unsubscribe

Ramsden, Colt CTR002 at SHSU.EDU
Fri Mar 12 09:27:31 CST 2010


unsubscribe

--
Colt Ramsden
Programmer Analyst II
Sam Houston State University
936.294.4488 - ramsden at shsu.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: nanog-request at nanog.org [mailto:nanog-request at nanog.org]
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 8:46 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 61

Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
        nanog at 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 at nanog.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        nanog-owner at 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: IP4 Space (Tim Chown)
   2. Re: YouTube AS36561 began announcing 1.0.0.0/8
      (Patrick W. Gilmore)
   3. FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Marshall Eubanks)
   4. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Jared Mauch)
   5. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Randy Bush)
   6. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Alan Clegg)
   7. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Joe Greco)
   8. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Joe Greco)
   9. Re: 10GBase-t switch (Joe Provo)
  10. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Sean Donelan)
  11. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Joe Greco)
  12. Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool (Bret Clark)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:24:49 +0000
From: Tim Chown <tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: IP4 Space
To: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID:
        <EMEW3|8307ebe537c701ca160c7121d1426ccbm2BCOp03tjc|login.ecs.soton.ac.uk|20100312122449.GK21233 at login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 11:42:50AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Does it make sense/work to do this for internal operations even if our
> > outside connections are IPv4 only (forget about tunneling).  Even more
> > mundane questions like how to deal with IPv4 only networked printers
> > when everything else is IPv6?
>
> As for IPv4 only printers you can continue to run dual stack
> internally forever if you want.  Otherwise put them on their
> own vlan and connect to them over NAT64 or run a proxy service.

Our approach to v6 deployment has always been about enabling capability
where it is available.   The trick is then to have the right tools to
manage and monitor it.

The interesting thing about printers is that even quite low end network
printers (like the HP Laserjet I have) have had IPv6 for quite a while.
You can even configure DHCPv6 on the one I'm using.

Just look for capabilities/features as you refresh equipment and it
makes things that little easier.

Tim



------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:34:10 -0500
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick at ianai.net>
Subject: Re: YouTube AS36561 began announcing 1.0.0.0/8
To: NANOG list <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <6221C75D-A46C-457C-AC28-95D32ABA28D1 at ianai.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:52 AM, Nathan wrote:

> I'm hoping to alleviate the "what's going on!?" type messages here this time. :)

Oh, I understand what's going on exactly.  YouTube is trying to balance their ratios. :)

--
TTFN,
patrick


> Here's an except from the APNIC provided LOA I provided to a couple
> networks, to carry a new announcement...
>
> "To whom it may concern,
>
> APNIC and YouTube are cooperating in a project to investigate the
> properties of unwanted traffic that is being sent to specific
> destinations in the address block of 1.0.0.0/8. This address block has
> been recently allocated to APNIC from the IANA, and
> APNIC and YouTube are wanting to undertake this investigation prior to
> the commencement of ordinary allocations.
> Accordingly, APNIC authorizes AS36351 to periodically advertise a
> route for 1.0.0.0/8 from now until 21 March 2010, and
> requests that AS36351's peers and upstreams accept this as a
> legitimate routing advertisement."
>
>
> In a continuation of last weeks experiments... we are now announcing
> 1.0.0.0/8 instead of 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.2.3.0/24.
>
> Cheers
> ,N (nathan at youtube.com - AS36561)
>




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:43:22 -0500
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme at americafree.tv>
Subject: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
To: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <9085B96B-EF03-4BC9-86C7-BC096D5E3A63 at americafree.tv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

This might be useful to some.

Article :

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312

site :

http://www.broadband.gov/

It requires giving your address.

Regards
Marshall



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:55:39 -0500
From: Jared Mauch <jared at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
To: Marshall Eubanks <tme at americafree.tv>
Cc: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <B72B6C72-EDA0-4CB4-BC1A-E61220B69C49 at puck.nether.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

If you have fios please don't use this, if you have relatives with dial, make them use it :)

- Jared

On Mar 12, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> This might be useful to some.
>
> Article :
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312
>
> site :
>
> http://www.broadband.gov/
>
> It requires giving your address.
>
> Regards
> Marshall




------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:57:59 +0900
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
To: Marshall Eubanks <tme at americafree.tv>
Cc: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <m2hbolvdzs.wl%randy at psg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

> http://www.broadband.gov/

i suspect the bandwidth tests are a bit latency sensitive

> It requires giving your address.

did not really like a tokyo postal code

randy



------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:08:20 -0500
From: Alan Clegg <alan at clegg.com>
Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
Cc: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <4B9A4AD4.6000409 at clegg.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> http://www.broadband.gov/

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.broadband.gov.      86400 IN A 4.21.126.148
www.broadband.gov.      86400 IN RRSIG A 7 3 86400 20100309192609 (
                                20091209192609 46640 broadband.gov.
                                [...]  )

Expired signatures... zone won't validate.

AlanC

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/nanog/attachments/20100312/a0da8a12/attachment-0001.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:16:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net>
Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
To: tme at americafree.tv (Marshall Eubanks)
Cc: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <201003121416.o2CEGTRv093042 at aurora.sol.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> This might be useful to some.
>
> Article :
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62B08720100312
>
> site :
>
> http://www.broadband.gov/
>
> It requires giving your address.

