-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> RFC 4594 would suggest using DSCP CS2 (01xx in the TOS byte; xx is
> the ECN flags). Section 3.1 discusses the issues with CS7, which is the
> DSCP counterpart to the deprecated IP Precedence
RFC 4594 would suggest using DSCP CS2 (01xx in the TOS byte; xx is
the ECN flags). Section 3.1 discusses the issues with CS7, which is
the DSCP counterpart to the deprecated IP Precedence 7. RFCs 2474/2475
discuss the Differentiated Services Architecture and its implementation.
http://w
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 12:19:32PM -0500, Jared Mauch wrote:
[snip]
> Apparently I forgot the tag, but really, if you have sane
> CoPP policies, you are mostly protected. If the vendor does not
> provide this capability, please STOP BUYING THEIR CRAP.
Another fine example of broken fate-sharing
David Hiers wrote:
If the world wants an internet that is as predictable and reliable as
the PSTN, it'll bear the cost of protecting the control plane. A
fundamental choice in the protection scheme is physical architecture.
IB or OOB, it's always a good thing to be explicit in design
decisions,
On Tuesday 29 December 2009 22:22:05 Randy Bush wrote:
> > None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely require, or
> > merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or two
> > from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain)
> > functionality so tightly
> Totally out of the box, but here goes: why don't we run the entire
> Internet management plane "out of band"
This has been one of my favorite conversation-stoppers for years. The
PSTN fought tooth and nail against the need for OOB control, but
2600hz was a problem that they could not solve, so
On 29 Dec 2009, at 17:19, Jared Mauch wrote:
> I've watched BCPs be diluted at various companies due to market pressures.
> $major_provider did not require me to register my routes, why should I have
> to do that in order to give you $X MRC for the next 12-24-36 months?
[...]
> Honestly, I wis
On Dec 29, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely
require, or
merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or
two
from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain)
functionality so tightly around what we w
On Dec 29, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> That and building out
> separate and unequal networks pretty much sucks?
It does create job preservation in old-school telcos, like T.
- Jared
Randy Bush wrote:
Totally out of the box, but here goes: why don't we run the entire
Internet management plane "out of band"
tread caefully. we have experienced (and some continue to experience)
non-linear expansion of management, control, and stability problems when
layers are non-congru
>>> None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely require, or
>>> merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or two
>>> from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain)
>>> functionality so tightly around what we want/need today that the
>>> prospect of
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely require, or
>> merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or two
>> from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain)
>> functionality so tightly around
> None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely require, or
> merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or two
> from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain)
> functionality so tightly around what we want/need today that the
> prospect of getting a
> Totally out of the box, but here goes: why don't we run the entire
> Internet management plane "out of band"
tread caefully. we have experienced (and some continue to experience)
non-linear expansion of management, control, and stability problems when
layers are non-congruent.
randy
On 29/12/2009 21:10, Joe Greco wrote:
> How do you offer a "cheaper" level of
> (let's say) Web-only Internet access, when the support costs will be
> higher? Where's the value? What's the business plan? Where's the profit
> in that?
As an unrelated footnote, these are questions which will beco
> Joe wrote:
>
> >I am still failing to see why what you're talking about cannot be done
> >with today's technology.
> >
> >And if it can be done with today's technology, and isn't being done with
> >it, either that's a business opportunity for you, or it says something
> >about the model.
>
> T
> My $.02 or so - This "widespread castration" would force application
> developers to jump through the same NAT-traversal hoops all over again,
> adding more code-bloat / operational overhead and stifling innovation.
> Naturally, once created, this lower-class of internet user would probably
> bec
On Dec 29, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Dan White wrote:
On 29/12/09 12:20 -0500, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
Better than the typical "block outbound 25" filtering we do now. In
fact, in a perfect world ISPs would offer residential customers
"reduced
experience" versions of castration that decr
On Dec 29, 2009, at 7:08 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
>> Totally out of the box, but here goes: why don't we run the entire Internet
>> management plane "out of band" so that customers have minimal ability to
>> interact with routing
g
> my Internet experience a wee bit faster than somebody who leaves those three
> bits set to 000.
>
> I'm sure others will have widely different opinions.
>
> Marc
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Luca Tosolini [mailto:bit.gos...@chello.nl]
> Sent: Tu
1:38 PM
To: nanog
Subject: Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
Experts,
my inquiry was very specific and bounded to the following assumptions:
- in-band management
- not possible to filter customer traffic, certainly not for somebody
else's customer.
- IP
In this case diffserv can
On 29/12/09 12:20 -0500, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
Better than the typical "block outbound 25" filtering we do now. In
fact, in a perfect world ISPs would offer residential customers "reduced
experience" versions of castration that decrease the cost along with
decreasing what you have acc
Experts,
my inquiry was very specific and bounded to the following assumptions:
- in-band management
- not possible to filter customer traffic, certainly not for somebody
else's customer.
- IP
In this case diffserv can help prioritize management plane traffic over
user traffic. To do that only ipp
hs, Marcus Hans (Marc) [mailto:marcus.sa...@verizon.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 7:22 AM
> To: Steven Bellovin
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: RE: ip-precedence for management traffic
>
> Nope, not joking. Quite serious about this.
>
> Glad we agree about the residential customer
Joe wrote:
>I am still failing to see why what you're talking about cannot be done
>with today's technology.
>
>And if it can be done with today's technology, and isn't being done with
>it, either that's a business opportunity for you, or it says something
>about the model.
The later. It can be
Valdis said:
>The gene pool needed some chlorine anyhow, but this is a creative
approach. :)
>
>But seriously - would this be significantly different than the model
that
>many ISPs already use, where "consumer" connections get port 25
blocked, no
>servers allowed, etc, and "business grade" skip th
On Dec 29, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
> Yes, taking away the mechanisms will result in a "castrated" Internet
> experience for the clueful ones which is why I don't think this can be a
> one-size-fits-all model like the hotels try to do. Imagine a residential ISP
> th
> -Original Message-
> From: Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) [mailto:marcus.sa...@verizon.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 11:43
> To: Joe Greco
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: RE: ip-precedence for management traffic
>
> Joe wrote:
>
> >Getting back to the
> Joe wrote:
> >Getting back to the OP's message, I keep having these visions of the
> >castrated "Internet" access some hotels provide. You know the ones.
> >The ones where everything goes through a Web proxy and you're forced
> >to have IE6 as a browser. For some people, who just want to log on
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:43:25 EST, "Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc)" said:
> one-size-fits-all model like the hotels try to do. Imagine a
> residential ISP that offers castration at a lower price point than what
> is currently charged for monthly "raw" access.
The gene pool needed some chlorine anyhow,
Joe wrote:
>Getting back to the OP's message, I keep having these visions of the
>castrated "Internet" access some hotels provide. You know the ones.
>The ones where everything goes through a Web proxy and you're forced
>to have IE6 as a browser. For some people, who just want to log on
>to Yah
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:00:57 CST, Joe Greco said:
> Do we really want to spread that sort of model to the rest of the
> Internet? All it really encourages is for more and more things to
> be ported to HTTP, including, amusingly, management of devices...
I can remember at one time, some of the sam
> Nope, not joking. Quite serious about this.
>
> Glad we agree about the residential customers. Perhaps that's the first
> place to start and could generate some interesting lessons.
>
> Properly dual-homed customers are what I'd lump into the "clueful" category
> so they are not the ones I'
flourishes when the status quo
changes.
(I see that Chris Morrow just posted some supportive comments. Thanks Chris!)
Marc
-Original Message-
From: Steven Bellovin [mailto:s...@cs.columbia.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 10:09 AM
To: Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc)
Cc: NANOG list
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
>
>> Totally out of the box, but here goes: why don't we run the entire Internet
>> management plane "out of band" so that customers have minimal ability to
>> interact wit
On Dec 29, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
> Totally out of the box, but here goes: why don't we run the entire Internet
> management plane "out of band" so that customers have minimal ability to
> interact with routing updates, layer 3/4 protocols, DNS, etc.? I don't mean
he
job and move all of the management mechanisms out of plain sight?
Marc
-Original Message-
From: Mehmet Akcin [mailto:meh...@akcin.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 6:03 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
On Dec 29, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Dobbins, Ro
One note on this :-)..
Some time ago, a friend of mine worked in a carrier that had dialup modems for
out-of-band access ('lights-out, end-of-world' recovery)
They kept the practice in a new NGN Class4/5 replacement..
Detail, the dial-up line went over the NGN..
On Dec 29, 2009, at 6
On Dec 29, 2009, at 2:07 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Dec 29, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Luca Tosolini wrote:
>
>> this leaves out only ipp 7 for management traffic, on the premise that
>> routing and management should not share the same queue and resources.
>
> Management-plane traffic shoul
On Dec 29, 2009, at 6:02 PM, Luca Tosolini wrote:
> this leaves out only ipp 7 for management traffic, on the premise that
> routing and management should not share the same queue and resources.
Management-plane traffic should be sent/received via your DCN/OOB network, so
that it's not com
40 matches
Mail list logo
