Huawei WiFi = Ruckus OEM?
Is it just me? Or do these Huawei wireless APs look like Ruckus APs? http://enterprise.huawei.com/ilink/enenterprise/support/documents/base-network/wirleless-area/index.htm Looks specifically at the A603DE and WA653DE. Even the GUIs look very similar. -- Also on LinkedIn? Feel free to connect if you too are an open networker: scubac...@gmail.com
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com writes: Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put to good use. To put some numbers with this statement (which I agree with btw): OSP cable is commonly available composed of 19 AWG, 22 AWG, 24 AWG, and 26 AWG pairs. 19 and 26 are outliers; 19 is for low pair count cables going extra long distances and 26 is only good for quite short distances (CO/SLC to customer) but Superior Essex makes a 3000 pair cable in #26 (22 and 24 max out at 900 and 1800 pair, at least on the spec sheet I have handy). Most of the cable out there is 22 or 24. Solid #22 and #24 (uninsulated) copper wire weighs 1.95 and 1.23 pounds per 1000 feet respectively. That's without the insulation, and only one wire, not a pair. I found scrap pricing for telco (obviously the contaminant ratios out there are different for different types of copper) at $1.20/pound, which may or may not be current, but if you figure a single pair of #24 is probably around 4 pounds per 1000 feet scrap weight... if an average loop is, say, 5000 feet, you can see where there is substantial incentive to recycle all the 600 pair that you have lying around. -r
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
- Original Message - From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com I found scrap pricing for telco (obviously the contaminant ratios out there are different for different types of copper) at $1.20/pound, which may or may not be current, but if you figure a single pair of #24 is probably around 4 pounds per 1000 feet scrap weight... if an average loop is, say, 5000 feet, you can see where there is substantial incentive to recycle all the 600 pair that you have lying around. That's relatively current. I recycled about 105 ft of 25pr I pulled out on a cabling job 3 or 4 months ago, and I think I got $130 for it. But remember: much to most telco trunk cable is icky-pic, and direct-burial; both of those change the effectiveness equation *markedly*. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com writes: Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put to good use. To put some numbers with this statement (which I agree with btw): OSP cable is commonly available composed of 19 AWG, 22 AWG, 24 AWG, and 26 AWG pairs. 19 and 26 are outliers; 19 is for low pair count cables going extra long distances and 26 is only good for quite short distances (CO/SLC to customer) but Superior Essex makes a 3000 pair cable in #26 (22 and 24 max out at 900 and 1800 pair, at least on the spec sheet I have handy). Most of the cable out there is 22 or 24. Solid #22 and #24 (uninsulated) copper wire weighs 1.95 and 1.23 pounds per 1000 feet respectively. That's without the insulation, and only one wire, not a pair. I found scrap pricing for telco (obviously the contaminant ratios out there are different for different types of copper) at $1.20/pound, which may or may not be current, but if you figure a single pair of #24 is probably around 4 pounds per 1000 feet scrap weight... if an average loop is, say, 5000 feet, you can see where there is substantial incentive to recycle all the 600 pair that you have lying around. Hi Robert, That depends on the cost of recovering it. We're not talking about salvage operators pulling cable, we're talking about highly trained [sic] Verizon installers. The last 4 pairs in use on that 3000 count cable will tend to linger a long, long time before you can go remove it. Mostly you'll recover short runs of low-count cable like the fifty-foot two and six pair cables from the street to the house: maybe $3 in scrap. How many dollars worth of time will the installer bill Verizon for recovering it? Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. Also, I think Z doesnt see any problem at the moment because they probably make more money with the closed fiber network than they ever would shutting down/recycling copper On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:28 PM, John T. Yocum john.yo...@fluidhosting.com wrote: VZ wants to get rid of their copper plant. It's expensive to maintain, and As opposed to fiber plant which is indestructible and cheap to maintain? Well, if VZ owns the copper, if it's not being used to provide a service, and the price of copper keeps going up, it's only a matter of time before VZ should want to take their bits of unused cable back. How useful is leaving a dormant loop in place just because someone might theoretically want it someday? Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put to good use. it requires that they sell service to competitors. Once they've disconnected their customers from it, they can just eliminate the copper plant. POTS You sure the regulations won't eventually be updated to apply some rules to whatever POTS is being replaced with? Possibly years before they could finish eliminating their copper plant, which doesn't likely happen until the pricing allows POTS customers to get FiOS delivery installed for free as a cheaper alternative to POTS delivery. -- -JH
RE: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com writes: Seems like a waste for VZ not to reclaim it so it can be recycled/put to good use. To put some numbers with this statement (which I agree with btw): OSP cable is commonly available composed of 19 AWG, 22 AWG, 24 AWG, and 26 AWG pairs. 19 and 26 are outliers; 19 is for low pair count cables going extra long distances and 26 is only good for quite short distances (CO/SLC to customer) but Superior Essex makes a 3000 pair cable in #26 (22 and 24 max out at 900 and 1800 pair, at least on the spec sheet I have handy). Most of the cable out there is 22 or 24. Solid #22 and #24 (uninsulated) copper wire weighs 1.95 and 1.23 pounds per 1000 feet respectively. That's without the insulation, and only one wire, not a pair. I found scrap pricing for telco (obviously the contaminant ratios out there are different for different types of copper) at $1.20/pound, which may or may not be current, but if you figure a single pair of #24 is probably around 4 pounds per 1000 feet scrap weight... if an average loop is, say, 5000 feet, you can see where there is substantial incentive to recycle all the 600 pair that you have lying around. Hi Robert, That depends on the cost of recovering it. We're not talking about salvage operators pulling cable, we're talking about highly trained [sic] Verizon installers. The last 4 pairs in use on that 3000 count cable will tend to linger a long, long time before you can go remove it. Mostly you'll recover short runs of low-count cable like the fifty-foot two and six pair cables from the street to the house: maybe $3 in scrap. How many dollars worth of time will the installer bill Verizon for recovering it? If it means they're shutting down the CLECs in the process? I suspect it's worth quite a bit of installer billable time... Jamie
last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. I think this partly captures the incentive case here, but there is also a larger one at play. Over the years the copper infrastructure was installed and extended through various incentive programs. You can see the modern-day reflection of that in the RUS (used to manage rural electrification act, part of USDA) and NTIA (Department of Commerce). The barriers to entry are significant for a new player in the marketplace. The cost is putting the cabling in the ground vs the cost of the cable itself. One can easily pick up hardware for $250 to light a single strand of 9/125 SM fiber @ 10km for a 1Gb/s ethernet link. That's low enough you could likely get a consumer to buy the hardware. The real cost is the installation per strand foot/mile. In the past this has been subsidized for copper plant. There is no reason in my mind that the fiber plant should be treated differently from this standpoint. I can find fiber optic cabling for $0.25/ft. The problem here is a multi-dimensional one that I've seen play out in a few markets: Verizon selling assets to Fairpoint (NH, ME, VT). These are high cost areas due to low-density population. For the sale to go through, Fairpoint had to agree to build into these higher cost areas. The result was bankruptcy for Fairpoint. Verizon sold assets in Michigan (and other states) to Frontier. I've not tracked this one as closely, but I suspect the economics of this are fairly complex. I've also spoken to some small ISPs and their general cost of building fiber to the home tends to be $2500/subscriber in