Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On 14-05-15 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote: As primarily an eyeball network with a token (8000 quoted) number of transit customers it does not seem reasonable for them to expect balanced ratios on peering links. Pardon my ignorance here, but isn't there a massive difference between settlement-free peering between large transit providers at the core which happens with balanced traffic, and some free peering at local exchanges at the edge where there is no expectation of balanced traffic, just an oppportunity to exchange traffic without using transit capacity. (isn't that how CDN nodes in a exchange works ? Lets ISPs connect to it and bypass transit links to save money ? Seems to me like the word peering shouldn't have been used to denote relationships at the core between the big guys if it is also used at the edge for a fairly different purpose.
Re: FTTH ONTs and routers
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 07:11:20 PM Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: Can anyone confirm whether ONTs generally have routing (aka: home router that does the PPPoE or DHCP and then NAT for home) capabilities? I know of a well-known vendor coming out with a new OLT that supports both typical GPON access, as well as Active-E access, and with IP routing capabilities. It hasn't yet hit the shelves, but for anyone with an ounce of interest in FTTH, you will hear about it soon. So yes, in the past it has been hit miss, but I think there are some vendors who are now seriously pushing a box that is multi-lingual, i.e., supports GPON, Active-E, IP and MPLS. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: FTTH ONTs and routers
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 07:24:33 PM Aled Morris wrote: I notice Cisco's new ME4600 ONT's come in two flavors, one (the Residential GateWay) with all the bells and whistles that you'd expect in an all-in-one home router (voice ports, small ethernet switch, wifi access point) and another (the Single Family Unit) that looks a lot more basic and is likely to be deployed as a bridge. Ah, so looks like it's been announced now - that is the breed I was referring to; the ME4600 OLT. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 09:05:57 PM Joe Greco wrote: Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what the next big thing next year will be but I promise that I won't host it on my network and cause our traffic to become lopsided. You mean like almost every other mobile carrier the world over, and their data-capped services? Want to guess how many mobile carrier executives converge around a table on a daily basis to discuss how to stem growth in demand for traffic by their customers? Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
What you're missing is that the transit provider is selling full routes. The access network is selling paid peering, which is a tiny fraction of the routes. Considering they charge on a $per/mb basis I don't think its just routes they are selling. It looks a lot like they are selling bits. From the perspective of a content provider it looks like they swivel chair most those bits to access networks for delivery. That tiny fraction of routes on the access networks make up most delivered content. In total network size the access networks are larger although less spread out globally. Being globally connected is useful but it doesn't make a legitimate case for having exclusive rights to charge for content being delivered in North America. If you are planning to serve large scale data over oceanic fiber it's a strong selling point but that's not the case here. If instead of $per/mb traffic delivery you want to get into arbitrary justifications access networks have more directly assigned IP addresses than transit networks. I'm not making the case that a middle man should never be used, I'm making the case that they shouldn't be used where there isn't a requirement for one. Bypassing the middleman is generally better for everyone but the middle man. So, at the end of the week, I *had* been paying $10/mb to send traffic through transit to reach the whole rest of the internet. Now, I'm paying $5+$4+$4+$5+$2, or $30, and I don't have a full set of routes, so I've still got to keep paying the transit provider as well at $10. If this is the math you are using to justify your stance it's probably worth reconsidering. You ignore that each of those if sent through transit would have been $10 so the cost of $5, $4, and $2/Mb represent a savings of $5, $6,and $8. Why would you add them? Sure there are factors you have to evaluate like putting yourself under a minimum commit with $transit or if the amount of traffic is worth peering over but you would generally have to make those evaluations for peering anyway. The real difference is the volume of traffic needed before a $2/mb savings is worth peering directly for is higher than if the savings were the full $10 but that doesn't mean its never worth it. There is a difference between saying I did the math and transit remains the cheaper option and saying Paid peering would save us both money and improve performance at the same time but we refuse to do it anyway on principal. The concept of fair gets brought up a lot when talking about the ability of a startup to come in to compete against bigger players in the content space but really what do you think the impact is if the largest established content providers peer freely and smaller newcomers only have paid options available for traffic? Some other things I also want to get to: On Vi's analogy vs Amazon prime One major different I think people overlook is overusing Amazon prime would mean buying too many things from Amazon. Even when you purchase through companies selling through Amazon they get a cut of the sale and some of that I assume gets applied to covering any additional shipping costs not covered by Prime. If Internet traffic used the same model would ISP's receive a portion of proceeds for ad revenue on places like Youtube or a percentage of Netflix subscription fees? I'm not making the case that thats the model that should be used I'm only pointing out that analogies are best to break things down into simple terms for people but have diminishing returns in usefulness when getting into details. The other problem with Vi's analogy is the shipping company delivers to the driveway of the customer where a more real life scenario would be something closer to Amazon having a distribution center in that city, and both Comcast and FedEx are already both sitting idle in the parking lot. Amazon pays FedEx to give the package to Comcast in the next parking space, who then drives it to the customers house. Comcast says to Netflix, since I am the one driving this from the parking lot to the customers house, why not just pay me instead of paying FedEx more money to just put it on my truck? Amazon says, but FedEx will deliver the package to France if I tell them to. Comcast says, but you don't even serve france out of this distribution center, and I am not asking to be charged for all packages, only the ones I deliver instead of FedEx. Amazon says, you are right, we have technology to give your packages directly to you and stuff going to France to Fedex, and it would be best for both of us to do it, but unless you'll deliver my packages for free I'm going to keep paying FedEx to just keep loading them on your truck. Comcast says have at it, there are 5 trucks for FedEx to load freely now but if you need more you have to compromise with us on a deal that works better for both of us. Amazon says, when we are done with you in the media we won't need to compromise. Government regulation of interconnects I agree with
Re: [nanog] GoDaddy
Thanks, Eddie. Yes, I also have been experiencing intermittency this week. But yesterday/today things went worse: I simply can not reach neither some sites hosted there, neither GD's admin area. Neither their call centre... :-( Takashi Tome network dummy 2014-05-16 0:00 GMT-03:00 Eddie Aquino ed...@aquino.se: What issues are you experiencing? I have a site that has been intermittently reachable since Monday. I don't have many details as I just took over but I'm almost certain it's GoDaddy hosted. It is not a secure site. However, sometimes https works. Eddie Network Engineer On May 15, 2014 7:44 PM, takashi tome takashi.t...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all. Does anyone know whether GoDaddy is alive/down? thanks Takashi
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
On 5/15/14, 12:49 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote: I have two issues with the comments: 2. You mention that all packets treated equally - no games. Why does AS7922 assign the speed test different DSCP from regular internet connection? I have no idea what you are talking about. Our Internet traffic, including to speedtest web sites, is all best effort class data. Do you have more specific information? Jason
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
On , Livingood, Jason wrote: On 5/15/14, 12:49 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote: I have two issues with the comments: 2. You mention that all packets treated equally - no games. Why does AS7922 assign the speed test different DSCP from regular internet connection? I have no idea what you are talking about. Our Internet traffic, including to speedtest web sites, is all best effort class data. Do you have more specific information? Jason I think he's questioning why packets from speedtest.comcast.net have CS1 if everything is supposedly equal, and what that is used for. A quick Wireshark shows that to be true right now running to your Plainfield, NJ speedtest site, and my network peers directly with Comcast. I'm kind of curious too. What is the purpose of this? Is it the traditional purpose of CS1 to be less than best effort or something else? If this is the case it seems Comcast would be purposely putting themselves at a disadvantage in speed tests when congestion is involved... or is this possibly on purpose to make peering problems look even worse during congestion? -Vinny
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
All the talk about ratios is a red herring… The real issue boils down to this: 1. The access (eyeball) networks don’t want to bear the cost of delivering what they promised to their customers. 2. This is because when they built their business models, they didn’t expect their customers to use nearly as much of their promised bandwidth as they are now using. Most of the models were constructed around the idea that a customer receiving, say 27mbps down/7mbps up would use all of that bandwidth in short bursts and mostly use less than a megabit. 3. New services have been developed (streaming video, et al.) which have created an increasing demand from customers for more of the bandwidth they were sold. 4. Instead of raising the prices to the access network customers or accepting that the lavish profits that they eyeball networks had been pocketing were no more, the access networks are trying to slough off the costs of delivering that higher fraction of what they sold onto someone else. 5. The content providers looked like an easy target with the advantage that: A. Some of them appear to have deep pockets. B. They are the competition for many of the access network’s other lines of business, so increasing their costs helps make them less competitive. C. Consumers are emotional about price increases. Content providers look at it as a business problem and perform a mathematical analysis. If their customer satisfaction impact costs more than paying the extortion from the access networks, they’ll pay it. In reality, if the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS wanted to satisfy their customers, they’d be aggressively seeking to peer with content providers in as many locations as possible. They might (reasonably) require content providers to build out to additional locations to keep their long-haul costs down (It’s reasonable, IMHO, for a content provider not to want to carry multiple gigabits of traffic from a content provider clear across the country for free. If $CONTENT_PROVIDER wants to access California customers of $ACCESS_PROVIDER, then it’s reasonable for $ACCESS_PROVIDER to insist that $CONTENT_PROVIDER peer in California for delivering those bits.) Neither side of this issue has completely clean hands. Both have been trying to take as much of the money on the table for themselves with limited regard for serving the consumer. The Access Networks have done a far worse job of serving the consumer than the content providers and that’s a big part of what is driving the current backlash. As a general rule, access customers don’t select the provider they love the most, they select the one they think sucks the least. I think the recent FCC NPRM is a bit optimistic in that it expects the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS to act in good faith. If they do, it will likely turn out to be a limited victory for the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS. However, I don’t expect the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS to live within that limited victory. Assuming the NRPM becomes rule and then withstands the likely legal challenges, I expect they will, as usual, play in the gray areas of the ruling as much as they think they legally can and push the edges as far as possible to try and extort every dollar they can from $CONTENT_PROVIDERS with this so-called fast-lane (which we all know is just preferential peering and/or QoS[1] tuning). I suspect they will likely push this far enough that over the next several years, things will get progressively worse until the FCC finally decides that they have to move from section 706 to Title II. OTOH, if I’m wrong and the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS suddenly start behaving like civilized companies, develop a sudden concern for their customers’ experiences, and start unimaginably acting in good faith, the proposed rule wouldn’t be so bad for $CONTENT_PROVIDERS, $CONSUMERS, or $ACCESS_PROVIDERS. Of course, you can already see the $ACCESS_PROVIDERS laying the groundwork to try and mount a legal challenge against the FCC’s authority to use rule 706. Sadly, some of this groundwork is being laid by FCC commissioners. Said commissioners clearly have no interest in representing the people’s interest and are strictly there as mouth-pieces for some of the big players in the industry. Owen [1] QoS — A deceptive name if ever there was one. QoS is not about Quality of Service, it’s about screwing over network users by choice rather than by chance when you haven’t built an adequate network.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Vinny Abello vi...@abellohome.net wrote: I think he's questioning why packets from speedtest.comcast.net have CS1 if everything is supposedly equal, and what that is used for. A quick Wireshark shows that to be true right now running to your Plainfield, NJ speedtest site, and my network peers directly with Comcast. are you measuring inside the (for this) comcast network or after your cable-modem? I recall that the cable-modem(s) often (by docsis config) impose some qos markings on the lan-side of the connection. I think they can do the same on the WAN side for traffic leaving your site to the tubes... but you probably can't measure that as easily as with wireshark on your pc. -chris (also, is there some other equipment between your wiresharker and the cable-modem? could that equipment be re-marking/marking as well?)
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality (was: Wow its been quiet here...
On May 16, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: Broadband is too expensive in the US compared to other places I have seen this repeated so many times that I assume it's true but I have never seen anything objective as to why. I can tell you if you look at population density by country the US is 182nd in the world and the average broadband speed (based on OOKLA: http://www.netindex.com/download/allcountries/) is 30th in the world. South Korea that is well known for its fast broadband speeds has a density of 505/km vs the US at 32/km. We have about 1/15 of the population density and about 1/2 the average broadband speed. Hong Kong, Singapore, Netherlands, Japan, Macau etc. all have more than 10x the population density in the US so definitely not all countries with fast broadband make for a fair comparison and there are likely fewer that do. The UK is only beating the US by 2Mbps but has a population density of 262/km. So while its a fair assessment that broadband in the US is very bias to ignore some of the other factors involved. Another mistake I see people keep making is in comparing the cost of broadband in the US in $USD to other countries around the world. The cost of broadband in Estonia is only about $30/month. OMG, I can't believe broadband is cheaper in Estonia! What people ignore is everything is cheaper in Estonia, the average household income in Estonia is $14k vs $55k here. By that measure broadband is more expensive for families there than it is in the US. This is another point people repeat without bothering to qualify. This would be like my grandfather comparing the costs of a candy bar from back when he was a kid to today but ignoring inflation. I might be willing to accept this argument if it weren’t for the fact that rural locations in the US are far more likely to have FTTH than higher density areas because the whole USF thing has inverted the priorities. I live in the largest city in the bay area, yet there is only one facilities based provider in my area that can deliver 2mbps or more and that’s over HFC. Twisted pair is abysmal and there is no fiber. The situation is not significantly better in the densest city in the bay area, either. South Korea averages 4x US Speed for an average $28.50/month. US averages 1x US Speed for an average $45.50/month. (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/31/broadband.south.korea/) Korean average annual wage: $36,757 @ 21% tax = $29,038 take-home. US Average annual wage: $55,048 @ 29.6% tax = $38,753 take-home. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_average_wage) So that says KR take-home wage = ~75% of US wage. 75% of $45.50 is $34.125 So 4x speed is still approximately $5 cheaper per month in KR than in the US. Owen
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
On 5/16/14, 7:56 AM, Vinny Abello vi...@abellohome.net wrote: I think he's questioning why packets from speedtest.comcast.net have CS1 if everything is supposedly equal, and what that is used for. A quick Wireshark shows that to be true right now running to your Plainfield, NJ speedtest site, and my network peers directly with Comcast. I'm kind of curious too. What is the purpose of this? Is it the traditional purpose of CS1 to be less than best effort or something else? If this is the case it seems Comcast would be purposely putting themselves at a disadvantage in speed tests when congestion is involved... or is this possibly on purpose to make peering problems look even worse during congestion? Ah! That makes sense now. CS1 is used internally to mark best effort Internet traffic. This has often caused confusion when folks see our markings. If folks want to send me any data off-list that you think merits further investigation, let me know (never know if something someplace is an honest config error). Jason
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Friday, May 16, 2014 03:54:33 PM Owen DeLong wrote: customers. 2. This is because when they built their business models, they didn’t expect their customers to use nearly as much of their promised bandwidth as they are now using. Most of the models were constructed around the idea that a customer receiving, say 27mbps down/7mbps up would use all of that bandwidth in short bursts and mostly use less than a megabit. And in general, models have assumed, for a long time, that customer demand patterns are largely asymmetric. While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), putting even more demand on the network, and making the gist of this thread an even bigger issue, if you discount the fact, of course, that Broadband in the U.S. currently sucks for a developed market. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic here in the US or internationally. Broadband suffers here for a number of reasons, mainly topological and population density, in comparison to places like Japan, parts (but certainly not all) of Europe, and South Korea. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Friday, May 16, 2014 03:54:33 PM Owen DeLong wrote: customers. 2. This is because when they built their business models, they didn’t expect their customers to use nearly as much of their promised bandwidth as they are now using. Most of the models were constructed around the idea that a customer receiving, say 27mbps down/7mbps up would use all of that bandwidth in short bursts and mostly use less than a megabit. And in general, models have assumed, for a long time, that customer demand patterns are largely asymmetric. While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), putting even more demand on the network, and making the gist of this thread an even bigger issue, if you discount the fact, of course, that Broadband in the U.S. currently sucks for a developed market. Mark.
Re: FTTH ONTs and routers
- Original Message - From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu On Thursday, May 15, 2014 07:24:33 PM Aled Morris wrote: I notice Cisco's new ME4600 ONT's come in two flavors, one (the Residential GateWay) with all the bells and whistles that you'd expect in an all-in-one home router (voice ports, small ethernet switch, wifi access point) and another (the Single Family Unit) that looks a lot more basic and is likely to be deployed as a bridge. Ah, so looks like it's been announced now - that is the breed I was referring to; the ME4600 OLT. Having just gone through The Usual Crap getting a new Bright House/ Road Runner deploy into bridge mode for our own router (ask at order, ask installer, find out it isn't anyway, call tech support, 45 minute hold time, says twice they set it, still isn't set, magically reboots into bridge mode 45 minutes after they give up), I'm wondering: If you deploy edge gear in this class, optical, DOCSIS or DSL, what percentage of installs want bridge mode cause they're supplying their own router, and what percentage want you to supply the full training-wheels package? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:08:33 PM Scott Helms wrote: Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic here in the US or internationally. Broadband suffers here for a number of reasons, mainly topological and population density, in comparison to places like Japan, parts (but certainly not all) of Europe, and South Korea. It might not be (now), but if symmetrical bandwidth will go in on the back of teenagers wanting to upload videos about their lives, the meer fact that the bandwidth is there means someone will find bigger and better use for it, than social media. We saw this when we deployed FTTH in Malaysia, back in '09. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: A simple proposal
- Original Message - From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com You want to stream a movie? No problem; the video player opens up a second data port back to a server next to the streaming box; its only purpose is to accept a socket, and send all bits received on it to /dev/null. Congratulations, Matt, on coming up with a proposal that was *stylistically* in keeping with the one from which you stole the idea for the title. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
- Original Message - From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), putting even more demand on the network, Oh yes; clearly, Twitter will be the end of L3. :-) Could you expand a bit, Mark on Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth? Which social media platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Mark, Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video. Social media, even with video uploading, simply doesn't generate that much traffic per session. During peak period, Real-Time Entertainment traffic is by far the most dominant traffic category, accounting for almost half of the downstream bytes on the network. As observed in past reports, Social Networking applications continue to be very well represented on the mobile network. This speaks to their popularity with subscribers as these applications typically generate far less traffic than those that stream audio and video. https://www.sandvine.com/downloads/general/global-internet-phenomena/2013/sandvine-global-internet-phenomena-report-1h-2013.pdf Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:08:33 PM Scott Helms wrote: Social media is not a big driver of symmetrical traffic here in the US or internationally. Broadband suffers here for a number of reasons, mainly topological and population density, in comparison to places like Japan, parts (but certainly not all) of Europe, and South Korea. It might not be (now), but if symmetrical bandwidth will go in on the back of teenagers wanting to upload videos about their lives, the meer fact that the bandwidth is there means someone will find bigger and better use for it, than social media. We saw this when we deployed FTTH in Malaysia, back in '09. Mark.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Jay Ashworth wrote the following on 5/16/2014 10:35 AM: - Original Message - From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), putting even more demand on the network, Oh yes; clearly, Twitter will be the end of L3. :-) Could you expand a bit, Mark on Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth? Which social media platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry? Cheers, -- jra Applications like Skype and Facetime (especially conference calls) would be one example where an application benefits from symmetric (or asymmetric in favor of higher upload speed) connectivity. Cloud office applications like storage of documents, email, and IVR telephony also benefit from symmetrical connectivity. Off-site backup software is another great example. Most residential connections are ill suited for this. I believe these applications (and derivatives) would be more popular today if the connectivity was available. --Blake
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Blake, None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is because the signaling data is shared). Document sharing is not being impinged, on my residential account right now I've uploaded about 30 documents this morning including large PDFs and Power Point presentations. Off site back up is one use that could drive traffic, but I don't believe that the limiting factor is bandwidth. We looked at getting into that business and from what we saw the limiting factor was that most residential and SOHO accounts didn't want to pay enough to cover your storage management costs. In our analysis the impact of bandwidth on the consumer side adoption was basically zero. There is no expectation that back ups run instantly. Having said all of that, even if hosted back up became wildly popular would not change the balance of power because OTT video is both larger, especially for HD streams, and used much more frequently. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: Jay Ashworth wrote the following on 5/16/2014 10:35 AM: - Original Message - From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), putting even more demand on the network, Oh yes; clearly, Twitter will be the end of L3. :-) Could you expand a bit, Mark on Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth? Which social media platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry? Cheers, -- jra Applications like Skype and Facetime (especially conference calls) would be one example where an application benefits from symmetric (or asymmetric in favor of higher upload speed) connectivity. Cloud office applications like storage of documents, email, and IVR telephony also benefit from symmetrical connectivity. Off-site backup software is another great example. Most residential connections are ill suited for this. I believe these applications (and derivatives) would be more popular today if the connectivity was available. --Blake
Re: A simple proposal
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:26:02PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote: You want to stream a movie? No problem; the video player opens up a second data port back to a server next to the streaming box; its only purpose is to accept a socket, and send all bits received on it to /dev/null. You can push the stream back to offloaded cloud now: http://devnull-as-a-service.com/ -- Brandon Ewing(nicot...@warningg.com) pgpLXCXdAUJ1U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A simple proposal
I agree symmetry alone is a bad metric and efforts to build a service, or artifically game traffic in order to create symmetry will likely have negative consequences all around. I can¹t speak for all situations, but I believe relative ³balance was designed to be one of several criteria which outlines the definition of a ³Peer² in the Internet's current two sided market. It is one criteria which helps define some measure of economic trade of network investment to carry traffic between respective customer networks and helps avoid exploitation of the trade relationship. - Kevin On 5/16/14, 12:05 PM, Brandon Ewing nicot...@warningg.com wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:26:02PM -0700, Matthew Petach wrote: You want to stream a movie? No problem; the video player opens up a second data port back to a server next to the streaming box; its only purpose is to accept a socket, and send all bits received on it to /dev/null. You can push the stream back to offloaded cloud now: http://devnull-as-a-service.com/ -- Brandon Ewing (nicot...@warningg.com)
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Certainly video is one of the most bandwidth intensive applications. I don't deny that a 1 Mbps video call is both less common and consumes less bandwidth than an 8Mbps HD stream. However, if Americans had access to symmetric connections capable of reliably making HD video calls (they don't, in my experience), we might be seeing video calls as a common occurrence and not a novelty. I think the state of usage is a reflection on the technology available. If the capability was available at an affordable price to residential consumers, we might see those consumers stream movies or send videos from their home or mobile devices via their internet connection directly to the recipient rather than through a centralized source like Disney, NetFlix, Youtube, etc. Video sharing sites (like youtube, vimeo, etc) primary reason for existence is due to the inability of the site's users to distribute content themselves. One of the hurdles to overcome in video sharing is the lack of availability in affordable internet connectivity that is capable of sending video at reasonable (greater than real time) speeds. --Blake Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 11:02 AM: Blake, None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is because the signaling data is shared). Document sharing is not being impinged, on my residential account right now I've uploaded about 30 documents this morning including large PDFs and Power Point presentations. Off site back up is one use that could drive traffic, but I don't believe that the limiting factor is bandwidth. We looked at getting into that business and from what we saw the limiting factor was that most residential and SOHO accounts didn't want to pay enough to cover your storage management costs. In our analysis the impact of bandwidth on the consumer side adoption was basically zero. There is no expectation that back ups run instantly. Having said all of that, even if hosted back up became wildly popular would not change the balance of power because OTT video is both larger, especially for HD streams, and used much more frequently. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net mailto:bl...@ispn.net wrote: Jay Ashworth wrote the following on 5/16/2014 10:35 AM: - Original Message - From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), putting even more demand on the network, Oh yes; clearly, Twitter will be the end of L3. :-) Could you expand a bit, Mark on Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth? Which social media platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry? Cheers, -- jra Applications like Skype and Facetime (especially conference calls) would be one example where an application benefits from symmetric (or asymmetric in favor of higher upload speed) connectivity. Cloud office applications like storage of documents, email, and IVR telephony also benefit from symmetrical connectivity. Off-site backup software is another great example. Most residential connections are ill suited for this. I believe these applications (and derivatives) would be more popular today if the connectivity was available. --Blake
[NANOG-announce] NANOG 61 Final Update
NANOGers: We are aware of stress regarding the Hyatt Hotel Room Block, therefore, 2 alternate NANOG Room blocks at nearby hotelshttps://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/hotelinformation have been established. We are confident, all who wish to attend NANOG 61 should find a reasonable hotel rate and room. Contact nanog-support@nanog.orgshould you have any questions or concerns regarding the hotels. The NANOG 61 agenda https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/agenda is posted, and the Evening Social informationhttps://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/socialsis also available. Registration for the Educationhttps://www.nanog.org/meetings/education/bellevue_education_classes/home class series is open. A few, sponsorship opportunitieshttps://www.nanog.org/sponsors/opportunitiesremain for NANOG 61. Send a note to market...@nanog.org to let us know if you (or your company) maybe interested and we will be sure to get right back to you. Lastly, be aware the meeting registrationhttps://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog61/registrationrate will increase on May 25, 2014. Safe travels to everyone, and we look forward to seeing many of you in Bellevue. Sincerely, Betty -- Betty Burke NANOG Executive Director 48377 Fremont Boulevard, Suite 117 Fremont, CA 94538 Tel: +1 510 492 4030 ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Blake, I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items. 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today. 2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host it themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier to entry especially given the number of NAT'ed connections. I think this is much more of a problem than available bandwidth. 3) Most consumers who want to share videos seem to be satisfied with sharing via one of the cloud services whether that be YouTube (which was created originally for that use), Vimeo, or one of the other legions of services like DropBox. 4) Finally, upstream bandwidth has increased on many/most operators. I just ran the FCC's speedtest (mLab not Ookla) and got 22 mbps on my residential cable internet service. I subscribe to one of the major MSOs for a normal residential package. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: Certainly video is one of the most bandwidth intensive applications. I don't deny that a 1 Mbps video call is both less common and consumes less bandwidth than an 8Mbps HD stream. However, if Americans had access to symmetric connections capable of reliably making HD video calls (they don't, in my experience), we might be seeing video calls as a common occurrence and not a novelty. I think the state of usage is a reflection on the technology available. If the capability was available at an affordable price to residential consumers, we might see those consumers stream movies or send videos from their home or mobile devices via their internet connection directly to the recipient rather than through a centralized source like Disney, NetFlix, Youtube, etc. Video sharing sites (like youtube, vimeo, etc) primary reason for existence is due to the inability of the site's users to distribute content themselves. One of the hurdles to overcome in video sharing is the lack of availability in affordable internet connectivity that is capable of sending video at reasonable (greater than real time) speeds. --Blake Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 11:02 AM: Blake, None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is because the signaling data is shared). Document sharing is not being impinged, on my residential account right now I've uploaded about 30 documents this morning including large PDFs and Power Point presentations. Off site back up is one use that could drive traffic, but I don't believe that the limiting factor is bandwidth. We looked at getting into that business and from what we saw the limiting factor was that most residential and SOHO accounts didn't want to pay enough to cover your storage management costs. In our analysis the impact of bandwidth on the consumer side adoption was basically zero. There is no expectation that back ups run instantly. Having said all of that, even if hosted back up became wildly popular would not change the balance of power because OTT video is both larger, especially for HD streams, and used much more frequently. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net mailto: bl...@ispn.net wrote: Jay Ashworth wrote the following on 5/16/2014 10:35 AM: - Original Message - From: Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu While that is true a lot of the time (especially for eyeball networks), it is less so now due to social media. Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth (like FTTH), putting even more demand on the network, Oh yes; clearly, Twitter will be the end of L3. :-) Could you expand a bit, Mark on Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth? Which social media platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry? Cheers, -- jra Applications like Skype and Facetime (especially conference calls) would be one example where an application benefits from symmetric (or asymmetric in favor of higher upload speed) connectivity. Cloud office applications like storage of documents, email, and IVR telephony also benefit from symmetrical connectivity. Off-site backup software is another great example.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Scott Helms wrote: Mark, Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video. Until my other half decides to upload a video. Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits that I can use in whichever direction happens to be needed at the moment? Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Thanks for the insight Scott. I appreciate the experience and point of view you're adding to this discussion (not just the responses to me). While I might be playing the devil's advocate here a bit, I think one could argue each of the points you've made below. I do feel that general usage patterns are a reflection of the technologies that have traditionally been available to consumers. New uses and applications would be available to overcome hurdles if the technologies had developed to be symmetrical. I'm not saying that the asymmetrical choice was a bad one, but it was not without consequences. If residential ISPs sell asymmetric connections for decades, how can the ISP expect that application developers would not take this into account when developing applications? I don't think my application would be very successful if it required X Mbps and half of my market did not meet this requirement. Of course content/service providers are going to tailor their services based around their market. --Blake Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 12:06 PM: Blake, I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items. 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today. 2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host it themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier to entry especially given the number of NAT'ed connections. I think this is much more of a problem than available bandwidth. 3) Most consumers who want to share videos seem to be satisfied with sharing via one of the cloud services whether that be YouTube (which was created originally for that use), Vimeo, or one of the other legions of services like DropBox. 4) Finally, upstream bandwidth has increased on many/most operators. I just ran the FCC's speedtest (mLab not Ookla) and got 22 mbps on my residential cable internet service. I subscribe to one of the major MSOs for a normal residential package. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net mailto:bl...@ispn.net wrote: Certainly video is one of the most bandwidth intensive applications. I don't deny that a 1 Mbps video call is both less common and consumes less bandwidth than an 8Mbps HD stream. However, if Americans had access to symmetric connections capable of reliably making HD video calls (they don't, in my experience), we might be seeing video calls as a common occurrence and not a novelty. I think the state of usage is a reflection on the technology available. If the capability was available at an affordable price to residential consumers, we might see those consumers stream movies or send videos from their home or mobile devices via their internet connection directly to the recipient rather than through a centralized source like Disney, NetFlix, Youtube, etc. Video sharing sites (like youtube, vimeo, etc) primary reason for existence is due to the inability of the site's users to distribute content themselves. One of the hurdles to overcome in video sharing is the lack of availability in affordable internet connectivity that is capable of sending video at reasonable (greater than real time) speeds. --Blake Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 11:02 AM: Blake, None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is because the signaling data is shared). Document sharing is not being impinged, on my residential account right now I've uploaded about 30 documents this morning including large PDFs and Power Point presentations. Off site back up is one use that could drive traffic, but I don't believe that the limiting factor is bandwidth. We looked at getting into that business and from what we saw the limiting factor was that most residential and SOHO accounts didn't want to pay enough to cover your storage management costs. In our analysis the impact of bandwidth on the consumer side adoption was basically zero. There is no expectation that back ups run instantly. Having said all of that, even if hosted back up became wildly popular would not change the balance of power because OTT video is both larger, especially for HD streams, and used much more frequently. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 tel:%28678%29%20507-5000
Re: A simple proposal
On May 16, 2014, at 9:28 AM, McElearney, Kevin kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote: will likely have negative consequences all around. Actually, pretty focusedly more negative for the middlemen trying to charge for those packets' transit of their networks. -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com Sent from Kangphone
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Michael, No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today. I have personal insight into about half a million devices and the percentage of people who bump up against their upstream rate is less than 0.2%. I have the ability to get data on another 10 million and the last time I checked their rates were similar. This kind of question has been asked of operators since long before cable companies could offer internet service. What happens if everyone in an area use their telephone (cellular or land line) at the same time? A fast busy or recorded All circuits are busy message. Over subscription is a fact of economics in virtually everything we do. By this logic restaurants should be massively over built so that there is never a waiting line, highways should always be a speed limit ride, and all of these things would cost much more money than they do today. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Mark, Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video. Until my other half decides to upload a video. Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits that I can use in whichever direction happens to be needed at the moment? Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Mark, Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video. Until my other half decides to upload a video. Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits that I can use in whichever direction happens to be needed at the moment? Mike Sure, I've got two of those; they're called T1 lines, and they work equally well in both directions, even when the other half wants to upload cat videos. Matt
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Blake, You're absolutely correct. The world adapts to the reality that we find ourselves in via normal market mechanics. The problem with proposing that connectivity for residential customers should be more symmetrical is that its expensive, which is why we as operators didn't roll it out that way to start. We also don't see consumer demand for symmetrical connections and with the decline in peer to peer file sharing we've actually seen a decrease the ratio of used upstream bandwidth (though not a decrease in absolute terms). I would like to deliver symmetrical bandwidth to all consumers just so those few customers who need it today would have lower bills but trying to justify that to our CFO without being able to point to an increase in revenue either because of more revenue per sub or more subs is a very tough task. I don't believe my situation is uncommon. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: Thanks for the insight Scott. I appreciate the experience and point of view you're adding to this discussion (not just the responses to me). While I might be playing the devil's advocate here a bit, I think one could argue each of the points you've made below. I do feel that general usage patterns are a reflection of the technologies that have traditionally been available to consumers. New uses and applications would be available to overcome hurdles if the technologies had developed to be symmetrical. I'm not saying that the asymmetrical choice was a bad one, but it was not without consequences. If residential ISPs sell asymmetric connections for decades, how can the ISP expect that application developers would not take this into account when developing applications? I don't think my application would be very successful if it required X Mbps and half of my market did not meet this requirement. Of course content/service providers are going to tailor their services based around their market. --Blake Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 12:06 PM: Blake, I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items. 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today. 2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host it themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier to entry especially given the number of NAT'ed connections. I think this is much more of a problem than available bandwidth. 3) Most consumers who want to share videos seem to be satisfied with sharing via one of the cloud services whether that be YouTube (which was created originally for that use), Vimeo, or one of the other legions of services like DropBox. 4) Finally, upstream bandwidth has increased on many/most operators. I just ran the FCC's speedtest (mLab not Ookla) and got 22 mbps on my residential cable internet service. I subscribe to one of the major MSOs for a normal residential package. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net mailto: bl...@ispn.net wrote: Certainly video is one of the most bandwidth intensive applications. I don't deny that a 1 Mbps video call is both less common and consumes less bandwidth than an 8Mbps HD stream. However, if Americans had access to symmetric connections capable of reliably making HD video calls (they don't, in my experience), we might be seeing video calls as a common occurrence and not a novelty. I think the state of usage is a reflection on the technology available. If the capability was available at an affordable price to residential consumers, we might see those consumers stream movies or send videos from their home or mobile devices via their internet connection directly to the recipient rather than through a centralized source like Disney, NetFlix, Youtube, etc. Video sharing sites (like youtube, vimeo, etc) primary reason for existence is due to the inability of the site's users to distribute content themselves. One of the hurdles to overcome in video sharing is the lack of availability in affordable internet connectivity that is capable of sending video at reasonable (greater than real time) speeds. --Blake Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 11:02 AM: Blake, None of those applications come close to causing symmetrical traffic patterns and for many/most networks the upstream connectivity has greatly improved. Anything related to voice is no more than 80 kbps per line, even if the SIP traffic isn't trunked (less if it is
Weekly Routing Table Report
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG, TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith pfsi...@gmail.com. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 17 May, 2014 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary BGP routing table entries examined: 494425 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 194026 Deaggregation factor: 2.55 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 244746 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 46876 Prefixes per ASN: 10.55 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 35819 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 16376 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:6100 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:178 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.5 Max AS path length visible: 53 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 50404) 51 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 1767 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 459 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 6631 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:4957 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 16579 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 123 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:3 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:455 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2686157316 Equivalent to 160 /8s, 27 /16s and 130 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 72.6 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 72.6 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 96.4 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 170913 APNIC Region Analysis Summary - Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 117997 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 35118 APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.36 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 120997 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:50556 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4941 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 24.49 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 1231 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:871 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.6 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 21 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:947 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 732831104 Equivalent to 43 /8s, 174 /16s and 29 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 85.6 APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-63999, 131072-133631 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:168161 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:83564 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.01 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 169653 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 79930 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:16272 ARIN
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
I'd just like to point out that a lot of people are in fact using their upstream capability, and the operators always throw a fit and try to cut off specific applications to force it back into the idle state. For example P2P things like torrents and most recently the open NTP and DNS servers. How about SMTP? Not sure about you guys but my local broadband ISP has cut me off and told me that my 'unlimited internet' is in fact limited. The reality is that those people who are not using it (99.8%?) are just being ripped off - paying for something they were told they need, thinking that it's there when they want it, then getting cut off when they actually try to use it. It's not like whining about it here will change anything, but the prices are severely distorted. Triple play packages are designed to force people to pay for stuff they don't need or want - distorting the price of a service hoping to recover it elsewhere, then if the gamble doesn't pan out, the customer loses again. The whole model is based on people buying stuff that they won't actually come to collect, so then you can sell it an infinite number of times. The people who do try to collect what was sold to them literally end up getting called names and cut off - terms like excessive bandwidth user and network abuser are used to describe paying customers. With regard to the peering disputes, it's hardly surprising that their business partners are treated with the same attitude as their customers. Besides, if you cut off the customers and peers who are causing that saturation, then the existing peering links can support an infinite number of idle subscribers. The next phase is usage-based-billing which is kind of like having to pay a fine for using it, so they can artificially push the price point lower and hopefully get some more idle customers. That will help get the demand down and keep the infrastructure nice and idle. When you're paying for every cat video maybe you realize you can live without it instead. Everyone has been trained so well, they don't even flinch anymore when they hear about over subscription, and they apologize for the people who are doing it to them. The restaurant analogy is incorrect - you can go to the restaurant next door if a place is busy, thus they have pressure to increase their capacity if they want to sell more meals. With broadband you can't go anywhere else, (for most people) there's only one restaurant, and there's a week long waiting list. If you don't like it, you're probably an abuser or excessive eater anyway. -Laszlo On May 16, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Michael, No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today. I have personal insight into about half a million devices and the percentage of people who bump up against their upstream rate is less than 0.2%. I have the ability to get data on another 10 million and the last time I checked their rates were similar. This kind of question has been asked of operators since long before cable companies could offer internet service. What happens if everyone in an area use their telephone (cellular or land line) at the same time? A fast busy or recorded All circuits are busy message. Over subscription is a fact of economics in virtually everything we do. By this logic restaurants should be massively over built so that there is never a waiting line, highways should always be a speed limit ride, and all of these things would cost much more money than they do today. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:21 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Mark, Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video. Until my other half decides to upload a video. Is it too much to ask for a bucket of bits that I can use in whichever direction happens to be needed at the moment? Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Oh, I'm not proposing symmetrical connectivity at all. I'm just supporting the argument that in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric when the overwhelming majority of what they're selling (and have been selling for over a decade) is asymmetric connectivity. Their traffic imbalance is, arguably, their own doing. How residential ISPs recoup costs (or simply increase revenue/profit) is another question entirely. I think the most insightful comment in this discussion was made by Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym), when he states that ISPs have several options to increase revenue A) Increase price of their product, B) Implement usage restrictions, or C) Charge someone else/Make someone else your customer. I think he successfully argues that option C may be the best. As we've seen, the wireless market in the US went for option B. We've yet to see where the wireline market will go. Of course, the market would ideally keep ISPs' demands for revenue/profit in check and we'd all reach a satisfactory solution. One of the arguments, one I happen to support, in this thread is that there is not a free market for internet connectivity in many parts of the US. If there was, I believe Comcast would be focusing on how to provide a balance between the best product at the lowest cost and not on how they can monetize their paying customers in order to increase profits. I appreciate honesty; When a service provider advertises X Mbps Internet speeds, I expect they can deliver on their claims (to the whole Internet, and not just the portions of it they've decided). I understand congestion, overselling, etc. But choosing which portions of the internet work well and which don't is a lot more like censorship than service. --Blake Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 12:39 PM: Blake, You're absolutely correct. The world adapts to the reality that we find ourselves in via normal market mechanics. The problem with proposing that connectivity for residential customers should be more symmetrical is that its expensive, which is why we as operators didn't roll it out that way to start. We also don't see consumer demand for symmetrical connections and with the decline in peer to peer file sharing we've actually seen a decrease the ratio of used upstream bandwidth (though not a decrease in absolute terms). I would like to deliver symmetrical bandwidth to all consumers just so those few customers who need it today would have lower bills but trying to justify that to our CFO without being able to point to an increase in revenue either because of more revenue per sub or more subs is a very tough task. I don't believe my situation is uncommon. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net mailto:bl...@ispn.net wrote: Thanks for the insight Scott. I appreciate the experience and point of view you're adding to this discussion (not just the responses to me). While I might be playing the devil's advocate here a bit, I think one could argue each of the points you've made below. I do feel that general usage patterns are a reflection of the technologies that have traditionally been available to consumers. New uses and applications would be available to overcome hurdles if the technologies had developed to be symmetrical. I'm not saying that the asymmetrical choice was a bad one, but it was not without consequences. If residential ISPs sell asymmetric connections for decades, how can the ISP expect that application developers would not take this into account when developing applications? I don't think my application would be very successful if it required X Mbps and half of my market did not meet this requirement. Of course content/service providers are going to tailor their services based around their market. --Blake Scott Helms wrote the following on 5/16/2014 12:06 PM: Blake, I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items. 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today. 2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host it themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier to entry especially given the number of NAT'ed connections. I think this is much more of a problem than available bandwidth. 3) Most consumers who want to share videos seem to be satisfied with sharing via one of the cloud services whether that be YouTube (which was created originally for that use), Vimeo, or one of the other legions of
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Lazlo, You're correct that some applications are being restricted, but AFAIK in North America they are all being restricted for quite valid network management reasons. While back in the day I ran Sendmail and sometimes qmail on my home connection I was also responsible with my mail server and more importantly the world was different. The threat from an open relay or mail server with a compromise is much higher, in part because the speeds are higher, but also because the attackers are more sophisticated and the hardware the mail server is running on is much more powerful. P2P is _not_ being blocked legally anywhere and if you believe that it is then you should complain to the FCC in the US or the CRTC in Canada. Running a DNS or NTP server that's open to the Internet on a home connection should NOT be allowed. I'm sorry if you're one of the few people who can run those services effectively and safely (just like SMTP) but the vast majority of customers can't and in most cases they aren't running them intentionally. I won't get into marketing, that's not what I do and I agree that unlimited seems to mean something other than the way I understand it but that's no different from unlimited telephone service, all you can eat buffets, or just about anywhere else you can see the word unlimited or all in marketing. I'd also like to see much more competition in the market and that's one the things I work to accomplish. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:38 PM, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net wrote: I'd just like to point out that a lot of people are in fact using their upstream capability, and the operators always throw a fit and try to cut off specific applications to force it back into the idle state. For example P2P things like torrents and most recently the open NTP and DNS servers. How about SMTP? Not sure about you guys but my local broadband ISP has cut me off and told me that my 'unlimited internet' is in fact limited. The reality is that those people who are not using it (99.8%?) are just being ripped off - paying for something they were told they need, thinking that it's there when they want it, then getting cut off when they actually try to use it. It's not like whining about it here will change anything, but the prices are severely distorted. Triple play packages are designed to force people to pay for stuff they don't need or want - distorting the price of a service hoping to recover it elsewhere, then if the gamble doesn't pan out, the customer loses again. The whole model is based on people buying stuff that they won't actually come to collect, so then you can sell it an infinite number of times. The people who do try to collect what was sold to them literally end up getting called names and cut off - terms like excessive bandwidth user and network abuser are used to describe paying customers. With regard to the peering disputes, it's hardly surprising that their business partners are treated with the same attitude as their customers. Besides, if you cut off the customers and peers who are causing that saturation, then the existing peering links can support an infinite number of idle subscribers. The next phase is usage-based-billing which is kind of like having to pay a fine for using it, so they can artificially push the price point lower and hopefully get some more idle customers. That will help get the demand down and keep the infrastructure nice and idle. When you're paying for every cat video maybe you realize you can live without it instead. Everyone has been trained so well, they don't even flinch anymore when they hear about over subscription, and they apologize for the people who are doing it to them. The restaurant analogy is incorrect - you can go to the restaurant next door if a place is busy, thus they have pressure to increase their capacity if they want to sell more meals. With broadband you can't go anywhere else, (for most people) there's only one restaurant, and there's a week long waiting list. If you don't like it, you're probably an abuser or excessive eater anyway. -Laszlo On May 16, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Michael, No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today. I have personal insight into about half a million devices and the percentage of people who bump up against their upstream rate is less than 0.2%. I have the ability to get data on another 10 million and the last time I checked their rates were similar. This kind of question has been asked of operators since long
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly germaine to the conversation at hand.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Blake, I'm not sure what the relationship between what an access network sells has to do with how their peering is done. I realize that everyone's favorite target is Comcast right now, but would anyone bat an eye over ATT making the same requirement since they have much more in the way of transit traffic? I don't think anyone forced Level 3 into their peering agreement with Comcast and it was (roughly) symmetrical for years before Level 3 was contracted by Netflix. Shouldn't Level 3 gone to Comcast and told them they needed to change their peering or get a different contract? Why was Cogent able to maintain (roughly) symmetrical traffic with Comcast when they were the primary path for Netflix to Comcast users? Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: Oh, I'm not proposing symmetrical connectivity at all. I'm just supporting the argument that in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric when the overwhelming majority of what they're selling (and have been selling for over a decade) is asymmetric connectivity. Their traffic imbalance is, arguably, their own doing. How residential ISPs recoup costs (or simply increase revenue/profit) is another question entirely. I think the most insightful comment in this discussion was made by Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym), when he states that ISPs have several options to increase revenue A) Increase price of their product, B) Implement usage restrictions, or C) Charge someone else/Make someone else your customer. I think he successfully argues that option C may be the best. As we've seen, the wireless market in the US went for option B. We've yet to see where the wireline market will go. Of course, the market would ideally keep ISPs' demands for revenue/profit in check and we'd all reach a satisfactory solution. One of the arguments, one I happen to support, in this thread is that there is not a free market for internet connectivity in many parts of the US. If there was, I believe Comcast would be focusing on how to provide a balance between the best product at the lowest cost and not on how they can monetize their paying customers in order to increase profits. I appreciate honesty; When a service provider advertises X Mbps Internet speeds, I expect they can deliver on their claims (to the whole Internet, and not just the portions of it they've decided). I understand congestion, overselling, etc. But choosing which portions of the internet work well and which don't is a lot more like censorship than service. --Blake
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Christopher Morrow wrote the following on 5/16/2014 1:52 PM: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly germaine to the conversation at hand. I agree about the term being passe ...and that it never applied to ISPs ...and that peering is about cost reduction, reliability, and performance. It seems to me that many CDNs or content providers want to setup peering relationships and are willing to do so at a cost to them in order to bypass the internet middle men. But I mention traffic ratios because some folks in this discussion seem to be using it as justification for not peering. But hey, why peer at little or no cost if they can instead hold out and possibly peer at a negative cost? --Blake
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
All this talk about symmetry and asymmetry is interesting. Has anyone actually quantified how much congestion is due to buffer bloat which is, in turn, exacerbated by asymmetric connections? James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly germaine to the conversation at hand. Traffic asymmetry across peering connections was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg, if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic went asymmetric, the refusals to augment capacity kicked in, and congestion became a problem. I've seen the same thing; pretty much every rejection is based on ratio issues, even when offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the home market for the users. If the refusals hinged on any other clause of the peering requirements, you'd be right; but at the moment, that's the flag networks are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour. So, it may be very 1990, but unfortunately that seems to be the year many people in the industry are mentally stuck in. :( Matt
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:14 PM, James R Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: All this talk about symmetry and asymmetry is interesting. Has anyone actually quantified how much congestion is due to buffer bloat which is, in turn, exacerbated by asymmetric connections? James R. Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu I think you might have the cart before the horse. If there's no congestion on a peering link, buffering doesn't come into play, at least not within the transport infrastructure. We're not talking congestion on the last mile side, we're looking at congestion on the interconnect links between networks, typically 10G or 100G ports. Unless you're running those links near or at capacity, buffering should be a complete non-issue. And if you're running those links at capacity, then the congestion is due to too much traffic, period, not to the size of buffers involved on either side of the link. ^_^; Thanks! Matt
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Matthew, There is a difference between what should be philosophically and what happened with Level 3 which is a contractual issue. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.comwrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly germaine to the conversation at hand. Traffic asymmetry across peering connections was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg, if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic went asymmetric, the refusals to augment capacity kicked in, and congestion became a problem. I've seen the same thing; pretty much every rejection is based on ratio issues, even when offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the home market for the users. If the refusals hinged on any other clause of the peering requirements, you'd be right; but at the moment, that's the flag networks are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour. So, it may be very 1990, but unfortunately that seems to be the year many people in the industry are mentally stuck in. :( Matt
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:35:39 PM Jay Ashworth wrote: Could you expand a bit, Mark on Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth? Which social media platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry? What we saw with FTTH deployments is that customers uploaded more videos and photos to Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, e.t.c. They didn't do this on ADSL as much (it's too frustrating). When that caught on, customers started buying online backup services - synchronizing backups of their home or office computers to remote backup infrastructure. Again, they never did this with ADSL. What we learned: don't take it for granted that you will always know what your customers (or the content providers who serve them) will do with the bandwidth. If they have it, expect the worst, and plan for it as best you can. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly germaine to the conversation at hand. Traffic asymmetry across peering connections was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg, if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic went asymmetric, the refusals to augment capacity kicked in, and congestion became a problem. Is it that? or is it that planning at some ISP pair had a '6 months to upgrade' regularly penciled in, then 'all of a sudden' their links were filling up faster than every 6months and... now they are 1x or 2x upgrade cycles behind? I imagine that up to a point upgrading a router that does only 'peering' (SFP) is 'easy', but at some step function of upgrades on the edge ports you need to provision more backhaul and more core and probably upgrade the link types and the chassis and ... At some ISPs this process involves more than 1 dude/group. So coordination and budget issues and scheduling ... become a bit harder. Adjusting to the new reality of 'you need to plan for pipe filling more often, increase upgrade cycle crank speed!' seems like at least one problem, to me at least. It's really hard to tell what's upsetting people about this whole topic :( There's a mix of 'my access link blows' to 'isps should peer better and for freer' and a bunch of other stuff all mixed in the middle :( I've seen the same thing; pretty much every rejection is based on ratio issues, even when offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the home market for the users. yes, welp... it's often rough to get folk who want to think in terms of apples to suddenly thing in terms of the new best fruit 'acai berry'. Especially at large and entrenched organizations. If the refusals hinged on any other clause of the peering requirements, you'd be right; but at the moment, that's the flag networks are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour. sure, it's also super easy for them to do this, see entrenched org comment above. it seems to me that the point of peering is not stalin voice'ratio or bust'/stalin voice but 'mutual benefit'. If a skewed ratio of 100:1 in a local market still is cheaper than 'backhaul that traffic from LHR to SFO' there's mutual benefit and a reason to peer. I understand that this is a bit of a rosy landscape I'm painting, but... So, it may be very 1990, but unfortunately that seems to be the year many people in the industry are mentally stuck in. :( oh, entrenched. I see. thanks! -chris
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: Christopher Morrow wrote the following on 5/16/2014 1:52 PM: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly germaine to the conversation at hand. I agree about the term being passe ...and that it never applied to ISPs ...and that peering is about cost reduction, reliability, and performance. ok. It seems to me that many CDNs or content providers want to setup peering relationships and are willing to do so at a cost to them in order to bypass the internet middle men. But I mention traffic ratios because some folks 'the internet middle men' - is really, it seems to me, 'people I have no business relationship with'. There's also no way to control the capacity planning process with these middle-men, right? Some AS in the middle of my 3-AS-way conversation isn't someone I can capacity plan with :( -chris in this discussion seem to be using it as justification for not peering. But hey, why peer at little or no cost if they can instead hold out and possibly peer at a negative cost? --Blake
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:45:06 PM Scott Helms wrote: Bandwidth use trends are actually increasingly asymmetical because of the popularity of OTT video. Social media, even with video uploading, simply doesn't generate that much traffic per session. Our experience showed that there is a direct co-relation between the lack of traffic in the upstream direction and poor upload bandwidth (primarily, due to asymmetric tech. such as ADSL), e.g., because of the ADSL I have at home (512Kbps up, 4Mbps down), I generally do not send very large e-mails when working from home; nor do I use my laptop for remote router/switch updates as the software images are a nightmare to upload. And yes, there is a larger proportion of downstream traffic than there is upstream traffic pretty much most of the time (even with symmetric links). However, with symmetry, upstream traffic will increase significantly as customers realize it is now available. One of the use-cases we thought about when deploying an FTTH backbone was having remote PVR's. So rather than record and save linear Tv programming on the STB, record and save it in the network. This could only be done with symmetric bandwidth. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
Mark, I don't think that anyone disputes that when you improve the upstream you do get an uptick in usage in that direction. What I take issue with is the notion that the upstream is anything like downstream even when the capacity is there. Upstream on ADSL is horribad, especially the first generations (g.lite and g.dmt). Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Friday, May 16, 2014 05:35:39 PM Jay Ashworth wrote: Could you expand a bit, Mark on Social media forces the use of symmetric bandwidth? Which social media platform is it that you think has a) symmetrical flows that b) are big enough to figure into transit symmetry? What we saw with FTTH deployments is that customers uploaded more videos and photos to Youtube, Facebook, MySpace, e.t.c. They didn't do this on ADSL as much (it's too frustrating). When that caught on, customers started buying online backup services - synchronizing backups of their home or office computers to remote backup infrastructure. Again, they never did this with ADSL. What we learned: don't take it for granted that you will always know what your customers (or the content providers who serve them) will do with the bandwidth. If they have it, expect the worst, and plan for it as best you can. Mark.
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Scott Helms wrote: Michael, No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today. I have personal insight into about half a million devices and the percentage of people who bump up against their upstream rate is less than 0.2%. I have the ability to get data on another 10 million and the last time I checked their rates were similar. I've just been on the losing end of yet another piece of why crappy upstream bandwidth sucks: Mavericks seems to have decided that my other half's imovie library really, really ought to be uploaded to iCloud (without asking, ftw). I can and should be pissed at Apple for doing such a wrongheaded thing, but the fact is that my upstream bandwidth was saturated for hours and days and it was extremely difficult to figure out why. I doubt I'm alone. Better upstream bandwidth would have at least made the pain period shorter. Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Mark Tinka wrote: One of the use-cases we thought about when deploying an FTTH backbone was having remote PVR's. So rather than record and save linear Tv programming on the STB, record and save it in the network. This could only be done with symmetric bandwidth. Isn't this already the case with Dishtv and their partnership with Sling? I'm pretty sure it's streaming it direct from my home dvr. Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Mike, In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10 million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap their upstream in both of those sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the last 3 years) is about 0.2%. Interestingly if a customer does it once they have about a 70% chance of doing it regularly. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Michael, No, its not too much to ask and any end user who has that kind of requirement can order a business service to get symmetrical service but the reality is that symmetrical service costs more and the vast majority of customers don't use the upstream capacity they have today. I have personal insight into about half a million devices and the percentage of people who bump up against their upstream rate is less than 0.2%. I have the ability to get data on another 10 million and the last time I checked their rates were similar. I've just been on the losing end of yet another piece of why crappy upstream bandwidth sucks: Mavericks seems to have decided that my other half's imovie library really, really ought to be uploaded to iCloud (without asking, ftw). I can and should be pissed at Apple for doing such a wrongheaded thing, but the fact is that my upstream bandwidth was saturated for hours and days and it was extremely difficult to figure out why. I doubt I'm alone. Better upstream bandwidth would have at least made the pain period shorter. Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Scott Helms wrote: Mike, In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10 million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap their upstream in both of those sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the last 3 years) is about 0.2%. Interestingly if a customer does it once they have about a 70% chance of doing it regularly. Well, given Sling, Dropbox, iCloud, pervasive video calls (you have heard about webrtc, yes? 24/7 babycams!), youtube, etc, etc, I won't be a tiny group for long. Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
I think you will, all of those things have been around for a long time (well, except for pervasive video calls, which I think is vapor) and none generate the kind of traffic it takes to congest a decent link. Most of the DOCSIS systems I've worked with are running at least 6 mbps upstreams and many are well into the double digits. My current connection (tested this morning) is about 22 mbps. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Mike, In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10 million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap their upstream in both of those sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the last 3 years) is about 0.2%. Interestingly if a customer does it once they have about a 70% chance of doing it regularly. Well, given Sling, Dropbox, iCloud, pervasive video calls (you have heard about webrtc, yes? 24/7 babycams!), youtube, etc, etc, I won't be a tiny group for long. Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Scott Helms wrote: I think you will, all of those things have been around for a long time (well, except for pervasive video calls, which I think is vapor) and none generate the kind of traffic it takes to congest a decent link. Most of the DOCSIS systems I've worked with are running at least 6 mbps upstreams and many are well into the double digits. My current connection (tested this morning) is about 22 mbps. Um, no it's not vapor. Webrtc is quite real, and the barrier to implementation for any random web site is weeks, not years as was the case before. I just saw this that you wrote: 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today. In the US, we just surpassed 1/2 of the population who have that capability, iirc. They call them phones nowadays. Mike Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com mailto:m...@mtcc.com wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Mike, In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10 million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap their upstream in both of those sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the last 3 years) is about 0.2%. Interestingly if a customer does it once they have about a 70% chance of doing it regularly. Well, given Sling, Dropbox, iCloud, pervasive video calls (you have heard about webrtc, yes? 24/7 babycams!), youtube, etc, etc, I won't be a tiny group for long. Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
Michael, I didn't claim Webrtc is vapor, I claim that pervasive video calling is vapor. Further, even if that prediction is wrong pervasive video calling isn't enough even if 100% of users adopt it to swing the need for symmetrical bandwidth. An average Skype/Google Hangout/Apple is less than 400 kbps at peak and averages something like 150 kbps. http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/iphone-facetime-bandwidth-gets-measured/ Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: Scott Helms wrote: I think you will, all of those things have been around for a long time (well, except for pervasive video calls, which I think is vapor) and none generate the kind of traffic it takes to congest a decent link. Most of the DOCSIS systems I've worked with are running at least 6 mbps upstreams and many are well into the double digits. My current connection (tested this morning) is about 22 mbps. Um, no it's not vapor. Webrtc is quite real, and the barrier to implementation for any random web site is weeks, not years as was the case before. I just saw this that you wrote: 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera today. In the US, we just surpassed 1/2 of the population who have that capability, iirc. They call them phones nowadays. Mike Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com mailto: m...@mtcc.com wrote: Scott Helms wrote: Mike, In my experience you're not alone, just in a really tiny group. As I said I have direct eyeballs on ~500k devices and the ability to see another 10 million anytime I want and the percentage of people who cap their upstream in both of those sample groups for more than 15 minutes (over the last 3 years) is about 0.2%. Interestingly if a customer does it once they have about a 70% chance of doing it regularly. Well, given Sling, Dropbox, iCloud, pervasive video calls (you have heard about webrtc, yes? 24/7 babycams!), youtube, etc, etc, I won't be a tiny group for long. Mike
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)
On May 16, 2014, at 4:22 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote: In the US, we just surpassed 1/2 of the population who have that capability, iirc. They call them phones nowadays. Many of them have native IPv6 as well, this also hasn't gotten significant number of legacy/incumbents to deploy yet either. It seems Facebook/LTE are the killer apps for v6. http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/WorldIPv6Congress-IPv6_LH-v2.pdf Like all things there are leaders and followers and the long-tail. - Jared
Rick Astley, Network Engineer [was: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)]
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:47:53PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote: Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym) Why would you assume that? Mr. Astley has long been a champion of solid network engineering, and even net neutrality... he's long said that he's Never gonna drop a route, never gonna fill a link, never gonna turn around and congest you. - Matt
Re: Rick Astley, Network Engineer [was: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)]
Duh. On 5/16/14, 1:54 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:47:53PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote: Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym) Why would you assume that? Mr. Astley has long been a champion of solid network engineering, and even net neutrality... he's long said that he's Never gonna drop a route, never gonna fill a link, never gonna turn around and congest you. - Matt
Re: Rick Astley, Network Engineer [was: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3)]
Matt Palmer wrote the following on 5/16/2014 3:54 PM: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 01:47:53PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote: Mr. Rick Astley (I assume a pseudonym) Why would you assume that? Mr. Astley has long been a champion of solid network engineering, and even net neutrality... he's long said that he's Never gonna drop a route, never gonna fill a link, never gonna turn around and congest you. - Matt Oh that made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that.
The Cidr Report
This report has been generated at Fri May 16 21:13:53 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
09-05-14499630 282328
10-05-14499734 279956
11-05-14499614 279852
12-05-14499793 280018
13-05-14500061 280153
14-05-14500728 281450
15-05-14500827 281280
16-05-14500575 281635
AS Summary
47128 Number of ASes in routing system
19205 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
3769 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS28573: NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR
120058880 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 16May14 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 500449 281787 21866243.7% All ASes
AS28573 3769 596 317384.2% NET Serviços de Comunicação
S.A.,BR
AS6389 2959 56 290398.1% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
BellSouth.net Inc.,US
AS17974 2794 251 254391.0% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID
AS4766 2946 931 201568.4% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR
AS18881 1982 37 194598.1% Global Village Telecom,BR
AS1785 2206 496 171077.5% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.,US
AS10620 2853 1359 149452.4% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO
AS18566 2047 565 148272.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath
Corporation,US
AS7303 1760 455 130574.1% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR
AS4755 1852 585 126768.4% TATACOMM-AS TATA
Communications formerly VSNL
is Leading ISP,IN
AS4323 1643 424 121974.2% TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
inc.,US
AS7545 2243 1062 118152.7% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom
Limited,AU
AS7552 1250 148 110288.2% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel
Corporation,VN
AS36998 1114 37 107796.7% SDN-MOBITEL,SD
AS22561 1306 241 106581.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet
Holdings, Inc.,US
AS6983 1327 307 102076.9% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US
AS9829 1645 714 93156.6% BSNL-NIB National Internet
Backbone,IN
AS4788 1050 148 90285.9% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet
Service Provider,MY
AS22773 2433 1534 89937.0% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
Cox Communications Inc.,US
AS4808 1223 404 81967.0% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
network China169 Beijing
Province Network,CN
AS24560 1129 361 76868.0% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
Services,IN
AS18101 946 187 75980.2% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
Reliance Communications
Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN
AS26615 858 106 75287.6% Tim Celular S.A.,BR
AS8151 1412 676 73652.1% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX
AS7738 912 182 73080.0% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR
AS701 1474 747 72749.3% UUNET - MCI Communications
Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon
Business,US
AS855755 58 69792.3% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant
Regional Communications,
Inc.,CA
AS4780 1041 372 66964.3% SEEDNET Digital United Inc.,TW
AS9808 1003 352
BGP Update Report
BGP Update Report Interval: 08-May-14 -to- 15-May-14 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS9829 108543 2.6% 65.8 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone,IN 2 - AS477565396 1.6% 531.7 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 3 - AS28573 47964 1.1% 12.1 -- NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR 4 - AS840242568 1.0% 24.6 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC Vimpelcom,RU 5 - AS10620 25918 0.6% 9.1 -- Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO 6 - AS23752 23285 0.6% 165.1 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 7 - AS14259 20583 0.5% 76.8 -- Gtd Internet S.A.,CL 8 - AS475520546 0.5% 11.1 -- TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerly VSNL is Leading ISP,IN 9 - AS41691 20385 0.5% 849.4 -- SUMTEL-AS-RIPE Summa Telecom LLC,RU 10 - AS24960 20357 0.5%5089.2 -- GATCHINA-AS Severo-Zapad Ltd.,RU 11 - AS980818102 0.4% 9.7 -- CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication Co.Ltd.,CN 12 - AS476617939 0.4% 6.1 -- KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR 13 - AS638917842 0.4% 6.0 -- BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.,US 14 - AS25184 17074 0.4% 128.4 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 15 - AS15003 16751 0.4% 19.4 -- NOBIS-TECH - Nobis Technology Group, LLC,US 16 - AS52879 15560 0.4%1728.9 -- ABM INFORMATICA E TELECOM,BR 17 - AS17974 15438 0.4% 5.7 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID 18 - AS35567 15368 0.4% 102.5 -- DASTO-BOSNIA-AS DASTO semtel d.o.o.,BA 19 - AS45899 14566 0.3% 40.1 -- VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp,VN 20 - AS347514043 0.3% 141.8 -- DNIC-AS-03475 - Navy Network Information Center (NNIC),US TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS46657 0.2% 824.0 -- ISI-AS - University of Southern California,US 2 - AS24960 20357 0.5%5089.2 -- GATCHINA-AS Severo-Zapad Ltd.,RU 3 - AS32178 0.1%3260.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 4 - AS43804 0.1% 597.0 -- ISI-AS - University of Southern California,US 5 - AS52879 15560 0.4%1728.9 -- ABM INFORMATICA E TELECOM,BR 6 - AS455901456 0.0%1456.0 -- HGCINTNET-AS-AP Hutch Connect,HK 7 - AS402991446 0.0%1446.0 -- TRIPP-LITE - Tripplite,US 8 - AS31413 0.0%1987.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 9 - AS544656992 0.2%1398.4 -- QPM-AS-1 - QuickPlay Media Inc.,US 10 - AS163213635 0.1%1211.7 -- AICONET-AS Aiconet Ltd.,RU 11 - AS603452306 0.1%1153.0 -- NBITI-AS Nahjol Balagheh International Research Institution,IR 12 - AS376152132 0.1%1066.0 -- Main-Street-AS,NG 13 - AS6629 9431 0.2% 857.4 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US 14 - AS41691 20385 0.5% 849.4 -- SUMTEL-AS-RIPE Summa Telecom LLC,RU 15 - AS55390 0.1% 1.0 -- SYMBOLICS - Symbolics, Inc.,US 16 - AS2 635 0.0%2210.0 -- UDEL-DCN - University of Delaware,US 17 - AS3 630 0.0%2319.0 -- MIT-GATEWAYS - Massachusetts Institute of Technology,US 18 - AS2 13976 0.3%1127.0 -- UDEL-DCN - University of Delaware,US 19 - AS61985 582 0.0% 582.0 -- TECHNOLINK-NET Technolink Ltd.,CZ 20 - AS61229 534 0.0% 534.0 -- AIVA-AS Aiva Ltd.,RU TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 89.221.206.0/24 20269 0.5% AS41691 -- SUMTEL-AS-RIPE Summa Telecom LLC,RU 2 - 121.52.144.0/24 12447 0.3% AS17557 -- PKTELECOM-AS-PK Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited,PK AS45773 -- HECPERN-AS-PK PERN AS Content Servie Provider, Islamabad, Pakistan,PK 3 - 202.70.88.0/2111946 0.3% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 4 - 192.58.232.0/249392 0.2% AS6629 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA,US 5 - 87.250.97.0/24 0.2% AS35567 -- DASTO-BOSNIA-AS DASTO semtel d.o.o.,BA 6 - 78.109.192.0/208472 0.2% AS25184 -- AFRANET AFRANET Co. Tehran, Iran,IR 7 - 202.70.64.0/21 8042 0.2% AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP 8 - 120.28.62.0/24 7784 0.2% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH 9 - 205.247.12.0/247635 0.2% AS6459 -- TRANSBEAM - I-2000, Inc.,US 10 - 115.170.128.0/17 7265 0.2% AS4847 -- CNIX-AP China Networks Inter-Exchange,CN 11 - 222.127.0.0/24 7240 0.2% AS4775 -- GLOBE-TELECOM-AS Globe Telecoms,PH
Access hardware for small FTTP deployment
Hi all, We are looking at doing a small FTTP deployment in a community of about 30 homes and I'm searching for options regarding access layer hardware. Initially we thought of a simple point-to-point ethernet setup with 1000Base-BX to each premises and a 48-port access switch. However, finding an appropriate piece of hardware has proven challenging because of our requirement of a 60+ degrees Celcius operating temperature (due to outdoor cabinet placement). The only one I found that meets the temperature requirement was Cisco's ME 2600X with 44 SFP ports, 4 SFP+ and 65degC max, but it's a bit pricey for our liking. Other offerings from HP (5800-24G-SFP), Juniper (EX4550), Brocade (CES-2048F) were nice, but all only had 40-45degC max operating temp. I'm interested to see what other people are doing for these types of small setups. Does anyone know of any other reasonably priced access switches, 32+ SFP ports, and able to withstand 60degC or higher operating temperature? We are also considering GPON, but given that we would only need one interface for such a small deployment, most of the hardware out there seems like overkill. Are there good small OLTs? Cheers, Chris
Re: A simple proposal
You mean consume electricity in cpu cycles on the end devices and all the network middleboxes in between all over the world/Internet for dud data? For what? Just to stop a debate instead of resolving it thought intellectual brainstorming? For one thing it will slow down the TCP connections as ACKs incur a longer RTT. Then there is the whole question of managing and lowering power consumption as a green initiative, and capacity issues are yet another thing. ~Rahul On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.comwrote: There's been a whole lot of chatter recently about whether or not it's sensible to require balanced peering ratios when selling heavily unbalanced services to customers. There's a very simple solution, it seems. Just have every website, every streaming service, every bit of consumable internet data have built-in reciprocity. You want to stream a movie? No problem; the video player opens up a second data port back to a server next to the streaming box; its only purpose is to accept a socket, and send all bits received on it to /dev/null. The video player sends back an equivalent stream of data to what is being received in. The server receiving the upstream data stream checks the bitrate coming into it from the player, and communicates back to the video streaming box every few minutes to lower the outbound bitrate going to the player to match what the inbound bitrate coming from the client is. That way, traffic volumes stay nicely balanced, and everyone is happy. For extra credit, and to deal with multiple layers of NAT in the v4 world, you could even piggyback on the same stream, though that would take just a bit more work. Mobile apps could be programmed the same way; you download a certain amount of data, an equivalent volume of data is sent back upstream to balance it out, and preserve the holy ratio. Even web pages could use javascript footers to send back upstream an equivalent amount of data to what was downloaded. Once and for all, we could put an end to the ceaseless bickering about ratios, as everyone, everywhere would be forced into glorious unity, a perfect 1:1 ratio wherever the eye should look. As far as I can tell, this should solve *everyone's* concerns from all sides, all in one simple effort. Matt -- ~~ Regards Rahul
Re: FTTH ONTs and routers
There are many ONTs out there with various abilities. I can only comment on what I deploy, and what various telcos deploy that I am familiar with. A few years ago, all of our AE and GPON ONTs were deployed as bridges. Port 1 was generally an Internet VLAN, and port 2,3,4 were IPTV VLANs. We have been using Occam (now Calix), but are considering other options at this point. Currently we bridge all services on GPON deployments, but rent routers for the Internet service if customers do not wish to provide their own. The 700-series ONTs are able to bounce between GPON and AE deployments with a firmware change, so they are very flexible. Calix has apparently released RG code (Residential Gateway, basic home router functionality) for for the 700s, but we don't use that code. We also deploy 836 ONTs, which had RG code built-in on release, and also WiFi.The 836s currently only do AE, but were originally supposed to do GPON/AE similar to the 700-series. Today, the standard AE deployment is an 836 with RG code enabled for WiFi and Port 1. WAN is DHCP, authorized with Option 82/RADIUS for bandwidth profiles. LAN does NAT, and hands out a 192.168.88.0/24 subnet to break as few consumer routers as possible. We have no problem enabling bridging for Port 1 if the customer requests it. We bridge Port 2,3,4 for IPTV because the RG functionality breaks certain features, namely call display on the TVs. The 836s can do Static, PPPoE, or DHCP on the WAN side. We use MGCP for voice. -- Pete Baldwin On 14-05-15 01:11 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: It had been my impression that ONTs, like most other consumer modems, came with built-in router capabilities (along with ATA for voice). The assertion that ONTs have built-in routing capabilities has been challenged. Can anyone confirm whether ONTs generally have routing (aka: home router that does the PPPoE or DHCP and then NAT for home) capabilities? Are there examples where a telco has deployed ONTs with the router built-in and enabled ? Or would almost all FTTH deployments be made with any routing disabled and the ONT acting as a pure ethernet bridge ? (I appreciate your help on this as I am time constrained to do research).
Re: The Cidr Report
Dammit people. Get back to work. Pull us back down under 500K!
--
TTFN,
patrick
On May 16, 2014, at 18:00 , cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote:
This report has been generated at Fri May 16 21:13:53 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
09-05-14499630 282328
10-05-14499734 279956
11-05-14499614 279852
12-05-14499793 280018
13-05-14500061 280153
14-05-14500728 281450
15-05-14500827 281280
16-05-14500575 281635
AS Summary
47128 Number of ASes in routing system
19205 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
3769 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS28573: NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR
120058880 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 16May14 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 500449 281787 21866243.7% All ASes
AS28573 3769 596 317384.2% NET Serviços de Comunicação
S.A.,BR
AS6389 2959 56 290398.1% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
BellSouth.net Inc.,US
AS17974 2794 251 254391.0% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID
AS4766 2946 931 201568.4% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR
AS18881 1982 37 194598.1% Global Village Telecom,BR
AS1785 2206 496 171077.5% AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
Communications, Inc.,US
AS10620 2853 1359 149452.4% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO
AS18566 2047 565 148272.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath
Corporation,US
AS7303 1760 455 130574.1% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR
AS4755 1852 585 126768.4% TATACOMM-AS TATA
Communications formerly VSNL
is Leading ISP,IN
AS4323 1643 424 121974.2% TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
inc.,US
AS7545 2243 1062 118152.7% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom
Limited,AU
AS7552 1250 148 110288.2% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel
Corporation,VN
AS36998 1114 37 107796.7% SDN-MOBITEL,SD
AS22561 1306 241 106581.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet
Holdings, Inc.,US
AS6983 1327 307 102076.9% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US
AS9829 1645 714 93156.6% BSNL-NIB National Internet
Backbone,IN
AS4788 1050 148 90285.9% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet
Service Provider,MY
AS22773 2433 1534 89937.0% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
Cox Communications Inc.,US
AS4808 1223 404 81967.0% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
network China169 Beijing
Province Network,CN
AS24560 1129 361 76868.0% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
Services,IN
AS18101 946 187 75980.2% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
Reliance Communications
Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN
AS26615 858 106 75287.6% Tim Celular S.A.,BR
AS8151 1412 676 73652.1% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX
AS7738 912 182 73080.0% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR
AS701 1474 747 72749.3% UUNET - MCI Communications
Services, Inc. d/b/a Verizon
Business,US
AS855755 58 69792.3% CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant
Re: Access hardware for small FTTP deployment
Chris hs.citi...@gmail.com writes: I'm interested to see what other people are doing for these types of small setups. Does anyone know of any other reasonably priced access switches, 32+ SFP ports, and able to withstand 60degC or higher operating temperature? An alternative you might consider is a small A/C unit, especially if high temperatures aren't common where you are. Around here it's rare to see a roadside cabinet without one. Depending on where you are you might also find you need heat, since it's even harder to find components specified for below-freezing than for high temperatures. (I was also reminded that heat is helpful if your equipment will occasionally be powered down or under a light load, because as it cools down there can be condensation.)
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
On May 16, 2014 12:21 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: in the context of this discussion I think it's silly for a residential ISP to purport themselves to be a neutral carrier of traffic and expect peering ratios to be symmetric is 'symmetric traffic ratios' even relevant though? Peering is about offsetting costs, right? it might not be important that the ratio be 1:1 or 2:1... or even 10:1, if it's going to cost you 20x to get the traffic over longer/transit/etc paths... or if you have to build into some horrific location(s) to access the content in question. Harping on symmetric ratios seems very 1990... and not particularly germaine to the conversation at hand. Traffic asymmetry across peering connections was what lit the fuse on this whole powder keg, if I understand correctly; at the point the traffic went asymmetric, the refusals to augment capacity kicked in, and congestion became a problem. What lit this powder keg?: conspiracy theory Netflix bought transit from cogent and expected it to work. C'mon. This happens every month on this list and every month people tell others not to rely on cogent. Right? Netflix is smart, they know cogent is willing to burn down their network and blow up their customers for 15 minutes of fame $0.03 a meg. This makes me think the whole thing is a net neutrality strawman. They set the stage and all the players played their part. Now, what will be the result? I expect some concession from the comcast/twc deal. They made a big deal about net neutrality / netflix / strawman so they can trump up a meaningful concession to allow the merger. /conspiracy I've seen the same thing; pretty much every rejection is based on ratio issues, even when offering to cold-potato haul the traffic to the home market for the users. If the refusals hinged on any other clause of the peering requirements, you'd be right; but at the moment, that's the flag networks are waving around as their speedbump-du-jour. So, it may be very 1990, but unfortunately that seems to be the year many people in the industry are mentally stuck in. :( Matt
Re: A simple proposal
I agree with Rahul, seems like pointless cycles along the entire path. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Rahul Sawarkar srahul...@gmail.comwrote: You mean consume electricity in cpu cycles on the end devices and all the network middleboxes in between all over the world/Internet for dud data? For what? Just to stop a debate instead of resolving it thought intellectual brainstorming? For one thing it will slow down the TCP connections as ACKs incur a longer RTT. Then there is the whole question of managing and lowering power consumption as a green initiative, and capacity issues are yet another thing. ~Rahul On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: There's been a whole lot of chatter recently about whether or not it's sensible to require balanced peering ratios when selling heavily unbalanced services to customers. There's a very simple solution, it seems. Just have every website, every streaming service, every bit of consumable internet data have built-in reciprocity. You want to stream a movie? No problem; the video player opens up a second data port back to a server next to the streaming box; its only purpose is to accept a socket, and send all bits received on it to /dev/null. The video player sends back an equivalent stream of data to what is being received in. The server receiving the upstream data stream checks the bitrate coming into it from the player, and communicates back to the video streaming box every few minutes to lower the outbound bitrate going to the player to match what the inbound bitrate coming from the client is. That way, traffic volumes stay nicely balanced, and everyone is happy. For extra credit, and to deal with multiple layers of NAT in the v4 world, you could even piggyback on the same stream, though that would take just a bit more work. Mobile apps could be programmed the same way; you download a certain amount of data, an equivalent volume of data is sent back upstream to balance it out, and preserve the holy ratio. Even web pages could use javascript footers to send back upstream an equivalent amount of data to what was downloaded. Once and for all, we could put an end to the ceaseless bickering about ratios, as everyone, everywhere would be forced into glorious unity, a perfect 1:1 ratio wherever the eye should look. As far as I can tell, this should solve *everyone's* concerns from all sides, all in one simple effort. Matt -- ~~ Regards Rahul -- Phil Fagan Denver, CO 970-480-7618
Re: A simple proposal
Wow nanog, dissecting the architecture of a sarcastic proposal. Maybe the joke would have been clearer if Matt had used the phrase a modest proposal .. On Saturday, May 17, 2014, Phil Fagan philfa...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Rahul, seems like pointless cycles along the entire path. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Rahul Sawarkar srahul...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: You mean consume electricity in cpu cycles on the end devices and all the network middleboxes in between all over the world/Internet for dud data? For what? Just to stop a debate instead of resolving it thought intellectual brainstorming? For one thing it will slow down the TCP connections as ACKs incur a longer RTT. Then there is the whole question of managing and lowering power consumption as a green initiative, and capacity issues are yet another thing. ~Rahul On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.comjavascript:; wrote: There's been a whole lot of chatter recently about whether or not it's sensible to require balanced peering ratios when selling heavily unbalanced services to customers. There's a very simple solution, it seems. Just have every website, every streaming service, every bit of consumable internet data have built-in reciprocity. You want to stream a movie? No problem; the video player opens up a second data port back to a server next to the streaming box; its only purpose is to accept a socket, and send all bits received on it to /dev/null. The video player sends back an equivalent stream of data to what is being received in. The server receiving the upstream data stream checks the bitrate coming into it from the player, and communicates back to the video streaming box every few minutes to lower the outbound bitrate going to the player to match what the inbound bitrate coming from the client is. That way, traffic volumes stay nicely balanced, and everyone is happy. For extra credit, and to deal with multiple layers of NAT in the v4 world, you could even piggyback on the same stream, though that would take just a bit more work. Mobile apps could be programmed the same way; you download a certain amount of data, an equivalent volume of data is sent back upstream to balance it out, and preserve the holy ratio. Even web pages could use javascript footers to send back upstream an equivalent amount of data to what was downloaded. Once and for all, we could put an end to the ceaseless bickering about ratios, as everyone, everywhere would be forced into glorious unity, a perfect 1:1 ratio wherever the eye should look. As far as I can tell, this should solve *everyone's* concerns from all sides, all in one simple effort. Matt -- ~~ Regards Rahul -- Phil Fagan Denver, CO 970-480-7618 -- --srs (iPad)
Re: A simple proposal
You shouldn't of stopped them I was eagerly waiting to find out how rtt was going to be increased :) -jim Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. Original Message From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 11:26 PM To: Phil Fagan Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: A simple proposal Wow nanog, dissecting the architecture of a sarcastic proposal. Maybe the joke would have been clearer if Matt had used the phrase a modest proposal .. On Saturday, May 17, 2014, Phil Fagan philfa...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Rahul, seems like pointless cycles along the entire path. On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Rahul Sawarkar srahul...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: You mean consume electricity in cpu cycles on the end devices and all the network middleboxes in between all over the world/Internet for dud data? For what? Just to stop a debate instead of resolving it thought intellectual brainstorming? For one thing it will slow down the TCP connections as ACKs incur a longer RTT. Then there is the whole question of managing and lowering power consumption as a green initiative, and capacity issues are yet another thing. ~Rahul On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.comjavascript:; wrote: There's been a whole lot of chatter recently about whether or not it's sensible to require balanced peering ratios when selling heavily unbalanced services to customers. There's a very simple solution, it seems. Just have every website, every streaming service, every bit of consumable internet data have built-in reciprocity. You want to stream a movie? No problem; the video player opens up a second data port back to a server next to the streaming box; its only purpose is to accept a socket, and send all bits received on it to /dev/null. The video player sends back an equivalent stream of data to what is being received in. The server receiving the upstream data stream checks the bitrate coming into it from the player, and communicates back to the video streaming box every few minutes to lower the outbound bitrate going to the player to match what the inbound bitrate coming from the client is. That way, traffic volumes stay nicely balanced, and everyone is happy. For extra credit, and to deal with multiple layers of NAT in the v4 world, you could even piggyback on the same stream, though that would take just a bit more work. Mobile apps could be programmed the same way; you download a certain amount of data, an equivalent volume of data is sent back upstream to balance it out, and preserve the holy ratio. Even web pages could use javascript footers to send back upstream an equivalent amount of data to what was downloaded. Once and for all, we could put an end to the ceaseless bickering about ratios, as everyone, everywhere would be forced into glorious unity, a perfect 1:1 ratio wherever the eye should look. As far as I can tell, this should solve *everyone's* concerns from all sides, all in one simple effort. Matt -- ~~ Regards Rahul -- Phil Fagan Denver, CO 970-480-7618 -- --srs (iPad)
Re: A simple proposal
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: You want to stream a movie? No problem; the video player opens up a second data port back to a server next to the streaming box; its only purpose is to accept a socket, and send all bits received on it to /dev/null. The video player sends back an equivalent stream of data to what is being received in. 1. Take the understanding that the media player will return the stream it received. For the sake of expediency and avoiding unnecessary waste (Enhanced efficiency), I suggest the introduction of a new frame format, the Null reduced frame and Null reduced IP packet. This is an IP packet which logically contains N bytes of payload, that is to be transmitted without its payload, but is to be understood as having contained those N octets of payload data, for administrative and billing purposes; where N is some number between 1 octet and (2^32 - 1) octets. The media player can then emit these Null-reduced IP datagrams that contain no ordinary physically payload --- a flag will be set in the return packet and the frame when transmitted to indicate, that although the IP datagram physically contains no actual data,it MUST be counted on all device interface counters and Netflow reports as X octets, and treated as having contained N octets for the purposes of billing and peering negotiations. -- 2. Excellent. Especially if the video player receives streams over UDP and doesn't verify the source IP address before sending the stream back, what could possibly go wrong?. 3. On second thought why not send the return stream to another subscriber? Stream the thing only to buffer the content to a subset of the users' media players.The users' media players then shape the return stream in order to distribute the content - they could even SEND more data back to the content provider than they receive, if this benefits the content provider in peering negotiations. -- -JH
First ISP-hosted transparent test-IPv6.com mirror
TL:DR? “Thanks, Comcast!” and “Who’s Next?” The test-ipv6.com site started out 4 years ago, at a table in Seattle, after an IPv6 round table meeting hosted by Internet Society. John Brzozowski and myself were each trying to come up with a way to help end users figure out that their IPv6 internet was good or bad. Ultimately I kept plugging away at it, as John was distracted with some kind of broadband IPv6 rollout for his employer (Comcast). And the test-ipv6.com site went live about a month later, with solicitation to a few operations lists for feedback. All in all, pretty successful. I’ve had two concerns since deploying test-ipv6.com: one, how to scale; and two, how to ensure the user’s connectivity back to the service is awesome (or at least, not bad). John was thinking the same thing - worried about sending too many of his customers to my site, and crushing it in the process. Not good for either of us. Both of those are relatively easy to solve. Simply deploy tons of mirrors around the world, problem solved - if you have the cash and/or smart business plan to back it. I don’t monetize the site with advertising; nor do I charge fees. Nor do I have a crack CFO who can help me IPO, and make me rich in the process. I don’t really have the time or energy to solicit for corporate handouts. As it turns out, it appears that I’m bad when it comes to making money on this project. So any solution has to be cheap. Asking folks to run regional mirrors (such as “test-ipv6.cz” or “test-ipv6.co.za”) is great; it offers a community local resources that are more immune to global connectivity issues. However, people must explicitly decide to visit these mirrors; to chose the location they want to test from. Those regional mirrors are mostly light duty as a result. They are still invaluable - they provide the back end that the global connectivity test uses, for any IPv6-validated customer visiting any of the mirrors. With this global test, we effectively crowd source getting IPv6 peering problems fixed. John and I decided to take things a step further; something I’m happy to see finally make it across the finish line after a fair bit of upfront dev work. Comcast is now running two mirrors and preparing a third - which directly act as “test-ipv6.com”. Nothing changes for the user. John has to worry less about transient (and transit!) connectivity back to test-ipv6.com. This is done with a poor-man’s GSLB (Global Server Load Balancer). We’re using an in-house built DNS server that looks at the internet routing table to see what ISP the DNS queries come from. Based on the source BGP ASN, we can decide which ISP mirror gets the traffic. (PS: thanks to routeviews.org and everyone who feeds data to it; that stuff is great!) In the end: we both get to worry less about Comcast traffic volume to test-ipv6.com; as well as ensure a good user experience for the customers visiting. What’s next? That’s where you come in :-). If you’re ... * working at a large ISP * doing real IPv6 deployment * or considering using “helpdesk.test-ipv6.com” with customers I’d love to help you set up a transparent mirror (acting as “test-ipv6.com”). For you, it means controlling the user experience using this site; as well as removing any capacity concerns. For me, it means the same thing. Win, win. More info at http://github.com/falling-sky/source/wiki/TransparentMirrors (http://tinyurl.com/m7nnhfn). If you want to help, or have questions, don’t hesitate to ask. -jason (link for sharing, if you're inclined: http://test-ipv6.com/comcast.html)
