Re: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

[Martin Hepworth]

Another vote for Dyn, about 10% cost of UltraDNS and very similar features
and way of billing (queries per second)

Route 53 seems very popular as well.

-- 
Martin Hepworth, CISSP
Oxford, UK


On 14 February 2013 19:58, David Hubbard wrote:

> Hi all, anyone have suggestions for very stable/reliable managed DNS?
> Neustar/UltraDNS is an obvious option to look at, just curious about
> alternatives.  Cost effective would be nice, but stable under attack is
> better.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>

Re: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:
>
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
>> Not tested under attack, but this DNS provider is worth a look since
>> it's the only one with both IPv6 and DNSSEC a colleague could find:
>> http://www.dnsunlimited.com/
>
> Hm.  Your colleague didn't look very far.  All of the registries and 
> registrars who use our DNS back-end have had both v6 and DNSSEC for a very 
> long time, now.

I think he limited the price scope for yearly figures that do not
require scientific notation... ;-)


Rubens

Fast fibre: A community shows the way

[Eugen Leitl]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21442348

Fast fibre: A community shows the way

COMMENTS (198)

Lancashire leads way on fast fibre connection

How fast is your home broadband? Seventy to 80 Mbps if you're one of the few
with the very fastest fibre broadband services? Perhaps 10Mbps if you've got
an average connection, maybe under 2Mbps if you live some miles from your
nearest exchange. So how would you fancy a 500Mbps download scheme?

That is what I've seen on Harry Ball's quite ancient computer - not in the
heart of London but in a village in rural Lancashire. Arkholme is hardly a
teeming metropolis but Harry is one of the first local residents to be hooked
up to the B4RN community broadband network.

After deciding that they were never likely to get a fast broadband connection
from one of the major suppliers, a group of local people across this sparsely
populated area decided that sitting around moaning about it was not an
option. Instead they began a DIY effort, digging channels across the fields
and laying fibre optic cables.


They have exploited all sorts of local expertise - from the Lancaster
University professor who is an expert in computer networks to the farmer's
wife who has just retired from a career in IT support. The cooperation of
local landowners has been vital - free access to fields has made it much
cheaper to roll out the network. BT and other companies which have to dig up
the country roads to lay fibre networks reckon it can cost as much as £10,000
to hook up one rural home - the people at B4RN reckon they can bring that
down to around £1,000.


And people like Harry and Susan Ball are now entering the superfast broadband
era. The retired couple told me they knew little about computers and had got
used to the fact that it was almost impossible on their slow connection to
watch video or use Skype. Now Harry is able to watch the iPlayer streaming in
HD, and Susan has become a B4RN volunteer, helping to dig trenches for the
fibre.

But, after raising half a million pounds from locals who bought shares on the
promise of a fast connection, the project now needs to move to the next
stage. In the Arkholme village hall this afternoon, B4RN is holding an open
day, inviting anyone to drop in and test the broadband connection on their
phones or computers.


The hope is that many will sign up to the £30 per month service, but that
some will also buy shares in B4RN. Another £1.5m is needed if the full 265KM
network is to be rolled out. That sounds ambitious - but having spent 24
hours watching the volunteers digging trenches, blowing fibre and learning a
process called fusion splicing I can see they are a very determined bunch.

As Barry Forde, the networking expert who is the chief executive of B4RN
explained to me, fast broadband is not a luxury now, whether in the town or
the country. "Farmers are being told they have to fill in forms online," he
says. "If you haven't got broadband you are severely disadvantaged."

And despite the £530m government money to bring fast broadband to rural
Britain, many communities face a long wait to get connected. In the meantime,
others may learn the lesson from B4RN - if you want it in a hurry, just get
out and start digging.

RE: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

[David Hubbard]

Thanks for all the replies everyone (on and off list), I've got some
great leads I'm investigating now.

David

> -Original Message-
> From: David Hubbard 
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:59 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?
> 
> Hi all, anyone have suggestions for very stable/reliable managed DNS?
> Neustar/UltraDNS is an obvious option to look at, just curious about
> alternatives.  Cost effective would be nice, but stable under 
> attack is
> better.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David
> 
> 

Re: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

[Aaron Fabiani]

On 2013-02-14 17:32, Michael Loftis wrote:

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:58 AM, David Hubbard
 wrote:

Hi all, anyone have suggestions for very stable/reliable managed DNS?
Neustar/UltraDNS is an obvious option to look at, just curious about
alternatives.  Cost effective would be nice, but stable under attack 
is

better.


I've been using EasyDNS for some time and they've been very stable and 
reliable.

Re: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

[Adele Thompson]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Bill Woodcock  wrote:

>
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
> > Not tested under attack, but this DNS provider is worth a look since
> > it's the only one with both IPv6 and DNSSEC a colleague could find:
> > http://www.dnsunlimited.com/
>
> Hm.  Your colleague didn't look very far.  All of the registries and
> registrars who use our DNS back-end have had both v6 and DNSSEC for a very
> long time, now.
>
> -Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Maybe Rackspace Cloud DNS still would so much rather manage my own
DNS

Re: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

[Raj Jalan]

http://www.dnsmadeeasy.com
Cost effective. We use it for some level of failover and load sharing as
well.

