Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Octavio Alvarez]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:45:55 -0700, Jay Ashworth  wrote:


- Original Message -

From: "Måns Nilsson" 



04:05:41PM + Quoting Dylan Bouterse (dy...@corp.power1.com):
> I'm not sure if this is obvious for this list or not, but with your
> WiFi nodes, a good practice for that kind of density is more nodes,
> lower power. Keep the client connection load per AP as low as
> possible to improve overall performance. Jacking up the power in a
> small area like that will just step on the adjacent APs and cause
> issues.


I'd have expected someone to have QoS mentioned already, mainly to put
FTP and P2P traffic on the least important queues and don't hog up the
net.


--
Octavio.

Twitter: @alvarezp2000 -- Identi.ca: @alvarezp

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Måns Nilsson]

Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 05:45:55PM -0400 
Quoting Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com):
> - Original Message -
> > At all possible cost, avoid login or encryption for the wireless.
> 
> Yes, and no.

 

Just keep in mind that every action you make the visitors have to perform
to get Internet connectivity is a support workload.
 
> (For example, I have no problems blocking outbound port 25 and redirecting
> recursive DNS -- though I do want a system that permits me to whitelist 
> MACs on request.  But I would do those on the guest and dealer nets, and
> not on the staff one.)

Remember that DNSSEC breaks quite easily if you redirect DNS and since
this is three years in the future, the uptake on DNSSEC may well have
hit the point where there is visual feedback on validation in client UI.
 
> > While things have become much better, doing 802.1x on conference
> > wireless probably is a bit daring. OTOH eduroam does it all over Europe.
> 
> If I did try to do that, it would probably only be on the staff network; 
> it's a much more contrained environment.

It'll work much better there, and FWIW, will be a little yet perhaps
effective speedbump for intruders.
 
> > And get v6.
> 
> Yeah, I assumed that, though it will be interesting to see how much play 
> it actually gets; these are SF geeks, not networking geeks.

Again, even in North America, the uptake may well have accelerated
enough that it is To Be Expected. Besides, IME, SF geeks are computer savvy
more than others.
 
> Oh yeah.  I'm fond of leases as short as 30 minutes, though if I have
> a /16, I won't care as much.

A couple hours will get the user over a lunch break if not overnight,
which means that long TCP sessions survive on Proper Computers (that
don't tear down TCP on link loss. I'm looking at you, Microsoft!). This
is Really Nice. Open up computer from sleep and press enter in xterm
and ssh session is up. (my personal record is for telnet, an untouched
connection survived two taxi trips,  one night, some NATed wlan at the
hotel and when i got back to the right network I just plugged the cable in
and continued in the same session. But I cheated and had fixed addresses.)
  
> Very nice, Måns; thanks.

My pleasure. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
He is the MELBA-BEING ... the ANGEL CAKE ... XEROX him ... XEROX him --


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Måns Nilsson]

Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:20:33AM -0700 
Quoting Octavio Alvarez (alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org):
 
> I'd have expected someone to have QoS mentioned already, mainly to put
> FTP and P2P traffic on the least important queues and don't hog up the
> net.

As long as there is no multicast entering the wlan this is best solved
by getting more bandwidth.
-- 
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
... the HIGHWAY is made out of LIME JELLO and my HONDA is a barbequeued
OYSTER!  Yum!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Jeroen Massar]

To all folks running NOC's at events like CCC/Assembly/DEFCON/etc: hats
off, and enjoy the fun ;)

On 2012-09-14 09:34 , Måns Nilsson wrote:
[..]
> A couple hours will get the user over a lunch break if not overnight,
> which means that long TCP sessions survive on Proper Computers (that
> don't tear down TCP on link loss. I'm looking at you, Microsoft!).

While that is a default, one can actually disable the Media Sensing:

One of the first google hits on disable media sense:
http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/Disable-Media-Sense-TCPIP-Windows-XP.html

And voila, your connections keep open even if you change from wired to
wireless, as long as you get the same IP on both or if you unplug the
cable and plug it in a bit later etc.

Now if that works over sleep that is something I am not sure of, I
rarely let computers go into sleep mode (long live "NoSleep" on OSX).

Typically people who require that though will settle for the use of mosh
(http://mosh.mit.edu/) apparently.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Brandon Ross]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Jay Ashworth wrote:


Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for
this kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of
use a couple years ago, at least.


Indeed?  I did not see that coming.  Hell, perhaps Interop could be talked
into loaning me a /16.  :-)


You might think you are joking, but if it doesn't 
overlap with an existing commitment, we can probably make that 
happen.


--
Brandon Ross  Yahoo & AIM:  BrandonNRoss
+1-404-635-6667ICQ:  2269442
Schedule a meeting:  https://tungle.me/bross Skype:  brandonross

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Brandon Ross wrote:


On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Jay Ashworth wrote:


Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for
this kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of
use a couple years ago, at least.


Indeed?  I did not see that coming.  Hell, perhaps Interop could be talked
into loaning me a /16.  :-)


You might think you are joking, but if it doesn't overlap 
with an existing commitment, we can probably make that happen.


I don't know about last /8 policy and how that will change this, but so 
far I have seen little problem getting a temporary /16 or alike for events 
from RIPE.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Nick Hilliard]

On 13/09/2012 21:32, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for this
> kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of use
> a couple years ago, at least.

yes, you can get a bunch of IP addresses from the ripe ncc if you only need
them on a temporary basis:

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-526

They've allocated a /14 for this purpose, so this would be well more than
enough to cope with most large conferences.

Nick

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Nat Morris]

On 14 September 2012 11:16, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> On 13/09/2012 21:32, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>> Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for this
>> kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of use
>> a couple years ago, at least.
>
> yes, you can get a bunch of IP addresses from the ripe ncc if you only need
> them on a temporary basis:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-526

We tried to apply using this policy to get address space for EMFCamp,
no good in reality.

The RIPE hostmaster would only allocate us address space 7 days before
the event started, needed longer than this to begin building out the
network which span multiple data centres. Especially with time, access
and change freeze constraints due to the Olympics this year. They
didn't seem to want to budge on this, easier in my opinion to borrow
some off a friendly organisation or ISP than jump hoops with RIPE.

Only other option would be to build your infra out in an existing
spare /24 you can get hold of - put router loopbacks, point to points
etc in there. Then a week before the event attempt to get the larger
/19 assignment from RIPE to put your clients in. I wouldn't be happy
doing that though, as in my opinion it doesn't leave enough time for
any reachability testing / debugging.

-- 
Nat

http://natmorris.co.uk
http://twitter.com/natmorris

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Nick Hilliard]

On 14/09/2012 11:50, Nat Morris wrote:
> The RIPE hostmaster would only allocate us address space 7 days before
> the event started, needed longer than this to begin building out the
> network which span multiple data centres. Especially with time, access
> and change freeze constraints due to the Olympics this year. They
> didn't seem to want to budge on this, easier in my opinion to borrow
> some off a friendly organisation or ISP than jump hoops with RIPE.

I'm in the process of trying to get this changed.  To be completely fair on
the RIPE NCC, they don't have flexibility on this issue - the original
policy was broken.

Nick

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Nat Morris]

On 14 September 2012 11:54, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> On 14/09/2012 11:50, Nat Morris wrote:
>> The RIPE hostmaster would only allocate us address space 7 days before
>> the event started, needed longer than this to begin building out the
>> network which span multiple data centres. Especially with time, access
>> and change freeze constraints due to the Olympics this year. They
>> didn't seem to want to budge on this, easier in my opinion to borrow
>> some off a friendly organisation or ISP than jump hoops with RIPE.
>
> I'm in the process of trying to get this changed.  To be completely fair on
> the RIPE NCC, they don't have flexibility on this issue - the original
> policy was broken.

This is good news Nick :)

I have spoken to others in the past few weeks who were hoping to raise
it at the next RIPE meeting. I am happy to share our ticket details
with you off list if it'll help.

-- 
Nat

http://natmorris.co.uk
http://twitter.com/natmorris

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Tore Anderson]

* Nick Hilliard

> They've allocated a /14 for this purpose, so this would be well more
> than enough to cope with most large conferences.

It's actually a /13 (151.216.0.0/13).

-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:


It's actually a /13 (151.216.0.0/13).


It used to be in another place (I don't remember exactly, this was 5-8 
years ago). Nice that they have a /13 nowadays anyway, I'd imagine there 
are more temporary events nowadays.


I've used it a couple of times and then a week was sufficient (start 
rigging on monday, everything done by thursday morning where 5000 people 
show up with their computers (this was mainly 10/100 ports, people brought 
their own cables), teardown and turning off the network, and then 
returning the space to RIPE on monday.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Nick Hilliard]

On 14/09/2012 12:11, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I've used it a couple of times and then a week was sufficient (start
> rigging on monday, everything done by thursday morning where 5000 people
> show up with their computers (this was mainly 10/100 ports, people brought
> their own cables), teardown and turning off the network, and then returning
> the space to RIPE on monday.

Realistically, the timescales specified in the policy are too short.  As
there is no ability for the RIPE NCC to pre-assign the space (i.e. let you
know in advance what address range you'll be getting, but not give you the
go-ahead to use it), it can make it extremely difficult for conference
organisers to work within the specified timescales.  Also, 1 week is not
suitable for debogonisation.

I will be talking about this at the address policy working group session at
RIPE65.  It shouldn't be too difficult to fix the problem, so long as it's
clear what people actually need from these temporary addresses.

Nick

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Nick Hilliard wrote:


Also, 1 week is not suitable for debogonisation.


Could you please elaborate on this aspect? Who would be treating this 
space as a bogon, and why?


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Paul Thornton]

On 14/09/2012 12:19, Nick Hilliard wrote:

On 14/09/2012 12:11, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

I've used it a couple of times and then a week was sufficient (start
rigging on monday, everything done by thursday morning where 5000 people
show up with their computers (this was mainly 10/100 ports, people brought
their own cables), teardown and turning off the network, and then returning
the space to RIPE on monday.


I will be talking about this at the address policy working group session at
RIPE65.  It shouldn't be too difficult to fix the problem, so long as it's
clear what people actually need from these temporary addresses.


Veering slightly off-topic for NANOG, but is this worth taking onto the 
address policy mailing list ahead of RIPE65 to ensure people who aren't 
in the WG session are aware of the issue - and can therefore support (or 
question) any proposed changes?


Paul.

--
Paul Thornton

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Masataka Ohta]

Måns Nilsson wrote:


And get v6.

Do not NAT. When all those people want to do social networking to the same
furry BBS while also frequenting three social app sites simultaneously
you are going to get Issues if you NAT. So don't.


Don't?

Considering that, ten years ago, some computers were still often
shared by thousands of people distinguished by their port numbers
and that, today, pseudo ISPs are using NAT, it is not only wrong
but also impossible to identify a user only by his IP address
without port numbers.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Måns Nilsson]

Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:22:01PM +0900 
Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp):
> Måns Nilsson wrote:
> 
> >And get v6.
> >
> >Do not NAT. When all those people want to do social networking to the same
> >furry BBS while also frequenting three social app sites simultaneously
> >you are going to get Issues if you NAT. So don't.
> 
> Don't?
> 
> Considering that, ten years ago, some computers were still often
> shared by thousands of people distinguished by their port numbers
> and that, today, pseudo ISPs are using NAT, it is not only wrong
> but also impossible to identify a user only by his IP address
> without port numbers.

Ohta-san, 

I am not suggesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there
might be a bunch of assumptions that aren't as true anymore when a
lot of client connections share both source and destination address,
and perhaps also destination port. If this happens simultaneously when
a large amount of other tcp connections are NATed through the same box,
resource starvation will occur. If public address space is available,
it is better to use that. Also, no NAT means there will be no session
timers for things like long lived low bandwidth tcp sessions.

-- 
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
I think my career is ruined!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Sean Lazar" 

> WLAN in large conferences certainly is a challenge. You basically want
> to get as many people on 5GHz as possible due to more available
> channels. 2.4GHz becomes quite noisy.

And here you raise an interesting question: do dual band wifi clients *show 
which band a network is on*?  Will they prefer the A band AP automatically 
in any way?

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   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Måns Nilsson" 

> 05:45:55PM -0400 Quoting Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com):
> > - Original Message -
> > > At all possible cost, avoid login or encryption for the wireless.
> >
> > Yes, and no.
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep in mind that every action you make the visitors have to
> perform to get Internet connectivity is a support workload.

I understand entirely.  

That was the reason for my "remember each MAC address for the entire event" 
approach to captive portal.  I forsee the guests entering a code from their 
event badge the first time they use each device.  Unlike most events, I also
forsee a single page "How to use our Internet connectivity" sheet that actually
tells you what you need to know.  :-)

> > (For example, I have no problems blocking outbound port 25 and
> > redirecting
> > recursive DNS -- though I do want a system that permits me to
> > whitelist
> > MACs on request. But I would do those on the guest and dealer nets,
> > and
> > not on the staff one.)
> 
> Remember that DNSSEC breaks quite easily if you redirect DNS and since
> this is three years in the future, the uptake on DNSSEC may well have
> hit the point where there is visual feedback on validation in client
> UI.

Good point.
 
> > > While things have become much better, doing 802.1x on conference
> > > wireless probably is a bit daring. OTOH eduroam does it all over
> > > Europe.
> >
> > If I did try to do that, it would probably only be on the staff
> > network; it's a much more contrained environment.
> 
> It'll work much better there, and FWIW, will be a little yet perhaps
> effective speedbump for intruders.

Was my plan, yes.  This isn't, really, defcon.  :-)

> > > And get v6.
> >
> > Yeah, I assumed that, though it will be interesting to see how much
> > play it actually gets; these are SF geeks, not networking geeks.
> 
> Again, even in North America, the uptake may well have accelerated
> enough that it is To Be Expected. Besides, IME, SF geeks are computer
> savvy more than others.

I've heard that asserted.  I'm not certain to what extent it's actually true.

> > Oh yeah. I'm fond of leases as short as 30 minutes, though if I have
> > a /16, I won't care as much.
> 
> A couple hours will get the user over a lunch break if not overnight,
> which means that long TCP sessions survive on Proper Computers (that
> don't tear down TCP on link loss. I'm looking at you, Microsoft!).

Well, I'm a firm believer in Least Recently Used, so as long as my DHCP block 
is larger than my userbase, everyone will have the same address all weekend
anyway.

> This
> is Really Nice. Open up computer from sleep and press enter in xterm
> and ssh session is up. (my personal record is for telnet, an untouched
> connection survived two taxi trips, one night, some NATed wlan at the
> hotel and when i got back to the right network I just plugged the
> cable in
> and continued in the same session. But I cheated and had fixed
> addresses.)

Nice.  :-)
 
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   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Måns Nilsson" 

> 12:20:33AM -0700 Quoting Octavio Alvarez (alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org):
> 
> > I'd have expected someone to have QoS mentioned already, mainly to put
> > FTP and P2P traffic on the least important queues and don't hog up the
> > net.
> 
> As long as there is no multicast entering the wlan this is best solved
> by getting more bandwidth.

Well, we'll be on the *sending* end of the Hugo's, but... ;-)

It would still be nice to multicast them inside our network (and out to
whomever wants to watch), but what the heck's the consumer-level client side
of multicast video streaming look like these days?

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   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth  said:
> Well, we'll be on the *sending* end of the Hugo's, but... ;-)

You might want to talk to whoever did this year's WorldCon networking.
I'm a Dragon*Con volunteer, and I know there was a some type of direct
connection between Chicago (WorldCon) and Atlanta (Dragon*Con) so that
we could show things like the Hugo ceremony (and I think we fed some
video the other way as well, like the D*C Parade).

I don't know how they did the "regular" Internet stream (except that it
went through Ustream, who shut down the Hugo feed because of a DMCA
complaint).

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Adams" 

> Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth  said:
> > Well, we'll be on the *sending* end of the Hugo's, but... ;-)
> 
> You might want to talk to whoever did this year's WorldCon networking.
> I'm a Dragon*Con volunteer, and I know there was a some type of direct
> connection between Chicago (WorldCon) and Atlanta (Dragon*Con) so that
> we could show things like the Hugo ceremony (and I think we fed some
> video the other way as well, like the D*C Parade).

I know some of that went on, yes, and certainly if I'm more formally 
involved, I'll be querying the SMOFlist to see who ran things at the
last 5 or so.

My bet is that none of them *had* a formal CTO/Ops person full time.
 
(Though of course, now that I've said that, those people will pop up
here, saying "you talkin' to *me*??" :-)

> I don't know how they did the "regular" Internet stream (except that
> it went through Ustream, who shut down the Hugo feed because of a DMCA
> complaint).

My understanding was that Dragon *took its main feed* for the Hugos via
Ustream, and the entire room got left standing; no?

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   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

[A. Pishdadi]

Hello Everyone,

We purchase 10Gig waves for transport out of our datacenter and are trying
to figure out why the taxes on the circuits are so much. We are paying
around 60% additional in taxes and fee's on top of the cost of the circuit.
Ofcourse when we were negotiating pricing , it seemed like a great price
until we got our first bill, they forgot to mention that we would be paying
such fees.
It seems like these taxes would be for companies who would be using
transport services for voice, but we are all data. Is there any way to get
a tax exempt status? How come the same fee's do not apply to dark fiber? We
are in process of getting dark fiber to replace the transport circuits but
its going to take quite some time as we have a few more years on some of the
contracts. The dark fiber we do have there is no taxes at all. Can anyone
shed any light on this?

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth  said:
> My understanding was that Dragon *took its main feed* for the Hugos via
> Ustream, and the entire room got left standing; no?

I don't know; I wasn't in there, and I didn't find out about the Ustream
cut until I was home.  I would think I would have heard if the feed was
cut though (I wasn't involved, but I work Techops and know the people
involved).

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

RIPE in final /8 of IPv4

[Martin Millnert]

Hi list,

in the interest of really running down also the final /8 of RIPE, which
was entered today, let me point out that the cost to setup a new LIR is
a meager application + application fee (2000 EUR) + ~1500 EUR or so for
the first year.  You can obviously transfer the resource as long as the
requirement for the minimum allocation remains the same (which is a
couple of web servers or so :) ), and then discontinue the LIR if you
feel so inclined.

This stands in contrast with the cost of fixing your documentation to
justify 80% used space of the current allocations.  Also, each LIR can
just get 1 /22 from the final /8 pool.  So if you're getting space for
customers, the new-LIR approach with option to transfer back in is
pretty reasonable.

Happy Friday!

Best,
Martin
(IPv6, where are you?)
 -
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2012-September/000615.html
 -
https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/ripe-ncc-begins-to-allocate-ipv4-address-space-from-the-last-8

Re: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

[Faisal Imtiaz]

All Communication Circuits are subject to Communication Taxes, as per 
Tax laws of that State.


Having said that... if this communication circuit is carrying Internet 
Traffic, you can contact the Carrier and Ask them to provide you the 
forms so that you can
Claim "ITFA / ITNA Exemption" ...(if you are not in a grandfathered 
state) Google for "Internet Tax Freedom Act" and review the Wikipedia 
article for more details and history.


In regards to Dark Fiber.
Active Circuits = i.e. circuits where signaling is provided by the 
Carrier  are considered to be Communication Circuits and are subject to 
Communication taxes, as per the State Laws.


Dark Fiber is considered to be an asset purchase .. i.e. like leasing 
Office Space/ Automobile / or Machinery... and as such the Lease 
Payments are subject to Sales Taxes only (again, details may vary from 
State to State).


Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 9/14/2012 10:29 AM, A. Pishdadi wrote:

Hello Everyone,

We purchase 10Gig waves for transport out of our datacenter and are trying
to figure out why the taxes on the circuits are so much. We are paying
around 60% additional in taxes and fee's on top of the cost of the circuit.
Ofcourse when we were negotiating pricing , it seemed like a great price
until we got our first bill, they forgot to mention that we would be paying
such fees.
It seems like these taxes would be for companies who would be using
transport services for voice, but we are all data. Is there any way to get
a tax exempt status? How come the same fee's do not apply to dark fiber? We
are in process of getting dark fiber to replace the transport circuits but
its going to take quite some time as we have a few more years on some of the
contracts. The dark fiber we do have there is no taxes at all. Can anyone
shed any light on this?

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Adams" 

> Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
> Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth  said:
> > My understanding was that Dragon *took its main feed* for the Hugos
> > via Ustream, and the entire room got left standing; no?
> 
> I don't know; I wasn't in there, and I didn't find out about the Ustream
> cut until I was home. I would think I would have heard if the feed was
> cut though (I wasn't involved, but I work Techops and know the people
> involved).

Noted.  How big is that crew for Dragon; you were, what, 30k attendees?
-- 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   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Barr" 

> and as I was working the Hugo's:
> 
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Chris Adams" 
> >
> > I know some of that went on, yes, and certainly if I'm more formally
> > involved, I'll be querying the SMOFlist to see who ran things at the
> > last 5 or so.
> >
> > My bet is that none of them *had* a formal CTO/Ops person full time.
> 
> Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from the dedicated
> room w/ the polycomm video conference system, for panels, in addition
> to the actual union operator of the camera & such.

The camera ops had to be union?  Hmmm.  Ah, Chicago.  Yes.

> There was an IT head, but he was responsible for the laptops / staff
> network, printers, etc.

Got it.

> The hotel itself had the conference wireless, instead of it being
> brought in.

Yes, and I'm told by my best friend who did attend (I didn't make it
this year) that the hotel wired/wifi was essentially unusable, every
time he tried.  Hence my interest in the issue.

> > My understanding was that Dragon *took its main feed* for the Hugos
> > via Ustream, and the entire room got left standing; no?
> 
> Dragon took it's feed for the hugo's through Ustream, as did the
> *overflow* rooms onsite. It was easier to go to the internet & back,
> than to get a direct cable.

Ok, then I was correctly informed; thanks.

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   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth  said:
> Noted.  How big is that crew for Dragon; you were, what, 30k attendees?

The estimate I heard was 52,000-55,000 paid attendees this year (plus
another 3,000+ for volunteers, guests+spouse/agent/etc., press, etc.).
Our Techops staff was around 240-250 this year.

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:53:01AM -0400, Jay Ashworth 
wrote:
> Yes, and I'm told by my best friend who did attend (I didn't make it
> this year) that the hotel wired/wifi was essentially unusable, every
> time he tried.  Hence my interest in the issue.

I find more and more hotel networks are essentially unusable for
parts of the day, conference or no.  Of course, bring in any geek
contingent with multiple devices and heavy usage patterns and the
problems get worse.

What I find most interesting is more often than not the problem
appears to be an overloaded / undersized NAT/Captive portal/DNS
Resolver system.  Behaviors like existing connections working fine,
but no new ones can be created (out of ports on the NAT?).  While
bandwidth is occasionally an issue, I've found an ssh tunnel out
to some other end point solves the issues in 9 out of 10 cases.

I wonder how many hotels upgrade their bandwidth but not the gateway,
get a report that their DS-3/OC-3/Metro-E is only 25% used, and think
all is well.  Mean while half their clients can't connect to anything
due to the gateway device.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpyboWnvCgz5.pgp
Description: PGP signature

RIPE NCC now allocating IPv4 address space from the last /8 netblock

[Eugen Leitl]

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/09/europe-officially-runs-out-of-ipv4-addresses/


Europe officially runs out of IPv4 addresses

RIPE NCC now allocating IPv4 address space from the last /8 netblock

by Iljitsch van Beijnum - Sep 14, 2012 3:20 pm UTC


Earlier today, the RIPE NCC (Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination
Centre) announced it is down to its last "/8" worth of IPv4 addresses. This
means that it is no longer possible to obtain new IPv4 addresses in Europe,
the former USSR, or the Middle East, with one small exception: every network
operator that is a "RIPE member" or "local Internet registry" (LIR) can
obtain one final block of 1024 IPv4 addresses. To fulfill these requests, the
RIPE NCC is keeping that last /8, which contains 16.8 million addresses, in
reserve.  RIPE NCC

None of this comes as a surprise given that the global pool of free IPv4
addresses was emptied in February 2011. APNIC, which distributes IP addresses
in the Asia-Pacific region, ran out of IPv4 addresses in May 2011; it has
been working under the "final /8" regime ever since. The remaining three
Regional Internet Registries are AfriNIC (Africa), LACNIC (Latin America and
the Caribbean), and ARIN (North America), which all have enough IPv4
addresses to last at least two more years.

Since the depletion of IPv4 address space in the APNIC region, little
information has surfaced about how network operators in the region have
managed the situation. However, the lack of IPv4 addresses only impacts
organizations and consumers who need additional addresses, or who need
addresses for the first time. Existing IPv4 users remain unaffected, and so
the immediate impact is limited. Also, large network operators get large
address blocks from the RIRs and they typically have a pool of unused
addresses of their own, so few will be experiencing immediate problems.

However, every year for the past five years, some 200 million new IPv4
addresses have been put into use. Without a steady supply of fresh addresses,
many Internet-related activities are going to become problematic in the years
to come. Fortunately, 20 years ago the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)
foresaw that the 3.7 billion addresses afforded by the 32-bit IPv4 address
space would become a problem, and started working on a replacement: IPv6. But
the IPv4 depletion didn't happen as fast as the IETF originally predicted,
and IPv6 adoption has languished. But recently, IPv6 adoption got a big push
in the form of World IPv6 Launch. Eventually, IPv6 will replace IPv4, but the
transition won't be pretty.  Reader comments 19

Iljitsch van Beijnum / Iljitsch is a contributing writer at Ars Technica,
where he contributes articles about network protocols as well as Apple
topics. He is currently finishing his Ph.D work at the telematics department
at Universidad Carlos III de Madrid (UC3M) in Spain.  @iljitsch

Re: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

[Mark Keymer]

I had to deal with this with an upstream once that was taxing me. 
Finally got it all worked out after sending in copies of the law and 
getting the CEO involved. However a year or two later I started to get  
taxed again when the company was bought out. Had to resend copies of the 
law (Fed and State) over to them again. I also had the full conversation 
with the previous CEO so I sent that over as well as he was now a VP 
under the new company.


Do to how much of a hassle I had to go through, I am guessing they still 
keep charging tax on other clients that probably should not have been!


Sincerely,

Mark Keymer

On 9/14/2012 8:15 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:


All Communication Circuits are subject to Communication Taxes, as per 
Tax laws of that State.


Having said that... if this communication circuit is carrying Internet 
Traffic, you can contact the Carrier and Ask them to provide you the 
forms so that you can
Claim "ITFA / ITNA Exemption" ...(if you are not in a grandfathered 
state) Google for "Internet Tax Freedom Act" and review the Wikipedia 
article for more details and history.


In regards to Dark Fiber.
Active Circuits = i.e. circuits where signaling is provided by the 
Carrier  are considered to be Communication Circuits and are subject 
to Communication taxes, as per the State Laws.


Dark Fiber is considered to be an asset purchase .. i.e. like leasing 
Office Space/ Automobile / or Machinery... and as such the Lease 
Payments are subject to Sales Taxes only (again, details may vary from 
State to State).


Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 9/14/2012 10:29 AM, A. Pishdadi wrote:

Hello Everyone,

We purchase 10Gig waves for transport out of our datacenter and are 
trying

to figure out why the taxes on the circuits are so much. We are paying
around 60% additional in taxes and fee's on top of the cost of the 
circuit.

Ofcourse when we were negotiating pricing , it seemed like a great price
until we got our first bill, they forgot to mention that we would be 
paying

such fees.
It seems like these taxes would be for companies who would be using
transport services for voice, but we are all data. Is there any way 
to get
a tax exempt status? How come the same fee's do not apply to dark 
fiber? We
are in process of getting dark fiber to replace the transport 
circuits but
its going to take quite some time as we have a few more years on some 
of the
contracts. The dark fiber we do have there is no taxes at all. Can 
anyone

shed any light on this?

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 15 Sep, 2012

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  426606
Prefixes after maximum aggregation:  177882
Deaggregation factor:  2.40
Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 207475
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 42113
Prefixes per ASN: 10.13
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   33613
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   15760
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5611
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:135
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.6
Max AS path length visible:  32
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 48687)  24
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:   716
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 253
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:   3277
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:2889
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:7687
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:177
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2595714508
Equivalent to 154 /8s, 183 /16s and 117 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   70.1
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   70.1
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   93.6
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  150375

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   102576
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   32472
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.16
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  103203
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:42696
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4756
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   21.70
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   1234
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:768
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.6
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 26
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:309
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  707879232
Equivalent to 42 /8s, 49 /16s and 97 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 82.7

APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 131072-133119
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:154269
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:78053
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.98
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   155263
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 69144
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:15238
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:10.19
ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only o

Re: Layer2 over Layer3

[Justin Wilson]

Mikrotik supports a proprietary format called an EOIP (ethernet over IP)
tunnel.

Justin

 --
Justin Wilson  Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog ­ xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw ­ Follow me on Twitter
http://www.thebrotherswisp.com



-Original Message-
From: mohamed Osama Saad Abo sree 
Date: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:33 PM
To: Philip Lavine 
Cc: NANOG list 
Subject: Re: Layer2 over Layer3

>hello philip,
>for ethernet over mpls you can use gre tunnel and run mpls over that
>tunnel or you can go directly for l2tpv3 which give you the ability to
>run l2vpn over l3 ip routing with no need for mpls.
>
>BR,
>Mohamed Abosree
>
>On 9/13/12, Philip Lavine  wrote:
>> To all,
>>
>> I am trying to extend a layer2 connection over Layer 3 so I can have
>> redundant Layer connectivity between my HQ and colo site. The reason I
>>need
>> this is so I can give the "appeareance" that there is one gateway and
>>that
>> both data centers can share the same Layer3 subnet (which I am
>>announcing
>> via BGP to 2 different vendors).
>>
>> I have 2 ASR's. Will EoMPLS work or is there another option?
>>
>> Philip
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Live As If You Were To Die Tomorrow. Learn As If You Were To Live Forever.
>

Re: Big Temporary Networks

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Leo Bicknell" 

> I find more and more hotel networks are essentially unusable for
> parts of the day, conference or no. Of course, bring in any geek
> contingent with multiple devices and heavy usage patterns and the
> problems get worse.
> 
> What I find most interesting is more often than not the problem
> appears to be an overloaded / undersized NAT/Captive portal/DNS
> Resolver system. Behaviors like existing connections working fine,
> but no new ones can be created (out of ports on the NAT?). While
> bandwidth is occasionally an issue, I've found an ssh tunnel out
> to some other end point solves the issues in 9 out of 10 cases.

Neither part of that surprises me.  :-}

I'm *almost* convinced not to NAT IPv4, so far.

> I wonder how many hotels upgrade their bandwidth but not the gateway,
> get a report that their DS-3/OC-3/Metro-E is only 25% used, and think
> all is well. Mean while half their clients can't connect to anything
> due to the gateway device.

That's an interesting question indeed.  The optimal solution here, of
course, would be for Worldcons -- which are planned 3-4 years in advance --
to get the right technical people in the loop with the property to see
when in the next 2 years (after a bid is confirmed) they plan to upgrade
the networking they have now... and make sure it will tolerate a "real" 
worst case.  The business case for the property, of course, is that
they're more salable to large technical conferences -- which makes them 
more money.  Question is, is it enough.

Or do I just overlay for the event.

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   #natog  +1 727 647 1274

Re: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

[Carlos Alcantar]

Typically you have to file once a year with the companies to let them know
you are tax exempt.  As your company status may change.

Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com





-Original Message-
From: Mark Keymer 
Date: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:53 AM
To: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

I had to deal with this with an upstream once that was taxing me.
Finally got it all worked out after sending in copies of the law and
getting the CEO involved. However a year or two later I started to get
taxed again when the company was bought out. Had to resend copies of the
law (Fed and State) over to them again. I also had the full conversation
with the previous CEO so I sent that over as well as he was now a VP
under the new company.

Do to how much of a hassle I had to go through, I am guessing they still
keep charging tax on other clients that probably should not have been!

Sincerely,

Mark Keymer

On 9/14/2012 8:15 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
>
> All Communication Circuits are subject to Communication Taxes, as per
> Tax laws of that State.
>
> Having said that... if this communication circuit is carrying Internet
> Traffic, you can contact the Carrier and Ask them to provide you the
> forms so that you can
> Claim "ITFA / ITNA Exemption" ...(if you are not in a grandfathered
> state) Google for "Internet Tax Freedom Act" and review the Wikipedia
> article for more details and history.
>
> In regards to Dark Fiber.
> Active Circuits = i.e. circuits where signaling is provided by the
> Carrier  are considered to be Communication Circuits and are subject
> to Communication taxes, as per the State Laws.
>
> Dark Fiber is considered to be an asset purchase .. i.e. like leasing
> Office Space/ Automobile / or Machinery... and as such the Lease
> Payments are subject to Sales Taxes only (again, details may vary from
> State to State).
>
> Regards.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
> 7266 SW 48 Street
> Miami, Fl 33155
> Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net
>
> On 9/14/2012 10:29 AM, A. Pishdadi wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> We purchase 10Gig waves for transport out of our datacenter and are
>> trying
>> to figure out why the taxes on the circuits are so much. We are paying
>> around 60% additional in taxes and fee's on top of the cost of the
>> circuit.
>> Ofcourse when we were negotiating pricing , it seemed like a great price
>> until we got our first bill, they forgot to mention that we would be
>> paying
>> such fees.
>> It seems like these taxes would be for companies who would be using
>> transport services for voice, but we are all data. Is there any way
>> to get
>> a tax exempt status? How come the same fee's do not apply to dark
>> fiber? We
>> are in process of getting dark fiber to replace the transport
>> circuits but
>> its going to take quite some time as we have a few more years on some
>> of the
>> contracts. The dark fiber we do have there is no taxes at all. Can
>> anyone
>> shed any light on this?
>>
>
>
>

The Cidr Report

[cidr-report]

This report has been generated at Fri Sep 14 21:13:03 2012 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.

Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.

Recent Table History
Date  PrefixesCIDR Agg
07-09-12427365  246274
08-09-12428107  246515
09-09-12428524  246572
10-09-12428665  246586
11-09-12428741  246649
12-09-12429120  246892
13-09-12428900  246353
14-09-12429020  246568


AS Summary
 42211  Number of ASes in routing system
 17607  Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
  3329  Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS6389 : BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.
  113311968  Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS4134 : CHINANET-BACKBONE No.31,Jin-rong Street


Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as 
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').

 --- 14Sep12 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description

Table 429249   246442   18280742.6%   All ASes

AS6389  3329  188 314194.4%   BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
   BellSouth.net Inc.
AS28573 2144   58 208697.3%   NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A.
AS4766  2981  941 204068.4%   KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS22773 1884  161 172391.5%   ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
   Cox Communications Inc.
AS17974 2339  618 172173.6%   TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
   Telekomunikasi Indonesia
AS7029  3154 1480 167453.1%   WINDSTREAM - Windstream
   Communications Inc
AS18566 2085  423 166279.7%   COVAD - Covad Communications
   Co.
AS2118  1401   14 138799.0%   RELCOM-AS OOO "NPO Relcom"
AS10620 2117  784 133363.0%   Telmex Colombia S.A.
AS4323  1582  392 119075.2%   TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
   inc.
AS7303  1565  451 111471.2%   Telecom Argentina S.A.
AS1785  1915  821 109457.1%   AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
   Communications, Inc.
AS4755  1617  545 107266.3%   TATACOMM-AS TATA
   Communications formerly VSNL
   is Leading ISP
AS7552  1129  210  91981.4%   VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel
   Corporation
AS8151  1583  708  87555.3%   Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS18101  941  158  78383.2%   RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
   Reliance Communications
   Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI
AS4808  1126  355  77168.5%   CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
   network China169 Beijing
   Province Network
AS13977  857  119  73886.1%   CTELCO - FAIRPOINT
   COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
AS6458   749   42  70794.4%   Telgua
AS15557 1226  560  66654.3%   LDCOMNET Societe Francaise du
   Radiotelephone S.A
AS36998  772  124  64883.9%   SDN-MOBITEL
AS855683   52  63192.4%   CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant
   Regional Communications, Inc.
AS3356  1105  474  63157.1%   LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications
AS17676  710   85  62588.0%   GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.
AS22561 1027  428  59958.3%   DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital
   Teleport Inc.
AS19262 1002  404  59859.7%   VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Online
   LLC
AS24560 1041  443  59857.4%   AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
   Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
   Services
AS7545  1758 1184  57432.7%   TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
   Pty Ltd
AS3549  1008  435  57356.8%   GBLX Global Crossing Ltd.
AS30036 1388  824  56440.6%   MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS -
   Mediacom Communications Corp

BGP Update Report

[cidr-report]

BGP Update Report
Interval: 06-Sep-12 -to- 13-Sep-12 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072

TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS30137   94685  5.1%1552.2 -- SEA-BROADBAND - Sea Broadband, 
LLC
 2 - AS651754436  3.0% 273.5 -- RELIANCEGLOBALCOM - Reliance 
Globalcom Services, Inc
 3 - AS982953829  2.9%  42.3 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet 
Backbone
 4 - AS840247127  2.5%  27.0 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom"
 5 - AS22561   25881  1.4% 184.9 -- DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital 
Teleport Inc.
 6 - AS163721255  1.1% 590.4 -- DNIC-AS-01637 - Headquarters, 
USAISC
 7 - AS24560   19948  1.1%  21.3 -- AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti 
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services
 8 - AS13118   19913  1.1%   19913.0 -- ASN-YARTELECOM OJSC Rostelecom
 9 - AS580014966  0.8%  58.7 -- DNIC-ASBLK-05800-06055 - DoD 
Network Information Center
10 - AS28573   13156  0.7%   7.8 -- NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A.
11 - AS21599   12839  0.7% 118.9 -- NETDIRECT S.A.
12 - AS269711828  0.6%  87.0 -- ERX-ERNET-AS Education and 
Research Network
13 - AS10198   11675  0.6%2335.0 -- CUP-AS-KR Catholic University 
of Pusan
14 - AS14420   10070  0.5%  18.9 -- CORPORACION NACIONAL DE 
TELECOMUNICACIONES - CNT EP
15 - AS662910017  0.5%5008.5 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA
16 - AS2118 9684  0.5%   6.9 -- RELCOM-AS OOO "NPO Relcom"
17 - AS369989397  0.5%  18.4 -- SDN-MOBITEL
18 - AS385479282  0.5%  21.5 -- WITRIBE-AS-AP WITRIBE PAKISTAN 
LIMITED
19 - AS279478993  0.5%  26.8 -- Telconet S.A
20 - AS256208573  0.5%  59.1 -- COTAS LTDA.


TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix)
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS13118   19913  1.1%   19913.0 -- ASN-YARTELECOM OJSC Rostelecom
 2 - AS662910017  0.5%5008.5 -- NOAA-AS - NOAA
 3 - AS389207067  0.4%3533.5 -- TURKLANDBANK-TR TURKLANDBANK
 4 - AS146807017  0.4%2339.0 -- REALE-6 - Auction.com
 5 - AS10198   11675  0.6%2335.0 -- CUP-AS-KR Catholic University 
of Pusan
 6 - AS444106789  0.4%2263.0 -- ENTEKHAB-AS ENTEKHAB INDUSTRIAL 
GROUP
 7 - AS6197 2182  0.1%2182.0 -- BATI-ATL - BellSouth Network 
Solutions, Inc
 8 - AS30137   94685  5.1%1552.2 -- SEA-BROADBAND - Sea Broadband, 
LLC
 9 - AS227533074  0.2%1537.0 -- REDHAT-STUTTGART REDHAT 
Stuttgart
10 - AS369483069  0.2%1534.5 -- KENIC
11 - AS259111402  0.1%1402.0 -- TALISMAN-CH3 - TALISMAN ENERGY 
INC.
12 - AS365292564  0.1%1282.0 -- AXXA-RACKCO - Rackco.com
13 - AS417337682  0.4%1097.4 -- ZTELECOM-AS JSC "Z-Telecom"
14 - AS486961006  0.1%1006.0 -- TEMP-AS TEMP Ltd.
15 - AS567631002  0.1%1002.0 -- INFOTELL-AS Infotell-Telecom Ltd
16 - AS29126 940  0.1% 940.0 -- DATIQ-AS Datiq B.V.
17 - AS388571713  0.1% 856.5 -- ESOFT-TRANSIT-AS-AP e.Soft 
Technologies Ltd.
18 - AS29524 806  0.0% 806.0 -- GUILBERT GUILBERT AS NUMBER
19 - AS26260 783  0.0% 783.0 -- WAUSAU-BENEFITS-INC - Wausau 
Benefits, Inc
20 - AS32244 730  0.0% 730.0 -- LIQUID-WEB-INC - Liquid Web, 
Inc.


TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes
Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name
 1 - 109.161.64.0/19   19913  1.0%   AS13118 -- ASN-YARTELECOM OJSC Rostelecom
 2 - 184.159.130.0/23  13098  0.7%   AS22561 -- DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital 
Teleport Inc.
 3 - 184.157.224.0/19  10762  0.6%   AS22561 -- DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital 
Teleport Inc.
 4 - 200.46.0.0/19 10122  0.5%   AS21599 -- NETDIRECT S.A.
 5 - 199.250.214.0/24   8213  0.4%   AS6517  -- RELIANCEGLOBALCOM - Reliance 
Globalcom Services, Inc
 6 - 199.250.205.0/24   8209  0.4%   AS6517  -- RELIANCEGLOBALCOM - Reliance 
Globalcom Services, Inc
 7 - 199.250.193.0/24   8208  0.4%   AS6517  -- RELIANCEGLOBALCOM - Reliance 
Globalcom Services, Inc
 8 - 199.250.192.0/24   8208  0.4%   AS6517  -- RELIANCEGLOBALCOM - Reliance 
Globalcom Services, Inc
 9 - 202.41.70.0/24 7879  0.4%   AS2697  -- ERX-ERNET-AS Education and 
Research Network
10 - 74.91.52.0/24  7877  0.4%   AS30137 -- SEA-BROADBAND - Sea Broadband, 
LLC
11 - 74.91.59.0/24  7877  0.4%   AS30137 -- SEA-BROADBAND - Sea Broadband, 
LLC
12 - 74.91.56.0/24  7877  0.4%   AS30137 -- SEA-BROADBAND - Sea Broadband, 
LLC
13 - 74.91.61.0/24  7877  0.4%   AS30137 -- SEA-BROADBAND - Sea Broadband, 
LLC
14 - 74.91.57.0/24  7877  0.4%   AS30137 -- SEA-BROADBAND - Sea Broadband, 
LLC
15 - 74.91.58.0/24  7877  0.4%   AS30137 -- SEA-BROADBAND - Sea Broadband, 
LLC
16 - 74.91.63.0/24  7877  0.4%   AS30137 -- SEA-BROADBAND - 

RE: Layer2 over Layer3

[Paul Vinciguerra]

Philip,

Here is the best reference I know of to address your issue.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps708/white_paper_c11_493718.html#wp9000281



From: Philip Lavine [mailto:source_ro...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 6:06 PM
To: David Swafford; Paul Vinciguerra
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Layer2 over Layer3

If the psuedowire is setup to allow a vlan to be exteneded, but the vlan is 
already extended over a dedicated link, how will spanning tree behave? Right 
now I have it setup and I dont see the psuedowire trunk in a blocking state. 
Will the switch that has both the pseudowire trunk on it and the dedicated link 
know how to forward the frames if either goes away?


From: David Swafford mailto:da...@davidswafford.com>>
To: Paul Vinciguerra 
mailto:pvi...@vinciconsulting.com>>
Cc: Philip Lavine mailto:source_ro...@yahoo.com>>; 
NANOG list mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 7:46 PM
Subject: Re: Layer2 over Layer3

Hey Philip,

Any Transport over MPLS will do this too.  Here's a link to an example
setup of two sites where just L3 connectivity exists between them:
https://w.ntwk.cc/working-on-atompls/.  In that setup, I have just
IPSEC VPN connecting the two locations, but have an 802.1q trunk
extended between both.  In the example configs, Fa0/1 on both ends is
a transparent L2 connection.  The boxes used here were 3725s on 12.4T.

David.




On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Paul Vinciguerra
mailto:pvi...@vinciconsulting.com>> wrote:
> ASR supports OTV if you can do multicast over L3.  Although, you may not need 
> L2 extensions in the end.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Lavine 
> [mailto:source_ro...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:23 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Layer2 over Layer3
>
> To all,
>
> I am trying to extend a layer2 connection over Layer 3 so I can have 
> redundant Layer connectivity between my HQ and colo site. The reason I need 
> this is so I can give the "appeareance" that there is one gateway and that 
> both data centers can share the same Layer3 subnet (which I am announcing via 
> BGP to 2 different vendors).
>
> I have 2 ASR's. Will EoMPLS work or is there another option?
>
> Philip
>

Re: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

[A. Pishdadi]

How do we get tax-exempt status though, with ""ITFA / ITNA Exemption" like
faisel said?

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:

> Typically you have to file once a year with the companies to let them know
> you are tax exempt.  As your company status may change.
>
> Carlos Alcantar
> Race Communications / Race Team Member
> 1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
> Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark Keymer 
> Date: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:53 AM
> To: "nanog@nanog.org" 
> Subject: Re: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)
>
> I had to deal with this with an upstream once that was taxing me.
> Finally got it all worked out after sending in copies of the law and
> getting the CEO involved. However a year or two later I started to get
> taxed again when the company was bought out. Had to resend copies of the
> law (Fed and State) over to them again. I also had the full conversation
> with the previous CEO so I sent that over as well as he was now a VP
> under the new company.
>
> Do to how much of a hassle I had to go through, I am guessing they still
> keep charging tax on other clients that probably should not have been!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Mark Keymer
>
> On 9/14/2012 8:15 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> >
> > All Communication Circuits are subject to Communication Taxes, as per
> > Tax laws of that State.
> >
> > Having said that... if this communication circuit is carrying Internet
> > Traffic, you can contact the Carrier and Ask them to provide you the
> > forms so that you can
> > Claim "ITFA / ITNA Exemption" ...(if you are not in a grandfathered
> > state) Google for "Internet Tax Freedom Act" and review the Wikipedia
> > article for more details and history.
> >
> > In regards to Dark Fiber.
> > Active Circuits = i.e. circuits where signaling is provided by the
> > Carrier  are considered to be Communication Circuits and are subject
> > to Communication taxes, as per the State Laws.
> >
> > Dark Fiber is considered to be an asset purchase .. i.e. like leasing
> > Office Space/ Automobile / or Machinery... and as such the Lease
> > Payments are subject to Sales Taxes only (again, details may vary from
> > State to State).
> >
> > Regards.
> >
> > Faisal Imtiaz
> > Snappy Internet & Telecom
> > 7266 SW 48 Street
> > Miami, Fl 33155
> > Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
> > Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net
> >
> > On 9/14/2012 10:29 AM, A. Pishdadi wrote:
> >> Hello Everyone,
> >>
> >> We purchase 10Gig waves for transport out of our datacenter and are
> >> trying
> >> to figure out why the taxes on the circuits are so much. We are paying
> >> around 60% additional in taxes and fee's on top of the cost of the
> >> circuit.
> >> Ofcourse when we were negotiating pricing , it seemed like a great price
> >> until we got our first bill, they forgot to mention that we would be
> >> paying
> >> such fees.
> >> It seems like these taxes would be for companies who would be using
> >> transport services for voice, but we are all data. Is there any way
> >> to get
> >> a tax exempt status? How come the same fee's do not apply to dark
> >> fiber? We
> >> are in process of getting dark fiber to replace the transport
> >> circuits but
> >> its going to take quite some time as we have a few more years on some
> >> of the
> >> contracts. The dark fiber we do have there is no taxes at all. Can
> >> anyone
> >> shed any light on this?
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

[Faisal Imtiaz]

There is no 'Certification' required for it..
All it requires is a 'declaration'
1st Step Contact the Tax Dept. of your Carrier and ask them for the 
ITFA/ITNA exemption form.

You might get a hard time from the Front line.. but get to a Supervisor...
once you have the form, all you need to to is fill it out and sign it.

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 9/14/2012 7:25 PM, A. Pishdadi wrote:

How do we get tax-exempt status though, with ""ITFA / ITNA Exemption" like
faisel said?

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Carlos Alcantar  wrote:


Typically you have to file once a year with the companies to let them know
you are tax exempt.  As your company status may change.

Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com





-Original Message-
From: Mark Keymer 
Date: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:53 AM
To: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

I had to deal with this with an upstream once that was taxing me.
Finally got it all worked out after sending in copies of the law and
getting the CEO involved. However a year or two later I started to get
taxed again when the company was bought out. Had to resend copies of the
law (Fed and State) over to them again. I also had the full conversation
with the previous CEO so I sent that over as well as he was now a VP
under the new company.

Do to how much of a hassle I had to go through, I am guessing they still
keep charging tax on other clients that probably should not have been!

Sincerely,

Mark Keymer

On 9/14/2012 8:15 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:

All Communication Circuits are subject to Communication Taxes, as per
Tax laws of that State.

Having said that... if this communication circuit is carrying Internet
Traffic, you can contact the Carrier and Ask them to provide you the
forms so that you can
Claim "ITFA / ITNA Exemption" ...(if you are not in a grandfathered
state) Google for "Internet Tax Freedom Act" and review the Wikipedia
article for more details and history.

In regards to Dark Fiber.
Active Circuits = i.e. circuits where signaling is provided by the
Carrier  are considered to be Communication Circuits and are subject
to Communication taxes, as per the State Laws.

Dark Fiber is considered to be an asset purchase .. i.e. like leasing
Office Space/ Automobile / or Machinery... and as such the Lease
Payments are subject to Sales Taxes only (again, details may vary from
State to State).

Regards.

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 9/14/2012 10:29 AM, A. Pishdadi wrote:

Hello Everyone,

We purchase 10Gig waves for transport out of our datacenter and are
trying
to figure out why the taxes on the circuits are so much. We are paying
around 60% additional in taxes and fee's on top of the cost of the
circuit.
Ofcourse when we were negotiating pricing , it seemed like a great price
until we got our first bill, they forgot to mention that we would be
paying
such fees.
It seems like these taxes would be for companies who would be using
transport services for voice, but we are all data. Is there any way
to get
a tax exempt status? How come the same fee's do not apply to dark
fiber? We
are in process of getting dark fiber to replace the transport
circuits but
its going to take quite some time as we have a few more years on some
of the
contracts. The dark fiber we do have there is no taxes at all. Can
anyone
shed any light on this?

RE: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

[Frank Bulk]

I believe you don't need to pay FUSC charges if you're not the end-user of
the circuit.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: A. Pishdadi [mailto:apishd...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:30 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

Hello Everyone,

We purchase 10Gig waves for transport out of our datacenter and are trying
to figure out why the taxes on the circuits are so much. We are paying
around 60% additional in taxes and fee's on top of the cost of the circuit.
Ofcourse when we were negotiating pricing , it seemed like a great price
until we got our first bill, they forgot to mention that we would be paying
such fees.
It seems like these taxes would be for companies who would be using
transport services for voice, but we are all data. Is there any way to get
a tax exempt status? How come the same fee's do not apply to dark fiber? We
are in process of getting dark fiber to replace the transport circuits but
its going to take quite some time as we have a few more years on some of the
contracts. The dark fiber we do have there is no taxes at all. Can anyone
shed any light on this?

Re: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

[Carlos Alcantar]

499 from the fcc for federal as well as any local certs as that is state
to state.  Note once you get your 499 you are required to file with them,
and pay the taxes.  At the end of it you need to start charging your end
users tax's and filing them.

Carlos Alcantar
Race Communications / Race Team Member
1325 Howard Ave. #604, Burlingame, CA. 94010
Phone: +1 415 376 3314 / car...@race.com / http://www.race.com





-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk 
Date: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:07 PM
To: "'A. Pishdadi'" , "nanog@nanog.org"

Subject: RE: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

I believe you don't need to pay FUSC charges if you're not the end-user of
the circuit.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: A. Pishdadi [mailto:apishd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:30 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Transport Fee's (Taxes and random telecom fee's)

Hello Everyone,

We purchase 10Gig waves for transport out of our datacenter and are trying
to figure out why the taxes on the circuits are so much. We are paying
around 60% additional in taxes and fee's on top of the cost of the circuit.
Ofcourse when we were negotiating pricing , it seemed like a great price
until we got our first bill, they forgot to mention that we would be paying
such fees.
It seems like these taxes would be for companies who would be using
transport services for voice, but we are all data. Is there any way to get
a tax exempt status? How come the same fee's do not apply to dark fiber? We
are in process of getting dark fiber to replace the transport circuits but
its going to take quite some time as we have a few more years on some of
the
contracts. The dark fiber we do have there is no taxes at all. Can anyone
shed any light on this?






smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature