Re: netflix proxy/unblocker false detection

[Dave Temkin via NANOG]

If you or others are not receiving a satisfactory reply from us (Netflix)
on this issue, please feel free to reach out directly and I'll make sure it
gets handled.

So far as we know, we handle CGNAT (and IPv6) appropriately. Sometimes
ranges get reassigned and the data that we have gets stale - this happens
quite often since formal runout, and so sometimes we're behind the ball on
it, but be assured that we take this seriously.

Thanks,
-Dave

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:42 AM Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 25/Jun/20 16:45, Christian wrote:
> > wow. blaming support for IPv6 rather than using cgnat is a huge
> > stretch of credibility
>
> I have no idea what's going through Netflix's mind - it's all, as my
> American friend would say, conjecturbation on my part.
>
> CG-NAT isn't new, and if Netflix are still not able to consider it a
> "fixed issue", there is probably a reason why that is.
>
> Ultimately, reaching out to them and asking their position on the matter
> seems like a path to an answer.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: Disney+ CDN

[Dave Temkin]

My understanding is that they are launching using commercial CDNs. Highly
likely those CDNs don't know what their traffic share will be like just yet.

The ASN you're seeing pop up is a mid tier, not for delivery.


On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:38 PM Mike Hammett  wrote:

> but hey...  they're getting transit from VZB\MCI\UUNET...  so it'll be
> great!
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Jon Lewis" 
> *To: *"NANOG" 
> *Sent: *Friday, April 26, 2019 4:51:58 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Disney+ CDN
>
> On Fri, 26 Apr 2019, Ross Tajvar wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I'm going to send them an email and see if I can get ahold of
> their peering policy.
> > I'm hoping they will update it as they get more attention from other
> networks. They may just be procrastinating
> > setting things up. According to bgp.he.net they are only announcing one
> v4 /24 and one v6 /48, which could be
> > enough IPs, but seems a little on the small side.
>
> I'd be much more worried about only being on one IX than only advertising
> a single /24 and /48.  I'm guessing they've just not fully fleshed out the
> peeringdb entry and maybe not fully built out the network infrastructure
> yet.  A CDN, with everything coming from one POP in NY is not going to cut
> it.
>
> --
>   Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
>   |  therefore you are
> _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
>
>

Re: CenturyLink RCA?

[Dave Temkin]

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 11:33 AM Naslund, Steve 
wrote:

> They shouldn’t need OOB to operate existing lambdas just to configure new
> ones.  One possibility is that the management interface also handles master
> timing which would be a really bad idea but possible (should be redundant
> and it should be able to free run for a reasonable amount of time).  The
> main issue exposed is that obviously the management interface is critical
> and is not redundant enough.  That is if we believe the OOB explanation in
> the first place (which by the way is obviously not OOB since it wiped out
> the in band network when it failed).
>
>
>
> Steven Naslund
>
> Chicago IL
>
>
>

A theory, and only a theory, is that they decided to, in order to
troubleshoot a much smaller problem (OOB/etc.), deploy an optical
configuration change that, when faced with inaccessibility to multiple
nodes, ended up causing a significant inconsistency in their optical
network, wreaking havoc on all sorts of other systems. With the OOB network
already in chaos, card reseats were required to stabilize things on that
network and then they could rebuild the optical network from a fully
reachable state.

Again, only a theory.

-Dave



>
>
> >This seems entirely plausible given that DWDM amplifiers and lasers
> being a complex analog system, they need OOB to align.
>
> >--
>
> >Eric
>
>
>
>

Re: Verizon: Extremely Strange CPE Routing in NYC/NJ Area

[Dave Temkin]

See this post for more info:
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r32136909-Has-Vz-disabled-TTL-propagation



On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 3:09 PM Nick Zurku  wrote:

> Can anyone from Verizon take a look at this behavior for us?
>
>
> We’re having multiple Verizon FiOS users in the NYC/NJ area appear to
> teleport from their FiOS router to our IP in the Pittsburgh region. Users
> are seeing extreme slowness with TCP traffic, but ping times seem
> reasonable.
>
> User 1:
>  1  fios_quantum_gateway (192.168.1.1)  1.575 ms  2.426 ms  3.193 ms
>  2  204.16.244.8 (204.16.244.8)  2.269 ms  3.055 ms  2.727 ms
>
> User 2:
>  1  fios_quantum_gateway (192.168.1.1)  1.565 ms  1.048 ms  0.947 ms
>  2  204.16.244.8 (204.16.244.8)  2.162 ms  3.588 ms  3.048 ms
>
> I can provide end-user NYC/NJ IPs off-list if desirable.
>
>
> Here's a normal looking trace from an FiOS line locally in the Pittsburgh
> region:
>
>
> IP:  108.39.229.34
> Tracing route to four.libsyn.com [204.16.244.8]
> over a maximum of 30 hops:
>
>  1<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms  192.168.1.1
>  2 5 ms 2 ms 7 ms  lo0-100.PITBPA-VFTTP-301.verizon-gni.net
>  [108.39.229.1]
>  3 5 ms 6 ms 6 ms  B3301.PITBPA-LCR-22.verizon-gni.net
>  [100.41.223.244]
>  4 *** Request timed out.
>  5 *** Request timed out.
>  613 ms12 ms13 ms  0.et-7-1-5.BR1.IAD8.ALTER.NET
>  [140.222.226.17]
>  710 ms10 ms10 ms  verizon.com.customer.alter.net
>  [152.179.50.110]
>  812 ms12 ms13 ms  be3084.ccr42.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com
>  [154.54.30.65]
>  922 ms22 ms22 ms  be2820.rcr21.pit02.atlas.cogentco.com
>  [154.54.83.54]
> 1022 ms22 ms21 ms  38.104.120.90
> 1126 ms21 ms19 ms  204.16.241.133
> 12 *** Request timed out.
> 1321 ms21 ms21 ms  204.16.244.8
>
> Is this a possible traffic engineering blip? I can’t say we’ve ever
> seen trace routes return such sparse results and actually make it to the
> destination.
>
> --
> Nick Zurku
> Systems Engineer
> TeraSwitch, Inc.
> Cell: 412-953-0481
> Office: 412-945-7048
> nzu...@teraswitch.com
>

Re: netflix OCA in a CG-NAT world

[Dave Temkin]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:48 AM Grant Taylor via NANOG 
wrote:

> On 11/25/2018 09:47 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> > Putting an OCA with bypass through the CGN with RFC1918 space will
> > actually work just fine. We (Netflix) don't formally support it because
> > of the vast number of non-standard CGN implementations out there, but if
> > your clients are in RFC1918 space and the next hop router from the OCA
> > knows how to reach them, it will just work.
>
> Does this include RFC 6598 Shared Address Space, 100.64.0.0/10?  Or is
> it limited to RFC 1918 Address Space?
>
> Does it really matter what the private IPs are?  (I've seen people
> re-use publicly allocated but not publicly used IP address space.)  Or
> does it "just work" as long as the OCA's first hop knows how to reach
> the private IPs?
>
>
>
The latter.

-Dave

Re: netflix OCA in a CG-NAT world

[Dave Temkin]

Not exactly. You don't need to advertise the RFC1918 to the OCA - just make
sure you advertise the CGN prefix to it, and make sure that the OCA's
default gateway knows how to reach the RFC1918 clients. So long as the
"outside" IP of your CGN is advertised to the OCA (the IP that clients who
would be using the OCA would appear to the internet as) it should work.

Regards,
-Dave

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 1:04 PM Aaron1  wrote:

> Thanks Dave, so my local OCA will listen to my BGP advertisements for
> RFC1918 prefixes if I decided to advertise them?
>
> Aaron
>
> On Nov 25, 2018, at 10:47 PM, Dave Temkin  wrote:
>
> FWIW (reviving an old thread)-
>
> Putting an OCA with bypass through the CGN with RFC1918 space will
> actually work just fine. We (Netflix) don't formally support it because of
> the vast number of non-standard CGN implementations out there, but if your
> clients are in RFC1918 space and the next hop router from the OCA knows how
> to reach them, it will just work. We only use BGP to inform our control
> plane, not for local routing. Any traffic not served via the OCA will go
> through CGN as usual and out peering/transit. Note that it does complicate
> troubleshooting for both sides.
>
> And yes, IPv6 is fully supported by every piece of our infrastructure; the
> issue is TVs and STBs that do not support v6 - but we have finally seen the
> largest device manufacturers commit to supporting it (if they don't already
> on their late model sets) so that should change year over year.
>
> -Dave
>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:52 PM Jared Mauch 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 17, 2018, at 6:54 AM, Tom Ammon  wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm looking to understand the impact of CG-NAT on a set of netflix
>> OCAs, in an ISP environment. I see in Netflix's FAQ on the subject that
>> traffic sourced from RFC 1918/6598 endpoints can't be delivered to the OCA.
>> Is this simply a matter of deploying the OCA on the outside of the CGN
>> layer? What are the other consequences of CGN upon the OCA?
>> >
>>
>> Yes, you want to deploy it outside your CG-NAT.
>>
>> I also strongly suggest you look at how to get native IPv6 from your
>> clients behind the CG-NAT rolled out.  I know many folks have had issues
>> with various CDNs and the number of devices that reach out.  This is why
>> folks get the Google captcha, etc.
>>
>> Giving those end-users an alternate way out will help.  I understand this
>> may take effort and is harder for folks using UBNT & Tik gear in a smaller
>> environment, but there is value for your end-users.
>>
>> - Jared
>>
>>

Re: netflix OCA in a CG-NAT world

[Dave Temkin]

FWIW (reviving an old thread)-

Putting an OCA with bypass through the CGN with RFC1918 space will actually
work just fine. We (Netflix) don't formally support it because of the vast
number of non-standard CGN implementations out there, but if your clients
are in RFC1918 space and the next hop router from the OCA knows how to
reach them, it will just work. We only use BGP to inform our control plane,
not for local routing. Any traffic not served via the OCA will go through
CGN as usual and out peering/transit. Note that it does complicate
troubleshooting for both sides.

And yes, IPv6 is fully supported by every piece of our infrastructure; the
issue is TVs and STBs that do not support v6 - but we have finally seen the
largest device manufacturers commit to supporting it (if they don't already
on their late model sets) so that should change year over year.

-Dave

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:52 PM Jared Mauch  wrote:

>
>
> > On Sep 17, 2018, at 6:54 AM, Tom Ammon  wrote:
> >
> > I'm looking to understand the impact of CG-NAT on a set of netflix OCAs,
> in an ISP environment. I see in Netflix's FAQ on the subject that traffic
> sourced from RFC 1918/6598 endpoints can't be delivered to the OCA. Is this
> simply a matter of deploying the OCA on the outside of the CGN layer? What
> are the other consequences of CGN upon the OCA?
> >
>
> Yes, you want to deploy it outside your CG-NAT.
>
> I also strongly suggest you look at how to get native IPv6 from your
> clients behind the CG-NAT rolled out.  I know many folks have had issues
> with various CDNs and the number of devices that reach out.  This is why
> folks get the Google captcha, etc.
>
> Giving those end-users an alternate way out will help.  I understand this
> may take effort and is harder for folks using UBNT & Tik gear in a smaller
> environment, but there is value for your end-users.
>
> - Jared
>
>

Promoting Exchanges for Enhanced Routing of Information So Networks are Great (PEERING) Act

[Dave Temkin]

New bill out today as part of a larger set of broadband infrastructure
bills, the result of some of the NANOG community's conversations with House
staffers (and likely other 3rd parties influence):

H.R. , “Promoting Exchanges for Enhanced Routing of Information So
Networks are Great (PEERING) Act,” sponsored by Representative Billy Long
(MO-07)

• Internet Exchanges (or peering centers) are the physical locations where
networks come together, and where content providers cache content closer to
end users to increase speed and efficiency of networks.

• The bill would authorize a matching a grant program through the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to promote peering
centers where none exist, or to help an existing one expand if it is the
only such facility in a core-based statistical area.

• The bill would also authorize eligible recipients under the Universal
Service Fund’s E-Rate program (schools and libraries) and Telehealth
program to use such funds to contract with a broadband provider to obtain a
connection to a peering facility, or to pay costs of maintaining a point of
presence at a peering facility.

Re: 4 or smaller digit ASNs

[Dave Temkin]

I appreciate your tenacity!

SSI = Streaming Services Inc., always wholly owned by Netflix.

We had three ASNs at one point. We needed a fourth to do a migration and the 
ASN gods smiled down on us and gave us 2906 out of a newly released pool of 
unallocated ASNs, back in 2011.

That ASN birthed our CDN, Open Connect, and it became our primary because it 
was just too nice to use on a corporate network.


From: NANOG  on behalf of Brett Watson 

Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2017 9:28:45 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 4 or smaller digit ASNs


> On Oct 12, 2017, at 15:53, Richard Hicks  wrote:
>
> Anyone know the history behind ASN 2906 (Netflix)?
> How did they get a number that low?

I didn’t recognize as2906 so went digging... and I can’t find a thing. ARIN has 
a “who has” service but my account on ARIN was locked and I wasn’t able to 
unlock without calling them (maybe tomorrow).

The AS-Name is “AS-SSI” (there is an AS-Set listed on RIPE named this) which I 
suspect might lead to the original owner. It looks familiar-ish but I’m not 
sure who had it before Netflix. Clearly they must have bought it outright, 
acquired the original owner, or something, but I’ll be damned if I can find 
historical data on who it originally belonged to.

-b

Re: Peering at public exchange authentication

[Dave Temkin]

Talks about GSRs and Sup720's, but still relevant today.
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog39/presentations/Scholl.pdf

-Dave

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:05 AM, BRAD RAYMO  wrote:

> Its up to you and how you want to manage your sessions. Some networks
> require it, some prefer it but do not require it, and others do not want to
> use it at all.
>
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:41 AM, craig washington <
> craigwashingto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> >
> > Wondering your views or common practices for using authentication via BGP
> > at public exchange locations.
> >
> > Just for example, lets say you peer with 5 people in the TELX in Atlanta,
> > do you require them to all use authentication for the BGP session?
> >
> > Ive seem some use it and some not use it, is it just a preference?
> >
> >
>

Re: Hurricane Irma: Florida, Puerto Rico and U.S. VI

[Dave Temkin]

Sean - I think I speak for all of us when I say thank you very much for
these updates! The concise nature of them is super helpful.

-Dave

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:

>
> Disclosure note: AT and Comcast public relations folks have been sending
> information about what they are doing for disaster recovery. I've included
> some of their information.
>
>
> From various official sources (FEMA, Dept. of Energy, FCC, NOAA, etc).
>
> Fatalities (FEMA)
>Georgia: 2
>Florida: 12
>South Carolina: 2
>Puerto Rico: 3
>U.S. Virgin Islands: 4
> Note: FEMA is slower than media reports about U.S. fatalities
>
> Non-US fatalities (AP/Reuters)
>Caribbean fatalities: Anguilla (4), Barbuda (1), British Virgin
>Islands (5), Cuba (10), French Territories (10), St. Maarten (4),
>Haiti (1)
>
> Electric Power (DOE)
>
> Florida: 3,568,499 customer outages (35% of total state customers)
> Georgia: 451,033 customer outages (11% of total state customers)
> South Carolina: 58,972 customer outages (2% of total state customers)
> North Carolina: 24,445 customer outages (<1% of total state customers)
> Puerto Rico: 117,244  customers (8% of total customers)
> U.S. Virgin Islands:
>   The airport and hospital are still energized. Besides a few smaller
>   areas, most customers on St. John and St. Thomas are without
>   power. Restoration efforts will continue as USVI WAPA works to get
>   critical facilities reenergized on the two islands.
>
>
> Water (FEMA)
>
>  U.S. Virgin Islands: 341,000 people without potable water
>  Puerto Rico: 61,980 people without potable water
>
>
> Public Safety
> Hospitals (FEMA)
> Florida: 11 closed, 204 healthcare facilities evacuated
> Puerto Rico: 1 closed, 6 on generator power
> U.S. VI: 1 closed and evacuated
>
> NOAA Weather Radio (NOAA)
> Florida: 6 out of 32 stations (18%) out of service
> Georgia: 7 out of 29 stations (24%) out of service
> U.S. VI: 1 out of 1 station (100%) out of service
>
> Public Safety Answering Points (9-1-1 centers) (FCC)
> Florida: 29 impacted (4 out of service, 9 partial service, 7
> re-routed with ALI, 8 re-routed without ALI)
> Georgia: 5 impacted (1 re-routed with ALI, 3 re-routed without ALI)
> U.S. VI: 2 impacted, without ALI/ANI
>
>
> Cable and Wireline systems (FCC)
>
> 1,040 switching centers (cable headends and central offices) out of
> service. Unknown how many are isolated, damaged or just without power.
>
> 8,190,407 subscribers out of service in Alabama, Florida and Georgia; not
> including Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands.
>
> According to Comcast: All comcast's miami-dade and broward facilities are
> on generator power. Comcast is deploy portable generators in neighborhoods
> to re-charge outside plant. Comcast has no network access beyond Marthon in
> the Florida Keys, but has crews ready when the area is accessible.
>
>
>
> Wireless Service (FCC)
>
>  Alabama: less 1% cell sites out of service
>  Florida: 18.1% cell sites out of service (3 counties over 50% OOS)
>  Georgia: 5.3% cell sites out of service
>  Puerto Rico: 10.1% cell sites out of service
>  U.S. VI: 55% cell sites out of service (St. John - 9 out of 10 OOS,
> St. Thomas 38 out of 57 OOS)
>
>
> According to AT: deployed 6 portable, satellite connected cell on trucks
> in the Florida Keys (Stock Island, Key West and Marathon and 2 satellite
> connected cell on trucks in Naples, Florida. The AT National Disaster
> Recovery Team has over 20 units deployed throughout Florida (don't know
> what that means, but sounded good).
>
>
>
> Broadcast (FCC)
>
> Television: 10 stations out of service
> Radio: 39 stations out of service
>
>
>
>

Re: 2017 NANOG Elections General Information

[Dave Temkin]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:03 PM, Randy Bush  wrote:

> > So how do we fix it?
>
> this is most strongly an american disease.  nanog has encouraged and
> supported a frat boy ego parade and beauty contest.  try the ietf
> nomcomm approach, but with zero white boys on the nomcomm.
>
>
Love the idea, and I agree that the elections are a popularity contest in
many cases and not a measure of who is most capable for the job. Luckily,
we've generally ended up with people who are both - but that's not always
best for the organization long term, and we generally end up with "more of
the same".

In my tenure in NANOG we've floated the idea of a nomcom a few times, but
it's generally been summarily shot down. Are you suggesting that we try and
float the idea again? I'm not 100% clear, but I believe it would require a
bylaw change.



> btw, one trick is getting more then one diverse player, so the one is
> not a martian and has peer support
>
> s/women/diversity/
>
>
Completely agree; gender is only one of various keys that are important
here. Race, age, national origin, orientation, etc. - all of these things
matter in avoiding groupthink and helping to ensure that the board is
representative of the membership that we wish to attract.


> q: how many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb
> a: one, but the light bulb has to want to change
>
>
Alternate A: Depends, are we having the conference in a union hotel?

Re: 2017 NANOG Elections General Information

[Dave Temkin]

On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:

> >> On Sep 10, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Bryan Holloway  wrote:
> >> I point specifically to the opening talk at Bellevue where there were
> wackily photoshop'd pictures of NANOG star heavy-hitters.
> >> Had I been a first-time attendee, I would've felt like a high-school
> freshman being told who all the "cool seniors" were.
> >> Frankly, it was awkward and off-putting.
> >
> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:
> > Probably a safe bet that it was mostly aspirant juniors.
>
> Patrick has pointed out to me that my offhand dismissiveness painted with
> an overly broad brush and encompassed people whom I undoubtedly do not
> think so little of.  So, my sincere apologies for my tone and
> speaking-out-of-turn about a slide deck that I hadn’t actually seen.  I do
> very much miss the “cool seniors” who worked so hard to make this what it
> was, twenty-five and thirty years ago; I owe them a lot.  I’m sure the
> people who are working hard to make the organization what it is today are
> serving a similar function for people who are entering the industry today.
>

Thanks Bill. That's definitely an accurate representation from my personal
vantage point. Personally in my role within the organization I've stressed
the importance of bringing the next Paul Vixie or Sean Doran into the
industry and fostering their growth and influence. To me that's where NANOG
can add the most value for the next 70 meetings.


>
> Nostalgia was causing me to conflate two things which are unrelated  The
> frat-boy thing is a problem, not only in NANOG, but in ARIN and RIPE.  I’d
> very much like to see it fixed, so that everyone can enjoy collegial
> support, rather than just a subset of participants.
>
>
Totally agree here. I'd love to come up with more ideas on how to fix this
real issue; my personal diversity & inclusion bent is squarely aimed at
that problem.

-Dave

Re: 2017 NANOG Elections General Information

[Dave Temkin]

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:32 AM, Bill Woodcock <wo...@pch.net> wrote:

>
> > On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:26 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote:
> > my impression is that, in recent years, one has to be a white frat boy
> > who is proud of being drunk.
>
> One of those rare occasions when Randy and I are in complete agreement.
>

So how do we fix it? As usual, that part is missed. Easier to snipe, not so
easy to act.


>
> > On Sep 10, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Bryan Holloway <br...@shout.net> wrote:
> > I point specifically to the opening talk at Bellevue where there were
> wackily photoshop'd pictures of NANOG star heavy-hitters.
> > Had I been a first-time attendee, I would've felt like a high-school
> freshman being told who all the "cool seniors" were.
> > Frankly, it was awkward and off-putting.
>
> Probably a safe bet that it was mostly aspirant juniors.  To my occasional
> observation, the cool seniors don't attend anymore.  Unless Stephen Stuart
> or Sean Doran or John Hawkinson showed up.  Which would surprise me very
> much.
>
>
I didn't like that opening, at all. I disliked it slightly less than when
they had a video making fun of us. I personally and in my Board position
thank NTT for sponsoring our events, and we give them, like all other
hosts, a few minutes during the opening to do something that they think
attendees will find educational and/or entertaining. I, like you, sincerely
hate the inside jokes being tossed around from the stage and gave them my
personal feedback as such. They are far from the only sponsor to have done
so, and if you really feel that it's causing a hostile environment for
newcomers, I suggest you speak up about it on the members list so that we
can figure out the best way to fix it. With that said, newcomers may feel
this moment of awkwardness during the opening, but we go above and beyond
afterwards to make them feel welcome (newcomers lunch with a personal
shepherd, etc.) that I hope at least has made up for some of it in the
past.

I won't sit around and mourn the greybeards that choose or don't choose to
show up. We can't go chasing after people who have had vast changes in
their career responsibilities and life circumstances and assume that we can
always produce the conference that fits their aspirations. At some point we
need to hand the torch over to the next guard, and that's the root of my
diversity screed. If we try to be everything to everyone, we end up as
nothing to no one (or worse, ITW). The board has been nothing but receptive
towards ideas on how to make these meetings more valuable to long time and
first time attendees alike.

-Dave Temkin
NANOG Board Chair

Re: 2017 NANOG Elections General Information

[Dave Temkin]

While I respect your opinion, it's impossible to enumerate every single
possible combination that would make a person diverse and keep this a
reasonable length email.

Diversity of race and gender (amongst other things) is a shortcut to saying
diversity of background. What we have today are a bunch of North American
males that came up in similar backgrounds.

What I can say, and what does concern me, is that the current board shares
a lot of very similar characteristics that are easy to group together due
to our gender and ethnicity. This leads to groupthink and other less
desirable behaviors by a team tasked with setting a strategic direction
that benefits millions of very different people all over the internet.

And with that, I will state that we have many qualified candidates on the
slate, both who fit the current grouping and those who will bring some
amount of diversity to the group. You are free to vote whomever you choose.

Best Regards,
-Dave

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:18 PM, Robert Brockway <rob...@timetraveller.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Dave Temkin wrote:
>
> Hi NANOG Community,
>>
>> Nominations are rapidly coming to a close - September 8th is the last day
>> to submit nominees.
>>
>> Unfortunately, to follow up on my paragraph about diversity: So far, every
>> single candidate that has completed the nomination process is a white
>> male.
>>
>
> What you're describing is a very coarse form of diversity based on
> physical characteristics.  A white man who has lived his entire life as a
> peasant in Ukraine may well have a very different outlook and life
> experience to a white man who grew up in Australia.  These two white men
> could bring quite diverse viewpoints to any situation even though they
> share some superficial characteristics.
>
> I have always supported the most suitable candidates for any role,
> irrespective of their physical characteristics.  I will always continue to
> do so.
>
> Rob
>

Re: 2017 NANOG Elections General Information

[Dave Temkin]

Hi NANOG Community,

Nominations are rapidly coming to a close - September 8th is the last day
to submit nominees.

Unfortunately, to follow up on my paragraph about diversity: So far, every
single candidate that has completed the nomination process is a white male.

Having sat in on sessions such as Women in Technology lunch, I know that
this community is passionate about diversity. If you, or a friend, would
like to discuss what it takes to be on the NANOG board, I or my colleagues
would love to speak about it.

If you're ready to enter the nomination process, you can see details below.

Best Regards,
-Dave Temkin, for the NANOG Board of Directors

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dave Temkin <d...@temk.in> wrote:

> Hello NANOGers!
>
> We are once again approaching the annual NANOG election
> <http://nanog.org/elections/2017/general> and appointment time. Board
> candidate nominations open August 7th and the complete Election timeline
> can be found here <http://nanog.org/elections/2017/general>. We encourage
> those in the community who are not currently NANOG members to consider
> becoming members of NANOG and to consider standing for a position in our
> leadership. Through membership and voting, you will be an active
> participant in directing all NANOG activities.
>
> Only NANOG members are eligible to nominate, be a candidate, vote, and
> serve in the NANOG Board of Directors and Committees.  Click here
> <https://www.nanog.org/membership> to become a member today!  **If you
> are not a member and wish to vote in this election, your membership must
> be received by 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time on Wednesday, October 4, 2017.**
>
> Why?
>
> NANOG is at its strongest and best when there is an engaged group of
> members. If you care about NANOG and would like to take a turn at
> volunteering your time, please consider becoming part of the team by taking
> part in the nomination and election process. If you know someone else
> that you believe would be interested in serving on the Board of Directors,
> nominate them by completing the Online Process
> <https://www.bigpulse.com/138028/signin> beginning August 7, 2017.  Any
> questions should be submitted to electi...@nanog.org.
>
> As I spoke about during my opening at NANOG 70, diversity is key to the
> viability of the NANOG community. Personally, it concerns me that our only
> non-white, non-male elected member of the Board is leaving the board this
> year, having served the maximum allowable number of terms. While everyone
> is welcome, it is important that we represent our community well at all
> levels and so if you or someone you know could help improve that
> representation, please consider the nomination process.
>
> As NANOG continues to evolve, our Board of Directors and Committees will
> continue to play an increasingly important role in our success. By joining
> now, you can be an integral part of the process.
>
> For more information about the role of a Board of Director or any
> Committee Member, or to find out more about what's involved in serving,
> please consult the current NANOG Bylaws
> <https://nanog.org/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/NANOG-Bylaws-October2016.pdf>
> or follow the links to the Board and Committee pages from the General
> 2017 NANOG Elections Page <https://www.nanog.org/elections/2017/general>.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Dave Temkin
> On behalf of the NANOG Board of Directors
>

2017 NANOG Elections General Information

[Dave Temkin]

Hello NANOGers!

We are once again approaching the annual NANOG election
<http://nanog.org/elections/2017/general> and appointment time. Board
candidate nominations open August 7th and the complete Election timeline
can be found here <http://nanog.org/elections/2017/general>. We encourage
those in the community who are not currently NANOG members to consider
becoming members of NANOG and to consider standing for a position in our
leadership. Through membership and voting, you will be an active
participant in directing all NANOG activities.

Only NANOG members are eligible to nominate, be a candidate, vote, and
serve in the NANOG Board of Directors and Committees.  Click here
<https://www.nanog.org/membership> to become a member today!  **If you are
not a member and wish to vote in this election, your membership must be
received by 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time on Wednesday, October 4, 2017.**

Why?

NANOG is at its strongest and best when there is an engaged group of
members. If you care about NANOG and would like to take a turn at
volunteering your time, please consider becoming part of the team by taking
part in the nomination and election process. If you know someone else that
you believe would be interested in serving on the Board of Directors,
nominate them by completing the Online Process
<https://www.bigpulse.com/138028/signin> beginning August 7, 2017.  Any
questions should be submitted to electi...@nanog.org.

As I spoke about during my opening at NANOG 70, diversity is key to the
viability of the NANOG community. Personally, it concerns me that our only
non-white, non-male elected member of the Board is leaving the board this
year, having served the maximum allowable number of terms. While everyone
is welcome, it is important that we represent our community well at all
levels and so if you or someone you know could help improve that
representation, please consider the nomination process.

As NANOG continues to evolve, our Board of Directors and Committees will
continue to play an increasingly important role in our success. By joining
now, you can be an integral part of the process.

For more information about the role of a Board of Director or any Committee
Member, or to find out more about what's involved in serving, please
consult the current NANOG Bylaws
<https://nanog.org/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/NANOG-Bylaws-October2016.pdf>
or follow the links to the Board and Committee pages from the General 2017
NANOG Elections Page <https://www.nanog.org/elections/2017/general>.


Best regards,

Dave Temkin
On behalf of the NANOG Board of Directors

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

[Dave Temkin]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Jon Lewis <jle...@lewis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Dave Temkin wrote:
>
> This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our
>> power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like
>> a
>> NASCAR race, but that helps fund not only the program, but the numerous
>> other outreach programs that NANOG has undertaken.
>>
>> Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights
>> revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG
>> organization) take this incredibly seriously.
>>
>> While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant
>> lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do
>> aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks,
>> and mailing list.
>>
>
> Is it too simple a solution to post a warning on the page above the
> Attendee List saying something along the lines of "scraping the Attendee
> List for marketing purposes is forbidden, will result in public shaming,
> and may cause some attendees to completely boycott your company." ?
>


This suggestion was made on the NANOG Facebook group and we will implement
it with the new website coming before NANOG 71.

-Dave

Re: Vendors spamming NANOG attendees

[Dave Temkin]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:43 PM, Randy Bush <ra...@psg.com> wrote:

> > It seems that more than just a few of us were spammed by Glenn Stern
> > (gst...@calient.net), an employee of Calient following NANOG 70.
> > ...
> > Hopefully those of you who have traditional community attitudes will
> > show your reaction via your pocketbooks.
>
> traditional community attitudes left the building long ago.  nanog has
> become a trade show, for which this is normal behavior.  i expect mail
> "stop by our booth at nanog 42," and so forth.



This is highly inaccurate. The PC and Board have done everything in our
power to keep sponsorship out of the program. Yes, Beer & Gear looks like a
NASCAR race, but that helps fund not only the program, but the numerous
other outreach programs that NANOG has undertaken.

Sponsors who have stepped on the rules have had their sponsorship rights
revoked - temporarily, and in egregious cases, permanently. We (the NANOG
organization) take this incredibly seriously.

While it's hard to solve for the exact case above (scraping registrant
lists and then comparing to CRM to glean contact info) we absolutely do
aggressively pursue any abuse of NANOG's attendee information, trademarks,
and mailing list.

-Dave Temkin
Chair, NANOG Board of Directors

Re: NANOG 70 network diagram and upstream

[Dave Temkin]

Yes, frankly, it doesn't cost us (NANOG) anything - the sponsors like to do
it for the "cool" factor, and so long as it's not an undue burden on us,
they can throw as much bandwidth at us as they'd like.

-Dave

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 4:02 PM, James Breeden  wrote:

> Yeah, I was wondering about that 4x100G. is that a necessity or a "because
> we can" move?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Eric Dugas
> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 4:35 PM
> To: Aaron Gould 
> Cc: NANOG 
> Subject: RE: NANOG 70 network diagram and upstream
>
> And the 4x100G. That's four times the capacity of the network I work for.
> ~100k subs.
>
> On Jun 2, 2017 16:54, "Aaron Gould"  wrote:
>
> > Btw
> >
> > Wow, a ~2 million dollar boundary (dual PTX1000's) for the NANOG 70
> > conference geez
> >
> > -aaron
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
> > Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 1:43 PM
> > To: nanog@nanog.org list 
> > Subject: NANOG 70 network diagram and upstream
> >
> > Just a small thing, but as one of the folks who used to work on the
> > core network gear of AS11404, the network diagram has something in it
> > that might confuse attendees as to who is really sponsoring the upstream:
> >
> > https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog70/diagram
> >
> > AS11404 was formerly known as Spectrum Networks, acquired in 2013 by
> > Wavedivision Holdings LLC (Wave Broadband) and became the backbone of
> > the Wave network. It's a totally different thing than the Charter
> > service which is trademarked as as Spectrum.
> >
> > https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/11404
> >
> > The logo in the right side bubble there shouldn't be the
> > Charter/Spectrum trademarked font, but rather should be Wave, who
> > built the dark fiber into the hotel and are providing the upstream.
> > The last mile fiber into the hotel is Wave.
> >
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> >
>

test, please disregard

[Dave Temkin]

[NANOG-announce] 2017 Program Committee appointments

[Dave Temkin]

Greetings NANOG Colleagues,

The Board has completed the Program Committee selection process.  This
year, 27 members submitted their candidacies for 9 available positions.
  We want to thank each and every one of them for considering this
important service to our community and encourage them to try for the next
selection cycle.

We are pleased to announce the two-year term appointment of the following
to the Program Committee:

L Sean Kennedy, Dani Roisman, Allison Feese-Strickland, Krassimir
Tzvetanov, Ryan Woolley, Christina Chu, Brad Raymo, Greg Hankins, and Adam
Davenport

We also want to thank and recognize the contribution of Philippe Couture,
Paul Ebersman, and John Van Oppen for their service on the Program
Committee.

The Board of Directors also created an Ad-Hoc Committee for NANOG On The
Road meetings.  We are pleased to announce the two-year term appointment of
the following to the Ad-Hoc NANOG On The Road Committee:

Chair: Steve Feldman

Additional Members:  Mohit Lad, Jeff Ringwelski, and Ryan Landry

In the coming weeks, the new Program Committee will hold its first meeting
and select a Chair and a Vice-Chair.

Sincerely,

Dave Temkin

Chair, NANOG Board of Directors
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Dave Temkin]

Thank you, that's great feedback and great ideas.

Regards,
-Dave

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:51 PM, John Kemp <k...@network-services.uoregon.edu
> wrote:

>
> I would like to see the session continue in some form.
> Social was close to good.
>
> The peering presentations weren't as useful to me personally.
> They sometimes made the time for actual peering conversations
> too short.
>
> The extra food and drinks were not important to me personally.
>
> ...
>
> Perhaps an "extended break" 45 minutes, with typical
> break food, and no presentations.  Or if you want, a *silent*
> rolling slide show on a screen, with 1-slide per submitter,
> for peering news items or general peering requests...
>
> Cheaper... quieter... shorter...  But having all the people
> in the same room at the same time for the same purpose, usually
> pretty useful.
>
> 2 cents,
> John Kemp
>
>
> On 2/6/17 9:17 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> > Hi Bob,
> >
> > This was inadvertent and we will bring this back for NANOG 70.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2017, 6:58 PM -0500, Bob Evans <b...@fiberinternetcenter.com>,
> wrote:
> >> I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method
> >> is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and
> >> existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an
> >> individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and
> >> today there is nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars
> at
> >> any office supply retailer.
> >>
> >> Just a thought.
> >>
> >> Thank You
> >> Bob Evans
> >> CTO
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a
> better
> >>> option.
> >>>
> >>> There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that
> >>> justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in
> >>> the general session throughout the program.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> -Dave
> >>>
> >>> On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach <mpet...@netflight.com>,
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69,
> >>>> and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or
> >>>> peering social this time around. Am I being
> >>>> blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere
> >>>> but I'm just overlooking it?
> >>>> Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks! :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Matt
> >>>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Dave Temkin]

Hi Bob,

This was inadvertent and we will bring this back for NANOG 70.

Regards,

-Dave

On Feb 6, 2017, 6:58 PM -0500, Bob Evans , wrote:
> I suggest in the future NOT to get rid of something because a new method
> is attempted. I.E nanog had a nice method of identifying potential and
> existing peers with a simple green dot at registration to indicate an
> individual was involved with BGP in their company. That went away and
> today there is nothing. Cost of implementation was less than 5 dollars at
> any office supply retailer.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Thank You
> Bob Evans
> CTO
>
>
>
>
> > The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better
> > option.
> >
> > There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that
> > justified a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in
> > the general session throughout the program.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach ,
> > wrote:
> > > I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69,
> > > and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or
> > > peering social this time around. Am I being
> > > blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere
> > > but I'm just overlooking it?
> > > Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
> > >
> > > Thanks! :)
> > >
> > > Matt
> >
>
>

Re: Peering BOF/Peering social @NANOG69?

[Dave Temkin]

The Peering Personals has been shelved while we try to figure out a better 
option.

There was no peering content submitted to the Program Committee that justified 
a separate track, and so they chose to include the content in the general 
session throughout the program.

Regards,

-Dave

On Feb 6, 2017, 8:12 AM -0500, Matthew Petach , wrote:
> I'm squinting at the Guidebook for NANOG69,
> and I don't seem to see any peering BOF or
> peering social this time around. Am I being
> blind again, and it's on the agenda somewhere
> but I'm just overlooking it?
> Pointers in the right direction would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks! :)
>
> Matt

Re: [NANOG-announce] 2016 NANOG Election Results

[Dave Temkin]

Hi NANOG Community,

Following up from our election in October, the NANOG Board listened to
feedback from our members and discussed the potential implications of
releasing vote counts.

The Board has decided that while we will not publish the individual vote
counts from this past election, we will publish the results going forward.
Given the ambiguity as to whether or not we are obligated to publish these
counts, we felt it best to be conservative as to not alienate those that
ran under the impression that counts would not be released.

As part of the discussion, the board as well decided to change the makeup
of the Election Committee. In past elections, it was made up of two
non-conflicted board members and the Executive Director. Going forward, two
board members will be joined by 3 NANOG members, to be selected by the
seated board.

Best Regards,

-Dave Temkin
Chair, NANOG Board of Directors



On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:30 PM, Dave Temkin <d...@temk.in> wrote:

> Greetings NANOG Colleagues,
>
> The 2016 NANOG Board and Bylaw election process is now complete.
>
> The results were shared during NANOG 68, are posted on the NANOG website,
> and summarized here.
>
> In 2016, there were two regular open positions on the Board of Directors.
> The appointments are:
>
>-
>
>Will Charnock - 3 years
>-
>
>Patrick Gilmore - 3 years
>
>
> The officers elected and committee liaisons are:
>
>-
>
>Chair - Dave Temkin
>-
>
>Vice Chair - Ryan Donnelly
>-
>
>Treasurer - Will Charnock
>-
>
>Secretary - Betty Burke
>-
>
>Communications Committee Liaison - Jezzibell Gilmore
>-
>
>Program Committee Liaison - Patrick Gilmore
>
>
> The proposed amendments to the NANOG Bylaws were accepted. The updated
> Bylaws document will be posted to the NANOG website.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> -Dave Temkin
>
> Chair, NANOG Board of Directors
>
>
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: Level3 / Cogent / NetFlix BGP Assistance

[Dave Temkin]

Hi Sam,

As you may have noticed, Netflix no longer uses Cogent as a transit
provider. You will see all of your transit traffic from us traverse Level3.

We are happy to try to work with you to find the best way to deliver your
traffic. Please reach out to peer...@netflix.com and the team will try to
help.

Regards,
-Dave

On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Sam Norris 
wrote:

> Hey all,
>
>
>
> In early October our traffic levels from NetFlix went from about half
> Level3 and
> half Cogent - pretty well balanced - to all on Level3.  Standard
> multihomed BGP
> setup with minimal TE if I can help it.  I am starting to run into
> problems with
> a full gigabit port on Level3 and only 100-200mbps on Cogent at that
> colo.  I
> tried padding, I even tried 65000:2906 bgp community, but it seems like if
> our
> level3 port is up NetFlix chooses it solely.  How can I load balance
> NetFlix
> traffic across my two ports so that I am not paying for overages and/or
> forced
> to up to a 10G port immediately?  I have 3 other providers at that colo and
> cannot find any mix of bgp tricks to get some of it thru our other
> providers.
>
>
>
> I notice AS2906 has a localpref of 86 - odd ...
>
>
>
> The 108.175.47.0/24 block seems to be using as 2906 so I thought a
> 65000:2906
> wouldn't announce those prefixes to them at all.  I have about 10 prefixes
> being
> announced so I could implement a no-export on some of them to load balance
> but
> that doesn't work.
>
>
>
> Thx,
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
>
> BGP routing table entry for 108.175.47.0/24
>
>
>
> Paths: (2 available, best #1)
>
>   2906
>
>   AS-path translation: { 108.175.47.0/24 }
>
>ear3.LosAngeles1 (metric 10)
>
> Origin IGP, metric 30334, localpref 86, valid, internal, best
>
> Community: 2906:51081 North_America Lclprf_86 United_States Level3_Peer
> Los_Angeles Level3:10984
>
> Originator: ear3.LosAngeles1
>
>   2906
>
>   AS-path translation: { 108.175.47.0/24 }
>
>ear3.LosAngeles1 (metric 10)
>
> Origin IGP, metric 30334, localpref 86, valid, internal
>
> Community: 2906:51081 North_America Lclprf_86 United_States Level3_Peer
> Los_Angeles Level3:10984
>
> Originator: ear3.LosAngeles1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[NANOG-announce] NANOG Registration Fee Changes

[Dave Temkin]

Greetings, NANOGers-


In February 2016, the Board began to review and discuss how best to achieve
our stated financial and organizational objectives while ensuring NANOG
meetings and associated agendas remain peer reviewed and free of any
external financial dependence or influence.

NANOG Strategic Goals are:

   -

   Maintain Educational 501(c)(3) Non-Profit status
   -

   Maintain Membership Policies and Procedures
   -

   Maintain tri-annual, peer-reviewed NANOG Conferences
   -

   Maintain community email list(s) and archive
   -

   Maintain public presentation archives
   -

   Adherence to NANOG Financial Controls and Reserve Policy
   -

   Ensure funding to provide educational outreach
   -

  Continue - Discounted student registration fee
  -

  Continue - College Immersion Program
  -

  Revised scholarship program (Combine Postel and Fellowship, convert
  to tuition based)
  -

  Revise and reintroduce education courses
  -

   Continue to drive increases in member value


It is understood that NANOG conferences are, by far, the largest asset of
this organization.  It is the delivery mechanism for several of the NANOG
strategic goals. At the same time, it is also the largest area of concern
when planning how best to achieve those goals.

The registration fee was last increased in February 2008, while expenses
related to producing NANOG meetings have continued to rise with both
inflation and breadth of programs and benefits offered. The current meeting
registration fee does not cover the cost of producing a NANOG meeting
without external funding associated with the NANOG sponsorship program.
Thus, in order to maintain our peer reviewed program and funding
independence, the following registration fees schedule will apply beginning
with NANOG 69:

Existing NANOG 69 & Forward

   -

   Early: $450 $550
   -

   Standard: $525 $650
   -

   Late: $600 $750
   -

   On-site: $675 $950


The member discount of $25 for all registration fees will continue to
apply. The Board is confident that these fees set us on the correct path to
adhere to our reserve policy and ensure that the organization is protected
in the event that we were faced with unforeseen circumstances.

The Board met again after the initial announcement of these registration
fee increases at NANOG 68 to review the valuable feedback provided. We
decided that it was in the best interests of the organization to move
forward with these fee increases immediately and to programatically
consider our fees on an annual basis.

For the NANOG Board of Directors,

Dave Temkin
Chair
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

[NANOG-announce] 2016 NANOG Election Results

[Dave Temkin]

Greetings NANOG Colleagues,

The 2016 NANOG Board and Bylaw election process is now complete.

The results were shared during NANOG 68, are posted on the NANOG website,
and summarized here.

In 2016, there were two regular open positions on the Board of Directors.
The appointments are:

   -

   Will Charnock - 3 years
   -

   Patrick Gilmore - 3 years


The officers elected and committee liaisons are:

   -

   Chair - Dave Temkin
   -

   Vice Chair - Ryan Donnelly
   -

   Treasurer - Will Charnock
   -

   Secretary - Betty Burke
   -

   Communications Committee Liaison - Jezzibell Gilmore
   -

   Program Committee Liaison - Patrick Gilmore


The proposed amendments to the NANOG Bylaws were accepted. The updated
Bylaws document will be posted to the NANOG website.


Best Regards,

-Dave Temkin

Chair, NANOG Board of Directors
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: Excessive Netflix DNS Traffic?

[Dave Temkin]

We (Netflix) are investigating this now.
-Dave






On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:44 PM -0500, "Velocity Lists" 
 wrote:










We have seen it as well.
In our cases it is all TCP DNS traffic as well.

Velocity Online
850-205-4638

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Eamon Bauman 
wrote:

> We're rate limiting it now, but it's definitely bad behavior. When I open
> the flood gates, over a 5-min sample from a single host I received well
> over 61,000 queries.
> The size of the records being requested cause this to be an (unintended)
> amplification attack, as a 30Mbps inbound sum is getting amplified to
> 150-200Mbps outbound.
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Josh Reynolds 
> wrote:
>
> > Same here :)
> >
> > On Oct 13, 2016 1:09 PM, "Ryan, Spencer"  wrote:
> >
> >> I was going to point you to the reddit thread about it, but it looks to
> >> be your thread :)
> >>
> >>
> >> Spencer Ryan | Senior Systems Administrator | sr...@arbor.net >> 
> >> sr...@arbor.net>
> >> Arbor Networks
> >> +1.734.794.5033 (d) | +1.734.846.2053 (m)
> >> www.arbornetworks.com
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >> From: NANOG  on behalf of Eamon Bauman <
> >> ea...@eamonbauman.com>
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 10:26:57 AM
> >> To: nanog@nanog.org
> >> Subject: Excessive Netflix DNS Traffic?
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Is anyone seeing excessive DNS traffic from game consoles (Xbox One,
> PS4)
> >> running Netflix? Starting 9/29 we have been seeing significant volume of
> >> DNS traffic from game consoles on our campus to our caching recursive
> >> boxes. Logs show repeated requests for api-global.netflix.com and
> >> nrdp.nccp.netflix.com.
> >>
> >> Anyone else experiencing this?
> >>
> >> Eamon
> >>
> >
>

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

[Dave Temkin]

If you look at companies that have foundered due to failure to innovate, most 
of the time it's because they were too focused on what made them money then, 
not what was going to make them money 5 years from then.
And networks don't track very well to Moore's law...



