Re: Help with removing DNS shinkhole FP from Charter/Spectrum

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> However, there's no correction process for Spectrum's DNS sinkhole
> But back to the topic: someone mentioned to me that Spectrum may not be the 
> direct providers for the DNS services they provide to their customers. If 
> anyone knows anything about how I might discover and reach out to the people 
> responsible, please let me know.

I suspect what’s happened is an incorrect assumption that DNS is even the issue 
here. Because you mentioned Spectrum Shield, I suspect it is not.

Spectrum Shield 
(https://www.spectrum.com/resources/internet-wifi/benefits-of-spectrum-security-shield)
 is a customer-managed security protection service built into their gateways (I 
assume you can turn it off). The malware and content detection engine behind 
that is very likely run by CujoAI (https://cujo.com/) and it does not use DNS 
query/response exchanges as the control mechanism (in part to counter-act 
DNS-changing malware or malware using its own DoH channel for example).

You should contact Charter/Spectrum to have them investigate what their system 
might be blocking this content.

Comcast (where I work) runs a similar system 
(https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/using-xfinity-xfi-advanced-security) 
and maintains a site to report these sorts of issues 
(https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/report-blocked-website).

Jason

Re: Attn Access ISPs - FCC BB Labels (machine-readable standards)

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

It is certainly possible – thanks for the suggestion! If you’d like to 
participate, let me know 1:1 off list.

Jason

From: NANOG  on 
behalf of Bryan Ward 
Date: Thursday, April 11, 2024 at 16:58
To: Ben Cartwright-Cox via NANOG 
Subject: RE: Attn Access ISPs - FCC BB Labels (machine-readable standards)

Why reinvent new 4-digit codes to identify the type of service?  Can’t the 
existing ATIS service codes be used for this too?



--
Bryan Ward
Lead Network Engineer
Dartmouth College Network Services
bryan.w...@dartmouth.edu<mailto:bryan.w...@dartmouth.edu>

Scheduling a meeting?  I prefer Zoom.

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Livingood, Jason via NANOG
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 9:08 AM
To: Ben Cartwright-Cox via NANOG 
Subject: Attn Access ISPs - FCC BB Labels (machine-readable standards)

Yesterday the FCC broadband label order is in effect – so all ISPs need to 
publish them. Oct 10, 2024 is the deadline to produce machine-readable BB 
labels. I have kicked off an effort via the BITAG to standardize the format of 
these labels. See 
https://github.com/jlivingood/Broadband-Labels<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/jlivingood/Broadband-Labels__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!Dr0B3gDP9NIfNf0MyABywx6mZEw9GrCnzVeDimiePxdqABmuY84OHArWfU2UHwv9qZaR-SfNsMqXj958DZPJU2viccx-Calb$>
 for some initial ideas.

If you’d like to participate – because you are an ISP publishing labels or an 
org/researcher that will be importing/consuming/comparing labels – you may wish 
to participate. There’s no fee or docs to sign to do so, and your participation 
does noy convey endorsement of the final work product. IF INTERESTED – email me 
off-list and I will provide details.

Thanks!
Jason

Attn Access ISPs - FCC BB Labels (machine-readable standards)

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

Yesterday the FCC broadband label order is in effect – so all ISPs need to 
publish them. Oct 10, 2024 is the deadline to produce machine-readable BB 
labels. I have kicked off an effort via the BITAG to standardize the format of 
these labels. See 
https://github.com/jlivingood/Broadband-Labels
 for some initial ideas.

If you’d like to participate – because you are an ISP publishing labels or an 
org/researcher that will be importing/consuming/comparing labels – you may wish 
to participate. There’s no fee or docs to sign to do so, and your participation 
does noy convey endorsement of the final work product. IF INTERESTED – email me 
off-list and I will provide details.

Thanks!
Jason

Re: [EXTERNAL] Charter DNS servers returning malware filtered IP addresses

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

On 10/30/23, 16:02, "John R. Levine" mailto:jo...@iecc.com>> 
wrote:

> I have no idea whether Charter uses one of these, some other third party, 
or their own. 

They don't use those providers as far as I am aware. I've alerted someone from 
CHTR of this thread. 

JL

Re: [EXTERNAL] Charter DNS servers returning malware filtered IP addresses

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

On 10/27/23, 19:01, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong wrote:

> If it’s such a reasonable default, why don’t any of the public resolvers 
> (e.g. 1.1.1.1, 8.8.8.8, 9.9.9.9, etc.) do so?
> DNS isn’t the right place to attack this, IMHO.