upfront capital. This covers just the installation cost. Due to years of subsidy and regulation, people are unwilling to pay this amount to install a telecommunications service whereas a new home requiring a connection to the water, sewers, natural gas or electric grid may pay $10k or more to connect. Many people wouldn't think of buying a home without electric service, but without modern telecommunication service? I've seen this play out after the fact with friends asking how to get service. Satellite, Fixed wireless or just cellular data quickly become their fallbacks. The demand is there, the challenge becomes recovering the build cost. It is my firm belief that without a regulatory regime it will not be feasible to connect many communities robustly to modern communications infrastructure. This could clearly change if the carriers involved see fit to replace this infrastructure, but with their current debt loads, I think it will be challenging to say the least. Taking a look at Verizon - Their most recent quarterly balance sheet shows: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=VZ Assets: 230.461 Billion USD Liabilities: 194.491 Billion USD. This is not a lot of money, considering they have growing liabilities on a quarterly basis as part of their debt load (Long-term debt of $50 Billion). A large fiber build would easily cost a few billion dollars and have lots of regulatory barriers. In my county it costs $200 to go over or under any public road (just for the permit). This starts to add up quickly. I do think we need a new last-mile regime in many areas, be it more fair access similar to pole attach fees or the removal of local barriers to build this infrastructure. Some school and other governments here in Michigan would love to sell/lease their excess fiber capacity to the private sector, but are worried about turning a profit when it was built with taxpayer funds and problems associated with that. I'd like to see these barriers removed. If it's there, lets make it of value. If the school system turns a profit on their enterprise, that's fine, it can lower the tax burden elsewhere. Me? I'd be willing to pay $2500 to have Fiber built to my home. I might even pay more. At this point, my research continues on building the fiber and arranging my own easements for where to place it. I suspect you just need a few geeks that are willing to part with some extra $ for fiber bragging rights and one can build it. - Jared
FYI: [Argus] 12.231.155/24 is 'hijacked' by anomalous origin 'AS13490'
Hi, Just now we found a hijacking, as shown below. Is it a real prefix hijacking, or a false alarm made by us? Hope someone in this list, maybe the admin of those ASes listed below, can give me a reply :-) The feedback can help us improve Argus and provide more valuable information. BRs. -- Forwarded message -- From: argus-alarm argus-al...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn Date: 2012/3/23 Subject: [Argus] 12.231.155/24 is 'hijacked' by anomalous origin 'AS13490' To: argus ar...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn Prefix hijacking alarm: Start Time(UTC): Mar-22-2012 16:29:07 IP Prefix: 12.231.155/24 Origin AS change: AS7018 - AS13490 Details: http://argus.csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn/fingerprints/207340/ ___ Argus mailing list ar...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn http://csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn/mailman/listinfo/argus -- _ Yang Xiang. Ph.D candidate. Tsinghua University Argus: argus.csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
New AS Number Blocks allocated to the RIPE NCC
Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Blocks from the IANA in March 2012. 59392-60415 60416-61439 198656-199679 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. I think this partly captures the incentive case here, but there is also a larger one at play. Over the years the copper infrastructure was installed and extended through various incentive programs. You can see the modern-day reflection of that in the RUS (used to manage rural electrification act, part of USDA) and NTIA (Department of Commerce). The barriers to entry are significant for a new player in the marketplace. The cost is putting the cabling in the ground vs the cost of the cable itself. One can easily pick up hardware for $250 to light a single strand of 9/125 SM fiber @ 10km for a 1Gb/s ethernet link. That's low enough you could likely get a consumer to buy the hardware. The real cost is the installation per strand foot/mile. In the past this has been subsidized for copper plant. There is no reason in my mind that the fiber plant should be treated differently from this standpoint. I can find fiber optic cabling for $0.25/ft. The problem here is a multi-dimensional one that I've seen play out in a few markets: Verizon selling assets to Fairpoint (NH, ME, VT). These are high cost areas due to low-density population. For the sale to go through, Fairpoint had to agree to build into these higher cost areas. The result was bankruptcy for Fairpoint. Verizon sold assets in Michigan (and other states) to Frontier. I've not tracked this one as closely, but I suspect the economics of this are fairly complex. I've also spoken to some small ISPs and their general cost of building fiber to the home tends to be $2500/subscriber in upfront capital. This covers just the installation cost. Due to years of subsidy and regulation, people are unwilling to pay this amount to install a telecommunications service whereas a new home requiring a connection to the water, sewers, natural gas or electric grid may pay $10k or more to connect. Many people wouldn't think of buying a home without electric service, but without modern telecommunication service? I've seen this play out after the fact with friends asking how to get service. Satellite, Fixed wireless or just cellular data quickly become their fallbacks. The demand is there, the challenge becomes recovering the build cost. It is my firm belief that without a regulatory regime it will not be feasible to connect many communities robustly to modern communications infrastructure. This could clearly change if the carriers involved see fit to replace this infrastructure, but with their current debt loads, I think it will be challenging to say the least. Taking a look at Verizon - Their most recent quarterly balance sheet shows: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=VZ Assets: 230.461 Billion USD Liabilities: 194.491 Billion USD. This is not a lot of money, considering they have growing liabilities on a quarterly basis as part of their debt load (Long-term debt of $50 Billion). A large fiber build would easily cost a few billion dollars and have lots of regulatory barriers. In my county it costs $200 to go over or under any public road (just for the permit). This starts to add up quickly. I do think we need a new last-mile regime in many areas, be it more fair access similar to pole attach fees or the removal of local barriers to build this infrastructure. Some school and other governments here in Michigan would love to sell/lease their excess fiber capacity to the private sector, but are worried about turning a profit when it was built with taxpayer funds and problems associated with that. I'd like to see these barriers removed. If it's there, lets make it of value. If the school system turns a profit on their enterprise, that's fine, it can lower the tax burden elsewhere. Me? I'd be willing to pay $2500 to have Fiber built to my home. I might even pay more. At this point, my research continues on building the fiber and arranging my own easements for where to place it. I suspect you just need a few geeks that are willing to part with some extra $ for fiber bragging rights and one can build it. - Jared I agree that barrier of entry is what is stifling competition. Hardware, cabling, even software is relatively inexpensive. Opening things up to competition is what drives innovation in the field. I think a good example of this is in the datacenter space. You usually have the same group of suspects who provide internet access for the home/business delivering service there at a fraction of what their retail price is. I know some
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:12 PM, chris wrote: Why is it that the big companies are controlling what happens? They have used the past decades or century to establish these assets. - Jared
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber? Isn't it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't seem fair to force the incumbents to start handing out lambdas and timeslots to their competitors on the business side. I guess passive optical can be shared depending on the details of the network, but that would still be much different than sharing copper pairs.