_
From: Brandon Butterworth 
Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh
To:  ,  
Cc:  


If they've based their model on extracting profit proportional
to technology speed then they've misunderstood Moore's law

brandon

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

[Dave Temkin]

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Brandon Ross  wrote:
>
>
>  Value based pricing is all the rage these days, which is why they charge
> you so much for cross connects.


Exactly. Not that I don't like free cross connects (they're the bees knees,
in fact), but at the end of the day, an existing colo operator is not going
to go from paid->free cross connects without extracting that pound of flesh
(read: sweet sweet 100% pure margin) from somewhere else. Your space and/or
power prices will go up to backfill that lost profit. That said, those of
us that buy a decent amount of colo prefer to trade in the value of the
asset leased/purchased - space & power - as we have real world indexes to
tie the underlying cost to for negotiation purposes.

And as colo operators get freaked out over margin compression on the
impending 10->100G conversion (which is happening exponentially faster than
100->1G & 1G->10G) they'll need to move those levers of spend around
regardless.

-Dave

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

Starting to see people like Telehouse move into the monthly XC market, so
one might think we're at the precipice of the slippery slope.

And with Equinix buying Telecity, how long until we see US-style XCs in
Europe?

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:

> Leo Bicknell wrote:
> > Cross connects are our industry's $100 gold plated HDMI cables.
>
> In the US maybe.  Cross-connect prices are much more reasonable in
> Europe (€0 - €50/month).
>
> Personally, I don't have a problem with MRCs when ordering
> cross-connects: data centres are expensive to build and run.  But yeah,
> $300/m is nuts and that price point has zero relationship to the cost of
> delivery of the service.
>
> Nick
>
>

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

It seems as though most subtlety is lost on this crowd, or perhaps there's
just a language barrier.

I'm saying that if you were to, for example, look at the homepage of
https://www.peering-forum.eu and see the "Hosts" block, you might think
"There are four similarly named IXPs are all similar organizations hosting
a forum" when in reality, they are quite different and it may not be all
that easy to figure how/why (by Nurani's own admission, most of that is not
easy to find on their website).

[image: Inline image 1]

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:31 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson 
wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> If you are, I'm very interested in hearing your motivation for doing that.
>>
>
> I realised I probably used the wrong english word here. The correct
> english word(s) would probably be "rationale/reason/facts", not
> "motivation".
>
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

A key point:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Baldur Norddahl 
wrote:

I have studied Netnod extensively because we want to become members
>

You meant a customer, but because of a lack of transparency (and great
marketing) amongst some IXPs, it's very easy to conflate member-mutual
IXPs, commercial, and non-profit IXPs. Being a "member" of NetNod provides
you with a very different set of benefits vs. LINX and unless you read the
letters of incorporation, you may not know that.

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

Hi Nurani,

Much of what you've asked me below is answered up-thread, so I'm not going
to rehash it for the sanity of the others following this discussion. I have
snipped what hasn't been.


On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Nurani Nimpuno  wrote:

>
>
>  I take your point about the Netnod fees (even though I would also like to
> point out that we have actually reduced our other port fees for 100mbps,
> 1G, remote peering). But I’m not sure why you haven’t brought it to us
> directly. Netflix has been at several Netnod meetings in the past, so we
> have had plenty of opportunity to discuss this.
>

Nothing in my presentation said "Netflix seeks to get better port fees".
You'll find that I, not once, in my deck or oral presentation, mentioned
Netflix. I spoke at length with LINX after the presentation and pointed out
that I seek to help the entire market, not just my employer, better
understand how IXPs price their services, what things are negotiable, and
what things need to change. Call it thinly-veiled, but I didn't even use my
employer slide master - this was geared as a community discussion.


> And I don’t represent a membership-based IXP.
>

An important distinction. Poring through
http://www.netnod.se/about/documents , there is very little transparency
into the actual operations of NetNod.

>
>  If you stop adding value to those networks peering at the IX, you will
> slowly become irrelevant.
>

And therein lies the rub, we (many of us, not just you and I) disagree
about what "adding value" is defined as. I'm glad we can have this
conversation.


>
> While some think that a good technical solution would sell itself, I
> believe that is a fallacy (not only in the IXP world). Netnod started out
> as a very small IXPs with only a few local operators connected to it. And I
> strongly believe that if we hadn’t done as much outreach as we do, we
> would’ve stayed tiny until this day.
>

Outreach is fantastic!


>
>
> We work in a similar way with our pricing. (You mention that there is a
> lot of negotiations on pricing with IXPs.) I would like to be 100% clear
> that for the Netnod IX, we don’t negotiate or give “sweet deals” to anyone.
> We publish our fee schedule and we stick to it. Whenever someone wants a
> special deal (which happens often, particularly with the larger customers),
> our response is that we treat everyone equally. If you want a cheaper deal,
> then another customer is basically funding your reduction. So we don’t do
> this. We believe this is more fair and transparent.
>

That's fantastic, and I agree with this approach. And that's why it's
important to make this a community discussion, not a "Netflix and Netnod"
discussion.


>
> As for a general discussion about costs, service levels and IXPs, I think
> there is a very interesting discussion that could be had with a more
> focused discussion. How do “we” best serve today's very diverse set of
> operators? How does an IXP strike that balance? How do operators best solve
> their interconnection needs (through IXPs, private peering, transit etc)
> and is that changing? What type of interconnection environment do we
> believe best scales Internet growth in the future? What is the total cost
> of interconnection, where are the big costs, what are the different models
> and where is the whole industry moving? Now THOSE are discussions I
> personally would find very valuable!
>

We agree. I'm really glad that this has sprouted so many threads of
discussion. This seems to have kicked off the discussion within the larger
community beyond just the four examples, and I think that what we've seen
thus far is healthy discourse.

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

I hope you'll excuse the aggressive snipping, as I wanted to try to address
as many of your points without repeating myself as possible.

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote:

> Hi Dave,
>
> Dave Temkin wrote:
>
> With respect to all parties involved in this discussion, I'd suggest
> that these four IXPs are not representative of the IXP community in the
> areas that you talked about, namely size, marketing budgets, corporate
> profit / surplus or expansion intentions.
>

They are representative of the most important IXPs to deliver traffic from
in Western Europe.

I would posit that what defines important to me may not be what defines
important to you and the same can be said when you look at how various
"internet" companies look at what's important in their vertical.


>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18ztPX_ysWYqEhJlf2SKQQsTNRbkwoxPSfaC6ScEZAG8/edit?pref=2=1#gid=0
>
> I have heard people from other large US
> multinationals say that LINX's outreach and policy representation alone
> were worth the port charges they pay.


I dedicated an entire slide to this. I think Malcom does great work.


> Netnod runs a dns root server
> system (i.root-servers.net) as well as a heavy duty time service.


There are others who do this for no cost and some who do it for government
money. Whether or not my port fees should subsidize this is a valid
question, and was brought up in the Q afterwards.


>
> Regarding the pricing reduction on page 16 of your preso, the US$ and
> UK£ are not much different than what they were 5 years ago, but the €
> has dropped by 30% against the US$.
>

You speak to this below, however if my business is primarily run in USD
(which was the relevant use case presented: I'm a US company deciding if I
should peer in Europe or buy transit) then those currency fluctuations have
a very different impact than if I'm a European company functioning
primarily in local currency.


>
> You made the point that some US companies buy services in Europe using
> US$, but not all do.
>

Not all do. Again, this wasn't an exhaustive list of what every IXP and
every member does. This is what I see, and the entire presentation was
framed as that. How currency fluctuations impact my business will likely
vary significantly from how they impact yours.


> Regardless of all that, Job's pricing spreadsheet suggests that the
> pricing models are substantially lower for the other IXPs in his list,
> and have seen proportional reductions at least equal to transit pricing
> drops, if not greater.  If your talk was about IXPs in general, this was
> an important omission.
>

There are absolutely some great pricing models on IXPs. There are also some
terrible ones. I highlighted the ones I find to be bad. Again, my
presentation, my opinion, in the same way that someone might stand up and
say "Cisco sucks because they don't have the CLI I want" or "Juniper sucks
because they charge too much for ports with TCAM". I don't have to then
present an exhaustive list of those that are better in order to validate my
claim.

I did purposefully mention SIX as a polar opposite example - there is
definitely a happy medium to be found.


> Two of the organisations you mentioned are member-owned and are bound by
> formal votes from their membership.  Member votes are, in fact, legally
> binding in most if not all member-owned IXPs that I'm aware of in
> Europe.  Netnod, DECIX and many others are not participant-owned, so
> this does not apply.
>

Which I mentioned in my presentation. I refrained from exhaustively
explaining each model as IANAL and didn't feel it made sense for me to
attempt to explain four different nations laws. I did invite comment from
the floor for the organizations mentioned to do so, and they declined.

To be clear: I did apologize both in the Plenary and then later on Twitter
if the "Membership" slide was misleading, as I did not intend on implying
that LINX is not a member owned organization.


>
> In the area of marketing budgets and expansion, there is probably a
> correlation between the two, but I think it's worth mentioning that
> pretty much no other IXP - at least out of those mentioned in Job's
> spreadsheet - have anything close to that % of their overall budgets
> dedicated to marketing
>

It wasn't. It was about the IXPs that mattered to me. If we had an entire
day to talk about this I could've been way more exhaustive (and everyone
would've been way more exhausted...). LONAP and INEX are great counter
examples.


> If people don't like the idea of LINX, DE-CIX and AMS-IX expanding
> outside their current markets, they don't have to connect to them and
> that's ok because this is a fully unregulated market: no-one has ever
> forced anyone to connect to an

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

General, with the four being used as varying examples. I could have included US 
IXP's, but almost none publish their prices and the ones that do only started 
recently, so the comparison wasn't worthwhile. 




On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:39 AM -0500, "Nick Hilliard" <n...@foobar.org> wrote:










Dave Temkin wrote:
> I was pointing out facts about IXPs that many did not know, including the
> actual organizational structure.

Dave,

was this talk about IXPs in general, or the 4 IXPs you named in your talk?

Nick

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

[Dave Temkin]

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Aled Morris  wrote:

>
>
> Me too and I was confused about what the point of it was.
>
> I had always assumed the customers of those IXs he singled out were
> generally happy with the service they were getting and the money they are
> paying.
>
> Is Dave trying to say they are being duped?  Is he trying to identify a
> need for regulation?
>

I was pointing out facts about IXPs that many did not know, including the
actual organizational structure.

I was also opining on how these IXPs could be better; mainly, how they
choose to spend money.



>
> Perhaps Dave was advocating the SIX model and suggesting the customers of
> the existing exchanges should be looking to organise an alternative in
> their localities.
>

Absolutely correct (which should answer Hank's question, as well).


>
> Or perhaps this is a wakeup call for LoNAP and the smaller exchanges who
> "compete" with AMS-IX, DE-CIX and NetNod - stop trying to mimic their
> commercial models (big fees which pay for staff and marketing) and look
> instead at the lean SIX as the way of offering a service at a price
> competitive to transit.
>

Also absolutely correct. I don't want to see them falling into a trap of
conflating marketing and outreach and/or offering an overly rich product
set at the cost of price and operational simplicity.


> Or was there a hidden message in Dave's presentation that I missed?
>

Seems like you got it.


> Aled
>

Re: Sunday night social?

[Dave Temkin]

Just to clarify based on offline messages:
There are still the usual after-Plenary programs such as Peering Personals, 
Beer & Gear, etc.. There are just no off-site socials aside from Wednesday 
evening. The agenda is up to date.
-Dave






On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 1:47 PM -0400, "Dave Temkin" <d...@temk.in> wrote:










Yes.
Best Regards,
-Dave






On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM -0400, "Weir, Colin" 
<colin_w...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:










Is Wednesday night the only social?

--
Colin Weir
Engineer, Quality of Experience, Comcast Cable
Desk: 215-286-5406
Cell: 215-279-1733


From: NANOG  on behalf of Valerie Wittkop 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 6:14:16 PM
To: Matthew Petach
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Sunday night social?

Hi Matt -

The registration questions built into Cvent are a standard set which is
created prior to confirmation of sponsored events.  The questions are there
as a means to allow potential sponsors to plan accordingly.

There is not a Sunday Social taking place in Chicago.  Apologies if the
standard questions in the registration process caused confusion.  You can
always check the true schedule of events by visiting the event agenda.

Cheers,

Valerie

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Matthew Petach 
wrote:

> > I just finished registering for NANOG 67, and answered Yes to "Will you
> be attending the sunday evening social" and booked my flight
> accordingly...but now i can't seem to find any details on what time it
> starts on the website.  Does anyone know what time it starts?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
>



--
Valerie Wittkop
NANOG Program Director
+1.866.902.1336, Ext. 103

Re: Sunday night social?

[Dave Temkin]

Yes.
Best Regards,
-Dave






On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM -0400, "Weir, Colin" 
 wrote:










Is Wednesday night the only social?

--
Colin Weir
Engineer, Quality of Experience, Comcast Cable
Desk: 215-286-5406
Cell: 215-279-1733


From: NANOG  on behalf of Valerie Wittkop 
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 6:14:16 PM
To: Matthew Petach
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Sunday night social?

Hi Matt -

The registration questions built into Cvent are a standard set which is
created prior to confirmation of sponsored events.  The questions are there
as a means to allow potential sponsors to plan accordingly.

There is not a Sunday Social taking place in Chicago.  Apologies if the
standard questions in the registration process caused confusion.  You can
always check the true schedule of events by visiting the event agenda.

Cheers,

Valerie

On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Matthew Petach 
wrote:

> > I just finished registering for NANOG 67, and answered Yes to "Will you
> be attending the sunday evening social" and booked my flight
> accordingly...but now i can't seem to find any details on what time it
> starts on the website.  Does anyone know what time it starts?
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
>



--
Valerie Wittkop
NANOG Program Director
+1.866.902.1336, Ext. 103

Re: Netflix VPN Detection Issues

[Dave Temkin]

Daniel,

I don't see any emails from *.nodesdirect aside from a peering request from
a long time ago. Feel free to email me directly with the IP ranges in
question and I'll make sure they get looked at.

-Dave

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Daniel Stephens 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Can someone from Netflix contact me off-list to assist in a wrongly
> classified prefix as a VPN/proxy? We serve Internet to a few large
> residential communities and they have been blocked as of yesterday
> afternoon. Attempts to cdnetops@ have been unsuccessful.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Daniel Stephens
>
>

Re: Netflix NOC? VPN Mismarked?

[Dave Temkin]

Our (Netflix) call center has been trained on how to handle calls for false
positive issues with proxy/VPNs. If you don't achieve an acceptable result,
please feel free to reach out - but believe it or not, they are the best
ones to handle.

-Dave

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:36 AM, chris  wrote:

> especially if these types of situations are handled on par with the way
> abuse and spam reports are handled
>
> customer will report being blocked to netflix, netflix will tell end user
> to contact isp, customer will call isp  and level 1 call center rep will
> say "we can ping your modem and your service is up we dont see a problem,
> if you are having a issue with a specific service please contact your
> service provider"
>
> and the infinite loop begins, customer gets frustrated, everyone loses
>
> welcome to hell :)
>
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
> >
> > > On Jan 27, 2016, at 07:12 , Jared Mauch  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Jan 26, 2016, at 7:33 PM, Andrey Yakovlev 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> One user had his wife sharing his Netflix account on her iPad while on
> > a conference to Europe (same account, different countries).
> > >
> > > Hmm, I seem to think this one might be quite common, so perhaps should
> > be tied closer to the device vs account level.
> > >
> > > - Jared
> >
> > This is all going to get a whole lot more entertaining with the
> > combination of MIP6 and IPv4 CGNAT.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
>

Re: Google served from non-google IPs?

[Dave Temkin]

Seems like an odd waste of resources; what if Google, Akamai, Netflix, and
anyone else who wanted caches wanted IPs in that block? The IX would be out
of address space pretty quickly, forcing a majority of users to re-number
because of a small number of other users.

-Dave

On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Steven Schecter schec...@gmail.com wrote:

 Those IPs appear to be used by to Google cache servers at the QIX.  It's
 common for CDNs to utilize provider space and not maintain their own
 layer-3.  E.g. cache servers connected to switch, connected to provider,
 without the requirement of a router.


 /Steve

 On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Jason Lixfeld ja...@lixfeld.ca wrote:

  So today, I saw this:
 
  BlackBox:~ jlixfeld$ host google.ca 8.8.8.8
  Using domain server:
  Name: 8.8.8.8
  Address: 8.8.8.8#53
  Aliases:
 
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.166
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.177
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.172
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.187
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.151
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.158
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.157
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.173
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.181
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.155
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.147
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.185
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.143
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.170
  google.ca has address 206.126.112.162
  google.ca has IPv6 address 2607:f8b0:4006:808::100f
  google.ca mail is handled by 50 alt4.aspmx.l.google.com.
  google.ca mail is handled by 30 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com.
  google.ca mail is handled by 20 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com.
  google.ca mail is handled by 10 aspmx.l.google.com.
  google.ca mail is handled by 40 alt3.aspmx.l.google.com.
  BlackBox:~ jlixfeld$
 
  That is not Google IPv4 address space, and those IPv4 IPs are not being
  announced by 15169.
 
  Am I dumb in thinking that this is weird or is this sort of thing
  commonplace?




 --
 Steven J. Schecter
 (m) 917.676.1646

Re: Verizion FiOS

[Dave Temkin]

Quite simple - Verizon doesn't offer BGP or any other type of custom
service over FIOS. No Layer 2, no non-VZ Layer 3, etc... You get the IP
space you pay for from them (per IP).

-Dave

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Dennis Burgess dmburg...@linktechs.net
wrote:

 Got a customer that needs a /25 block routed to him, was approved for
 125 IPs, but they refuse to route a block to the customer.  Any
 assistance, please hit me off-list, dmburg...@linktechs.net





 Thanks,





 www.linktechs.net - 314-735-0270 - dmburg...@linktechs.net

FL-IX in Miami is ready for new members

[Dave Temkin]

Hi all,


FL-IX has started issuing LOAs for both 36 NE 2nd Street and NOTA in Miami.
If you have a network that peers at either location, we'd love to have you
as a member. We've committed to keeping the IX platform free for 3 years
(you bring the cross connect; we have pre-negotiated deals for inexpensive
riser in 36 NE 2nd).


For more information, please see: http://www.fl-ix.net


Here's a list of who's signed up thus far:


  Akamai

Amazon

BroadbandONE

CloudFlare

Coresite

Facebook

GlobeNet/Oi

Google

GTT

Hurricane Electric

Init7

Limelight

Netflix

Reliable Hosting

Quadranet

Snappy Internet

SoftLayer

T-Mobile

Telx

Vault Networks

WebSense

Yahoo

Regards,
-Dave

ISPs Behaving Badly: GIGLINX slime was Re: ARIN WHOIS for leads

[Dave Temkin]

Ressurecting this thread: GIGLINX is still at it.

They contacted me on an email that was only ever used for registering an
ASN with ARIN.

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:14 PM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:

 On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:17 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:

  The usual method is to insert ringers which would be info which
  points back at non-existant people with valid-looking contact
  information.
 
  If for example they called a phone number, or several, owned by ARIN
  (or a service they employed) asking for James T Kirk or Diana Prince
  then that would be a problem and should be logged.

 There are some interesting non-obvious elements in the database for
 such purposes and we do take action when they are triggered.

 FYI,
 /John

 John Curran
 President and CEO
 ARIN

NANOG College Immersion Program

[Dave Temkin]

I'm excited to announce that for NANOG 63 in San Antonio that we will begin
the NANOG College Immersion Program. This program aims to provide the next
generation of Network Operators with an edge in today's highly competitive
market and allows us a conduit of highly capable operators, engineers, and
architects.

Please see below for the full program description.

Regards,
-Dave Temkin, for the NANOG Board of Directors


NANOG College Immersion Program

Summary:

NANOG is committed to ensuring next generation of networking professionals
have an opportunity become part of the operational community that makes the
internet run. Companies such as Google, Level 3, Microsoft, NTT, Netflix,
Yahoo, and Amazon rely on NANOG to discuss key architectural and
operational topics relevant to Internet infrastructure. NANOG believes by
introducing undergraduates to our vibrant community before entering the job
marketplace, they will have a better understanding of how the
infrastructure of the Internet works and how they might participate after
graduation. Further, students may be able to find internship opportunities
they may have not otherwise found.

Offering:

NANOG will provide an expenses-paid trip to the current meeting for up to
25 students per meeting. The paid expenses will include:

   -

   Airfare (up to $500)
   -

   Four nights of hotel (must be booked by NANOG staff)
   -

   Ground transportation (reasonable cost)
   -

   Meal stipend (adjusted for meeting location)



NANOG will also, space permitting, allow free admission for students to the
NANOG Education Series (https://www.nanog.org/meetings/education/home)
class prior to the meeting they are attending.

NANOG will provide guidance to students as to what they may and may not
attend. Of note, alcohol is served at some NANOG events and there is the
expectation that those not legally entitled to consume alcohol will refrain
from doing so. NANOG takes no responsibility for those that break the law
during their meetings and reserves the right to refuse admission to those
that violate our Attendance Charter.


Expectation:

NANOG will not be involved in any syllabus or coursework for the students.
The NANOG organization will provide an agenda and slideware for the
materials that the students will be viewing and expects their professor to
determine the best way their students can extract educational value from
the NANOG program. NANOG asks, in return, that all students complete our
surveys in full and that their teaching staff provide us with a summary of
how they used our program in the classroom and/or in coursework. A few
paragraphs from each student explaining the value that they got from the
program and social interactions would also be a good idea.


QA:

Q: What is NANOG and what is the value proposition for sending a student to
this conference?

A: The North American Network Operators Group or NANOG, is the professional
association for Internet engineering and architecture. Our core focus is on
the technologies and systems that make the Internet function: core routing
and switching; Internet inter-domain routing; the domain name system;
peering and interconnection; and Internet core security. We also cover
associated areas with a direct impact on Internet architecture such as data
centers and optical networking.  The value proposition for the student is
exposure to all of these subjects and technical material but more
importantly to the organizations and individuals.  The opportunity for
students to make industry contacts is invaluable.

Q: How do we select students for this sponsorship?

A: Send your best and brightest, highlight that the value is the density of
industry representatives in a common location.

Q: What do the students owe back to NANOG?

A: In addition to the anonymous surveys that all attendees are asked to
complete, the NANOG Board would request that all sponsorship recipients
provide feedback on their experiences.  Lastly, we would like to encourage
the students join the mailing list (nanog@nanog.org), attend more
conferences and get involved in the industry.

Q: How do we evaluate our students participation?

A: Students could provide a variety of deliverables back to the
institution.  These could include a writeup of selected presentations from
the agenda, an overview of the conference as a whole, or even a list of the
individuals they met during the conference.

Q: What will be covered in the sponsorship?

A: Hotel, conference fee, airfare, and a reasonable stipend for incidentals
such as meals.

Q: Why are you sponsoring our students for this conference?

A: The NANOG organization is keen to encourage the future technology
leaders and innovators to get interested and involved in this segment of
the industry.

Re: NANOG College Immersion Program

[Dave Temkin]

Yes, the professor will need to apply on behalf of the students that they
wish to send, as NANOG will not be directly involved in their coursework.

Regards,
-Dave

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Colin McIntosh cmcintos...@gmail.com
wrote:

 I think this is a great idea! Will a student's school/professor be
 required to participate or can students apply by on their own?

 -Colin
 On Sep 26, 2014 10:26 AM, Dave Temkin d...@temk.in wrote:

 I'm excited to announce that for NANOG 63 in San Antonio that we will
 begin
 the NANOG College Immersion Program. This program aims to provide the next
 generation of Network Operators with an edge in today's highly competitive
 market and allows us a conduit of highly capable operators, engineers, and
 architects.

 Please see below for the full program description.

 Regards,
 -Dave Temkin, for the NANOG Board of Directors


 NANOG College Immersion Program

 Summary:

 NANOG is committed to ensuring next generation of networking professionals
 have an opportunity become part of the operational community that makes
 the
 internet run. Companies such as Google, Level 3, Microsoft, NTT, Netflix,
 Yahoo, and Amazon rely on NANOG to discuss key architectural and
 operational topics relevant to Internet infrastructure. NANOG believes by
 introducing undergraduates to our vibrant community before entering the
 job
 marketplace, they will have a better understanding of how the
 infrastructure of the Internet works and how they might participate after
 graduation. Further, students may be able to find internship opportunities
 they may have not otherwise found.

 Offering:

 NANOG will provide an expenses-paid trip to the current meeting for up to
 25 students per meeting. The paid expenses will include:

-

Airfare (up to $500)
-

Four nights of hotel (must be booked by NANOG staff)
-

Ground transportation (reasonable cost)
-

Meal stipend (adjusted for meeting location)



 NANOG will also, space permitting, allow free admission for students to
 the
 NANOG Education Series (https://www.nanog.org/meetings/education/home)
 class prior to the meeting they are attending.

 NANOG will provide guidance to students as to what they may and may not
 attend. Of note, alcohol is served at some NANOG events and there is the
 expectation that those not legally entitled to consume alcohol will
 refrain
 from doing so. NANOG takes no responsibility for those that break the law
 during their meetings and reserves the right to refuse admission to those
 that violate our Attendance Charter.


 Expectation:

 NANOG will not be involved in any syllabus or coursework for the students.
 The NANOG organization will provide an agenda and slideware for the
 materials that the students will be viewing and expects their professor to
 determine the best way their students can extract educational value from
 the NANOG program. NANOG asks, in return, that all students complete our
 surveys in full and that their teaching staff provide us with a summary of
 how they used our program in the classroom and/or in coursework. A few
 paragraphs from each student explaining the value that they got from the
 program and social interactions would also be a good idea.


 QA:

 Q: What is NANOG and what is the value proposition for sending a student
 to
 this conference?

 A: The North American Network Operators Group or NANOG, is the
 professional
 association for Internet engineering and architecture. Our core focus is
 on
 the technologies and systems that make the Internet function: core routing
 and switching; Internet inter-domain routing; the domain name system;
 peering and interconnection; and Internet core security. We also cover
 associated areas with a direct impact on Internet architecture such as
 data
 centers and optical networking.  The value proposition for the student is
 exposure to all of these subjects and technical material but more
 importantly to the organizations and individuals.  The opportunity for
 students to make industry contacts is invaluable.

 Q: How do we select students for this sponsorship?

 A: Send your best and brightest, highlight that the value is the density
 of
 industry representatives in a common location.

 Q: What do the students owe back to NANOG?

 A: In addition to the anonymous surveys that all attendees are asked to
 complete, the NANOG Board would request that all sponsorship recipients
 provide feedback on their experiences.  Lastly, we would like to encourage
 the students join the mailing list (nanog@nanog.org), attend more
 conferences and get involved in the industry.

 Q: How do we evaluate our students participation?

 A: Students could provide a variety of deliverables back to the
 institution.  These could include a writeup of selected presentations from
 the agenda, an overview of the conference as a whole, or even a list of
 the
 individuals they met during the conference.

 Q: What will be covered

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Dave Temkin]

On Monday, July 14, 2014, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:

 On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com
 javascript:; wrote:

  [...]
 
  If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear
  us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs
 have
  no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly
  considering it -- is to start up a competing streaming service that
  IS friendly to ISPs. It would use the minimum possible amount of
  bandwidth, make proper use of caching, and -- most importantly --
  actually PAY Internet service providers, instead of sapping their
  resources, by allowing them to sell it and keep a portion of the fee.
  This would provide an automatic, direct, per-customer reimbursement
  to the ISP for the cost of bandwidth. ISPs would sign on so fast
  that such a service could BURY Netflix in short order.
 
  --Brett Glass
 
 
 That would be awesome!

 If you find a way to obtain premium content
 that subscribers will pay for that doesn't include
 incredibly restrictive licensing terms that require
 you to account for every stream watched (including
 those streamed from downstream cache devices),
 I'm right there ready.

 Unfortunately, I suspect you'll find the rights holders
 who own the shows aren't willing to let their videos
 be served through a CDN that doesn't maintain
 draconian control over every stream (ie, that
 doesn't allow third party, uncontrolled caching).

 So, you may be able to build such a CDN; but
 the only content you may find that you can
 populate it with are cute cat videos recycled
 from last week's Youtube footage--which nobody
 wants to pay for.  :(

 Matt


Nailed it, Matt, 100%

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Dave Temkin]

The box doesn't even download 10% of the whole catalog and churns less than
1% a day.

Obviously our demand curve is proprietary information, but I can assure you
that a lot of people - engineers, mathematicians, etc. have looked at and
improved the algorithm - but we are still constantly working to make it
better.

If you look at boxes like Qwilt, which is a universal flow-through cache,
the best they can get is ~30% offload with Netflix traffic (in the real
world, not in their lab). With multiple different encodes (driven by
differing DRM and device types) the odds of two people watching the exact
same thing are relatively low. The law of large numbers rules the game.

-Dave

On Monday, July 14, 2014, Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:

 Software is... herrr configurable.

 Maybe Netflix could be convinced so their box had a switch from
 complete catalog hosting / caching most used data.  I get from this
 discussion thread that small ISP feel having these box download the
 whole catalog is more than what their customers  (1000) need.  Moving
 this discussion away from net neutrality (that seems what netflix is
 doing in public anouncements) to how these boxes handle and operate
 would be better for everyone.



 --
 --
 ℱin del ℳensaje.

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Dave Temkin]

We inquired about space  power in the location that Brett mentions
(Level3) as well as the Coresite location. We were told there was no power
to be had in either building, hence we went for the third option. We have
transport options available back to both should we need it.

That said, that shows what a messed up market Denver is - there is
definitely pent up demand but if Netflix can't even get space and power
there's clearly none left. For years we were promised that Coresite was
building a giant new campus, but they seem to have all but abandoned it.

-Dave


On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

  We've never been asked to POP that location.

 what location?  i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be
 in coresite and defunct.  there is some any2 exchange claiming to be
 the second largest on the left coast, which is a crock.

 is there actually a significant local exchange in the denver area, and
 not some marketing department with an mpls tunnel?  i am having a hard
 time finding it, web site, traffic, tscs, ...  you know, like
 https://www.seattleix.net/, the dinky 250g one up in seattle to which
 i am used.

  Brett doesn't seem interested in finding a solution.

 welcome to nanog.  the list is a test of one's ability to find the
 substance amidst the flack, this oft-repeated discussion being notable.
 i wonder what we get if we pass the test.

 randy

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Dave Temkin]

We've never been asked to POP that location. If I can, I will, just as my
team has POPed 15+ other locations this year alone.

Brett doesn't seem interested in finding a solution. He's sent dozens of
harassing emails demanding payment and nothing else. I've offered to speak
to him directly but he hasn't responded, so I have to imagine he's just
here for the attention.

-Dave

On Sunday, July 13, 2014, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ra...@psg.com'); wrote:

  It's a well known regional Internet exchange point in a building
  which I believe is owned by Level3. It also has huge amounts of
  fiber cross-connecting it to 910 15th Street, a block from the
  Denver Convention Center, so that a presence at one is essentially
  equivalent to a presence at the other.

 how much traffic, how much is eyeball, and who has volunteered to give
 netflix cheap transit to stuff the ache?

 randy

Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

[Dave Temkin]

Hi Richard,

You may be confusing Idaho for Portland, but either way we are constantly
adding new POPs and Portland is a great example of us bearing the cost that
ISPs were bearing before to haul traffic from Seattle or San Jose. I would
consider that a great success.

Regarding Comcast in SF, they do not interconnect with other
networks there, otherwise we'd probably hand off in the city. The
interconnect locations are not always our choice.



On Friday, July 11, 2014, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote:

 Actually, there are some examples of this, and I'm surprised Mr. Temkin
 didn't point them out. I've been told by rural telcos (RLECs) that there's
 a consolidated mini-exchange in Idaho that was originally built with some
 support from the state in order exchange phone calls within Idaho that
 would otherwise have to be sent to Denver or Seattle for interconnect. The
 RLECs subsequently used the facility for peering between their broadband
 networks, and at some point Netflix, at its own expense, installed some of
 its proprietary servers and paid for a circuit to Seattle. The part that
 excited the RLECs was Netflix footing the bill to move its traffic from
 Seattle to Idaho.

 The RLECs told me they're not overjoyed by the cost of moving all that
 traffic 50 miles on their own networks, but it beats moving it all the way
 from Seattle. I thought that was funny since Comcast moves Netflix traffic
 100 miles from their nearest exchange point in San Jose to my home in the
 East SF Bay. Looking at the traceroute, it all passes through SF, but
 Netflix doesn't have facilities there.

 Richard


 On 7/11/14, 9:50 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:

 I’m always surprised that folks at smaller exchanges don’t form
 consortiums to build a mutually beneficial transit AS that connects to a
 larger remote exchange.

 For example, if your 19 peers in Denver formed a consortium to get a
 circuit into one (or more) of the larger exchanges in Dallas, Los Angeles,
 SF Bay Area, or Seattle with an ASN and a router at each end, the share
 cost of that link an infrastructure would actually be fairly low per peer.

 Owen


 --
 Richard Bennett

Re: AAAA's for www.netflix.com

[Dave Temkin]

Just to close the loop on this - UltraDNS has an issue with CNAMEs and their Directional DNS service.  We 
(Netflix) have applied a workaround and it appears stable.


-Dave

On 6/6/12 8:05 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:

I started monitoring IPv6 access to www.netflix.com after seeing this
posting
(http://www.personal.psu.edu/dvm105/blogs/ipv6/2012/06/netflix-is-back.html)
and what I found, over the week, was that access was coming and going
(www.premieronline.net/~fbulk/netflix.png).  But not because of IPv6
connectivity, but because the 's were coming and going.  Netflix's DNS
TTL is pretty short.

I assume Netflix has some global DNS load balancing so my perspective may
not be complete.  Has anyone else been seeing this?

I contacted a Netflix employee (he's well known on this list) and he
responded once but I haven't heard back since Saturday.

Here's some sample queries from Saturday and today.
=
nagios:/home/fbulk# dig  www.netflix.com

;  DiG 9.7.3   www.netflix.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 26825
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.netflix.com.   IN  

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
netflix.com.150 IN  SOA dns.netflix.com.
nicadmin.netflix.com. 2012060104 900 600 1209600 1800

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
;; WHEN: Sat Jun  2 09:29:17 2012
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 82

nagios:/home/fbulk#
=

=
nagios:/home/fbulk# dig  www.netflix.com

;  DiG 9.7.3   www.netflix.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 33117
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 9, AUTHORITY: 8, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.netflix.com.   IN  

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.netflix.com.132 IN  CNAME
dualstack.wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com.
dualstack.wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 12 IN
 2406:da00:ff00::3210:e195
dualstack.wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 12 IN
 2406:da00:ff00::3213:5282
dualstack.wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 12 IN
 2406:da00:ff00::3213:6340
dualstack.wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 12 IN
 2406:da00:ff00::3213:779a
dualstack.wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 12 IN
 2406:da00:ff00::1715:75cd
dualstack.wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 12 IN
 2406:da00:ff00::1715:eceb
dualstack.wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 12 IN
 2406:da00:ff00::1717:e388
dualstack.wwwservice--frontend-313423742.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com. 12 IN
 2406:da00:ff00::1717:eb58

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
elb.amazonaws.com.  7092IN  NS  ns-916.amazonaws.com.
elb.amazonaws.com.  7092IN  NS  ns-941.amazonaws.com.
elb.amazonaws.com.  7092IN  NS  ns-927.amazonaws.com.
elb.amazonaws.com.  7092IN  NS  ns-925.amazonaws.com.
elb.amazonaws.com.  7092IN  NS  ns-934.amazonaws.com.
elb.amazonaws.com.  7092IN  NS  ns-935.amazonaws.com.
elb.amazonaws.com.  7092IN  NS  ns-944.amazonaws.com.
elb.amazonaws.com.  7092IN  NS  ns-947.amazonaws.com.

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
;; WHEN: Sat Jun  2 09:34:35 2012
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 504

nagios:/home/fbulk#
=

=
nagios:/home/fbulk# dig  www.netflix.com

;  DiG 9.7.3   www.netflix.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 34529
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.netflix.com.   IN  

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
netflix.com.94  IN  SOA dns.netflix.com.
nicadmin.netflix.com. 2012060107 900 600 1209600 1800

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 127.0.0.1#53(127.0.0.1)
;; WHEN: Wed Jun  6 09:00:44 2012
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 82

nagios:/home/fbulk#
=

Frank Bulk

NANOG 55 Agenda Published!

[Dave Temkin]

All,

The NANOG 55 Agenda has been published and is viewable at: 
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog55/agenda.php

Detailed abstracts will be added to the agenda over the next few days.

Please note that the hotel group rate expires on May 18th.  Late registration for the meeting begins on 
5/28, so please register today to save significant money!  You may register here: 
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog55/nanog55_registration.html


Some individuals may require a Visa and/or valid passport to enter Canada, please see details *here. 
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/publications/meeting.asp#question2**


The NANOG Program Committee is proud of the program that we have assembled for Vancouver and we are looking 
forward to welcoming everyone to this amazing venue.


*Regards,
-Dave Temkin
For the NANOG Program Committee

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 55 - Vancouver: Call For Presentations

[Dave Temkin]

All,

A reminder as per below - abstracts are due today, and we would like to ask for 
slides by April 9th.

Best Regards,
-Dave Temkin

On 2/20/12 5:43 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:

NANOG Community,

After an awesome meeting in San Diego, we're already starting to get ready for NANOG 55 in Vancouver.  
If you have a topic you'd like to speak about, we'd love to consider it.  Please watch 
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog55/callforpresentations.html for more information.


Please keep these important dates in mind:


Presentation Abstracts and Draft Slides Due:   02-Apr-2012
Final Slides Due:  
09-Apr-2012
Draft Program Published:27-Apr-2012
Final Agenda Published:  15-May-2012

Please submit your materials to http://pc.nanog.org

Looking forward to seeing everyone in San Diego.

-Dave Temkin

(Chair, NANOG Program Committee)



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

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 55 - Vancouver: Call For Presentations

[Dave Temkin]

NANOG Community,

After an awesome meeting in San Diego, we're already starting to get ready for NANOG 55 in Vancouver.  
If you have a topic you'd like to speak about, we'd love to consider it.  Please watch 
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog55/callforpresentations.html for more information.


Please keep these important dates in mind:


Presentation Abstracts and Draft Slides Due:   02-Apr-2012
Final Slides Due:  
09-Apr-2012
Draft Program Published:27-Apr-2012
Final Agenda Published:  15-May-2012

Please submit your materials to http://pc.nanog.org

Looking forward to seeing everyone in San Diego.

-Dave Temkin

(Chair, NANOG Program Committee)

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

[NANOG-announce] Tutorials starting today, some available via webcast!

[Dave Temkin]

For the first time, NANOG will be webcasting (and archiving) some of our 
tutorials.

Beginning at 2PM PT, you can see John Kristoff give an Introduction to Shell and Perl Scripting for Network 
Operators, with a break from 3:30-4 and then starting back at 4PM PT with Intermediate Perl Scripting for 
Network Operators.  Both tutorials will be available later for review.


You may see all streaming options at http://www.nanog.org/streaming.php

-Dave Temkin
For the NANOG Program Committee

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

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 54: Final agenda posted and late registration starts 01/30/2012

[Dave Temkin]

All,

The NANOG Program Committee is proud to announce that the final agenda for NANOG 54 has been posted at 
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/agenda.php .  We encourage you to get in early on Sunday to take 
advantage of the great tutorials that we have lined up:


Introduction to Shell and Perl Scripting for Network Operators
Intermediate Perl Scripting for Network Operators
The Service Provider Tool Kit
IPv6 and IPv4: Twins or Distant Relatives
An Introduction to DNSSEC

and of course encourage our members to attend the Member Meeting, starting at 5:45pm.  The program will kick 
off on Monday at 9:30AM


Regular registration ends on 01/29/2012 and late registration starts on 01/30/2012.  Save $75 and register 
today!


Thanks to our host, Telx, for bringing us to sunny San Diego.  We are all set 
to have a great meeting!

-Dave Temkin
NANOG PC Chair

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

Re: Overall Netflix bandwidth usage numbers on a network?

[Dave Temkin]

Feel free to contact peering@netflixdotcom - we're happy to provide you with delivery statistics for 
traffic terminating on your network.


Regards,
-Dave Temkin
Netflix

On 12/7/11 8:57 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
Yeah, that's an interesting one. We currently utilize netflow for this, but you also need to consider that 
netflix streaming is just port 80 www traffic. Because netflix uses CDNs, its difficult to pin down the 
traffic to specific hosts in the CDN and say that this traffic was netflix, while this traffic was the 
latest windows update (remember this is often a shared hosting platform). We've done our own testing and 
have come to a good solution which uses a combination of nbar, packet marking, and netflow to come to a 
conclusion. On a ~160Mbps link, netflix peaks out between 30-50Mbps around 8-10PM each evening. The rest 
of the traffic is predominantly other forms of HTTP traffic (including other video streaming services).



Martin Hepworth wrote the following on 12/3/2011 2:36 AM:

Also checkout Adrian Cockcroft presentations on their architecture which
describes how they use aws and CDns etc

Martin

[NANOG-announce] NANOG54 (San Diego, Feb 5-8, 2012): Early Bird Registration Expiring on Sunday, 12/4

[Dave Temkin]

Please note that the Early Bird registration for NANOG54 expires on Sunday, 12/4.  Register now and save $75 
off the regular registration fee!


Also, as a reminder, the Call for Presentations is still open!  Have something that you think is relevant to 
the NANOG community and would like to have the chance to present it?  Please see 
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/callforpresentations.html for more information.


Looking forward to seeing you in sunny San Diego!

-Dave
(For the NANOG Program Committee)


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

[NANOG-announce] NANOG54 (San Diego, Feb 5-8 2012): Call for Presentations and Registration Now Open!

[Dave Temkin]

All,

After a fantastic meeting in Philadelphia we're getting ready to provide you with another content rich 
meeting at the Westin Gaslamp Quarter in San Diego.  Registration is now open for the meeting, and you can 
take advantage of the Early Bird Registration Discount and save $75 by registering before December 5th, 
2011.  Please see http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/nanog54_registration.html for more details.


---

The NANOG54 CFP is available at: 
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog54/callforpresentations.html

Please keep these key dates in mind:

Presentation Abstracts and Draft Slides Due: December 5th, 2011
Final Slides Due: December 19th, 2011
The NANOG Program Committee intends on having a draft program published by December 20th, 2011 and the final 
agenda published by January 16, 2012.


---

Thanks,

-Dave Temkin
(for the NANOG Program Committee)





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

[Nanog-futures] Cross posting: Call for Program Committee candidates for the NANOG PC

[Dave Temkin]

All,

If you've ever thought about helping to give back to the community and you regularly attend NANOG 
conferences, please consider running for the NANOG Program Committee.  Committee nominations close on 
10/11/2011, and we need your help!


The seventeen-member NANOG Program Committee solicits talks, works with potential speakers to refine 
presentations, and reviews proposals for technical accuracy and relevance to the NANOG audience.  We need 
people from all walks of life who can help us recruit and vet talks of interest to the broad spectrum of 
NANOG attendees.


More information can be found about how the NANOG community governs itself here:  
http://www.nanog.org/governance/ .


Thanks,
-Dave Temkin

___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Dave Temkin]

On 9/30/11 10:28 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Wessels, Duane dwess...@verisign.com 
mailto:dwess...@verisign.com wrote:


On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:16 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:

 Steve,

 Can you ensure that you have that budget available before the meeting, 
hopefully at least a week before?

 Also, can we have the numbers from NANOG 52 ASAP?


Dave and other Members:

The slides for the financial report that I will give are now posted here:

http://www.nanog.org/about/financial/documents/N53-Treasurer_000.pdf



Nice transparency.



+1, thank you very much.

-Dave




Would it be possible to see a balance sheet as a standard going forward? This is good. I'm more interested 
in a dashboard like report such as a balance sheet than this board minutia. Not a complaint, suggestion. 
Thanks kindly!


Best,

-M


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Cross posting: Call for Program Committee candidates for the NANOG PC

[Dave Temkin]

All,

If you've ever thought about helping to give back to the community and you regularly attend NANOG 
conferences, please consider running for the NANOG Program Committee.  Committee nominations close on 
10/11/2011, and we need your help!


The seventeen-member NANOG Program Committee solicits talks, works with potential speakers to refine 
presentations, and reviews proposals for technical accuracy and relevance to the NANOG audience.  We need 
people from all walks of life who can help us recruit and vet talks of interest to the broad spectrum of 
NANOG attendees.


More information can be found about how the NANOG community governs itself here:  
http://www.nanog.org/governance/ .


Thanks,
-Dave Temkin

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Dave Temkin]

Steve,

Can you ensure that you have that budget available before the meeting, 
hopefully at least a week before?

Also, can we have the numbers from NANOG 52 ASAP?

Thanks!
-Dave

On 9/15/11 7:28 PM, Steven Feldman wrote:

[Apologies for cross-posting; it turns out many members are not on the 
nanog-futures list.]

In our board meeting this week, we decided not to place this on this year's ballot.  We feel that as with 
other decisions regarding conference fees and discounts, this is best left as an operational policy 
decision rather than a corporate governance issue.


The petition process is available as an alternative if a sufficient portion of the membership wishes to 
put this on the ballot without the board's involvement.


The board has taken no position on the underlying question of waiving fees for volunteers.  We encourage 
continued community discussion on this topic, both on these mailing lists and and during the open members 
meeting at NANOG 53.  By that time, we will have a draft budget for 2012 available which will allow us to 
determine the financial impact of such a policy.


Thanks,
 Steve

On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Dave Temkin d...@temk.in 
mailto:d...@temk.in wrote:

I'm perfectly OK with not necessarily codifying this in the bylaws; you're 
right in that the bylaws
doesn't spell out admission specifically today.

I guess a meta question is - should it?  And if it shouldn't, is this just 
a topic to bring up at the
community meeting and then ask the board to move on there?

-Dave



On 9/2/11 2:30 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:

Speaking only for myself, and not in any official capacity...

I think Dave's idea has merit.  There is precedent for it -- we give 
free conference admission to
speakers -- so to me the question here is not whether any contribution 
should merit free
admission, but where the line should be drawn.

That said, is there a reason to put this in the bylaws?  The bylaws are 
currently silent on the
subject of conference fees, meaning the board can set them however it 
wants.  If the board were to
enact something like this, it would have a lot of flexibility to vary 
the discounts and
elligibility, based on what sorts of incentives were needed and how 
much money was available.  If
this went in as a bylaw ammendment, changing it later would be 
cumbersome.

-Steve



On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:30 AM, David Temkin d...@temk.in 
mailto:d...@temk.in wrote:

All,

I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming 
election cycle.

The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to 
bring a content rich, well
attended, well sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In return they 
generally get a free lunch
and a brief thank you.  I propose that any committee member who 
attends six or more committee
meetings between NANOG meetings is entitled to a free registration 
for the upcoming meeting.
Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the committee and this 
would only be available as a
benefit to sanctioned committees.

I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the 
least that we can do for our
hard working committee members.  I would ask that the Board sponsor 
this for the upcoming
election, however if they choose not to I think we can put this out 
to petition.

Thanks,
-Dave


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org mailto:Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org mailto:Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures





___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: [Nanog-futures] Admission for Committee Members

[Dave Temkin]

I'm perfectly OK with not necessarily codifying this in the bylaws; you're right in that the bylaws doesn't 
spell out admission specifically today.


I guess a meta question is - should it?  And if it shouldn't, is this just a topic to bring up at the 
community meeting and then ask the board to move on there?


-Dave


On 9/2/11 2:30 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:

Speaking only for myself, and not in any official capacity...

I think Dave's idea has merit.  There is precedent for it -- we give free conference admission to speakers 
-- so to me the question here is not whether any contribution should merit free admission, but where the 
line should be drawn.


That said, is there a reason to put this in the bylaws?  The bylaws are currently silent on the subject of 
conference fees, meaning the board can set them however it wants.  If the board were to enact something 
like this, it would have a lot of flexibility to vary the discounts and elligibility, based on what sorts 
of incentives were needed and how much money was available.  If this went in as a bylaw ammendment, 
changing it later would be cumbersome.


-Steve



On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:30 AM, David Temkin d...@temk.in wrote:


All,

I would like to propose an amendment to the bylaws for the coming election 
cycle.

The various committees put in many tireless hours of effort to bring a content rich, well attended, well 
sponsored meeting to our attendees.  In return they generally get a free lunch and a brief thank you.  I 
propose that any committee member who attends six or more committee meetings between NANOG meetings is 
entitled to a free registration for the upcoming meeting. Attendance would be gauged by the chair of the 
committee and this would only be available as a benefit to sanctioned committees.


I'll keep this short and sweet, however I feel that this is the least that we can do for our hard working 
committee members.  I would ask that the Board sponsor this for the upcoming election, however if they 
choose not to I think we can put this out to petition.


Thanks,
-Dave


___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: RES: Anyone still maintaining altdb.net?

[Dave Temkin]

On 4/20/11 1:42 PM, Eduardo Schoedler wrote:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Bret Palsson wrote:

I submitted my objects April 11. the mtrner object needs to be created
by the db-admin. I realize this is a volunteer thing. Could I help out
or could the people that are helping out look at adding my record? I
need to setup some peering relationships. I'd prefer to support open
communities rather than paying and am willing to help out if need be.

Bret,

You can try the SCW IRR [1].
It's free, but is in Portuguese.

Reference:
[1] http://whois.scw.net.br/

--
Eduardo Schoedler

Sounds like that doesn't help the OP, who wanted help with RPSL, not *really* 
help from AltDB.

-Dave

Re: potential new and different architectural approach to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute

[Dave Temkin]

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:


BTW, they rejected my very nice comment on their blog asking if they 
would be willing to share the graphs of their transit provider 
interfaces (which are NOT peering relationships, and not under NDA) to 
back up their claims that the published graphs are false, so I'm 
positive yours isn't going to get through. :)


  
Seems as though, in both this case and Steve's case, Comcast is going 
out of their way to spin as much FUD as they can against those who dare 
speak out and are making a concerted effort to censor their blog (ie, 
press release machine).


It's not going unnoticed and I hope they realize that instead of 
commenting on their blog, we will turn to the official FCC comment 
process.


-Dave

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

[Dave Temkin]

George Bonser wrote:

What I think George's
comment
does not completely appreciate is that (ideally) cities are imposing
such requirements at the behest of and for the benefit of the (local)
public, whereas private constraints on local access are (by design)
motivated by profit.



I wasn't really talking about franchise agreements as those are
different and in many cases stipulate things like there can be no
monopoly, etc.

What I was talking about was what if a city simply decided to charge an
Internet provider an access fee to the city's people.  An eyeball
fee.  The city says, hey, you are making millions selling ads that
these people view and the more eyeballs you have the more money you
make, so we are going to charge you for those eyeballs.  Which is
basically what Comcast is doing ... charging content networks for access
to eyeballs.  What if they themselves got charged for the same thing.
Would they think that is fair?  And what if the city had its own
community high speed internet that paid no such charge?


  
  
They do already.  It's called HBO, Showtime, HDNet Sports, etc.  - they 
get charged per eyeball for those networks, and so they pass the charge 
on per eyeball to the customer.


Nothing is new here.

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

[Dave Temkin]

George Bonser wrote:

They do already.  It's called HBO, Showtime, HDNet Sports, etc.  -


they
  

get charged per eyeball for those networks, and so they pass the


charge
  

on per eyeball to the customer.

Nothing is new here.



The municipality charges the cable company per HBO subscriber?


  
The municipality gets a cut of that in a profit sharing agreement.  The 
point was, everyone gets their tax or toll along the way.


-Dave

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

[Dave Temkin]

Jeff Wheeler wrote:


1) Comcast believes they can exact a great deal of revenue from
content networks.  For this to be comparable to their captive
customers, per-megabit rates must be reminiscent of pre-Level3 days,
when $30/Mb was a bargain.  This would spell bad news for Netflix.  Of
course, since cable companies typically must pay network affiliates
and media companies great sums for television programming packages, it
is in direct opposition to the TV content/delivery model.  It would be
hard to argue both sides if both businesses were faced with
like-minded regulators.
  



I disagree.  Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's 
still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before.  Given 
that that traffic was actually *costing* them money to absorb before, 
turning the balance and making that kind of money would be very 
favorably looked upon in a unit where a customers margin for 6+ months 
can be eaten up in 1 service call.



-Dave

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

[Dave Temkin]

Jeff Wheeler wrote:

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:
  

I disagree.  Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's
still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before.  Given that
that traffic was actually *costing* them money to absorb before, turning the
balance and making that kind of money would be very favorably looked upon in



Yeah, because it makes a lot of sense to fuck with a billion dollar a
month revenue stream so you can extract a few million dollars more per
month from IP carriers.  This definitely makes more sense than, say,
running the billion dollar a month side a little more efficiently.

You need to understand the scale of comcast's expenses and revenue on
the access and transport side of their business, in order to have a
remotely intelligent opinion about whether or not they are doing
anything smart with the peering/transit side, in these conditions.
  


I do.  And yes, they are happy to fuck with a billion dollar a month 
revenue stream (that happens to be low margin) in order to set a 
precedent so that when traffic is 60Tbit instead of 6Tbit, across the 
*same* customer base they have today that's insisting on getting that 
$19.99/month promo deal for life they make up the infrastructure 
investment on the backs of the content providers and not their 
customers.   $1B/month from your customers + $1B/month from your content 
providers is what they'd ideally like to see and this is just laying the 
groundwork for it.


They have a captive audience.  What percentage of their customers who 
they're offering 10Mbit+ connections to do you think have a 10Mbit+ 
alternative?  It's not very many.



-Dave

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

[Dave Temkin]

George Bonser wrote:
  

-Original Message-
From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:22 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:


I do.  And yes, they are happy to fuck with a billion dollar a month
revenue stream (that happens to be low margin) in order to set a
  

precedent


so that when traffic is 60Tbit instead of 6Tbit, across the *same*
  

customer




Turn the question around.  What would any provider think if a city said sure, you can have 
access to our residents' eyeballs.  It will cost you $5 per subscriber per month.  Would 
Comcast or anyone go for that?  That is a real question, by the way.  For all I know some 
municipality might already do that.  But say one with something between 100,000 and 1,000,000 
potential subscribers did that.  Would any of the providers think that is fair?  
Particularly *after* the provider is already providing services to those subscribers and then has 
the rules changed on them after they already have contracts in place with the subscribers?

It just seems to me to be an evil Pandora's box that once opened, there is no 
potential end to.  What if several cities ganged up and together decided to 
charge a last mile provider access to eyeballs?

Better in my opinion to let the end user pay for what they use.  It doesn't have to be 
strictly metered per meg but can be put into tiers (as most providers already do anyway). 
 Sort of like smart meters they are doing with electricity.  People will 
modify their usage according to what they can afford.  Pricing bandwidth according to 
basic principles of supply and demand would probably work better.  Those that use more 
would pay more, those that use less would pay less.



  
These are exactly what Franchise Agreements are for.  Yes, cities charge 
MSOs and LECs for access all the time.


-Dave

Re: Ciscos, BGP, L2TPV3 pseudowires and loopback IPs

[Dave Temkin]

David Freedman wrote:

e.
  

We will need to set up a L2TPV3 tunnel to their old location (single
homed, no BGP on that side).  Upon initial reading of Cisco docs to do
this, we will need a routable IP on a loopback interface for starters.



I'm pretty sure this is just a recommendation based on good practise
(routeability to endpoints), I'm sure since you are not multihomed you
can just use ip local interface WAN1 and be done with it, I seem to
remember doing something similar in an l2tpv3 pw class and it working.



  

Using one from the /24 LAN is out unless we subnet it, which we don't
want to do.

So the question is, can I just move the PTP IP address x.x.129.174
from the WAN interface to the loopback like this?

 interface Loopback0
  ip address x.x.129.174 255.255.255.252  (that's the mask we're using on
the WAN- Cisco's loopback examples show .255)

 interface WAN1 (actually a gigether)
  ip unnumbered loopback0  (or no ip addr?)

 neighbor x.x.128.173 update-source Loopback0



No, if you were to do this you should get a new transfer network, you
can't have the same address on two interfaces (and in fact, you should
really be stealing an address from your internal /24 which doesn't
require any re-subnetting (if you are happy for this address to be
unreachable) and it should have a /32 mask...

  

That's not correct.

From a VZ IP circuit that I have:

interface Loopback0
ip address x.x.x.x 255.255.255.255  (actual assigned mask is 
255.255.255.252)


interface Serial0/0/0
bandwidth 1536
ip unnumbered Loopback0

ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 Serial0/0/0



Works great for me across ~50 sites.


-Dave

Re: [Nanog-futures] FW: NANOG Transition - How we got here

[Dave Temkin]

Bill,

In the interest of clarifying a simple misunderstanding, there was no 
lunch involved.  Kumar came to me at 3:00PM outside the plenary (inside 
the meeting space), pointed at you and said that you told him to come 
talk to me.

I've kept silent on the public lists about this, and would appreciate 
you doing the same.  If you'd like a public debate about how I feel 
about your recent behavior we can open that can of worms, but not on 
this list as it's not futures.

-Dave

 From: William Norton bill.nor...@gmail.com 
 mailto:bill.nor...@gmail.com
 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:59:06 -0700
 To: Paul WALL pauldotw...@gmail.com mailto:pauldotw...@gmail.com
 Cc: nanog-futures Futures nanog-futures@nanog.org 
 mailto:nanog-futures@nanog.org
 Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] NANOG Transition - How we got here

 On Jun 30, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Paul WALL wrote:

 Bill,

 This is all very interesting, inasmuch as you invited salespeople to
 crash NANOG49 (unpaid) for the purposes of pitching the sponsor.

 Wow - the story gets propagated and more exaggerated by the minute. 
 Thank you Mr. Temkin, (Marketing, NANOG). 

 Here is what actually happened.

 I had lunch with the CEO of MediaMelon - he said he wanted to meet Ken 
 Florance (NetFlix), a friend who I have lunch with periodically.  I 
 mentioned that he would be at NANOG. The gentleman works in San 
 Francisco and stopped by the hotel at lunchtime, unfortunately on 
 Tuesday and  I hadn't seen Ken but I did see his subordinate  (Dave 
 Temkin) - I made the suggestion that maybe he could maybe grab lunch 
 with Dave instead.

 Next thing I know, I was scolded by Mr Temkin to the SC, the NANOG 
 Marketing group, and apparently through the rumor mill as evidenced by 
 your inaccurate portrayal of what actually happened.  Here is the 
 scolding:

  I find it extremely inappropriate that you brought MediaMelon in  
  specifically to hunt for myself and Ken Florance at this meeting.   
  We are the meeting sponsor and we expect that vendors be respectful  
  of the commitments that we have to the community.
 
  Further, if MediaMelon would like to sell their wares to NANOG  
  attendees such as Netflix, they should purchase either a meeting  
  pass,  or, more appropriately, pay to sponsor like everyone else.   
  How could it possibly be fair for you to sneak Kumar from  
  MediaMelon in, but Network Hardware Resale, Citrix, and many others  
  need to pay $5,000 and up to get a moment of my time?  If Kumar  
  wants to contact me outside of NANOG where I'm not cornered, he  
  certainly has many ways to do so.  It's clear that the meeting was  
  engineered.
 
  I suggest that you discuss this with Kumar and encourage him to  
  donate or sponsor NANOG or NewNOG.  I could understand that he may  
  be unfamiliar with how this community works, but frankly I expected  
  better from you.
 
  -David Temkin
  (Marketing Working Group)

 I replied to clarify what appeared to be a simple misunderstanding.

 *From:* William Norton [bill.nor...@gmail.com 
 mailto:bill.nor...@gmail.com]
 *Received:* 6/15/10 6:33 PM
 *To:* David Temkin [dtem...@netflix.com mailto:dtem...@netflix.com]
 *CC:* steer...@nanog.org 
 mailto:steer...@nanog.org [steer...@nanog.org 
 mailto:steer...@nanog.org]; nanog-marketing 
 [nanog-market...@nanog.org mailto:nanog-market...@nanog.org]
 *Subject:* Re: Inappropriate vendor meeting

 Please. Give me small break.

 I did not sneak this gentleman in. He wanted to meet ken Florance. Not  
 being here I suggested he talk to you.

 Geesh.

 Bill

 Which resulted in continued attack cc'ing the SC/Marketing folks:

 Bill,

 That's ridiculous, and I'll let the fact that you don't deny any of it 
 speak for itself.

 I wish I could give you more credit, but after the commercialized 
 federated cdn bof, taping the last peering bof, and now this, it 
 shows that you have no respect for NANOG.

 This overreaction seems strikingly similar to the Avi NANOG issue of a 
 few years back - one of the things that led up to the NANOG revolution 
 in the first place. Avi was chewed out by the Merit NANOG Chair for 
 sitting in the NANOG hotel public area and chatting with some friends 
 - not attending sessions, not eating the food, not really crashing 
 IMHO. Just enjoying visiting with friends for a bit. This guy came to 
 see if he could grab a quick lunch with Ken - he didn't  know what Ken 
 looked like.

 We seem to be becoming what we rebelled against, like Animal Farm.


 While I think you owe us all an explanation on how you allowed that to
 happen, the past doesn't matter, so would you be able to comment on

 My role as a NANOG attendee does not include policing the door.

 what you're doing to make things right?  Which organization, Merit or
 NewNog, should expect a $600 donation from DrPeering?

 To make things right I am making this silly event transparent.

 Bill


 Drive Slow,
 Paul Wall

 On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:57 PM, William Norton 
 bill.nor

Re: [Nanog-futures] FW: NANOG Transition - How we got here

[Dave Temkin]

William Norton wrote:
 With respect - We may have to disagree on the facts as usual - my cell phone 
 log shows he called me from the hotel lobby at 12:05 - right around noon.  
 You were no doubt busy and perhaps mis-remembered the time.
   

Perfectly happy to agree (to disagree).  If you'd like to discuss 
further, you have my contact information.

-Dave



___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[Dave Temkin]

Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:

Joe Greco wrote:

  

It's not the initial assignment fee that's really an impediment, it's
moving from a model where the address space is free (or nearly so) to
a model where you're paying a significant annual fee for the space.

We'd be doing IPv6 here if not for the annual fee.  As it stands, there
isn't that much reason to do IPv6, and a significant disincentive in the
form of the fees.

... JG




I have to agree ... why such high charges when a similar service like
GoDaddy provides (domain name registrar) is $15 a year?

Is it REALLY X times the level of difficulty of registering a domain
name, and thus the charges are justified?  I will let someone who is
very technical explain this to me.

Cordially

Patrick

  
There are 117,351,239 domain names registered.  If I had to guess, there 
are less than 1% of that total number in IP assignments (not 
allocations), but I don't have the patience to go compile those 
statistics.  GoDaddy exists based on volume, which we don't have the 
same scale with IP assignments.


-Dave

Re: 10GBase-t switch

[Dave Temkin]

Kevin Oberman wrote:

Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:26:16 +0900
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com



arista 7120t-4s...
  

hot box.  but you are giving away the secret sauce!



Hot box for the datacenter, but small buffers make it unsuited for
long distances. In the right place, this box can't be beaten in the
price/performance realm.

  

Can you point to another 1U box that has more than 16MB per-port buffer?

-Dave

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

[Dave Temkin]

Wade Peacock wrote:
We had a discussion today about IPv6 today. During our open thinking 
the topic of client equipment came up.
We all commented that we have not seen any consumer grade IPv6 enable 
internet gateways (routers/firewalls), a kin to the ever popular 
Linksys 54G series, DLinks , SMCs or Netgears.


Does anyone have any leads to information about such products (In 
production or planned production)?


We are thinking that most vendors are going to wait until Ma and Pa 
home user are screaming for them.


Thoughts?


You're correct, out of the box there aren't many.  The first couple that 
come to mind are the Apple Airport Express and Airport Extreme, but I 
don't believe Linksys/Netgear/etc. have support out of the box.

Re: What DNS Is Not

[Dave Temkin]

Alex Balashov wrote:

Thought-provoking article by Paul Vixie:

http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1647302


I doubt Henry Ford would appreciate the Mustang.

-Dave

Re: What DNS Is Not

[Dave Temkin]

Alex Balashov wrote:




For example, perhaps in the case of CDNs geographic optimisation 
should be in the province of routing (e.g. anycast) and not DNS?


-- Alex

In most cases it already is.  He completely fails to address the concept 
of Anycast DNS and assumes people are using statically mapped resolvers.


He also assumes that DNS is some great expense and that by not allowing 
tons of caching we're taking money out of peoples' wallets.  This is 
just not true with the exception of very few companies whose job it is 
to answer DNS requests.


-Dave

Re: Peering in Latin America

[Dave Temkin]

Ken Gilmour wrote:

Hi There,

I am looking for carriers who offer peering in Latin America
(Specifically Costa Rica). So far the only carrier in Costa Rica who I
have been able to find that does this is ADN (American Data Networks,
www.data.cr). While they are already on my list for a quote, we need
at least one other diverse connection, so I would appreciate if anyone
else would be able to help me find other carriers who operate here?
Here's who i've contacted so far:

RACSA - Can't get past 1st level support (they don't know what BGP is)
ICE - Tried contacting a person who's address I was previously given
from NANOG to no avail
Global Crossing - Said they contacted an engineer who would get back
to me, mailed them 4 times since to no avail (no bounced emails
either).
Level 3 - Apparently don't operate in Latin America
ATT - Want us to have a minimum of 3 locations in the US to peer with first

So far ADN are the only carrier who have actually been of any help.
Quick Googling for BGP Peering Latin America and BGP Peering Costa
Rica and several variations thereof is not yielding any fruitful
results.

Thanks and regards,

Ken

  
To be clear; are you looking for paid transit connectivity within Costa 
Rica for the purposes of localizing traffic or are you looking for free 
or reduced cost connectivity to very specific SP's in Costa Rica?


-Dave

Re: Advice about Qwest, Cogent, and Equinix facilities

[Dave Temkin]

Completely agreed; in many situations even if one of those carrier 
locked data centers allow another carrier in, they may severely limit 
the portfolio of services that are allowed to be offered by them.


For example, one of the vendors listed below only allows lit 
crossconnects from 3rd party carriers and only from a demarc that they 
specify, generally not within the same data center that you're housed.  
It means that any type of circuit that you drop into there is 
effectively type 2.  It's ugly.


-Dave

William Herrin wrote:

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Jeffrey Negro jne...@billtrust.com wrote:
  

My company is planning on implementing a new strategy for our web
application deployment. [...] I would welcome any advice or
experiences other nanog members may have with regards to these
providers, as well as any suggestions about other providers that may fit
the bill.



Two words: carrier neutral.

With a carrier neutral facility like Equinix you'll have a greater
wealth of data services available to you from a wide range of carriers
at on-net prices. And alternatives available when one of those
services doesn't pan out quite what the salesman claimed.

With a particular carrier's facility such as Verizon, Qwest, Level3 or
Cogent, you're more limited. Other carriers occasionally vend some
services there but the variety is generally very limited and they tend
to be much more expensive than the incumbent.

And God help you when you want to leave... The DNC moved out of the
Verizon Business data center in Ashburn VA in 2006 and tried to buy a
Verizon Business line at another data center in order to keep the IP
addresses. Verizon Business refused to move the IP address blocks to a
VB line outside of the data center. With a carrier neutral facility,
the carriers have no vested interest in keeping you in that particular
data center.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




  

Re: ISP customer assignments

[Dave Temkin]

Nathan Ward wrote:

On 16/10/2009, at 1:17 PM, Chris Adams wrote:


Is there any good solution to this?  I don't expect us to fill the /32
to justify expanding it (although I do see ARIN appears to have left
space for up to a /29; I guess that's their sparse allocation policy?).


Your justification is that you have two sites without a guaranteed 
link between them.


This is a bit annoying though, yeah. But, I'm not sure I can think of 
a good solution that doesn't involve us changing the routing system so 
that we can handle a huge amount of intentional de-aggregates or 
something.


--
Nathan Ward

Actually, as of right now that's not justification.  The Multiple 
Discrete Networks policy that's up for a vote in Dearborn will allow for 
this, but right now there's no IPv6 equivalent of that policy.


-Dave

Re: Is v6 as important as v4? Of course not [was: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering]

[Dave Temkin]

Randy Bush wrote:
As for accusations, I challenge you to show where I accused them of  
anything.



  

From: patr...@ianai.net (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 12:09:58 -0400
Subject: IPv6 internet broken, cogent/telia/hurricane not peering
In-Reply-To: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com
References: a05493650910120441i27550f17qaa7d3377824af...@mail.gmail.com
Message-ID: 0a37fd5d-d9d1-4d89-ac8a-105612bb8...@ianai.net

...

It is sad to see that networks which used to care about connectivity,  
peering, latency, etc., when they are small change their mind when  
they are big.  The most recent example is Cogent, an open peer who  
decided to turn down peers when they reached transit free status.



  

I never thought HE would be one of those networks.



  
The only thing Patrick is guilty of is not providing enough context. 

The party at fault here is Cogent.  If you re-read the entire thread and 
speak with Mike Leber, you'll find that HE offered peering and/or 
transit, for free, to Cogent - like they do to everyone else, and Cogent 
didn't take it, providing for the segmentation we saw.


-Dave

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

[Dave Temkin]

Marco Hogewoning wrote:
Cogent:  You are absolutely insane.  You are doing nothing but 
alienating your customers and doing a disservice to IPv6 and the 
internet as a whole.


You are publishing  records for www.cogentco.com, which means 
that I CANNOT reach it to even look at your looking glass.  I send my 
prefixes to 4436, 22822, and 6939 and you are not peering with any of 
them.  Why not peer, for FREE, with 6939?  What could you possibly 
gain from NOT doing this?  HE is NOT going to buy transit from you 
(nor am I).  Please fix your policy.



May I suggest to vote with your feet and take your business somewhere 
else. They obviously are not interested in you, your traffic or your 
money.


MarcoH

Already done.  All they are doing is continuing to provide fodder for 
engineers to tell their bosses why to NOT consider 174 transit when it's 
brought up.


-Dave

Re: Dutch ISPs to collaborate and take responsibility

[Dave Temkin]

Alexander Harrowell wrote:

On Wednesday 07 October 2009 00:27:55 Joe Greco wrote:

  

Assuming that the existence of an infected PC in the mix translates to
some sort of inability to make a 911 call correctly is, however, simply
irresponsible, and at some point, is probably asking for trouble.

... JG



Also, someone mentioned that the FCC doesn't in fact mandate that PSTN 
terminals should be able to make emergency calls even if formally disconnected 
and asked about cellular.


The opposite is true about GSM and its descendants; whether or not you're a 
valid roamer for the network you're talking to, have a prepaid balance, have 
paid your bill, you must be able to make emergency calls. Similarly, even if 
no SIM card is present, the device should register with the network as 
limited service - i.e. emergency only.


  
The FCC generally doesn't come into play when you're talking about ILEC 
telephone service except at a very high level.  In California, by PUC 
regulation telephone companies are required to allow access to 911 so 
long as there is copper in the facility and it was, at any time, active 
with any sort of phone service.


Ref: http://ucan.org/telenforcers/files/SBC%20complaint%20PUC%20version.pdf
Ref2: http://law.onecle.com/california/utilities/2883.html

I believe this is also the case in numerous other states.

Re: OnLive -- Very disruptive internet technology to change things as we know it?

[Dave Temkin]

Ravi Pina wrote:

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:39:25AM -0400, Rodrick Brown wrote:
  

Not sure if anyone has followed the recent announcement of OnLive and
their new gaming service which will basically allow them to stream
video game gameplay output realtime to any commodity PC over a
broadband network.

Currnet ISP pricing models are not not how many backbone providers
today can handle thousands of users simultaneously watch continuous
streaming video at 5Mb/s ?
If this thing takes off it seem tiered pricing for internet usage
might not be as far off as one may think?

OnLive is launching the world?s highest performance Games On Demand
service, instantly delivering the latest high-end titles over home
broadband Internet to the TV and entry-level PCs and Macs.

More overview here:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/24/onlive-killed-the-game-console-star/
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/03/24/onlive-the-end-of-seperate-games-platforms/

--
[ Rodrick R. Brown ]
http://www.rodrickbrown.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/rodrickbrown



This is very similar to Roiku/TiVo/Apple TV et al just that they say they
can do HD with ~5Mb/s circuit.  Has tiered pricing become a hotter topic
with those products?

I'm not taking any position -- just asking out loud.

-r




  
That's a great question.  Another question I asked, specific to the 
OnLive product is related to *how* they plan on distributing this 
traffic.  If you take the Netflix or Apple or Blockbuster models they 
don't necessarily apply to OnLive, being as their content is static and 
easily cacheable at the edge, whereas I'm imagining OnLive's content is 
far more dynamic and nearly impossible to cache, especially if they're 
shipping a lightweight device that won't be doing graphics processing 
(or storage) locally.


-Dave

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Dave Temkin]

Chuck Anderson wrote:

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:
  

Mark Andrews schrieb:


I don't see any reason to complain based on those numbers.
It's just a extremely high growth period due to technology
change over bring in new functionality.
  

OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity in the
world. Most of them try to be good citizens and do not waste a scarce
resource (IPv4 space).



I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a waste.  Every device 
deserves to have real internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.


  
Why must it be always real versus NAT?  99% of users don't care one 
way or another.  Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a switch 
between NAT and real IP if the user needs or wants it?

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

[Dave Temkin]

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:

Chuck Anderson wrote:

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote:


Mark Andrews schrieb:


I don't see any reason to complain based on those numbers.
It's just a extremely high growth period due to technology
change over bring in new functionality.

OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider of smartphone connectivity 
in the
world. Most of them try to be good citizens and do not waste a 
scarce

resource (IPv4 space).



I disagree that using global IPv4 space is a waste.  Every device 
deserves to have real internet connectivity and not this NAT crap.


Why must it be always real versus NAT?  99% of users don't care one 
way or another.  Would it be so hard for the carrier to provide a 
switch between NAT and real IP if the user needs or wants it?


Lots of providers do.  Sometimes the choice between static  dynamic 
is bundled with the choice between NAT  real on some broadband 
providers.


I've also seen hotels do it, and even charge extra for it.  (Yes, I 
paid. ;)


Exactly.  I've seen this as well in both instances but haven't seen it 
on mobile phones.  It's something so obscure that you're going to have 
to really want it to turn it on.  I don't think the Port 25 example 
holds much water here.


-Dave

Re: Packet Loss between Qwest and Global Crossing

[Dave Temkin]

This has been a recurring problem, especially in the Bay Area - and it 
seems as though neither side really cares all that much.


-Dave

Andris Kalnozols wrote:

This post to the NANOG list in the hope that an interested
engineer from either Qwest or GBLX will act on the problem
I have observed.

I've identified a packet loss problem (10-15%) between Qwest
and Global Crossing.



Thanks to whomever has fixed the problem.  Packet loss is now
zero and latency time is very much improved.

--
Andris

  

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

[Dave Temkin]

   The problem with that solution mainly being that the application itself
   still needs some sort of intelligence as well as the border device
   potentially doing L7 operations (header insertion/etc.) - unless you're
   OK with generally losing all information about the source of incoming
   traffic at the backend (except for looking at NAT tables...)
   -Dave
   Skeeve Stevens wrote:

With new dual-stack border devices people will be able to move bit by bit, and t
here is no real reason to have to run around and change everything that you have
 internally.  These will change and update over time.  These internal applicatio
ns aren't running on public IP addresses anyway.

...Skeeve

-Original Message-
From: Zaid Ali [[1]mailto:z...@zaidali.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 February 2009 5:19 AM
To: Roger Marquis
Cc: [2]na...@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

I don't consider IPv6 a popularity contest. It's about the motivation and the wi
llingness to. Technical issues can be resolved if you and people around you are
motivated to do so. I think there are some hard facts that need to be addressed
when it comes to IPv6. Facts like

1. How do we migrate to a IPv6 stack on all servers and I am talking about the
   thousands of servers that exist on peoples network that run SaaS,
Financial/Banking systems.

2. How do we make old applications speak IPv6? There are some old back-end syste
ms
   that run core functions for many businesses out there that don't really have
any
   upgrade path and I don't think people are thinking about this.

From a network perspective IPv6 adoption is just about doing it and executing w
ith your fellow AS neighbors. The elephant in the room is the applications that
ride on your network.

Zaid

- Original Message -
From: Roger Marquis [3]marq...@roble.com
To: [4]na...@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 3, 2009 9:39:33 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one
trillion IP addresses.

Are you sure?  According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy
is that all requests are approved since there are no defined criteria
that would allow them to deny any.  So far, nobody's shown interest in
plugging that hole in the policy because it'd be a major step forward if
IPv6 were popular enough for anyone to bother wasting it...

Catch 22?  From my experience IPv6 is unlikely to become popular until it
fully supports NAT.

Much as network providers love the thought of owning all of your address
space, and ARIN of billing for it, and RFCs like 4864 of providing
rhetorical but technically flawed arguments against it, the lack of NAT
only pushes adoption of IPv6 further into the future.

Roger Marquis

References

   1. mailto:z...@zaidali.com
   2. mailto:nanog@nanog.org
   3. mailto:marq...@roble.com
   4. mailto:nanog@nanog.org