Re: Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
It's not as if Brett is doing the public a service. There is Charter Cable and CenturyLink DSL available in Laramie. He's just a wireless provider with some crappy infrastructure that's bitter that he can't borrow bandwidth from the University of Wyoming anymore, resulting in a loss of his 100% margin on the service. You're not a charity that's providing internet access to the poor ignored rural folks like you claim, you're a competitive overbuilder. You give the little boys who are deploying service where the big guys won't a bad name. Drive slow, Paul On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 4:20 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: The problem is partly a technological one. If you have a fiber span from east- west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi amplifier. Almost certainly, most of the fiber going through the building just hits an amplifier (or nothing and isn't broken out there). Yes. But they quoted a price for access, and some research turned up signs other people are doing big fiber out of that location, so my assumption at this point is that at least one pair each direction down the fiber is terminating in some router there. Possibly a fiber level wave device but seems more likely a router. Unless that assumption is not true, this comes down to We don't want your antenna on our roof*, come in via fiber like everyone else and not having met the right Layer 3 reseller yet. It's not sounding at all like we have to break open a fiber for you and put in a router. (The rest of this indirectly aimed back at Brett, not Jared ) It's not 1995. Even little ISPs need to get aware and step their game up. Treating transit or uplink like a 1995 problem IS a short road to damnation now. Seriously. The net is changing. The customers are changing, the customers uses and expectations are changing. Change with it, or step out of the way. You are not an exception because you're rural. You've just got a density and size lag. That is temporary at best. Keep up. This is critical national telecommunications infrastructure. Modern teens have mostly never used landline phones and are not OK with inadequate bandwidth at home or on the road. Being in Laramie is not a shield against change. * probably expands to ...you aren't big enough for me to bother working with my facility staff and filling out the paperwork to get an exception or lease amendment or permit and let you put an antenna on our roof, sorry, but this is an educated guess not informed. George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
Hurricane Electric packet loss
Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
We$,1ry(Bve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what$,1ry(Bs the cause of it but we$,1ry(Bve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can$,1ry(Bt help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what$,1ry(Bs going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Why do you think this indicates a problem? Are you seeing *end to end* packet loss? And have you read this Nanog presentation? https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Sunday/RAS_Traceroute_N47_Sun.pdf Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
Hi, Yes - I am not posting cause of a bad looking trace route. ;) We are continuously monitoring our systems from locations around the globe and we see actually packet loss across services - HTTP, etc. I have had a bunch of off-list replies that indicate that others are seeing the same issues. So we are not alone with this. Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/22/14, 8:43 PM, sth...@nethelp.nomailto:sth...@nethelp.no sth...@nethelp.nomailto:sth...@nethelp.no wrote: We?$,1ryve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what?$,1rys the cause of it but we?$,1ryve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can?$,1ryt help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what?$,1rys going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Why do you think this indicates a problem? Are you seeing *end to end* packet loss? And have you read this Nanog presentation? https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Sunday/RAS_Traceroute_N47_Sun.pdf Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.nomailto:sth...@nethelp.no
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
And what did HE say when you asked them? Mehmet On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
Hi, Two different thins. Once they were affected by the cable fault cross-Atlantic. All the other times the problem was acknowledged and then disappeared. No further detail given. :( Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/22/14, 9:03 PM, Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.netmailto:meh...@akcin.net wrote: And what did HE say when you asked them? Mehmet On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.aumailto:wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
I have always found HE.net guys very responsive, and open. I am sure they re reading this and will ping you directly. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:09 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, Two different thins. Once they were affected by the cable fault cross-Atlantic. All the other times the problem was acknowledged and then disappeared. No further detail given. :( Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/22/14, 9:03 PM, Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.net wrote: And what did HE say when you asked them? Mehmet On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
Hello, Did you notice the average RTT delay from the 5th hop and beyond? I'm not sure if you can trust the values according to the high packet loss, but it may indicate an additional problem (or MAY confirm your assumption about congestion). On 07/22/2014 11:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
Forget about it. The delay are correct, my mistake. I should look more carefully. I also been a regular customer of HE, and always been satisfied with their service, especially regarding the IPv6 transit. On 07/22/2014 02:13 PM, Nicolas Chabbey wrote: Hello, Did you notice the average RTT delay from the 5th hop and beyond? I'm not sure if you can trust the values according to the high packet loss, but it may indicate an additional problem (or MAY confirm your assumption about congestion). On 07/22/2014 11:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Mon, 2014-07-21 at 16:04 -0400, William Herrin wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: I'd say your experience is anomalous. I don't know which township you're in, but I'd suggest you focus on getting a set of more effective local officials. Sure, 'cause fixing local utility problems at the voting booth has a long and studied history of success. Who do I vote for? The officials that allow rate increases and, when the utilities fail to fix the problems, allow more rate increases? Or the officials who refuse rate increases so that the utilities can't afford to fix the problems? Bill, we *GOTTA* get you away from the District. Sounds like you've spent too long in the loving embrace of the WSSC. :) Out here in The Real World(tm) things tend to work better. -- Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: . Whoever installs fiber first and gets any significant fraction of subscribers in any but the densest of population centers is a competition killer, _IF_ you let them parlay that physical infrastructure into an anti-competitive environment for higher layer services. In my more cynical moments, I'd suggest that that'd be the only REASON vendors would put in the enormous time, money and effort required to install an extensive physical infrastructure - to lock-in that market segment for their considerably more profitable higher layer services. In the sort of cutthroat economic milieu wherein we live and work, where long term planning is what, 90 days? 6 months?, how does any company justify such a level of investment if there isn't going to be a big, quick payoff for the shareholders? And consider this one - in states where municipalities are bound by no-compete legislation, a town or city that is forbidden entry to the market because it would be anti-competitive winds up having to dangle the lure of a city-backed monopoly to some or other private concern to get the infrastructure built to meet the demand for service. That outcome strikes me as being even more anti-competitive. At least, if the city provides the physical infrastructure, and a vendor-neutral meet-me point, then any and all providers can come in and *compete* for hookups and customers. -- Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue? As I understand it, both Verizon and Verizon Wireless rely primarily on Verizon Business (the old UUNet) for bandwidth and Verizon Business has a peering capacity problem with Level 3, Cogent, and I presume others as well. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. Sent via telepathy On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers. Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base Sent via telepathy On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most part) pricing. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers. Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base Sent via telepathy On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue?
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com writes: On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers. Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base Or it could be that they're just functionally two different business units. From what my contacts at Verizon Wireless tell me, Verizon Business move at a glacial pace, so they buy circuits from whomever they can.
