Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

On 05/12/2023 20:08, Christopher Morrow wrote: is the test framework documented where others could setup/run the test(s)? :) (perhaps for mr hare I mean, or me! :) ) https://github.com/isc-projects/perflab https://www.isc.org/docs/bellis-oarc-perflab.pdf Are the tests for authoritative

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 10:17 AM Ray Bellis wrote: > > > > On 05/12/2023 12:29, Michael Hare via NANOG wrote: > > > At quick glance following the ISC link I didn’t see the compute > > infrastructure [core count] needed to get 1Mpps. There is an obvious > > difference between 99% load of ~500rps

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

On 05/12/2023 12:29, Michael Hare via NANOG wrote: At quick glance following the ISC link I didn’t see the compute infrastructure [core count] needed to get 1Mpps.  There is an obvious difference between 99% load of ~500rps and 1M, so we can maybe advise to not undersize ADNS if that's an

RE: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

comment about DNSSEC that I hadn't considered. -Michael From: Damian Menscher Sent: Monday, December 4, 2023 12:21 PM To: Michael Hare Cc: John R. Levine ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server? Google Public DNS (8.8.8.8) attempts to identify and filter

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

o networks and normally it works fine until some nitwit does a query flood, probably looking up every domain in every message they see, or maybe an inept listwasher, and the two little perl scripts just can't keep up. What I would like is if large public DNS systems like yours refused to look u

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

from the ISC BIND load-tests. With a better understanding of the pain-points, we may be able to improve our filtering a bit, though I suspect we're nearing the limits of what is attainable. Since it was mentioned up-thread, I'd caution against dropping queries from likely-legitimate recursives

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

Just set TC=1 for those clients. If you get queries over TCP then they where not spoofed. If they are using DNS COOKIE (RFC 7873) you can send back BADCOOKIE to the initial (client cookie only) UDP request with your server cookie. Identifying real DNS clients has been possible for years

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

> On 4 Dec 2023, at 08:21, Michael Hare via NANOG wrote: > > John- > > This is little consolation, but at AS3128, I see the same thing to our > downstream at times, claiming to come from both 13335 and 15169 often > simultaneously at the tune of 25Kpps , "assuming it's not spoofed", which

RE: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

as close to the end host as possible, which at least keeps things mostly working during times of conformance. Cheap/fast and working ... most of the time. Definitely not great or complete at all, and a role I'd rather not play as an educational ISP/enterprise. So what are most folks doing

RE: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

ng on ingress paired with light touch policing as close to the end host as possible, which at least keeps things mostly working during times of conformance. Cheap/fast and working ... most of the time. Definitely not great or complete at all, and a role I'd rather not play as an educational ISP/

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

Google. I don't think they're 8.8.8.8. Any idea what they are? Random Google Cloud customers? A secret DNS mapping project? 172.253.1.133 172.253.206.36 172.253.1.130 172.253.206.37 172.253.13.196 172.253.255.36 172.253.13.197 172.253.1.131 172.253.255.35 172.253.255.37 172.253.1.132

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

> Every once in a while someone decides to look up every domain in the > world and DoS'es it until I update my packet filters. This week it's > been this set of IPs that belong to Google. I don't think they're > 8.8.8.8. Any idea what they are? Random Google Cloud customers?

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

They are probably spoofed IPs. So those are the target IP IPs of a DDoS What king of amplification factor does your DNS server have? I bet with the changes you’ve made, it’s super high. People are looking for DNS servers like that. On the contrary, the reponse packets are tiny. $ host

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

omcast.net.contacts.abuse.net host information "lookup" "comcast.net" > > Every once in a while someone decides to look up every domain in the > world and DoS'es it until I update my packet filters. This week it's > been this set of IPs that belong to Google. I don't th

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

They are probably spoofed IPs. So those are the target IP IPs of a DDoS What king of amplification factor does your DNS server have? I bet with the changes you’ve made, it’s super high. People are looking for DNS servers like that. Tom > On Dec 3, 2023, at 10:49 AM, John Levine wr

Re: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

Message - From: "John Levine" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2023 12:48:11 PM Subject: What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server? At contacts.abuse.net, I have a little stunt DNS server that provides domain contact info, e.g.: $ h

What are these Google IPs hammering on my DNS server?

e.net host information "lookup" "comcast.net" Every once in a while someone decides to look up every domain in the world and DoS'es it until I update my packet filters. This week it's been this set of IPs that belong to Google. I don't think they're 8.8.8.8. Any idea what they are?

