unsubscribe

Fri Mar 12 16:05:18 UTC 2010

Please review the link at the very bottom of every email for  
instructions on how to unsubscribe.

--
Joel Esler
Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:27 AM, "Ramsden, Colt" <CTR002 at SHSU.EDU> wrote:

> 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
> *************************************
>