BCP38 on public-facing Ubuntu servers

Not every uplink service implements BCP38. When putting up servers connected more-or-less directly to the Internet through these uplinks, it would be nice if the servers themselves were able to implement ingress and egress filtering according to BCP38. (Sorry about the typo in the subject

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I'd love to see connection 'Nutrition Facts' type labeling. Include: Typical downstream bandwidth, typical upstream bandwidth, median latency and packet loss rates (both measured from CPE in advertised ZIP code to the top 10 websites), data cap info, and bottom line price including all

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Incorporated areas of any kind offer enough density for independents to build fiber themselves. There are hundreds of companies doing this, in both small town USA and suburban areas of major cities. If {insert major developed area here} doesn't have it yet, ask them what they're doing to

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:48 PM Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:10:17 -, scott said: > > $10400 / $125 = 84 months or 7 years. > > > On the high side: 14 years. > > Plus ongoing monthly costs that drags out the break-even. > > The big question is how to get a CFO to buy into

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Tue, 01 Jun 2021 10:10:17 -, scott said: > $10400 / $125 = 84 months or 7 years. > On the high side: 14 years. Plus ongoing monthly costs that drags out the break-even. The big question is how to get a CFO to buy into stuff with a long break-even schedule when short-term profits get

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Mike Hammett wrote: For something "future-proof" you have to run fiber. Rural fiber would cost $5 - $10/ft. That's $26k - $52k per mile. Most rural roads around here have 2 - 3 houses per mile. I'm sure the more rural you go, the less you have. That's one hell of an

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On just the installation. You'd also need to factor in all of the other monthly costs in supporting that customer, including the cost of funds. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message -

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 9:56 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: For something "future-proof" you have to run fiber. Rural fiber would cost $5 - $10/ft. That's $26k - $52k per mile. Most rural roads around here have 2 - 3 houses per mile. I'm sure the more rural you go, the less you have. That's one hell of an install

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I think there was a discussion on NANOG sometime earlier this year about how negligent it was of operators to oversubscribe the way they do. Now the sentiment in this thread is to push peak speeds above all else because no one uses it anyway, so let's get this microbursting out of the way.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

For something "future-proof" you have to run fiber. Rural fiber would cost $5 - $10/ft. That's $26k - $52k per mile. Most rural roads around here have 2 - 3 houses per mile. I'm sure the more rural you go, the less you have. That's one hell of an install cost per home passed. Failing that,

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

My family farms. I can see some of the cattle out of my office window. That's not really a thing. You might be able to find a couple of magazine articles with it, but farmers don't do that, even when capacity is available. Not because they can't, but because they don't find any value in it.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

What did they cry about? The speedtest.net result? Loading google.com in a fraction of a second? or was it that you didn't have 75 ms of garbage in the way? That you didn't go through a congested port between the PC and the destination? That you were hard wired instead of single-chain

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I’ve had people cry about how fast the internet is at my office… I guess your mileage may vary, but yes humans do notice those kinds of delays and they are cumulative. (It’s not just bandwidth, it’s latency. The 3ms ping in my signature is real too.) -LB Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

While I agree with you Mark that any practical technology should be used first to extend global communications in the first place, My goal of fiber water and power to every human remains. SMF28 has shown to be the only physical safe bet over half a century now, and I feel like we owe our

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

It can be done, sure. Most consider it wasteful. Spending money on something you don't have any way of experiencing an improvement. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Lady

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Exactly <3 I’m not building today’s network… why would you build todays’ network? It’s obsolete in 24 hours. I’m building a network to out-last me… Are other people not doing this? The speed test in my signature is a residential connection, it’s real. I can do 7gigs to a laptop now. It’s

View NANOG 82 Agenda + Your Voice Heard + Expo

 View NANOG 82 Agenda Check out our new and improved digital-friendly agenda. Click to see date and time of programming. Click on any talk title in the agenda to view the full abstract and speaker info! SEE AGENDA ️️ VOICE HEARD: Join NANOG

[NANOG-announce] View NANOG 82 Agenda + Your Voice Heard + Expo

 View NANOG 82 Agenda Check out our new and improved digital-friendly agenda. Click to see date and time of programming. Click on any talk title in the agenda to view the full abstract and speaker info! SEE AGENDA ️️ VOICE HEARD: Join NANOG

Re: BGP38 egress filter on Ubuntu Server

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 22:58, Chriztoffer Hansen wrote: > https://team-cymru.com/community-services/bogon-reference/bogon-reference-http/ I have found that pfSense uses this feed to filter traffic if 'Block bogon networks' is enabled on the WAN interface(s). I.e. the pfSense bogons + bogonsv6

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Same here. It is so annoying. ME: How are you testing the speed? Them: I am running the speedtest via my Apple Mac SE via an Ethernet AUI controller and i'm only getting 500kbps! The joys of running an ISP and dealing with the public -Mike On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 1:45 PM wrote: > Yes,

Re: BGP38 egress filter on Ubuntu Server

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 22:43, Stephen Satchell wrote: > Before I re-invent the wheel, has anyone come up with blackhole route > specifications for netplan in Ubuntu servers? Such a capability would > perform the egress blocking for an edge server.

BGP38 egress filter on Ubuntu Server

Before I re-invent the wheel, has anyone come up with blackhole route specifications for netplan in Ubuntu servers? Such a capability would perform the egress blocking for an edge server. The table of blackhole routes I would set up: IPv4 Address block Scope Description

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Yes, my customers “cry” about the speedtest.net result…. All day… From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:50 PM To: Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe Cc: NANOG Operators' Group Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections What did they cry

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

If 2 people use it at the same time, do they call in with a trouble ticket that they didn’t get their contracted bandwidth? From: Mike Hammett Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 11:45 AM To: aar...@gvtc.com Cc: Mark Tinka ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: New minimum speed for US broadband

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

> On Jun 1, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > Show me an average end-user that can tell the difference between a 10 meg > upload and a 1 gig upload, aside from media-heavy professionals or the > one-time full backup of a phone, PC, etc. Okay, show me two of them, ten of > them... >

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Mike, I know you have a lot of experience in this. I have built several networks and owned ISPs, too. How is it really all that more expensive to offer higher Internet speeds? The cost of the Internet bits per subscriber ceased being a major consideration in most budgets about 10 years ago.

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

This short term mindset is part of the problem. I’ve seen projects around me using CAF funds that push DSLAMs further into the network to get users up to 100mbps, but they are already at their ceiling as soon as they are installed. I admire providers who invest beyond the short term into

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes the maintenance of the infrastructure required to deliver those speeds exceeds what you'd get, IE: no return. What's wrong with right-sizing the infrastructure? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Jun 1, 2021, at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > "Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?" > > In rural settings, it's low density, so you're spending a bunch of money with > a low probability of getting any return. Also, a low probability that the > customer cares. Of

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Looking at a neighborhood with a handful of gigabit customers, the max OUT is 31.11 mbps for the month. By comparison, the max IN is 202.97 mbps. That includes nightly backups to a remote site, which obviously skews the OUT to include non-customers traffic but it strengthens my point using more

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

It can be done, sure. Most consider it wasteful. Spending money on something you don't have any way of experiencing an improvement. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Lady

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

What did they cry about? The speedtest.net result? Loading google.com in a fraction of a second? or was it that you didn't have 75 ms of garbage in the way? That you didn't go through a congested port between the PC and the destination? That you were hard wired instead of single-chain

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 11:33 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: 99% of the end-users I know can't tell the difference in any amount of speed above 5 megs. It then just either works or doesn't work. And that might be the crux: 'just make it work'.

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

"Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?" In rural settings, it's low density, so you're spending a bunch of money with a low probability of getting any return. Also, a low probability that the customer cares. " There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

So, I couldn't find a good email to reply to to add my 0.02... this seems as good as any. My general problem with each increase of the broadband standard in the US is that typically this is used as an excuse to start the whole 'subsidize companies to build out broadband' process over. Each

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 12:44 PM Mike Hammett wrote: > That is true, but if no one uses it, is it really gone? > > > There's an underlying, I think, assumption that people won't use access speed/bandwidth that keeps coming up. I don't think this is an accurate assumption. I don't think it's

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

That is true, but if no one uses it, is it really gone? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: aar...@gvtc.com To: "Mark Tinka" , nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

2.4 gbps down, 1.2 up. So yes, you could -Original Message- From: aar...@gvtc.com Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 12:18pm To: "'Mark Tinka'" , nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections Yeah I thought gpon was 2.4 ghz down and 1.2 ghz up... so you could

RE: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Yeah I thought gpon was 2.4 ghz down and 1.2 ghz up... so you could only honestly sell (1) 1 gbps symm service via that gpon interface correct? (without oversubscription) I think ng-pon(2), xgs-pon and other variants allow for much more. -Aaron

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Does not need to be – just a suggestion based on the thinking that these locales may have more dense populations and thus perhaps higher FTTH penetration for a longer period of time. But the data from any network will certainly have some interest. From: Josh Luthman Date: Tuesday, June 1,

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Why does it have to be non-US? Josh Luthman 24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:20 AM Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote: > > I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage was > more

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

On 6/1/21 16:26, Colton Conor wrote: What replacement options are you looking at for the ASR920? I'm not at liberty to say yet as it's for kit that's still in alpha testing, but what I can say is it's from Juniper. Mark.

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

Mark, What replacement options are you looking at for the ASR920? On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 7:52 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 6/1/21 14:37, Fabrizio Fiore Donati wrote: > > > you are right :) > > > > cisco ASR920 is a very good platform here > > We have started hitting its limits on IPv6 TCAM,

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 15:49, Don Fanning wrote: One thing to consider in regards to "developing" places - most people in Africa and India get their internet from SmartPhones/Mobile devices. Reason being: power, mobility, and that in many places, the phone company in many locations acts as a "western

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 7:57 AM Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 5/31/21 11:32, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > > Of course there are developing countries where the goal is any > > internet at all. I hope that is not the case for US broadband. > > I have often been surprised about the quality of the

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 15:28, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote: I have seen a lot of questions about what is needed for video/eLearning/telehealth. IMO the beauty of those apps is that they use adaptive bitrate protocols and can work in a wide range of last mile environments – even quite acceptably via

DANE of SMTP Survey

Hi, DANE for SMTP is not deployed on large scale. Together with researchers from Seoul National University, Virginia Tech and the University of Twente, we would like to understand which challenges operators face when deploying DANE for SMTP. Also, we would like to understand how operators

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

I have seen a lot of questions about what is needed for video/eLearning/telehealth. IMO the beauty of those apps is that they use adaptive bitrate protocols and can work in a wide range of last mile environments – even quite acceptably via mobile network while you are in transit. In my

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 15:20, Livingood, Jason via NANOG wrote: I'm not sure ratio is the right thing to focus upon - especially as asymmetry has grown the last few years due to the rising using of streaming video services and greater availability of 4K-resolution content. Ratio seems like more a

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

> I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage was more > asymmetric. The last 5 yrs. have definitely changed the profile of a typical > home user. A 4M upload pipe, will hit bottlenecks with all the collaboration > that is happening remotely. I'm not sure ratio is the

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

On 6/1/21 14:37, Fabrizio Fiore Donati wrote: you are right :) cisco ASR920 is a very good platform here We have started hitting its limits on IPv6 TCAM, though. And this is without a full feed for either IPv4 or IPv6. We are having to look for a replacement, even though it's

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

you are right :) cisco ASR920 is a very good platform here *--Fabrizio Fiore Donati* Mobile: +39 3289872420 Ufficio: +39 0862028702 E-mail: fabrizio.fioredon...@2bite.net 2bite s.r.l. Via Saragat snc 67100 L'Aquila (AQ) - Italy Tel.: +39 0862441583 - http://www.air2bite.net PIVA e CF

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

Looks like a great box, but we can't use Huawei in the USA. On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:42 AM Fabrizio Fiore Donati < fabrizio.fioredon...@2bite.net> wrote: > You can try also huawei ne8000-M1A they are full MPLS/MEF and have also a > 16x10GE version. > > > > Il giorno mar 1 giu 2021 alle ore 06:34

RE: QUIC, Connection IDs and NAT

Hey Rob, quick question for you. Are you able to see the connection ID when you are forwarding the frames and doing NAT? I thought this is encrypted. Can you confirm? Thanks Jean -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Jean St-Laurent via NANOG Sent: June 1, 2021 6:51 AM To:

Re: MPLS/MEF Switches and NIDs

You can try also huawei ne8000-M1A they are full MPLS/MEF and have also a 16x10GE version. Il giorno mar 1 giu 2021 alle ore 06:34 Mark Tinka ha scritto: > > > On 5/31/21 19:44, Adam Thompson wrote: > > But for 4x10G the MX104 is a very nice box - if you can afford it. > > > If you don't need

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On 6/1/21 12:44, Shawn L wrote: From the ISP side, I can tell you that when a customer signs up for service and you offer them a couple of choices of wireless routers, they almost always pick the cheapest one. If you give them a reasonable / good router when you hook-up their service,

RE: QUIC, Connection IDs and NAT

The first thing that comes to mind is to check the NAT timers. By default, TCP is 86400 seconds or 24h. Udp is usually shorter at around 300 seconds or 5 minutes. This is not a standard, but it seems to be broadly accepted in the industry. I am not sure, if UDP/443 should be left at 300 or

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

From the ISP side, I can tell you that when a customer signs up for service and you offer them a couple of choices of wireless routers, they almost always pick the cheapest one. If you give them a reasonable / good router when you hook-up their service, some will still put their old 15-year

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 2:27 AM Mike Hammett wrote: > No one's paying me anything except 15 years of practical experience > building last mile networks for myself and my clients. I'd imagine that > while a larger percentage than most venues, a minority of the people on > this list build last mile