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

The implication would look at the terminal characteristics and enable as required. -- Mark Andrews > On 23 Sep 2023, at 08:33, Michael Thomas wrote: > >  >> On 9/22/23 1:54 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: >> Telnet sessions where often initiated from half duplex terminals. Pushing >> that flow

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

On 9/22/23 1:54 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: Telnet sessions where often initiated from half duplex terminals. Pushing that flow control across the network helped those users. I'm still confused. Did it require the telnet users to actually take action? Like they'd manually need to enter the GA

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

Telnet sessions where often initiated from half duplex terminals. Pushing that flow control across the network helped those users. -- Mark Andrews > On 23 Sep 2023, at 06:25, Michael Thomas wrote: > >  >> On 9/22/23 9:42 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: >>> On 9/21/23 17:04, Michael Thomas wrote:

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

On 9/22/23 9:42 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote: On 9/21/23 17:04, Michael Thomas wrote: When I wrote my first implementation of telnet ages ago, i was both amused and annoyed about the go-ahead option. Obviously patterned after audio meat-space protocols, but I was never convinced it wasn't a

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

On 9/21/23 17:04, Michael Thomas wrote: When I wrote my first implementation of telnet ages ago, i was both amused and annoyed about the go-ahead option. Obviously patterned after audio meat-space protocols, but I was never convinced it wasn't a solution in search of a problem. I wonder if

RE: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing? Dear nanog-ers: I go back many, many years as to baseline numbers for managing voip networks, including things like CISCO LLQ, diffserv, fqm prioritizing vlans, and running voip networks entirely separately... I worked on codecs

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

been unable to find much research (as yet) as to why my number exists. Over here I am taking a poll as to what number is most correct (10ms, 30ms, 100ms, 200ms),https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7110029608753713152/but I am even more interested in finding cites to support variou

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

On 9/21/23 3:31 PM, William Herrin wrote: On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:28 AM Tom Beecher wrote: My understanding has always been that 30ms was set based on human perceptibility. 30ms was the average point at which the average person could start to detect artifacts in the audio. Hi Tom,

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 3:34 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:28 AM Tom Beecher wrote: > > My understanding has always been that 30ms was set based on human > perceptibility. 30ms was the average point at which the average person > could start to detect artifacts in the

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

entirely separately... I worked on codecs, such as oslec, >>> and early sip stacks, but that was over 20 years ago. >>> >>> The thing is, I have been unable to find much research (as yet) as to >>> why my number exists. Over here I am taking a poll as to what number is &g

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 6:28 AM Tom Beecher wrote: > My understanding has always been that 30ms was set based on human > perceptibility. 30ms was the average point at which the average person could > start to detect artifacts in the audio. Hi Tom, Jitter doesn't necessarily cause artifacts in

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

tirely separately... I worked on codecs, such as oslec, >> and early sip stacks, but that was over 20 years ago. >> >> The thing is, I have been unable to find much research (as yet) as to why >> my number exists. Over here I am taking a poll as to what number is most >

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

ve been unable to find much research (as yet) as to why > my number exists. Over here I am taking a poll as to what number is most > correct (10ms, 30ms, 100ms, 200ms), > > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7110029608753713152/ > > but I am even more interested in

RE: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

> > Looks like codecs still are rapidly evolving in walled gardens. I just learned > about 'Satin'. > Yeah There are also some opensourced like lyra from google with v2 released last year. https://opensource.googleblog.com/2022/09/lyra-v2-a-better-faster-and-more-versatile-speech-codec.html

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

On Wed, 20 Sept 2023 at 19:06, Chris Boyd wrote: > We run Teams Telephony in $DAYJOB, and it does use SILK. > > https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/platform/bots/calls-and-meetings/real-time-media-concepts Looks like codecs still are rapidly evolving in walled gardens. I just

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

> On Sep 20, 2023, at 2:46 AM, Saku Ytti wrote: > > skype uses Silk > (maybe teams too?). We run Teams Telephony in $DAYJOB, and it does use SILK. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoftteams/platform/bots/calls-and-meetings/real-time-media-concepts

RE: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

ng: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043=cs_theses In particular, this table shows the correlation, and is consistent with what I would expect. [cid:image001.png@01D9EBA9.A25944E0] Lee From: NANOG On Behalf Of Dave Taht Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:12 PM To: NANOG Sub

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

ffort to try to achieve low jitter. > The thing is, I have been unable to find much research (as yet) as to why my > number exists. Over here I am taking a poll as to what number is most correct > (10ms, 30ms, 100ms, 200ms), I know there are academic papers as well as vendor graphs showing

Re: what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 5:11 PM Dave Taht wrote: > The thing is, I have been unable to find much research (as yet) as to why > my number exists. Over here I am taking a poll as to what number is > most correct (10ms, 30ms, 100ms, 200ms), Hi Dave, I don't know your use case but bea

what is acceptible jitter for voip and videoconferencing?