Are we sure that the filtering is done in the default view - I would suggest 
the user check to ensure they don't have a filtering service (e.g. parental 
controls/malware protection) turned on. In my **personal** opinion, the default 
view should have DNSSEC validation & no filtering; users can always optionally 
select additional protection services that might include DNS-based filtering as 
well as other mechanisms. 

JL

Re: Comcast contact sought

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> I have been trying to assist someone with a business connection that runs a 
> server farm.  Recently the business cable modem started to short-stop port 53 
> for UDP and TCP.  Apparently, a transparent DNS proxy somehow got activated 
> and all outbound traffic to any IPv4 or IPv6 address is intercepted and 
> handled by the modem – or not handled.

Sounds like the person you helped turned on Security Edge. They can turn it off 
too at 
https://business.comcast.com/support/article/internet/securityedge-manage-settings.

Jason

L4S Trials (Comcast) & Inter-Domain Marking

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

FYI on two related items of interest to this list.
1 – If you are a Comcast customer, consider volunteering for our upcoming low 
latency networking trials (using IETF L4S). See my blog post at 
https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/comcast-kicks-off-industrys-first-low-latency-docsis-field-trials
 and signup at 
https://www.xfinityinsightscommunity.com/register/start/f4f1ea42-247c-44f1-bea0-c2d7178cfe00.

2 – The IETF L4S standard and the upcoming NQB standards – both dual-queue low 
latency networking – will rely on end-to-end packet marking to signal 
dual-queue-capable routers to send packets to the low latency queue. Thus, 
there will be inter-domain marking which will affect many networks’ edge 
configurations.

  *   In the case of L4S it may be easier, as L4S relies on the ECN header – 
and most networks probably forward packets without touching this header. The 
L4S setting here is to set ECT(1) or CE.
  *   In the case of NQB, the marking is expected to use DSCP-45 (once the RFCs 
are issued, IANA will make the code point assignment). This will be more 
challenging for those networks that scrub any DSCP marks from packets and 
over-write with their own. Post-standardization, networks should permit inbound 
DSCP-45 marks to remain & pass them along down to the user edge (in cases where 
45 is used internally, networks may remark internally and then mark back to 45 
as it goes to the user LAN).
  *   In both cases – ECN or DSCP – the packets remain at the best effort 
priority level.
  *   For slightly more detail see 
https://github.com/jlivingood/IETF-L4S-Deployment/blob/main/Network-Config-Guide.md

Thanks!
Jason

RE: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

In the meantime please just select some unrelated industry on the form. We 
don’t care – it seems to be boilerplate.

From: "Livingood, Jason" 
Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 at 15:46
To: "Eric C. Miller" , nanog 
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

We’re working to fix that. Sorry!

From: "Eric C. Miller" 
Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 at 15:18
To: Jason Livingood , nanog 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

FYI, when trying to sign up, it tells me that my input isn’t required because I 
work in the telco industry.

Eric

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Livingood, Jason via NANOG
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 2:30 PM
To: nanog 
Subject: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

FYI that today we (Comcast) have announced the start of low latency networking 
(L4S) field trials. If you are a customer and would like to volunteer, please 
visit this 
page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.xfinityinsightscommunity.com/register/start/f4f1ea42-247c-44f1-bea0-c2d7178cfe00__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!CoNTpeJFQdLeA3aHjrbPZztXZCRMjXttdX5OomIj8WG6ptqtmtESEQxiY38eFd1wQeOeCZC3vKGVlDlqzaqeWw$>.

For more info, there is a blog post that just went up at 
https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/comcast-kicks-off-industrys-first-low-latency-docsis-field-trials

We anticipate testing with several different cable modems and a range of 
applications that are marking. We plan to share detailed results of the trial 
at IETF-118 in November.

Any app developers interested in working with us can either email me direction 
or 
low-latency-partner-inter...@comcast.com<mailto:low-latency-partner-inter...@comcast.com>.

Thanks!
Jason

Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

We’re working to fix that. Sorry!

From: "Eric C. Miller" 
Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 at 15:18
To: Jason Livingood , nanog 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

FYI, when trying to sign up, it tells me that my input isn’t required because I 
work in the telco industry.

Eric

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of 
Livingood, Jason via NANOG
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 2:30 PM
To: nanog 
Subject: Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

FYI that today we (Comcast) have announced the start of low latency networking 
(L4S) field trials. If you are a customer and would like to volunteer, please 
visit this 
page<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.xfinityinsightscommunity.com/register/start/f4f1ea42-247c-44f1-bea0-c2d7178cfe00__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!CoNTpeJFQdLeA3aHjrbPZztXZCRMjXttdX5OomIj8WG6ptqtmtESEQxiY38eFd1wQeOeCZC3vKGVlDlqzaqeWw$>.

For more info, there is a blog post that just went up at 
https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/comcast-kicks-off-industrys-first-low-latency-docsis-field-trials

We anticipate testing with several different cable modems and a range of 
applications that are marking. We plan to share detailed results of the trial 
at IETF-118 in November.

Any app developers interested in working with us can either email me direction 
or 
low-latency-partner-inter...@comcast.com<mailto:low-latency-partner-inter...@comcast.com>.

Thanks!
Jason

Test Dual Queue L4S (if you are on Comcast)

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

FYI that today we (Comcast) have announced the start of low latency networking 
(L4S) field trials. If you are a customer and would like to volunteer, please 
visit this 
page.

For more info, there is a blog post that just went up at 
https://corporate.comcast.com/stories/comcast-kicks-off-industrys-first-low-latency-docsis-field-trials

We anticipate testing with several different cable modems and a range of 
applications that are marking. We plan to share detailed results of the trial 
at IETF-118 in November.

Any app developers interested in working with us can either email me direction 
or 
low-latency-partner-inter...@comcast.com.

Thanks!
Jason

Re: Do ISP's collect and analyze traffic of users?

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

>> As a decent sized north American ISP I think I need totally agree with this 
>> post. There simply is not any economically justifiable reason to collect 
>> customer data, doing so is expensive, and unless you are trying to traffic 
>> shape like a cell carrier

> They shape? News to me...

You can find this in their respective network management disclosures. Most 
typically it is bitrate shaping of OTT video traffic. 

JL

Re: Do ISP's collect and analyze traffic of users?

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> Why would there be a difference between wireless and wired?

Service provisioning in a mobile network is at the device level and tied to an 
individual vs. at a home shared across many devices & people. So just starting 
off there is more visibility to say X traffic is related to Y person. Then 
there’s location data to know roughly where that person/device is traveling. 
Also most carriers have software installed on the device as part of the 
provisioning/authentication function and I think there are historical cases 
where that provided some visibility into other apps on the device. In any case, 
it seems the most value (to advertisers & data brokers) is in the location data 
and I think that’s where all the scrutiny on MNOs has been recently.



JL

Re: Do ISP's collect and analyze traffic of users?

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

+1 to what Josh writes below. I would also differentiate between mobile 
networks (service provisioned to individual devices & often carrier s/w on the 
device) and wireline networks (home devices behind a router/gateway/NAT).

I just don't think sale of data is a business for wireline ISPs. If it were - 
given most companies are public - you'd see it in SEC 10K filings and on 
earnings calls. Indeed, they'd be required to talk about it with investors if 
it was a material revenue stream. I see none of that. Rather, the focus is on 
subscription revenue. If you want to know about data monetization - focus on 
services you don't pay for...

Jason

From: NANOG  on 
behalf of Josh Luthman 
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 09:43
To: Tom Beecher 
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: Do ISP's collect and analyze traffic of users?

Our ISP does not collect (nor obviously sell) customer information/traffic.  
People volunteer all of their information on Facebook/Twitter/etc already, I'm 
not sure I see a concern.

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 9:07 AM Tom Beecher 
mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:
I did see an article about Team Cymru selling netflow data from ISPs to 
governments though.

Team Cymru sold the same thing to the FBI Cyber Crimes division that any of us 
could purchase if we wanted to pay for it.

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 8:52 AM Rishi Panthee 
mailto:rishipant...@ryamer.com>> wrote:
I’ve got Akvorado and netflow to identify where traffic comes in/goes to so we 
can improve our peering and make less traffic go via transit. I did see an 
article about Team Cymru selling netflow data from ISPs to governments though. 
https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy3z9a/fbi-bought-netflow-data-team-cymru-contract


Rishi Panthee
Ryamer LLC
Https://ryamer.com
rishipant...@ryamer.com



On May 15, 2023, at 5:59 PM, Michael Thomas 
mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:


And maybe try to monetize it? I'm pretty sure that they can be compelled to do 
that, but do they do it for their own reasons too? Or is this way too much 
overhead to be doing en mass? (I vaguely recall that netflow, for example, can 
make routers unhappy if there is too much "flow").

Obviously this is likely to depend on local laws but since this is NANOG we can 
limit it to here.

Mike

Re: Google Speed Test

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

No only that - NDT is not even an actual speed test*. That it continues to show 
as the top sponsored result for "speed test" searches is a real shame.

Jason

* It does not test the aggregate throughput of a connection, merely what one 
TCP connection can achieve. It is actually a diagnostic tool for network 
issues, not a speed test tool. There are many academic papers on this point. 

On 12/28/22, 16:06, "NANOG on behalf of Mike Hammett" 
mailto:cable.comcast@nanog.org> on behalf of na...@ics-il.net 
> wrote:


Searching Google for speed test presents a speedtest that runs on MLab, which 
doesn't necessarily run on Google's network.




https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.measurementlab.net/status/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwWQ70Bnpk$
 

 








- 
Mike Hammett 
[ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.ics-il.com/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwWE1KOXn8$
 

 | Intelligent Computing Solutions ] 
[ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwWN8kTyFM$
 

 ] [ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://plus.google.com/ 
*IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb__;Kw!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwWyfDJ67I$
 ] [ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwW5GdYcRo$
 

 ] [ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://twitter.com/ICSIL__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwW5nERioA$
 

 ] 
[ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.midwest-ix.com/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwWsC2DGiQ$
 

 | Midwest Internet Exchange ] 
[ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwW5h6AV_s$
 

 ] [ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwWRA-6ve8$
 

 ] [ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://twitter.com/mdwestix__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwWajMFNno$
 

 ] 
[ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwWIkfSn0I$
 

 | The Brothers WISP ] 
[ 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp__;!!CQl3mcHX2A!AXTH5qHtoCDzoYH8aeShwDgJysScY_UfZbS-gzFgEeOaygOuehhNh9F6-51JY75jUTmOruJbKvfVSdwW-dREZog$
 

 ] [ 

Comcast Network Peer Survey on DSCP/ECN for L4S

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

Hi – Comcast is working on the implementation of ultra-low latency networking, 
leveraging the IETF’s upcoming L4S standard. This standard will require passing 
ECN and DSCP markings across network boundaries. As a result, we are interested 
in your perspective on this and in how you handle markings today. We have a 
short survey that should only take a few minutes to complete. Take the survey 
at https://forms.office.com/r/vGb0LUXfS1

While any network operator is welcome to take this, we are particularly 
interested in any networks that are directly interconnected with us today.

Thank you!
Jason Livingood
Comcast – Technology Policy & Standards
jason_living...@comcast.com



PS – Apologies if any of you get a duplicate of this request via other channels.

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> is gatekeeping what users MIGHT do, and/or deciding based on corner cases 
> helpful to this discussion?
(this isn't meant as a note directly to dorn, just a convenient place to 
interject)
> Aside from planning based on a formula like Jason Livingood's plan... OR 
> based on build/deploy/upgrade costs into pricing.
most of the rest of the conversation here sounds like gatekeeping:
> "Well, who needs that anyway?"

Good point. IMO, trying to guess at user needs is a bit of a fool's errand, 
because user needs are so diverse and constantly changing based on the 
push-pull of their interests and application capabilities. So I don’t think it 
is even worth trying. Rather, if you are building a network or giving grants to 
support that, make sure the network technology is flexible/adaptive to be able 
to grow capacity over time, and then define some required minimum of per-home 
capacity based on the trailing CAGR formula I proposed. That'll be good enough 
& adapts based on user demand/behavior and app availability/capability.

JL

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> I think peak demand should be flattening in the past year? There's
only so much 4k video to consume, so many big games to download?

I doubt it - demand continues to grow at a pretty normal year-over-year rate 
and has been doing so for 25+ years. I don't see that sort of trajectory 
changing.

JL

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

A related observation – years ago we gave cable modem bootfiles to a group of 
customers that had no rate shaping according to their subscription and compared 
that to existing customers (with an academic researcher). The experiment group 
did not know of the change, so it could not influence their behavior. We 
observed that peak demand generally hit a plateau that was well below available 
capacity & this was driven by existing applications & associated user behavior. 
There’s obviously a chicken-or-egg problem with capacity & apps to use that 
capacity, but most ISPs raise end user speeds at least annually and try to stay 
ahead of increases in peak demand.

JL

From: NANOG  on 
behalf of Jim Troutman 
Date: Monday, June 6, 2022 at 19:29
To: Tony Wicks 
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

Some usage data:

On a rural FTTX XGS-PON network with primarily 1Gig symmetric customers, I see 
about 1.5mbit/customer average inbound across 7 days, peaks at about 
10mbit/customer, with 1 minute polling.  Zero congestion in middle mile, 
transit or peering.

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

>> The challenge is any definition of capacity (speed) requirements is only a 
>> point-in-time gauge of sufficiency given the mix of apps popular at the time 
>> & any such point-in-time gauge will look silly in retrospect. ;-) If I were 
>> a policy-maker in this space I would "inflation-adjust" the speeds for the 
>> future. In order to adapt to recent changes in user behavior and 
>> applications, I'd do that on a trailing 2-year basis (not too short nor too 
>> long a timeframe) and update the future-need forecast annually. And CAGR 
>> could be derived from a sample across multiple networks or countries. In 
>> practice, that would mean looking at the CAGR for the last 2 years for US 
>> and DS and then projecting that growth rate into future years. So if you say 
>> 35% CAGR for both US and DS and project out the commonplace need/usage then 
>> 100 Mbps / 10 Mbps becomes as follows below. If some new apps emerge that 
>> start driving something like US at a higher CAGR then future years 
>> automatically get adjusted on an annual basis.

> So what happens if the Next Big Thing requires a lot of upstream? It's
always been sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy that people won't use a
lot of upstream because there isn't enough upstream. The pandemic pretty
much blew that away with video conferencing, etc.

That shows up as increased user demand (usage), which means that the CAGR will 
rise and get factored into future year projections. So if the CAGR for US goes 
from 35% to 75% then when you annually update the requirement and project that 
CAGR forward, you will have higher future BB numbers that grows the US 
requirement at a faster rate. That is I think the benefit to a system that uses 
trailing demand to forecast forward with growing year-over-year BB numbers. You 
can debate whether 2-year trailing CAGR is better than 1-year, but conceptually 
the idea is that future BB numbers should be 'indexed to inflation' - so grow 
year-over-year based on past actual growth rates rather than a once-a-decade BB 
definition that is not driven by actual demand and is arguably theoretical.

Jason

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

>> Saying most people don't need more than 25 Mbps is like saying 640k is
 >> enough for anybody.

The challenge is any definition of capacity (speed) requirements is only a 
point-in-time gauge of sufficiency given the mix of apps popular at the time & 
any such point-in-time gauge will look silly in retrospect. ;-) If I were a 
policy-maker in this space I would "inflation-adjust" the speeds for the 
future. In order to adapt to recent changes in user behavior and applications, 
I'd do that on a trailing 2-year basis (not too short nor too long a timeframe) 
and update the future-need forecast annually. And CAGR could be derived from a 
sample across multiple networks or countries. In practice, that would mean 
looking at the CAGR for the last 2 years for US and DS and then projecting that 
growth rate into future years. So if you say 35% CAGR for both US and DS and 
project out the commonplace need/usage then 100 Mbps / 10 Mbps becomes as 
follows below. If some new apps emerge that start driving something like US at 
a higher CAGR then future years automatically get adjusted on an annual basis.

Of course 100/10 is an arbitrary benchmark for illustrative purposes, as is the 
suggested 35% CAGR. I suspect that in the case of US, the Internet will see 
much more significant growth in US demand and that new applications will emerge 
to take advantage of that & further drive demand growth (similarly for low 
latency networking).

Jason

DS
2022100
2023135
2024182
2025246
2026332
2027448
2028605
2029817
20301,103
20311,489
20322,011

US
202210
202314
202418
202525
202633
202745
202861
202982
2030110
2031149
2032201

/eom

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> This is going to be very painful and difficult for a number of DOCSIS3 
> operators, including some of the largest ISPs in the USA with multi-millions 
> of subscribers with tons of legacy coax plant that have no intention of ever 
> changing the RF channel setup and downstream/upstream asymmetric bandwidth 
> allocation to provide more than 15-20Mbps upstream per home.

All the large DOCSIS networks of which I am aware are in fact working on 
changing their spectrum plan and physical layer to enable higher US speeds and 
in some cases symmetric multi-gig services.

JL

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> Latency is a limitation for things that are generally relatively low 
> bandwidth (interactive audio, zoom, etc.).
> Higher bandwidth won’t solve the latency problem

+1
IMO as we enter the 'post-gigabit era', an extra 1 Gbps to the home will matter 
less than 100 ms or 500 ms lower working latency (optimally sub-50 ms, if not 
sub-25 ms). The past is exclusively speed-focused -- the future will be speed + 
working latency + reliability/resiliency + consistency of QoE + 
security/protection + WiFi LAN quality.

Jason

Re: RPKI adoption (was: Re: 2749 routes AT RISK )

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

From: NANOG  on 
behalf of John Curran 

> Along these lines, I’d like to remind everyone of a fairly important 
> consultation that Andrew Hadenfeldt posted here last month

> (FCC) seeks comment on vulnerabilities threatening the security and integrity 
> of
the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP)...
> Comments are due on or before April 11, 2022
> If you have particular views on this important consultation, please take the 
> time to file comments as appropriate.