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:12 PM, chris wrote: Why is it that the big companies are controlling what happens? They have used the past decades or century to establish these assets. What is there that's worth having that isn't controlled by a big company of some sort?
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley wrote: 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber? Isn't it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't seem fair to force the incumbents to start handing out lambdas and timeslots to their competitors on the business side. I guess passive optical can be shared depending on the details of the network, but that would still be much different than sharing copper pairs. You agree on a price per distance (e.g.: mile/foot/whatnot). Lets say the cable costs $25k to install for the distance of 5000 feet. That cable has 144 strands. You need access to one strand. If you install it yourself, it will cost you $25k. If you share the pro-rata cost, it comes out around $174 for that strand. Lets say they mark it up 10x (profit, unused strands), would you pay $1740 for access? What does emergency restoration cost? WDM/DWDM add cost to that strand, but also increase the capacity based on what your overall lit capacity may be on a route. There are various cwdm/dwdm systems that range the usual 10/20/40/80/100km ranges. You obviously need to do the math yourselves on this. You may find the ROI is better than you think... - Jared
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
This sharing can be done at a layer-3 or as you say at the time slot level or lambda level. It's no different than what is happening with the copper already. It's not like they have to give it away for free. They just have to offer it to other carriers at cost. This will hopefully provide more of a competitive market. But I don't see Verizon giving into it, nor Comcast or any other provider that has fiber. Verizon campaigned hard to have fiber removed from the equal access legalize so like most of these other large companies, they don't want to share their new toy with the other children. -John Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote: 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber? Isn't it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't seem fair to force the incumbents to start handing out lambdas and timeslots to their competitors on the business side. I guess passive optical can be shared depending on the details of the network, but that would still be much different than sharing copper pairs.
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Keegan Holley wrote: What is there that's worth having that isn't controlled by a big company of some sort? This is done in some places. eg: http://www.allband.org/ Some states place barriers to establishing a cooperative. Call your state PUC, there are good people there who will tell you about the unserved areas of the state. Your universal service fund tax has not made PSTN available to 100% of the US. The Allband service area just got the telephony services the rest of the country has enjoyed for decades. There are also many independent phone companies nationwide. Some are comfortable in their areas, others are pushing to expand. - Jared
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley wrote: 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber? Isn't it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't seem fair to force the incumbents to start handing out lambdas and timeslots to their competitors on the business side. I guess passive optical can be shared depending on the details of the network, but that would still be much different than sharing copper pairs. You agree on a price per distance (e.g.: mile/foot/whatnot). Lets say the cable costs $25k to install for the distance of 5000 feet. That cable has 144 strands. You need access to one strand. If you install it yourself, it will cost you $25k. If you share the pro-rata cost, it comes out around $174 for that strand. Lets say they mark it up 10x (profit, unused strands), would you pay $1740 for access? What does emergency restoration cost? I agree, but what if it's not as simple as a bunch of strands in a conduit. What if the plant is part of some sort of multiplexed network or GPON solution. That's alot harder to share with another carrier . But yes if it's simple stands of glass not plugged into anything in particular it can be shared just like copper. Alot of the fiber plant out there isn't used this way though. WDM/DWDM add cost to that strand, but also increase the capacity based on what your overall lit capacity may be on a route. There are various cwdm/dwdm systems that range the usual 10/20/40/80/100km ranges. You obviously need to do the math yourselves on this. You may find the ROI is better than you think... This is different than sharing cables. Any long distance carrier is still free to purchase service from any LEC. The term sharing fiber seemed to imply that it's freely transferable from one company to the next. It largely isn't though, which is why I think the FCC hasn't touched it yet.
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
If it's done on a box owned by the incumbent then sharing has evolved into giving away free service to competitors. It's different when copper pairs into a house could be latched onto anyone's switch. Once you start requiring a carrier to give away capacity in it's network that's different. Also, diversity/redundancy becomes dodgy at this point. Not that the billions of dollars they are making didn't come into the discussion, but it seems like its more complicated to share fiber access than it was to share copper pairs. 2012/3/22 John Kreno john.kr...@gmail.com This sharing can be done at a layer-3 or as you say at the time slot level or lambda level. It's no different than what is happening with the copper already. It's not like they have to give it away for free. They just have to offer it to other carriers at cost. This will hopefully provide more of a competitive market. But I don't see Verizon giving into it, nor Comcast or any other provider that has fiber. Verizon campaigned hard to have fiber removed from the equal access legalize so like most of these other large companies, they don't want to share their new toy with the other children. -John Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote: 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber? Isn't it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't seem fair to force the incumbents to start handing out lambdas and timeslots to their competitors on the business side. I guess passive optical can be shared depending on the details of the network, but that would still be much different than sharing copper pairs.