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most part) pricing. http://bgp.he.net/AS6167 It has more to do with the fact that until recently they were a joint venture of Verizon and vodafone. That changed in February: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec25c1dc-9aed-11e3-b0d0-00144feab7de.html - Jared
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
On 7/22/14, 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote: On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. http://bgp.he.net/AS6167 That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers. Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base Sent via telepathy On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also suffer the same performance issue? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
- Original Message - From: Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers. Verizon and Verizon Wireless share, I have been told, not much more than a name. The two divisions came from completely different roots. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:47:36PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:41:25AM +0700, Roland Dobbins wrote: On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:31 AM, Ray Van Dolson rvandol...@esri.com wrote: We're seeing poor performance (very slow download speeds -- 100KB/sec) to certain EC2 instances via our Verizon hosted circuits. Have you tried dorking around with your MTU to see if that makes a difference? Not in a position to easily test that tonight (PDT) but will do so tomorrow. Monkeyed with the MTU -- 500, 100, 1200 -- no real observed difference and still seeing lots of retransmits. Ray
Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
Daniel Corbe wrote: Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com writes: On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701. That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive landline customers. Seems market forces are making wireless a functional network without the peering brinksmanship while market failings are allowing landline to take advantage of a captive install base Or it could be that they're just functionally two different business units. From what my contacts at Verizon Wireless tell me, Verizon Business move at a glacial pace, so they buy circuits from whomever they can. Definitely different business units. Verizon wireless has long been somewhat at arms length from the rest of Verizon - part of the reason that their consumer billing is such a pain. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? Do you think the LECs would come unglued? Aaron On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery basis. Miles Fidelman Aaron wrote: Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to it's residents? On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer 1 connection Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote: My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? -Blake On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities to own fiber networks Hi Jay, Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There are many things government does better than any private organization is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an exorbitant price. Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. The only exception I see to this would be if localities were constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? -- Aaron Wendel Chief Technical Officer Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) (816)550-9030 http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
Wolfgang- Our NOC is always ready and willing to help you with any problems you may have. I do not see any tickets opened recently for you. We have more than enough capacity transatlantically and transpacifically so I do not know what problem you may be seeing. The next time you see it please open a ticket with our NOC, and we will be happy to try to debug it. Posting to Nanog without first opening a ticket isn't a great method of debugging. Reid Fishler On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, Two different thins. Once they were affected by the cable fault cross-Atlantic. All the other times the problem was acknowledged and then disappeared. No further detail given. :( Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/22/14, 9:03 PM, Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.netmailto: meh...@akcin.net wrote: And what did HE say when you asked them? Mehmet On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.aumailto: wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Well yeah, the LECs would definitely come unglued. But... first off, what do you mean by free? Someone has to pay the capital and operating budgets - so if not from user fees, then from taxes. So.. it's a nice thought, but not likely to happen. Heck, have you ever seen a water utility that doesn't charge? Now... having said that -- I could see something like this happen in California: - California allows (maybe requires) that developers pay impact fees when building new houses -- i.e., the cost of a house, in a new development, may include $20,000+ to pay for new infrastructure - roads, waterworks, police and fire substations, schools, you name it - if you buy a new house, you pay for the full cost of the infrastructure behind it (built into the financing of course - first the construction financing, then the bridge financing, then ultimately the mortgage) - I have seen some California communities at least toy with including conduit and fiber in master plans and requirements placed on developers - after all, it's needed to feed municipal buildings, street light control, and so forth - and better to have common-user conduit and fiber in the ground than have multiple people digging up the streets later - fyi: a street cut typically takes 1 year off pavement lifetime, unless very carefully repaved - practically nobody does a good job of permitting street cuts to avoid this - San Antonio being a really notable exception (I worked for a GIS firm that built their right-of-way management system - they were a real rarity in good right-of-way management practices) - so I could see building the capital cost of a FTTH network into new housing (the same way water and phone wiring is standard) - but that's not free, and that still begs the question of who lights the fiber - still, the LECs would come unglued (and have)! Miles Fidelman Aaron wrote: So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? Do you think the LECs would come unglued? Aaron On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery basis. Miles Fidelman Aaron wrote: Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to it's residents? On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer 1 connection Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote: My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? -Blake On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities to own fiber networks Hi Jay, Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There are many things government does better than any private organization is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an exorbitant price. Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. The only exception I see to this would be if localities were constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
Hi Reid, How recent is recent? The last one we opened was in June and there are several others dating back the past 6 months. I will send you the references off-list. Without getting into a fight about this - having tried to debug this with you guys several times there is better things I can have my network team do than run against walls. I brought this onto NANOG to gauge if we are the only ones that have such issues. So far 5+ replies off-list suggest not. Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/23/14, 1:37 AM, Reid Fishler redh...@linux.redbird.commailto:redh...@linux.redbird.com wrote: Wolfgang- Our NOC is always ready and willing to help you with any problems you may have. I do not see any tickets opened recently for you. We have more than enough capacity transatlantically and transpacifically so I do not know what problem you may be seeing. The next time you see it please open a ticket with our NOC, and we will be happy to try to debug it. Posting to Nanog without first opening a ticket isn't a great method of debugging. Reid Fishler On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.aumailto:wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, Two different thins. Once they were affected by the cable fault cross-Atlantic. All the other times the problem was acknowledged and then disappeared. No further detail given. :( Cheers, Wolfgang On 7/22/14, 9:03 PM, Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.netmailto:meh...@akcin.netmailto:meh...@akcin.netmailto:meh...@akcin.net wrote: And what did HE say when you asked them? Mehmet On Jul 22, 2014, at 5:48, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.aumailto:wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.aumailto:wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.aumailto:wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.nehttp://prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.nehttp://100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%10 9.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.nehttp://100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.nehttp://10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.nethttp://10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
Provided without comment: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality Drive Slow, Paul Wall
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME
- Original Message - From: Aaron aa...@wholesaleinternet.net So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? Do you think the LECs would come unglued? Of course they would. But the real problem is *this shit's expensive*. You can assume $8-1200 per passing, if you fiber the entire town at once (my example was 12000 passings, 3-pr, in 2.3 sqmi). Then you're going to have to operate the core, which will take power and at least 5 people to man it 24/7. And finally, figure on at least 4-6 multi-10GE uplinks, and those things don't exactly grow on trees -- there's no sense in providing 1G/1G if people can't actually use it. So there's a bunch of sunk cost, and a bigger bunch of recurring costs. And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. So you're charging everyone anyway; TANSTAAFL. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On 22 July 2014 09:09, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: Well yeah, the LECs would definitely come unglued. But... first off, what do you mean by free? Someone has to pay the capital and operating budgets - so if not from user fees, then from taxes. So.. it's a nice thought, but not likely to happen. Heck, have you ever seen a water utility that doesn't charge? Now... having said that -- I could see something like this happen in California: - California allows (maybe requires) that developers pay impact fees when building new houses -- i.e., the cost of a house, in a new development, may include $20,000+ to pay for new infrastructure - roads, waterworks, police and fire substations, schools, you name it - if you buy a new house, you pay for the full cost of the infrastructure behind it (built into the financing of course - first the construction financing, then the bridge financing, then ultimately the mortgage) - I have seen some California communities at least toy with including conduit and fiber in master plans and requirements placed on developers - after all, it's needed to feed municipal buildings, street light control, and so forth - and better to have common-user conduit and fiber in the ground than have multiple people digging up the streets later Yes, it appears that Brentwood, Contra Costa Country, Northern California (925), has had such a requirement for years. This ends up allowing someone like Sonic.net to offer Gigabit Fibre Internet + Unlimited Phone for mere 40$/mo as a final price (they don't do promotional pricing). http://sonic.net/brentwood C.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Mon, 21 Jul 2014, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Cool story, however, http://www.ashlandfiber.net/productcenter.aspx#residential ... is nothing to brag home about. 5Mbps uploads max? Meh, I get more with mobile phone, plus my data is actually unlimited. Consider that AFN was setup when the majority of people were still on dialup, and was originally geared toward providing cable TV service with IP as an afterthought. Back then it was really something. They are definitely overdue for a hardware/service refresh. -Dan
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow service. Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house to the communications hut to patch in equipment. Think of it like the power company and the separation between generation and transmission. That's Step #1. Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, you need to get creative. The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains subscribers. I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to find the staff to run its own ISP, either. TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron aa...@wholesaleinternet.net wrote: So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? Do you think the LECs would come unglued? Aaron On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery basis. Miles Fidelman Aaron wrote: Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to it's residents? On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer 1 connection Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote: My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on and safe, my sewer
Re: Hurricane Electric packet loss
Hey Wolfgang, I believe I may be seeing similar behavior but it's hard for me to confirm. My network configuration is one that mtr doesn't support, so I can't get a report when we're having issues. I don't have my transit provided directly from HE, but rather through a provider who colocates out of one of their facilities. So I'm not sure I could even directly reach out to the Hurricane Electric NOC to get help. We've been seeing the odd connectivity issues between HE FMT2 (Linode) and AWS US-WEST-1 and US-WEST-2. It's a mixed combination of loss and increased latency, both which cause some hiccups in some of our WAN-based clusters. There have been times where the issues we've seen have been attributed to a DoS attack directed toward a Linode customer, but there have been quite a few networking events that seem to have no relation to a known attack. Thanks for reaching out to NANOG with this issue, it may have shed some light on some of the issues we are seeing. Cheers! -Tim On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow service. Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house to the communications hut to patch in equipment. Think of it like the power company and the separation between generation and transmission. That's Step #1. Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, you need to get creative. The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains subscribers. I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to find the staff to run its own ISP, either. TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease fiber and equipment space (proper hut, secured, with backup power and cooling etc) for a subsidized rate; for cheaper than anything you could afford to build out; how much arm twisting would it take for you to invest in installing a switch or two to deliver service? If you're a smaller ISP, you were likely already doing this in working with telephone companies in the past (until they started trying to oust you). On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Aaron aa...@wholesaleinternet.net wrote: So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? Do you think the LECs would come unglued? Aaron On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: You can assume $8-1200 per passing, if you fiber the entire town at once (my example was 12000 passings, 3-pr, in 2.3 sqmi). Then you're going to have to operate the core, which will take power and at least 5 people to man it 24/7. And finally, figure on at least 4-6 multi-10GE uplinks, and those things don't exactly grow on trees -- there's no sense in providing 1G/1G if people can't actually use it. We only want them to run the L1 network, not L2. And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. Stockholm municipal fiber (L1 only) has been operating fiber network since 1994, they're doing ~20MUSD profit on ~100MUSD turnover per year. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Fwd: Hurricane Electric packet loss
On our HE uplink, I'm seeing no packet loss until your hop #9 at that point I see alot HOST: Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- ***0.0%100.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 2.|-- ***0.0%100.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 3.|-- *** 0.0%104.4 4.5 4.3 4.6 0.0 4.|-- gigabitethernet3-5.core1. 0.0%10 15.6 15.1 14.1 17.2 1.0 5.|-- 10ge5-7.core1.mci3.he.net 0.0%10 26.2 26.7 26.2 30.1 1.0 6.|-- 10ge5-1.core1.den1.he.net 0.0%10 39.7 39.7 39.5 40.2 0.0 7.|-- 10ge14-5.core1.lax2.he.ne 0.0%10 66.8 65.9 63.5 68.4 1.6 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b0.0%10 73.0 73.0 72.8 73.1 0.0 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 80.0%10 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.9 0.0 10.|-- ten-0-5-0-0.cor01.syd04.n 0.0%10 228.0 228.1 227.9 228.3 0.0 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 0.0%10 228.4 228.4 228.3 228.6 0.0 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a10.0%10 228.2 228.1 228.0 228.3 0.0 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 10.0%10 229.2 229.3 229.2 229.5 0.0 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, We’ve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure what’s the cause of it but we’ve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I can’t help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of what’s going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Stop doing PON then. Use point to point fiber, you get 40-48 active customers per 1U. I'd imagine there might be newer platforms with even higher densities. Yes, there are many examples of L2 being used but in order to deliver triple play the L2 network won't be purely L2, also BCP38 needs it to start doing L2.5+ functions, meaning it's harder to deploy new servies such as IPv6 because now the local network needs to support it. It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of thousands of residential properties in the same place. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Fwd: Hurricane Electric packet loss
We haven't had time to diagnose with them, but we ended up having to shut down our BGP sessions with HE last night due to horrible slow speed issues out of TOROONNX. There's something going on, just don't know what it is yet. At 02:37 PM 22/07/2014, Shawn L wrote: On our HE uplink, I'm seeing no packet loss until your hop #9 at that point I see alot HOST: Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- ***0.0%100.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 2.|-- ***0.0%100.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 3.|-- *** 0.0%104.4 4.5 4.3 4.6 0.0 4.|-- gigabitethernet3-5.core1. 0.0%10 15.6 15.1 14.1 17.2 1.0 5.|-- 10ge5-7.core1.mci3.he.net 0.0%10 26.2 26.7 26.2 30.1 1.0 6.|-- 10ge5-1.core1.den1.he.net 0.0%10 39.7 39.7 39.5 40.2 0.0 7.|-- 10ge14-5.core1.lax2.he.ne 0.0%10 66.8 65.9 63.5 68.4 1.6 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b0.0%10 73.0 73.0 72.8 73.1 0.0 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 80.0%10 71.8 71.8 71.8 71.9 0.0 10.|-- ten-0-5-0-0.cor01.syd04.n 0.0%10 228.0 228.1 227.9 228.3 0.0 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 0.0%10 228.4 228.4 228.3 228.6 0.0 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a10.0%10 228.2 228.1 228.0 228.3 0.0 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 10.0%10 229.2 229.3 229.2 229.5 0.0 On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:48 AM, Wolfgang Nagele (AusRegistry) wolfgang.nag...@ausregistry.com.au wrote: Hi, Weâve been customers of Hurricane Electric for a number of years now and always been happy with their service. In recent months packet loss on some of their major routes has become a very common (every few days) occurrence. Without knowledge of their network I am unsure whatâs the cause of it but weâve seen it on the Tokyo - US routes as well as the London - US routes. It reminds me of the Cogent expansion which was carried out by unsustainable oversubscription which eventually resulted in unusable service for a number of years. Having seen some of the rates that HE has been selling for I canât help but wonder if they made the same mistake ... Here is an example of whatâs going on again atm. HOST: prolocation01.ring.nlnog.ne Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1.|-- 2a00:d00:ff:136::253 0.0%110.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 2.|-- 2a00:d00:1:12::1 0.0%100.7 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.1 3.|-- hurricane-electric.nikhef 0.0%100.7 3.1 0.7 8.3 2.9 4.|-- 100ge9-1.core1.lon2.he.ne 0.0%109.8 12.6 8.0 19.2 4.1 5.|-- 100ge1-1.core1.nyc4.he.ne 10.0%10 74.7 74.6 73.7 80.8 2.3 6.|-- 10ge10-3.core1.lax1.he.ne 30.0%10 133.4 138.0 133.4 145.1 4.8 7.|-- 10ge1-3.core1.lax2.he.net 20.0%10 135.7 139.1 133.4 145.1 4.5 8.|-- 2001:504:13::3b 40.0%10 143.2 143.1 142.1 144.4 0.8 9.|-- 2402:7800:100:1::55 50.0%10 144.4 144.1 143.8 144.4 0.2 10.|-- 2402:7800:0:1::f6 60.0%10 298.7 298.4 298.2 298.7 0.2 11.|-- ge-0-1-4.cor02.syd03.nsw. 10.0%10 299.3 298.9 298.3 299.5 0.5 12.|-- 2402:7800:0:2::18a20.0%10 299.7 299.4 298.9 300.1 0.4 13.|-- 2001:dcd:12::10 30.0%10 299.8 299.5 298.8 300.0 0.5 Is anybody else observing this as well? Cheers, Wolfgang --- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME
On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 20:34 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. Stockholm municipal fiber (L1 only) has been operating fiber network since 1994, they're doing ~20MUSD profit on ~100MUSD turnover per year. How often do they refresh and/or forklift their infrastructure? They're not still running on mid90s optical gear, I hope? -- Bruce H. McIntoshb...@ufl.edu Senior Network Engineer http://net-services.ufl.edu University of Florida CNS/Network Services 352-273-1066
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME
- Original Message - From: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: You can assume $8-1200 per passing, if you fiber the entire town at once (my example was 12000 passings, 3-pr, in 2.3 sqmi). Then you're going to have to operate the core, which will take power and at least 5 people to man it 24/7. And finally, figure on at least 4-6 multi-10GE uplinks, and those things don't exactly grow on trees -- there's no sense in providing 1G/1G if people can't actually use it. We only want them to run the L1 network, not L2. You and I do -- well, I think there's value in running L2 on the same terms, but that's orthogonal to this conversation. The OP from whom I branched, though, appeared to be talking pretty clearly about doing L3 for free as a city service; that's the jumping-off point from which I'm working here. And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. Stockholm municipal fiber (L1 only) has been operating fiber network since 1994, they're doing ~20MUSD profit on ~100MUSD turnover per year. Yup; no news to me there's a way to make money and pay off bonds. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Bruce H McIntosh wrote: How often do they refresh and/or forklift their infrastructure? They're not still running on mid90s optical gear, I hope? They are not running any optical gear, they rent dark fiber to enterprise and ISPs. Lately they have installed one strand of fiber per every apartment in apartment buildings in Stockholm, to enable the possibility of renting FTTH fiber to ISPs all the way up to apartments. The major problem with this is that their handoff is in the basement of the building, so the building owner needs to pay for the installation from basement up to the apartments which is a major cost, and also it's currently not known exactly how fault finding should be done. I would be more comfortable if STOKAB took responsibility all the way into the handoff in the apartment. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Mikael, PON versus Active Ethernet versus $topology_of_the_day makes no real difference. If you buy low port density shelves then your cost per port will be higher. BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network anyway. I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be done between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear, including the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3 information like DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses. It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of thousands of residential properties in the same place. In my experience that's simply untrue today. Trying to put multiple operator's layer 2 gear into the collocation space needed inevitably leads to that space not having enough power, rack units, or cooling and that's not considering the complaints (actual) of ISP1 accusing ISP2's tech of intentionally tripping over a cable and causing an outage for them. Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already and where cities have the resources to build one the market usually doesn't need them to. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Stop doing PON then. Use point to point fiber, you get 40-48 active customers per 1U. I'd imagine there might be newer platforms with even higher densities. Yes, there are many examples of L2 being used but in order to deliver triple play the L2 network won't be purely L2, also BCP38 needs it to start doing L2.5+ functions, meaning it's harder to deploy new servies such as IPv6 because now the local network needs to support it. It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of thousands of residential properties in the same place. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
- Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Yes; when we did this back in '12, that was my proposal: city handles layer 2 aggregation and the ONTs, and we'll hand you off 1q ethernet... or, if you really *want* to put gear in our rack room, we'll cross-connect you to the relevant fibers, and let you handle layer 2 yourself. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network anyway. I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be done between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear, including the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3 information like DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses. I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question? Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already and where cities have the resources to build one the market usually doesn't need them to. If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling. This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for municipalities? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
- Original Message - From: Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Stop doing PON then. Use point to point fiber, you get 40-48 active customers per 1U. I'd imagine there might be newer platforms with even higher densities. Yes, there are many examples of L2 being used but in order to deliver triple play the L2 network won't be purely L2, also BCP38 needs it to start doing L2.5+ functions, meaning it's harder to deploy new servies such as IPv6 because now the local network needs to support it. It's cleaner just to do L1 and aggregate thousands or tens of thousands of residential properties in the same place. I believe you've misunderstood Scott's point. The goal of layer-restriction is to encourage competition. The underlying goal is reducing the barrier to entry of a new ISP. The less equipment such a new ISP has to provision, the lower that barrier is. If all you have to provision is a couple GE/10GE ports on your core switch, that's an order of magnitude easier than any type of optical termination equipment, for you as a potential ISP customer. To make this work, the fiber operator *has to make it easy for ISPs to become their clients* as well... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: Yes; when we did this back in '12, that was my proposal: city handles layer 2 aggregation and the ONTs, and we'll hand you off 1q ethernet... or, if you really *want* to put gear in our rack room, we'll cross-connect you to the relevant fibers, and let you handle layer 2 yourself. This has been done on a fairly wide scale in Sweden for 10-12 years. We're now seeing the L2 muni networks being major hinderance for IPv6 deployment because of their L2.5+ functions (see my earlier email). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
On 7/22/14, 9:07 AM, Paul WALL wrote: Provided without comment: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/comcast-astroturfing-net-neutrality “The FCC’s Net neutrality rules are based on the false premise that American broadband services are sub-standard compared to those in other countries.” That's exactly why we all have gigabit fiber connections here in SF and across the entire Silicon Valley. Thank You Telephants! Mike
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics - ENDGAME
Le 22/07/2014 20:34, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit : On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: You can assume $8-1200 per passing, if you fiber the entire town at once (my example was 12000 passings, 3-pr, in 2.3 sqmi). Then you're going to have to operate the core, which will take power and at least 5 people to man it 24/7. And finally, figure on at least 4-6 multi-10GE uplinks, and those things don't exactly grow on trees -- there's no sense in providing 1G/1G if people can't actually use it. We only want them to run the L1 network, not L2. And where's that money come from? Yup: local taxes, mostly property. Stockholm municipal fiber (L1 only) has been operating fiber network since 1994, they're doing ~20MUSD profit on ~100MUSD turnover per year. ;-) mh
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote: I believe you've misunderstood Scott's point. The goal of layer-restriction is to encourage competition. I am well aware of this. The underlying goal is reducing the barrier to entry of a new ISP. Yes, but you also want to encourage entry of new technology. The less equipment such a new ISP has to provision, the lower that barrier is. If all you have to provision is a couple GE/10GE ports on your core switch, that's an order of magnitude easier than any type of optical termination equipment, for you as a potential ISP customer. To make this work, the fiber operator *has to make it easy for ISPs to become their clients* as well... I have no problem with the fiber owner operating L2 equipment as long as they also offer L1 access at lower prices than the L2 access. Also, it's complicated to properly handle L2 access termination as well, so by your reasoning the provider wants to do L3 access where they handle everything and the ISP only routes a /20 IPv4 block and /43 IPv6 to the muni network, and all their customers needs in form of DHCPv4/v6(-PD) etc is handled by the fiber operator. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Mikael, Let me see if I can clarify for you. I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question? First, QinQ VLAN scaling hasn't been a problem in about a decade nor is it hard to split out the VLANs to hand them off to other providers. Second, all of the gear vendors that I've worked with already have methods for handling source verification and port isolation if you don't want to do QinQ. Certainly any of the traditional vendors of broadband gear will have answers for this already and unless you're planning on grabbing some enterprise class shelf and jamming it with long range lasers (which most won't take) you don't have a problem. Even the Cisco ME line, which is pretty damn cheap, does this by default http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/switches/metro/me3400/software/release/12-2_25_seg_seg1/configuration/guide/3400scg/swtrafc.html#wp1038501 If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling. The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k apartments and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent. We don't have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities are much less dense. This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for municipalities? The economies of scale are completely different for one thing. Second, the phone companies designed their land purchases and buildings around doing wiring centers and central offices, the cities have never had this need and most don't have a suitable building (power, cooling, and security) that isn't already occupied. That's why its _much_ easier to let the ISPs bring in some fiber and let them hold all their gear at their site. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: BCP38 (and BCP64) have nothing to do with who is doing layer 2 since neither of those technologies pay any attention to the layer 2 network anyway. I'd be curious to see your reasoning as to why it needs to be done between layer 2 and layer 3 given that all of the access gear, including the Ethernet equipment, has layer 2 enforcement of layer 3 information like DHCP and static assignments of IP addresses. I don't know where to start. Either you do one vlan per customer and use very expensive gear that scales this way, or you do several customers per vlan and do DHCPv4/DHCPv6 inspection (see for instance http://tools.ietf.org/wg/savi/ documents). Does this answer your question? Keep in mind that in most places a muni network is currently feasible that muni doesn't have a telco quality wiring center in place already and where cities have the resources to build one the market usually doesn't need them to. If you're aggregating 10-20k apartments in the same place, I think this warrants proper space and trained engineers to do the cabling. This worked for the PSTN companies, why wouldn't it work for municipalities? -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On 07/22/2014 02:08 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: I believe you've misunderstood Scott's point. The goal of layer-restriction is to encourage competition. The underlying goal is reducing the barrier to entry of a new ISP. The less equipment such a new ISP has to provision, the lower that barrier is. If all you have to provision is a couple GE/10GE ports on your core switch, that's an order of magnitude easier than any type of optical termination equipment, for you as a potential ISP customer. To make this work, the fiber operator *has to make it easy for ISPs to become their clients* as well... Cheers, -- jra I guess my counter to that argument is this. Here we are still trying to leverage copper and I liken the L1/L2 argument to selling wholesale DSL from ATT (which we do) compared to being a CLEC (which we also are). I much prefer the CLEC model where I provide my own L2 gear. Yeah, there is more capital outlay, but then I control it. I don't have some 3rd party messing around with configurations and break something and then I have to find them and get them to correct it. Also, I don't have to fit into their L2 restrictions, etc. These things can happen at L1 too I suppose, but in our experience it is still better. Steve -- -- Steven Saner ssa...@hubris.net Voice: 316-858-3000 Director of Network Operations Fax: 316-858-3001 Hubris Communicationshttp://www.hubris.net
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote: The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k apartments and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent. We don't have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities are much less dense. I don't get it. Single mode fiber can easily go 10-20km with low cost optics that do single-strand. You're saying it's rare in the US to have 10-20k households within 10-20km radius from an aggregation place? Yes, I'm sure there are places where this is the case, but then you aggregate hundreds instead (this works even in sparsely populated areas I'd say) and you're going to have less competition, but you still have the possibility to get competition. In these cases I though agree that L2 backhaul by the fiber operator might make sense. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Jul 22, 2014, at 08:27 , Aaron aa...@wholesaleinternet.net wrote: So let me throw out a purely hypothetical scenario to the collective: What do you think the consequences to a municipality would be if they laid fiber to every house in the city and gave away internet access for free? Not the WiFi builds we have today but FTTH at gigabit speeds for free? I think the project would be enjoined before it could get permitted. I don't think they'd be allowed to move a single backhoe in support of the project. Do you think the LECs would come unglued? Definition: LEC -- Local Exchange Carrier -- A law firm masquerading as a communications company. Yeah, I think they'd come unglued and wallpaper every courthouse between city hall and the state capital until such a project was not only illegal, but any city that considered such a notion faced huge fines for even thinking about it. That doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea, just what I think would actually happen. Owen Aaron On 7/21/2014 8:33 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: I've seen various communities attempt to hand out free wifi - usually in limited areas, but in some cases community-wide (Brookline, MA comes to mind). The limited ones (e.g., in tourist hotspots) have been city funded, or donated. The community-wide ones, that I've seen, have been public-private partnerships - the City provides space on light poles and such - the private firm provides limited access, in hopes of selling expanded service. I haven't seen it work successfully - 4G cell service beats the heck out of WiFi as a metropolitan area service. When it comes to municipal fiber and triple-play projects, I've generally seen them capitalized with revenue bonds -- hence, a need for revenue to pay of the financing. Lower cost than commercial services because municipal bonds are low-interest, long-term, and they operate on a cost-recovery basis. Miles Fidelman Aaron wrote: Do you have an example of a municipality that gives free internet access to it's residents? On 7/21/2014 2:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: I think the difference is when the municipality starts throwing in free or highly subsidized layer 3 connectivity free with every layer 1 connection Matthew Kaufman (Sent from my iPhone) On Jul 21, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Blake Dunlap iki...@gmail.com wrote: My power is pretty much always on, my water is pretty much always on and safe, my sewer system works, etc etc... Why is layer 1 internet magically different from every other utility? -Blake On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 1:38 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Over the last decade, 19 states have made it illegal for municipalities to own fiber networks Hi Jay, Everything government does, it does badly. Without exception. There are many things government does better than any private organization is likely to sustain, but even those things it does slowly and at an exorbitant price. Muni fiber is a competition killer. You can't beat city hall; once built it's not practical to compete, even with better service, so residents are stuck with only the overpriced (either directly or via taxes), usually underpowered and always one-size-fits-all network access which results. As an ISP I watched something similar happen in Altoona PA a decade and a half ago. It was a travesty. The only exception I see to this would be if localities were constrained to providing point to point and point to multipoint communications infrastructure within the locality on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. The competition that would foster on the services side might outweigh the damage on the infrastructure side. Like public roads facilitate efficient transportation and freight despite the cost and potholes, though that's an imperfect simile. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ Can I solve your unusual networking challenges? -- Aaron Wendel Chief Technical Officer Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) (816)550-9030 http://www.wholesaleinternet.com
The case(s) for, and against, preemption (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics)
On 7/22/14 11:13 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a
state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at
published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the
fiber (conflict of interest).
Ray,
Could you offer a case for state (or regional, including a
jurisdictional definition) preemption of local regulation?
Counties in Maine don't have charters, and, like most states in the
North East, their powers do not extend to incorporated municipalities.
Here in Oregon there are general law counties, and chartered counties,
and in the former, county ordinances to not apply, unless by agreement,
with incorporated municipalities, in the later, the affect of county
ordinances is not specified, though Art. VI, sec. 10 could be read as
creating applicability, where there is a county concern. In
agricultural regions (the South, the Mid-West, the West), country
government powers are significantly greater than in the North East, and
as in the case of Oregon, nuanced by the exceptions of charter vs
non-charter, inferior jurisdictions. Yet another big issue is Dillon's
Rule or Home Rule -- in the former the inferior jurisdictions of the
state only have express granted powers on specific issues, and in the
latter the inferior jurisdictions of the state have significant powers
enshrined in the State(s) Constitution(s).
I mention all this simply to show that one solution is not likely to fit
all uses.
Now because I've worked on Tribal Bonding, I'm aware that the IRS allows
municipalities to issue tax free bonds for purposes that are wider than
the government purposes test the IRS has imposed on Tribal Bonding (up
until last year). Stadiums, golf courses, and {filling a hole in | using
pole space on} public rights-of-way -- forms of long-term revenue Tribes
are barred from funding via tax free bonds by an IRS rule.
The (two, collided) points being, municipalities are likely sources of
per-build-out funding, via their bonding authority, and you've offered a
claim, shared by others, that municipalities should be preempted from
per-build-out regulation of their infrastructure.
How should it work, money originates in the municipality of X, but
regulation of the use of that money resides in another jurisdiction?
Eric
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:26 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part It's not, actually. The same GPON gear can be centrally located and has the same loss characteristics as it would if you put the splitters farther out. a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N potential subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge problem. other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. The problem with this approach is that it is great today, but it's a recipe for exactly the kinds of criticisms that were leveled against Ashland in earlier comments in this thread... The aging L2 setup will not be upgraded nearly as quickly as it should because there's no competitive pressure for that to happen. OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? Owen Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow service. Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house to the communications hut to patch in equipment. Think of it like the power company and the separation between generation and transmission. That's Step #1. Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, you need to get creative. The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains subscribers. I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to find the staff to run its own ISP, either. TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a government-run ISP to oust anyone from the market. Think about it: If you're an ISP, and you can lease
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Jul 22, 2014, at 12:04 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: - Original Message - From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Yes; when we did this back in '12, that was my proposal: city handles layer 2 aggregation and the ONTs, and we'll hand you off 1q ethernet... or, if you really *want* to put gear in our rack room, we'll cross-connect you to the relevant fibers, and let you handle layer 2 yourself. I'd be sort of OK with that approach, though I'd actually rather see the default reversed. Owen
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use their own equipment. The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or public utility is a good fit. Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if you look at the long term picture. Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a competitive environment where everyone delivers the same service. If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow service. Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house to the communications hut to patch in equipment. Think of it like the power company and the separation between generation and transmission. That's Step #1. Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, you need to get creative. The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of having a town or city be an ISP because I know how the budgets work. I trust a town to make sure my fiber is passing light; I don't trust it to make sure I have the latest and greatest equipment to light the fiber, or bandwidth from the best sources. I certainly don't trust the town to allow competition if it's providing its own service. This is were the line really needs to be drawn IMHO. Municipal FTTH is about layer 1, not layer 2 or layer 3. That said, there are communities where just having the fiber plant won't be enough. In these situations, the municipality can do things like create an incentive program to guarantee a minimum income for an ISP to reach the community which get's trimmed back as the ISP gains subscribers. I don't think a public option is bad on the ISP side of things; as long as the fiber is open and people can choose which ISP they want. The public option might be necessary for very rural communities that can't get service elsewhere or to simply serve as a price-check, but most of us here know that a small community likely won't be able to find the staff to run its own ISP, either. TL;DR Municipal FTTH should be about fixing the infrastructure issues and promoting innovation and competition, not creating a government-run ISP to oust
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Owen, This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the fiber in home runs. If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON or 96 ports of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a shelf that supports 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet. If every ISP has to buy their own layer 2 gear that's what happens. If that gear has to all be hosted in a central meet point then that room will need much more power, space, and cooling. Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N potential subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge problem. There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number of ISPs is very low. If we only have 4 service providers trying to offer services in city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of an issue and the wasted money in chassis and management cards is only in the 10s of thousands of dollars. The problem is that you very quickly, as the city, run out of a location that has suitable space, cooling, and power. Remember that each extra shelf has the same power supply and heat dissipation. OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth. How that happens very few consumers actually care about. What they do care about is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in bond money to build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to collocate with us. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:26 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part It's not, actually. The same GPON gear can be centrally located and has the same loss characteristics as it would if you put the splitters farther out. a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N potential subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge problem. other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. The problem with this approach is that it is great today, but it's a recipe for exactly the kinds of criticisms that were leveled against Ashland in earlier comments in this thread... The aging L2 setup will not be upgraded nearly as quickly as it should because there's no competitive pressure for that to happen. OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? Owen Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow service.
Re: The case(s) for, and against, preemption (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics)
You're over-thinking it. Use the power company as a model and you'll
close to the right path.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
brun...@nic-naa.net wrote:
On 7/22/14 11:13 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a
state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at
published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the
fiber (conflict of interest).
Ray,
Could you offer a case for state (or regional, including a jurisdictional
definition) preemption of local regulation?
Counties in Maine don't have charters, and, like most states in the North
East, their powers do not extend to incorporated municipalities. Here in
Oregon there are general law counties, and chartered counties, and in the
former, county ordinances to not apply, unless by agreement, with
incorporated municipalities, in the later, the affect of county ordinances
is not specified, though Art. VI, sec. 10 could be read as creating
applicability, where there is a county concern. In agricultural regions
(the South, the Mid-West, the West), country government powers are
significantly greater than in the North East, and as in the case of Oregon,
nuanced by the exceptions of charter vs non-charter, inferior jurisdictions.
Yet another big issue is Dillon's Rule or Home Rule -- in the former the
inferior jurisdictions of the state only have express granted powers on
specific issues, and in the latter the inferior jurisdictions of the state
have significant powers enshrined in the State(s) Constitution(s).
I mention all this simply to show that one solution is not likely to fit all
uses.
Now because I've worked on Tribal Bonding, I'm aware that the IRS allows
municipalities to issue tax free bonds for purposes that are wider than the
government purposes test the IRS has imposed on Tribal Bonding (up until
last year). Stadiums, golf courses, and {filling a hole in | using pole
space on} public rights-of-way -- forms of long-term revenue Tribes are
barred from funding via tax free bonds by an IRS rule.
The (two, collided) points being, municipalities are likely sources of
per-build-out funding, via their bonding authority, and you've offered a
claim, shared by others, that municipalities should be preempted from
per-build-out regulation of their infrastructure.
How should it work, money originates in the municipality of X, but
regulation of the use of that money resides in another jurisdiction?
Eric
--
Ray Patrick Soucy
Network Engineer
University of Maine System
T: 207-561-3526
F: 207-561-3531
MaineREN, Maine's Research and Education Network
www.maineren.net
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Ray Soucy wrote: The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or public utility is a good fit. I can also tell from experience in this area, that having the muni active network in between you as a customer, and the ISP, makes for no fun fault finding. The ISP is blind to what's going on, and you have a commercial relationship with the ISP. Their subcontractor, ie the L2 network, needs to assist in qualified fault management, and they usually don't have the skill and resources needed. Running an L1 network is easier because most of the time the only thing you need to understand is if the light is arriving and how much of it, and you can easily check this with a fiber light meter. Running L2 network, perhaps even with some L3 functions to make multicast etc more efficient, is not as easy to do as it might sound considering all factors. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
My experience is completely opposite though admittedly this may be because of the specific projects and cities I've worked with. In all the cases I've been involved with giving the ISPs layer 2 responsibility led to a never ending stream of finger pointing. I'd also say that just because your TDR doesn't see a reflection does not mean you have a clean path. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Ray Soucy wrote: The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or public utility is a good fit. I can also tell from experience in this area, that having the muni active network in between you as a customer, and the ISP, makes for no fun fault finding. The ISP is blind to what's going on, and you have a commercial relationship with the ISP. Their subcontractor, ie the L2 network, needs to assist in qualified fault management, and they usually don't have the skill and resources needed. Running an L1 network is easier because most of the time the only thing you need to understand is if the light is arriving and how much of it, and you can easily check this with a fiber light meter. Running L2 network, perhaps even with some L3 functions to make multicast etc more efficient, is not as easy to do as it might sound considering all factors. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:55 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Owen, This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the fiber in home runs. If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON or 96 ports of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a shelf that supports 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet. If every ISP has to buy their own layer 2 gear that's what happens. If that gear has to all be hosted in a central meet point then that room will need much more power, space, and cooling. Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N potential subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge problem. There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number of ISPs is very low. If we only have 4 service providers trying to offer services in city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of an issue and the wasted money in chassis and management cards is only in the 10s of thousands of dollars. The problem is that you very quickly, as the city, run out of a location that has suitable space, cooling, and power. Remember that each extra shelf has the same power supply and heat dissipation. Areas that will attract a high number of ISPs will have sufficient subscriber density to justify larger-capacity shelves for each of them. Places where ISPs will buy smaller capacity shelves are places that will have a low number of ISPs. OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth. How that happens very few consumers actually care about. What they do care about is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in bond money to build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to collocate with us. No, what consumers want is cheap reliable bandwidth that doesn't become slow and antiquated in a few years. Frankly, I don't care whether it's a municipality or an NGO or a private enterprise. What I want is a law that says If you operate L1, you can't play at L2+. If you operate L1, then you must offer the same product offerings to all L2+ providers on the same terms at the same price.. If you've got that, then someone will find a way for everyone who wants to compete for L2+ services in a given area to get or create an L1 capability that they can share. Doesn't seem to me that it would be that hard to justify building a colo and SWC together in most cases. $300,000 sounds pretty cheap, actually. Owen
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
You're assuming that this would all be free for the ISP, I think. The ISP would lease the fiber they use AND rack units for equipment (with use justification to prevent squatting). If someone wants to tie up a rack unit for one connection that's their business, but there would be a financial incentive to be efficient. Since revenue is generated for the location; if there is need for expanding capacity then there would be a business interest in the utility responsible for maintaining it to accommodate that. If the power company needs a bigger substation, they don't stop selling power. It might take a few months, but the upgrade does happen ... because there are both business and regulatory reasons to do so. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Owen, This specific issue has nothing to do with splitters versus all the fiber in home runs. If you buy a shelf that can support 16 ports of PON or 96 ports of Ethernet you will pay more per port than if you buy a shelf that supports 160 PON ports or 576 ports of Ethernet. If every ISP has to buy their own layer 2 gear that's what happens. If that gear has to all be hosted in a central meet point then that room will need much more power, space, and cooling. Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N potential subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge problem. There are scenarios where it doesn't matter, mainly where the number of ISPs is very low. If we only have 4 service providers trying to offer services in city then the extra power and heat isn't that big of an issue and the wasted money in chassis and management cards is only in the 10s of thousands of dollars. The problem is that you very quickly, as the city, run out of a location that has suitable space, cooling, and power. Remember that each extra shelf has the same power supply and heat dissipation. OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them and take away their customers. This is what we, as consumers, want, isn't it? No, what we as consumers want is inexpensive and reliable bandwidth. How that happens very few consumers actually care about. What they do care about is the city saying we have to raise $300,000 extra dollars in bond money to build a new facility to house the ISPs who might want to collocate with us. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jul 22, 2014, at 11:26 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part It's not, actually. The same GPON gear can be centrally located and has the same loss characteristics as it would if you put the splitters farther out. a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many Not really... You buy OLTs on a per N subscribers basis, not on a per N potential subscribers, so while you'd have possibly Y additional shelves per area served where Y = Number of ISPs competing for that area, I don't see that as a huge problem. other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. The problem with this approach is that it is great today, but it's a recipe for exactly the kinds of criticisms that were leveled against Ashland in earlier comments in this thread... The aging L2 setup will not be upgraded nearly as quickly as it should because there's no competitive pressure for that to happen. OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1 facilities back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver what consumers actually want. They can't ignore the need for newer L2 technologies because their competitor(s) will leap frog them
Re: The case(s) for, and against, preemption (was Re: Muni Fiber and Politics)
On 7/22/14 1:55 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
You're over-thinking it. Use the power company as a model and you'll
close to the right path.
Well, no, but thanks for your thoughts.
Portland vs. Cumberland County as respective hypothetical bonding and
regulating authorities, not {Bangor Hydro|Florida Power Light|...} and
Central Maine Power, generators and distributor, respectively.
Eric
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
I'll be there when I see it can be done practically in the US. I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but I don't see it being there yet. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology fiber from a serving wire center each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever on their own. That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with SWCs on the other side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to be an ANYTHING service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can imagine) install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in the colo and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that applies to all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space. So I think we are completely on the same page now. Owen On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use their own equipment. The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or public utility is a good fit. Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if you look at the long term picture. Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a competitive environment where everyone delivers the same service. If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow service. Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house to the communications hut to patch in equipment. Think of it like the power company and the separation between generation and transmission. That's Step #1. Step #2 is finding an ISP to make use of the fiber. Having a single municipal ISP is not really what I think is needed. Having the infrastructure in place to eliminate the huge investment needed for an ISP to service a community is. Hopefully, enough people jump at the idea and offer service over the fiber, but if they don't, you need to get creative. The important thing is that the fiber stays open. I'm not a fan of having a town or city be an ISP because I know how
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Sometimes the beauty of having government involved in infrastructure is that you don't need to justify a 3 year ROI. Creation of the Transcontinental Railroad Rural Electrification Building of the Interstate Highway System Wall ST may have everyone focused on short term gains, but when it comes to infrastructure spending a bit more up front to plan for the future is in the public interest. Building active FTTH with proper capacity might not make sense for Comcast, but then again we're not talking about Comcast. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: I'll be there when I see it can be done practically in the US. I agree with you from a philosophical standpoint, but I don't see it being there yet. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology fiber from a serving wire center each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever on their own. That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with SWCs on the other side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to be an ANYTHING service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can imagine) install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in the colo and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that applies to all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space. So I think we are completely on the same page now. Owen On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use their own equipment. The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or public utility is a good fit. Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if you look at the long term picture. Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a competitive environment where everyone delivers the same service. If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow service. Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house to the communications hut to patch in equipment.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
True, but if your end-to-end loop tester sees a good path, you can be pretty sure that the pair is clean end-to-end. Owen On Jul 22, 2014, at 14:07 , Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: My experience is completely opposite though admittedly this may be because of the specific projects and cities I've worked with. In all the cases I've been involved with giving the ISPs layer 2 responsibility led to a never ending stream of finger pointing. I'd also say that just because your TDR doesn't see a reflection does not mean you have a clean path. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote: On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Ray Soucy wrote: The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or public utility is a good fit. I can also tell from experience in this area, that having the muni active network in between you as a customer, and the ISP, makes for no fun fault finding. The ISP is blind to what's going on, and you have a commercial relationship with the ISP. Their subcontractor, ie the L2 network, needs to assist in qualified fault management, and they usually don't have the skill and resources needed. Running an L1 network is easier because most of the time the only thing you need to understand is if the light is arriving and how much of it, and you can easily check this with a fiber light meter. Running L2 network, perhaps even with some L3 functions to make multicast etc more efficient, is not as easy to do as it might sound considering all factors. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: True, but if your end-to-end loop tester sees a good path, you can be pretty sure that the pair is clean end-to-end. You'd be surprised. I recently dealt with a gentleman who built his campus fiber plant expecting to configure end-to-end fiber paths using mechanical connectors along the way. Maximum acceptable loss on a fiber segment is anound 10db, right, so with each of these 6 segments in the threes we should be OK right? Well hold on, let me go to the next building and clean the connector. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?
