Re: open source with flowspec ?
On 2014-03-13 23:13, joel jaeggli wrote: exabgp from ripe labs can inject flowspec routes. You mean from Exa Networks[1], not RIPE: https://github.com/Exa-Networks/exabgp Tom [1] http://www.exa.net.uk/
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a tier one (whatever the F that means) provider for finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer, what the rest of us have known for decades. Every time the market has troubled the status quo, networks have failed to find ways that adapt to that market. The market ends up working around the network. Napster and all the goodness that followed it, is one such example; until iTunes adapted. And yes, iTunes is NOT the network. Now the OTT's are driving the network hard, and the network des not want to adapt (perhaps calling in the FCC is adapting... not). So expect the market to work around this as well. The network keeps getting left behind... Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 7:39 AM: On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a tier one (whatever the F that means) provider for finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer, what the rest of us have known for decades. Every time the market has troubled the status quo, networks have failed to find ways that adapt to that market. The market ends up working around the network. Napster and all the goodness that followed it, is one such example; until iTunes adapted. And yes, iTunes is NOT the network. Now the OTT's are driving the network hard, and the network des not want to adapt (perhaps calling in the FCC is adapting... not). So expect the market to work around this as well. The network keeps getting left behind... Mark. I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers up to 8Mbps (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me. One can reasonably make the argument that not all of ISP X's customers are using the service simultaneously, so the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer is unnecessary and unjustified. However, if past experience proves that 25% of business X's customers are consistently using the service simultaneously and business X has NOT put in the infrastructure to support this common level of usage, then this appears to be a simple financial decision to advertise/sell something that the business knows it cannot deliver. Would the same business practices fly in other fields? Perhaps. Airlines overbook, knowing that some customers won't show up. However, they don't sell 200 tickets (knowing that 90% if customers will show) but have only 100 seats to serve the 180 customers they expect. Fast food restaurants don't sell you a fry and drink when they know they're out of fries. I can speculate that customers would not patronize companies in the travel or food industry if they operated the same way that some ISP's operate. The difference, to me, seems to be that ISPs often enjoy a monopoly while there are usually several food and travel options in most places. --Blake
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On Mar 20, 2014, at 08:39 , Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a tier one (whatever the F that means) provider for finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer, what the rest of us have known for decades. Every time the market has troubled the status quo, networks have failed to find ways that adapt to that market. The market ends up working around the network. Napster and all the goodness that followed it, is one such example; until iTunes adapted. And yes, iTunes is NOT the network. Now the OTT's are driving the network hard, and the network des not want to adapt (perhaps calling in the FCC is adapting... not). So expect the market to work around this as well. The network keeps getting left behind... The market can only work around things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market. There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. -- TTFN, patrick signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: L6-20P - L6-30R
On 03/19/2014 06:33 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote: It's not the conductor that you're derating; it's the breaker. Per NEC Table 310.16, ampacity of #12 copper THHN/THWN2 (which is almost certainly what you're pulling) with 3 conductors in a conduit is 30 amps. Refer to Table 310.15(B)(2)(a) for derating of more than 3 current-carrying conductors in a conduit. 4-6 is 80%, 7-9 is 70%. Plenty good for 20 amps for any conceivable number of conductors in a datacenter whip. Thermal breakers are typically deployed in an 80% application for continuous loads, per NEC 384-16(c). See the references to 125% of continuous load, which of course is the reciprocal of 80%. Actually, there is no NEC 384.16 any more, at least in the 2011 code. The current relevent, perhaps even replacement, article seems to be the exception listed to article 210.20(A). Now, 210.21(B)(2) indicates that, for each individual receptacle on a multi-receptacle, the total cord and plug connected load cannot be above certain values (which are 80% of the branch circuit rating for 15, 20, and 30A circuits) regardless of overcurrent protection device rating. If you have a 100% rated overcurrent device you could connect a total load on multiple receptacles beyond 80%, it appears. While 210.21(B)(1) requires receptacles on single-receptacle branch circuits to be rated for the full load, any one piece of utilization equipment on a 20A or 30A branch circuit cannot be rated to draw more than 80% of the branch circuit's rating (210.23(A)(1) for 20A, 210.23(B) for 30A). So even if you have a single receptacle on the branch circuit you can't have any single piece of equipment use 100% continuously. The idea is to give the branch circuit some 'headroom;' in the ideal world, we don't load networking links past a certain percentage, depending on link technology, for similar reasons. Tracking code changes fuels an entire industry, and several websites. :-) Not to mention continuing education and license renewals for electricians. and headaches for those who think they understand the code but then get a surprise at inspection time (been there, done that, go the t-shirt and the NEC Handbook so I'll halfway know what I'm talking about when dealing with these things.) A new NEC Handbook is in my budget every three years due to the substantial changes that are made by the committees. The physics of electricity don't change, but our understanding of those physics and our ideas about how to deal safely with electricity do. And what is allowable and available can change in a moment; I'm still a bit puzzled how the L6-30P to L6-20R adapters can actually be on the market in the first place, given that they can easily create an unsafe condition. Well, I'm puzzled from a technical viewpoint, but not from a marketing viewpoint.if it makes money, it is marketable, until pulled or recalled.