RE: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
-Original Message- From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.hol...@sungard.com] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:41 PM To: Jared Mauch Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al) 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley wrote: 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber? Isn't it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't seem fair to force the incumbents to start handing out lambdas and timeslots to their competitors on the business side. I guess passive optical can be shared depending on the details of the network, but that would still be much different than sharing copper pairs. You agree on a price per distance (e.g.: mile/foot/whatnot). Lets say the cable costs $25k to install for the distance of 5000 feet. That cable has 144 strands. You need access to one strand. If you install it yourself, it will cost you $25k. If you share the pro-rata cost, it comes out around $174 for that strand. Lets say they mark it up 10x (profit, unused strands), would you pay $1740 for access? What does emergency restoration cost? I agree, but what if it's not as simple as a bunch of strands in a conduit. What if the plant is part of some sort of multiplexed network or GPON solution. That's alot harder to share with another carrier . But yes if it's simple stands of glass not plugged into anything in particular it can be shared just like copper. Alot of the fiber plant out there isn't used this way though. WDM/DWDM add cost to that strand, but also increase the capacity based on what your overall lit capacity may be on a route. There are various cwdm/dwdm systems that range the usual 10/20/40/80/100km ranges. You obviously need to do the math yourselves on this. You may find the ROI is better than you think... This is different than sharing cables. Any long distance carrier is still free to purchase service from any LEC. The term sharing fiber seemed to imply that it's freely transferable from one company to the next. It largely isn't though, which is why I think the FCC hasn't touched it yet. -- Verizon has no problem delivering service via fiber with a DSX-1 or Ethernet handoff. We simply want that service backhauled to us just like all our customers with service over copper with DSX-1 or Ethernet handoff.
Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
- Original Message - From: John Kreno john.kr...@gmail.com This sharing can be done at a layer-3 or as you say at the time slot level or lambda level. It's no different than what is happening with the copper already. It's not like they have to give it away for free. They just have to offer it to other carriers at cost. This will hopefully provide more of a competitive market. But I don't see Verizon giving into it, nor Comcast or any other provider that has fiber. Verizon campaigned hard to have fiber removed from the equal access legalize so like most of these other large companies, they don't want to share their new toy with the other children. Oh, it's *much* worse than that, John. The *right*, long term solution to all of these problems is for municipalities to do the fiber build, properly engineered, and even subbed out to a contractor to build and possibly operate... offering *only* layer 1 service at wholesale. Any comer can light up each city's pop, and offer retail service over the FTTH fiber to that customer at whatever rate they like, and the city itself doesn't offer layer 2 or 3 service at all. High-speed optical data *is* the next natural monopoly, after power and water/sewer delivery, and it's time to just get over it and do it right. As you might imagine, this environment -- one where the LEC doesn't own the physical plant -- scares the ever-lovin' daylights out of Verizon (among others), so much so that they *have gotten it made illegal* in several states, and they're lobbying to expand that footprint. See, among other sites: http://www.muninetworks.org/ As you might imagine, I am a fairly strong proponent of muni layer 1 -- or even layer 2, where the municipality supplies (matching) ONTs, and services have to fit over GigE -- fiber delivery of high-speed data service. I believe Google agrees with me. :-) Cheers, -- jra Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
Re: FYI: [Argus] 12.231.155/24 is 'hijacked' by anomalous origin 'AS13490'
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Yang Xiang xiang...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn wrote: Hi, Just now we found a hijacking, as shown below. Is it a real prefix hijacking, or a false alarm made by us? Hope someone in this list, maybe the admin of those ASes listed below, can give me a reply :-) The feedback can help us improve Argus and provide more valuable information. FIRST SOLAR LLC FIRST-SO23-155 (NET-12-231-155-0-1) 12.231.155.0 - 12.231.155.255 ASNumber: 13490 ASName: BUCKEYECABLEVISION ASHandle: AS13490 OrgName:Buckeye Cablevision, Inc. OrgId: BUCKEY-4 Address:5566 Southwyck Blvd. City: Toledo StateProv: OH OrgTechHandle: RLK3-ARIN OrgTechName: Karpinski, Rebecca Lynn OrgTechPhone: +1-419-724-3818 OrgTechEmail: rkarpin...@bex.net OrgTechRef:http://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/RLK3-ARIN NetBlock data: OrgName:FIRST SOLAR LLC OrgId: FIRST-283 Address:1391 GENEVA DR City: SUNYVL StateProv: CA PostalCode: 94089 Call Rebecca and ask? It seems unlikely though to be proper... of course, maybe the block was re-allocated by ATT and whois just hasn't caught up? -chris (note that it doesn't SEEM that BEX is actually announcing that block currently? nor are there other att prefixes in their announcements) BRs. -- Forwarded message -- From: argus-alarm argus-al...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn Date: 2012/3/23 Subject: [Argus] 12.231.155/24 is 'hijacked' by anomalous origin 'AS13490' To: argus ar...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn Prefix hijacking alarm: Start Time(UTC): Mar-22-2012 16:29:07 IP Prefix: 12.231.155/24 Origin AS change: AS7018 - AS13490 Details: http://argus.csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn/fingerprints/207340/ ___ Argus mailing list ar...