Re: Proposals at ITU-T for Internet Evolution Raise Serious Concerns; According to ISOC

[John Kristoff]

On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 18:33:20 -0400
b...@theworld.com wrote:

> (it's only 25 pages and you probably can skip to section 6, maybe look
> at section 5, the rest is mostly "what a network is" padding.)

On that note...

I found this the following to a reasonably pragmatic and thoughtful,
albeit US-centric, compilation of policy thinking that is not from the
usual communications world:

   

I reached a couple weeks ago with my PC hat on to see if someone
representing that thinking would be interested in giving a presentation
at a future NANOG.  The contacts expressed at least a willingness to
find someone.

If anyone thinks it particularly worthwhile or not for me to press a bit
more, shoot me an email off line with your thoughts.

John

Re: Proposals at ITU-T for Internet Evolution Raise Serious Concerns; According to ISOC

[bzs]

This has been going around for at least two years, makes for some
great scary, click-bait headlines ("they propose an internet kill
switch! For China!", and so forth.)

Besides the obvious question, "by what authority will they move this
forward?" many of us looked at the proposals and they're, in a word,
idiocy.

  
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/2017-2020/13/Documents/Internet_2030%20.pdf

(it's only 25 pages and you probably can skip to section 6, maybe look
at section 5, the rest is mostly "what a network is" padding.)

I don't mean I don't like it or just want to criticize it, I mean
rambling, sophomoric idiocy.

But you have to give some credit to their coming up with:

  "Holographic Avatar Centric Communications"

as a core idea.

I'd say, like we said with ISO/OSI, etc etc etc: Implement a test bed
and we'll have a look!

On August 11, 2022 at 13:59 n...@nanog.org (Nanog News) wrote:
 > Proposals at ITU-T for Internet Evolution Raise Serious Concerns; According 
 > to
 > ISOC
 > Huawei, Chinese Carriers, and China want to Redesign a Prominent Part of the
 > Internet via a set of “New IP” Proposals
 > 
 > Any new initiative has pros and cons, but according to ISOC (Internet 
 > Society),
 > the “New IP” proposals are threatening and should be discussed further.
 > 
 > We caught up with Hosein Badran to give us the good, bad, and ugly of the 
 > “New
 > IP” proposals. Badran is a senior director for ISOC and leads the technology,
 > policy, and advocacy initiatives in Internet access, infrastructure, and 
 > trust
 > domains.
 > 
 > READ NOW
 > 
 >  

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: Facebook down?

[Michael Thomas]

I can see in the browser debug spew that it's getting 503's on fbcdn.net.

Mike

On 8/11/22 2:36 PM, Joe Loiacono wrote:

Well, makes sense. According to Schrodinger it's both up and down.

On 8/11/2022 5:16 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:


On 8/11/22 2:12 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:

According to Heisenberg, it’s up :)


It's still having problems serving up images. Thankfully their ad 
images are not affected :/


Mike



-mel via cell


On Aug 11, 2022, at 1:44 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:

And of course the act of sending this mail caused the wave 
function to collapse and it seems to be up again, at least for me.


Mike


On 8/11/22 1:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
They haven't been serving up images for like an hour or so and now 
it's showing their fail whale. Not sure if it's a (internal) 
network problem or not.


I'm in California fwiw.

Mike

Re: Facebook down?

[Joe Loiacono]

Well, makes sense. According to Schrodinger it's both up and down.

On 8/11/2022 5:16 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:


On 8/11/22 2:12 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:

According to Heisenberg, it’s up :)


It's still having problems serving up images. Thankfully their ad 
images are not affected :/


Mike



-mel via cell


On Aug 11, 2022, at 1:44 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:

And of course the act of sending this mail caused the wave function 
to collapse and it seems to be up again, at least for me.


Mike


On 8/11/22 1:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
They haven't been serving up images for like an hour or so and now 
it's showing their fail whale. Not sure if it's a (internal) 
network problem or not.


I'm in California fwiw.

Mike

Re: Facebook down?

[Michael Thomas]

On 8/11/22 2:12 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:

According to Heisenberg, it’s up :)


It's still having problems serving up images. Thankfully their ad images 
are not affected :/


Mike



-mel via cell


On Aug 11, 2022, at 1:44 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:

And of course the act of sending this mail caused the wave function to 
collapse and it seems to be up again, at least for me.

Mike


On 8/11/22 1:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
They haven't been serving up images for like an hour or so and now it's showing 
their fail whale. Not sure if it's a (internal) network problem or not.

I'm in California fwiw.

Mike

Re: Facebook down?

[Mel Beckman]

According to Heisenberg, it’s up :)

-mel via cell

> On Aug 11, 2022, at 1:44 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> And of course the act of sending this mail caused the wave function to 
> collapse and it seems to be up again, at least for me.
> 
> Mike
> 
>> On 8/11/22 1:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> They haven't been serving up images for like an hour or so and now it's 
>> showing their fail whale. Not sure if it's a (internal) network problem or 
>> not.
>> 
>> I'm in California fwiw.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 

Re: Facebook down?

[Michael Thomas]

And of course the act of sending this mail caused the wave function to 
collapse and it seems to be up again, at least for me.


Mike

On 8/11/22 1:37 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
They haven't been serving up images for like an hour or so and now 
it's showing their fail whale. Not sure if it's a (internal) network 
problem or not.


I'm in California fwiw.

Mike

Facebook down?

[Michael Thomas]

They haven't been serving up images for like an hour or so and now it's 
showing their fail whale. Not sure if it's a (internal) network problem 
or not.


I'm in California fwiw.

Mike

[NANOG-announce] Proposals at ITU-T for Internet Evolution Raise Serious Concerns; According to ISOC

[Nanog News]

*Proposals at ITU-T for Internet Evolution Raise Serious Concerns;
According to ISOC*
*Huawei, Chinese Carriers, and China want to Redesign a Prominent Part of
the Internet via a set of “New IP” Proposals*

Any new initiative has pros and cons, but according to ISOC (Internet
Society), the “New IP” proposals are threatening and should be discussed
further.

We caught up with Hosein Badran to give us the good, bad, and ugly of the
“New IP” proposals. Badran is a senior director for ISOC and leads the
technology, policy, and advocacy initiatives in Internet access,
infrastructure, and trust domains.

*READ NOW*

___
NANOG-announce mailing list
NANOG-announce@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Proposals at ITU-T for Internet Evolution Raise Serious Concerns; According to ISOC

[Nanog News]

*Proposals at ITU-T for Internet Evolution Raise Serious Concerns;
According to ISOC*
*Huawei, Chinese Carriers, and China want to Redesign a Prominent Part of
the Internet via a set of “New IP” Proposals*

Any new initiative has pros and cons, but according to ISOC (Internet
Society), the “New IP” proposals are threatening and should be discussed
further.

We caught up with Hosein Badran to give us the good, bad, and ugly of the
“New IP” proposals. Badran is a senior director for ISOC and leads the
technology, policy, and advocacy initiatives in Internet access,
infrastructure, and trust domains.

*READ NOW*

Re: Getting Fiber to My Town by Jared Mauch

[Hank Nussbacher via NANOG]

On 10/09/2020 15:16, Jared Mauch wrote:

Go Jared:
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/tech/news/man-who-built-broadband-avoid-27717560

-Hank





On Sep 10, 2020, at 8:06 AM, Jared Brown  wrote:

I believe this belongs here:

Getting Fiber to My Town by Jared Mauch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASXJgvy3mEg (YouTube video of NLnog 
presentation)
https://nlnog.net/static/live/nlnog_live_sep_2020_jared.pdf (slides for 
presentation)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24424910#24430901 (discussion on Hacker 
News with Jared participating)
https://washftth.com/ (project homepage)

I find this an interesting description of how to apply skills that we normally 
only use at work to solve connectivity issues at home. Quite timely too, as 
home connectivity is needed more than ever.


As my kids are in the other room on 4x zooms at once, the prior connection 
could not have survived the load with them and me working as well.

I’m working with the PC on giving another version of this talk (I want to 
provide more financial details) for an upcoming meeting.

Stay tuned to the NANOG Agenda :-)

- Jared

Re: [External] Peering with Google and Microsoft

[Dave Schwartz via NANOG]

Hi Tom and Oskar,

Thanks for surfacing this. We are indeed continuing to pause IX peering as
we work to implement IRR filtering on our peering to increase the
reliability of Google. This is a very active area of development and a high
priority for Google. As we understand that this has been the case for quite
some time, we hope to share an update with the community in the future.

Meanwhile if you have questions on Google's IRR based filtering we have
some information on our help center:
https://support.google.com/interconnect/answer/9368848?hl=en_topic=9326690

Thanks,
Dave



*--*


Dave Schwartz

Product Manager

Google Global Networking

daveschwa...@google.com

+1-310-779-4071 <(310)%20779-4071>


On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 at 09:18, Tom Krenn via NANOG  wrote:

> Hi Oskar,
>
>
>
> I’m in the exact same boat as you. To help clarify for the list.
>
>
>
> When following the process for Google outlined at
> https://peering.google.com/#/options/peering we only receive a message
> stating:
>
>
>
> *“*
>
>
>
>
>
> *Thank you for requesting Internet Exchange (IX) peering with Google.   IX
> Peering requests are currently paused as we improve our automation systems
> to incorporate Internet Route Registry (IRR) based filtering into all IX
> BGP sessions.   During this time Google prefixes remains reachable on route
> servers at IXes which we are connected to. For a complete list of our
> global IX presence please visit our PeeringDB entry at
> https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/15169
> 
>   While we undergo our system improvements we request that you update your
> IRR entries to ensure your prefixes will be accepted by our filters.”*
>
>
>
> I think the question for the list is: Does anyone know when Google will
> start processing these requests again? It has been a very long time.
>
>
>
> As for Microsoft, their process does seem to be very slow via the Azure
> portal.
>
>
>
> Tom Krenn
>
> Network Architect
>
> Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology
>
> Office: 612-596-8994 <(612)%20596-8994>
> tom.kr...@hennepin.us | hennepin.us
>
> Hennepin County Government Center
> 300 South 6th Street, A-190
> Minneapolis, MN, 55487
>
> [image: Hennepin County logo]
>
> Connect: Facebook  | Twitter
>  | YouTube
>  | LinkedIn
>  | Instagram
> 
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG  *On Behalf
> Of *Oskar Borgqvist
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 10, 2022 6:29 AM
> *To:* nanog@nanog.org
> *Subject:* [External] Peering with Google and Microsoft
>
>
>
> Hi Nanog
>
>
>
> We have tried to get peering with Google but only get answers that they
> are making their peering system better. I have received this answer for
> over 1 year.
>
> The reason why we needed peering to Google is that they do not send out
> exact prefixes over IXP RS, which means that our traffic from Sweden down
> to Germany and up again to Sweden again.
>
> This has created a bit of a problem for us.
>
>
>
> If anyone could help us with this it would be appreciated. Or can give an
> explanation.
>
>
>
> Since then, we have also tried to get peering with Microsoft without
> success.  We have tried to contact them via their peering email without
> success.  Would appreciate help here as well.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Oskar Borgqvist
>
> --
>
> *Oskar Borgqvist*
> CEO/Owner/Network Engineer
> Mail: os...@karabro.se
> Tele: +46 406 68 80 96
>
> *Vi bygger broar mellan internet och människor*
>
> ***CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless
> you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open
> attachments.***
>
>
> *Disclaimer:* If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
> please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then
> promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.
>

RE: [External] Peering with Google and Microsoft

[Tom Krenn via NANOG]

Hi Oskar,

I’m in the exact same boat as you. To help clarify for the list.

When following the process for Google outlined at  
https://peering.google.com/#/options/peering we only receive a message stating:

“Thank you for requesting Internet Exchange (IX) peering with Google.

IX Peering requests are currently paused as we improve our automation systems 
to incorporate Internet Route Registry (IRR) based filtering into all IX BGP 
sessions.

During this time Google prefixes remains reachable on route servers at IXes 
which we are connected to. For a complete list of our global IX presence please 
visit our PeeringDB entry at 
https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/15169

While we undergo our system improvements we request that you update your IRR 
entries to ensure your prefixes will be accepted by our filters.”

I think the question for the list is: Does anyone know when Google will start 
processing these requests again? It has been a very long time.

As for Microsoft, their process does seem to be very slow via the Azure portal.

Tom Krenn
Network Architect
Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology
Office: 612-596-8994
tom.kr...@hennepin.us | 
hennepin.us
Hennepin County Government Center
300 South 6th Street, A-190
Minneapolis, MN, 55487
[Hennepin County logo]
Connect: Facebook | 
Twitter | 
YouTube | 
LinkedIn | 
Instagram


From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Oskar 
Borgqvist
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 6:29 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: [External] Peering with Google and Microsoft

Hi Nanog

We have tried to get peering with Google but only get answers that they are 
making their peering system better. I have received this answer for over 1 year.
The reason why we needed peering to Google is that they do not send out exact 
prefixes over IXP RS, which means that our traffic from Sweden down to Germany 
and up again to Sweden again.
This has created a bit of a problem for us.

If anyone could help us with this it would be appreciated. Or can give an 
explanation.

Since then, we have also tried to get peering with Microsoft without success.  
We have tried to contact them via their peering email without success.  Would 
appreciate help here as well.

Sincerely,
Oskar Borgqvist
--

Oskar Borgqvist
CEO/Owner/Network Engineer
Mail: os...@karabro.se
Tele: +46 406 68 80 96
[https://karabro.se/karabro_loga.png]
Vi bygger broar mellan internet och människor
***CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you 
recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open 
attachments.***


Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please 
immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly 
permanently delete this message from your computer system.

RE: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

[Chris Wright]

The reply must've been stuck in Cogent's network for the past 13 years. 

Chris

-Original Message-
From: NANOG  On 
Behalf Of Chris Adams
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 10:17 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

Once upon a time, Niels Bakker  said:
> * volki...@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
> >hello
> 
> You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.

Maybe they're a Cogent sales rep that, when trying snipe a customer's customer, 
got push-back on "can I get to Google and HE on IPv6 on your circuit?".
--
Chris Adams 

Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/hurricane not peering

[Matt Harris]

[Removing peer...@he.net from this because there's no reason to spam them.]


Matt Harris|VP of Infrastructure
816-256-5446|Direct
Looking for help?
Helpdesk|Email Support
We build customized end-to-end technology solutions powered by NetFire Cloud.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 9:21 AM VOLKAN KIRIK  wrote:

> the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services so
> why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing?
>
> why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500
> usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6
> prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business.
>
> why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes?
>
> if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full
> transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)...
>
> if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent
> should provide free network access to them...
>
> if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be
> largest in my eyes.
>
> if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)...
> simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats
> called free as in freedom. not as in price.
>
In reality "tier 1" vs "tier 2" is about as meaningful as not at all. At
the end of the day, building a network has a variety of costs associated
with it. Some folks bury fiber, and some folks lease it from them. Some
folks peer on route servers at popular exchanges, and others don't. When
customers are seeking transit services, they go with a provider who is
on-net where it counts for them, can provide the capacity they need at a
reasonable price, and often also consider quality of that company's
services and reputation.

> *doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?*
>
> building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has
> much more meaning to me...
>
> so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not
> prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying
> beggars and i could choose telia+cogent.
>
Many folks avoid Cogent for a variety of reasons, but in general their
policies towards congestion and their marketing practices have, at various
times, caused large segments of the community to speak up.

> he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX
> Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network..
>
Can you prove in any meaningful way that this is less optimal or even
substantively different from what anyone who provides full table transit
service does?

> btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes but
> less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with just
> one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat.
>
What? IPv6 NAT? Please provide data to support the claim that substantial
numbers of people are adopting NAT for IPv6?