Re: L6-20P - L6-30R
Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu writes: Actually, there is no NEC 384.16 any more, at least in the 2011 code. Guilty. I reflexively reached for my 2008 copy since that's the code of record here where I live. Glad we're not on 2011, wish we were still on 2005; a lot of stupidity has crept in since then. Tamper-resistant receptacles required in the unfinished basement shop? *really*? -r
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:16:26 PM Blake Hudson wrote: I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers up to 8Mbps (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me. One can reasonably make the argument that not all of ISP X's customers are using the service simultaneously, so the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer is unnecessary and unjustified. However, if past experience proves that 25% of business X's customers are consistently using the service simultaneously and business X has NOT put in the infrastructure to support this common level of usage, then this appears to be a simple financial decision to advertise/sell something that the business knows it cannot deliver. Would the same business practices fly in other fields? Perhaps. Airlines overbook, knowing that some customers won't show up. However, they don't sell 200 tickets (knowing that 90% if customers will show) but have only 100 seats to serve the 180 customers they expect. Fast food restaurants don't sell you a fry and drink when they know they're out of fries. I can speculate that customers would not patronize companies in the travel or food industry if they operated the same way that some ISP's operate. The difference, to me, seems to be that ISPs often enjoy a monopoly while there are usually several food and travel options in most places. Completely agree. What I'm saying is the market is now suggesting that the idea that I won't be using my 8Mbps all the time does not hold as true now as it did ten years ago. A lot of the content is being driven from the homes (symmetric bandwidth being driven by FTTH). And while customers are not online 100% of the time, they are more online now than they were ten years ago. So building the network just enough for what you over-advertise isn't a workable strategy. Will it stop? Unlikely... Now the market is saying, I want Netflix and all its cousins on a consistent basis, or at least, during prime viewing. And the network is failing to deliver this because the network is set in its ways. I'm not yet sure what the solution will be (looking at a global scale, not just North America), but I hazard that it might not involve the network, in the way it does today, unless the network can figure out how to make this work with happiness all around. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The market can only work around things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market. When did we ever have a functioning market, even in markets that are considered liberalized :-)? It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others. There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. Aye. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: L6-20P - L6-30R
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu writes: Actually, there is no NEC 384.16 any more, at least in the 2011 code. Guilty. I reflexively reached for my 2008 copy since that's the code of record here where I live. Glad we're not on 2011, wish we were still on 2005; a lot of stupidity has crept in since then. Tamper-resistant receptacles required in the unfinished basement shop? *really*? Think of the children! I hear the 2017 edition of NFPA 70 (aka NEC) may require one to turn off the power to the entire household in order to plug in a coffee maker to minimize potential arc flash hazard (just kidding). Gary
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 11:05 AM: On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The market can only work around things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market. When did we ever have a functioning market, even in markets that are considered liberalized :-)? It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others. There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. Aye. Mark. It sounds like we're all in agreement that the underlying issue is that some businesses enjoying a monopoly are allowed to design networks for the use case of yesteryear and do not have the market pressure forcing them to provide the use case of today's (or the future's) subscribers. The solution seems to be competition or regulation. The current administration supplied over $7 billion in loans and grants (http://www.wired.com/business/2011/07/rural-fiber-internet/) for internet providers to provide high speed last mile services as part of a Federal stimulus package. This type of encouragement in infrastructure and competition seem much better, to me, than regulation formed to to nanny and punish folks that run their business unfairly. I understand that Comcast, as an example, has a fiduciary duty to its stock holders to make the best return possible. But I would think its recent actions would likely fall foul to basic consumer protection regulation (failing to provide the goods or services it sold). All of Comcast's customers could file a complaint with the BBB, but it probably wouldn't be productive because many of them have no other choice for high speed internet service. As consumers, we may also have to accept that cheap internet access prices were based on the usage case of yesteryear. If we use internet services twice as often today, we may need to pay twice as much as we did yesterday. If we, as consumers, have options, but are choosing to pay for the the bare minimum option, we may as well expect the bare minimum service (which apparently is not very much). As long as we have options, which today is not always true, I think the market will function. This why events like the Comcast/TWC merger are troubling to me. Because it means we are going in the wrong direction, back towards monopoly. Our efforts, at present, are probably best spent encouraging competition and fairness. As a consumer and professional, I sincerely hope that the FCC continues on its trend to support net neutrality because I believe it encourages both competition and fairness. --Blake
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing. We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days.I don't care what their excuse is, they have been horrible this last 14 months and I'd rather get bw from cogent who isn't great but doesn't blame everyone else for their inability to peer better... A premium cost provider should have premium service and level3 is no longer that. Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean 646-450-0472 On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The market can only work around things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market. When did we ever have a functioning market, even in markets that are considered liberalized :-)? It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others. There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. Aye. Mark.
