NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 103

Pradeep Bangera pradeep.bangera at imdea.org
Fri Sep 23 11:45:43 CDT 2011


Dear All,

Thanks for all the replies! I would like to see more, to learn more!

Since I (Research Assistant) am not from network operations and
management domain, I am trying to model the transit pricing function. In
my research work, I am using a pricing model from this work! This
pricing model is as follows:-- Transit price = Constant * (aggregate
traffic)^0.75, which is exactly similar to the one described by Ryan
Malayter in his earlier message. Hence I am wondering, whether the
pricing should be a linear(CDR*[95th peak]) or sub-linear (like the
above)?

With Regards
Pradeep
Research Assistant
Institute IMDEA Networks
Madrid, Spain


On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 09:40 -0500, nanog-request at nanog.org wrote:

> 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: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit
>       pricing (Florian Weimer)
>    2. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
>       building a nationwide network (Owen DeLong)
>    3. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
>       building a nationwide network (John Curran)
>    4. Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
>       building a nationwide network (John Curran)
>    5. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Randy McAnally)
>    6. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (Ryan Rawdon)
>    7. Re: Verizon / FiOS network (chris)
>    8. Commercial DNS service opinions? (Jay Ashworth)
>    9. Re: Commercial DNS service opinions? (Christopher Morrow)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:15:46 +0000
> From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at bfk.de>
> To: Pradeep Bangera <pradeep.bangera at imdea.org>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit
> 	pricing
> Message-ID: <824o03ohjx.fsf at mid.bfk.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> * Pradeep Bangera:
> 
> > Question: Does this over-usage bandwidth charge a linear cost function
> > or is it sub-linear like the committed bandwidth pricing?
> 
> Percentile-based pricing is never linear.  It's not even a continuous
> function of bandwidth usage.  This is inherent to the percentile
> functional, so it doesn't matter how the quantity that comes out of that
> is priced.
> 
> -- 
> Florian Weimer                <fweimer at bfk.de>
> BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
> Kriegsstra?e 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
> D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 01:01:23 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net>
> Cc: Paul Vixie <vixie at isc.org>, nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
> 	building a nationwide network
> Message-ID: <277A7743-14E7-4FC2-91D2-E0772F262DFF at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> > 
> > The NomCom acts as a filter, of sorts.  It chooses the candidates that the membership will see.  The fact that the NomCom is so closely coupled with the existing leadership has an unfortunate appearance that suggests a bias.  I'm unable to say whether the bias exists, is recognized, and/or is reflected in the slate of candidates.  But it seems like an easy enough thing to avoid.
> > 
> 
> This statement ignores the existence of the petition process and the relatively low threshold required to get a candidate not approved or selected by the nomcom onto the ballot if there is even a very limited desire to do so.
> 
> > As for my use of "existing establishment":  I'm of the impression that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most ARIN members don't actively participate.  I have my own opinions on why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for themselves if they wanted to.  In any case, this is just my impression.  If you would rather share some statistics on member participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more useful.
> > 
> 
> My inclination is that the lack of participation generally indicates that the majority are not upset by the way ARIN is doing things. I know that the beginning of my participation in ARIN was the result of my deciding that some of the ways ARIN was doing things needed changing.
> 
> >> ARIN's bylaws firmly place control of ARIN into the hands of its members.
> >> if you think that's the wrong approach, i'm curious to hear your reasoning
> >> and your proposed alternative.
> > 
> > One of ARIN's governance strengths is the availability of petition at many steps, including for candidates rejected by the NomCom.  Likewise, as you noted, leaders are elected by the membership.  For these reasons I previously noted that "ARIN has a pretty good governance structure" and I continue to think so.  It could be improved by increased member involvement, as well as broader involvement from the community. (For instance, policy petitions should include responses from the entire affected community, not just PPML.)  But my criticisms should be interpreted as constructive, and are not an indictment of the whole approach.
> > 
> 
> OK, so you are aware of the petition process after all. That makes your statement at the top of this message somewhat perplexing.
> 
> I agree that increased member participation would be a good thing.
> 
> I do not believe that including petition responses from people who aren't willing to join PPML even if it's just long enough to support the petition in question would be useful. It takes almost no effort to join PPML, support a petition, and then leave PPML if you are that determined not to participate. Further, I think that it is reasonable to expect at least a modicum of participation in the policy process in order to participate in the petition process. Requiring supporters to be on PPML at the time they support the petition seems like a reasonable threshold to me. Finally, absent some mechanism such as requiring a PPML subscription, it might be somewhat difficult to avoid petition stuffing.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:51:46 +0000
> From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> To: Paul Vixie <vixie at isc.org>
> Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
> 	building a nationwide network
> Message-ID: <BCFADB61-9052-434E-BCA9-2EE7170EC339 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 21:05:51 -0500
> > Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> As for my use of "existing establishment":  I'm of the impression
> >> that a relatively small group of individuals drive ARIN, that most
> >> ARIN members don't actively participate.  I have my own opinions on
> >> why this is, but they aren't worth elaborating at this time - in
> >> fact, I suspect many ARIN members here on NANOG can speak for
> >> themselves if they wanted to.  In any case, this is just my
> >> impression.  If you would rather share some statistics on member
> >> participation, election fairness, etc, then such facts might be more
> >> useful.
> > 
> > i think our participation level in elections is quite high and i'll ask
> > for details and see them published here.
> 
> Paul - 
>  
>   Information regarding ARIN's last election is online here:
> 
>    <https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html>
> 
>   I've attached the relevant section regarding participation, and it should
>   be noted that more than 12% of the potential electorate voted in last year's 
>   election.  This is typical turnout for our elections, and while I have been
>   told anecdotally that this is relatively high turnout for membership 
>   organization, I do not have hard data points for comparison at this time.
> 
>   I would encourage all NANOG members to confirm their designated member
>   representatives with ARIN (i.e. the official organizational contacts) and 
>   vote (or if someone else in your organization encourage them to do so) in
>   the upcoming ARIN election for the ARIN Advisory Council and the ARIN Board 
>   of Trustee positions.
> 
> FYI,
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> === From  <https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101019_ElectionWinners.html>
> 
> 2010 VOTER STATISTICS 
> 
> 3,690 ARIN members as of 21 September 2010 
> 
> 2,834 Eligible voters* as of 21 September 2010 
> 
>    *ARIN members in good standing with properly registered Designated Member Representatives on record 1 January 2010 
> 
> 355 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Board of Trustees election. 
> 
> 356 unique member organizations cast a ballot in the Advisory Council election. 
> 
> 364 unique member organizations cast a ballot in either the Board of Trustees or Advisory Council election
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:35:02 +0000
> From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net>
> To: Jim Duncan <jduncan at juniper.net>
> Cc: "vixie at isc.org" <vixie at isc.org>, "nanog at nanog.org"
> 	<nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on
> 	building a nationwide network
> Message-ID: <AFB08AFB-3443-4AB1-9739-2BA9E6992F45 at arin.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> On Sep 23, 2011, at 1:40 AM, Jim Duncan wrote:
> > With my parliamentarian hat on:
> > A nominating committee's essential function is to ensure that a minimum number of qualified, vetted individuals are placed on the slate of candidates for election. it should never be a gating function; it is an important safeguard to allow the nomination of qualified individuals outside the nominating committee and "from the floor" before votes are cast. 
> > ...
> 
> > Although organizations may decide for themselves how a nominating committee will operate, it is inconsistent with the general principles of parliamentary process -- whichever standard you choose, Robert's, Sturgis, or another -- for all candidates to be forced to pass through the gauntlet of the nominating committee. 
> 
> Jim - 
>   
>   I agree with you in principle regarding the NomCom's essential 
>   function, but note that your requirement that the Nominating 
>   Committee pass _all_ candidates minimally qualified is not the 
>   only valid approach.  In the case of ARIN, the NomCom process
>   provides a sufficient number of qualified qualified candidates
>   but is specifically not required to provide all such candidates
>   <https://www.arin.net/participate/elections/nomcom_faqs.html>
> 
>   The protection of the parliamentary representation principle that
>   you allude to (i.e. the freedom for members of an organization to 
>   choose its own leadership) to is instead provided via a petition 
>   process.  This mechanism provides a comparable safeguard by allowing
>   anyone to be added to the ballot if they desire such and can show 
>   some support in the community for their candidacy.
> 
>   Note that ARIN's initial Bylaws only provided for direct selection 
>   of new Board members by the ARIN Board from a list of candidates 
>   chosen by the ARIN AC.  In subsequent years, this was changed to be 
>   a separate NomCom, and a petition process requiring support of 15% 
>   of the electorate was added. The petition threshold was then lowered 
>   to 5% of the electorate, and then again recently lowered to be now
>   2% of the electorate. The ARIN Board has reviewed the election process 
>   in each of the recent years to see if any further changes are required.
> 
>   Further evolution of this process is quite possible, and discussion
>   here (or on an ARIN mailing list) will help inform the ARIN Board 
>   about the community views on this matter.
> 
> Thanks!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:56:05 -0400
> From: Randy McAnally <rsm at fast-serv.com>
> To: "rpug at linux.com" <rpug at linux.com>
> Cc: "nanog at nanog.org" <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network
> Message-ID: <CACA4923-5E3B-4A8A-A699-3F2634476E4D at fast-serv.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=us-ascii
> 
> Not able to connect to 146.115.38.21 via fios or verizon 3g so the problem doesn't seem to be fios specific. 
> 
> Sent from my IPhone (pardon the typo's)
> 
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, "Ryan Pugatch" <rpug at linux.com> wrote:
> 
> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug at linux.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network?
> >>> 
> >>> Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us
> >>> (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some
> >> semblance of destination address, port, protocol...
> >> 
> >> just sayin'!
> >> 
> >> -chris
> >> (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on)
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443.  Sample IP: 146.115.38.21
> > 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:35:16 -0400
> From: Ryan Rawdon <ryan at u13.net>
> To: rpug at linux.com
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network
> Message-ID: <A323BE5B-FD0C-4AC5-8198-8CE7E3DDD632 at u13.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> 
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote:
> 
> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug at linux.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network?
> >>> 
> >>> Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to us
> >>> (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some
> >> semblance of destination address, port, protocol...
> >> 
> >> just sayin'!
> >> 
> >> -chris
> >> (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on)
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443.  Sample IP: 146.115.38.21
> > 
> > 
> 
> >From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result:
> 
> HTTP: timeout
> HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page)
> also can ping via ICMP just fine
> 
> 
> Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:38:26 -0400
> From: chris <tknchris at gmail.com>
> To: Ryan Rawdon <ryan at u13.net>
> Cc: nanog at nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAKnNFz-m+mrdbZPA8bwhoCBD+Bp-Ko6TAhP-voS4cn9BmQV6TA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> HTTP doesnt appear to be open from any network I try Verizon or otherwise so
> I'm not sure its network related
> 
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Ryan Rawdon <ryan at u13.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Sep 22, 2011, at 9:32 PM, Ryan Pugatch wrote:
> >
> > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <rpug at linux.com> wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> Anyone noticing anything weird with the Verizon / FiOS network?
> > >>>
> > >>> Seems like many people on their network are having trouble getting to
> > us
> > >>> (on Sidera / RCN) but not everyone.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> it's, obviously, simpler to help diagnose this when you provide some
> > >> semblance of destination address, port, protocol...
> > >>
> > >> just sayin'!
> > >>
> > >> -chris
> > >> (fios user who could help, if only there was enough info to go on)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > HTTP/HTTPS over 80, 443.  Sample IP: 146.115.38.21
> > >
> > >
> >
> > From FiOS and non-FiOS locations I get the same result:
> >
> > HTTP: timeout
> > HTTPS: connects and loads (Zimbra webmail page)
> > also can ping via ICMP just fine
> >
> >
> > Traceroute from fios is via Level3 from the DC area to Boston where it is
> > handed off to RCN and then 2 hops to the destination
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:17:38 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
> To: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Commercial DNS service opinions?
> Message-ID:
> 	<25076238.2837.1316787458644.JavaMail.root at benjamin.baylink.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> Open, Super, Dyn?
> 
> Will any of them do hidden-master?
> 
> Off list; I'll summarize.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 10:40:37 -0400
> From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists at gmail.com>
> To: Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Commercial DNS service opinions?
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAL9jLaaPc=YVOtKkL8G1p_TqFWPj8VyzGz=rapfNSy0vYREujA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jay Ashworth <jra at baylink.com> wrote:
> > Open, Super, Dyn?
> >
> > Will any of them do hidden-master?
> >
> > Off list; I'll summarize.
> 
> recursive AND authoritative? or ?
> 
> 
> 
> End of NANOG Digest, Vol 44, Issue 103
> **************************************




More information about the NANOG mailing list