. The thing is, I have been unable to find much research (as yet) as to why my number exists. Over here I am taking a poll as to what number is most correct (10ms, 30ms, 100ms, 200ms), https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:7110029608753713152/ but I am even more interested

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

On 9/14/23 6:34 AM, Dave Taht wrote: This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published this past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over crimea based on the knowledge it was going to be

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

On 9/14/23 9:26 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: *nods* likely plenty of similar examples by less polarizing people. Then lets hear them? It certainly seems like an  operational issue if this starts to become common. How is it dealt with if at all beyond diversity which is hard to come by with LEO

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

ursday, September 14, 2023 10:15:04 AM Subject: Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine? perhaps this is not a nanog operational topic

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

perhaps this is not a nanog operational topic

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

Mr. Isaacson's tweet (or X , or whatever the hell it is now ) is essentially saying Russia invading Ukraine was *not* a major war, but Ukraine attacking back to defend itself would be. Exceptionally dumb comment. I also find it exceptionally rich that Musk uses their 'Terms of Service' as a

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published this past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over crimea based on the knowledge it was going to be used for a surprise attack. Starlink -

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions with > Iridium or another satellite Internet system. Don't forget GLONASS.  On Thu Sep 14, 2023, 03:10 AM GMT, William Herrin wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: >>

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

I have a feeling he’s fired far too much of his legal and compliance team to realise --srs From: NANOG on behalf of Michael Thomas Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:17:17 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections? Hi Michael, Internet providers aren't common carriers. If they were, it'd be unlawful to stop your customers from sending email spam that was merely offensive rather than illegal.

Re: OT So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

On 9/13/23 8:47 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any random narcissist billionaire https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDC3LYfHRGg Basically this? -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice http://bryanfields.net

So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections? I sure don't want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any random narcissist billionaire. Mike

Re: What is going on with BGP

Le Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 02:42:47AM +0100, Ignas Bagdonas a écrit : > A brief overview of developments happening in the IETF working groups > related to BGP evolution. The view is current as of mid-2023, in the > timeframe between IETF meetings 116 and 117, and looking back several years > to cover

What is going on with BGP

to different interpretations of what an unordered set of ASNs in fact means. Therefore aggregation resulting in generation of ASN sets (AS_SET and AS_CONFED_SET segments in AS path attribute) is deprecated and should not be used. Receipt of an update carrying such segments should be treated as a withdraw

Re: Rogers Outage: What do we Know After Two Months?

er. On Mon, 12 Sept 2022 at 07:42, Sean Donelan <<mailto:s...@donelan.com>s...@donelan.com> wrote: Article by Internet Society's Resident Advisor Jim Cowie. Rogers Outage: What do we Know After Two Months? <https://pulse.internetsociety.org/blog/rogers-outage-what-do

Re: Rogers Outage: What do we Know After Two Months?

> > > Rogers Outage: What do we Know After Two Months? > > > https://pulse.internetsociety.org/blog/rogers-outage-what-do-we-know-after-two-months > > September 9, 2022 > > It’s now been a full two months since Rogers Telecom suffered a nationwide > Internet outage,

Rogers Outage: What do we Know After Two Months?

Article by Internet Society's Resident Advisor Jim Cowie. Rogers Outage: What do we Know After Two Months? https://pulse.internetsociety.org/blog/rogers-outage-what-do-we-know-after-two-months September 9, 2022 It’s now been a full two months since Rogers Telecom suffered a nationwide

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

Sunday, June 26, 2022 00:34 > *To:* Mike Hammett > *Cc:* nanog@nanog.org > *Subject:* Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G? > > > > Mike Hammett wrote on 6/24/2022 1:22 PM: > > > It's DirecTV that became part of AT, but now they're separated again. > > D

RE: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

. From: NANOG On Behalf Of blakan...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2022 00:34 To: Mike Hammett Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G? Mike Hammett wrote on 6/24/2022 1:22 PM: It's DirecTV that became part of AT, but now they're separated again. Dish Network

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

swisp><https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> *From: *"Owen DeLong via NANOG" *To: *"Michael Thomas" *Cc: *nanog@nanog.org *Sent: *Friday, June 24, 2022 3:14:33 PM *Subject: *R

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

gt; > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> > <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp> > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > -- > *From: *"Owen DeLong via NANOG&quo

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

Message - From: "Owen DeLong via NANOG" To: "Michael Thomas" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, June 24, 2022 3:14:33 PM Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G? On Jun 24, 2022, at 13:12 , Michael Thomas < m...@mtcc.com > wrote: On 6/2

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

"5G" among technical circles started vague, became better defined >>>> over the course of several years, and is becoming vague again. This nuance >>>> was never well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like >>>> CNN. This is

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

his nuance was never well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like CNN. This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G. But is what Starlink saying true or not? It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants. Mike It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technic

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:38 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > Frankly, I really don’t think that Dish’s idea of providing 5G mobile service > from satellites is a particularly good or beneficial one and granting them > 12Ghz spectrum for this purpose is probably not really in the public

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

> On Jun 24, 2022, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > It’s not entirely clear, without knowing the technical details of the > Starlink modulation scheme whether or not they could successfully share the > 12Ghz spectrum. > > I have no reason to disbelieve their claims. Exactly.

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

ance >> was never well understood in the public eye, nor by mass publications like >> CNN. This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G. > > But is what Starlink saying true or not? > > It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants. > > Mike It’s not entir

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

s a battle for 12GHz, not 5G. But is what Starlink saying true or not? It would be a pity to not have an alternative to incumbent telephants. Mike

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 9:09 AM Chris Wright wrote: > This is a battle for 12GHz, not 5G. It's a battle to use 12Ghz for 5G cell phone tech instead of the satellite tech it was allocated for. You could drop the 5G from that sentence and still be correct but nobody has proposed using 4G or

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

le latencies some. https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix-articles/1330193-spacex-starlink-internet-experience-performance/page5 > > Chris > > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On > Behalf Of John Levine > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:45 PM

RE: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

--Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of John Levine Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2022 9:45 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G? It appears that Eric Kuhnke said: >Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs >that st

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

I use Comcast Business for my primary at home, but it is so bad that I was forced to get Starlink as backup. I am not in a city, but close enough that there would be issues. ><> nathan stratton On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 9:47 PM John Levine wrote: > It appears that Eric Kuhnke said: > >Adding a

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

It appears that Eric Kuhnke said: >Adding a terrestrial transmitter source mounted on towers and with CPEs >that stomps on the same frequencies as the last 20 years of existing two >way VSAT terminals throughout the US seems like a bad idea. Even if you >ignore the existence of Starlink, there's

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

cex-dish-fcc-spectrum-scn/index.html > > The article is super light on technical detail but I think what > they're saying is: > > The 12ghz spectrum has been allocated to satellite services which have > very low power signals at the receiver. Both SpaceX and Dish have > bands within 12g

Re: What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 3:12 PM Michael Thomas wrote: > https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/tech/spacex-dish-fcc-spectrum-scn/index.html The article is super light on technical detail but I think what they're saying is: The 12ghz spectrum has been allocated to satellite services which have very

What say you, nanog re: Starlink vs 5G?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/23/tech/spacex-dish-fcc-spectrum-scn/index.html Mike

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

particular EPCs can be. I don't think we are understating the sensitives of the EPC... what we are likely understating is Amazon's ability to actually operate one. And I can see why... Mark.

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 7:38:12 AM Subject: Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile? On 1/28/22 15:22, Josh Baird wrote: > I think Netflix's usage of AWS is being understated here. My understanding is that the user profiles and li

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Josh Baird" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "Michael Thomas" , "nanog group" Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 7:22:50 AM Subject: Re: Wha

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/28/22 15:22, Josh Baird wrote: I think Netflix's usage of AWS is being understated here. My understanding is that the user profiles and library listings are held with AWS, but that the actual video is on their OCA's. I could be wrong... Mark.

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/28/22 13:28, Mike Hammett wrote: There's a big difference between a website (admittedly a complex one) and a mobile core. Word is it hasn't been smooth-sailing, but Amazon are pushing on. Failing and improving is in their DNA, so I'm sure everyday, they are one step closer to the

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

isp> > <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg> > -- > *From: *"Michael Thomas" > *To: *nanog@nanog.org > *Sent: *Thursday, January 27, 2022 3:54:57 PM > *Subject: *Re: What do you think about the "cloudificat

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

y, January 27, 2022 3:54:57 PM Subject: Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile? On 1/26/22 11:11 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 1/26/22 17:10, Tom Beecher wrote: > >> >> Those folks also tend to learn hard lessons about what happens when

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

It appears that Michael Thomas said: >Didn't Netflix for the longest time run on AWS? They still do. Their web site and the non-realtime stuff is at AWS, the streaming they do themselves. R's, John

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

In Andreessen Horowitz's words: “you’re crazy if you don’t start in the cloud; you’re crazy if you stay on it" On 1/27/22 15:54, Michael Thomas wrote: On 1/26/22 11:11 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: On 1/26/22 17:10, Tom Beecher wrote: Those folks also tend to learn hard lessons about

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/26/22 11:11 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: On 1/26/22 17:10, Tom Beecher wrote: Those folks also tend to learn hard lessons about what happens when the Magic Cloud provider fails in a way that isn't possible to anticipate because it's all black box. Saving 12 months of opex $ sounds great

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/27/22 14:43, Mike Hammett wrote: Cloud-hosted infrastructure just doesn't work reliably. Too many points of failure along the way. If that were true, the "Internet" (what users define as the Internet) would be down more often than not. For the price, I think there is

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

rk Tinka wrote: > > > > Saving 12 months of opex $ sounds great, except when you lose 18 > > > months of opex $ in 2 days completely outside of your ability to > control. > > > > I don't disagree. > > > > What this does, though, is democr

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

m Beecher" Cc: "North American Network Operators' Group" Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 1:11:56 AM Subject: Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile? On 1/26/22 17:10, Tom Beecher wrote: > > Those folks also tend to learn hard lessons about

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 09:44, Mark Tinka wrote: > What I do agree with is that the loss of control of operating your > network yourself does present a risk. But that is a personal position, Yes. Few comparisons are obviously and exclusively better or worse. It is attractive to think o

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

, so that is not even a discussion. What I do agree with is that the loss of control of operating your network yourself does present a risk. But that is a personal position, and has no bearing on the ultimate sensibility of offloading your infrastructure to a cloud that is likely to run

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 09:16, Mark Tinka wrote: > > Saving 12 months of opex $ sounds great, except when you lose 18 > > months of opex $ in 2 days completely outside of your ability to control. > > I don't disagree. > > What this does, though, is democratize

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/26/22 23:04, Christopher Morrow wrote: It seems like some of the situation is:   "5g/mobile builds include a bunch more 'general machine' resources which offload a bunch of the work from what was dedicated appliances/etc." Followed quickly by:   "Well, we don't have th

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/26/22 21:38, Michael Thomas wrote: I think for the vast majority of cloud users they'd do a way worse job at uptime than the providers. Indeed... I mean, we've seen it with the migration of on-premise infrastructure into the cloud, en masse, for a number of "corporate" services.

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/26/22 17:10, Tom Beecher wrote: Those folks also tend to learn hard lessons about what happens when the Magic Cloud provider fails in a way that isn't possible to anticipate because it's all black box. Saving 12 months of opex $ sounds great, except when you lose 18 months of opex

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

builds include a bunch more 'general machine' resources which offload a bunch of the work from what was dedicated appliances/etc." Followed quickly by: "Well, we don't have the resources/etc to design/build/run/maintain that sort of thing in the field" In a bunch of mobile

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/26/22 7:10 AM, Tom Beecher wrote: For some folk, the risk of money cost outweighs the risk of loss of direct operational control. Those folks also tend to learn hard lessons about what happens when the Magic Cloud provider fails in a way that isn't possible to anticipate

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

Tom Beecher wrote: > >  >> For some folk, the risk of money cost outweighs the risk of loss of >> direct operational control. > > Those folks also tend to learn hard lessons about what happens when the Magic > Cloud provider fails in a way that isn't possible to antici

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

> > For some folk, the risk of money cost outweighs the risk of loss of > direct operational control. > Those folks also tend to learn hard lessons about what happens when the Magic Cloud provider fails in a way that isn't possible to anticipate because it's all black box. Savi

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/26/22 16:41, Randy Bush wrote: s/de-risk/re-risk/ it's just a different risk I should have finished that sentence with "de-risk their infrastructure spend", because the actual risk is in having to spend money upfront to build the network. For some folk, the risk of money cost

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

> If you stay away from getting stuck in the word "cloud", there is lots > of value for folk that choose to de-risk their infrastructure, s/de-risk/re-risk/ it's just a different risk randy

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/26/22 15:29, Mike Hammett wrote: Like most other things cloud, the value is going to be much harder to find than the hype. If you stay away from getting stuck in the word "cloud", there is lots of value for folk that choose to de-risk their infrastructure, by letting someone else run

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

.org Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 1:52:20 PM Subject: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile? There was an article in the Economist (sorry if it's paywalled) about Dish entering the mobile market using an AWS backend. I don't think that AWS brings much more than

Re: What do you think about the "cloudification" of mobile?

On 1/25/22 16:11, Josh Luthman wrote: Mark, Use the 12 foot ladder to get over the 10 foot paywall: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fbusiness%2Fwill-the-cloud-business-eat-the-5g-telecoms-industry%2F21806999 Hehe, thanks :-). So yeah, it sort of mirrors my

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >