Re: ASR9K xml agent vs netconf
netconf would come with the appeal of using a standard and any libraries I write for it may be usable with other platforms. well, how long do you plan to be around and 9k-only? randy
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Friday, August 01, 2014 04:44:29 PM Owen DeLong wrote: Even when mandated to unbundle at a reasonable cost, often other games are played (trouble ticket for service billed by lines provider resolved in a day, trouble ticket for service on unbundled element resolved in 14 days, etc.). IMHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure provider) must be prohibited from playing at the higher layers. Agree. In reality, though, we've seen Layer 1-only providers becoming service providers (even when they previously promised the market it would never happen), due to wanting to stay relevant. I suppose if a Layer 1 provider were a government entity, there is a higher chance they would never enter the Layer 2 or 3 space, but even then, there is strong lobbying in politics that this could become a reality. I've seen it happen a great deal in south east Asia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Kenya, and now even South Africa, particularly with Layer 1 providers that were government entities built to enable fibre connectivity for management of utility services (power, for example) and were then tasked to offer Layer 1 services with the remaining fibre, but currently find themselves now playing in Layer 2 and above to make extra cash for the government. It's hard... Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Friday, August 01, 2014 06:34:00 PM Owen DeLong wrote: Today, somewhere around $6,000 or more depending on provider, location, etc. That’s with IP transit included. With IP Transit included, perhaps. But 10Gbps ports are not expensive these days. Depends on whether you selling 10Gbps ports off a router line card or an Ethernet switch. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote: So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the arithmetic easy, and that means if we can put 44 people on that, that the MRC cost is 500 dollars a month for a gigabit. That is clearly not consumer pricing. Was consumer pricing the assertion? I think Owen's pricing is based on 10Gbps router ports (Owen, correct me if I'm wrong). This is not the only way to sell 10Gbps services. Having said that, in context of home broadband, I was referring to AN's (Access Nodes), particularly based on Active-E (you don't generally place consumer customers directly on to 10Gbps router ports). The 10Gbps ports on an Active-E AN are in the same 1U chassis as the 44x Gig-E ports. And depending on how many you buy from vendors for your Access network, you can get pretty decent deals with good return if you get great uptake and have a sweet price point. Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
I might be misunderstanding this, but are you guys saying 10G Internet access to a tier 1 costs around $6,000 a month? I ask because I run a network for a small college and the best price I could get on 1Gbps Internet is about $5,500 a month with the fiber loop included which itself costs $2000-$2500.Or are you guys discussing a different type connection? The quotes I got were from Cogent, Lightpath, Level 3, Verizon ($8,000) and I think even ATT a few years back. I'm out in the NJ suburbs about 30 miles from Manhattan. If there is a cheaper way to get good bandwidth, I'm all ears. We're in Mahwah , NJ. Thanks, On 8/2/2014 3:39 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: On Friday, August 01, 2014 06:34:00 PM Owen DeLong wrote: Today, somewhere around $6,000 or more depending on provider, location, etc. That’s with IP transit included. With IP Transit included, perhaps. But 10Gbps ports are not expensive these days. Depends on whether you selling 10Gbps ports off a router line card or an Ethernet switch. Mark.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Aug 2, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Vlade Ristevski vrist...@ramapo.edu wrote: I might be misunderstanding this, but are you guys saying 10G Internet access to a tier 1 costs around $6,000 a month? I ask because I run a network for a small college and the best price I could get on 1Gbps Internet is about $5,500 a month with the fiber loop included which itself costs $2000-$2500. Or are you guys discussing a different type connection? The quotes I got were from Cogent, Lightpath, Level 3, Verizon ($8,000) and I think even ATT a few years back. I'm out in the NJ suburbs about 30 miles from Manhattan. If there is a cheaper way to get good bandwidth, I'm all ears. We're in Mahwah , NJ. I think a 10GE for $6,000 in bandwidth charges is possible, if you meet the provider. What that means is if you are in an Equinix, Coresite, Telehouse, or other sort of carrier neutral colocation point, and you're willing to make the cross connect appear at the providers cage, you can get bandwidth for that price. Basically it's the price when the provider has to do zero other work, already has a large pop, and is selling large wholesale chunks. Add in a local loop, cost for a smaller pop they have to maintain, engineering and so on and your price for 1GE 30 miles away from such places seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's kind of the difference between driving your pickup to the quarry to get a truck load of sand, vrs buying prepackaged sand at the local home improvement store. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
That's why I want legislation requiring the operator to be one or the other and not both. Most L1 gets built with tax dollars or subsidies anyway. Owen On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:34, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Friday, August 01, 2014 04:44:29 PM Owen DeLong wrote: Even when mandated to unbundle at a reasonable cost, often other games are played (trouble ticket for service billed by lines provider resolved in a day, trouble ticket for service on unbundled element resolved in 14 days, etc.). IMHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure provider) must be prohibited from playing at the higher layers. Agree. In reality, though, we've seen Layer 1-only providers becoming service providers (even when they previously promised the market it would never happen), due to wanting to stay relevant. I suppose if a Layer 1 provider were a government entity, there is a higher chance they would never enter the Layer 2 or 3 space, but even then, there is strong lobbying in politics that this could become a reality. I've seen it happen a great deal in south east Asia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Kenya, and now even South Africa, particularly with Layer 1 providers that were government entities built to enable fibre connectivity for management of utility services (power, for example) and were then tasked to offer Layer 1 services with the remaining fibre, but currently find themselves now playing in Layer 2 and above to make extra cash for the government. It's hard... Mark.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Such a case is unlikely. On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. That’s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark fiber GigE to supply voice only makes no sense, but a 10M channel on a GPON serving a VoIP box may… Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance for a viable resale of layer 1/2 services.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Municipalities can be different. It’s possible to write into law that they can offer L1 and L2 services, but never anything higher. There’s also a built in disincentive to risk tax dollars more speculative, but possibly more profitable ventures. Sure, a muni could offer that and be likely OK. As long as L1 services were kept a hard requirement. So while I agree with Owen that a dark fiber model is preferred, and should be offered, I don’t have a problem with a municipal network also offering Layer 2. In fact, I see some potential wins, imagine a network where you could chose to buy dark fiber access, or a channel on a GPON system? If the customer wants GE/10GE, you get dark fiber, and if they want 50Mbps, you get a GPON channel for less (yes, that’s an assumption) cost. If the L1 provider has to have dark fiber to every prem, the cost model of PON is strictly within the SWC and not the outside plant. As such, those savings could be done by the competing access providers without requiring differentiation by the L1 provider. I can also see how some longer-distance links, imagine a link from home to office across 30-40 miles, might be cheaper to deliver as 100M VLAN than raw dark fiber and having to buy long reach optics. This would be served out if multiple SWCs anyway, so there would be some provider able to offer that most likely. I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. That’s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark fiber GigE to supply voice only makes no sense, but a 10M channel on a GPON serving a VoIP box may… The problem I've seen with this is that the savings achieved by PON primarily come from aggregating fiber pairs at the edge. In order to have competition enabled L1, the fiber must go from prem all the way to SWC. So while I can't see a problem with allowing an L1 provider to also offer L2, usually when that happens, they don't offer L1. If both are offered, the majority of the L2 benefits disappear. Owen
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
I don't pretend to be the original person with this idea. But I would very much like to see it implemented. On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:24, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: MHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure provider) must be prohibited from playing at the higher layers A few years back Fred Goldstein proposed defining a Layer 1 infrastructure provider as a LoopCo, where the local loop is passively provided to service providers to light it as they see fit. He even wrote draft legislation, where the incumbent LEC is divided into a Facilities Entity and a Services Entity: http://www.ionary.com/separationbillproposal.htm That proposal generally requires something like a CLEC to light the wire locally, and makes CLECs viable again. He has also proposed requiring ILECs (and cablecos) to provide low-layer (layer 2, mostly) common carriage on an open basis; as filed in the current NN docket: http://www.ionary.com/separationbillproposal.htm j -- --- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -- -
Re: Comcast IPv6 Milestone
Absolutely. We are close and are trying to finalize the firmware for a subset of our commercial DOCSIS devices. Stay tuned for news and updates on this front. Be sure to check www.comcast6.net, I will post updates here. John -Original Message- From: Jim Burwell j...@jsbc.cc Date: Thursday, July 24, 2014 at 16:16 To: John Brzozowski john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com, NANOG nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Milestone Congrats to you and your team John! I presume Comcast Business is still a work in progress? - Jim On 7/24/2014 08:08, Brzozowski, John wrote: FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions: http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone -in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network Thank you, John = John Jason Brzozowski Comcast Cable w) www.comcast6.net e) john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com =
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
I thought JRA was asking about the upstream cost. Owen On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:43, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote: So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the arithmetic easy, and that means if we can put 44 people on that, that the MRC cost is 500 dollars a month for a gigabit. That is clearly not consumer pricing. Was consumer pricing the assertion? I think Owen's pricing is based on 10Gbps router ports (Owen, correct me if I'm wrong). This is not the only way to sell 10Gbps services. Having said that, in context of home broadband, I was referring to AN's (Access Nodes), particularly based on Active-E (you don't generally place consumer customers directly on to 10Gbps router ports). The 10Gbps ports on an Active-E AN are in the same 1U chassis as the 44x Gig-E ports. And depending on how many you buy from vendors for your Access network, you can get pretty decent deals with good return if you get great uptake and have a sweet price point. Mark.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Thanks , makes sense. I was looking on peeringdb.com for some locations nearby but they're all 20+ miles . However, there is a Telx a block from my house that I walk past everyday. Maybe a I can string along a 10G connection to my basement office :) On 8/2/2014 9:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote: On Aug 2, 2014, at 8:10 AM, Vlade Ristevski vrist...@ramapo.edu wrote: I might be misunderstanding this, but are you guys saying 10G Internet access to a tier 1 costs around $6,000 a month? I ask because I run a network for a small college and the best price I could get on 1Gbps Internet is about $5,500 a month with the fiber loop included which itself costs $2000-$2500.Or are you guys discussing a different type connection? The quotes I got were from Cogent, Lightpath, Level 3, Verizon ($8,000) and I think even ATT a few years back. I'm out in the NJ suburbs about 30 miles from Manhattan. If there is a cheaper way to get good bandwidth, I'm all ears. We're in Mahwah , NJ. I think a 10GE for $6,000 in bandwidth charges is possible, if you meet the provider. What that means is if you are in an Equinix, Coresite, Telehouse, or other sort of carrier neutral colocation point, and you're willing to make the cross connect appear at the providers cage, you can get bandwidth for that price. Basically it's the price when the provider has to do zero other work, already has a large pop, and is selling large wholesale chunks. Add in a local loop, cost for a smaller pop they have to maintain, engineering and so on and your price for 1GE 30 miles away from such places seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's kind of the difference between driving your pickup to the quarry to get a truck load of sand, vrs buying prepackaged sand at the local home improvement store.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Happens all the time, which is why I asked Leo about that scenario. There are large swarths of the US and even more in Canada where that's the norm. On Aug 2, 2014 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Such a case is unlikely. On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. That’s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark fiber GigE to supply voice only makes no sense, but a 10M channel on a GPON serving a VoIP box may… Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance for a viable resale of layer 1/2 services.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
There are plenty of cities with zero ISP's interested in serving them today, I can't argue that point. However I believe the single largest reason why that is true is that the ISP today has to bear the capital cost of building out the physical plant to serve the customers. 15-20 year ROI's don't work for small businesses or wall street. But if those cities were to build a municipal fiber network like we've described, and pay for it with 15-20 year municipal bonds the ISP's wouldn't have to bear those costs. They could come in drop one box in a central location and start offering service. Which is why I said, if municipalities did this, I am very skeptical there would be more than a handful without a L3 operator. You can imagine a city of 50 people in North Dakota or the Northern Territories might have this issue because the long haul cost to reach the town is so high, but it's going to be a rare case. I firmly believe the municipal fiber networks presence would bring L3 operators to 90-95% of cities. On Aug 2, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Happens all the time, which is why I asked Leo about that scenario. There are large swarths of the US and even more in Canada where that's the norm. On Aug 2, 2014 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Such a case is unlikely. On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. That’s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark fiber GigE to supply voice only makes no sense, but a 10M channel on a GPON serving a VoIP box may… Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance for a viable resale of layer 1/2 services. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Subject: Re: Muni Fiber and Politics Date: Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 07:40:50AM +0200 Quoting Mark Tinka (mark.ti...@seacom.mu): On Thursday, July 31, 2014 02:01:28 PM Måns Nilsson wrote: It is better, both for the customer and the provider. If the provider is able to deliver 1Gbps to every home (either on copper or fibre) with little to no uplink oversubscription (think 44x customer-facing Gig-E ports + 4x 10Gbps uplink ports), essentially, there is no limit to what services a provider and its partners can offer to its customers. Oh, yes, there is. Multicast? IPv6? Both CAN be done, but probably won't. Dark fibre to CO is the only way to be sure. As long as that is possible, perhaps mandated by regulation, there's no major issue with providing a packaged service. In the end, though, if we get the quality of Internet access up to sensible levels (today minimum of a /56 and 100Mbit symmetric and no stupid peering wars ;-) there are few reasons not to bundle L1-L3. However, given the nature of monopolies and their tendency to underperform and overcharge, that is an optimisation dream... -- Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668 Hello. Just walk along and try NOT to think about your INTESTINES being almost FORTY YARDS LONG!! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
Is it, or is it the norm because it is the result of a lack of facilities in those locations? Show me even one area where there is a rich fiber infrastructure available on an equal footing to multiple competitors to provide L3 services and there are no L3 providers offering service to those residential customers. I bet I can get a provider going there pretty quick. Owen On Aug 2, 2014, at 12:04 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Happens all the time, which is why I asked Leo about that scenario. There are large swarths of the US and even more in Canada where that's the norm. On Aug 2, 2014 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Such a case is unlikely. On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. That’s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark fiber GigE to supply voice only makes no sense, but a 10M channel on a GPON serving a VoIP box may… Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance for a viable resale of layer 1/2 services.
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
But in the cases of small rural communities it¹s perfectly reasonable to just setup wifi to cover the town and backhaul a DS3 back to a more connected location. There¹s plenty of small wireless companies out there trying to serve these folks. On 8/2/14, 3:15 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote: There are plenty of cities with zero ISP's interested in serving them today, I can't argue that point. However I believe the single largest reason why that is true is that the ISP today has to bear the capital cost of building out the physical plant to serve the customers. 15-20 year ROI's don't work for small businesses or wall street. But if those cities were to build a municipal fiber network like we've described, and pay for it with 15-20 year municipal bonds the ISP's wouldn't have to bear those costs. They could come in drop one box in a central location and start offering service. Which is why I said, if municipalities did this, I am very skeptical there would be more than a handful without a L3 operator. You can imagine a city of 50 people in North Dakota or the Northern Territories might have this issue because the long haul cost to reach the town is so high, but it's going to be a rare case. I firmly believe the municipal fiber networks presence would bring L3 operators to 90-95% of cities. On Aug 2, 2014, at 2:04 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: Happens all the time, which is why I asked Leo about that scenario. There are large swarths of the US and even more in Canada where that's the norm. On Aug 2, 2014 1:29 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Such a case is unlikely. On Aug 1, 2014, at 13:32, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote: I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps. That¹s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark fiber GigE to supply voice only makes no sense, but a 10M channel on a GPON serving a VoIP box mayŠ Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance for a viable resale of layer 1/2 services. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Re: Muni Fiber and Politics
On Sunday, August 03, 2014 01:31:17 AM Måns Nilsson wrote: Oh, yes, there is. Multicast? IPv6? Both CAN be done, but probably won't. I'm talking about the opportunities large bandwidth presents, non-technical issues aside. Certainly, IPv6 and Multicast have a place on a 1Gbps link into the customer's home. Unless I misunderstand what you're trying to say... Mark. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: The Cidr Report
link didn't work for me, I think http://www.cidr-report.org/as2.0/ is
the proper link
On 8/1/2014 5:00 PM, cidr-rep...@potaroo.net wrote:
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 1 21:13:59 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date PrefixesCIDR Agg
25-07-14508935 285928
26-07-14508775 286040
27-07-14508959 286213
28-07-14509275 286189
29-07-14509477 286110
30-07-14509841 286214
31-07-14510150 286361
01-08-14510519 286381
AS Summary
47759 Number of ASes in routing system
19365 Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
3794 Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS28573: NET Serviços de Comunicação S.A.,BR
120495616 Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street,CN
Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').
--- 01Aug14 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr NetGain % Gain Description
Table 510651 286295 22435643.9% All ASes
AS28573 3794 214 358094.4% NET Serviços de Comunicação
S.A.,BR
AS6389 2943 80 286397.3% BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
BellSouth.net Inc.,US
AS17974 2801 190 261193.2% TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
Telekomunikasi Indonesia,ID
AS7029 2887 485 240283.2% WINDSTREAM - Windstream
Communications Inc,US
AS4766 2949 928 202168.5% KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom,KR
AS18881 2062 43 201997.9% Global Village Telecom,BR
AS7545 2347 677 167071.2% TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom
Limited,AU
AS18566 2047 565 148272.4% MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath
Corporation,US
AS10620 2939 1463 147650.2% Telmex Colombia S.A.,CO
AS7303 1775 438 133775.3% Telecom Argentina S.A.,AR
AS22773 2725 1401 132448.6% ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
Cox Communications Inc.,US
AS4755 1866 594 127268.2% TATACOMM-AS TATA
Communications formerly VSNL
is Leading ISP,IN
AS4323 1642 424 121874.2% TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
inc.,US
AS6983 1390 314 107677.4% ITCDELTA - Earthlink, Inc.,US
AS22561 1305 242 106381.5% AS22561 - CenturyTel Internet
Holdings, Inc.,US
AS7552 1261 237 102481.2% VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel
Corporation,VN
AS9829 1653 738 91555.4% BSNL-NIB National Internet
Backbone,IN
AS6147 1043 147 89685.9% Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.,PE
AS38285 956 112 84488.3% M2TELECOMMUNICATIONS-AU M2
Telecommunications Group
Ltd,AU
AS24560 1153 345 80870.1% AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
Services,IN
AS4808 1207 416 79165.5% CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
network China169 Beijing
Province Network,CN
AS7738 977 190 78780.6% Telemar Norte Leste S.A.,BR
AS4788 1023 261 76274.5% TMNET-AS-AP TM Net, Internet
Service Provider,MY
AS8151 1450 691 75952.3% Uninet S.A. de C.V.,MX
AS18101 947 189 75880.0% RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
Reliance Communications
Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI,IN
AS9808 1101 376 72565.8% CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile
Communication Co.Ltd.,CN
AS26615 860 136 724