-Raj Jalan
@rjalan2 

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, David Hubbard <
dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:

> Hi all, anyone have suggestions for very stable/reliable managed DNS?
> Neustar/UltraDNS is an obvious option to look at, just curious about
> alternatives.  Cost effective would be nice, but stable under attack is
> better.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David
>
>

Re: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

[Christopher Morrow]

If you have a dns server already, you can get some diversity for free with:

http://puck.nether.net/dns/

of course, this week's outage not withstanding, puck has been pretty
stable for me for this...

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Raj Jalan  wrote:
> http://www.dnsmadeeasy.com
> Cost effective. We use it for some level of failover and load sharing as
> well.
>
> -Raj Jalan
> @rjalan2 
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, David Hubbard <
> dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all, anyone have suggestions for very stable/reliable managed DNS?
>> Neustar/UltraDNS is an obvious option to look at, just curious about
>> alternatives.  Cost effective would be nice, but stable under attack is
>> better.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>

Re: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

[james jones]

+1 on Dyn

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Raj Jalan  wrote:

> http://www.dnsmadeeasy.com
> Cost effective. We use it for some level of failover and load sharing as
> well.
>
> -Raj Jalan
> @rjalan2 
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, David Hubbard <
> dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all, anyone have suggestions for very stable/reliable managed DNS?
> > Neustar/UltraDNS is an obvious option to look at, just curious about
> > alternatives.  Cost effective would be nice, but stable under attack is
> > better.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
>

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 16 Feb, 2013

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

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  443072
Prefixes after maximum aggregation:  182226
Deaggregation factor:  2.43
Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 217209
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 43311
Prefixes per ASN: 10.23
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   34169
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   15936
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:5755
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:141
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.6
Max AS path length visible:  29
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 28730)  25
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:   384
Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 139
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:   3756
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:3387
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:9286
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:   17
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:188
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   2616732428
Equivalent to 155 /8s, 248 /16s and 43 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   70.7
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   70.7
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   94.3
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  156364

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   106392
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   33093
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.21
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  107472
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:43908
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:4816
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   22.32
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   1237
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:807
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.6
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 23
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:429
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  718760448
Equivalent to 42 /8s, 215 /16s and 106 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 84.0

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:155600
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:78739
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 1.98
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   156259
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 70972
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:15463
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:10.11
ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only 

Call for Papers: RIPE 66, 13-17 May 2013 in Dublin, Ireland

[Benno Overeinder]

Call for Papers: RIPE 66

A RIPE Meeting is an open event where Internet Service Providers,
network operators and other interested parties get together. Although
the meeting is mostly technical, it is also a chance for people to
meet and network with others in their field.

RIPE 66 will take place on 13-17 May 2013 in Dublin, Ireland.

The RIPE Programme Committee (PC) is now seeking content proposals
from the RIPE community for the Plenary, BoF and Tutorial sessions at
RIPE 66. The PC is looking for presentations covering topics of
network engineering and operations, including but not limited to:

- IPv6 deployment
- Managing IPv4 scarcity in operations
- Commercial transactions of IPv4 addresses
- Data center technologies
- Network and DNS operations
- Internet governance and regulatory practices
- Network and routing security
- Content delivery
- Internet peering and mobile data exchange


Submissions

Attendees of the RIPE meetings are quite sensitive to keeping
presentations non-commercial, and product marketing talks are strongly
discouraged. Repeated audience feedback shows that the most successful
talks focus on operational experience, research results, or case
studies. For example, presenters wishing to describe a commercial
solution should focus on the underlying technology and not attempt a
product demonstration.

Presenters who are proposing a panel or BoF are encouraged to include
speakers from several (perhaps even competing) companies and/or a
neutral facilitator.

In addition to presentations selected in advance for the Plenary, the
RIPE PC also offers several time slots for “lightning talks” which are
selected immediately before or during the conference.

The following requirements apply:

- Proposals for Plenary talks, BoFs, Panels and Tutorials must be
submitted for full consideration no later than 24 February 2013, using
the meeting submission system at:

https://meetings.ripe.net/pc/

Proposals submitted after this date will be considered on a
space-available basis.

- Presenters should indicate how much time they will require (30
minutes for talks is a common maximum duration, although some talks
can be longer).

- Proposals for talks will only be considered by the PC if they
contain at least draft presentation slides (slides may be updated
later on). For BoFs and panels, proposals must contain a clear
description as well as names of invited panelists/presenters.

- Due to potential technical issues, it is expected that most if not
all presenters/panelists will be physically present at the RIPE
meeting.

- Lightning talks should be submitted using the meeting submission
system. They must be short (10 minutes maximum) and often involve more
timely topics. They can be submitted at any time. The allocation of
lightning talk slots will be announced one day prior to the relevant
session.

If you have any questions or requests concerning content submissions,
please email pc [at] ripe [dot] net.

-- 
Benno J. Overeinder
NLnet Labs
http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/

The Cidr Report

[cidr-report]

This report has been generated at Fri Feb 15 21:13:14 2013 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
08-02-13444908  254193
09-02-13445257  254308
10-02-13445138  254258
11-02-13445138  254536
12-02-13445341  254468
13-02-13444932  254971
14-02-13445625  254890
15-02-13445440  255153


AS Summary
 43403  Number of ASes in routing system
 18011  Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
  3064  Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS6389 : BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK - BellSouth.net Inc.
  116912864  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').

 --- 15Feb13 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description

Table 445499   255104   19039542.7%   All ASes

AS6389  3064  104 296096.6%   BELLSOUTH-NET-BLK -
   BellSouth.net Inc.
AS28573 2379   89 229096.3%   NET Servicos de Comunicao S.A.
AS17974 2486  471 201581.1%   TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
   Telekomunikasi Indonesia
AS4766  2938  941 199768.0%   KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS22773 1988  224 176488.7%   ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC -
   Cox Communications Inc.
AS18566 2080  427 165379.5%   COVAD - Covad Communications
   Co.
AS10620 2319  671 164871.1%   Telmex Colombia S.A.
AS7303  1679  407 127275.8%   Telecom Argentina S.A.
AS4323  1606  400 120675.1%   TWTC - tw telecom holdings,
   inc.
AS4755  1686  582 110465.5%   TATACOMM-AS TATA
   Communications formerly VSNL
   is Leading ISP
AS2118  1115   83 103292.6%   RELCOM-AS OOO "NPO Relcom"
AS7552  1161  183  97884.2%   VIETEL-AS-AP Vietel
   Corporation
AS7029  2170 1200  97044.7%   WINDSTREAM - Windstream
   Communications Inc
AS36998 1286  381  90570.4%   SDN-MOBITEL
AS18101 1009  171  83883.1%   RELIANCE-COMMUNICATIONS-IN
   Reliance Communications
   Ltd.DAKC MUMBAI
AS7545  1832 1018  81444.4%   TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Internet
   Pty Ltd
AS1785  1955 1166  78940.4%   AS-PAETEC-NET - PaeTec
   Communications, Inc.
AS8151  1515  745  77050.8%   Uninet S.A. de C.V.
AS4808  1109  352  75768.3%   CHINA169-BJ CNCGROUP IP
   network China169 Beijing
   Province Network
AS18881  771   26  74596.6%   Global Village Telecom
AS14754  940  208  73277.9%   Telgua
AS13977  838  123  71585.3%   CTELCO - FAIRPOINT
   COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
AS9808   741   54  68792.7%   CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile
   Communication Co.Ltd.
AS855714   52  66292.7%   CANET-ASN-4 - Bell Aliant
   Regional Communications, Inc.
AS24560 1044  419  62559.9%   AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti
   Airtel Ltd., Telemedia
   Services
AS22561 1067  445  62258.3%   DIGITAL-TELEPORT - Digital
   Teleport Inc.
AS17676  719   98  62186.4%   GIGAINFRA Softbank BB Corp.
AS3356  1103  498  60554.9%   LEVEL3 Level 3 Communications
AS3549  1046  444  60257.6%   GBLX Global Crossing Ltd.
AS19262  997  404  59359.5%   VZGNI-TRANSIT - Verizon Online
   LLC

Total  45357123863297172.7%   Top 30 total


Possible Bogus Routes

BGP Update Report

[cidr-report]

BGP Update Report
Interval: 07-Feb-13 -to- 14-Feb-13 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072

TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS9498   245687  6.8% 229.8 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.
 2 - AS24560  187479  5.2% 179.6 -- AIRTELBROADBAND-AS-AP Bharti 
Airtel Ltd., Telemedia Services
 3 - AS18207   93694  2.6% 171.0 -- YOU-INDIA-AP YOU Broadband & 
Cable India Ltd.
 4 - AS45609   57702  1.6% 220.2 -- BHARTI-MOBILITY-AS-AP Bharti 
Airtel Ltd. AS for GPRS Service
 5 - AS18002   56356  1.6% 268.4 -- WORLDPHONE-IN AS Number for 
Interdomain Routing
 6 - AS840253674  1.5%  25.7 -- CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom"
 7 - AS45514   44973  1.2% 147.0 -- TELEMEDIA-SMB-AS-AP Bharti 
Airtel Ltd., TELEMEDIA Services, for SMB customers
 8 - AS702944480  1.2%  17.3 -- WINDSTREAM - Windstream 
Communications Inc
 9 - AS390942918  1.2%1262.3 -- QWEST-AS-3908 - Qwest 
Communications Company, LLC
10 - AS45528   35327  1.0%  59.0 -- TDN Tikona Digital Networks Pvt 
Ltd.
11 - AS29049   30582  0.8%  91.6 -- DELTA-TELECOM-AS Delta Telecom 
LTD.
12 - AS17488   30089  0.8%  44.8 -- HATHWAY-NET-AP Hathway IP Over 
Cable Internet
13 - AS982925996  0.7%  18.1 -- BSNL-NIB National Internet 
Backbone
14 - AS815124991  0.7%  16.1 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V.
15 - AS270820213  0.6% 144.4 -- Universidad de Guanajuato
16 - AS17447   19948  0.6% 153.4 -- NET4INDIA Net4India Ltd.
17 - AS45769   19648  0.5%  78.9 -- DVOIS-IN D-Vois Broadband Pvt 
Ltd
18 - AS23682   19449  0.5% 132.3 -- PACENET-AS Broadband Pacenet 
Pvt. Ltd
19 - AS17917   19309  0.5% 163.6 -- QTLTELECOM-AS-AP Quadrant 
Televentures Limited
20 - AS4   19100  0.5% 526.0 -- COMUNICALO DE MEXICO S.A. DE C.V


TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix)
Rank ASNUpds %  Upds/PfxAS-Name
 1 - AS6174 5898  0.2%2949.0 -- SPRINTLINK8 - Sprint
 2 - AS146806290  0.2%2096.7 -- REALE-6 - Auction.com
 3 - AS578167228  0.2%1807.0 -- SAMEN Samen Ertebat Asr Co. 
(P.J.S.)
 4 - AS409468605  0.2%1721.0 -- PROCON - Sat Track
 5 - AS258063018  0.1%1509.0 -- RALEYNET - Raleys
 6 - AS390942918  1.2%1262.3 -- QWEST-AS-3908 - Qwest 
Communications Company, LLC
 7 - AS327775850  0.2%1170.0 -- SMART-CITY-FORT-WORTH - Smart 
City Networks, L.P.
 8 - AS4   19100  0.5% 526.0 -- COMUNICALO DE MEXICO S.A. DE C.V
 9 - AS24773 851  0.0% 851.0 -- ASN-HH-LB HSH Nordbank AG
10 - AS221407433  0.2% 743.3 -- T-MOBILE-AS22140 - T-Mobile 
USA, Inc.
11 - AS167811391  0.0% 695.5 -- ARS-NATIONAL - ARS National 
Services, Inc.
12 - AS57201 669  0.0% 669.0 -- EDF-AS Estonian Defence Forces
13 - AS12397 565  0.0% 565.0 -- OPTOCOM Optocom Ltd
14 - AS409311674  0.1% 558.0 -- MOBITV - MobiTV, Inc
15 - AS545271607  0.0% 535.7 -- ASTUTEHOSTING - Astute Hosting 
Inc.
16 - AS557342063  0.1% 515.8 -- SYMBIOS-IN 001 IT Complex
17 - AS172932056  0.1% 514.0 -- VTXC - VTX Communications
18 - AS4 513  0.0% 742.0 -- COMUNICALO DE MEXICO S.A. DE C.V
19 - AS55578 513  0.0% 513.0 -- CGI-INDIA-IN Tower 2, #95/1 & 
95/2,
20 - AS451541017  0.0% 508.5 -- APPNOMIC-AS-AP Appnomic Systems 
Pvt Ltd


TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes
Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name
 1 - 151.118.254.0/24  14259  0.4%   AS3909  -- QWEST-AS-3908 - Qwest 
Communications Company, LLC
 2 - 151.118.255.0/24  14259  0.4%   AS3909  -- QWEST-AS-3908 - Qwest 
Communications Company, LLC
 3 - 151.118.18.0/24   14255  0.4%   AS3909  -- QWEST-AS-3908 - Qwest 
Communications Company, LLC
 4 - 208.92.131.0/248598  0.2%   AS40946 -- PROCON - Sat Track
 5 - 196.1.167.0/24 7998  0.2%   AS11139 -- CWRIN CW BARBADOS
 6 - 202.41.70.0/24 7949  0.2%   AS2697  -- ERX-ERNET-AS Education and 
Research Network
 7 - 208.14.186.0/247389  0.2%   AS22140 -- T-MOBILE-AS22140 - T-Mobile 
USA, Inc.
 8 - 192.58.232.0/247327  0.2%   AS6629  -- NOAA-AS - NOAA
 9 - 37.9.248.0/21  7086  0.2%   AS57816 -- SAMEN Samen Ertebat Asr Co. 
(P.J.S.)
10 - 12.139.133.0/245114  0.1%   AS14680 -- REALE-6 - Auction.com
11 - 58.184.229.0/244777  0.1%   AS9950  -- PUBNETPLUS2-AS-KR DACOM
12 - 194.63.9.0/24  4616  0.1%   AS1273  -- CW Cable and Wireless Worldwide 
plc
13 - 69.38.178.0/24 4142  0.1%   AS19406 -- TWRS-MA - Towerstream I, Inc.
14 - 84.205.66.0/24 3199  0.1%   AS12654 -- RIPE-NCC-RIS-AS Reseaux IP 
Europeens Network Coordination Centre (RIPE NCC)
15 - 167.235.247.0/24   3012  0.1%

Re: Quantifying the value of customer support

[Kasper Adel]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Can someone give an example on how i can calculate $ value from improving a
product/service usability and servicability? I am trying to categorize what
we offer :

1) Improve customer experience
2) Reduce service deployment time
3) Improve service availability

Regards
Kim

On Friday, February 15, 2013, Siegel, David wrote:

> There is no such thing as a generic business case that can be applied
> across all companies in an industry.  Every business is unique in its
> product definition and organization structure, but each question is also
> unique and therefore the analysis must be done every time.
>
> The way to begin is to ask this manager what he believes the possible
> outcomes are (downsize your group, eliminate your group, re-define your
> group, etc.) and then work with each of the key stakeholders that you have
> to estimate the impact of those outcomes.  For example, if 1st line
> operations indicates that eliminating your group would result in decreased
> customer satisfaction and missed SLA's, ask them to quantify it as much as
> possible and go to take the numbers back to your business people to have
> them estimate the impact on revenue.
>
> The analysis should be constructed and presented in standard finance terms
> (like NPV) so I would suggest that you make friends with someone in finance
> to assist you with the preparation.  You can also take a short two-day
> course like this
> http://executive.mit.edu/openenrollment/program/fundamentals_of_finance_for_the_technical_executive/16that
>  will teach you how to build up these analysis yourself (I have taken
> the one referenced and I recommend it to all managers with budget
> responsibility).
>
> The outcome from these discussions often has surprising but positive
> outcomes for everyone...maintaining the status quo is not always the best
> possible outcome despite the biases we usually have when we begin the
> analysis.  :-)  If you work closely with all of your stakeholders, everyone
> will learn and benefit from the experience.
>
> Dave
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Kasper Adel [mailto:karim.a...@gmail.com ]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:16 PM
> To: Andrew Latham
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Quantifying the value of customer support
>
> I used to think that these kind of situations take place when a manager
> was never an engineer so he does not understand how things work but i was
> surprised when i faced these from managers with an intense engineering
> career so i gave up on trying to give conceptual excuses and want to just
> give them the dump tables and numbers that they are looking for.
>
> Kim
>
> On Thursday, February 14, 2013, Andrew Latham wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Kasper Adel
> > >
> > wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > We are a 2nd level of escalation in a service provider, trying to
> > > put a $ value on the support we give to our NOC and other
> > > implementation teams, when they email us about problems they face.
> > > But we are merely bits and bytes engineers that cant quantify and
> > > justify the value of what we do to the management team. I guess
> > > these smart suits want to see an excel sheet with a table of how
> > > much they save or gain by the support we do. We
> > respond
> > > to technical questions and simulate problems in a lab.
> > >
> > > Can anyone help me with an idea or any material i can reuse? Templates?
> > Has
> > > any one been in a similar situation.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Kim
> >
> > Kasper/Karim/Kim
> >
> > Your job is customer retention.  Your value is maintaining all company
> > income.  Write the yearly revenue on a piece of paper and hand it to
> > them.
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~ Andrew "lathama" Latham lath...@gmail.com 
> > http://lathama.net ~
> >
>

Re: Quantifying the value of customer support

[Peter Kristolaitis]

You need to talk to your marketing/sales department and have them figure 
out how many existing clients you would retain by maintaining the 
current level of service, how many clients you would lose with lower 
quality of service, and how many clients you would attract with better 
service.  From that, you can figure out a rough ROI for your department.


This isn't a fundamentally technical question, it's a marketing & sales 
one.   You can have the best service ever, but if your company is unable 
to attract or retain clients (whether due to your company's PR 
reputation, market saturation, or whatever), it doesn't matter.


- Pete


On 02/15/2013 05:15 PM, Kasper Adel wrote:

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

Can someone give an example on how i can calculate $ value from improving a
product/service usability and servicability? I am trying to categorize what
we offer :

1) Improve customer experience
2) Reduce service deployment time
3) Improve service availability

Regards
Kim

On Friday, February 15, 2013, Siegel, David wrote:


There is no such thing as a generic business case that can be applied
across all companies in an industry.  Every business is unique in its
product definition and organization structure, but each question is also
unique and therefore the analysis must be done every time.

The way to begin is to ask this manager what he believes the possible
outcomes are (downsize your group, eliminate your group, re-define your
group, etc.) and then work with each of the key stakeholders that you have
to estimate the impact of those outcomes.  For example, if 1st line
operations indicates that eliminating your group would result in decreased
customer satisfaction and missed SLA's, ask them to quantify it as much as
possible and go to take the numbers back to your business people to have
them estimate the impact on revenue.

The analysis should be constructed and presented in standard finance terms
(like NPV) so I would suggest that you make friends with someone in finance
to assist you with the preparation.  You can also take a short two-day
course like this
http://executive.mit.edu/openenrollment/program/fundamentals_of_finance_for_the_technical_executive/16that
 will teach you how to build up these analysis yourself (I have taken
the one referenced and I recommend it to all managers with budget
responsibility).

The outcome from these discussions often has surprising but positive
outcomes for everyone...maintaining the status quo is not always the best
possible outcome despite the biases we usually have when we begin the
analysis.  :-)  If you work closely with all of your stakeholders, everyone
will learn and benefit from the experience.

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Kasper Adel [mailto:karim.a...@gmail.com ]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 2:16 PM
To: Andrew Latham
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Quantifying the value of customer support

I used to think that these kind of situations take place when a manager
was never an engineer so he does not understand how things work but i was
surprised when i faced these from managers with an intense engineering
career so i gave up on trying to give conceptual excuses and want to just
give them the dump tables and numbers that they are looking for.

Kim

On Thursday, February 14, 2013, Andrew Latham wrote:


On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Kasper Adel
>
wrote:

Hello,

We are a 2nd level of escalation in a service provider, trying to
put a $ value on the support we give to our NOC and other
implementation teams, when they email us about problems they face.
But we are merely bits and bytes engineers that cant quantify and
justify the value of what we do to the management team. I guess
these smart suits want to see an excel sheet with a table of how
much they save or gain by the support we do. We

respond

to technical questions and simulate problems in a lab.

Can anyone help me with an idea or any material i can reuse? Templates?

Has

any one been in a similar situation.

Thanks
Kim

Kasper/Karim/Kim

Your job is customer retention.  Your value is maintaining all company
income.  Write the yearly revenue on a piece of paper and hand it to
them.


--
~ Andrew "lathama" Latham lath...@gmail.com 
http://lathama.net ~

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Edward Dore]

On 14 Feb 2013, at 01:13, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> Edward Dore wrote:
> 
>> Sadly, despite this being challenged with both the telecoms
>> regulator (Ofcom) and advertising watchdog (ASA), for some
>> reason both seem pretty happy with the utter farce that is
>> advertising BT/OpenReach's VDSL based Fibre To The Cabinet
>> and Virgin Media's Hybrid Fibre Coax networks as "fibre
>> optic broadband".
> 
> Sadly, it is impossible to say FTTC not "fiber optic broadband",
> because it is "broadband" (at least with today's access speed)
> with "fiber optic".

Then why would you not also consider bog standard ADSL to also be "fibre optic"?

>> We were supposed to be getting FTTP where I live last March,
>> but for some reason BT silently scrapped that plan and now we
>> are getting FTTC this March apparently...
> 
> Obviously because it makes L1 unbundling difficult.

With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in terms of layer 1 
unbundling - it's impossible with either as they are both shared mediums 
aggregated before the exchange.

FTTC is fibre from the local exchange to the street cabinet where there is a 
VDSL DSLAM feeding the last part of the copper loop through to the property. 
This provides up to 80Mbps down and 20Mbps up.

FTTP is GPON from the exchange right through to the property completely 
independent of the existing copper loop. Currently this provides up to 330Mbps 
down and 30Mbps up.

There is also an "FTTP on-demenad" option where if you are in a FTTC area then 
you basically pay for BT/OpenReach to extend the fibre to your property and 
provide the FTTP service. This is expensive though as you foot all of the 
excess construction charges. Apparently the average cost is going to be around 
£1500.

In either case, OpenReach are required to provide "open" access at the exchange 
to any companies wishing to make use of the local infrastructure and provide 
competing services to BT. Pricing for this is controlled by the regulator, 
Ofcom. Both FTTC and FTTP are provided as VLANs over gigabit Ethernet 
interconnections in the Exchange


BT/OpenReach is doing a large FTTC deployment across the UK (two thirds of the 
properties by spring next year I believe), and are starting to roll out FTTP in 
some areas having been conducting trials since early 2010. I believe that the 
deployed BT/OpenReach FTT* footprint now covers approximately 13 million 
properties.

The area where I live was one of those listed as getting FTTP last March, but 
then that was silently scrapped at the last minute for some reason never 
specified and now they are starting to roll out FTTC to us for this March (only 
recently announced).

It does seem that they are actually doing it this time at least, as the new 
street cabinets have started appearing and pavements are being dug up, but it's 
obviously disappointing that we were switched from FTTP to FTTC along with a 
year's delay. The rest of the city was always supposed to be FTTC and that was 
rolled out successfully last March.

Edward Dore
Freethought Internet

Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in terms of layer 1 
> unbundling - it's impossible with either as they are both shared mediums 
> aggregated before the exchange.
> 

Which is a classic example of why I say the L1 provider must not be allowed to 
participate in or act as a related party to the L2+ providers.

Owen

Re: Quantifying the value of customer support

[William Herrin]

On Feb 14, 2013 12:58 PM, "Kasper Adel"  wrote:
> We are a 2nd level of escalation in a service provider,
> trying to put a $ value on the support we give to
> our NOC and other implementation teams,
> when they email us about problems they face.

Hi Kasper,

Support is about customer retention. You solved a customer's problem. As a
result, the company continues to recognize revenue from that customer for
another year. When you fail, the company loses that revenue stream.

Tier 2 support is about solving the difficult customer problems. Often
these are Power User problems -- they would have solved a tier 1 problem
for themselves. Power Users are interesting because each "recommends"
services to something like another dozen customers. They're the "computer
guy" the luddites know. When a power user departs upset, other customers
will leave over the course of the next 12 months because he recommended
something else to them. They won't complain. They won't offer the company
an opportunity to retain them. They just leave.

So, success on a tier 2 call means retaining not one, but as many as a
dozen customers.

And that is the value of tier 2 support. You're tier 1 with a multiplier
effect on customer retention which is much higher than the difference in
your salary.

> Can anyone help me with an idea or any material i can reuse? Templates?
Has
> any one been in a similar situation.

Sorry, can't help you there. You'll have to do your own research to put
supportable numbers to the claims.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

Can the L1 provider offer L2 services?

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong" 

> > With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in terms of
> > layer 1 unbundling - it's impossible with either as they are both
> > shared mediums aggregated before the exchange.
> 
> Which is a classic example of why I say the L1 provider must not be
> allowed to participate in or act as a related party to the L2+
> providers.

Submitted: you're saying, Owen, that L2+ providers should not be able
to own the L1.  I agree with that, and the case in point example is here:

  http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2010/03/15/tech_tt_fiber_fios.cnnmoney/

That's orthogonal to the question as we discussed it before, though, 
which is what I've adjusted the title to here: I don't see that there
is a bar to competition if a *municipal* L1 provider offers L2 service,
as long as they offer that service to all comers, at the same, published,
cost-recovery rates, including themselves.

Arguments can be made about "whose tickets take priority" and such, but
those seem easy to hand: FCFS.

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: Can the L1 provider offer L2 services?

[Blake Dunlap]

I don't know, I see FCFS as a bad constraint in a lot of situations...

Rather just see true separation between conduit and carrier and not have to
worry about it.

-Blake


On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:

> - Original Message -
> > From: "Owen DeLong" 
>
> > > With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in terms of
> > > layer 1 unbundling - it's impossible with either as they are both
> > > shared mediums aggregated before the exchange.
> >
> > Which is a classic example of why I say the L1 provider must not be
> > allowed to participate in or act as a related party to the L2+
> > providers.
>
> Submitted: you're saying, Owen, that L2+ providers should not be able
> to own the L1.  I agree with that, and the case in point example is here:
>
>
> http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2010/03/15/tech_tt_fiber_fios.cnnmoney/
>
> That's orthogonal to the question as we discussed it before, though,
> which is what I've adjusted the title to here: I don't see that there
> is a bar to competition if a *municipal* L1 provider offers L2 service,
> as long as they offer that service to all comers, at the same, published,
> cost-recovery rates, including themselves.
>
> Arguments can be made about "whose tickets take priority" and such, but
> those seem easy to hand: FCFS.
>
> 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: Suggestions for managed DNS provider?

[Adam Blackington]

+1 for DME these guys are fantastic.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Raj Jalan  wrote:

> http://www.dnsmadeeasy.com
> Cost effective. We use it for some level of failover and load sharing as
> well.
>
> -Raj Jalan
> @rjalan2 
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, David Hubbard <
> dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all, anyone have suggestions for very stable/reliable managed DNS?
> > Neustar/UltraDNS is an obvious option to look at, just curious about
> > alternatives.  Cost effective would be nice, but stable under attack is
> > better.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
>

Re: Fast fibre: A community shows the way

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Eugen Leitl wrote:

After deciding that they were never likely to get a fast broadband 
connection from one of the major suppliers, a group of local people 
across this sparsely populated area decided that sitting around moaning 
about it was not an option. Instead they began a DIY effort, digging 
channels across the fields and laying fibre optic cables.


This is quote common in Sweden as well. People living in the countryside 
are already used to cooperating, they do private road maintenance 
cooperatively (5-10 houses sharing an access road to the closest major 
road), so for them it's not that different to also do cables. Usually 
tractors or equivalent is already available, so getting someone within the 
community to do the work is not that hard.


Here is an example (In swedish)



"For people living in the country side getting access to fiber within 
reasonable time there is a need for you, neighbours and friends to join 
into a 'economic association'. With our help you build your own area 
network to the closest network connection point.




Translating it into english works surprisingly well, for your convenience 
here goes:


Byalag model-it works
Step 1 Examine and register interest
Investigate whether there is interest in your neighbors to join the 
broadband. Some may have the knowledge and contacts that may be useful. A 
basic principle is that more households get together and build the area 
network (fiber) properties to be connected. In this way it is possible to 
drastically bring down the total connection cost of each property. When 
there are at least 30 interested, feel more, in an area you should submit 
an expression of interest to the municipality. Are you less, you should of 
course make an inquiry anyway.


Step 2-Establish a cooperative
In order to build an area of ​​the village community concept you must use an 
economic association. In many cases, there is already an economic 
association established that can be used, such as a village community. If 
a cooperative is missing, you must create one for this purpose, ie. 
building broadband. The compound can be dismantled after the construction 
is completed, if desired. The association shall have a chairman and a 
contact person for the project.


Step 3-Feasibility Study
You are doing a feasibility study to get an estimate on the cost of 
trenching and more. Assistance can be sought from the Leader.


Step 4-agreement with the municipality
Norkröpings municipality sign a contract with you. The feasibility study 
is approved, and a detailed planning undertaken by the municipality.


With the feasibility study as a basis, you can also determine how 
construction costs will be distributed between the members of the village 
community. Before ground work starts, everything should be clear about 
what should be done, who is present and all land contracts and permits are 
in place.


Step 5-Review existing agreements
Inform everyone in the village community to terminate existing contracts 
for Internet, television and telephone in time.


Step 6 Compare prices
Keep in mind that it is only digging work to be purchased because the 
remaining materials such as fiber cable, hoses, wells, etc. are supplied 
by us. Our planners are happy to help in this work.


Step 7 Start building
Come supply all the materials needed for you. Then begin digging. Our 
recommendation is that you take the help of our planners even at this 
stage. It creates good conditions for it to go as smoothly as possible. 
Cost for the designer paid for by the municipality.


Step 8-Inspection and connection
Once the works are complete, they inspected by the municipality or other 
authority.


Step 9 Use your new broadband
Connect your home network to the fiber network and select service 
providers.


Step 10 fee for connection
The fee is according to today's current broadband tariff set by the 
Municipal Council of the Municipality of Norrköping.


Agreements
Examples of contracts and documents

Rules of the Association
Minutes
Registration with the Building and Planning
Project Documentation
Agreement between the union and the respective owners
Land Contract

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

Re: Can the L1 provider offer L2 services?

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Jay Ashworth wrote:

That's orthogonal to the question as we discussed it before, though, 
which is what I've adjusted the title to here: I don't see that there is 
a bar to competition if a *municipal* L1 provider offers L2 service, as 
long as they offer that service to all comers, at the same, published, 
cost-recovery rates, including themselves.


I agree with this, *but* they should also offer L1 services. Most 
commonly, they end up doing L2 and then L1 isn't available.


The last people in Sweden to get IPv6 is most likely going to be the 
active municipality network customers, because they need to fix their 
stuff before the ISP can offer anything (this is because it's ethernet 
based on L2 and security functions need to exist in the L2 access 
equipment).


If someone says PPPoE is better because of this, please mind that these 
networks commonly offer speeds up to 500 megabit/s or 1gigabit/s per user. 
:P


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

Re: Can the L1 provider offer L2 services?

[Owen DeLong]

On Feb 15, 2013, at 18:55 , Jay Ashworth  wrote:

> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong" 
> 
>>> With BT/OpenReach's FTTC and FTTP there's no difference in terms of
>>> layer 1 unbundling - it's impossible with either as they are both
>>> shared mediums aggregated before the exchange.
>> 
>> Which is a classic example of why I say the L1 provider must not be
>> allowed to participate in or act as a related party to the L2+
>> providers.
> 
> Submitted: you're saying, Owen, that L2+ providers should not be able
> to own the L1.  I agree with that, and the case in point example is here:
> 
>  http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2010/03/15/tech_tt_fiber_fios.cnnmoney/
> 
> That's orthogonal to the question as we discussed it before, though, 
> which is what I've adjusted the title to here: I don't see that there
> is a bar to competition if a *municipal* L1 provider offers L2 service,
> as long as they offer that service to all comers, at the same, published,
> cost-recovery rates, including themselves.
> 

I don't see a difference between an L1 provider offering L2 service and
an L2 provider owning L1 infrastructure. The problem is that the minute
you give an organization an ability to compete with its customers for
product (A) as customers for product (B), you create a conflict of interest.

If company A offers L1+L2 and company B offers L2 and up, then company
A has an incentive to provide better L1 service to those who are also getting
their L2 from company A than they might provide to those company B's
L2 customers using only the L1 product from company A.

> Arguments can be made about "whose tickets take priority" and such, but
> those seem easy to hand: FCFS.

FCFS sounds like a great theory, but the devil is in the details. Since many
tickets are always being processed in parallel and since there will be
inevitable shuffling of ticket priorities due to standard externalities
(there are always customers you have to take care of more than others,
etc.).

The more thought I give to this question, the more I think that the L1 provider
should be strictly L1 only and not allowed to affiliate with anyone higher
up the stack.

Owen