+1 to this suggestion to file comments - IMO there is always value in comments 
from technical experts. If you have not done so before, this may help:

•   Comments are due: April 11, 2022 & Reply Comments are due: May 10, 2022
•   Can file earlier than these dates, but no later.
•   File comments in the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at 
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings/standard in docket CG Docket No. 22-90 (in the 
“Proceeding(s)” box, type in “22-90” and click on the option that populates: 
“Secure Internet Routing”
•   Fill in all other required information.  For “Type of Filing,” choose 
“Comment” or “Reply to Comments” (as applicable) from the drop-down menu.
•   Disregard the fields labeled File Number, Report Number, and Bureau ID 
Number.
•   Upload document as a PDF.
•   Check the box for “Email Confirmation” and then “Continue to review 
screen” where you will submit the comments into the record.

Jason

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> I asked him to remotely reboot the modem because there was high packet loss.



FWIW, as a customer (assuming residential), you can login to the website and 
check for area outages/impairments at 
https://www.xfinity.com/support/status-map. You can also use the Xfinity app to 
remotely reboot your cable modem, run diagnostics/check for outages, etc. See 
https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/check-service-outage



> Both times I've talked with him, he noted the high packet loss, started to 
> reboot the modem, and then asked me point-blank if we had any PoE switches on 
> our network.



High packet loss typically suggests an RF impairment of some type. I don’t know 
how to explain the PoE comment but am happy to look at your connection if you 
want to email me off-list.



> I said "it's up and working fine, why would I reboot it?".



In some cases a reboot will trigger a pull of the latest firmware, which might 
include security fixes, performance improvements, and other changes.



Jason

Re: PoE, Comcast Modems, and Service Outages

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

>  Their crappy equipment needing rebooting every few weeks, not ridiculous.
> Their purchasing gear from incompetent vendors who cannot be standards
compliant for PoE PD negotiation, tragically plausible.

Many customers buy their own cable modem. You can lease an Xfinity device as 
well and those function pretty nicely these days but YMMV. But typically a 
device reboot is a way to quickly solve a few different kinds of problems, 
which is why techs will often recommend it as an initial step (you can 
generally assume that there's data behind what occurs when any one of tens of 
thousands of support reps suggesting something to a customer - support at scale 
is data-driven).

>He's got graphs showing it every 24 hours?  Liar, liar, pants on fire,
lazy SOB is looking for an excuse to clear you off the line.

Could well be from noise ingress - lots of work goes into finding & fixing 
ingress issues. Hard to say unless we look in detail at the connection in 
question and the neighborhood node.

JL

Re: Bufferbloat and the pandemic was: V6 still not supported

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

>  Given the tremendous growth of video conferencing  which strains the
upstream, I wonder how many calls ISP's are getting because the
"internet is slow" which is attributable to bufferbloat. Is there really
anything that ISP can do if they don't supply the ÇPE? What percentage
of providers do supply the CPE in the form of cable and dsl modems, etc,
that they could solve the problem with a swap out?

In my experience this is not really a problem of lack of bandwidth (not to say 
that this is not important) but of queue behavior (the issue is at root one of 
'working latency'). So you can solve this for example with AQM. But solving it 
on the CPE only moves the bottleneck to the LAN/WLAN (in which case use 
distributed APs, optimally with Ethernet backhaul to the CPE). Next on the 
horizon is dual queue - which is in discussion at the IETF (TSVWG).

Check out the paper at 
https://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/NFR5137-Videoconferencing_Internet_Requirements.pdf
 and see Figure 8. This suggests the network (WLAN to server) has a budget of 
130-280 ms of delay (latency), depending on the video conferencing app. See 
also my paper about AQM deployment at https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.13968 and the 
recent BITAG paper on the subject at 
https://www.bitag.org/documents/BITAG_latency_explained.pdf.

Also, if you have Mac OS check out the cool new "responsiveness" tool from 
Apple: 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/113attendees/gfvFljIMgsmCTUUPs9TMeBA2wFU/

Jason

Re: Comcast? Layer2 / ELAN

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

I’ll reply off-list in a sec

From: NANOG  on 
behalf of Joe Carroll 
Date: Friday, October 29, 2021 at 14:16
To: nanog list 
Subject: Comcast? Layer2 / ELAN

Greetings Fellow Nanog'ers

Are there any Comcast engineers in the group that could help to sort out a 10GB 
layer2 ELAN issue in Florida?

We are short of cancelling this circuit that has been in for a couple of days.

We cannot pass above 1GB on this circuit...  10GB SFPs on both ends, 10GB 
price, 1GB service...   the team refuses to investigate, dispatch, or otherwise 
act in any way that is customer oriented.

Regards,
-Joe

Re: Comcast Customer Owned Modem Firmware : WAS : Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> Does Comcast actually allow customers who own their own modems full 
> management of the modem firmware? As far as I have been aware since my time 
> at Adelphia 20-odd years ago, that has never been allowed by provider; all 
> users of a given model had the same firmware enforced, customer owned or 
> leased didn't matter.

No and I am not aware of any DOCSIS network operator that does permit that. But 
we are very responsive to firmware updates from the OEMs and try to quickly 
test & deploy those. See for example: 
https://kb.netgear.com/36375/What-s-the-latest-firmware-version-of-my-NETGEAR-cable-modem-or-modem-router

Thx
Jason

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

On 9/13/21, 12:02, "Owen DeLong"  wrote:
> Yes, but it’s tragically opt-out instead of opt-in as it should be.

It is not a default for an Internet access service. It comes bundled as one of 
several features in an optional add on service. See 
https://www.xfinity.com/learn/internet-service/modems-and-routers for details. 
This is targeted at the average consumer, particularly those that may want 
parental controls, mesh WiFi, a voice port, and so on - so not really targeted 
at NANOG list subs like us. ;-) That said, I have an XB7 modem at home and 
really like it a lot - especially the new AQM feature that dramatically lowered 
working latency.

> That means that anyone whose site happens to get miscategorized by them gets 
> the added costs of dealing with the user complaints instead of Comcast having 
> to bear the costs of their error.

As my other reply noted, this service uses a bunch of 3rd party services and it 
is those 3rd parties that maintain the lists (a la anti-spam and anti-phishing 
email list vendors). So if an IP/FQDN/URL happens to be on "our" list it is 
very likely getting filtered/blocked in a lot of network places because it is 
on a well-known independent list.

BUT, how do we know that was even the case here? Do we have a traceroute or a 
screen shot of an error or block message? We seem to have concluded it was 
blocked by a content filter but what technical evidence do we have (that can 
help troubleshoot)? I know you are not the OP (it is Chris) - but I'd love to 
know more technical detail and I am in communication off-list with the OP 
(along with my colleague Tony Tauber, who was the first to reach out to Chris 
1:1).

Jason

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

As Alex said, you can submit a request to review a block at 
https://spa.xfinity.com.
 Note that this service relies substantially on 3rd party list sources – so if 
any IP/FQDN appears on other lists (e.g. webroot and similar) then it may be 
here as well. So you may want to take a look more broadly, especially if you 
rely on any virtual infrastructure.

Thanks
Jason

From: NANOG  on 
behalf of Jason Kuehl 
Date: Friday, September 10, 2021 at 11:10
To: Jim Popovitch 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

This is an SSL VPN that is being blocked. This is what failure looks like. Curl 
is the same.

Once we disable the Xfi  Advanced Security everyone can connect.

[cid:ii_ktehov470]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 11:01 AM Jim Popovitch via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
On Fri, 2021-09-10 at 10:31 -0400, Jason Kuehl wrote:
> For whatever reason Comcast Xfinity is blocking my VPN URL.

Not certain that this applies, but Concast Advanced Security (setup in
your Comcast gateway) only allows outbound VPN connections to UDP ports
500, 4500, and 62515 and TCP port 1723.

-Jim P.


--
Sincerely,

Jason W Kuehl
Cell 920-419-8983
jason.w.ku...@gmail.com

Re: Xfi Advances Security (comcast)

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

On 9/10/21, 10:58, "NANOG on behalf of Chris Boyd" 
 wrote:

> Why is Comcast blocking things? That seems like it’s out of scope for an ISP.

For Internet access, sure. But ISPs also have value added protection services 
and this part of an optional content filtering service that is integrated into 
the leased Comcast gateways. Users can turn on things like parental controls, 
including time limit and time-of-day boundaries for certain devices (e.g. cut 
off kid's game console Internet access at midnight on school nights). See 
https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/using-xfinity-xfi-advanced-security

Jason

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

Does not need to be – just a suggestion based on the thinking that these 
locales may have more dense populations and thus perhaps higher FTTH 
penetration for a longer period of time. But the data from any network will 
certainly have some interest.

From: Josh Luthman 
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 11:36
To: "Livingood, Jason" 
Cc: Abhi Devireddy , "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

Why does it have to be non-US?

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:20 AM Livingood, Jason via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote:
> I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage was more 
> asymmetric. The last 5 yrs. have definitely changed the profile of a typical 
> home user. A 4M upload pipe, will hit bottlenecks with all the collaboration 
> that is happening remotely.

I'm not sure ratio is the right thing to focus upon - especially as asymmetry 
has grown the last few years due to the rising using of streaming video 
services and greater availability of 4K-resolution content. Ratio seems like 
more a reflection of current applications and usage patterns. (It would be 
fascinating to see a non-US FTTH provider that was 1G/1G or greater share their 
actual usage ratio.)

JL

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

I have seen a lot of questions about what is needed for 
video/eLearning/telehealth. IMO the beauty of those apps is that they use 
adaptive bitrate protocols and can work in a wide range of last mile 
environments – even quite acceptably via mobile network while you are in 
transit. In my experience most of the challenges people experience are due to 
home LAN (especially WiFi) issues, with working latency an underlying issue 
(aka latency under load).

Some recent papers from NetForecast on video conferencing 
(https://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/NFR5137-Videoconferencing_Internet_Requirements.pdf)
 and eLearning 
(https://www.netforecast.com/wp-content/uploads/NFR5141-eLearning-Bandwidth-Requirements.Final_.pdf)
 were based on observed actual usage rather than theoreticals. What caught my 
eye was their unique focus in the 1st paper in Figure 8 – laying out the 
rationale for a network “latency budget”. In essence, after 580 ms of delay 
someone will notice audio delay and feel the session is bad. A conference 
platform’s clients & servers may use up 300 ms of their own in processing, 
leaving about 280 ms for the network. If you working latency starts to exceed 
that on the LAN (not uncommon) then user QoE degrades.

JL

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> I think the 10:1 ratio might have been great 5 years ago, when usage was more 
> asymmetric. The last 5 yrs. have definitely changed the profile of a typical 
> home user. A 4M upload pipe, will hit bottlenecks with all the collaboration 
> that is happening remotely.

I'm not sure ratio is the right thing to focus upon - especially as asymmetry 
has grown the last few years due to the rising using of streaming video 
services and greater availability of 4K-resolution content. Ratio seems like 
more a reflection of current applications and usage patterns. (It would be 
fascinating to see a non-US FTTH provider that was 1G/1G or greater share their 
actual usage ratio.)

JL

Re: Comcast routine maintenance.

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

Please accept our apologies for the wording of that notice. I looked at the 
ticket and it is emergency unplanned physical network repair. I appreciate your 
patience as a customer and am happy to provide further info or assistance if 
you’d like (just ping me off-list).

Jason

From: NANOG  on 
behalf of Andrey Khomyakov 
Date: Friday, February 5, 2021 at 3:32 PM
To: Nanog 
Subject: Comcast routine maintenance.

Who thought that doing a routine maintenance that covers a whole business day 
during a pandemic stay at home order was a better option than doing it, say, I 
don’t know, at midnight on Sunday for example?

This is the message right now on Comcast status webpage
“Internet unavailable
We're currently performing routine system maintenance. This may cause an 
interruption to your service. We began work on 02/05/2021 09:42 AM (Pacific), 
and this is expected to end on 02/05/2021 03:30 PM (Pacific). We appreciate 
your patience.”

Re: NDAA passed: Internet and Online Streaming Services Emergency Alert Study

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

>  If YouTube can mash back-to-back unskippable ads on demand into content, 
> they can put an emergency alert in there, and I bet people would like them 
> more than the ads.

+1 to that. If a real-time ad exchange can run a market auction to serve you 
highly targeted ads in fractions of a second I am sure it is technically 
possible to match an alert to a broad geo area and serve an emergency alert.

> Solution, seeking problem  which explains why it's coming out of the federal 
> government.  Can't we just scrap it and have that tax money back please, 
> mkay?  How about we NOT build another mechanism for the government to incite 
> panic?  Did we learn nothing from 2020?

I suggest that EAS & E911 are pretty important services that society relies 
upon and does save lives (e.g. tornado warnings via EAS) when seconds make a 
difference. As people move to new devices & services these services should 
follow & evolve - ranging from EAS via video streaming to E911 over 
text/video/VoIP.

Jason

Re: Cable Company Hotspots

[Livingood, Jason via NANOG]

> Unclear wether it’s over a separately provisioned bandwidth channel, or 
> wether it shares the aggregate capacity of the HFC.

In the Comcast network it uses separately-provisioned bandwidth in the access 
network.

- Jason