[OPINION] Best place in the US for NetAdmins
I've been trying to decide for a while what makes a good home for a Network Admin... access to physical, reliable upstream routes? good selection of local taverns? What, in your opinion, makes a good location for a Network Admin and where in the US would you find that? Also, I'd like to introduce myself [[ o/ ]] I've been watching the list for a while now and have found it helpful with picking up some best practices, getting use-case scenarios you might not see in text books. I attended Michigan Tech for Computer Networking and System Administration and have been bouncing around for a couple of years trying to find my calling. I've been working a lot with VoIP and that's been my interest ever since middle school. I've been mainly playing with stub networks for most of my life but have recently started working with larger routed networks, leading me to subscribe to the NANOG list. My latest endeavor was acquiring and ASN and a /24 from ARIN and multihoming a very small MSP. I've been fortunate enough to have really sharp mentors to help answer any questions I've had along the way. I know there must be quite a few people like myself that are lurking on the list and I just wanted to thank you guys for answering other questions and providing input on topics that have come through the list. TL;DR: Hi, see subject
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
To take this in a slightly different direction, as long as we're looking for pies in the sky, has anyone considered the bundling problem? If we assume that a residential deployment pulls one strand (or perhaps a pair) to each prem, similar to current practice for POTS, there's a resource allocation problem if I want to buy TV services from provider A and Internet services from provider B (or maybe I want to provision a private WAN to my place of work). This could be done with WDM equipment by the muni in the L1 model, or at L2, but it isn't something that's often mentioned. I suspect L2 wins here, at least on cost. Or are we going forward under the assumption that all of this will be rolled into the Internets and delivery that way and competition in that space will be sufficient? K Are we assuming that this will be taken care of by Internet-based delivery On 07/22/2014 02:00 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: The beauty is that if you have a L1 infrastructure of star-topology fiber from a serving wire center each ISP can decide active E or PON or whatever on their own. That's why I think it's so critical to build out colo facilities with SWCs on the other side of the MMR as the architecture of choice. Let anyone who wants to be an ANYTHING service provider (internet, TV, phone, whatever else they can imagine) install the optical term at the customer prem and whatever they want in the colo and XC the fiber to them on a flat per-subscriber strand fee basis that applies to all comers with a per-rack price for the colo space. So I think we are completely on the same page now. Owen On Jul 22, 2014, at 13:37 , Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: I was mentally where you were a few years ago with the idea of having switching and L2 covered by a public utility but after seeing some instances of it I'm more convinced that different ISPs should use their own equipment. The equipment is what makes the speed and quality of service. If you have shared infrastructure for L2 then what exactly differentiates a service? More to the point; if that equipment gets oversubscribed or gets neglected who is responsible for it? I don't think the municipality or public utility is a good fit. Just give us the fiber and we'll decided what to light it up with. BTW I don't know why I would have to note this, but of course I'm talking about active FTTH. PON is basically throwing money away if you look at the long term picture. Sure, having one place switch everything and just assign people to the right VLAN keeps trucks from rolling for individual ISPs, but I don't think giving up control over the quality of the service is in the interest of an ISP. What you're asking for is basically to have a competitive environment where everyone delivers the same service. If your service is slow and it's because of L2 infrastructure, no change in provider will fix that the way you're looking to do it. On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: One of the main problems with trying to draw the line at layer 1 is that its extremely inefficient in terms of the gear. Now, this is in large part a function of how gear is built and if a significant number of locales went in this direction we _might_ see changes, but today each ISP would have to purchase their own OLTs and that leads to many more shelves than the total number of line cards would otherwise dictate. There are certainly many other issues, some of which have been discussed on this list before, but I've done open access networks for several cities and _today_ the cleanest situations by far (that I've seen) had the city handling layer 1 and 2 with the layer 2 hand off being Ethernet regardless of the access technology used. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 http://twitter.com/kscotthelms On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote: IMHO the way to go here is to have the physical fiber plant separate. FTTH is a big investment. Easy for a municipality to absorb, but not attractive for a commercial ISP to do. A business will want to realize an ROI much faster than the life of the fiber plant, and will need assurance of having a monopoly and dense deployment to achieve that. None of those conditions apply in the majority of the US, so we're stuck with really old infrastructure delivering really slow service. Municipal FTTH needs to be a regulated public utility (ideally at a state or regional level). It should have an open access policy at published rates and be forbidden from offering lit service on the fiber (conflict of interest). This covers the fiber box in the house to the communications hut to patch in equipment. Think of it like the power company and the separation between generation and transmission. That's Step #1. Step #2 is finding an ISP to make
Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:54:59PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: Others appear to be having similar issues. Seems like Verizon is pointing at AWS: https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?messageID=558094 Ray On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:56:27PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: Realized I sent the reply to Roland. Apologies. Here it is in full: I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane Electric's Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within Amanzon's network based on changes in latency in a simple trace route. I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is something mtr doesn't support. Cheers! -Tim Update on this: - We have a ticket open with both AWS and Verizon. - AWS has responded and felt the issue was with Verizon, but notified their network team and asked them to investigate further. - Nothing back from Verizon yet (anyone here have a Verizon NOC contact?) In the interim, the issuer persists. Thanks, Ray
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
- Original Message - From: Keenan Tims kt...@stargate.ca If we assume that a residential deployment pulls one strand (or perhaps a pair) to each prem, similar to current practice for POTS, there's a resource allocation problem if I want to buy TV services from provider A and Internet services from provider B (or maybe I want to provision a private WAN to my place of work). This could be done with WDM equipment by the muni in the L1 model, or at L2, but it isn't something that's often mentioned. I suspect L2 wins here, at least on cost. Or are we going forward under the assumption that all of this will be rolled into the Internets and delivery that way and competition in that space will be sufficient? I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or so. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On 07/22/2014 06:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Keenan Tims kt...@stargate.ca If we assume that a residential deployment pulls one strand (or perhaps a pair) to each prem, similar to current practice for POTS, there's a resource allocation problem if I want to buy TV services from provider A and Internet services from provider B (or maybe I want to provision a private WAN to my place of work). This could be done with WDM equipment by the muni in the L1 model, or at L2, but it isn't something that's often mentioned. I suspect L2 wins here, at least on cost. Or are we going forward under the assumption that all of this will be rolled into the Internets and delivery that way and competition in that space will be sufficient? I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or so. Heh, great minds think alike, as I was contemplating the same issue that Keenan raised. My number of pairs was 5 though ... 1 each for TV, Phone, and Internet providers, 1 as a spare in case something breaks, and 1 for the thing that hasn't been invented yet. The thinking being that strands of dark fiber are cheaper then retrenching, etc. Doug
Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?)
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 05:29:55PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:54:59PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote: Others appear to be having similar issues. Seems like Verizon is pointing at AWS: https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?messageID=558094 Ray On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 08:56:27PM -0700, Tim Heckman wrote: Realized I sent the reply to Roland. Apologies. Here it is in full: I am seeing the same issue between AWS US-WEST 2 and Hurricane Electric's Fremont 2 location (Linode). Looks to be deep within Amanzon's network based on changes in latency in a simple trace route. I would provide an mtr, however my network configuration is something mtr doesn't support. Cheers! -Tim Update on this: - We have a ticket open with both AWS and Verizon. - AWS has responded and felt the issue was with Verizon, but notified their network team and asked them to investigate further. - Nothing back from Verizon yet (anyone here have a Verizon NOC contact?) In the interim, the issue persists. Further update -- Verizon indicates that the issue is related to saturation on a peering link between themselves and NTT. Verizon is pointing to the NTT side as the source of the saturation / congestion. We don't have a direct customer relationship with NTT so am hoping someone on this list may be able to pass this information along or investigate on our behalf. Ray
