217-142.hsd1.ut.comcast.net 24.129.85.220 c-24-129-85-220.hsd1.fl.comcast.net vs. 70.88.25.20170-88-25-201-chesterfield-va.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.90.158.3770-90-158-37-knoxville.hfc.comcastbusiness.net 70.91.133.105 70-91-133-105-ma-ne.hfc.comcastbusiness.net Or: 23.240.176.98 cpe-23-240-176-98.socal.res.rr.com 24.25.253.81cpe-24-25-253-81.hawaii.res.rr.com 24.27.121.156 cpe-24-27-121-156.tx.res.rr.com vs. 24.106.98.106 rrcs-24-106-98-106.central.biz.rr.com 24.142.142.169 rrcs-24-142-142-169.central.biz.rr.com 24.173.100.134 rrcs-24-173-100-134.sw.biz.rr.com Those are all (very recent) direct-to-MX on port 25 spam sources, but it looks to me like the first group in each set is residential and the second group is business. But perhaps I'm misinterpreting the naming. ---rsk
