*//Sorry for the earlier misguiding email subject//* 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-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > 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-requ...@nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-ow...@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 <fwei...@bfk.de> > To: Pradeep Bangera <pradeep.bang...@imdea.org> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Question on 95th percentile and Over-usage transit > pricing > Message-ID: <824o03ohjx....@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 <fwei...@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 <o...@delong.com> > To: Benson Schliesser <bens...@queuefull.net> > Cc: Paul Vixie <vi...@isc.org>, nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > Message-ID: <277a7743-14e7-4fc2-91d2-e0772f262...@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 <jcur...@arin.net> > To: Paul Vixie <vi...@isc.org> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > Message-ID: <bcfadb61-9052-434e-bca9-2ee7170ec...@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 <bens...@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 <jcur...@arin.net> > To: Jim Duncan <jdun...@juniper.net> > Cc: "vi...@isc.org" <vi...@isc.org>, "nanog@nanog.org" > <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on > building a nationwide network > Message-ID: <afb08afb-3443-4ab1-9739-2ba9e6992...@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 <r...@fast-serv.com> > To: "r...@linux.com" <r...@linux.com> > Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network > Message-ID: <caca4923-5e3b-4a8a-a699-3f2634476...@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" <r...@linux.com> wrote: > > >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Ryan Pugatch <r...@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 <r...@u13.net> > To: r...@linux.com > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network > Message-ID: <a323be5b-fd0c-4ac5-8198-8ce7e3ddd...@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 <r...@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 <tknch...@gmail.com> > To: Ryan Rawdon <r...@u13.net> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Verizon / FiOS network > Message-ID: > <caknnfz-m+mrdbzpa8bwhocbd+bp-ko6tahp-vos4cn9bmqv...@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 <r...@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 <r...@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 <j...@baylink.com> > To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Commercial DNS service opinions? > Message-ID: > <25076238.2837.1316787458644.javamail.r...@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 > j...@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.li...@gmail.com> > To: Jay Ashworth <j...@baylink.com> > Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Commercial DNS service opinions? > Message-ID: > <CAL9jLaaPc=YVOtKkL8G1p_TqFWPj8VyzGz=rapfnsy0vyre...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Jay Ashworth <j...@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 > **************************************