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn http://csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn/mailman/listinfo/argus -- _ Yang Xiang. Ph.D candidate. Tsinghua University Argus: argus.csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote: 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber? Isn't it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't seem fair to force the incumbents to start handing out lambdas and timeslots to their competitors on the business side. I guess passive optical can be shared depending on the details of the network, but that would still be much different than sharing copper pairs. PON (e.g. FIOS) is similar to CWDM. The PO in PON is Passive Optical. As in a glass prism-like device with no electronics. You remember prisms from high school physics, right? Beam of white light into a glass triangle and it splits off into a rainbow of colors. Well, with CWDM the different color sources all being joined by the prism into a beam of white light. And then split back out at the other end. So, you share fiber by having one guy control one wavelength (color, e.g. red) and another guy control another wavelength (e.g. blue). And when you install it to a home or business, the prism sits up on the phone pole and just splits out the one wavelength that is intended for that location. You can't even stray out of your color: if you do, the prism will bend the light in a way that misses the target beam. Key is: it's just a piece of glass. A very finely machined piece of glass to be sure, but no electronics. Or, you could share at a different level: ethernet packets. Unbundle the local ethernet service from the Internet service. $X for the local ethernet service to the local concentration point at whatever capacity, $Y for the Internet/tv/phone services connected at the concentration point. Or buy some other service from another vendor at the concentration point. But you don't get to double-dip the billing: $X includes the cost to take the packets off at the concentration point; the service vendor doesn't pay again. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Verizon, FiOS, and CLEC/UNE orders (was ATT diversity)
William Herrin b...@herrin.us writes: That depends on the cost of recovering it. We're not talking about salvage operators pulling cable, we're talking about highly trained [sic] Verizon installers. The last 4 pairs in use on that 3000 count cable will tend to linger a long, long time before you can go remove it. Mostly you'll recover short runs of low-count cable like the fifty-foot two and six pair cables from the street to the house: maybe $3 in scrap. How many dollars worth of time will the installer bill Verizon for recovering it? I bet there is some kind of creative accounting that they can use that makes this totally worthwhile window dressing on their 10-Qs. -r
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 01:31:47PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: You agree on a price per distance (e.g.: mile/foot/whatnot). Lets say the cable costs $25k to install for the distance of 5000 feet. That cable has 144 strands. You need access to one strand. If you install it yourself, it will cost you $25k. If you share the pro-rata cost, it comes out around $174 for that strand. Lets say they mark it up 10x (profit, unused strands), would you pay $1740 for access? What does emergency restoration cost? WDM/DWDM add cost to that strand, but also increase the capacity based on what your overall lit capacity may be on a route. There are various cwdm/dwdm systems that range the usual 10/20/40/80/100km ranges. You obviously need to do the math yourselves on this. You may find the ROI is better than you think... I'm trying to do just that right now, actually. 55 s. market to 250 Stockton in San Jose. I dono if it's five thousand feet, but it's not twice that. The cheapest fiber pair I can rent from someone else I've found is $5K/month; the cheapest build-out I've found is $150K, so even if I'm only using one pair in that, if I can get money at anything like a reasonable interest rate, if I plan on sticking around more than 5 years it makes sense to lay new fiber. Which is weird, as this is probably one of the densest masses of existing fiber in the world, going from a 'center of the universe' data center to a minor data center. Even the $5K/month rate isn't bad. If they asked for a third of that, I'd bite even though I don't need that much capacity quite yet. The big problem here, I think, is that it's quite difficult to figure out who has what fiber where, and even once you know who owns it, to find out who to talk to at a company that might know what 'dark fiber' is, much less know how much they might rent it to you for. I spent several hours last month on the phone with XO and I kept getting redirected to someone trying to sell me a T1. I've got other projects right now, but once I'm done with that, I'm going to be spending a bunch of time pestering the PUC and other people that might know who owns fiber between here and there. As for equipment cost, in my corner of the world, I can get used cisco 15540 systems for what I consider to be not very much money, and 32 10G waves is plenty for what I'm doing. I mean, they eat way more power than is required, and 10G/wave is not great these days, but if I could sell a reasonable number of waves, even at a whole order of magnitude below market, I'd be in good shape. The whole project seems dramatically cheaper than lit services. At quoted prices, 10G waves over the same distance cost about 1/2 what a full pair of dark fiber costs. Now, the big problem with the build out? as far as I can tell, I've gotta be a carrier to actually own fiber in the ground. From what I understand, that's not out of the question for me, but it's definitely a lot of work and red tape. There are, however, companies that will do a build out for you (of course, charging you for it up front) then they will lease you the fiber at a very low yearly rate - right now, that looks like the second-best option, where the best option is hunting down the owners of all the dead bundles of fiber going into the meetme room.(250 Stockton is ex-enron, it's got bundles coming in from MFN, quest, global crossing, MCI, enron broadband xo and others. I'd bet money that if I had the kind of access to the meetme at 55 s. Market that I have at 250 Stockton I could start shining light down empty strands and I'd see some of it come out the other side.) But from the amount of time it takes to just find someone at those companies that even knows what dark fiber is? I think I might be better off putting in the effort to do whatever regulatory red tape is required to own fiber in the ground. So yeah; really? in my corner of the world, the problem is the same problem you see everywhere else in this industry. Any useful information is guarded jealously. In this case, where does the fiber run? I mean, I have pretty good maps of the Santa Clara municipal fiber network; but the private networks are impossible.
Re: how to report spam to Yahoo!
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu wrote: Yahoo!'s abuse contact from whois: OrgAbuseEmail: network-ab...@cc.yahoo-inc.com Have you tried ab...@att.net ? They accept ARF and X-ARF reports, or anything with the complete message headers (or logs) in it will work in a pinch. Plain-text, no attachments, etc. Don't expect anything more than an autoreply, but all complaints do get processed. -- Paul
Re: how to report spam to Yahoo!
The Yahoo form hasn't worked for a while. When you do get to somewhere for reporting spam, a few hours or days later you'll get a response telling you to submit a report on the exact same form you used. If you do you end up with the same response. Repeat ad infinitum. Same goes for their grey-listing/rate limiting report message. I've given up trying to report anything e-mail related to Yahoo, mostly just apologise to end users and suggest they use another e-mail provider. Paul On 03/21/2012 03:27 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote: Yahoo!'s abuse contact from whois: OrgAbuseEmail: network-ab...@cc.yahoo-inc.com now sends an autoresponse that tells you to go to a web form to report spam: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/spam.html but the link doesn't work--it just redirects to a generic Yahoo! help page at: http://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=productlocale=en_USy=PROD_MAIL_ML So how does a non-Yahoo! account holder report spam originating from Yahoo!'s network? - Forwarded message from Yahoo! Networknetwork-ab...@cc.yahoo-inc.com - From: Yahoo! Networknetwork-ab...@cc.yahoo-inc.com Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:59:35 -0700 Reply-To: Yahoo! Networknetwork-ab...@cc.yahoo-inc.com Thank you for your email, but this address is no longer being used for abuse reporting or abuse related questions. To report spam, please use this form: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/spam.html To report other types of abuse or for help with security or abuse related issues, please go to Yahoo! Abuse: http://abuse.yahoo.com For questions about using Yahoo! services, please visit Yahoo Help: http://help.yahoo.com Note: Please do not reply to this email as replies will not be answered. Thank you, - Yahoo! Customer Care Original Message Follows:
Looking for direct # for ATT translations
Our Central Office has been going around in circles trying to open a trouble with ATT regarding the inability to make outbound 800 number calls. Anyone have a good number we can use? Thanks
Fwd: Looking for direct # for ATT translations
I probably should have been more clear. We're an ILEC in West-Central Illinois having trouble originating 800-number calls to CIC 288 (ATT). Jason Original Message Subject:Looking for direct # for ATT translations Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:03:25 -0500 From: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com To: nanog nanog@nanog.org Our Central Office has been going around in circles trying to open a trouble with ATT regarding the inability to make outbound 800 number calls. Anyone have a good number we can use? Thanks
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:12 AM, chris wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. I think this partly captures the incentive case here, but there is also a larger one at play. Over the years the copper infrastructure was installed and extended through various incentive programs. You can see the modern-day reflection of that in the RUS (used to manage rural electrification act, part of USDA) and NTIA (Department of Commerce). Yes, I find it quite amusing that I am paying additional fees on all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San Jose, California. The barriers to entry are significant for a new player in the marketplace. The cost is putting the cabling in the ground vs the cost of the cable itself. One can easily pick up hardware for $250 to light a single strand of 9/125 SM fiber @ 10km for a 1Gb/s ethernet link. That's low enough you could likely get a consumer to buy the hardware. The real cost is the installation per strand foot/mile. Yes, at some point, we need to recognize that LMI (Last Mile Infrastructure) is and likely always will be a natural monopoly in all but the most densely populated areas (and actually even in many of those). THe market simply won't support the costs of deploying duplicate infrastructure installed by multiple providers. Given this fact, the only way to ensure competition in the services arena is to divorce the infrastructure from the services and require an independent operator of the infrastructure to make it available on an equal basis to all service providers. In the past this has been subsidized for copper plant. There is no reason in my mind that the fiber plant should be treated differently from this standpoint. I can find fiber optic cabling for $0.25/ft. The problem here is a multi-dimensional one that I've seen play out in a few markets: One reason the fiber plant should be treated differently is that we should learn from the mistakes we made with copper and we shouldn't continue to subsidize corporations to build out infrastructure that extends their ability to block competitors and should, instead insist that subsidized infrastructure is deployed in such a manner as to benefit all and support healthy competition for the services market. It is my firm belief that without a regulatory regime it will not be feasible to connect many communities robustly to modern communications infrastructure. This could clearly change if the carriers involved see fit to replace this infrastructure, but with their current debt loads, I think it will be challenging to say the least. WHile I agree with you, the situation is already somewhat inverted in the US in that the existing USF subsidies have now made it more cost effective to build advanced networks into rural low-density subscriber bases than into moderately populated areas. I do think we need a new last-mile regime in many areas, be it more fair access similar to pole attach fees or the removal of local barriers to build this infrastructure. The mechanism I have described above has been deployed in Sweden for some time now and is working out quite well from what I hear. It's also being tried in Australia now, much to the consternation of Telstra, but, it seems to be going well for the residents and businesses. Some school and other governments here in Michigan would love to sell/lease their excess fiber capacity to the private sector, but are worried about turning a profit when it was built with taxpayer funds and problems associated with that. I'd like to see these barriers removed. If it's there, lets make it of value. If the school system turns a profit on their enterprise, that's fine, it can lower the tax burden elsewhere. +1 I do not understand this aversion to government having other sources of revenue besides direct taxation. If government can earn money from infrastructure it built with taxpayer money by leasing it to corporations or others, so long as it doesn't interfere with the original purpose for which the taxpayers funded its construction, I think this should absolutely be allowed and even encouraged. Me? I'd be willing to pay $2500 to have Fiber built to my home. I might even pay more. At this point, my research continues on building the fiber and arranging my own easements for where to place it. I suspect you just need a few geeks that are willing to part with some extra $ for fiber bragging rights and one can
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Jared Mauch wrote: On Mar 22, 2012, at 1:12 PM, chris wrote: Why is it that the big companies are controlling what happens? They have used the past decades or century to establish these assets. - Jared 1. Do not mistake a large telco for a communications company or an entity that considers itself in the communications business. They are not and do not. They are very large law firms and lobbying organizations that happen to have significant telecommunications infrastructure. One of the key differentiators of the internet is that it is not dominated as a battleground for lawyers and diplomats, but, rather is worked out between cooperating and competing entities as a (relatively) unregulated business transaction. 2. Because companies are allowed to own infrastructure and sell services over that infrastructure and in many cases without being required to make that (subsidized) infrastructure available to other services providers. 3. Because it is very expensive to build out the infrastructure to a given area and the maximum revenue potential from it is limited to a value unlikely to support 2x or more the infrastructure build-out cost, thus resulting in a sort of natural monopoly because it is cost effective to build out if you have a reasonable chance of capturing ~100% of the revenue, but, much less so if you are faced with the possibility of capturing 50% or less of the revenue.[1] Owen [1] Comparing across topologies is not as valid as the carriers would like you to believe. While the end services being offered share significant similarities in a converged digital world, they still retain unique properties that make certain things more optimal for different purposes. Consider the number of places in the US that have more than one cable provider or more than one DSL provider or more than one PON provider. These are few and far between and usually only reflect the very densest population centers.
http://www.moduletek.com/ SFP's anyone using them
Dear Nanog Just wondering if anyone has used moduletek 10gbit SFP's+ and what has your experience been like ? their product spec sheets are almost identical to Finisar http://www.moduletek.com/ Kindest Regards James Braunegg W: 1300 769 972 | M: 0488 997 207 | D: (03) 9751 7616 E: james.braun...@micron21.com | ABN: 12 109 977 666 This message is intended for the addressee named above. It may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you must not use, copy, distribute or disclose it to anyone other than the addressee. If you have received this message in error please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message from your computer.
Re: Looking for advice - Auditing zones on a set of name servers
..snip.. I need it to do since sometimes we are authoritative but there are no NS records or they are wrong. I'm also not sure beating on google's name servers is a good idea either so you should fill in your OWN recursive name servers instead f 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4. don't you really want to walk the tree from . down? so dig +trace | machine-ify then make sure that the criteria you care about work out properly? (this avoides people's old/legacy/super-long-ttl causing problems in the shorter term) I've done it this way. Another person wrote me off list and said the same thing so I've modified things to do it this way and it looks good. Thanks for your reply!