Correction:  it _requires_ Java.  It _asks_ for your address.  It seems
like it'd work fine if you gave it your neighbor's address.  :-)

I noted that I got wildly varying numbers on a laptop and an iPhone (there
is also an iPhone app) and the iPhone app doesn't ask for an address.  Both
on the same wifi, and the numbers were off by a lot.

... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.



------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:24:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net>
Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
To: jgreco at ns.sol.net (Joe Greco)
Cc: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <201003121424.o2CEO9Ga093249 at aurora.sol.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> I noted that I got wildly varying numbers on a laptop and an iPhone (there
> is also an iPhone app) and the iPhone app doesn't ask for an address.  Both
> on the same wifi and connection, and the numbers were off by a lot.

And I meant to include examples, but fingers committed the message
before I could stop 'em.  Sorry.

PC/mLab:

Download speed: 4150kbps
Upload speed:   2364kpbs

PC/Ookla:

Download speed: 5044kbps
Upload speed:   1120Kbps

iPhone:

Download speed: 1.75Mbps
Upload speed:   0.23Mbps

I've gotten strange stuff each time I've tried their tests.  I
particularly like the factor of 10 difference in upload speeds.

... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.



------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:27:50 -0500
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post at rsuc.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: 10GBase-t switch
To: nanog at nanog.org
Message-ID: <20100312142750.GA53028 at gweep.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 09:30:38PM +0000, Paolo Lucente wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:20:41PM +0100, Arnold Nipper wrote:
> > On 11.03.2010 16:29 Dylan Ebner wrote
> >
> > > Do the Arista switches support netflow? From a management perspective
> > > netflow can be vital. This is something we have been unhappy with on
> > > our 3560 and 3750 cisco's.
> > >
> >
> > They don't (yet). Given you buy enoughboxes, Arista may be willing to
> > implement this feature. Would like to have this as well.
>
> And if you have to request a vendor of L2 devices to implement something
> in this sense then definitely ask for sFlow.

If 10GTX isn't a hard requirement, SPF+ & CX4 are supported in a similar
price/perfromance point on the BNT G8124/G1000, with sFlow.

--
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE



------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:34:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Sean Donelan <sean at donelan.com>
Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
To: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.00.1003120926310.12570 at clifden.donelan.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
> I've gotten strange stuff each time I've tried their tests.  I
> particularly like the factor of 10 difference in upload speeds.

The FCC is probably doing this because US providers generally don't
release actual bandwidth, speeds or latency numbers their consumer
customers get.  Advertised numbers often don't mean anything.  If
providers want to release better data, it might help the FCC understand
the current environment.

Some US providers have published data for their business customer
connections and backbones.




------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:43:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Joe Greco <jgreco at ns.sol.net>
Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
To: sean at donelan.com (Sean Donelan)
Cc: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <201003121443.o2CEhlGJ094475 at aurora.sol.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
> > I've gotten strange stuff each time I've tried their tests.  I
> > particularly like the factor of 10 difference in upload speeds.
>
> The FCC is probably doing this because US providers generally don't
> release actual bandwidth, speeds or latency numbers their consumer
> customers get.

I understand the point behind the test.

> Advertised numbers often don't mean anything.  If
> providers want to release better data, it might help the FCC understand
> the current environment.
>
> Some US providers have published data for their business customer
> connections and backbones.

I realize that a high level of participation could result in the FCC
gaining a more complete understanding of broadband penetration, and
specific areas where there are problems.

However, I have some reservations as to whether or not the FCC will be
able to get enough people to participate in this to be able to generate
a meaningful dataset.

Further, major inconsistencies such as what I just pointed out brings
into question the validity of the test, and therefore the value.
I am not that concerned about the difference between 4Mbps and 5Mbps,
but when there's an order of magnitude difference involved...  on the
same connection...

I would guess, hopefully correctly, that Speedtest.net, Akamai, and
others already have a good handle on broadband speeds, and it seems to
me that the FCC could get a much more thorough picture of per-ISP
performance (which of course isn't street-level) simply by getting these
guys to summarize their results.

As such, the only real value I see the FCC tool offering is the potential
for visibility into things such as DSL speed/distance limitations, but in
order for that to be meaningful, you'd have to get a lot of people to run
the test.

Which brings us back to ...  I'm not entirely sure that this is a useful
strategy.

... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.



------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:45:38 -0500
From: Bret Clark <bclark at spectraaccess.com>
Subject: Re: FCC releases Internet speed test tool
To: "nanog at nanog.org list" <nanog at nanog.org>
Message-ID: <4B9A5392.3000003 at spectraaccess.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Joe Greco wrote:
>
> I've gotten strange stuff each time I've tried their tests.  I
> particularly like the factor of 10 difference in upload speeds.
>
> ... JG
>
Yeah...these test are algorithm based and rarely accurate! On our
100Mbps Internet connection (which I know handles 100Mbps) best I could
get is 10Mbps down and 14Mbps up.
Wish someone would come up with a much better mouse trap. The only test
I've ever found to be fairly accurate is iperf or a simple FTP test.



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG at nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog

End of NANOG Digest, Vol 26, Issue 61
*************************************




More information about the NANOG mailing list