> could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them
> largest or i will kick your monkey ass.
>
i am the god!
>
This is not appropriate behavior for NANOG's mailing list, imho. I'm not
sure what makes you think utilizing words like this is going to help your
point, but I guarantee it isn't.
And for the record, lots of folks here analyze traffic by AS source.

- Matt

Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/hurricane not peering

[VOLKAN KIRIK]

the companies are here to trade, charge prices for their services so 
why blame cogent for doing what they supposed to be doing?


why did hurricane stop BGP tunnel service? and started asking for 500 
usd/month for peering? expense of BGP servers? or did they realize ipv6 
prefixes does not cost MRC, so their network peers are not serious business.


why did Google start charging for cloud gigabytes?

if he.net opens free BGP tunnel service back; and also announce full 
transit routes on IXPs, thats just zero (payback)...


if they provide free ip transit to everyone; I would think that cogent 
should provide free network access to them...


if google doesnt charge for traffic in cloud services, then they will be 
largest in my eyes.


if cogent asks for a price, then they have to pay (to become tier1)... 
simple as that. or they could stay as tier-2 as long as they want. thats 
called free as in freedom. not as in price.


*doesnt level3 pay comcast money for paid-peering?*

building eyeball network, enabling fiber connectivity in buildings has 
much more meaning to me...


so honestly i am fine with segmented ipv6 internet. i would just not 
prefer he.net in my IP transit blend, as i do not have to respect crying 
beggars and i could choose telia+cogent.


he.net guys are just charging you money for dumping your traffic in IX 
Points, that you can do yourself, be eyeball or content network..


btw, losts of useless prefixes... think an asn has 1000 ipv6 prefixes 
but less than 1 ge traffic, while there are networks exceeding 10ge with 
just one prefix. ipv6 nat is spreading. just like ipv4 nat.


could you analyze traffic amount of ASNs? no. then dont fuckin call them 
largest or i will kick your monkey ass.


i am the god!


11.08.2022 17:01 tarihinde August Yang yazdı:
Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured 
by prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering.


Also what’s with Telia here?

Best regards
August Yang

On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:

hello

nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply
trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in
price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease
the price of the products even more and more...

ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid
peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.

for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5
usd cent per megabit.

you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1
without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are
okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council.

you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting
world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing
customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?

we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE
service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that
henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much
more expenses than henet

i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are
contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.

sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that
every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and
give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google
couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand

even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting
right, too.

TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real
representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.

bye

Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Niels Bakker  said:
> * volki...@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:
> >hello
> 
> You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.

Maybe they're a Cogent sales rep that, when trying snipe a customer's
customer, got push-back on "can I get to Google and HE on IPv6 on your
circuit?".
-- 
Chris Adams 

Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

[Niels Bakker]

* volki...@gmail.com (VOLKAN KIRIK) [Thu 11 Aug 2022, 15:52 CEST]:

hello


You're replying to a thread from 2009. Please advise.


-- Niels.

Re: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

[August Yang via NANOG]

Think twice before asking the largest global IPv6 network as measured by 
prefixes announced to pay Cogent for peering.


Also what’s with Telia here?

Best regards
August Yang

On 2022-08-11 09:46, VOLKAN KIRIK wrote:

hello

nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply
trading internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in
price) internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease
the price of the products even more and more...

ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid
peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.

for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5
usd cent per megabit.

you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1
without support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are
okay with dual homing too. think like united nations security council.

you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting
world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing
customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?

we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE
service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that
henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much
more expenses than henet

i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are
contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.

sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that
every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and
give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google
couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand

even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting
right, too.

TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real
representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.

bye

RE: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering

[VOLKAN KIRIK]

hello

nobody has to peer with some operator for free. they are simply trading 
internet services. they do not have to believe in FREE (as in price) 
internet connectivity.. if they peered you, you would decrease the price 
of the products even more and more...


ask cogentco (as174) for paid peering. they will give you nice paid 
peering or ip transit offer that you can use for both ipv4 and ipv6.


for example i would assume they would be OK charging he.net (as6939) 5 
usd cent per megabit.


you need to understand that you are never going to become tier1 without 
support from as174. they are currently cheapest and they are okay with 
dual homing too. think like united nations security council.


you must think twice; are you gaining any profit by segmenting 
world-wide internet? or are you loosing prospective single-homing 
customers because you lack connectivity to as174 clients?


we must think big. asking for a money is OKay while begging for FREE 
service is not... operating NOC and backbone has some expenses that 
henet wouldnt understand with their rented links. cogentco bear much 
more expenses than henet


i am not here to insult henet but i honestly think that they are 
contemptible... just like google's peering decision makers.


sir! if you have become big content/eyeball operator, doesnt mean that 
every operator in the industry have to respect your tier-1 policy and 
give you their services for free. thats the thing henet and google 
couldnt understand. think like UNSC and you will understand


even USA can not do anything they want in the world, as RU has voting 
right, too.


TL;DR; instead of crying here and begging for free service. send real 
representatives that could negotiate the money you would pay.


bye

Telia->ATT at 350 Cermak

[Rafael Possamai]

After some time monitoring/troubleshooting, we are seeing what looks like 
congestion between AS1299 and AS7018 at 350 Cermak during typical peak hours. 
Could someone please reach out off-list if possible? Much appreciated.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: Peering with Google and Microsoft

[Oskar Borgqvist]

Hi

Before I go on I need to clarify some details.

As for Microsoft, we have followed their guides and done what needs to 
be done in Azure.

But we have had problems with certain parts (ASN Associate).
Therefore, we have tried to get hold of them via peer...@microsoft.com 
with no results.


We have received confirmation that the ASN has been verified.

So what I'm looking for is to get in touch with someone at Microsoft who 
can help me with the peering.

Appreciate any help.

Sincerely,
Oskar Borgqvist

--

Oskar Borgqvist
CEO/Owner/Network Engineer
Mail: os...@karabro.se
Tele: +46 406 68 80 96

Vi bygger broar mellan internet och människor
On 2022-08-10 13:49, Marco Paesani wrote:


Hi Oskar,
for Google https://peering.google.com/#/options/peering

Regards,

-

Marco Paesani

Skype: mpaesani
Mobile: +39 348 6019349
Success depends on the right choice !
Email: ma...@paesani.it

Il giorno mer 10 ago 2022 alle ore 13:47 Siyuan Miao 
 ha scritto:
For Microsoft Peering you might need to create an Azure account. You 
can find the how-to document below:


https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/internet-peering/howto-exchange-portal

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 1:39 PM Oskar Borgqvist  
wrote:


Hi Nanog

We have tried to get peering with Google but only get answers that they 
are making their peering system better. I have received this answer for 
over 1 year.
The reason why we needed peering to Google is that they do not send out 
exact prefixes over IXP RS, which means that our traffic from Sweden 
down to Germany and up again to Sweden again.

This has created a bit of a problem for us.

If anyone could help us with this it would be appreciated. Or can give 
an explanation.


Since then, we have also tried to get peering with Microsoft without 
success.  We have tried to contact them via their peering email without 
success.  Would appreciate help here as well.


Sincerely,
Oskar Borgqvist
--
Oskar Borgqvist
CEO/Owner/Network Engineer
Mail: os...@karabro.se
Tele: +46 406 68 80 96

Vi bygger broar mellan internet och människor

RE: IoT - The end of the internet

[Vasilenko Eduard via NANOG]

Exponential growth under the limited resource
Always finish by collapse.
Some resources are always limited in nature.
Smith’s joke from the “Matrix” (about modeling humans as a virus) is only 
partially a joke.
Whenever somebody talks about “exponent” – be alarmed – it would end in a very 
bad way.

The biggest one in the history of mankind was around 1200 b.c. Tin for Bronze 
has been finished, Bronze was the basement of the civilization.
It is the famous “Bronze Age collapse” that cut the population 100x, and 
civilization lost writing capability for a few hundreds of years.
Recovered by mastering Iron instead of Bronze. Iron is many thousands of times 
more available on Earth (in every swamp).

Tens of smaller collapses are traceable in human history.
Well, Roma's empire collapse was probably not so small, but smaller than the 
“Bronze Age collapse”.
The oldest is probably from humans in Australia, they have eaten all big 
animals and destroyed all forests, then depopulate and lose the basic tools 
(like arrows).
A very similar story that did happen for Easter Island, just on the island all 
become dead.

We are at the inflection point of the current exponent.
Natural resource energy production already declining for a couple of years 
(small decline yet) – carbon-hydrogen-based natural resources are limited.
If a replacement for the current energy source would not be found
Then the anticipated civilization collapse would become the biggest in history: 
1000x depopulations.
Nile river is capable to feed 1M of people using only muscles, not 120M. And so 
on everywhere in the world.
The transition period in collapse would bypass possible optimal under the new 
conditions (cut more people).

“Dark ages” are possible and happened in history many times. Don’t be too 
optimistic.
People could start eating each other instead of “Lunch on the Moon”. It is 
possible.
Fortunately, not mandatory.

PS: Canned energy from China (solar panels, wind turbines) is produced from 
coal. It is not a solution when coal would finish.
Moreover, energy return from such types of “green energy” is worse than direct 
electricity generation from coal.
It is popular just because dust is left in China. Others have “green”.
A closed nuclear fuel cycle is the only available solution (gives the next 
exponent that could last 5k years if Thorium is involved).
The ordinary nuclear reaction could prolong humans' agony only for 60 years 
(Uranium 235 is limited).
Nuclear fusion looks like fiction yet: the best story for money wastage, 
already 3 generations of scientists have made their careers.

Ed/
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On 
Behalf Of Etienne-Victor Depasquale via NANOG
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:19 PM
To: Chris Wright 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: IoT - The end of the internet

 because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending exponential growth
Don't forget how we pontificate on how well we understand infinity.

Cheers,

Etienne

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 6:09 PM Chris Wright 
mailto:chris.wri...@commnetbroadband.com>> 
wrote:
That’s just humans in general, and it certainly isn’t limited to our outlook on 
the future of the internet. Big advancements will always take us by surprise 
because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending exponential growth. 
Someone please stop me here before I get on my Battery-EV soapbox. :D

Chris

From: NANOG 
mailto:commnetbroadband@nanog.org>>
 On Behalf Of Tom Beecher
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Christopher Wolff mailto:ch...@vergeinternet.com>>
Cc: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: IoT - The end of the internet

It always amazes me how an industry that has , since its inception, been 
constantly solving new problems to make things work, always finds a way to 
assume the next problem will be unsolvable.

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:23 PM Christopher Wolff 
mailto:ch...@vergeinternet.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,

Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will 
ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?

It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just looking for a journal or other 
scholarly article that implies that the Internet is doomed.


--
Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale
Assistant Lecturer
Department of Communications & Computer Engineering
Faculty of Information & Communication Technology
University of Malta
Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

Re: IoT - The end of the internet

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 10:38 PM William Herrin  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Wolff
>  wrote:
> > Will tomorrow’s applications require a re-thinking of “The Internet” and 
> > protocols that are low latency compliant?
>
> No, because speed of light constraints will continue to cause us to
> implement the latency-critical components close to the user. It's
> basic physics man.

Also, because error IS the character of an operational network. All
successful network protocols deal reasonably with unpredictable error.
Error correction begets jitter which is a form of latency. It's a
basic tenet of any network-using device no matter what protocol you
design. Hence no such thing as a "low latency compliant" network or
protocol. You can make a stochastic statement about the probability
that information arrives within a timeframe but you absolutely cannot
guarantee it.

What CAN exist is protocols which don't do "head of line blocking"
during error correction. That's where data successfully received isn't
delivered until after the corrected data preceding it arrives. But we
already have those. Most things UDP went UDP instead of TCP to avoid
TCP's head of line blocking.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
For hire. https://bill.herrin.us/resume/