North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
NANOG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 19
- From: nanog-request
- Date: Mon Aug 09 22:49:17 2010
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
nanog@nanog.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
nanog-request@nanog.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
nanog-owner@nanog.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster (Joly MacFie)
2. Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster (Zaid Ali)
3. Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster (Joly MacFie)
4. Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
(Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
5. Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet
bubble (Roland Perry)
6. Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster (Matthew Palmer)
7. Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet
bubble (Kenny Sallee)
8. Looking for a Illinois Century Network(AS6325) contact
(courtneysmith@comcast.net)
9. Re: Proxy Server (Matthew Walster)
10. Example RFI for colo provider selection (Jason Lixfeld)
11. Re: Example RFI for colo provider selection (Seth Mattinen)
12. Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet
bubble (Randy Bush)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:52:22 -0400
From: Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
To: Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=BKNtOL+7B5E+F2oUqeYb+YEe4KaKTcx7OACSu@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Surely "differentiated services" could include a 'YouTube Channel' -
something they deny in the call?
I've blogged the proposal at http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1112
j
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html
>
> Pretty boiler plate pro net neutral. The transparency requirements
> and 'differentiated services' exceptions are particularly interesting.
>
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 12:18:12 -0700
From: Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com>
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
To: Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>, Jason Iannone
<jason.iannone@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <C885A284.5C656%zaid@zaidali.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet inspection
which violates every users privacy.
Zaid
On 8/9/10 11:52 AM, "Joly MacFie" <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
> Surely "differentiated services" could include a 'YouTube Channel' -
> something they deny in the call?
>
> I've blogged the proposal at http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1112
>
> j
>
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open
>> -internet.html
>>
>> Pretty boiler plate pro net neutral. The transparency requirements
>> and 'differentiated services' exceptions are particularly interesting.
>>
>>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 15:29:46 -0400
From: Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
To: Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=4mvgzoBUK9Q_rONLBpn2NqcavM=fwk2OoyumY@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Nor ensure 'lawful' content
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid@zaidali.com> wrote:
> The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
> glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
> perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet
> inspection
> which violates every users privacy.
>
> Zaid
>
>
> On 8/9/10 11:52 AM, "Joly MacFie" <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
>
> > Surely "differentiated services" could include a 'YouTube Channel' -
> > something they deny in the call?
> >
> > I've blogged the proposal at http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1112
> >
> > j
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Jason Iannone <jason.iannone@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open
> >> -internet.html
> >>
> >> Pretty boiler plate pro net neutral. The transparency requirements
> >> and 'differentiated services' exceptions are particularly interesting.
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:46:41 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
To: Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <8590.1281383201@localhost>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:29:46 EDT, Joly MacFie said:
> Nor ensure 'lawful' content
Do you *really* want to go there?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20100809/eee80771/attachment-0001.pgp
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 21:29:12 +0100
From: Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com>
Subject: Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet
bubble
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <H2iWSoiYUGYMFAYE@perry.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
In article <4C6030BF.1030306@foobar.org>, Nick Hilliard
<nick@foobar.org> writes
>On 09/08/2010 16:12, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> I think, from another list about 2 yrs ago, the person responsible for
>> this data inside the company at the time (now not there) said someone
>> misinterpreted his stats/numbers...
>
>No doubt this is true. And I note we haven't even started discussing
>whether this "doubling every N time periods" refers to bit-rate, bytes
>passed or daily max.
In the case of LINX traffic it was bits-per-second; any of: average,
peak or total per day, because the shape of the daily and weekly curve
didn't change much even over a period of years.
>I would have said that most networks during that period had occasional
>burst growth rates of up to 100% within 100 days. The growth curve
>second derivative is usually much bumpier than the first derivative.
>So, regardless of source, the quotation is a truism, an urban myth and
>ultimately means very little.
Growth at LINX was extremely steady (being an aggregate of over a
hundred operators).
--
Roland Perry
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:30:27 +1000
From: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <20100809213027.GF12712@hezmatt.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:18:12PM -0700, Zaid Ali wrote:
> The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
> glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
> perform the proposed network management piece without deep packet inspection
> which violates every users privacy.
This is Google we're talking about here, though.
- Matt
--
MySQL seems to be the Windows of the database world. Broken, underspecced,
and mainly only popular due to inertia and people who don't really know what
they're doing.
-- Peter Corlett, in the Monastery
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:01:00 -0700
From: Kenny Sallee <kenny.sallee@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet
bubble
To: Jessica Yu <jyy_99@yahoo.com>, Andrew Odlyzko <odlyzko@umn.edu>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=MsYAfA5EttFjpo71Bq1fUB+RSyBRgD4HEeHca@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Jessica Yu <jyy_99@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I do not know if making such distinction would alter the conclusion of your
> paper. But, to me, there is a difference between one to predict the growth
> of
> one particular network based on the stats collected than one to predict the
> growth of the entire Internet with no solid data.
> Thanks!--Jessica
>
Agree with Jessica: you can't say the 'Internet' doubles every x number of
days/amount of time no matter what the number of days or amount of time is.
The 'Internet' is a series of tubes...hahaha couldn't help it....As we all
know the Internet is a bunch of providers plugged into each other. Provider
A may see an 10x increase in traffic every month while provider B may not.
For example, if Google makes a deal with Verizon only Verizon will see a
huge increase in traffic internally and less externally (or vice versa).
Until Google goes somewhere else! So the whole 'myth' of Internet doubling
every 100 days to me is something someone (ODell it seems) made up to
appease someone higher in the chain or a government committee that really
doesn't get it. IE - it's marketing talk to quantify something. I guess if
all the ISP's in the world provided a central repository bandwidth numbers
they have on their backbone then you could make up some stats about Internet
traffic as a whole. But without that - it just doesn't make much sense.
Just my .02
Kenny
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 23:01:04 +0000 (UTC)
From: courtneysmith@comcast.net
Subject: Looking for a Illinois Century Network(AS6325) contact
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID:
<1413372419.1040873.1281394864985.JavaMail.root@sz0003a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Looking for a network engineering contact at ICN(AS6325). I'm trying to find out if they have BGP communities for their customers to use. Please reply off list. Thanks.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 01:30:05 +0100
From: Matthew Walster <matthew@walster.org>
Subject: Re: Proxy Server
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimecmXcpXuDng+8YxKfVcSFwpifonof74iHHooP@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 6 August 2010 22:04, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> Apparently it can be made to work:
Indeed, I used the above instructions to setup IPv6 on my home pfSense
box, with the upstream being a HurricaneElectric v6v4 tunnel. It
worked very well - though it only worked with RA, there's obviously no
dhcp6 implementation installed/supported.
M
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 20:48:15 -0400
From: Jason Lixfeld <jason@lixfeld.ca>
Subject: Example RFI for colo provider selection
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <F839B4CC-A2E2-4191-821E-D51C37E39092@lixfeld.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
I'm researching a list of some colocation providers I have here to find the most suitable one to provide services for a project I'm working on. My thought is to send out an informal RFI, which I believe is something others may have done too. If anyone is able to share, I'd be interested in having a peek at some of these colo-centric RFIs to understand what questions others have asked in the past, as it may help me come up with some questions that I may not have thought of myself.
If an RFI isn't an appropriate means to gather information on such a prospect, I'd certainly like to hear that too.
Thanks in advance.
PS. To any reader who may be thinking this is an open invitation for a sales email, it's not :)
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:39:19 -0700
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
Subject: Re: Example RFI for colo provider selection
To: nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID: <4C60ADC7.3070405@rollernet.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 8/9/2010 17:48, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> I'm researching a list of some colocation providers I have here to find the most suitable one to provide services for a project I'm working on. My thought is to send out an informal RFI, which I believe is something others may have done too. If anyone is able to share, I'd be interested in having a peek at some of these colo-centric RFIs to understand what questions others have asked in the past, as it may help me come up with some questions that I may not have thought of myself.
>
> If an RFI isn't an appropriate means to gather information on such a prospect, I'd certainly like to hear that too.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> PS. To any reader who may be thinking this is an open invitation for a sales email, it's not :)
Pretty much every first contact I see is along the lines of "I have the
following requirements X, Y, and Z. Please provide a quote to suit
these." The format of these may vary wildly.
As far as questions to ask, IPv6 is always on the top of my list but
almost always makes the viable prospects list pretty slim. Power *type*
availability is often overlooked (i.e. 208 volts or three-phase) until
the fateful day you need more than single phase 120 to run something and
the colo says oops not available.
~Seth
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 19:46:39 -0700
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Subject: Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet
bubble
To: "Frank A. Coluccio" <frank@fttx.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, Andrew Odlyzko <odlyzko@umn.edu>
Message-ID: <m27hjzxjzk.wl%randy@psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Distance * bit-rate equals capacity? What happened to the 'traffic'
> component?
traffic is not a component of capacity. capicity is an upper bound on
traffic.
randy
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
End of NANOG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 19
*************************************
|
