True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than another.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth.
True net neutrality means no provider will artificially de-neutralize their
service by introducing destination based priority on congested
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:13:48 CDT, Joe Greco said:
Rather than allowing service providers to pick and choose who subscribers
can communicate with, we're much more likely to see regulation intervene
to enforce reasonable rules.
We are indeed likely to see regulation intervene to enforce rules.
On 9/16/2010 2:28 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
If you want control: Don't buy the cheapest commodity product.
+1
-1
Next we'll be arguing that akamai nodes are evil because they can have
better service levels than other sites. The p2p guys are also getting
special treatment, as they
On 9/17/2010 9:49 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
So if I'm now downloading my latest FreeBSD via BitTorrent, my basic
expectation is ultimately that I'll get fair treatment.
And this is always a debate. You might say letting someone with voice or
video have queue priority during saturation as being
In a message written on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:28:21PM +0200,
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
If you want control: Don't buy the cheapest commodity product.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
It may be hard for those in Europe to understand the situation in
the US, so let me
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:48 02AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 9/17/2010 4:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than
another.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth.
True net neutrality means no provider
So you are saying, it's perfectly okay to improve one service over another
by adding bandwidth directly to that service, but it's unacceptable to
prioritize it's traffic on congested links (which effectively adds more
bandwidth for that service). It's the same thing, using two different
On 9/17/2010 10:22 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
On a TCP/IP network, QOS features work by deprioritising traffic,
either by delaying
the traffic or by dropping packets. Many ISPs do deprioritise P2P
traffic to prevent
it from creating congestion, but that is not something that you can productize.
On 9/17/2010 10:17 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
Also, Google, Yahoo, et al tend to base their peering decisions on technical,
not business, standards, which makes sense because peering, above all other
interconnect types, is mutually beneficial to both parties. More to the point,
even the likes
On Sep 17, 2010, at 9:23 09AM, Jack Bates wrote:
Is it unfair that I pay streaming sites to get more/earlier video feeds over
the free users? I still have to deal with advertisements in some cases, which
generates the primary revenue for the streaming site. Why shouldn't a content
How would you feel if you paid for priority access to hulu.com via this means,
only to see your carrier de-prioritize that traffic because they're getting a
check from Netflix?
Isn't this where competition/may the best provider win comes into play?
-Drew
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There really isn't a lot of choice, 2 providers, and some minor choice
in how much speed you want to pay for with each one.
Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the ATT
CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs and take it up from there
On 9/17/2010 11:27 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
How would you feel if you paid for priority access to hulu.com
http://hulu.com via this means, only to see your carrier de-prioritize
that traffic because they're getting a check from Netflix?
The same as I'd feel if netflix paid them for pop
On 9/17/2010 11:43 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
How would you feel if you paid for priority access to hulu.com via this means,
only to seeyour carrier de-prioritize that traffic because they're getting a
check from Netflix?
Isn't this where competition/may the best provider win comes into play?
In a message written on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 04:44:04PM +, Michael Sokolov
wrote:
Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the ATT
CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs and take it up from there themselves?
Does that mean no ISPs who buy/rent last+middle mile transport
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
Part of the reason for this is U-Verse is FTTN, Fiber to the Node.
ATT has run fiber to my neighborhood, I believe the node in my
case is about 1000 feet away (I drive past it on the way out). The
electronics sit there, so the old model of colocating in
On Sep 17, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than another.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth.
True net neutrality means no provider will artificially de-neutralize their
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability data to
export to CSV?
Open Source would be best, but any suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Michael Gatti
cell.703.347.4412
ekim.it...@gmail.com
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
argus, www.qosient.com/argus
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 14:49 -0400, Mike Gatti wrote:
Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability data
to export to CSV?
Open Source would be best, but any suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Michael Gatti
It's a matter of viewpoint. It's convenient to talk about net-neutrality when
it's
scoped, but not when we widen the scope. Customer A gets better service than
Customer B because he want to a site that had prioritization. Never mind that
while they fight over the saturated link, Customer C
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Mike Gatti ekim.it...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability
data to export to CSV?
Open Source would be best, but any suggestions are welcome.
nfdump with custom output.
Custom output format: -o fmt:..
This
On Sep 17, 2010, at 6:48 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 9/17/2010 4:52 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
True net-neutrality means no provider can have a better service than
another.
This statement is not true - or at least, I am not convinced of its truth.
True net neutrality means no provider
Jack Bates wrote:
Is consumer grade bandwidth not deprioritised to business grade
bandwidth?
No. Today a provider doesn't move packets *within their network* faster
or slower based on if the recipient is a consumer or business customer.
Today, all providers move all packets as fast as
On Sep 17, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
There really isn't a lot of choice, 2 providers, and some minor choice
in how much speed you want to pay for with each one.
Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the ATT
CO,
Always liked Luca Deri's set of solutions:
http://www.ntop.org/news.php (not necessarily for netflow, exclusiovely)
***Stefan Mititelu
http://twitter.com/netfortius
http://www.linkedin.com/in/netfortius
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mike Gatti ekim.it...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone out there
On 17/09/2010, at 21.06, Everton Marques everton.marq...@gmail.com wrote:
nfdump with custom output.
Custom output format: -o fmt:..
This is the most flexibel format, as you can specify yourself how the output
looks like. The output format is defined using element tags as well as plain
If you want something scalable and commercial (read: with support) check out
these guys, I have been using it for a while and it has tons of features and
very flexible reporting (including exports to PDF, CSV, etc):
http://www.netflowauditor.com/
They have a free version as well with limits.
If you want yours to come with rap videos look at scrutinizer (no I've
not ever used it)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUPkGvdXDIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilxknbKJ0Pc
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Scott Berkman sc...@sberkman.net wrote:
If you want something scalable and
George Bonser wrote:
I believe a network should be able to sell priotitization at the edge,
but not in the core. I have no problem with Y!, for example, paying a
network to be prioritized ahead of bit torrent on the segment to the end
Considering yahoo (as any other big freemailer) is
On 9/17/2010 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Again, you are talking about symmetry and mistaking that for neutrality.
Neutrality is about whether or not everyone faces a consistent set of terms and
conditions, not identical service or traffic levels.
Charging content providers for higher class
On 9/17/2010 2:18 PM, JC Dill wrote:
Jack Bates wrote:
Is consumer grade bandwidth not deprioritised to business grade
bandwidth?
Prioritization necessarily involves moving some traffic slower (because
you can't move traffic faster) than some link (within the provider's
network) allows, to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike Gatti wrote:
Anyone out there using a good netflow collector that has the capability data
to export to CSV?
Open Source would be best, but any suggestions are welcome.
There are so many ways to do it. Once you capture the flow data and
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
No, they bought ATT, which [...] But yes, SBC is the controlling piece of
the new ATT.
As for the two /8s -- not quite. Back in the 1980s, ATT got 12/8. We soon
learned that we couldn't make good use of it,
Sorry, fat-fingered something when I was trying to edit.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Bill Stewart nonobvi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
No, they bought ATT, which [...] But yes, SBC is the controlling piece of
the new
We've ran Scrutizer and also Netflow Auditor (also a few others) ... they are
ok for smaller traffic levels (depending of course on sampling rates). None
of them held up though to our expectations and we ended up going with Arbor
Peakflow and been extremely happy ever since.
I'd definitely
On Sep 17, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 9/17/2010 2:08 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Again, you are talking about symmetry and mistaking that for neutrality.
Neutrality is about whether or not everyone faces a consistent set of terms
and conditions, not identical service or traffic
BGP Update Report
Interval: 09-Sep-10 -to- 16-Sep-10 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS34984 31696 1.3% 84.7 -- TELLCOM-AS Tellcom Iletisim
Hizmetleri
2 - AS3464
This report has been generated at Fri Sep 17 21:11:58 2010 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 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
In a message written on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 04:44:04PM +, Michael Sokolov
wrote:
Does that mean no CLECs like Covad or DSL.net who colocate in the ATT
CO, rent unbundled dry copper pairs and take it up from there themselves?
I found someone off list with access to Megapath's Partner
I have the same problem getting decent fiber out here. They keep
wanting to do a loop clear back to the other side of the state. I will
jsut keep building out my towers to towns where I know I can co-lo or
get QMOE at least.
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
Greetings,
This past week I have been trying to find the root cause of tcp
performance problems of a few clients that are using a third party metro
Ethernet for transport. RFC2544 tests (Layer 2) and iperf using UDP give
good symmetric performance almost 100% the speed of the circuit. However
all
In a situation like yours I found Internet Core Protocols: The
Definitive Guide by Eric Hall an easy to read guide to insuring that
what you are seeing via wireshark. I was able to find an issue with
the DF bit in a load balancer that was causing confounding headaches
in a network using wireshark
To add on to that. Recently Wireshark Network Analysis was released. It's an
excellent book covering wireshark and reading packet captures in general by
Laura Chappell. I just finished reading it and I have to say it's an
excellent book. Highly recommended.
Between those two books I think you'll
http://www.amazon.com/Wireshark-Network-Analysis-Official-Certified/dp/1893939995
Spendy but looks good. I'll have to pick it up when the next
consulting check comes in. Thanks! I was sad to see that Eric Hall's
book was out of print. At least cheap used copies are available. I
forgot my copy
I have to agree. Scales very well, open source, more options than you are
likely to ever use.
--Dave
-Original Message-
From: Harry Hoffman [mailto:hhoff...@ip-solutions.net]
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 3:02 PM
To: Mike Gatti
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Netflow Tool
argus,
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 20:06:09 -0400
From: Abel Alejandro aalejan...@worldnetpr.com
Greetings,
This past week I have been trying to find the root cause of tcp
performance problems of a few clients that are using a third party metro
Ethernet for transport. RFC2544 tests (Layer 2) and
47 matches
Mail list logo