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:40:27 -0700, Owen DeLong said: Yes, I find it quite amusing that I am paying additional fees on all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San Jose, California. That's OK, you're all in the same boat - the subsidized users can't get it either. :) pgprqO941xUC3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc
William Herrin wrote: PON (e.g. FIOS) is similar to CWDM. If you are not talking about WDM PON, no, not at all. The PO in PON is Passive Optical. As in a glass prism-like device with no electronics. The passive optical device of usual PON is not a prism but a splitter. The entire optics is shared by all the subscribers sharing a fiber. Thus, the problem is collision avoidance of simultaneous transmission, which makes PON time shared with L2 protocols. So, you share fiber by having one guy control one wavelength (color, e.g. red) and another guy control another wavelength (e.g. blue). That's not a usual PON but WDN PON. Or, you could share at a different level: ethernet packets. That's where usual PON can be shared. But, it costs a lot, as much as sharing at L3. Masataka Ohta
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:40:27 -0700, Owen DeLong said: Yes, I find it quite amusing that I am paying additional fees on all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San Jose, California. That's OK, you're all in the same boat - the subsidized users can't get it either. :) So where are these subsidies going? I live in rural BFE where most of my neighbors are still dialing in, and the local providers have no $$ incentive to build out here. Greg
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc
On 3/22/2012 3:49 PM, Greg Shepherd wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:11 PM,valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:40:27 -0700, Owen DeLong said: Yes, I find it quite amusing that I am paying additional fees on all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San Jose, California. That's OK, you're all in the same boat - the subsidized users can't get it either. :) So where are these subsidies going? I live in rural BFE where most of my neighbors are still dialing in, and the local providers have no $$ incentive to build out here. Greg I imagine a lot goes into the general maintenance of rural systems. I recall 12 - 15 years ago, on the local news when it was announced a small town got its first phone line. Cost to GTE at the time was said to be 40K to do it, as the town was 20+ miles from the nearest anything. I've lived in an area where Verizon had to maintain 10 miles of overhead just for 1 SLC that serves 20 homes. Not that the service was any good but, I'm sure the cost was far higher than what the customers were paying. --John
Planet-Lab.org traffic
At about 17:40 EDT today we started seeing traffic from planet-lab.orgnodes at 25+ US universities all directed at one of our hosting boxes. Its all ICMP and high port UDP stuff. Nothing terrible from what we can tell, but its triggering a constant stream of IDS alerts and auto-blocks. Not easy to configure for since the traffic originates from subnets all over the place, and the list of originating nodes is growing every few minutes. Its horribly annoying, and trying to determine the source using the tools provided on the planet-lab.org site is pretty much impossible as the search tool returns nothing at all times. Yes, we've opened a ticket with supp...@planet-lab.org already. Has anyone else had to deal with this, or is anyone connected to that particular project listening? Im all for academic projects, but the approach here is rubbing me the wrong way.
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
2012/3/22 William Herrin b...@herrin.us On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote: 2012/3/22 Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:05 AM, chris wrote: I'm all for VZ being able to reclaim it as long as they open their fiber which I don't see happening unless its by force via government. At the end of the day there needs to be the ability to allow competitors in so of course they shouldnt be allowed to rip out the regulated part and replace it with a unregulated one. Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber? Isn't it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't seem fair to force the incumbents to start handing out lambdas and timeslots to their competitors on the business side. I guess passive optical can be shared depending on the details of the network, but that would still be much different than sharing copper pairs. So, you share fiber by having one guy control one wavelength (color, e.g. red) and another guy control another wavelength (e.g. blue). And when you install it to a home or business, the prism sits up on the phone pole and just splits out the one wavelength that is intended for that location. You can't even stray out of your color: if you do, the prism will bend the light in a way that misses the target beam. So who get's the keys the the cabinet it resides in? The LEC? All of the CLECs? The FCC? Who's responsible for maintaining the box given it's now shared. Who takes legal responsibility for outages caused by things done to this magical prism you speak of? In the LD to LEC carrier model you can use whatever you want, but this is different from what the FCC intended when they forced the incumbents to share copper plant. Also PON and WDM are very different actually, but that's beside the point. Once the incumbent has to permit access to their nodes the CLECs become customers. Copper pairs followed a different model because they could be used by anyone at the whim of hte customer. Not all fiber based networks are implemented that way.
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote: 2012/3/22 William Herrin b...@herrin.us On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Keegan Holley keegan.hol...@sungard.com wrote: Maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly does one share fiber? Isn't it usually a closed loop between DWDM or Sonet nodes? It doesn't seem fair to force the incumbents to start handing out lambdas and timeslots to their competitors on the business side. I guess passive optical can be shared depending on the details of the network, but that would still be much different than sharing copper pairs. So, you share fiber by having one guy control one wavelength (color, e.g. red) and another guy control another wavelength (e.g. blue). And when you install it to a home or business, the prism sits up on the phone pole and just splits out the one wavelength that is intended for that location. You can't even stray out of your color: if you do, the prism will bend the light in a way that misses the target beam. So who get's the keys the the cabinet it resides in? The LEC? All of the CLECs? The FCC? Who's responsible for maintaining the box given it's now shared. Who takes legal responsibility for outages caused by things done to this magical prism you speak of? A fiber wavelength in the described PON scenario is operationally identical to a dedicated fiber strand or a dedicated copper pair with respect to management and connection. There's a physical wire coming out at each end which is connected to equipment with lights it. The problem is reduced to the already solved one of how to share copper pairs in a single cable. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: http://bill.herrin.us/ Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Re: Planet-Lab.org traffic
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Drew Linsalata drew.linsal...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone else had to deal with this, or is anyone connected to that people get dos'd (or think they do, not you in this case) regularly. particular project listening? Im all for academic projects, but the approach here is rubbing me the wrong way. normally their support arm had been helpful... in the past at least I'd gotten responses :(
Re: Routing issues?
Kinda looks like a problem with their monitor. On Mar 22, 2012 6:07 PM, Jeff Harper jhar...@well.com wrote: Anyone else noticing some routing abnormalities today? http://www.internettrafficreport.com/details.htm Jeff Harper | www.well.com ip access-list extended jeff permit ip any any eq intelligence log deny ip any any eq stupid-people
Re: how to report spam to Yahoo!
I used to use this form semi regularly. It's behavior has changed in the last couple of months, after i'd finally gotten over the whole 'why can't I just forward them the email' thing and gotten used to copying and pasting the header and the body (seperately) into different fields on their webform. I'm disgusted that Yahoo (a regular source of spam) no longer readily offer the means to report the abusers (or abused accounts) in their midst. This while they apply some of the most over-the-top and disproportionate justifications to categorise inbound mail as spam (to their customers detriment, and also their correspondents, who have no idea why they're being categorised that way). If anyone knows what Yahoo's intentions are in this space, i'd love to hear about it. Mark. On 23/03/12 08:41, Paul Graydon wrote: The Yahoo form hasn't worked for a while. When you do get to somewhere for reporting spam, a few hours or days later you'll get a response telling you to submit a report on the exact same form you used. If you do you end up with the same response. Repeat ad infinitum. Same goes for their grey-listing/rate limiting report message. I've given up trying to report anything e-mail related to Yahoo, mostly just apologise to end users and suggest they use another e-mail provider. Paul On 03/21/2012 03:27 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote: Yahoo!'s abuse contact from whois: OrgAbuseEmail: network-ab...@cc.yahoo-inc.com now sends an autoresponse that tells you to go to a web form to report spam: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/spam.html but the link doesn't work--it just redirects to a generic Yahoo! help page at: http://help.yahoo.com/kb/index?page=productlocale=en_USy=PROD_MAIL_ML So how does a non-Yahoo! account holder report spam originating from Yahoo!'s network? - Forwarded message from Yahoo! Networknetwork-ab...@cc.yahoo-inc.com - From: Yahoo! Networknetwork-ab...@cc.yahoo-inc.com Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:59:35 -0700 Reply-To: Yahoo! Networknetwork-ab...@cc.yahoo-inc.com Thank you for your email, but this address is no longer being used for abuse reporting or abuse related questions. To report spam, please use this form: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/spam.html To report other types of abuse or for help with security or abuse related issues, please go to Yahoo! Abuse: http://abuse.yahoo.com For questions about using Yahoo! services, please visit Yahoo Help: http://help.yahoo.com Note: Please do not reply to this email as replies will not be answered. Thank you, - Yahoo! Customer Care Original Message Follows:
Re: Planet-Lab.org traffic
In fairness to the PlanetLab folks, I did get a response to my original ticket and someone from NANOG also contacted me after my post. I do appreciate that. I will repeat that the traffic is not malicious, but it might be a more friendly policy to allow network operators to automatically opt-out of that environment if desired. Since we have some semblance of clue it was obvious within 30 seconds that this was an academic research network at play, and only took another 15 seconds to figure out that it was PlanetLab, so just let me add my subnets to a database which then prevents the uber cluster from including those subnets when generating experimental traffic. Another option might be to clearly state which prefixes the traffic may originate from so operators can filter accordingly. The cluster is pretty widespread so I realize that might not be very practical. Simply assuming that we won't mind having PlanetLab researchers using our assets as a lab isn't terribly cool. On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Drew Linsalata drew.linsal...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone else had to deal with this, or is anyone connected to that people get dos'd (or think they do, not you in this case) regularly. particular project listening? Im all for academic projects, but the approach here is rubbing me the wrong way. normally their support arm had been helpful... in the past at least I'd gotten responses :(
Re: http://www.moduletek.com/ SFP's anyone using them
Hey James, On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:49 PM, James Braunegg wrote: http://www.moduletek.com/ Just wondering if anyone has used moduletek 10gbit SFP's+ and what has your experience been like ? We've used a variety of what they have for 4-5 years now in in lots of flavors of sfp, sfp+, x2, xfp, xenpak, lr cwdm, etc, in vendors C, J, and what is now D gear. Cost effective and reliable. Lead times depend on stock / fab / shipping / customs. I have heard they might do paypal now in addition to wire xfer. Dale as59 / as2381
RE: Monitoring other people's sites (Was: Website for ipv6.level3.com returns HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error)
I and my customers users IPv6-enabled sites. If it doesn't work (a hopefully their web browser uses HE) I want to know, and know when it happens. Yes, many sites aren't monitoring their own IPv6-connected content, but I've had reasonably good success privately letting them know when it's down. And communicating to them when it's down lets them know that people care and want to access their IPv6-enabled content. Last, monitoring IPv6 access to many different sites brings our own connectivity issues to the surface as they arise -- we had one inside Level3's network last week Friday and it was resolved about 18 hours later. If we had not monitored it's possible it would be much longer before it was discovered and troubleshot through the regular sequence of events. Frank -Original Message- From: Jeroen Massar [mailto:jer...@unfix.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:54 AM To: vinny_abe...@dell.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Monitoring other people's sites (Was: Website for ipv6.level3.com returns HTTP/1.1 500 Internal Server Error) snip And for the few folks putting nagios's on other people's sites, they obviously do not understand that even if the alarm goes off that something is broken that they cannot fix it anyway, thus why bother...
Re: Muni Fiber (was: Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc)
I believe Google agrees with me. :-) Are they? Last I saw they were building out a layer 3 network -- no wholesale access -- did this change? It sorta fit with their goals in that it meant they could build a faster/simpler network for less money and make a big/bold 1 Gbps to every home (not really true) statement, but it doesn't end up serving a very practical model for most of the world who believe the separation needs to happen at layer 2. Layer 3 is interesting, but is everyone happy with saying goodbye to the ISP entirely and accepting regional monopolies on that space?
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc (was: att fiber, et al)
Yes, I find it quite amusing that I am paying additional fees on all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San Jose, California. That's OK, you're all in the same boat - the subsidized users can't get it either. :) So where are these subsidies going? what a silly question. lining the telcos' pockets. american so called 'broadband' is a joke and a scam. randy
Re: last mile, regulatory incentives, etc
So do a quick research on USF and see who gets paid from it... Please don't read this if you have just eaten.. you might puke .. http://connectedplanetonline.com/commentary/real-story-usf-data-071510/ http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/PDFs/2011usf/ResponsetoQuestion1.pdf If you have more time.. read these for your enjoyment.. http://energycommerce.house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=8737 Then one can understand how come folks like Century Tel can gobble up Qwest, Savvis, Sprint, and a few others rather quickly !!! I believe the current USF contribution is about 19% !!! Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, Fl 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net On 3/23/2012 1:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote: Yes, I find it quite amusing that I am paying additional fees on all of my telecommunications services to subsidize high speed PON networks in rural bumf*ck while I can't get anything like it in San Jose, California. That's OK, you're all in the same boat - the subsidized users can't get it either. :) So where are these subsidies going? what a silly question. lining the telcos' pockets. american so called 'broadband' is a joke and a scam. randy