Re: L6-20P - L6-30R
Is it too late to demand code be in open Github repos with changes tracked at no cost? On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Gary Buhrmaster gary.buhrmas...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: . Tracking code changes fuels an entire industry, and several websites. :-) The redline PDF at least makes it (more easily) possible to notice the changes for your evening reading pleasure.
Re: L6-20P - L6-30R
On 03/20/2014 12:27 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: Think of the children! I hear the 2017 edition of NFPA 70 (aka NEC) may require one to turn off the power to the entire household in order to plug in a coffee maker to minimize potential arc flash hazard (just kidding). Gary ROTFL. No, I'll just don my $700 arc-flash suit (8 cal per sq cm rated) before making coffee in the morning. While I say that somewhat tongue-in-check, arc flash really is serious business, see the youtube video called 'Donnie's Accident' to see how serious; I had to have a suit because I am in charge of the power monitoring for our data centers, and hooking up our Fluke 435 on the input to our Mitsubish 9900B UPS requires full arc flash protection at the 8 cal level. I'm glad it's not on our main switchgear, though, as the 6,000A busses there require 40 cal suits, and those are really expensive. The smaller feeders don't require the full suit, but I have made a habit of wearing it any time I make a measurement with the 435, even on the small 30KVA PDU's, mainly just to make it a habit, since one wrong move can be very painful. All to get our actual PUE to do the adjustments on our receptacle costs for our data centers. (our PUE, depending upon the time of year, runs between 1.1 and 1.4, by the way). But that's drifting even farther off-topic.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: The solution seems to be competition or regulation. I'd prefer competition to regulation. -- Bryan Fields 727-409-1194 - Voice 727-214-2508 - Fax http://bryanfields.net
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :) You should too. On 3/20/14, 9:34 AM, Bryan Socha br...@digitalocean.com wrote: I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing. We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days.I don't care what their excuse is, they have been horrible this last 14 months and I'd rather get bw from cogent who isn't great but doesn't blame everyone else for their inability to peer better... A premium cost provider should have premium service and level3 is no longer that. Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean 646-450-0472 On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The market can only work around things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market. When did we ever have a functioning market, even in markets that are considered liberalized :-)? It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others. There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. Aye. Mark.
RE: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
+1 Is this what happens when a vendor gets too big? -Petter -Original Message- From: Bryan Socha [mailto:br...@digitalocean.com] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:35 AM To: mark.ti...@seacom.mu Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing. We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days.I don't care what their excuse is, they have been horrible this last 14 months and I'd rather get bw from cogent who isn't great but doesn't blame everyone else for their inability to peer better... A premium cost provider should have premium service and level3 is no longer that. Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean 646-450-0472 On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: The market can only work around things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market. When did we ever have a functioning market, even in markets that are considered liberalized :-)? It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others. There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. Aye. Mark.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :) You should too. uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6. -Jim P.
new RouteViews collector at NWAX: route-views.nwax.routeviews.org
Just brought online Details at: http://www.routeviews.org/nwax.html We would welcome a few more NWAX peers at this point. Thanks to NWAX and IOVATION, -- John Kemp RouteViews Engineer NOC: n...@routeviews.org MAIL: h...@routeviews.org WWW: http://www.routeviews.org
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of the requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big deal, but my traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So unless all of these carriers start magically migrating to v6, I don¹t know that a lot of ³hosting² providers need to support it. It¹s a cool feature, but it¹s not something where I head for the door when they say I can¹t receive v6 traffic. My .02. On 3/20/14, 2:52 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :) You should too. uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6. -Jim P.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic? Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks, enterprises, etc. are moving very fast. - - ferg On 3/20/2014 2:58 PM, Warren Bailey wrote: Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of the requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big deal, but my traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So unless all of these carriers start magically migrating to v6, I don¹t know that a lot of ³hosting² providers need to support it. It¹s a cool feature, but it¹s not something where I head for the door when they say I can¹t receive v6 traffic. My .02. On 3/20/14, 2:52 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :) You should too. uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6. -Jim P. - -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlMrZekACgkQKJasdVTchbIXxwD+NLe6LUPJCbpKXGfevbPzAGWy BJu93FYH2Lfl9lMjTToA/2uGkqbI/ibO1eHH412gw4A6yLT7LLUoVK8yXwJiGRm1 =mbB3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
Sounds like a lot of 6 to 4 links to me.. ;) On 3/20/14, 3:04 PM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic? Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks, enterprises, etc. are moving very fast. - - ferg On 3/20/2014 2:58 PM, Warren Bailey wrote: Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of the requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big deal, but my traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So unless all of these carriers start magically migrating to v6, I don¹t know that a lot of ³hosting² providers need to support it. It¹s a cool feature, but it¹s not something where I head for the door when they say I can¹t receive v6 traffic. My .02. On 3/20/14, 2:52 PM, Jim Popovitch jim...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote: This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :) You should too. uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6. -Jim P. - -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlMrZekACgkQKJasdVTchbIXxwD+NLe6LUPJCbpKXGfevbPzAGWy BJu93FYH2Lfl9lMjTToA/2uGkqbI/ibO1eHH412gw4A6yLT7LLUoVK8yXwJiGRm1 =mbB3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Blake Hudson bl...@ispn.net wrote: I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers up to 8Mbps (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes Hey, what part of up to 8Mbps is an assurance, that the system supports 8Mbps from all customers 24x7 simultaneously? Only the former can be delivered inexpensively; the latter from large service providers is a business service that doesn't seem to be in the compass of ordinary mortals. Because this is the well-known industry standard; it can't accurately be described as one of deception. Then there is this whole matter of end-to-end connectivity.Just because your WAN device links up at 8 Megabits, does not mean you have been guaranteed 8 Mbits end-to-end. Intentionally failing to upgrade selected links and establish peerings to carry traffic to high-demand destinations when necessary, is just constructive rate-limiting. It's just a very clumsy imprecise alternative to rate-limiting a destination, that can be claimed to have been done without specific intent. As far as network neutrality regulation is concerned... that should be regarded with (essentially) no difference, from other traffic management practices, such as using shaping or policing rules to limit connectivity to the destination IP addresses. he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me. -- -JH
Re: L6-20P - L6-30R
On 3/18/14 3:54 PM, George Herbert wrote: This sort of thing is usually an adapter, a little cylinder with a L6-20R on one end and a L6-30P on the other, since the loads are safe. Either that, or a short jumper cable wired the same way. The loads aren't safe. You will have a 30-amp circuit breaker feeding the L6-30R socket. The load and its wiring are only rated for 20 amps so if there's an overload you will exceed the ampacity of the wiring downstream of the L6-20P and the L6-20P itself. Option 1: Change the breaker to 20A and change the receptacle to L6-20R. Option 2: Buy a 30-amp rated PDU equipped with L6-30P plug. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On 3/20/2014 7:32 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: Then there is this whole matter of end-to-end connectivity. Just because your WAN device links up at 8 Megabits, does not mean you have been guaranteed 8 Mbits end-to-end. Have run into this one more times that I care to count. We're running very marginally loaded links all around, and have setup speedtest site locally to prove the issue is not local. Our upstream Commodity provider also has speedtest peer, and we can also point people there. You can point people to them to prove it's not between us and the next hop. Of course some folks just don't get it :) You chase down the squeaky wheel complainers, and find them running IE with a dozen toolbars, a few P2P clients, adware out the wazoo, and other things I can barely bring myself to think about, let alone admit in a public forum :) And doing it over wireless, while they're microwaving their dinner, and ignoring their wireless printer they never bothered to disable since they plugged it in wired. While playing XBox with their wireless controllers, listening to Pandora over their BlueTooth headset, while their roommate is watching Netflix (wirelessly) on their smart TV, with the wireless subwoofer and back speakers. Yeah, end-to-end guarantee? It's difficult enough to prove you have the first hop covered. Plug the damned thing in the wall, download Malwarebytes / Spybot / something, and deal with the real problem here, dude :) Your internet sucks!. Or as a recent Tweet from a student mentioned, Fix the Mother Effing wireless in the dorms. (The dorm with the 802.11n / gig ports on the APs / etherchannels back to the data center, nonetheless). Jeff
Re: L6-20P - L6-30R
On Mar 20, 2014, at 4:52 PM, Jay Hennigan j...@west.net wrote: On 3/18/14 3:54 PM, George Herbert wrote: This sort of thing is usually an adapter, a little cylinder with a L6-20R on one end and a L6-30P on the other, since the loads are safe. Either that, or a short jumper cable wired the same way. The loads aren't safe. You will have a 30-amp circuit breaker feeding the L6-30R socket. The load and its wiring are only rated for 20 amps so if there's an overload you will exceed the ampacity of the wiring downstream of the L6-20P and the L6-20P itself. Option 1: Change the breaker to 20A and change the receptacle to L6-20R. Option 2: Buy a 30-amp rated PDU equipped with L6-30P plug. Option 3: Put a 20A breaker or fuses inline in the Adapter. Owen
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ re fusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote: |On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: | The solution seems to be competition or regulation. |I'd prefer competition to regulation. = If real and true competition exists, yes.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPsâ EURO(tm) re fusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
And of course that only last until someone else decides to buy the competition, I mean invest in other companies. On Mar 20, 2014 7:58 PM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote: On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote: |On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: | The solution seems to be competition or regulation. |I'd prefer competition to regulation. = If real and true competition exists, yes.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPsâ EURO(tm) re fusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
The only way we will ever see real and true competition is if we prohibit Layer 2+ providers from playing in the Layer 1 space. At some point, we will need to recognize that for the population densities in the vast majority of the united States (including most urban areas), Layer 1 is effectively a natural monopoly and you will rarely get more than one provider installing any given media type. An independent layer 1 provider required to provide equal access to all competing layer 2+ providers in each are would drive increased competition in L2+ services. Owen On Mar 20, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Jeremy stealth...@gmail.com wrote: And of course that only last until someone else decides to buy the competition, I mean invest in other companies. On Mar 20, 2014 7:58 PM, Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com wrote: On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote: |On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: | The solution seems to be competition or regulation. |I'd prefer competition to regulation. = If real and true competition exists, yes.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPsâ EURO(tm) re fusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On 3/20/2014 9:51 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: The only way we will ever see real and true competition is if we prohibit Layer 2+ providers from playing in the Layer 1 space. As long as you have artificial impediments and restrictions, you will have what you have today. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong competition will require regulation. Original message From: Mike. the.li...@mgm51.com Date: 03/20/2014 21:56 (GMT-05:00) To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica On 3/20/2014 at 4:17 PM Bryan Fields wrote: |On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: | The solution seems to be competition or regulation. |I'd prefer competition to regulation. = If real and true competition exists, yes.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPsâ EURO(tm) re fusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On Friday, March 21, 2014 04:51:07 AM Owen DeLong wrote: At some point, we will need to recognize that for the population densities in the vast majority of the united States (including most urban areas), Layer 1 is effectively a natural monopoly and you will rarely get more than one provider installing any given media type. An independent layer 1 provider required to provide equal access to all competing layer 2+ providers in each are would drive increased competition in L2+ services. What some governments are doing in Asia-Pac and Africa is funding national optical backbones that can be shared by all. The biggest mistake they make, however, is either contract the incumbent to run these national backbone, or get the incumbents and vendors to sub-contract someone of their choosing to run these networks. The general idea, however, is a likely solution to neutralizing the physical layer. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Bryan Fields br...@bryanfields.net wrote: On 3/20/14, 12:34 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: The solution seems to be competition or regulation. I'd prefer competition to regulation. When regulation is done well, competition is the result. Consider the following hypothetical regulation: 1. Any company which deploys communication cable in a public right-of-way is forbidden to sell data storage, data content or services delivering specific data content of any kind including: web sites or web hosting services, email services, audio and visual recordings, television channels. 2. Any company which employs communication cable in a public right-of-way is required to sell its services on a reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) basis to all who wish to buy. What would be the result? Incidentally, this isn't a fresh idea. The FCC first got the notion over 50 years ago and more or less regulated telecommunications that way for a quarter of a century. 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: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on Technica
On 3/20/2014 10:47 PM, David Miller wrote: Unless I am reading the tea leaves wrong competition will require regulation. regulation prevents competition. That is why people want regulation. Look at this thread at the people who do not want to be competed-with at L1, for example. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)
