Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Feb/15 07:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
> No, I’m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video chat 
> justified a need for symmetry when in reality, it does not.
>
> I’m all for better upstream bandwidth to the home. I’d love to have everyone 
> have 1G/1G capability even if it’s 100:1 oversubscribed on the upstream.
>
> However, I’d much rather have 384M/128M than 256M/256M to be honest.
>
> In general, I find my 30M/7M is not too terribly painful most of the time. Do 
> I wish I had more upstream? Yes, but not as much as I wish I had more 
> downstream. I think an ideal minimum that would probably be comfortable most 
> of the time today would be 100M/30M.

Limitations by technology are things we can't do anything about. ADSL,
GPON, e.t.c.

If one is taking Ethernet into the home, then a limitation on the uplink
is a function of a direct or implicit rate limit imposed by the
operator, and not by the hardware. In such cases, competition will
ensure a reasonable level playing field for the consumer. With
limitations in hardware, every operator has the same problem, so the
issue is a non-starter.

You're right, I do not necessarily need 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. I just
need enough to get me by. GPON gives you (what one would say) reasonable
bandwidth upward, but then the uplink from the OLT to the BRAS becomes a
choke point because GPON is, well, asymmetric. So then, some would ask,
"What is the point of my 30Mbps up, 100Mbps down GPON?" YMM will really
V, of course.

Active-E is 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. Uplink to the BRAS is 10Gbps/100Gbps
up, 10Gbps/100Gbps down. Any limitations in upward (or downward)
performance are not constructs of the hardware, but of how the network
operator runs it.

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:15 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is 
>> sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N 
>> people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream 
>> bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them.
> 
> But you're assuming the video chat is the only thing taking place in the
> upward direction...
> 
> When my wife is doing her iCloud backup, I can't log into a router to do
> some work without gouging my eyes out.

No, I’m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video chat 
justified a need for symmetry when in reality, it does not.

I’m all for better upstream bandwidth to the home. I’d love to have everyone 
have 1G/1G capability even if it’s 100:1 oversubscribed on the upstream.

However, I’d much rather have 384M/128M than 256M/256M to be honest.

In general, I find my 30M/7M is not too terribly painful most of the time. Do I 
wish I had more upstream? Yes, but not as much as I wish I had more downstream. 
I think an ideal minimum that would probably be comfortable most of the time 
today would be 100M/30M.

YMMV.

Owen

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Collin Anderson]

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:32 AM, John Levine  wrote:

> With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
> mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
> therefore the providers can't block it.
>

How would this legal environment be any different than the pre-Verizon
network neutrality rules for network management of SPAM?


-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[John Osmon]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:32:23PM -, John Levine wrote:
[...]
> With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
> mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
> therefore the providers can't block it.

Yeah...  I've had a recurring nightmare for a while now.

There are spammers that skate on the edge of "legal."  Since they're
legal, I can't drop their traffic anymore -- and they start filling my
transit pipes.

Then, they force me to privately peer with them...

 ...and then sue me to get bigger pipes...


But hey -- at least it's neutral, so that's good.

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Feb/15 07:15, Philip Dorr wrote:
>
> WiFi has two separate data rate selections.  The download could be at
> 300mbps and the upload only be at 1mbps.  Or even the other way.  WiFi is
> also half-duplex, so if the data rate is 300mbps, then the maximum you
> should expect is 150mbps.

This is easy to fix.

If one needs to push more than 150Mbps upload out of their home gateway,
get 802.11ac or run a cable from your favorite spot at the house to a
cheap but fast home switch you can pick up from the store.

The more difficult problem is how your ISP offers you onward uplink to
match what you can push out of your home, as this thread is addressing.

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is 
> sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N 
> people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream 
> bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them.

But you're assuming the video chat is the only thing taking place in the
upward direction...

When my wife is doing her iCloud backup, I can't log into a router to do
some work without gouging my eyes out.

Mark.

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Philip Dorr]

On Feb 27, 2015 6:48 PM, "Miles Fidelman" 
wrote:
>
> Jack Bates wrote:
>>
>> On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Let's not go overboard here.  Can we remember that most corporate and
campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the
edges.  Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were
just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like carrier-grade gigE
switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.
>>>
>>
>> I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.
>
>
> Just to be clear - I'm talking about the local switch/router sitting on a
home network, not the connection to the outside world.  Last time I looked,
commodity gigE switches were symmetric - good for network attached storage,
media servers, that sort of thing.  (Come to think of it, though, I've
never paid attention to whether the WiFi side is symmetric.)

Commodity switches are symmetric for multiple reasons, but the biggest is
probably because a server could be on any port and a client on any other
port.

WiFi has two separate data rate selections.  The download could be at
300mbps and the upload only be at 1mbps.  Or even the other way.  WiFi is
also half-duplex, so if the data rate is 300mbps, then the maximum you
should expect is 150mbps.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka]

On 28/Feb/15 07:09, Joe Greco wrote:

> Only partially.  It is also a phenomenon of having built the first
> broadband networks with that asymmetry, which in turn discouraged a
> whole host of potential applications, which in turn creates a sort
> of bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy:  broadband networks don't see
> much call for tons of upstream because it wasn't available, and so
> there aren't lots of apps for it, and so users don't ask for it,
> and so the cycle continues.

My point.

It's not that folk don't ask for more uplink, but it's that they adjust
to their situation because it's hard enough getting a sales person on
the phone that knows what their doing, let along getting someone clued
up to come install the damn thing.

It's like cellphone toll quality - we've all accepted that if the call
is unclear or drops, we simply ring our party back instead of doing
something about it. We adapt to our network conditions where we know
further argument will yield strokes and heart attacks. It does not mean
we don't want better...
>
> In many cases, users who had high upstream requirements have been
> instead working around the brokenness by, for example, renting a
> server at a datacenter.  I know lots of gamers do this, etc.

A lot of my staff queue their uploads until they get to the office,
where we have fibre to our PoP. That's saying much...
>
> So even if we were to create massive new upstream capacity tomorrow,
> it might appear for many years that there's little interest.  Consider
> streaming video.  We theoretically had sufficient speed to do this at
> least ten years ago, but it took a long time for the technology to
> mature and catch on.
>
> However, it should be obvious that the best route to guaranteeing that
> new technologies do not develop is to keep the status quo.  With 
> wildly asymmetric speeds, upstream speeds are sometimes barely enough
> for the things we do today (and are already insufficient for network
> based backup strategies, etc).  Just try uploading a DVD ISO image
> for VM deployment from home to work ...
>
> The current service offerings generally seem to avoid offering high
> upstream speeds entirely, and so effectively eliminate even the 
> potential to explore the problem on a somewhat less-rigged basis.

Agree - but fundamental change like this doesn't happen overnight.
Whenever we start increasing upload speed, there will be reasonable
latency until users start to take advantage.

So the sooner, the sooner.

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 20:58 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 27/Feb/15 19:48, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>> How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating 
>> content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home surveillance 
>> but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is 
>> that the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see.  
>> This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, 
>> artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator 
>> to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.
> 
> The neighborhood getting together on Facetime to plot how to spend their
> days after the husbands have gone off to work comes to mind.
> 
> But wait...
> 
> Mark.

Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is 
sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N 
people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream 
bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them.

Owen

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka]

On 27/Feb/15 20:04, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>  
>
> Having said all that, has anyone else noticed that Verizon has been
> pushing symmetric bandwidth in their new FIOS plans?  Not sure how
> well it's working though - a lot of the early deployment is BPON,
> which tops out at 155Mbps for uploads - theoretically, I have 25/25
> service, but I've occasionally seen my uploads fall to 100kbps (yes
> that's a k).  Highly intermittent though - Verizon's techs have been
> having lots of fun trying to track things down.

And this is one of the reasons I think xPON is still the wrong way to
go, if the industry feels symmetry is worth a dime.

But, admittedly, that's just me...

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka]

On 27/Feb/15 19:48, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average neighborhood creating 
> content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is home surveillance 
> but I don't think you want everyone accessing that anyway.  The truth is that 
> the average user does not create content that anyone needs to see.  This has 
> not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of authors to readers, artists to 
> art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube cat video creator to cat video 
> lovers, has never been a many to many relationship.

The neighborhood getting together on Facetime to plot how to spend their
days after the husbands have gone off to work comes to mind.

But wait...

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka]

On 27/Feb/15 19:40, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>  We also sold SDSL which is symmetric service and the primary buyers were 
> generally businesses.

That was because of the way it was priced and marketed.

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka]

On 27/Feb/15 19:27, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> That statement completely confuses me.  Why is asymmetry evil?  Does that not 
> reflect what "Joe Average User" actually needs and wants? The statement that 
> the average users *MUST* have the same pipes going UP as he does going DOWN 
> does not reflect reality at all.  Do a lot of your users want to stream 4K 
> video to their friends UHD TV?  Given that all transmission media has some 
> sort of bandwidth limit it would seem to me that asymmetry is actually more 
> fair for the user since he gets more of what he needs which is download 
> speed.  There is no technical reason that it can't be symmetric it is just a 
> reflection of what the market wants.  As an ISP I can tell you that a lot 
> more people complaint about their download speeds than their upload speeds.  
> Do you think that you (or the average home user) would be happier with 27.5 
> down and 27.5 up vs your 50 down and 5 up you have today?  Don't tell me you 
> want 50 down and 50 up because that is a different bandwidth total that 
> requires a faster transmission media.

The person at the other end of my Facetime call was frustrated that they
couldn't see me when I took the call from my house (320Kbps up, ADSL)
yet I could see them perfectly (4Mbps down, ADSL).

Would I like for them to have been able to see me as I did them?

Mark.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Michael Thomas]

On 02/27/2015 02:52 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

What is that statement based on?  I have not seen any outcry for more symmetric 
speeds.  Asymmetry in our networks causes a lot of engineering issues and if it 
were up to the carriers, we would much rather have more symmetric traffic 
patterns because it would make life easier for us.  Remember that most carrier 
backbones are built of symmetric circuits.  It would be nice but the users 
generally download more than they upload.  That is the fact.



Average != Peak.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Mike

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Jim Richardson]

I am sure The Gibson guitar company thought the same thing about the EPA.

At least we can be sure that a TLA govt agency wouldn't be used to
harass an administration's political opponents, right?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
>> On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 , Jim Richardson  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  
>> wrote:
>>> Again, well settled.
>>>
>>> It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is 
>>> served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a 
>>> place where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers 
>>> from all nodes for exactly this reason.
>>
>> Does this mean that viewing say, cartoons of mohammed, may or may not
>> be 'illegal' for me to do, and result in my ISP being forced to block
>> traffic, depending on what origin and route they take to get to me?
>>
>> Are we going to have the fedgov trying to enforce other country's
>> censorship laws on us?
>
>
> This is absurd.
>
> The source server is under the jurisdiction of the sovereigns in that 
> location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the source server is carried out 
> at the source by them.
>
> The recipient client is under the jurisdictions of the sovereigns in that 
> location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the recipient is carried out 
> there by them.
>
> In the case of a US ISP, their local jurisdiction should (though I haven’t 
> read the detailed rules yet) be pre-empted from content based interference by 
> the federal preemption rules and the applicability of Title II. Federal law 
> would still, however, apply, and so an ISP would not be allowed to route 
> traffic to/from a site which they have been notified through proper due 
> process is violating US law.
>
> Beyond the borders of the US, the FCC has little or no ability to enforce 
> anything.
>
> Owen
>

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 , Jim Richardson  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
>> Again, well settled.
>> 
>> It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is 
>> served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a place 
>> where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers from all 
>> nodes for exactly this reason.
> 
> Does this mean that viewing say, cartoons of mohammed, may or may not
> be 'illegal' for me to do, and result in my ISP being forced to block
> traffic, depending on what origin and route they take to get to me?
> 
> Are we going to have the fedgov trying to enforce other country's
> censorship laws on us?


This is absurd.

The source server is under the jurisdiction of the sovereigns in that location. 
Any enforcement of their laws upon the source server is carried out at the 
source by them.

The recipient client is under the jurisdictions of the sovereigns in that 
location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the recipient is carried out there 
by them.

In the case of a US ISP, their local jurisdiction should (though I haven’t read 
the detailed rules yet) be pre-empted from content based interference by the 
federal preemption rules and the applicability of Title II. Federal law would 
still, however, apply, and so an ISP would not be allowed to route traffic 
to/from a site which they have been notified through proper due process is 
violating US law.

Beyond the borders of the US, the FCC has little or no ability to enforce 
anything.

Owen

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Joe Greco]

> On 27/Feb/15 19:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one
> > creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to download
> > all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.
> >
> > And when you expand to several billion people creating new content,
> you need
> > a *huge* pipe down.  Bottom line is that perfect symmetry isn't needed for
> > content distribution - most people can't create content fast enough to
> > clog their uplink, but have trouble picking and choosing what to
> downlink to
> > fit in the available bandwidth.
> 
> Isn't this a phenomenon of the state of our (uplink) networks?
> 
> Remove the restriction and see what happens?

Only partially.  It is also a phenomenon of having built the first
broadband networks with that asymmetry, which in turn discouraged a
whole host of potential applications, which in turn creates a sort
of bizarre self-fulfilling prophecy:  broadband networks don't see
much call for tons of upstream because it wasn't available, and so
there aren't lots of apps for it, and so users don't ask for it,
and so the cycle continues.

In many cases, users who had high upstream requirements have been
instead working around the brokenness by, for example, renting a
server at a datacenter.  I know lots of gamers do this, etc.

So even if we were to create massive new upstream capacity tomorrow,
it might appear for many years that there's little interest.  Consider
streaming video.  We theoretically had sufficient speed to do this at
least ten years ago, but it took a long time for the technology to
mature and catch on.

However, it should be obvious that the best route to guaranteeing that
new technologies do not develop is to keep the status quo.  With 
wildly asymmetric speeds, upstream speeds are sometimes barely enough
for the things we do today (and are already insufficient for network
based backup strategies, etc).  Just try uploading a DVD ISO image
for VM deployment from home to work ...

The current service offerings generally seem to avoid offering high
upstream speeds entirely, and so effectively eliminate even the 
potential to explore the problem on a somewhat less-rigged basis.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:49 , Jimmy Hess  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
>> Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, 
>> for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering).
> 
> I would prefer they replace use of the phrase "lawful internet
> traffic";   with   "Internet traffic not prohibited by law  and not
> related to a source, destination, or type of traffic prohibited
> specifically by provider's conspiciously published terms of service."
> 
> The use of the phrase "LAWFUL"  introduces ambiguity,  since any
> traffic not specifically authorized by law could be said to be
> unlawful.

Since we are talking about US law, you are not correct.

Anything not specifically prohibited by law in the US is lawful.

> Something neither prohibited nor stated to be allowed by law is by
> definition Unlawful as well….

Sorry, but no, that’s simply not accurate in the united states as legal 
terminology applies:

From law.com  (I’m too cheap to pay for a subscription to 
Black’s):

unlawful
adj. referring to any action which is in violation of a statute, federal or 
state constitution, or established legal precedents


Ergo, lawful would be anything which is not in violation of a statute, federal 
or state constitution, or established legal precedents.

Owen

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1



On 27/Feb/15 19:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new content.  If each one
> creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5 up.  But to download
> all the new content from the other 9, they need close to 50 down.
>
> And when you expand to several billion people creating new content,
you need
> a *huge* pipe down.  Bottom line is that perfect symmetry isn't needed for
> content distribution - most people can't create content fast enough to
> clog their uplink, but have trouble picking and choosing what to
downlink to
> fit in the available bandwidth.

Isn't this a phenomenon of the state of our (uplink) networks?

Remove the restriction and see what happens?

Mark.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=nZQs
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mark Tinka]

On 27/Feb/15 19:07, Mike Hammett wrote:
> More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about 
> symmetry. It's a simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or 
> cable). MHz for upload are taken out of MHz for download. 

But what comes first?

I argue users will respond to their network conditions, without even
knowing it.

I have ADSL at my house. Because I sit on fibre at the office, I always
forget that uploading an IOS or Junos image from my house to the data
centre works terribly from home, until it hits me.

Mark.

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Miles Fidelman]

Jack Bates wrote:

On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Folks,

Let's not go overboard here.  Can we remember that most corporate and 
campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least 
at the edges.  Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major 
carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like 
carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.




I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.


Just to be clear - I'm talking about the local switch/router sitting on 
a home network, not the connection to the outside world.  Last time I 
looked, commodity gigE switches were symmetric - good for network 
attached storage, media servers, that sort of thing.  (Come to think of 
it, though, I've never paid attention to whether the WiFi side is 
symmetric.)



Miles


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Jim Richardson]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
> Again, well settled.
>
> It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is 
> served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a place 
> where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers from all 
> nodes for exactly this reason.

Does this mean that viewing say, cartoons of mohammed, may or may not
be 'illegal' for me to do, and result in my ISP being forced to block
traffic, depending on what origin and route they take to get to me?

Are we going to have the fedgov trying to enforce other country's
censorship laws on us?

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Jack Bates]

On 2/27/2015 5:32 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

That's my point.  NANOG users are not the average user.  For every one of you 
there are at least a thousand people who just want good Netflix connections and 
even if they might be backing up stuff remotely they are sending a few selfies 
and a couple Word docs.




The next generation is growing up. They are streaming their games, 
spending huge amounts of time on skype in video groups, hosting servers, 
uploading video to youtube, and all kinds of things I don't do. Just the 
other day I got to hear about "oh, and I want my group to be able to 
watch this video with me on skype."


What the companies aren't hearing yet, but what the parents are is 
"Dad, why can't we have more upload?"



Jack

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Owen DeLong]

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

Owen

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:08 , Michael Hallgren  wrote:
> 
> Le 27/02/2015 23:19, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>> Any website which does not violate the law.
>> 
>> In other words, if a lawful takedown order
> 
> So, subject to legal control rather than simply administrative. Right?
> 
> mh
> 
>> has been applied to a website, this code can’t be used to force an ISP to 
>> provide illegal access to said site.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:14 , Jim Richardson  wrote:
>>> 
 From 47CFR§8.5b
>>> (b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet
>>> access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block
>>> consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable
>>> network management; nor shall such person block applications that
>>> compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject
>>> to reasonable network management.
>>> 
>>> What's a "lawful" web site?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen  wrote:
 On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an
> already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin
> to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an 
> industry
> that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
> 
 You really should read 47CFR§8.  It won't take you more than an hour or so,
 as it's only about 8 pages.
 
 The procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires 
 the
 complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the 
 complaint
 procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc).  Note
 that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in
 who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'
 

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Jimmy Hess]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
> Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, 
> for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering).

I would prefer they replace use of the phrase "lawful internet
traffic";   with   "Internet traffic not prohibited by law  and not
related to a source, destination, or type of traffic prohibited
specifically by provider's conspiciously published terms of service."

The use of the phrase "LAWFUL"  introduces ambiguity,  since any
traffic not specifically authorized by law could be said to be
unlawful.

Something neither prohibited nor stated to be allowed by law is by
definition Unlawful as well


> Things like gambling are the question, as that changes per location.
--
-JH

Re: utility capacity, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mel Beckman]

John,

That's an excellent point. Consider Google fiber, for example. And customer 
could theoretically demand a gigabit of traffic. Even Google admits that this 
doesn't scale and that they are highly oversubscribed.

 -mel beckman

On Feb 27, 2015, at 3:05 PM, "John Levine"  wrote:

>> Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on
>> oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of
>> all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand
>> standpoint.
> 
> Hi, former municipal water and sewer commissioner here.  We size the
> system to meet likely demand, but not peak demand.  If it's a hot dry
> summer and everyone wants to water their lawn, or there's a big fire
> that's drawing a lot of water from hydrants, we can have capacity
> problems.  We deal with it by interrupting service to a few large
> customers, a car wash and a golf course.
> 
> But it's not really comparable to broadband service, because on the
> Internet, nearly every consumer end user device could easily saturate
> the entire network if it wanted to.  It's like every house having a
> 100,000 gallon toilet.  Better hope you don't have a lot of people
> flushing at once.
> 
> R's,
> John

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:28:11 -0400, deles...@gmail.com said:
> I wonder if lawyer sit around all day and argue about CIDR notation

Almost certainly not, because there's no murky gray areas about CIDR
notation, much less ones that potentially affect how they do their jobs.


pgpUYL92MiSPB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Naslund, Steve]

Build it and they will come is a good way to go out of business in this 
industry.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>
>It is likely not to change when people don't have the available upload to 
>begin with. This is compounded by the queue problems on end devices. 
>How many more people would stream to twitch or youtube or skype if they didn't 
>have to hear this, "Are you uploading? You're slowing down the download! I 
>can't >watch my movie!"

>Jack

RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Naslund, Steve]

>> Sorry, no frequencies to play with on Ethernet. Ethernet is a baseband 
>> technology (i.e. DC voltage, not AC frequencies) One pair is 
>> transmitting, one pair is receiving in gigE. If you want to use both 
> >pairs in the same direction to double up the bandwidth, that could be 
> >done but it would not be Ethernet anymore. If you want to talk both 
> >ways on the same pair, that is half duplex, we've left that idea in 
> >the dust years ago. S

>I don't mean to argue, as I am by no means an expert, but I'm pretty sure that 
>1000Base-T is 4 pairs bidirectional. Wikipedia may have lied to me, though. My 
>>presumption is that anything supporting bidirectional communication on shared 
>media can somehow shift that communication from symmetric to asymmetric 
>>dynamically.

No you are correct that when you are talking about 1000Base-T you are talking 
about four pairs bidirectionally which is a departure from 10 and 100 mbps 
Ethernet.  That does not change the fact though that it is a baseband 
technology.  You can't dynamically change that and still call it Ethernet.  You 
are free to invent a new standard but it would be hard to do that given that 
10G is available for those feeling pain at 1G.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[John Levine]

In article <54f0e159.2000...@satchell.net> you write:
>One of the FUD items I keep seeing from some factions is that the FCC
>will regulate content on the Internet in the same way as they did for
>television during the time of the "fairness doctrine".

I agree, that's not going to happen.

With the "legal content" rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
therefore the providers can't block it.

R's,
John

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Naslund, Steve]

That's my point.  NANOG users are not the average user.  For every one of you 
there are at least a thousand people who just want good Netflix connections and 
even if they might be backing up stuff remotely they are sending a few selfies 
and a couple Word docs.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

>Hmm... my copy of crashplan is reporting 8mps of upload right now. 
>Granted, that's not average, but it can be sustained for a while, whenever I 
>shut down a virtual machine (Parallels on a Mac, the entire virtual image 
>takes a while to back >up - not all that uncommon).  I also expect that most 
>folks who buy a network backup service just use the default settings for when 
>to do backups - which suggests an >awful lot of backup traffic going on at the 
>same time every night.

>Miles Fidelman

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

On Feb 27, 2015, at 18:12 , Jim Richardson  wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
>> I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is this 
>> is pretty well settled.
>> 
>> And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is against 
>> the law in the jurisdiction in question, it is not legal (duh). Otherwise, 
>> yes it is, and no ISP gets to decide whether you can see it or not.
> 
> Which is the "jurisdiction in question" ? the originating website? the
> ISP? the CDN network's corporate home? my home?

Again, well settled.

It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is 
served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a place 
where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers from all 
nodes for exactly this reason.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[John Levine]

In article <54f0d533.70...@vocalabs.com> you write:
>My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level.

It is.  Just throttle your download speed to match your upload speed.

R's,
John

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[deleskie]

I wonder if lawyer sit around all day and argue about CIDR notation

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
  Original Message  
From: Jim Richardson
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 7:26 PM
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
> I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is this is 
> pretty well settled.
>
> And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is against 
> the law in the jurisdiction in question, it is not legal (duh). Otherwise, 
> yes it is, and no ISP gets to decide whether you can see it or not.

Which is the "jurisdiction in question" ? the originating website? the
ISP? the CDN network's corporate home? my home?

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Jack Bates]

On 2/27/2015 5:09 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
What people want, at least once thay have tasted it, is optical last 
mile. And not that PON shit. The real stuff or bust. 


Yeah. Then they complain when a tornado wipes out their power and they 
can't make a phone call.


It's a real world. Things are not always what we want. I'm sorry, but 
while I could afford the tens of thousands of dollars to run power one 
mile to my house, I will not be seeing fiber anytime soon. As much as I 
hate it, looks like wireless point to point for awhile. :(


Thinking of HAM radio to perhaps get help if things get really bad.


Let's be honest, it would be nice to utilize wasted download
frequency to send something quicker.

Any access technology with less than 1Gbit symmetrical bandwidth is
20th century. Doing greenfield with that is plainly stupid. There
is business to be made from smaller upgrades to copper that is in place,
but as soon as you dig (or set new poles in the ground), fiber is the
only real alternative.


It's hard to get DSL in some places in the country. Fiber? ha!

Jack

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Naslund, Steve]

>William Waites wrote:

>This is a self-fulling prophecy. As long as the edge networks have asymmetry 
>built into them popular programs and services will be developed that are 
>structured to >account for this. As long as the popular programs and services 
>are made like this, the "average user"
>will not know that they might want something different.

This is so wrong headed I don't know where to begin.  As an ISP I build the 
network to provide what consumers want, that is how you stay in business and 
attract customers.

>It doesn't have to be this way, its an artefact of a choice on the part of the 
>larger (mostly telephone company) ISPs in the 1990s. It also happens to suit 
>capital because it >is more obvious how to make money at the expense of the 
>users with an asymmetric network and centralised "Web 2.0" style services.

Wrong again.  I was an ISP in the 1990s and our first DSL offerings were SDSL 
symmetric services to replace more expensive T-1 circuits.  When we got into 
residential it was with SDSL and then the consumers wanted more downstream so 
ADSL was invented.  I was there, I know this.  I did not make more money 
because I sent traffic toward the user rather than up from the user.  In fact, 
it cost us lots of money to beef up OUR connections to our Tier 1 providers to 
account for the high level of user download traffic.  We would have loved it if 
all our users talked amongst themselves but that is not how the world works.


>Thankfully the cracks are starting to show. I was pleased to hear the 
>surprised and shocked praise when I installed a symmetric radio service to 
>someone in the >neighbourhood and it was no longer painful for them to upload 
>their photographs. Multi-party videoconferencing doesn't work well unless at 
>least one participant (or a >server) is on good, symmetric bandwidth. These 
>are just boring mundane applications. Imagine the more interesting ones that 
>might emerge if the restriction of >asymmetry was no longer commonplace..

To that I will just say that if your average user spend as much time 
videoconferencing as they do watching streaming media then they are probably a 
business.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
.

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Jack Bates]

On 2/27/2015 4:32 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:

You could do that.  The only issue is that you are putting in more intelligent 
CPE that has to be frequency agile and signal to the head end what is 
happening.  Carriers are very sensitive to CPE costs so I don't think that is 
likely to happen especially since I think that DSL is not considered leading 
edge service any more.  I would expect the carriers to devote more effort to 
FTTP efforts than to keep trying to advance DSL.


More intelligence in the chip that drives the connection. The CPE is 
generally wrapping around that chip. FTTP sounds great, but it just 
isn't appropriate in every scenario.


Sorry, no frequencies to play with on Ethernet. Ethernet is a baseband 
technology (i.e. DC voltage, not AC frequencies) One pair is 
transmitting, one pair is receiving in gigE. If you want to use both 
pairs in the same direction to double up the bandwidth, that could be 
done but it would not be Ethernet anymore. If you want to talk both 
ways on the same pair, that is half duplex, we've left that idea in 
the dust years ago. S


I don't mean to argue, as I am by no means an expert, but I'm pretty 
sure that 1000Base-T is 4 pairs bidirectional. Wikipedia may have lied 
to me, though. My presumption is that anything supporting bidirectional 
communication on shared media can somehow shift that communication from 
symmetric to asymmetric dynamically.


Jack

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Jim Richardson]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore  wrote:
> I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is this is 
> pretty well settled.
>
> And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is against 
> the law in the jurisdiction in question, it is not legal (duh). Otherwise, 
> yes it is, and no ISP gets to decide whether you can see it or not.

Which is the "jurisdiction in question" ? the originating website? the
ISP? the CDN network's corporate home? my home?

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Måns Nilsson]

Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2015 
at 01:49:04PM -0600 Quoting Jack Bates (jba...@paradoxnetworks.net):

 

>  Ideally, I suspect that most people would prefer a more
> variable approach, allowing for the complete frequency spectrum for
> upload and download and any combination in between.
 
What people want, at least once thay have tasted it, is optical last
mile. And not that PON shit. The real stuff or bust.

> Let's be honest, it would be nice to utilize wasted download
> frequency to send something quicker. 

Any access technology with less than 1Gbit symmetrical bandwidth is
20th century. Doing greenfield with that is plainly stupid. There 
is business to be made from smaller upgrades to copper that is in place,
but as soon as you dig (or set new poles in the ground), fiber is the
only real alternative.
-- 
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
I like your SNOOPY POSTER!!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Naslund, Steve]

Completely wrong.  Sorry, but most network traffic is not symmetric.  In 
corporate environments traffic flows much more heavily from server to client.  
Home networks are very highly asymmetric because upstream you see URL requests 
and downstream you have media streams.  PON networks were designed so that the 
carrier can deliver internet and video services to you.  The network was 
designed to deliver content to you not from you.   Carrier grade gigE switches 
are not the issue, the issue is effectively getting the consumer what they want 
without super expensive CPE or overbuilding the network.

Most consumers care about fast download speed so they can watch content.  
Period, this is a fact.  Of course there are other cases but networks are 
designed to provide the services that the consumer wants.

I can't believe that this is so hard to understand. 

Steven Naslund 
Chicago IL

>Folks,

>Let's not go overboard here.  Can we remember that most corporate and campus 
>(and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the edges.  
>Personally, >I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were just 
>asking for trouble down the line.  It's not like carrier-grade gigE switches 
>are that much more expensive than >PON gear.

>Miles Fidelman

>--
>In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
>In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Michael Hallgren]

Le 27/02/2015 23:19, Owen DeLong a écrit :
> Any website which does not violate the law.
>
> In other words, if a lawful takedown order

So, subject to legal control rather than simply administrative. Right?

mh

>  has been applied to a website, this code can’t be used to force an ISP to 
> provide illegal access to said site.
>
> Owen
>
>> On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:14 , Jim Richardson  wrote:
>>
>>> From 47CFR§8.5b
>> (b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet
>> access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block
>> consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable
>> network management; nor shall such person block applications that
>> compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject
>> to reasonable network management.
>>
>> What's a "lawful" web site?
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen  wrote:
>>> On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
 We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an
 already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin
 to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an 
 industry
 that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.

>>> You really should read 47CFR§8.  It won't take you more than an hour or so,
>>> as it's only about 8 pages.
>>>
>>> The procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the
>>> complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint
>>> procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc).  Note
>>> that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in
>>> who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'
>>>

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Naslund, Steve]

>When I was involved with private-loop provision, what I noticed here in 
>northern Nevada is that the provisioning of T1 circuits moved from baseband 
>signalling to SDSL.  >From the standpoint of cable management, the splatter 
>from SDSL was MUCH lower than the splattering of baseband T1, so instead of 
>being limited to a single T1 circuit >per 25-pair bundle, you could have 
>several circuits.
>
>TIA T1Q1 has quite a lot to say on this.

Absolutely correct, the SDSL gets you around a lot of the inductance problems 
with baseband T-1s.  For quite awhile now most carriers deliver T-1s using SDSL 
smartjacks.  Some are single pair 1.5mbps bidirectional and on longer circuits 
they use two pairs each running 768 kbps.  That technology is what DSL home 
service developed from and predates the ADSL standards which were create 
explicitly for internet users that want more downstream than upstream.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Naslund, Steve]

What is that statement based on?  I have not seen any outcry for more symmetric 
speeds.  Asymmetry in our networks causes a lot of engineering issues and if it 
were up to the carriers, we would much rather have more symmetric traffic 
patterns because it would make life easier for us.  Remember that most carrier 
backbones are built of symmetric circuits.  It would be nice but the users 
generally download more than they upload.  That is the fact.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL


>The demand may not be symmetrical, but where demand exists, it is often for 
>symmetrical speeds.
>
>Side note:  Did I not read that asymmetric paths tend to exacerbate Buffer 
>Bloat?

>James R. Cutler
>james.cut...@consultant.com
>PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[James R Cutler]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 5:52 PM, Naslund, Steve  wrote:
> 
> What is that statement based on?  I have not seen any outcry for more 
> symmetric speeds.  Asymmetry in our networks causes a lot of engineering 
> issues and if it were up to the carriers, we would much rather have more 
> symmetric traffic patterns because it would make life easier for us.  
> Remember that most carrier backbones are built of symmetric circuits.  It 
> would be nice but the users generally download more than they upload.  That 
> is the fact.
> 
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
> 
> 
>> The demand may not be symmetrical, but where demand exists, it is often for 
>> symmetrical speeds.
>> 
>> Side note:  Did I not read that asymmetric paths tend to exacerbate Buffer 
>> Bloat?
> 
>> James R. Cutler
>> james.cut...@consultant.com
>> PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu
> 


"the users generally download more than they upload.” may well be true, but is 
refers to bytes moved, not bytes per second.

And, again, what about Buffer Bloat, especially due to considerably slower 
uplinks?


James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: utility capacity, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[John Levine]

>Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on
>oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of
>all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand
>standpoint. 

Hi, former municipal water and sewer commissioner here.  We size the
system to meet likely demand, but not peak demand.  If it's a hot dry
summer and everyone wants to water their lawn, or there's a big fire
that's drawing a lot of water from hydrants, we can have capacity
problems.  We deal with it by interrupting service to a few large
customers, a car wash and a golf course.

But it's not really comparable to broadband service, because on the
Internet, nearly every consumer end user device could easily saturate
the entire network if it wanted to.  It's like every house having a
100,000 gallon toilet.  Better hope you don't have a lot of people
flushing at once.

R's,
John

RE: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Naslund, Steve]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> "My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level."
>
> Why?  What's magical about symmetry?  Is a customer better served by 
> having a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps?

If the option sells, it will be offered.  It didn't.  We offer symmetric DLS 
residentially and it went over like a lead balloon.

> "There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game 
> servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an 
> indication of an unhealthy market."
>
> Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to 
> leverage than you might think.  I don't think there is anything 
> special about

NAT is not that big an issue any more because everything from game server to 
backup software can deal with it.  No need to re-invent the wheel to get around 
NAT.  In fact, for backups it is completely a non-issue since there is going to 
be a client initiating the data push to a cloud server.

> symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up 
> and will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual 
> performance stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as 
> fast as downstream demand.

Of course, upstream bandwidth will increase but downstream will increase as 
much or I would suspect even more.  It is very simple to explain.  A song is 
uploaded to iTunes once and downloaded millions of times.  An HD movie is 
upload once and view many times.Essentially whether it is music, video, web 
content, or any other media, it is normally an upload once download many 
operation.  

I am not saying that sometimes a residential user's traffic is not symmetric 
(Skype calls etc.) from time to time.   It is just not what most residential 
users are concentrated on.  As soon as people become more interested in high 
upload speeds, the market will react.  In fact, most carriers would love a more 
symmetric user to user environment because most carrier backbones have to be 
very over-engineered based on traffic toward the consumer.

Steven Naslund 
Chicago IL 

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[James Downs]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 08:11, Stephen Satchell  wrote:
> 
> transcription on an old Underwood Portable that had seen much, much
> better days.

You’d think they could afford a new typewriter or two with all of the Universal 
Service fees they’ve been collecting and not providing.

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Jack Bates]

Even so, what makes the channel assignments static? If the downstream 
bands are sitting idle, why can't they be reallocated for use by modems 
needing to send more? Or, presuming upstream isolation between modems, 
why can't multiple channels be dynamically allocated to a modem when 
there is availability and need?


I'm not arguing how it is. Just saying. Why can't we do more? GMPLS 
shows we can get really annoying in our ability to automate in dynamic 
provisioning. I'd think fixing something like DOCSIS would be a cakewalk 
in comparison.


Sorry, I'm just a network guy that plays with routers and servers. I 
expect more out of the geniuses that make stuff for me to play with.


Jack

On 2/27/2015 4:05 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

Stephen is dead on here.  In DOCSIS the downstream communication happens in
one or more normal cable TV channel band, ie 6MHz channels from 54 MHz to
890MHz.  The upstreams will be (in most cases) either 1.6 MHz, 3.2 MHz, or
6.4MHz wide and in the 5-42 MHz range.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Satchell  wrote:


On 02/27/2015 01:27 PM, Jack Bates wrote:

My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would
start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving
someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating
3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at
night could use 50mb/s upstream and drop your downstream to 5mb/s
because you aren't downloading anything?

That's possible with multicarrier technology, such as xDSL.  When you
get into the data-over-cable technology, you find a completely different
story -- it's a system limitation that you have an upstream channel that
is less efficient than the downstream channel because the upstream
channel has to be accessed by a number of sources, with access control,
whereas the downstream channel is nothing more than a broadcast pipe
(just like 10base-2 Ethernet) where you pick your packets out of the
stream.

Other technologies have their quirks, too...

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> "I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup
> solution.
> I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their
> pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :("
>
> Are you really trying to say they wouldn't get more customers if they could
> lower their prices or alternatively increase marketing?

no, what I'm saying is I don't think price sensitivity is the thing
that moves folk from backup or not. (but again, this is all a red
herring anyway)

> "I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong."
>
> I invite you to try and do some of the programming tricks needed to work
> around NAT and the ongoing costs needed to run an external set of servers
> just to handle session state.  15% is probably underestimating the costs,
> but I don't have hard numbers to be any more precise.
>

great, no citation...

rsync -f /etc/rsyncd.conf

problem solved. (well, wrap a shell script to re-create that config as
you add/remove users)

> "this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of
> things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it
> would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are
> 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful."
>
> Just because it's easy for you, doesn't have a thing to do with the effort
> that the Carbonite engineers and software folks had to put in to make it
> easy.
>
> "I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does
> (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell
> the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).'
>
> Wait, are you really running Windows ME
>

I also don't actually play Angband.

> "folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if
> they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks
> that don't already have v6 deployed.
>
> You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6."
>
> You're misunderstanding, IPv6 is expensive for the carriers and NAT is
> expensive for the OTT service providers and software companies.  Both are
> hard and expensive, but to completely different groups.  This is why
> Netflix, Google, Carbonite, Spotify, and host of other content or OTT
> services want the carriers to deploy IPv6.  It's also why the carriers have
> been less than enthusiastic.  They get the bulk of the cost while others get
> the bulk of the benefits.

actually I think folk want ipv6 because it'll be more stable and
reliable and permit the same fast growth of the network and services.
Also, don't confuse CGN with home-nat.

> "Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so
> that's a fine red herring you've also brought up."
>
> No, it's not.  SBCs can and do a lot more than NAT transversal, but the
> reasons that SIP operators of any scale can't live without them is NAT.
> Anyone who tells you differently is misinformed

they also can't connect with their peers in a sane fashion. I suppose
if they didn't want any of their customers to talk outside the
singular service they could avoid sbcs as well... I think there are
other things than SBC devices which are capable of making sip work too
in the face of NAT.

-chris

RE: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Naslund, Steve]

>I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.

I agree, most homes are not symmetric, the two biggest services are cable modem 
and DSL which are usually asymmetric.

>Of course, what needs to happen is for standards bodies to start thinking more 
>dynamic when they build their protocols where possible. 
>Passive splitters obviously have the limitation of limiting frequencies, but 
>our xDSL technologies and cable technologies do not have the restriction to my 
>>knowledge. Future protocols ideally would have a signaling band, recognition 
>of frequency support bidirectionally and perhaps support dynamic allocation of 
>>those channels as-needed.

>If an end node is saturating the upload but not using the download, why 
>shouldn't the system shift the frequency usage? If only 10mb/s is being used 
>out of >a 50mb/s circuit for download, why not allow that extra capacity to be 
>used for upload, temporarily shifting it's direction?

You could do that.  The only issue is that you are putting in more intelligent 
CPE that has to be frequency agile and signal to the head end what is 
happening.  Carriers are very sensitive to CPE costs so I don't think that is 
likely to happen especially since I think that DSL is not considered leading 
edge service any more.  I would expect the carriers to devote more effort to 
FTTP efforts than to keep trying to advance DSL.

>My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would start 
>realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving someone 50mb/s 
>with >20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating 3mb/s the opposite 
>direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at night could use 50mb/s 
>upstream >and drop your downstream to 5mb/s because you aren't downloading 
>anything?

Again, not a technical problem.  It is a CPE intelligence and cost issue.  
Unless a whole lot of customers want that, the money is not going to be spent 
to support that.

>For that matter, is there a reason we don't dynamically adjust frequencies on 
>Ethernet? My servers would definitely love 1.8gb/s transmit since they receive 
>>very little.

Sorry, no frequencies to play with on Ethernet.  Ethernet is a baseband 
technology (i.e. DC voltage, not AC frequencies) One pair is transmitting, one 
pair is receiving in gigE.If you want to use both pairs in the same 
direction to double up the bandwidth, that could be done but it would not be 
Ethernet anymore.   If you want to talk both ways on the same pair, that is 
half duplex, we've left that idea in the dust years ago.


Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[James R Cutler]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> 
> My point is not that upstream
> speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and
> unless the market changes won't be in the near term.  Downstream demand is
> growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand.

The demand may not be symmetrical, but where demand exists, it is often for 
symmetrical speeds.

Side note:  Did I not read that asymmetric paths tend to exacerbate Buffer 
Bloat?

James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consultant.com
PGP keys at http://pgp.mit.edu



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[John Levine]

In article <11287607.8005.1425056798993.JavaMail.mhammett@ThunderFuck> you 
write:
>More symmetry will happen when the home user does more things that care about 
>symmetry. It's a
>simple allocation of spectrum (whether wireless, DSL or cable). MHz for upload 
>are taken out of MHz
>for download. 

It's more complicated than that.  On cable systems, all of the
upstream traffic has to contend for the available space, sort of like
classic Ethernet.  The faster you try to go, the more you lose to
contention.  With ADSL, there's only so much bandwidth per pair, and I
doubt many users would want less download speed.

There's also little reason to expect that many home users want
symmetrical access.  We weenies are atypical.  Your normal broadband
user watches video (which would better be sent as actual video over
the cable, but that's a separate argument) and futzes with Facebook or
Snapchat or the groovy app du jour.  It's all mostly downstream
traffic.

R's,
John

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Owen DeLong]

Any website which does not violate the law.

In other words, if a lawful takedown order has been applied to a website, this 
code can’t be used to force an ISP to provide illegal access to said site.

Owen

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:14 , Jim Richardson  wrote:
> 
>> From 47CFR§8.5b
> (b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet
> access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block
> consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable
> network management; nor shall such person block applications that
> compete with the provider's voice or video telephony services, subject
> to reasonable network management.
> 
> What's a "lawful" web site?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Lamar Owen  wrote:
>> On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
>>> 
>>> We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an
>>> already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even begin
>>> to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to "fix" an industry
>>> that has done amazingly good things for consumers in recent years.
>>> 
>> You really should read 47CFR§8.  It won't take you more than an hour or so,
>> as it's only about 8 pages.
>> 
>> The procedure for filing a complaint is pretty interesting, and requires the
>> complainant to do some pretty involved things. (47CFR§8.14 for the complaint
>> procedure, 47CFR§8.13 for the requirements for the pleading, etc).  Note
>> that the definitions found in 47CFR§8.11(a) and (b) are pretty specific in
>> who is actually covered by 'net neutrality.'
>> 

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is this is 
pretty well settled.

And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is against the 
law in the jurisdiction in question, it is not legal (duh). Otherwise, yes it 
is, and no ISP gets to decide whether you can see it or not.

Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, for 
better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering).

Things like gambling are the question, as that changes per location.


A better question is: Can ISPs sell things like "filtering" services for a fee? 
Blocking is disallowed. But that is blocking by the ISP. Affirmative requests 
from the end user to block things are probably OK. But ... has anyone seen the 
actual rules?

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:46 , Livingood, Jason 
>  wrote:
> 
> Iąm not sure who gets to definitively answer the question (I would guess
> that case law will develop around it but IANAL), but this sort of caveat
> has been in the Open Internet rules for awhile. In general it means ISPs
> canąt block stuff like Facebook but have latitude to do stuff like block a
> site/IP address that may be the source of an attack, etc.
> 
> 
> - Jason
> 
> On 2/27/15, 2:24 PM, "Bruce H McIntosh"  wrote:
>> 
>> On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>> What's a "lawful" web site?
>>> 
>> Now *there* is a $64,000 question.  Even more interesting is, "Who gets
>> to decide day to day the answer to that question?" :)

Re: Who is covered [was VZ...]

[Adam Rothschild]

I think "terminating access monopoly" is (rightly IMO) the litmus test
for coverage, but I am not an attorney either...

$0.02,
-a

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Livingood, Jason
 wrote:
> I have the same question. No one will know for sure until the rules are
> released, but my guess is it potentially covers more than people may
> initially think.
>
> For example, I would guess many ³transit² networks will be covered since
> they also provide in many cases retail access to schools, hospitals,
> government, business, etc. It¹s not much of a stretch to see how CDNs,
> hosters, and others may be covered by at least parts of this, such as
> transparency/policy disclosure, maybe measurement. Blocking, throttling,
> and paid prioritization could also apply in some critical ways, especially
> given the % of Internet traffic that uses CDNs for example.
>
>
> Again, the key may be that there will be ambiguity that may only be sorted
> out as case law develops around each of these areas. But IANAL so I¹m just
> guessing like the rest of us for now! ;-)
>
> - Jason
>
> On 2/27/15, 3:44 PM, "Adam Rothschild"  wrote:
>
>>I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to
>>"broadband access" providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor
>>CDNs.  It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the full
>>documentation is released.
>>
>>FWIW,
>>-a
>>
>>[*]
>>http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-33
>>2260A1.pdf
>>
>>On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:49 PM, McElearney, Kevin
>> wrote:
>>> [Sorry for top-posting]
>>>
>>> I actually think you are both right and partially wrong.  It IS the ISPs
>>> responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and
>>> you paid for.  This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring
>>> Broadband America.
>>>
>>>http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-
>>>Me
>>> asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf
>>>
>>> That said, your ISP is NOT ³the Internet² and can¹t guarantee ³access
>>>the
>>> Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second."  While ISPs do
>>>take
>>> the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they
>>> certainly don¹t control all levels of the QoE.  ASPs may have
>>>server/site
>>> issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners
>>> contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance
>>> limitations, etc.
>>>
>>> What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and
>>> transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the
>>> consumer QoE.
>>>
>>> - Kevin
>>>
>>> On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, "Mel Beckman"  wrote:
>>>
Bill,

This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never
possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand
their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to
each customer in order to "do everything reasonably within your power to
make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per
second", then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per
month.

Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet
distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP
practices.

On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>>
 wrote:

Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
at X megabits per second.

>>>
>>
>

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Helms]

"I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup
solution.
I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their
pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :("

Are you really trying to say they wouldn't get more customers if they could
lower their prices or alternatively increase marketing?

"I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong."

I invite you to try and do some of the programming tricks needed to work
around NAT and the ongoing costs needed to run an external set of servers
just to handle session state.  15% is probably underestimating the costs,
but I don't have hard numbers to be any more precise.

"this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of
things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it
would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are
'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful."

Just because it's easy for you, doesn't have a thing to do with the effort
that the Carbonite engineers and software folks had to put in to make it
easy.

"I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does
(zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell
the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).'

Wait, are you really running Windows ME

"folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if
they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks
that don't already have v6 deployed.

You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6."

You're misunderstanding, IPv6 is expensive for the carriers and NAT is
expensive for the OTT service providers and software companies.  Both are
hard and expensive, but to completely different groups.  This is why
Netflix, Google, Carbonite, Spotify, and host of other content or OTT
services want the carriers to deploy IPv6.  It's also why the carriers have
been less than enthusiastic.  They get the bulk of the cost while others
get the bulk of the benefits.


"Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so
that's a fine red herring you've also brought up."

No, it's not.  SBCs can and do a lot more than NAT transversal, but the
reasons that SIP operators of any scale can't live without them is NAT.
Anyone who tells you differently is misinformed

Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 5:05 PM, Christopher Morrow  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> > "hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was).
> > I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice
> > server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?"
> >
> > Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price
> will
> > go down and more people will choose to use it.  That's kind of my point.
>
> I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup
> solution.
> I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their
> pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(
>
> > Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their
> > costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT
> transversal
> > they could offer more services for the same amount of money or offer the
>
> I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong.
>
> > same service for less.  Either would result in more people using that
> kind
> > of service.
> >
>
> this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of
> things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it
> would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are
> 'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful.
>
> > Imagine what might be possible if direct communication would work without
> > port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood.
>
> I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does
> (zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell
> the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).
>
> also I have ipv6, so i  have open access directly to my internal
> network. (so do 70+% of the rest of the comcast user base... and TWC
> and ...)
>
> > "no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
> > 'fastest player' to be the server for group play..."
> >
> > That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard
> products)
> >
>
> you'll note in my first message about this (not the morse code one) I
> said I don't play games so call it angband (http://rephial.org/)
>
> > "my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over
> > play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft
> > people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable
> > trans

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> "hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was).
> I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice
> server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?"
>
> Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will
> go down and more people will choose to use it.  That's kind of my point.

I don't know that price is the problem with carbonite, or any backup solution.
I think most folk don't see why they OUGHT to backup their
pictures/etc... until they needed to get them from a backup :(

> Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their
> costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT transversal
> they could offer more services for the same amount of money or offer the

I doubt it's 15%, if it is... wow they seem to be doing it wrong.

> same service for less.  Either would result in more people using that kind
> of service.
>

this is a point problem (backup for carbonite), there are lots of
things that work 'just fine' with NAT (practically everything... it
would seem) I'm not sure digging more into why carbonite/etc are
'hard' (because they aren't, because they are working...) is helpful.

> Imagine what might be possible if direct communication would work without
> port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood.

I can imagine that, I have that silly thing that my dsl modem does
(zeroconf or whatever crazy sauce my windows ME desktop does to tell
the 'router' to open a port so johnny down the street can chat me).

also I have ipv6, so i  have open access directly to my internal
network. (so do 70+% of the rest of the comcast user base... and TWC
and ...)

> "no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
> 'fastest player' to be the server for group play..."
>
> That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard products)
>

you'll note in my first message about this (not the morse code one) I
said I don't play games so call it angband (http://rephial.org/)

> "my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over
> play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft
> people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable
> transport option, and the clients won't make  queries so my 
> is a wasted dns few bytes.
>
> Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a
> problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and
> whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well."
>
> It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're
> using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to get
> around it to a certain extent.  Session border controllers cost tens of
> thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT.

folk could deploy v6 though, eh? it's not costing THAT much I guess if
they can't get off their duffs and deploy v6 on the consumer networks
that don't already have v6 deployed.

You can't be all: "NAT IS HARD!!! AND EXPENSIVE!!!" and not deploy v6.

Frankly, SBCs exist for a whole host of reasons unrelated to NAT, so
that's a fine red herring you've also brought up.

-chris

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Scott Helms]

Stephen is dead on here.  In DOCSIS the downstream communication happens in
one or more normal cable TV channel band, ie 6MHz channels from 54 MHz to
890MHz.  The upstreams will be (in most cases) either 1.6 MHz, 3.2 MHz, or
6.4MHz wide and in the 5-42 MHz range.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Satchell  wrote:

> On 02/27/2015 01:27 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> > My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would
> > start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving
> > someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating
> > 3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at
> > night could use 50mb/s upstream and drop your downstream to 5mb/s
> > because you aren't downloading anything?
>
> That's possible with multicarrier technology, such as xDSL.  When you
> get into the data-over-cable technology, you find a completely different
> story -- it's a system limitation that you have an upstream channel that
> is less efficient than the downstream channel because the upstream
> channel has to be accessed by a number of sources, with access control,
> whereas the downstream channel is nothing more than a broadcast pipe
> (just like 10base-2 Ethernet) where you pick your packets out of the
> stream.
>
> Other technologies have their quirks, too...
>
>

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Owen DeLong]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 08:04 , Miles Fidelman  wrote:
> 
> I'd think they'd be better off with some jujitsu, along the lines of:
> 
> "We've always practiced network neutrality, not like some of our competitors, 
> this won't effect us at all and may enforce some good business practices on 
> others”

I think they’d be pretty hard pressed to say this with a straight face. Even if 
they could, anyone who is paying attention would know better.

> (As far as I can tell, Verizon has not played games with favoring their own 
> content - for all intents and purposes, they operate FIOS as a common carrier 
> - no funny throttling, no usage caps, etc.)

Verizon has been every bit as much involved in the let’s tax the big content 
providers for all we can games as any of the other eyeball providers.

> I'm surprised they weren't a bit more vocal on the OTHER FCC decision of the 
> day - preempting some state restrictions on municipal broadband builds - 
> Verizon has been very active in pushing state laws to kill muni networks 
> (even in places where they have no intention of building out).

They prefer to do this in ways the public is less likely to notice what they 
are doing. The last thing they want is a big public backlash against their 
backroom dealings with lawmakers on this matter. The fact that the president 
called them out on it publicly is pretty much game over for that tactic anyway.

Owen

> 
> Miles Fidelman
> 
> Scott Fisher wrote:
>> I am not arguing that they have a valid complaint. I just think their
>> method of doing so is a bit childish. It does get the point across,
>> just not in the method I respect. Just my opinion though.
>> 
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Rob McEwen  wrote:
>>> Scott Fisher,
>>> 
>>> I think Verizon's statement was brilliant, and entirely appropriate. Some
>>> people are going to have a hard time discovering that being in favor of
>>> Obama's version of "net neutrality"... will soon be just about as cool as
>>> having supported SOPA.
>>> 
>>> btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know... those
>>> hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote... anyone know
>>> if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
>>> 
>>> Rob McEwen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:10 AM, Scott Fisher 
>>> wrote:
 Funny, but in my honest opinion, unprofessional. Poor PR.
 
 On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Larry Sheldon 
 wrote:
> 
> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

BGP Update Report

[cidr-report]

BGP Update Report
Interval: 19-Feb-15 -to- 26-Feb-15 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072

TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS2119   702188 10.3%3221.0 -- TELENOR-NEXTEL Telenor Norge 
AS,NO
 2 - AS61894  343019  5.0%   114339.7 -- FreeBSD Brasil LTDA,BR
 3 - AS23752  255192  3.7%2407.5 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal 
Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP
 4 - AS7782   177923  2.6%   29653.8 -- ALSK-7782 - Alaska 
Communications Systems Group, Inc.,US
 5 - AS393276  175604  2.6%   35120.8 -- CEA - Chugach Electric 
Association, Inc.,US
 6 - AS9829   145184  2.1%  94.3 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet 
Backbone,IN
 7 - AS2734   119185  1.8%7449.1 -- CORESITE - CoreSite,US
 8 - AS36947   74984  1.1% 357.1 -- ALGTEL-AS,DZ
 9 - AS42081   61752  0.9% 823.4 -- SPEEDY-NET-AS Speedy net EAD,BG
10 - AS790858262  0.8% 366.4 -- BT LATAM Venezuela, S.A.,VE
11 - AS53563   57463  0.8%   28731.5 -- XPLUSONE - X Plus One 
Solutions, Inc.,US
12 - AS33885   55752  0.8%3097.3 -- OWNIT Ownit Broadband AB,SE
13 - AS561954404  0.8%3022.4 -- EVRY-NO EVRY AS,NO
14 - AS46230   50001  0.7%2381.0 -- DUDROP - Dignitas Technology 
Inc,US
15 - AS28726   45632  0.7%2281.6 -- ASN-EDB-UNIGRID EDB Drift AB,SE
16 - AS11664   45044  0.7%  93.6 -- Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones 
Interactivas S.A.,AR
17 - AS60717   43922  0.6%3992.9 -- BAYONETTE Bayonette AS,NO
18 - AS61275   43553  0.6%3350.2 -- ASN-NEAS Nordmore Energiverk 
AS,NO
19 - AS34984   41012  0.6%  24.5 -- TELLCOM-AS TELLCOM ILETISIM 
HIZMETLERI A.S.,TR
20 - AS27194   38040  0.6%   19020.0 -- REALLYFAST - ReallyFast.net,US


TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix)
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS61894  343019  5.0%   114339.7 -- FreeBSD Brasil LTDA,BR
 2 - AS54970   35330  0.5%   35330.0 -- NORTHERN-AIR-CARGO - NORTHERN 
AIR CARGO,US
 3 - AS393276  175604  2.6%   35120.8 -- CEA - Chugach Electric 
Association, Inc.,US
 4 - AS7782   177923  2.6%   29653.8 -- ALSK-7782 - Alaska 
Communications Systems Group, Inc.,US
 5 - AS53563   57463  0.8%   28731.5 -- XPLUSONE - X Plus One 
Solutions, Inc.,US
 6 - AS27194   38040  0.6%   19020.0 -- REALLYFAST - ReallyFast.net,US
 7 - AS61039   15734  0.2%   15734.0 -- ZMZ OAO ZMZ,RU
 8 - AS32643   14225  0.2%   14225.0 -- RDI - RESOURCE DATA, INC.,US
 9 - AS47680   12258  0.2%   12258.0 -- NHCS EOBO Limited,IE
10 - AS131754   10524  0.1%   10524.0 -- IDNIC-UNMUL-AS-ID Universitas 
Mulawarman,ID
11 - AS18135   10229  0.1%   10229.0 -- BTV BTV Cable television,JP
12 - AS463367886  0.1%7886.0 -- GOODVILLE - Goodville Mutual 
Casualty Company,US
13 - AS2734   119185  1.8%7449.1 -- CORESITE - CoreSite,US
14 - AS25563   21856  0.3%7285.3 -- WEBLAND-AS Webland AG, 
Autonomous System,CH
15 - AS197914   19126  0.3%6375.3 -- STOCKHO-AS Stockho Hosting 
SARL,FR
16 - AS333565850  0.1%5850.0 -- CTWS - Eagle-Tech Systems,US
17 - AS201514631  0.1%4631.0 -- MCW-12-01 - Mountain Computer 
Wizards, Inc.,US
18 - AS597674554  0.1%4554.0 -- NETNORDIC Netnordic Holding 
AS,NO
19 - AS337214021  0.1%4021.0 -- CCL-ASN2 - CARNIVAL CRUISE 
LINES,US
20 - AS60717   43922  0.6%3992.9 -- BAYONETTE Bayonette AS,NO


TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes
Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name
 1 - 177.10.158.0/24  343001  4.9%   AS61894 -- FreeBSD Brasil LTDA,BR
 2 - 202.70.88.0/21   127362  1.8%   AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal 
Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP
 3 - 202.70.64.0/21   124990  1.8%   AS23752 -- NPTELECOM-NP-AS Nepal 
Telecommunications Corporation, Internet Services,NP
 4 - 105.96.0.0/22 66980  1.0%   AS36947 -- ALGTEL-AS,DZ
 5 - 199.38.164.0/23   57460  0.8%   AS53563 -- XPLUSONE - X Plus One 
Solutions, Inc.,US
 6 - 192.206.58.0/24   35748  0.5%   AS7782  -- ALSK-7782 - Alaska 
Communications Systems Group, Inc.,US
 7 - 198.163.32.0/21   35708  0.5%   AS7782  -- ALSK-7782 - Alaska 
Communications Systems Group, Inc.,US
 8 - 162.211.56.0/21   35576  0.5%   AS7782  -- ALSK-7782 - Alaska 
Communications Systems Group, Inc.,US
 9 - 107.152.112.0/20  35474  0.5%   AS7782  -- ALSK-7782 - Alaska 
Communications Systems Group, Inc.,US
10 - 104.254.224.0/21  35412  0.5%   AS7782  -- ALSK-7782 - Alaska 
Communications Systems Group, Inc.,US
11 - 198.17.216.0/24   35330  0.5%   AS54970 -- NORTHERN-AIR-CARGO - NORTHERN 
AIR CARGO,US
12 - 192.189.218.0/24  35202  0.5%   AS393276 -- CEA - Chugach Electric 
Association, Inc.,US
13 - 192.189.215.0/24  35198  0.5%   AS393276 -- CEA - Chugach Ele

The Cidr Report

[cidr-report]

This report has been generated at Fri Feb 27 21:14:26 2015 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
20-02-15538805  296230
21-02-15539328  296368
22-02-15539258  296450
23-02-15539278  296680
24-02-15539629  298059
25-02-15540702  297505
26-02-15538881  300039
27-02-15541645  299392


AS Summary
 49778  Number of ASes in routing system
 19864  Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
  3122  Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS10620: Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO
  120442368  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').

 --- 27Feb15 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description

Table 541748   299440   24230844.7%   All ASes

AS22773 2985  170 281594.3%   ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
   Cox Communications Inc.,US
AS6389  2891  120 277195.8%   BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
   BellSouth.net Inc.,US
AS17974 2819   77 274297.3%   TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
   Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID
AS39891 2473   12 246199.5%   ALJAWWALSTC-AS Saudi Telecom
   Company JSC,SA
AS28573 2328  311 201786.6%   NET Serviços de Comunicação
   S.A.,BR
AS4766  2909 1324 158554.5%   KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR
AS7303  1790  280 151084.4%   Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR
AS9808  1546   67 147995.7%   CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile
   Communication Co.Ltd.,CN
AS10620 3122 1701 142145.5%   Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO
AS6147  1574  160 141489.8%   Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE
AS4755  1985  600 138569.8%   TATACOMM-AS TATA
   Communications formerly VSNL
   is Leading ISP,IN
AS6983  1623  249 137484.7%   ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US
AS20115 1851  510 134172.4%   CHARTER-NET-HKY-NC - Charter
   Communications,US
AS8402  1332   25 130798.1%   CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom",RU
AS7545  2587 1296 129149.9%   TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom
   Limited,AU
AS4323  1627  407 122075.0%   TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
   inc.,US
AS8452  1767  572 119567.6%   TE-AS TE-AS,EG
AS9498  1300  111 118991.5%   BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.,IN
AS18566 2040  869 117157.4%   MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath
   Corporation,US
AS7552  1134   54 108095.2%   VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel
   Corporation,VN
AS34984 1966  897 106954.4%   TELLCOM-AS TELLCOM ILETISIM
   HIZMETLERI A.S.,TR
AS3356  2569 1556 101339.4%   LEVEL3 - Level 3
   Communications, Inc.,US
AS22561 1328  361  96772.8%   AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet
   Holdings, Inc.,US
AS6849  1196  259  93778.3%   UKRTELNET JSC UKRTELECOM,UA
AS7738  1000   84  91691.6%   Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR
AS38285  983  115  86888.3%   M2TELECOMMUNICATIONS-AU M2
   Telecommunications Group
   Ltd,AU
AS4538  1776  939  83747.1%   ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education
   and Research Network
   Center,CN
AS4780  1104  310  79471.9%   SEEDNET Digital United Inc.,TW
AS26615  922  134  78885.5%   Tim Celular S.A.,BR
AS24560 1195  421  77464.8%   AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
   Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
   Services,IN

Total  55722   

Re: Who is covered [was VZ...]

[Livingood, Jason]

I have the same question. No one will know for sure until the rules are
released, but my guess is it potentially covers more than people may
initially think. 

For example, I would guess many ³transit² networks will be covered since
they also provide in many cases retail access to schools, hospitals,
government, business, etc. It¹s not much of a stretch to see how CDNs,
hosters, and others may be covered by at least parts of this, such as
transparency/policy disclosure, maybe measurement. Blocking, throttling,
and paid prioritization could also apply in some critical ways, especially
given the % of Internet traffic that uses CDNs for example.


Again, the key may be that there will be ambiguity that may only be sorted
out as case law develops around each of these areas. But IANAL so I¹m just
guessing like the rest of us for now! ;-)

- Jason

On 2/27/15, 3:44 PM, "Adam Rothschild"  wrote:

>I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to
>"broadband access" providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor
>CDNs.  It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the full
>documentation is released.
>
>FWIW,
>-a
>
>[*] 
>http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-33
>2260A1.pdf
>
>On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:49 PM, McElearney, Kevin
> wrote:
>> [Sorry for top-posting]
>>
>> I actually think you are both right and partially wrong.  It IS the ISPs
>> responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and
>> you paid for.  This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring
>> Broadband America.
>> 
>>http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-
>>Me
>> asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf
>>
>> That said, your ISP is NOT ³the Internet² and can¹t guarantee ³access
>>the
>> Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second."  While ISPs do
>>take
>> the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they
>> certainly don¹t control all levels of the QoE.  ASPs may have
>>server/site
>> issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners
>> contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance
>> limitations, etc.
>>
>> What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and
>> transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the
>> consumer QoE.
>>
>> - Kevin
>>
>> On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, "Mel Beckman"  wrote:
>>
>>>Bill,
>>>
>>>This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never
>>>possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand
>>>their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to
>>>each customer in order to "do everything reasonably within your power to
>>>make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per
>>>second", then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per
>>>month.
>>>
>>>Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet
>>>distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP
>>>practices.
>>>
>>>On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin
>>>mailto:b...@herrin.us>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
>>>Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
>>>your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
>>>at X megabits per second.
>>>
>>
>

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Owen DeLong]

While it’s amusing, it’s a serious distortion of the reality of the situation.

Owen

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 06:05 , Larry Sheldon  wrote:
> 
> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
> -- 
> The unique Characteristics of System Administrators:
> 
> The fact that they are infallible; and,
> 
> The fact that they learn from their mistakes.
> 
> 
> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Stephen Satchell]

On 02/27/2015 12:44 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
> I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to
> "broadband access" providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor
> CDNs.  It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the
> full documentation is released.

So did I.  Also, do you recall that the FCC changed the definition of
"broadband" to require 25 Mbps downstream?  Does this mean that all
these rules on "broadband" don't apply to people providing Internet
access service on classic ADSL?

(#showerthought)

Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[Livingood, Jason]

I¹m not sure who gets to definitively answer the question (I would guess
that case law will develop around it but IANAL), but this sort of caveat
has been in the Open Internet rules for awhile. In general it means ISPs
can¹t block stuff like Facebook but have latitude to do stuff like block a
site/IP address that may be the source of an attack, etc.


- Jason

On 2/27/15, 2:24 PM, "Bruce H McIntosh"  wrote:
>
>On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
>> What's a "lawful" web site?
>>
>Now *there* is a $64,000 question.  Even more interesting is, "Who gets
>to decide day to day the answer to that question?" :)

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Stephen Satchell]

On 02/27/2015 01:27 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would
> start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving
> someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating
> 3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at
> night could use 50mb/s upstream and drop your downstream to 5mb/s
> because you aren't downloading anything?

That's possible with multicarrier technology, such as xDSL.  When you
get into the data-over-cable technology, you find a completely different
story -- it's a system limitation that you have an upstream channel that
is less efficient than the downstream channel because the upstream
channel has to be accessed by a number of sources, with access control,
whereas the downstream channel is nothing more than a broadcast pipe
(just like 10base-2 Ethernet) where you pick your packets out of the stream.

Other technologies have their quirks, too...

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Helms]

"hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was).
I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice
server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?"

Sure it is, but the point is if it's easier to deliver then the price will
go down and more people will choose to use it.  That's kind of my point.
Carbonite (and others) have built a decent business, but imagine if their
costs were cut by ~15% because they didn't have to deal with NAT
transversal they could offer more services for the same amount of money or
offer the same service for less.  Either would result in more people using
that kind of service.

Imagine what *might *be possible if direct communication would work without
port forwarding rules inside your neighborhood.

"no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
'fastest player' to be the server for group play..."

That's not WoW, it might be Diablo III or StarCraft (both Blizzard products)

"my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over
play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft
people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable
transport option, and the clients won't make  queries so my 
is a wasted dns few bytes.

Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a
problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and
whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well."

It doesn't "just work" there is a real cost and complexity even if you're
using UPNP or you're comfortable doing the port forwarding manually to get
around it to a certain extent.  Session border controllers cost tens of
thousands of dollars to handle SIP sessions behind NAT.



Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Christopher Morrow  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> > Chris,
> >
> > "because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the
> > 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to
> > carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly
> > certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just
> > say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a
> > server also work just fine..."
> >
> > Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to
> exert
>
> hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was).
> I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice
> server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?
>
> > to make that work.  Also, keep in mind that your game example is not
> someone
> > running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential
> > subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.
>
> no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
> 'fastest player' to be the server for group play...
>
> my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over
> play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft
> people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable
> transport option, and the clients won't make  queries so my 
> is a wasted dns few bytes.
>
> Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a
> problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and
> whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well.
>
> -chris
>

RE: One FCC neutrality elephant: disabilities compliance

[Curtis L. Parish]

Way off topic but the Act may had around 2K pagesbut the rules and 
regulations go with it are at 20K and counting .   That is what people are 
referring to. 

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of 
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:35 PM
To: Mel Beckman
Cc: 
Subject: Re: One FCC neutrality elephant: disabilities compliance

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:12:21 +, Mel Beckman said:

>  Two pages? Read the news, man. It's been widely reported that the 
> actual Order runs to over 300 pages!

It was also "widely reported" that the Affordable Care Act was 20,000 pages, 
when in fact it was about 1,900.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Jack Bates]

On 2/27/2015 3:21 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to
exert to make that work.  Also, keep in mind that your game example is not
someone running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a
residential subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.





Chris meant to say, "insert game console shooting game here". As a side 
note, most of my DDOS attacks on end-users these days are due to game 
console pissing matches rather than forum/irc.


Jack

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Stephen Satchell]

On 02/27/2015 11:57 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> It is NOT the ISP's responsibility to provide you with X Mbps if that
> was advertised as "UP TO x Mbps" (which is exactly how every
> broadband provider advertises its service -- check your contract).
> We're not talking about the Internet's capacity here. We're talking
> about the physical limits of an ISPs own uplink connection to the
> Internet. That costs much more than the income from the number of
> users it takes to saturate the uplink.

If you want guarantees, you make sure your contract specifies those
guarantees in the Service Level Agreement section.

*  Errored seconds
*  Minimum upstream bandwidth
*  Minimum downstream bandwidth

The larger the bandwidth and fewer errored seconds, the higher the cost.

With my "business-grade" cable service (Charter), I have *no* such
guarantees.  It's all "best effort".  Indeed, with the SOHO/home grade
equipment, you can't measure errored seconds at all -- if it's there, I
haven't found it yet.

Now, I run a mail server that serves my building, so my need is for more
downstream capacity than upstream (I don't send a huge amount of mail).
 Unlike an ISP, I don't have people from the outside using POP or IMAP,
so my mail server's outbound traffic is minimal.  As for bulk data
transfer, Dropbox works well enough with the asymmetric circuit.

Even though there is no SLA, my service is better than the typical
residential Internet provisioning.  And I pay for that improvement,
about 4x.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> Chris,
>
> "because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the
> 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to
> carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly
> certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just
> say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a
> server also work just fine..."
>
> Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to exert

hopefully not much since it's rsync (or was).
I'm not sure I care a lot though if they have to run a stun/ice
server... that's part of the payment I make to them, right?

> to make that work.  Also, keep in mind that your game example is not someone
> running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a residential
> subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.

no it wasn't. Blizzard or one of the others used to select the
'fastest player' to be the server for group play...

my son has a minecraft server as well behind nat, his pals all over
play on it just fine. It happens to have v6, but because the minecraft
people are apparently stuck in 1972 only v4 is a configurable
transport option, and the clients won't make  queries so my 
is a wasted dns few bytes.

Frankly folk that want to keep stomping up and down about NAT being a
problem are delusional. Sure direct access is nice, it simple and
whatnot, but ... really... stuff just works behind NAT as well.

-chris

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Jack Bates]

On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Folks,

Let's not go overboard here.  Can we remember that most corporate and 
campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at 
the edges.  Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major 
carriers were just asking for trouble down the line. It's not like 
carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.




I'll disagree on the home part. I doubt that most homes are symmetric.

Of course, what needs to happen is for standards bodies to start 
thinking more dynamic when they build their protocols where possible. 
Passive splitters obviously have the limitation of limiting frequencies, 
but our xDSL technologies and cable technologies do not have the 
restriction to my knowledge. Future protocols ideally would have a 
signaling band, recognition of frequency support bidirectionally and 
perhaps support dynamic allocation of those channels as-needed.


If an end node is saturating the upload but not using the download, why 
shouldn't the system shift the frequency usage? If only 10mb/s is being 
used out of a 50mb/s circuit for download, why not allow that extra 
capacity to be used for upload, temporarily shifting it's direction?


My 2 cents. I don't design these things, but you'd think people would 
start realizing that static allocation is kind of limiting. Giving 
someone 50mb/s with 20mb/s waste is annoying when they are saturating 
3mb/s the opposite direction. Wouldn't it be cool if your backup at 
night could use 50mb/s upstream and drop your downstream to 5mb/s 
because you aren't downloading anything?


For that matter, is there a reason we don't dynamically adjust 
frequencies on Ethernet? My servers would definitely love 1.8gb/s 
transmit since they receive very little.


Jack

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Stephen Satchell]

One of the FUD items I keep seeing from some factions is that the FCC
will regulate content on the Internet in the same way as they did for
television during the time of the "fairness doctrine".  In particular,
these people *expect* the FCC to take a page from the IRS and start
putting up roadblocks, if not outright blocks, on political content on
views that differs from the views of the controlling Administration.

Now, the Fairness Doctrine was not part of Title II, I agree.  But we
never expected the IRS to play favorites with not-for-profit
organizations, either.


On 02/27/2015 11:32 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> While I view that statement with trepidation, my first guess would one that
> isn't in violation of state or federal law.  About the only things I can
> think off hand, ie stuff we get told to take down as hosters today, are
> sites violating copyright law and child pornography.  I hope that we don't
> see any additions to that list.

>> On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>>> What's a "lawful" web site?
>>>
>>>  Now *there* is a $64,000 question.  Even more interesting is, "Who gets
>> to decide day to day the answer to that question?" :)

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Helms]

Chris,

"because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the
'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to
carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly
certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just
say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a
server also work just fine..."

Talk to someone at Carbonite and ask them how much effort they have to
exert to make that work.  Also, keep in mind that your game example is not
someone running a game server as a residential subscriber, it's a
residential subscriber accessing a server hosted on a dedicated network.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Christopher Morrow  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> > "My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level."
> >
> > Why?  What's magical about symmetry?  Is a customer better served by
> having
> > a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps?
>
> it sort of depends on what the user is doing, right?
> there's some chatter that (queue akapella in 3...2) upstream ack
> packet loss is actually more detrimental to user experience than
> downstream packet loss, so maybe more upstream just to protect (and
> simplify) ack management is helpful?
>
> > "There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game
> > servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an
> > indication of an unhealthy market."
> >
> > Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to leverage
> > than you might think.  I don't think there is anything special about
>
> because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the
> 'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to
> carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly
> certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just
> say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a
> server also work just fine...
>
> > symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up
> and
> > will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual
> performance
> > stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as fast as
> > downstream demand.
>
> possibly because the places where this is available are so few and so
> far-between that 'users' don't generally know or see this? so ... err,
> they won't know if it's better for their usecases or not.
>

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:53 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> "My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level."
>
> Why?  What's magical about symmetry?  Is a customer better served by having
> a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps?

it sort of depends on what the user is doing, right?
there's some chatter that (queue akapella in 3...2) upstream ack
packet loss is actually more detrimental to user experience than
downstream packet loss, so maybe more upstream just to protect (and
simplify) ack management is helpful?

> "There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game
> servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an
> indication of an unhealthy market."
>
> Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to leverage
> than you might think.  I don't think there is anything special about

because gameservers, backups, etc don't work just fine today in the
'world of nat' ??? I'm fairly certain that I can do backups to
carbonite/etc with my nat working just fun, right? I'm also fairly
certain that WoW (or whatever, hell I don't play games, so I'll just
say: "Angband") etc that turn the fastest user in the group into a
server also work just fine...

> symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up and
> will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual performance
> stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as fast as
> downstream demand.

possibly because the places where this is available are so few and so
far-between that 'users' don't generally know or see this? so ... err,
they won't know if it's better for their usecases or not.

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Scott Helms]

Hardened carrier grade Ethernet gear appeared quite a time after PON gear
did and until we got gear that could be deployed in cabinets the cost of
the fiber plant being back hauled to the CO was much more expensive.

Google decided to do GPON purely because of cost, they really wanted to do
Active Ethernet but the economics didn't work out.

"Can we remember that most corporate and campus (and, for that matter home)
networks are symmetric, at least at the edges."

Only if we're talking about Ethernet, your WiFi network is almost never
symmetrical.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Miles Fidelman 
wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Let's not go overboard here.  Can we remember that most corporate and
> campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the
> edges.  Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major carriers were
> just asking for trouble down the line.  It's not like carrier-grade gigE
> switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
> --
> In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
> In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra
>
>

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mel Beckman]

I'll move on. I'm sorry you're not interested in reasonable discussion. 

 -mel beckman

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 1:01 PM, "William Herrin"  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
>> I did not change "whenever I demand it" to "all the time". You're
>> hand-waving now. I clearly said that users can't all demand their maximum
>> bandwidth at the same time. That's nothing like "all the time."
> 
> Fine. You changed "whenever I demand it" to "at the same time as
> everybody else." The change still makes it a straw man argument. You
> introduce simultaneity, which you don't substantiate and which is not
> present in my statement. That red herring undermines your argument
> that doing, "everything reasonably within your power to make sure I
> can access the Internet sites of my choice" at full rate is
> "infeasible."
> 
> 
>> Your shower example is perfect. Yes, you can get 120A tankless water heating
>> for a brief interval. But not "whenever you demand it."
> 
> I get it _every_ time I demand it because the local power company has
> done a good job with their oversubscription planning. Even with other
> households engaged in bathing activity during the morning hours..
> 
> 
>> You never responded to my "BillsNet" real-world example. Is that a straw-man
>> argument too?
> 
> That would be why I ignored it, yes. Would it make you happy if I pick
> it apart piece by piece or do you want to move on?
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
> 
> 
> -- 
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Helms]

Daniel,


"50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out of
the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes."

Which would you choose, 50/50 or 75/25?  My point is not that upstream
speed isn't valuable, but merely that demand for it isn't symmetrical and
unless the market changes won't be in the near term.  Downstream demand is
growing, in most markets I can see, much faster than upstream demand.



Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Stephen Satchell]

On 02/27/2015 09:40 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> If people want a different ratio of up to downlink speed it could
> certainly be done.  ADSL is by definition asymmetric.  We also sold
> SDSL which is symmetric service and the primary buyers were generally
> businesses.  See G.SHDSL  if you want a standard for symmetric DSL.
> It's there, it is just not a popular.

When I was involved with private-loop provision, what I noticed here in
northern Nevada is that the provisioning of T1 circuits moved from
baseband signalling to SDSL.  From the standpoint of cable management,
the splatter from SDSL was MUCH lower than the splattering of baseband
T1, so instead of being limited to a single T1 circuit per 25-pair
bundle, you could have several circuits.

TIA T1Q1 has quite a lot to say on this.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Daniel Taylor]

On 02/27/2015 02:53 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

"My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level."

Why?  What's magical about symmetry?  Is a customer better served by 
having a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps?



Why not 25/25?

50MB/s might be tough to fill, but even at home I can get good use out 
of the odd 25MB/s upstream burst for a few minutes.




"There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game 
servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an 
indication of an unhealthy market."


Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to 
leverage than you might think.  I don't think there is anything 
special about symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth 
usage is going up and will continue to go up, but I don't see any 
evidence in actual performance stats or customers sentiment to show 
that it's going up as fast as downstream demand.



Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Taylor > wrote:


My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level.

If not for fully symmetrical service (I admit that 50MB/s upstream
is a tough pipe to fill), at least for significantly higher
upstream service than is currently available in most neighborhoods.

There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal
game servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings
is an indication of an unhealthy market.

On 02/27/2015 02:25 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

Daniel,

We'd have to come to some standard definition of, "But even if
1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link
to its potential..."

As I said, I have visibility into a large number of symmetric
connections and without exception they'd fit well into a plan
that offered upstreams with that had a fractional speed of the
downstream.  Now, keep in mind I'm not talking about 1/10 as a
ratio here, but 1/5 would accommodate ~99.2% and 1/4 would fit
~99.9%.  It's also important to note that all of these
accounts are in the >25mbps down territory so their upstreams
are >5mbps.

What I see when I look at customer satisfaction ratings is a
very strong correlation with low uplink speeds and a high
satisfaction rate when we look at uplink speeds greater than
4mbps.  What I don't see is an increase in customer
satisfaction as upload speeds go past ~6mbps. Conversely,
increases in customer satisfaction with correlate with
increases in download speeds past ~30mbps before the
correlation starts weakening.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000 

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Taylor
mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com>
>>
wrote:

The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning
aggregate resources.
But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully
symmetric link to its potential, that's a good reason to
at least
have such circuits available in the standard consumer mix,
which
they aren't today.

On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

Daniel,

Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all
understanding most customer behavior is what we all
have to
build our business cases around.  If we throw out what
customers use today and simply take a build it and
they will
come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us
in this
business.

Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see
symmetrical
usage, ie top 10% of uploaders.  We also see less
contended
seconds on their upstream than we do on the
downstream.  These
observations are based on ~500k residential and business
subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON),
DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000 


http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor
mailto:dtay...@voc

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> I did not change "whenever I demand it" to "all the time". You're
> hand-waving now. I clearly said that users can't all demand their maximum
> bandwidth at the same time. That's nothing like "all the time."

Fine. You changed "whenever I demand it" to "at the same time as
everybody else." The change still makes it a straw man argument. You
introduce simultaneity, which you don't substantiate and which is not
present in my statement. That red herring undermines your argument
that doing, "everything reasonably within your power to make sure I
can access the Internet sites of my choice" at full rate is
"infeasible."


> Your shower example is perfect. Yes, you can get 120A tankless water heating
> for a brief interval. But not "whenever you demand it."

I get it _every_ time I demand it because the local power company has
done a good job with their oversubscription planning. Even with other
households engaged in bathing activity during the morning hours..


> You never responded to my "BillsNet" real-world example. Is that a straw-man
> argument too?

That would be why I ignored it, yes. Would it make you happy if I pick
it apart piece by piece or do you want to move on?

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Helms]

"My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level."

Why?  What's magical about symmetry?  Is a customer better served by having
a 5mbps/5mbps over a 25mbps/5mbps?


"There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game
servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an
indication of an unhealthy market."

Until we get NAT out of the way, this is actually much harder to leverage
than you might think.  I don't think there is anything special about
symmetrical bandwidth, I do think upstream bandwidth usage is going up and
will continue to go up, but I don't see any evidence in actual performance
stats or customers sentiment to show that it's going up as fast as
downstream demand.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Daniel Taylor  wrote:

> My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level.
>
> If not for fully symmetrical service (I admit that 50MB/s upstream is a
> tough pipe to fill), at least for significantly higher upstream service
> than is currently available in most neighborhoods.
>
> There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game
> servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an
> indication of an unhealthy market.
>
> On 02/27/2015 02:25 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> We'd have to come to some standard definition of, "But even if 1% of
>> users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential..."
>>
>> As I said, I have visibility into a large number of symmetric connections
>> and without exception they'd fit well into a plan that offered upstreams
>> with that had a fractional speed of the downstream.  Now, keep in mind I'm
>> not talking about 1/10 as a ratio here, but 1/5 would accommodate ~99.2%
>> and 1/4 would fit ~99.9%.  It's also important to note that all of these
>> accounts are in the >25mbps down territory so their upstreams are >5mbps.
>>
>> What I see when I look at customer satisfaction ratings is a very strong
>> correlation with low uplink speeds and a high satisfaction rate when we
>> look at uplink speeds greater than 4mbps.  What I don't see is an increase
>> in customer satisfaction as upload speeds go past ~6mbps.  Conversely,
>> increases in customer satisfaction with correlate with increases in
>> download speeds past ~30mbps before the correlation starts weakening.
>>
>>
>> Scott Helms
>> Vice President of Technology
>> ZCorum
>> (678) 507-5000
>> 
>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>> 
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Taylor > > wrote:
>>
>> The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning
>> aggregate resources.
>> But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully
>> symmetric link to its potential, that's a good reason to at least
>> have such circuits available in the standard consumer mix, which
>> they aren't today.
>>
>> On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all
>> understanding most customer behavior is what we all have to
>> build our business cases around.  If we throw out what
>> customers use today and simply take a build it and they will
>> come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this
>> business.
>>
>> Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical
>> usage, ie top 10% of uploaders.  We also see less contended
>> seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream.  These
>> observations are based on ~500k residential and business
>> subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON),
>> DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.
>>
>>
>> Scott Helms
>> Vice President of Technology
>> ZCorum
>> (678) 507-5000 
>> 
>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>> 
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor
>> mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com>
>> >>
>> wrote:
>>
>> But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
>>
>> It isn't that most, or even many, people would take
>> advantage of
>> equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need
>> to take
>> extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content
>> to be
>> able to do so.
>>
>> Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to
>> be taken
>> when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master

Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

[Miles Fidelman]

Folks,

Let's not go overboard here.  Can we remember that most corporate and 
campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at 
the edges.  Personally, I figure that by deploying PON, the major 
carriers were just asking for trouble down the line.  It's not like 
carrier-grade gigE switches are that much more expensive than PON gear.


Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Adam Rothschild]

I interpreted the FCC press release[*] to apply these provisions to
"broadband access" providers only -- that is to say, not hosters, nor
CDNs.  It will indeed be interesting to see how this works once the
full documentation is released.

FWIW,
-a

[*] 
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A1.pdf

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:49 PM, McElearney, Kevin
 wrote:
> [Sorry for top-posting]
>
> I actually think you are both right and partially wrong.  It IS the ISPs
> responsibility to provide you with the broadband that was advertised and
> you paid for.  This is also measured today by the FCC through Measuring
> Broadband America.
> http://data.fcc.gov/download/measuring-broadband-america/2014/2014-Fixed-Me
> asuring-Broadband-America-Report.pdf
>
> That said, your ISP is NOT “the Internet” and can’t guarantee “access the
> Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per second."  While ISPs do take
> the phone call for all Internet problems (sometimes not very well), they
> certainly don’t control all levels of the QoE.  ASPs may have server/site
> issues internally, CDNs may purposely throttle downloads (content owners
> contract commits), not all transit ISPs are created equal, TCP distance
> limitations, etc.
>
> What would be interesting is if all these rules/principals and
> transparency requirements were to be applied to all involved in the
> consumer QoE.
>
> - Kevin
>
> On 2/27/15, 1:34 PM, "Mel Beckman"  wrote:
>
>>Bill,
>>
>>This is not feasible. ISPs work by oversubscription, so it's never
>>possible for all (or even 10% of all) customers to simultaneously demand
>>their full bandwidth. If ISPs had to reserve the full bandwidth sold to
>>each customer in order to "do everything reasonably within your power to
>>make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice at X megabits per
>>second", then broadband connections would cost thousands of dollars per
>>month.
>>
>>Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental fact of Internet
>>distribution will be unable to engage in reasonable discussion about ISP
>>practices.
>>
>>On Feb 27, 2015, at 9:56 AM, William Herrin
>>mailto:b...@herrin.us>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>Deceit is Bad Behavior. If you sell me an X megabit per second
>>Internet access service, you should do everything reasonably within
>>your power to make sure I can access the Internet sites of my choice
>>at X megabits per second.
>>
>

Re: Mobile/Cell multipoint latency monitoring

[Jeff Cornejo]

http://www.netforecast.com  has a product that may 
work for you.

jeff cornejo
blue ridge internetworks

321 east main st • suite 200
charlottesville va  22902
434.817.0707 x 2001
www.briworks.com 

Central Virginia’s technology authority since 2000.

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:14 PM, PJ  wrote:
> 
> Hello Nanog, I'm currently tasked with finding a solution that will either
> monitor or report on internet latency to our mobile game servers from
> various points worldwide but using cellular networks.  Does anyone know of
> any provider who does this?



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Helms]

'"Normal" is whatever the user normally tries to do.'

That's simply not a realistic definition.  There's no way to determine what
a consumer will want to do before they sign up for the service.  For that
matter, it's impossible to determine what a customer will want 2 years
after they've signed.  Further, its impossible to understand what is normal
without spying on your customers.

'"Reasonable" is
whatever the user is willing to pay for. Any mismatch between the two
finds its error in your marketing department.'

Reasonable pricing is what the market will bear as always, but what the
market will bear versus what customers *expect* often greatly diverge.
Anyone who wants to pay for a direct connection to a Tier 1 of their choice
with SLAs can do so, but that's not that doesn't happen.


'Seems like a competitive service provider focused on meeting that
customer population's needs would do well. Any notion what has
prevented that from happening?'

They *are *the alternative operator in this market.  What's keeping anyone
else from doing it better is that it's more expensive than customers will
pay to "do it better".


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:17 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> > The problem is in defining what is "normal" and "reasonable" when
> customers
> > only know what those mean in regards to their behavior and not the larger
> > customer base nor the behavior of the global network.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> "Normal" is whatever the user normally tries to do. "Reasonable" is
> whatever the user is willing to pay for. Any mismatch between the two
> finds its error in your marketing department.
>
> If your understanding of normal and reasonable radically diverges from
> this, you've made a mistake. It's exactly as simple as this.
>
>
> > I have a customer on the west coast that has a very large Asian immigrant
> > population and a very high percentage of the traffic from this access
> > provider is going to and from Asia.  This introduces a lot of variables
> that
> > are far outside of the operator's control, so what's reasonable for this
> > operator to do to ensure "reasonable" speeds when the links to Asia get
> > saturated far upstream of them?  They certainly could choose to buy
> > alternative connectivity to that region, but then they'd have to raise
> rates
> > and most of the time that extra connectivity isn't needed.
>
> So what are they doing? Playing it one-size-fits-all and giving this
> "very large" customer population no way to get acceptable speed to the
> portions of the Internet that population wants to reach?
>
> Seems like a competitive service provider focused on meeting that
> customer population's needs would do well. Any notion what has
> prevented that from happening?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>

reachability to AS3215 / AS5511

[Ryan DiRocco]

Looking for a contact at orange 3215 / opentransit 5511 to resolve some 
reachability/blackhole issues for clients originating at 3215 reaching us at 
46562.

Please contact me off-list.

Mobile/Cell multipoint latency monitoring

[PJ]

Hello Nanog, I'm currently tasked with finding a solution that will either
monitor or report on internet latency to our mobile game servers from
various points worldwide but using cellular networks.  Does anyone know of
any provider who does this?

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 19:32:38 +, William Waites said:

> for them to upload their photographs. Multi-party videoconferencing
> doesn't work well unless at least one participant (or a server) is on
> good, symmetric bandwidth.

There's no need for good symmetric bandwidth.  There's just need for good
bandwidth.  If my video requires 5MBit/sec in each direction, I only need
5MBit/sec in each direction.  So provisioning a 50/10 that has at least 5 idle
on both sides is suitable, but a 50/50 that only has 3 available on one side
because somebody else is using 47 for other stuff isn't suitable.

Now, if all you use the circuit for is videoconferencing, then yes, you'll
end up with effectively needing near-symmetric bandwidth.  However, I'm not
seeing any reason to expect that we're going to move away from downstream-heavy
applications anytime soon.


pgpv4RuU71H1r.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Daniel Taylor]

My point is that the option should be there, at the consumer level.

If not for fully symmetrical service (I admit that 50MB/s upstream is a 
tough pipe to fill), at least for significantly higher upstream service 
than is currently available in most neighborhoods.


There are so many use cases for this, everything from personal game 
servers to on-line backups, that the lack of such offerings is an 
indication of an unhealthy market.


On 02/27/2015 02:25 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

Daniel,

We'd have to come to some standard definition of, "But even if 1% of 
users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its 
potential..."


As I said, I have visibility into a large number of symmetric 
connections and without exception they'd fit well into a plan that 
offered upstreams with that had a fractional speed of the downstream.  
Now, keep in mind I'm not talking about 1/10 as a ratio here, but 1/5 
would accommodate ~99.2% and 1/4 would fit ~99.9%.  It's also 
important to note that all of these accounts are in the >25mbps down 
territory so their upstreams are >5mbps.


What I see when I look at customer satisfaction ratings is a very 
strong correlation with low uplink speeds and a high satisfaction rate 
when we look at uplink speeds greater than 4mbps.  What I don't see is 
an increase in customer satisfaction as upload speeds go past ~6mbps.  
Conversely, increases in customer satisfaction with correlate with 
increases in download speeds past ~30mbps before the correlation 
starts weakening.



Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Taylor > wrote:


The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning
aggregate resources.
But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully
symmetric link to its potential, that's a good reason to at least
have such circuits available in the standard consumer mix, which
they aren't today.

On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

Daniel,

Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all
understanding most customer behavior is what we all have to
build our business cases around.  If we throw out what
customers use today and simply take a build it and they will
come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in this
business.

Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical
usage, ie top 10% of uploaders.  We also see less contended
seconds on their upstream than we do on the downstream.  These
observations are based on ~500k residential and business
subscribers across North America using FTTH (mostly GPON),
DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000 

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor
mailto:dtay...@vocalabs.com>
>>
wrote:

But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.

It isn't that most, or even many, people would take
advantage of
equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need
to take
extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content
to be
able to do so.

Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to
be taken
when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master
musician.

On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

This is true in our measurements today, even when
subscribers
are given
symmetrical connections.  It might change at some
point in the
future,
especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT
as a de
facto
deployment reality.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000 


http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve



--
Daniel Taylor  VP OperationsVocal Laboratories, Inc.
dtay...@vocalabs.com   http://www.vocalabs.com/(612)235-5711

Re: One FCC neutrality elephant: disabilities compliance

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:12:21 +, Mel Beckman said:

>  Two pages? Read the news, man. It's been widely reported that the actual
> Order runs to over 300 pages!

It was also "widely reported" that the Affordable Care Act was 20,000 pages,
when in fact it was about 1,900.



pgp4vEsJYoKjH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Helms]

Daniel,

We'd have to come to some standard definition of, "But even if 1% of users
would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link to its potential..."

As I said, I have visibility into a large number of symmetric connections
and without exception they'd fit well into a plan that offered upstreams
with that had a fractional speed of the downstream.  Now, keep in mind I'm
not talking about 1/10 as a ratio here, but 1/5 would accommodate ~99.2%
and 1/4 would fit ~99.9%.  It's also important to note that all of these
accounts are in the >25mbps down territory so their upstreams are >5mbps.

What I see when I look at customer satisfaction ratings is a very strong
correlation with low uplink speeds and a high satisfaction rate when we
look at uplink speeds greater than 4mbps.  What I don't see is an increase
in customer satisfaction as upload speeds go past ~6mbps.  Conversely,
increases in customer satisfaction with correlate with increases in
download speeds past ~30mbps before the correlation starts weakening.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Daniel Taylor  wrote:

> The statistics certainly *should* be used when provisioning aggregate
> resources.
> But even if 1% of users would reasonably be using a fully symmetric link
> to its potential, that's a good reason to at least have such circuits
> available in the standard consumer mix, which they aren't today.
>
> On 02/27/2015 01:30 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> Well, I wouldn't call using the mean a "myth", after all understanding
>> most customer behavior is what we all have to build our business cases
>> around.  If we throw out what customers use today and simply take a build
>> it and they will come approach then I suspect there would fewer of us in
>> this business.
>>
>> Even when we look at anomalous users we don't see symmetrical usage, ie
>> top 10% of uploaders.  We also see less contended seconds on their upstream
>> than we do on the downstream.  These observations are based on ~500k
>> residential and business subscribers across North America using FTTH
>> (mostly GPON), DOCSIS cable modems, and various flavors of DSL.
>>
>>
>> Scott Helms
>> Vice President of Technology
>> ZCorum
>> (678) 507-5000
>> 
>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>> 
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Daniel Taylor > > wrote:
>>
>> But by this you are buying into the myth of the mean.
>>
>> It isn't that most, or even many, people would take advantage of
>> equal upstream bandwidth, but that the few who would need to take
>> extra measures unrelated to the generation of that content to be
>> able to do so.
>>
>> Given symmetrical provisioning, no extra measures need to be taken
>> when that 10 year old down the street turns out to be a master
>> musician.
>>
>> On 02/27/2015 11:59 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
>>
>> This is true in our measurements today, even when subscribers
>> are given
>> symmetrical connections.  It might change at some point in the
>> future,
>> especially when widespread IPv6 lets us get rid of NAT as a de
>> facto
>> deployment reality.
>>
>>
>> Scott Helms
>> Vice President of Technology
>> ZCorum
>> (678) 507-5000 
>> 
>> http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
>> 
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Naslund, Steve
>> mailto:snasl...@medline.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> How about this?  Show me 10 users in the average
>> neighborhood creating
>> content at 5 mbpsPeriod.  Only realistic app I see is
>> home surveillance
>> but I don't think you want everyone accessing that
>> anyway.  The truth is
>> that the average user does not create content that anyone
>> needs to see.
>> This has not changed throughout the ages, the ratio of
>> authors to readers,
>> artists to art lovers, musicians to music lovers, YouTube
>> cat video creator
>> to cat video lovers, has never been a many to many
>> relationship.
>>
>> On 2015-02-27 12:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
>>  wrote:
>>
>> Consider a group of 10 users, who all create new
>> content.  If each one
>> creates at a constant rate of 5 mbits, they need 5
>> up.  But to
>> download all the new content from the other 9, they
>> need close to 50
>>
>> down.
>>
>> And when you expan

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Brim]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Scott Brim  wrote:
> Common term in mobile operators. A mobile site is one that is not

I mean a legal site. Sigh.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Brim]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Bruce H McIntosh  wrote:
> On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>> What's a "lawful" web site?
>>
> Now *there* is a $64,000 question.  Even more interesting is, "Who gets to
> decide day to day the answer to that question?" :)

Common term in mobile operators. A mobile site is one that is not
breaking the law, e.g. not distributing pirated materials or being
used for other illegal activity. If a site is breaking the law, they
can block it.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Mel Beckman]

Bill,

I did not change "whenever I demand it" to "all the time". You're hand-waving 
now. I clearly said that users can't all demand their maximum bandwidth at the 
same time. That's nothing like "all the time."

Every house can't use its 200 amps at the same time, which happens when 
everyone turns on their AC on a hot day. The electrical grid is not built to 
the worst case scenario, and it does in fact break down when those events 
happen.

Your shower example is perfect. Yes, you can get 120A tankless water heating 
for a brief interval. But not "whenever you demand it." If you demand it while 
the everyone is experiencing an HVAC-induced brownout on a hot day, your won't 
get it. Period.

You never responded to my "BillsNet" real-world example. Is that a straw-man 
argument too?

 -mel

On Feb 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, William Herrin 
mailto:b...@herrin.us>>
 wrote:

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Mel Beckman 
mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote:
In what way is my argument a straw man? I specifically address
the assertion you make, that an ISP must deliver X Mbps
whenever you demand it, by explaining the real world
essential practice of oversubscription.

You changed "whenever I demand it" to "all the time" and then
proceeded to argue that if everybody used their whole bandwidth all
the time, oversubscription wouldn't work and therefore Internet
connections would cost thousands of dollars.

Well sure, if every house used 200 amps all the time the electric gird
would collapse. Yet somehow when my 120 amp tankless electric water
heater kicks on for my morning shower I don't black out the city. How
could that possibly be?

It's a straw man, Mel. Own up to it and move on.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



--
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com 
 b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Tom Taylor]

On 27/02/2015 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:

I have to take exception to your example.

Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on
oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs of
all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand
standpoint.


Hi Scott,

Do you propose that Internet access service should NOT be expected to
meet peak "normal" demand? That would certainly make ISP operating
models unique among public utilities.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



I've worked on both data network (Canada's X.25 Datapac) and 
circuit-switched network provisioning (Nortel's DMS switches, and some 
of my contributions appear in the ITU-T Orange Book). Circuit-switched 
provisioning had the useful concept of "grade of service". This meant 
that you set a target probability of delay or loss for a given load 
level on the network (Average Busy Season Busy Hour, 10 High Day Busy 
Hour, separate targets for each and provision to the most binding).


The same general concepts surely apply to IP network provisioning: you 
know you can't economically serve all the traffic at the absolute peak, 
but you set reasonable targets, assure yourself by simulation and 
analysis that your design will meet the target, and build accordingly.


Tom Taylor

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> The problem is in defining what is "normal" and "reasonable" when customers
> only know what those mean in regards to their behavior and not the larger
> customer base nor the behavior of the global network.

Hi Scott,

"Normal" is whatever the user normally tries to do. "Reasonable" is
whatever the user is willing to pay for. Any mismatch between the two
finds its error in your marketing department.

If your understanding of normal and reasonable radically diverges from
this, you've made a mistake. It's exactly as simple as this.


> I have a customer on the west coast that has a very large Asian immigrant
> population and a very high percentage of the traffic from this access
> provider is going to and from Asia.  This introduces a lot of variables that
> are far outside of the operator's control, so what's reasonable for this
> operator to do to ensure "reasonable" speeds when the links to Asia get
> saturated far upstream of them?  They certainly could choose to buy
> alternative connectivity to that region, but then they'd have to raise rates
> and most of the time that extra connectivity isn't needed.

So what are they doing? Playing it one-size-fits-all and giving this
"very large" customer population no way to get acceptable speed to the
portions of the Internet that population wants to reach?

Seems like a competitive service provider focused on meeting that
customer population's needs would do well. Any notion what has
prevented that from happening?

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: One FCC neutrality elephant: disabilities compliance

[Mel Beckman]

Lamar,

 Two pages? Read the news, man. It's been widely reported that the actual Order 
runs to over 300 pages!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/26/389259382

You say you haven't read the actual R&O. Nobody in the public sector, or even 
in Congress AFAIK, has read it. The Order's 300-plus pages were never publicly 
released or openly debated.This is another "you must pass it to see what's in 
it" debacle, without the luxury of having any semblance of democratic process 
or transparency.

I wrote the FCC to ask for a copy of the Order, and here is the response I 
received:

On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:08 AM, Will Wiquist 
mailto:will.wiqu...@fcc.gov>>
 wrote:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for writing.  The Order will be released to the public on the FCC 
website as soon as possible, following final edits, which will likely take a 
few weeks. The order is then sent to the Federal Register.  This is the typical 
process for a final rule and order passed by the Commission.  If you are 
reporting on this, you can attribute that statement to an FCC spokesperson.

Very best regards,
Will



Despite the FCC's "best regards", this is the Obama administration pulling a 
fast one. They'll release the order months from now after they wait for the 
public to forget about it.

"If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet."


On Feb 27, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Lamar Owen mailto:lo...@pari.edu>>
 wrote:

On 02/27/2015 01:06 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Section 255 of Title II applies to Internet providers now, as does section 225 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
These regulations are found in 47CFR§6, not 47CFR§8, which is the subject of 
docket 14-28.

Not having read the actual R&O in docket 14-28, so basing the following 
statements on the NPRM instead.  Since the NPRM had 47CFR§8 limited to 
47CFR§8.11, and the actual amendment going to 47CFR§8.17, the adopted rules are 
different than originally proposed.  You can read the proposed regulations 
yourself in FCC 14-61 ( http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521129942 ) 
pages 66-67.  Yes, two pages.  The actual regulations are a bit, but not much, 
longer.

47CFR§6 was already there before docket 14-28 came about.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> In what way is my argument a straw man? I specifically address
> the assertion you make, that an ISP must deliver X Mbps
> whenever you demand it, by explaining the real world
> essential practice of oversubscription.

You changed "whenever I demand it" to "all the time" and then
proceeded to argue that if everybody used their whole bandwidth all
the time, oversubscription wouldn't work and therefore Internet
connections would cost thousands of dollars.

Well sure, if every house used 200 amps all the time the electric gird
would collapse. Yet somehow when my 120 amp tankless electric water
heater kicks on for my morning shower I don't black out the city. How
could that possibly be?

It's a straw man, Mel. Own up to it and move on.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Helms]

Bill,

The problem is in defining what is "normal" and "reasonable" when customers
only know what those mean in regards to their behavior and not the larger
customer base nor the behavior of the global network.  I work with hundreds
of access providers in North America, the Caribbean, and Europe so I've
pretty much all of the current approaches to this and none of them work
very well IMO.


I have a customer on the west coast that has a very large Asian immigrant
population and a very high percentage of the traffic from this access
provider is going to and from Asia.  This introduces a lot of variables
that are far outside of the operator's control, so what's reasonable for
this operator to do to ensure "reasonable" speeds when the links to Asia
get saturated far upstream of them?  They certainly could choose to buy
alternative connectivity to that region, but then they'd have to raise
rates and most of the time that extra connectivity isn't needed.  BTW, the
operator in this example has plenty capacity inside their DOCSIS and FTTH
plant as well as plenty of capacity to two Tier 1 carriers.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms


On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:50 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Scott Helms  wrote:
> > I have to take exception to your example.
> >
> > Water, gas, and to a great extent electrical systems do not work on
> > oversubscription, ie their aggregate capacity meets or exceeds the needs
> of
> > all their customers peak potential demand, at least from "normal" demand
> > standpoint.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Do you propose that Internet access service should NOT be expected to
> meet peak "normal" demand? That would certainly make ISP operating
> models unique among public utilities.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
>
> --
> William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
>