[NANOG-announce] NANOG Committee Nominations

[Betty Burke <be...@nanog.org>]

Colleagues,

NANOG Committee Nominations are open for the NANOG Communications
 andProgram
 Committees.  Committee
nominations will close at 12:00PM ET February 8, 2016, and Board
Appointments will take place the evening of February 9, 2016.

If you care about NANOG and think that you would like to take a turn at
volunteering your time to help make it better, please consider joining as a
member  and running for a position. If
you know someone else that you believe would be interested, nominate them
by completing the Online Process noted on each of the committee pages
referenced above.

Should you have questions, please direct them to electi...@nanog.org.
NANOG Committees play an important role in in our success. By joining now,
you can be an integral part of the process.

All best,
Betty

Betty J. Burke
NANOG Executive Director
2864 Carpenter Rd., Ste 100
Ann Arbor, MI 48108
+1 866-902-1336
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG,
SAFNOG, PaNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 09 Jan, 2016

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  577904
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  213596
Deaggregation factor:  2.71
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  281683
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 52425
Prefixes per ASN: 11.02
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   36605
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   15864
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:6407
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:164
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.4
Max AS path length visible:  39
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 55644)  36
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:  1022
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 364
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  12305
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:9413
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:   36098
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:16
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:440
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2802534084
Equivalent to 167 /8s, 11 /16s and 70 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   75.7
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   75.7
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   97.9
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  189356

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   147258
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   40643
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.62
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  156044
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:63000
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5127
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   30.44
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   1187
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:897
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.5
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 39
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   1791
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  756488836
Equivalent to 45 /8s, 23 /16s and 26 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 88.4

APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 131072-135580
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:181566
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:89017
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.04
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   184966
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 86826
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:16461

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Owen DeLong]

> Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most
> people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in
> the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a
> very scalable solution for residential service.

Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz
due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using
various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the
center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from Adafruit.

The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially here
in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are
smart enough to pay attention to the difference.

OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily
differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have
to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable
WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those
are the least expensive routers on the shelf.

Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do
with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance.

Owen

Re: Smokeping targets

[Mike Hammett]

Most of these "OMG, think of the target!111" posts are unwarranted. The OP 
asked for lists of IPs that the community agrees can be safely monitored. If it 
can be safely monitored , obviously the host is aware and agrees to it. 

Yes, if a particular hop along the way has a higher latency than ones behind 
it, it's just an overloaded control plane but that network should be 
looking to upgrade that router anyway. (Cue the OMG, it's forwarding just fine 
e-mails... don't.) 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Marco d'Itri"  
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 10:13:58 AM 
Subject: Re: Smokeping targets 

On Jan 07, Andrew Dampf  wrote: 

> Something I found that is helpful once you've gathered a list of targets is 
> the following command for generating config to paste: 
> 
> traceroute -w 3 [IPaddress] | grep -v "*" | grep -v "traceroute" | sed -e 
> 's/(//g' -e 's/)//g' | awk '{ gsub(/\./,"_",$2); print " "$2"\nmenu = 
> "$3"\ntitle = "$2" - "$3"\nhost = "$3"\n"}' 
> 
> That generates a valid output for configs to ping each hop along the way to 
> your destination, which can be super useful. Not all of them allow ICMP but 
> a decent amount do. 
It is also super stupid, because routers reply to ICMP echo requests 
with a very low priority: this introduces jitter which makes these 
measurements unreliable. 
If you are not monitoring a server then you are wasting your time. 

(Also, it would be nice to have the owner permission before deciding to 
permanently send a lot of ICMPs to a device.) 

-- 
ciao, 
Marco 

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Mike Hammett]

I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF 
performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 
2.4. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Owen DeLong"  
To: "Josh Reynolds"  
Cc: "NANOG" , nanog-...@mail.com 
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM 
Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON 

> Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most 
> people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in 
> the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a 
> very scalable solution for residential service. 

Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz 
due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using 
various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the 
center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from 
Adafruit. 

The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially 
here 
in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are 
smart enough to pay attention to the difference. 

OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily 
differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have 
to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable 
WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those 
are the least expensive routers on the shelf. 

Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to do 
with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance. 

Owen 

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Owen DeLong]

True. I know a number of average users that also do what I am doing, however.

Owen

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:42 , Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> 
> You are not the average user.
> 
> On Jan 8, 2016 1:39 PM, "Owen DeLong"  > wrote:
> Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID.
> 
> I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to 
> know
> which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is 
> desirable).
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds > > wrote:
>> 
>> Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply 
>> connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay 
>> attention to SNR at all.
>> 
>> On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" > > wrote:
>> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF 
>> performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 
>> 2.4.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>> 
>>   
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
>> 
>>   
>>  
>> 
>> From: "Owen DeLong" >
>> To: "Josh Reynolds" >
>> Cc: "NANOG" >, nanog-...@mail.com 
>> 
>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
>> 
>> > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most
>> > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in
>> > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a
>> > very scalable solution for residential service.
>> 
>> Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz
>> due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using
>> various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the
>> center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from 
>> Adafruit.
>> 
>> The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially 
>> here
>> in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people 
>> are
>> smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
>> 
>> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily
>> differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have
>> to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable
>> WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because 
>> those
>> are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
>> 
>> Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to 
>> do
>> with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with 
>> performance.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Josh Reynolds]

You are not the average user.
On Jan 8, 2016 1:39 PM, "Owen DeLong"  wrote:

> Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID.
>
> I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me
> to know
> which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is
> desirable).
>
> Owen
>
> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>
> Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply
> connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay
> attention to SNR at all.
> On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:
>
>> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF
>> performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in
>> 2.4.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *From: *"Owen DeLong" 
>> *To: *"Josh Reynolds" 
>> *Cc: *"NANOG" , nanog-...@mail.com
>> *Sent: *Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: GPON vs. GEPON
>>
>> > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most
>> > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless
>> in
>> > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being
>> a
>> > very scalable solution for residential service.
>>
>> Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than
>> 2.4Ghz
>> due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is
>> using
>> various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the
>> center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from
>> Adafruit.
>>
>> The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings,
>> especially here
>> in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where
>> people are
>> smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
>>
>> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to
>> easily
>> differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you
>> have
>> to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz
>> capable
>> WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because
>> those
>> are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
>>
>> Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more
>> to do
>> with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with
>> performance.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Owen DeLong]

True, but most households are not using a reputable enterprise wireless 
solution.

Owen

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:46 , Chris Adams (IT)  wrote:
> 
> Most reputable enterprise wireless solutions employ band-steering which helps 
> to "force" users onto 5ghz, but still allows clients to connect to 2.4 if 
> it's the only SSID strong enough or if the client only supports 2.4ghz. Band 
> steering largely negates the need to run two SSIDs for optimal band selection.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 2:39 PM
> To: Josh Reynolds 
> Cc: nanog-...@mail.com; NANOG 
> Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
> 
> Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID.
> 
> I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to 
> know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is 
> desirable).
> 
> Owen
> 
>> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>> 
>> Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply 
>> connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay 
>> attention to SNR at all.
>> 
>> On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett" > > wrote:
>> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF 
>> performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 
>> 2.4.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> From: "Owen DeLong" >
>> To: "Josh Reynolds" > >
>> Cc: "NANOG" >, 
>> nanog-...@mail.com 
>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM
>> Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
>> 
>>> Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that 
>>> most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz 
>>> wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - 
>>> that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
>> 
>> Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 
>> 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my 
>> neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external 
>> SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an 
>> ESP8266 board from Adafruit.
>> 
>> The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, 
>> especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in 
>> any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
>> 
>> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to 
>> easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of 
>> frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of 
>> the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most 
>> consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on 
>> the shelf.
>> 
>> Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has 
>> more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with 
>> performance.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Owen DeLong]

Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID.

I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to 
know
which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is desirable).

Owen

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> 
> Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply 
> connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay 
> attention to SNR at all.
> 
> On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett"  > wrote:
> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF 
> performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 
> 2.4.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
>   
>  
> 
> From: "Owen DeLong" >
> To: "Josh Reynolds" >
> Cc: "NANOG" >, nanog-...@mail.com 
> 
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM
> Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
> 
> > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most
> > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in
> > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a
> > very scalable solution for residential service.
> 
> Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 2.4Ghz
> due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using
> various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the
> center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from 
> Adafruit.
> 
> The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, especially 
> here
> in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people are
> smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
> 
> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to easily
> differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you have
> to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable
> WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those
> are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
> 
> Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more to 
> do
> with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with performance.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Josh Reynolds]

Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply
connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay
attention to SNR at all.
On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett"  wrote:

> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF
> performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in
> 2.4.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> 
> 
> --
> *From: *"Owen DeLong" 
> *To: *"Josh Reynolds" 
> *Cc: *"NANOG" , nanog-...@mail.com
> *Sent: *Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM
> *Subject: *Re: GPON vs. GEPON
>
> > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most
> > people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in
> > the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a
> > very scalable solution for residential service.
>
> Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than
> 2.4Ghz
> due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my neighbors is using
> various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external SSIDs visible from the
> center of my house using the on-board antenna of an ESP8266 board from
> Adafruit.
>
> The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings,
> especially here
> in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in any home where people
> are
> smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
>
> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to
> easily
> differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you
> have
> to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable
> WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because
> those
> are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
>
> Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has more
> to do
> with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with
> performance.
>
> Owen
>
>
>

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Josh Reynolds]

You might be surprised...

Our upstreams want to simply bypass 40Gbps waves and want us to move
straight to 100Gbps. The cost difference is minimal.

We are set up where each customer can DVR or watch up to 6 shows at once,
per household.

There's a reason Google did 16 way splits, and yes, we have two paths we
are looking at for NG-PON2. One with Calix, another with another vendor.
On Jan 8, 2016 10:57 PM, "Baldur Norddahl" 
wrote:

> We do not sell TV but that means our customers are cable cutters that do a
> ton of Netflix, HBO Nordic, ViaSat, SBS, DR TV etc streaming. Our traffic
> level per customer is about the double of what others report.
>
> VoIP is not very popular, but people do that too. In either case traffic
> levels from VoIP is so low that it is below the noise floor. When you can
> get 940 Mbit/s transfer rates with 1 ms latency and no jitter, a single 64
> Kbit/s voice stream is not going to be a problem. We point customers to
> third party SIP providers and everyone are happy with that.
>
> Do the math: a Netflix HD stream is about 5 Mbit/s. How many such stream
> can you have with 2,4 Gbit/s capacity on a GPON OLT? Yes a lot. You might
> say but every home has at least 5 TVs now, so with 64 users you need to be
> able to do 5 times 64 times 5 Mbit/s (*). But it simply does not work that
> way. We are very far from a situation where it works that way. Instead we
> monitor the traffic levels, and if sometime in the future the peak traffic
> becomes a problem, we are ready to either lower the split ratio or invest
> in the next technology (probably some kind of x*10 Gbit/s PON). Until then
> we take the cost savings of using a split ratio that works in the real
> world.
>
> (*) nobody has a backbone that can cope with that kind of traffic either.
>
> Regards,
>
> Baldur
>
>
>
> On 9 January 2016 at 05:41, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>
> > And you are doing 6+ stream IPTV and VoIP as well?
> > On Jan 8, 2016 9:58 PM, "Baldur Norddahl" 
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> On 8 January 2016 at 13:56, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> >>
> >>> A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards
> >>> are
> >>> 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps
> LAG
> >>> working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is rubbish. We are using 128 optical splits and 64 users per OLT
> and
> >> a mix of users buying either 100 or 1000 Mbit/s service. This just
> works.
> >> The system is very far from being overloaded. We would put even more
> users
> >> on the OLT if our vendor would allow this (they only support a max of 64
> >> users per OLT).
> >>
> >> Remember the very first thing users do when you sell 1000 Mbit/s
> internet
> >> is to run a speedtest. Our users do that too and they do get the
> expected
> >> 940-950 Mbit/s (=gigabit ethernet wire speed) speedtest result at all
> time
> >> of day, also at peak usage.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Baldur
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can notice 
480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the buffering 
or larger bills? 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Constantine A. Murenin"  
To: "Valdis Kletnieks"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. 

On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks  wrote: 
> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether 
> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... 
> 
> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing 
> doesn't match what they said it was... 
> 
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies
>  
> 
> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, 
> or why they're giving him a hard time. 
> 
> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. 
> "Why 
> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" 
> 
> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie 
> 
> /me makes popcorn 

I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the 
record straight, once and for all. 

T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! 

Here's my comment on 
https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
 

2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go 
at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra 
step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?» 

I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me 
make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! 

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm 

> Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 
... 

> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes 
> video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering 
> DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable 
> streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all 
> other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three 
> times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put 
> customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On 
> for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer 
> choice. 

Here it is again, the relevant bits: 

> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can 
> watch up to three times more video from their data plan 

Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! 

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! 

Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. 
Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB 
to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't 
include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) 

Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: 

https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s 

 Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% 
 more video. 

It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but 
that's most certainly what was meant. 

Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 
1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", 
and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and 
quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). 

That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his 
own consumers this time around. The only truth from his 
https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and 
Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers 
indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! 

Cheers, 
Constantine.SU. 

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Baldur Norddahl]

We do not sell TV but that means our customers are cable cutters that do a
ton of Netflix, HBO Nordic, ViaSat, SBS, DR TV etc streaming. Our traffic
level per customer is about the double of what others report.

VoIP is not very popular, but people do that too. In either case traffic
levels from VoIP is so low that it is below the noise floor. When you can
get 940 Mbit/s transfer rates with 1 ms latency and no jitter, a single 64
Kbit/s voice stream is not going to be a problem. We point customers to
third party SIP providers and everyone are happy with that.

Do the math: a Netflix HD stream is about 5 Mbit/s. How many such stream
can you have with 2,4 Gbit/s capacity on a GPON OLT? Yes a lot. You might
say but every home has at least 5 TVs now, so with 64 users you need to be
able to do 5 times 64 times 5 Mbit/s (*). But it simply does not work that
way. We are very far from a situation where it works that way. Instead we
monitor the traffic levels, and if sometime in the future the peak traffic
becomes a problem, we are ready to either lower the split ratio or invest
in the next technology (probably some kind of x*10 Gbit/s PON). Until then
we take the cost savings of using a split ratio that works in the real
world.

(*) nobody has a backbone that can cope with that kind of traffic either.

Regards,

Baldur



On 9 January 2016 at 05:41, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> And you are doing 6+ stream IPTV and VoIP as well?
> On Jan 8, 2016 9:58 PM, "Baldur Norddahl" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8 January 2016 at 13:56, Josh Reynolds  wrote:
>>
>>> A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards
>>> are
>>> 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps LAG
>>> working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not.
>>>
>>
>> That is rubbish. We are using 128 optical splits and 64 users per OLT and
>> a mix of users buying either 100 or 1000 Mbit/s service. This just works.
>> The system is very far from being overloaded. We would put even more users
>> on the OLT if our vendor would allow this (they only support a max of 64
>> users per OLT).
>>
>> Remember the very first thing users do when you sell 1000 Mbit/s internet
>> is to run a speedtest. Our users do that too and they do get the expected
>> 940-950 Mbit/s (=gigabit ethernet wire speed) speedtest result at all time
>> of day, also at peak usage.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Baldur
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Owen DeLong]

You are assuming a 4” display.

First, lots of phones these days (mine include) larger than 4” displays.

Even more phones, again, mine included, have HDMI output.

And you better believe I notice the difference on a 32” TV in a hotel room.

Owen

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 20:25 , Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can 
> notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the 
> buffering or larger bills? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> 
> From: "Constantine A. Murenin"  
> To: "Valdis Kletnieks"  
> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM 
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. 
> 
> On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks  wrote: 
>> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether 
>> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... 
>> 
>> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing 
>> doesn't match what they said it was... 
>> 
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies
>>  
>> 
>> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, 
>> or why they're giving him a hard time. 
>> 
>> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. 
>> "Why 
>> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" 
>> 
>> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie 
>> 
>> /me makes popcorn 
> 
> I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the 
> record straight, once and for all. 
> 
> T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! 
> 
> Here's my comment on 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
>  
> 
> 2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go 
> at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra 
> step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?» 
> 
> I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me 
> make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! 
> 
> https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm 
> 
>> Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 
> ... 
> 
>> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes 
>> video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering 
>> DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable 
>> streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all 
>> other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three 
>> times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put 
>> customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On 
>> for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer 
>> choice. 
> 
> Here it is again, the relevant bits: 
> 
>> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can 
>> watch up to three times more video from their data plan 
> 
> Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! 
> 
> HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! 
> 
> Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. 
> Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB 
> to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't 
> include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) 
> 
> Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: 
> 
> https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s 
> 
> Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 
> 12% more video. 
> 
> It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but 
> that's most certainly what was meant. 
> 
> Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 
> 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", 
> and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and 
> quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter). 
> 
> That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his 
> own consumers this time around. The only truth from his 
> https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and 
> Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers 
> indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it! 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Constantine.SU. 
> 

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Mike Hammett]

Mine has a 6" display and I know it's rare... because people always comment on 
how big it is. 

Many\most do HDMI out. About 14 people know about it. Maybe 4 actually do it 
with any level of regularity. Opt out if it's an issue for you. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Owen DeLong"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:57:32 PM 
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. 

You are assuming a 4” display. 

First, lots of phones these days (mine include) larger than 4” displays. 

Even more phones, again, mine included, have HDMI output. 

And you better believe I notice the difference on a 32” TV in a hotel room. 

Owen 

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 20:25 , Mike Hammett  wrote: 
> 
> I'm not certain that most consumers notice or care. How many people can 
> notice 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p on a 4" display? Now how many will notice the 
> buffering or larger bills? 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> 
> From: "Constantine A. Murenin"  
> To: "Valdis Kletnieks"  
> Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group"  
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:07:06 PM 
> Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan. 
> 
> On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks  wrote: 
>> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether 
>> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that... 
>> 
>> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing 
>> doesn't match what they said it was... 
>> 
>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies
>>  
>> 
>> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is, 
>> or why they're giving him a hard time. 
>> 
>> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. 
>> "Why 
>> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?" 
>> 
>> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie 
>> 
>> /me makes popcorn 
> 
> I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the 
> record straight, once and for all. 
> 
> T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0! 
> 
> Here's my comment on 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya
>  
> 
> 2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go 
> at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra 
> step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?» 
> 
> I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me 
> make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT! 
> 
> https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm 
> 
>> Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015 
> ... 
> 
>> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes 
>> video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering 
>> DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable 
>> streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all 
>> other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three 
>> times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put 
>> customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On 
>> for each line in their My T-Mobile account. Binge On is all about customer 
>> choice. 
> 
> Here it is again, the relevant bits: 
> 
>> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can 
>> watch up to three times more video from their data plan 
> 
> Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11! 
> 
> HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT! 
> 
> Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics. 
> Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB 
> to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too. (And that doesn't 
> include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.) 
> 
> Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default: 
> 
> https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s 
> 
> Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 
> 12% more video. 
> 
> It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but 
> that's most certainly what was meant. 
> 
> Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to 
> 1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video", 
> and 

RE: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Ray Orsini]

On one hand I want to give Legere some credit for addressing the publicity
himself. On the other hand, he sounds like a complete fool doing it. I wish
I would've been on Periscope at the time.

Regards,
Ray Orsini – CEO
Orsini IT, LLC – Technology Consultants
VOICE DATA  BANDWIDTH  SECURITY  SUPPORT
P: 305.967.6756 x1009   E: r...@orsiniit.com   TF: 844.OIT.VOIP
7900 NW 155th Street, Suite 103, Miami Lakes, FL 33016
http://www.orsiniit.com | View My Calendar | View/Pay Your Invoices | View
Your Tickets



-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Hugo Slabbert
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:12 PM
To: Valdis Kletnieks 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

On Thu 2016-Jan-07 22:43:20 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks
 wrote:

>So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and
>whether it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
>
>The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually
>doing doesn't match what they said it was...
>
>https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-op
>timization-just-throttling-applies
>
>Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is,
>or why they're giving him a hard time.
>
>"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere
>said. "Why are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
>
>http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
>
>/me makes popcorn

And I'm sorry, but this line from Legere had me raging at my screen:

"There are people out there saying we’re “throttling.” They’re playing
semantics! Binge On does NOT permanently slow down data nor remove customer
control. Here’s the thing, mobile customers don’t always want or need giant
heavy data files. So we created adaptive video technology to optimize for
mobile screens and stream at a bitrate designed to stretch your data (pssst,
Google, that's a GOOD thing)."[1]

...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile by
lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling". And you're
accusing the "other guys" of playing semantics?  Beside pure marketing
doublespeak, I don't even know what actual logic he's using here.
Apparently it's only "throttling" if it *permanently* slows down traffic,
and BingeOn somehow doesn't do that (besides what the EFF is putting
forward)?  Is it because even though it's enabled by default, there is still
an "off" switch, and therefore user choice is maintained (though probalby
not obvious to most consumers)?

Listen: I have no issue with doing shaping or traffic prioritization or
whatever as your customer asks for it; we offer that as an option to
customers to get the most out of their connections and I'm sure many of you
do as well.  But:

1)  Those are done at the request of the customer, not opt-out.
2)  Be honest about what you're doing.

T-Mobile seems to be trying to spin this as if they have some magical
technology that will re-encode streaming video on the fly to 480p, when
really they're just ID-ing video and rate-limiting it (when it comes to
video that doesn't match their technical requirements doc and doesn't do ABR
down to 480p on the sending side).  Fine: just getting decent accuracy on
various edge cases of identifying video traffic isn't trivial, so kudos, but
don't blow smoke about it.  If Legere has some info about how this truly at
a technical level is not just rate limiting, then show us that info.  Yes:
I've read the "Content Provider Technical Requirements" doc[2] that talks
about adaptive bitrate tech on the sending side:

"The content provider will provide video over T‐Mobile’s network using
adaptive bit rate technology in which the server sending streaming video
content will automatically adapt video resolution of the stream based on the
capabilities of the data connection or as otherwise indicated by the
T‐Mobile network."

But, that's for the content folks that are participating in the BingeOn
setup for zero-rating.  The EFF's data indicates that if you're just a
random video stream (or video media type file), you get rate limited.

With all of this said, I appreciate the challenge of getting something like
this implemented at scale without going opt-out.  T-Mo is going for a PR win
as well as, let's be honest, reducing network utilization by reducing the
bitrate of video crossing the network, but it's *highly* unlikely that
you're going to get enough critical mass in an opt-in effort to pull it off.
To T-Mo's credit, they're making the opt-out quite simple, but let's be
clear that this is not a net neutral move if we go by the commonly accepted
definitions:

"The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to
treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[3]

"Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or 

RE: GPON vs. GEPON

[Chris Adams (IT)]

Most reputable enterprise wireless solutions employ band-steering which helps 
to "force" users onto 5ghz, but still allows clients to connect to 2.4 if it's 
the only SSID strong enough or if the client only supports 2.4ghz. Band 
steering largely negates the need to run two SSIDs for optimal band selection.

Chris


-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 2:39 PM
To: Josh Reynolds 
Cc: nanog-...@mail.com; NANOG 
Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON

Only if the 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz networks are on the same SSID.

I don’t do that… I maintain separate 5Ghz and 2.4Ghz SSIDs. This allows me to 
know which one I am on and force when desirable (usually forcing 5Ghz is 
desirable).

Owen

> On Jan 8, 2016, at 11:03 , Josh Reynolds  wrote:
> 
> Customer devices will see the higher signal on the 2.4GHz AP and simply 
> connect to that, especially as they roam through the house. Most don't pay 
> attention to SNR at all.
> 
> On Jan 8, 2016 12:53 PM, "Mike Hammett"  > wrote:
> I think that was Josh's point, that 5 GHz will likely deliver better RF 
> performance than 2.4 (despite physics) due to the amount of interference in 
> 2.4.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
>   
>  
>  
> 
> 
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
> 
>   
>  
> 
> From: "Owen DeLong" >
> To: "Josh Reynolds"  >
> Cc: "NANOG" >, 
> nanog-...@mail.com 
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:46:37 PM
> Subject: Re: GPON vs. GEPON
> 
> > Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that 
> > most people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz 
> > wireless in the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - 
> > that ends up being a very scalable solution for residential service.
> 
> Um… 5GHz works a lot better from one end of my house to the other than 
> 2.4Ghz due (in large part) to this fact… Almost every one of my 
> neighbors is using various 2.4GHz devices including about 45 external 
> SSIDs visible from the center of my house using the on-board antenna of an 
> ESP8266 board from Adafruit.
> 
> The noise floor and congestion on 2.4GHz in many urban settings, 
> especially here in Silicon Valley makes 5Ghz a much better option in 
> any home where people are smart enough to pay attention to the difference.
> 
> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to 
> easily differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of 
> frequency) and you have to really read the fine print on the side of 
> the box to find a 5Ghz capable WAP at your local big box store, most 
> consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because those are the least expensive routers on 
> the shelf.
> 
> Personally, I don’t mind this, but I think the 2.4Ghz prevalence has 
> more to do with consumers not knowing what they are buying than it does with 
> performance.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 8 January 2016 at 19:46, Owen DeLong  wrote:

> OTOH, since the WiFi consortium took away the ability for consumers to
> easily
> differentiate (it’s all “n” or “ac” now regardless of frequency) and you
> have
> to really read the fine print on the side of the box to find a 5Ghz capable
> WAP at your local big box store, most consumers end up on 2.4Ghz because
> those
> are the least expensive routers on the shelf.
>

ac = 5 GHz.

The only dual frequency standard is 802.11n. But that has resolved itself
by now: any router only advertizing "n" is going to be a 2,4GHz only router
and even if you find a rare old model that was 5 GHz "n" it still sucks for
lacking "ac".

In our market everyone delivers "ac" routers by now. One reason for that is
that DSL now needs VDSL2 with vectoring and channel bonding, and this
brings you to a price point where you also want to get "ac" for little or
no extra. Or you are selling high speed internet and the user experience is
simply lacking without "ac".

But 5 GHz usage is still low because people have a ton of devices that are
2,4 GHz only. Even brand new laptops are sold without a 5 GHz radio. People
don't know that they have to check - it is oh but it has wifi and it is
brand new, therefore it must have support for the new standard you are
talking about! Sometimes we have to send someone out to the customer to
demonstrate how crappy his new purchase is.

Regards,

Baldur

Fwd: GPON vs. GEPON

[Baldur Norddahl]

On 8 January 2016 at 13:56, Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards are
> 4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps LAG
> working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not.
>

That is rubbish. We are using 128 optical splits and 64 users per OLT and a
mix of users buying either 100 or 1000 Mbit/s service. This just works. The
system is very far from being overloaded. We would put even more users on
the OLT if our vendor would allow this (they only support a max of 64 users
per OLT).

Remember the very first thing users do when you sell 1000 Mbit/s internet
is to run a speedtest. Our users do that too and they do get the expected
940-950 Mbit/s (=gigabit ethernet wire speed) speedtest result at all time
of day, also at peak usage.

Regards,

Baldur

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 7 January 2016 at 19:43, Valdis Kletnieks  wrote:
> So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether
> it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...
>
> The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing
> doesn't match what they said it was...
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies
>
> Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is,
> or why they're giving him a hard time.
>
> "Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why
> are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"
>
> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie
>
> /me makes popcorn

I don't know what people have been smoking, but I'd like to set the
record straight, once and for all.

T-Mobile US said that ALL video will be affected from day 0!

Here's my comment on
https://www.reddit.com/r/tmobile/comments/3sbbm5/netflix_hbo_gonow_sling_tv_showtime_hulu_espn_and/cwx16ya

2015-11-11: «Didn't T-Mobile say that all videos will automatically go
at 480p from that point on? If so, what's really the point of an extra
step, you know, of the service explicitly "applying" to participate?»

I've taken the time to find the source material that must have made me
make such a comment, and, I FOUND IT!

https://newsroom.t-mobile.com/media-kits/un-carrier-x.htm

> Los Angeles, California — November 10, 2015
...

> Powered by new technology built in to T-Mobile’s network, Binge On optimizes 
> video for mobile screens, minimizing data consumption while still delivering 
> DVD or better quality (e.g. 480p or better). That means more reliable 
> streaming for services that stream free with Binge On, and for almost all 
> other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can watch up to three 
> times more video from their data plan. And, as always, T-Mobile has put 
> customers in total control with a switch to activate or deactivate Binge On 
> for each line in their My T-Mobile account.  Binge On is all about customer 
> choice.

Here it is again, the relevant bits:

> for almost all other video, it means T-Mobile Simple Choice customers can 
> watch up to three times more video from their data plan

Those words have certainly been there since at least 2015-11-11!

HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT!

Just like the rest of the increases in ARPU and other metrics.
Unlimited 4G didn't just have the tethering bucket increased from 7GB
to 14GB, but the price went from 80$ to 95$, too.  (And that doesn't
include the earlier increase from 70$ to 80$, either.)

Oh, and, to answer EFF's question on why it's enabled by default:

https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8?t=47s

 Since it's launched in November, we've learned customers were watching 12% 
 more video.

It is not explicit that "12%" refers to a minute-based metric, but
that's most certainly what was meant.

Now, compare this with the 66,6% savings by throttling all video to
1.5Mbps, so that "customers can watch up to three times more video",
and the net effects of unlimited binge on become quite clear (and
quite counter-intuitive to a naive guess on the matter).

That said, I have to say I'm disappointed with him going against his
own consumers this time around.  The only truth from his
https://youtu.be/MHFUT1_QlB8 video is that, indeed, if the Dumb and
Dumber would have implemented this functionality first, the carriers
indeed would have found a way to charge extra for it!

Cheers,
Constantine.SU.

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[nanog-isp]

> If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and 
> purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or know?
  All the interesting bits obviously :)
  Anybody can read the bitrates, split ratios, compatibility and price of a 
spec sheet/quote. That however leaves out all the interesting operative aspects 
such as auxiliary network requirement, service turn up and software tool 
differences between the two standards.
  The hard facts only cover the CAPEX part of the TCO equation and the 
differences between GPON and GEPON are small. Controlling for any parameter 
roughly equal or if any different within a constant factor of less than two.
  I'm more interested in the OPEX part, to find out if there are any 
(significant) differences between the two. 
 
I welcome all insight into the operative aspects of GPON and/or GEPON, 
regardless if you have used one or both. 

>> One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer on a 
>> PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON supports 
>> 2.4Gbps of
>> total usage on the segment.
  I know this is a quote of a quote, whose origin I do not know, but I would 
not feel comfortable offering "a true 1Gbps service" on any PON system with 
less than 10G of capacity. Plain GPON/GEPON is meant to be split vigorously to 
achieve cost savings in the OSP and as such aren't suitable for gigabit speeds. 
It's more like a 100M kind of technology. 


Jared

Re: GPON vs. GEPON

[Josh Reynolds]

It all depends on how it is designed as well.

Take a Calix E7-2. You could do a pretty high split per gpon port, I think
either 32 or 64 is the max for them, but you're really just shooting
yourself in the foot IMO if you're advertising and selling a lot of gig
service.

A 8-16 way split per gpon is more reasonable. I think the current cards are
4-10 gpon ports per, and 2 cards per E7-2. I know they have 2x10Gbps LAG
working for uplink, can't remember if 4x10Gbps LAG works yet or not.

Count in oversubscription rates for residential, and consider that most
people, despite what they say or think, will end up on 2.4GHz wireless in
the home due to 5GHz sucking more than a room away - that ends up being a
very scalable solution for residential service.

For SMB, they end up on a different split, or with SLA end up on an active
port on the chassis or on the Juniper access/transport switch.
On Jan 8, 2016 4:05 AM,  wrote:

> > If you take out "bitrate, split ratio, cross vendor compatibility and
> purchase price differences" then what else would you like to compare or
> know?
>   All the interesting bits obviously :)
>   Anybody can read the bitrates, split ratios, compatibility and price of
> a spec sheet/quote. That however leaves out all the interesting operative
> aspects such as auxiliary network requirement, service turn up and software
> tool differences between the two standards.
>   The hard facts only cover the CAPEX part of the TCO equation and the
> differences between GPON and GEPON are small. Controlling for any parameter
> roughly equal or if any different within a constant factor of less than two.
>   I'm more interested in the OPEX part, to find out if there are any
> (significant) differences between the two.
>
> I welcome all insight into the operative aspects of GPON and/or GEPON,
> regardless if you have used one or both.
>
> >> One, you can deliver a true 1Gbps service where more than one customer
> on a PON segment can actually get 1Gbps at a time, because the GPON
> supports 2.4Gbps of
> >> total usage on the segment.
>   I know this is a quote of a quote, whose origin I do not know, but I
> would not feel comfortable offering "a true 1Gbps service" on any PON
> system with less than 10G of capacity. Plain GPON/GEPON is meant to be
> split vigorously to achieve cost savings in the OSP and as such aren't
> suitable for gigabit speeds. It's more like a 100M kind of technology.
>
>
> Jared
>

nagios ntp/clock check for Cisco devices ... ?

[Wilkinson, Alex]

Hi all,

Can anyone recommend any good nagios checks for time drifting on Cisco routers 
and switches ?

  -Alex

Re: nagios ntp/clock check for Cisco devices ... ?

[Christopher Morrow]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant=1=2=UTF-8#q=check%20cisco%20router%20ntp%20nagios

there I googled it for you?

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Wilkinson, Alex  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Can anyone recommend any good nagios checks for time drifting on Cisco 
> routers and switches ?
>
>   -Alex

Re: Binge On! - get your umbrellas out, stuff's hitting the fan.

[Hugo Slabbert]

On Thu 2016-Jan-07 22:43:20 -0500, Valdis Kletnieks  
wrote:


So we went round and round back in November regarding Binge On! and whether
it was net neutrality. So here's some closure to that...

The EFF did some testing and discovered that what T-Mobile is actually doing
doesn't match what they said it was...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon-optimization-just-throttling-applies

Apparently, John Legere, CEO of T-Mobile, doesn't know who the EFF is,
or why they're giving him a hard time.

"Part B of my answer is, who the fuck are you, anyway, EFF?" Legere said. "Why
are you stirring up so much trouble, and who pays you?"

http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/7/10733298/john-legere-binge-on-lie

/me makes popcorn


And I'm sorry, but this line from Legere had me raging at my screen:

"There are people out there saying we’re “throttling.” They’re playing 
semantics! Binge On does NOT permanently slow down data nor remove customer 
control. Here’s the thing, mobile customers don’t always want or need giant 
heavy data files. So we created adaptive video technology to optimize for 
mobile screens and stream at a bitrate designed to stretch your data 
(pssst, Google, that's a GOOD thing)."[1]


...so...you're "optimizing" the bitrate of video traffic for mobile by 
lowering it to 1.5 mbps, but don't worry: it's not "throttling". And you're 
accusing the "other guys" of playing semantics?  Beside pure marketing 
doublespeak, I don't even know what actual logic he's using here.  
Apparently it's only "throttling" if it *permanently* slows down traffic, 
and BingeOn somehow doesn't do that (besides what the EFF is putting 
forward)?  Is it because even though it's enabled by default, there is 
still an "off" switch, and therefore user choice is maintained (though 
probalby not obvious to most consumers)?


Listen: I have no issue with doing shaping or traffic prioritization or 
whatever as your customer asks for it; we offer that as an option to 
customers to get the most out of their connections and I'm sure many of you 
do as well.  But:


1)  Those are done at the request of the customer, not opt-out.
2)  Be honest about what you're doing.

T-Mobile seems to be trying to spin this as if they have some magical 
technology that will re-encode streaming video on the fly to 480p, when 
really they're just ID-ing video and rate-limiting it (when it comes to 
video that doesn't match their technical requirements doc and doesn't do 
ABR down to 480p on the sending side).  Fine: just getting decent accuracy 
on various edge cases of identifying video traffic isn't trivial, so kudos, 
but don't blow smoke about it.  If Legere has some info about how this 
truly at a technical level is not just rate limiting, then show us that 
info.  Yes: I've read the "Content Provider Technical Requirements" doc[2] 
that talks about adaptive bitrate tech on the sending side:


"The content provider will provide video over T‐Mobile’s network using 
adaptive bit rate technology in which the server sending streaming video 
content will automatically adapt video resolution of the stream based on 
the capabilities of the data connection or as otherwise indicated by the 
T‐Mobile network."


But, that's for the content folks that are participating in the BingeOn 
setup for zero-rating.  The EFF's data indicates that if you're just a 
random video stream (or video media type file), you get rate limited.


With all of this said, I appreciate the challenge of getting something like 
this implemented at scale without going opt-out.  T-Mo is going for a PR 
win as well as, let's be honest, reducing network utilization by reducing 
the bitrate of video crossing the network, but it's *highly* unlikely that 
you're going to get enough critical mass in an opt-in effort to pull it 
off.  To T-Mo's credit, they're making the opt-out quite simple, but let's 
be clear that this is not a net neutral move if we go by the commonly 
accepted definitions:


"The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to 
treat all content, sites, and platforms equally."[3]


"Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net 
equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments 
should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or 
charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type 
of attached equipment, or mode of communication."[4]


The majority of the "fight" to date has been about the source and origin of 
the traffic, so the discussion often leans that direction, but there is no 
question that BingeOn works to identify a specific application or type of 
content (video) and then treats it differently from other traffic.


"So why are special interest groups -- and even Google! -- offended by 
this? Why are they trying to characterize this as a bad thing?"


Because you're drawing a box within which 

Re: Smokeping targets

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jan 07, Andrew Dampf  wrote:

> Something I found that is helpful once you've gathered a list of targets is
> the following command for generating config to paste:
> 
> traceroute -w 3 [IPaddress] | grep -v "*" | grep -v "traceroute" | sed -e
> 's/(//g' -e 's/)//g' | awk '{ gsub(/\./,"_",$2); print " "$2"\nmenu =
> "$3"\ntitle = "$2" - "$3"\nhost = "$3"\n"}'
> 
> That generates a valid output for configs to ping each hop along the way to
> your destination, which can be super useful. Not all of them allow ICMP but
> a decent amount do.
It is also super stupid, because routers reply to ICMP echo requests 
with a very low priority: this introduces jitter which makes these 
measurements unreliable.
If you are not monitoring a server then you are wasting your time.

(Also, it would be nice to have the owner permission before deciding to
permanently send a lot of ICMPs to a device.)

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature