Category Archive:Internet

Ask Ars: How should my organization approach the IPv6 transition?.

First of all, he’s more precise with his numbers: 340,282,366,920,938,463,463,374,607,431,768,211,456

And he shows us how to say it:

340- undecillion

282- decillion

366- nonillion

920- octillion

938- septillion

463- sextillion

463- quintillion

374- quadrillion

607- trillion

431- billion

768- million

211- thousand

456

via IPv6 addresses – how many is that in numbers? – Our Latest Discovery.

Considering my earlier post about Facebook this isn’t unexpected.

If you aren’t already paranoid enough to remove your address and cell phone number from Facebook, today might be the day. Facebook has decided to give its third-party app developers API access to users’ address and phone numbers as they collectively get more involved in the mobile space, but privacy experts are already warning that such a move could put Facebook users at risk.

In its Developer Blog post, Facebook noted that developers will only be able to access an individual user’s address and phone number—not the info of his or her friends. Additionally, those who want to be able to use that data will have to be individually approved by the users themselves, and those developers must take special care to adhere to Facebook’s Platform Policies, which forbid them from misleading or spamming users.

Despite Facebook’s reassurance that users will have the final say in who gets the info and who doesn’t, it didn’t take long for observers to point out that it will be easy for shady developers to get in on the action. Security research firm Sophos wrote on its blog that rogue Facebook app developers already manage to trick users into giving them access to personal data, and this move will only make things more dangerous.

“You can imagine, for instance, that bad guys could set up a rogue app that collects mobile phone numbers and then uses that information for the purposes of SMS spamming or sells on the data to cold-calling companies,” Sophos senior technology consultant Graham Cluley wrote. “The ability to access users’ home addresses will also open up more opportunities for identity theft, combined with the other data that can already be extracted from Facebook users’ profiles.”

Cluley has a point. Just because app developers agree to follow Facebook’s terms doesn’t mean that they actually do, and many aren’t caught until it’s too late. We learned that much just a few months ago when a number of top Facebook apps were found to be collecting and selling user data against Facebook’s rules. Facebook ended up suspending those developers for six months, but by that time, the deed was already done.

Imagine if your home address and phone number, or those of your friends and family, were included in that data—does it really matter if developers who use it inappropriately are suspended after the fact? All I know is that I got rid of my cell number on Facebook after an old high school friend used it as part of some creepy “business opportunity” ploy (see, you can’t even trust the people you trust). And after this latest developer policy change, I definitely won’t be adding it back.

New privacy concerns for Facebook over phone numbers, addresses.

I’ll be testing this first on my network and then pushing it to other networks(clients) that will follow my reccomendation here.  Firefox is old and isn’t catching up.  IE is even more current than Firefox.  Google Chrome is the new star right now..:)

Google Chrome Delivers Enterprise Deployment and Management – Web Services Web 20 and SOA – News & Reviews – eWeek.com.

If you find you can’t surf on your Comcast connection they are having intermittent issues with their DNS server.  DNS is the server that translates www.hotmail.com to the actual ip address.  when those have issue you can’t surf.  Comcast DNS is having issues again…which is the multiple outage they ahve suffered over the past couple of weeks.  If you are not a business customer i would suggest using opendns.

Let’s get the Comcast hating blinders off.

The Real Story Behind the Comcast-Level 3 Battle: Tech News «.

I found this great nugget on the nanog list again.  You can read my opinions about this tussle here and here.

In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:12:23PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> The part that I find most interesting about this current debacle is how
> Comcast has managed to convince people that this is a peering dispute,
> when in reality Comcast and Level3 have never been peers of any kind.
> Comcast is a FULL TRANSIT CUSTOMER of Level3, not even a paid peer. This
> is no different than a Comcast customer refusing to pay their cable
> modem bill because Comcast "sent them too much traffic" (i.e. the
> traffic that they requested), and then demanding that Comcast pay them
> instead. Comcast is essentially abusing it's (in many cases captive)
> customers to extort other networks into paying them if they want
> uncongested access. This is the kind of action that virtually BEGS for
> government involvement, which will probably end badly for all networks.
Actually it appears to be Level 3 who fired the first PR salvo
running to the FCC, if the date stamps on the statements are right.
So it's really Level 3 framing as a net neutrality peering issue
the fact that Comcast balked at paying them more.

Netflix is today apparently delivered via Akamai, who has nodes
deep inside Comcast.  Maybe Akamai pays Comcast, I actually don't
think that is the case from an IP transit point of view, but I think
they do pay for space and power in Comcast data centers near end
users.  But anyway, this Netflix data is close to the user, and
going over a settlement free, or customer connection.

Level 3 appears to have sucked Netflix away, and wants to double
dip charging Netflix for the transit, and Comcast for the transit.
Worse, they get to triple dip, since they are Comcast's main fiber
provider.  Comcast will have to buy more fiber to haul the bits
from the Equinix handoffs to the local markets where Akamai used
to dump it off.  Worse still, Level 3 told them mid-novemeber that
the traffic would be there in december.  Perhaps 45 days to provision
backbone and peering to handle this, during the holiday silly season.
Perhaps Level 3 wanted to quadruple dip with the expedite fees.

Yet with all of this Level 3 runs to the FCC screaming net neutrality.
Wow.  That takes balls.  Comcast did itself no favors respnding
with "it's a ratio issue" rather than laying out the situation.

What I wonder is why Netflix and Comcast are letting middle men like
Level 3 and Akamai jerk both of them around.  These two folks need to
get together and deal with each other, cutting out the middle man....
-- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Folks are piling onto Comcast but I am thinking they are wrong.  There’s one section in this post that blows Level 3’s arguments so full of holes swiss cheese looks solid:

So what’s the issue? Level 3 told the world that Comcast had hit it up for more money in order to deliver traffic from Level 3′s customers (such as Netflix) to Comcast’s 17 million broadband subscribers. Level 3 said Comcast’s demand for more dough violated the principles of the Open Internet, which is shorthand for net neutrality. On the other side, Comcast, said Level 3 was trying to sell itself as a CDN while not having to pay fees to Comcast as other CDNs do. In short Level 3, was calling itself a CDN to its customers and a backbone provider to Comcast. This (plus the fact that Level 3 owns one of the largest Internet backbone networks) enabled it to undercut its competitors in the CDN business because it didn’t have to pay the fees that Akamai or Limelight did to get content onto Comcast’s network.

For example, Level 3 even told people back in 2007 that it could deliver CDN services for thesame price as Internet access, a feat made possible because it owned its own networks. So when Comcast pointed out the traffic Level 3 was sending to its network would more than double to reach a 5:1 ratio when compared to the Comcast traffic sent over Level 3′s network, it was justifying its decision to act, something covered in Comcast’s peering agreement . (For detailed analysis of Comcast’s peering agreement check out this post from Vijay Gill.)

Nough said.  I think Level 3 got caught trying to double dip here and it’s now crying foul.  Comcast’s peering policy is clear in this instance as noted here.  Level 3 is just playing on the “hey this company is huge so they are automatically evil” mindset so many Americans have grown up with(which is a fantasy BTW).  I’m not saying Comcast is an angel but I don’t think they are the bad guys here.

Karl has this one nailed.  Just because Comcast is the bigger of the two doesn’t make it automatically wrong.  L3 is trying to push the colocation costs of CDN traffic to Comcast and L3 got Called on it.  Here’s a post on NANOG I found that very well illustrates what’s really going on:

Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know
what is said publically rarely matches the reality behind the scenes.
In this particular case my spidy sense tells me there is absolutely
something interesting behind the scenes, but the question is what.

I’d never really paid attention to how Netflix delivers its content.
It’s obviously a lot of bandwidth, and likely part of the issue
here so I thought I would investigate.

Apparently Akamai has been the primary Netflix streaming source
since March. LimeLight Networks has been a secondary provider, and
it would appear those two make up the vast majority of Netflix’s
actual streaming traffic. I can’t tell if Netflix does any streaming
out of their own ASN, but if they do it appears to be minor.

Here’s a reference from the business side of things:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20….

This is also part of the reason I went back to the very first message in
this thread to reply:

In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 05:28:18PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > <http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3….
> >
> > I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects operational aspects of the ‘Net.
Patrick works for Akamai, it seems likely he might know more about
what is going on. Likely he can’t discuss the details, but wanted
to seed a discussion. I’d say that worked well.

I happen to be a Comcast cable modem customer. Gooling for people
who had issues getting to Netflix streaming turned up plenty of
forum posts with traceroutes to Netflix servers on Akamai and
Limelight. I did traceroutes to about 20 of them from my cable
modem, and it’s clear Comcast and Akamai and Comcast and Limelight
are interconnected quite well. Akamai does not sell IP Transit,
and I’m thinking it is extremely unlikely that Comcast is buying
transit from Limelight. I will thus conclude that these are either
peering relationships, or that they have cut some sort of special
“CDN Interconnect” deal with Comcast.

But what about Level 3? One of my friends I was chatting with on AIM
said they thought Comcast was a Level 3 customer, at least at one time.
Google to the rescue again.

Level 3 provides fiber to Comcast (20 year deal in 2004):
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/….

Level 3 provides voice services/support to Comcast:
http://cable.tmcnet.com/news/2005/jul/11….

Perhaps the most interesting though is looking up an IP on Comcast’s
local network here in my city in L3’s looking glass:
http://lg.level3.net/bgp/bgp.cgi?site=sj….

Slightly reformatting for your viewing pleasure, along with my comments:

Community: North_America
Lclprf_100
Level3_Customer # Level 3 thinks they are a customer
United_States
San_Jose
EU_Suppress_to_Peers
Suppress_to_AS174 # Cogent
Suppress_to_AS1239 # Sprint
Suppress_to_AS1280 # ISC
Suppress_to_AS1299 # Telia
Suppress_to_AS1668 # AOL
Suppress_to_AS2828 # XO
Suppress_to_AS2914 # NTT
Suppress_to_AS3257 # TiNet
Suppress_to_AS3320 # DTAG
Suppress_to_AS3549 # GBLX
Suppress_to_AS3561 # Savvis
Suppress_to_AS3786 # LG DACOM
Suppress_to_AS4637 # Reach
Suppress_to_AS5511 # OpenTransit
Suppress_to_AS6453 # Tata
Suppress_to_AS6461 # AboveNet
Suppress_to_AS6762 # Seabone
Suppress_to_AS7018 # AT&T
Suppress_to_AS7132 # AT&T (ex SBC)

So it would appear Comcast is a transit customer of Level 3 (along with
buying a lot of other services from them). I’m going to speculate that
the list of supressed ASN’s are peers of both Level 3 and Comcast, and
Comcast is going that so those peers can’t send some traffic through
Level 3 in attempt to game the ratios on their direct connections to
Comcast.

Now a more interesting picture emerges. Let me emphasize that this is
AN EDUCATED GUESS on my part, and I can’t prove any of it.

Level 3 starts talking to Netflix, and offers them a sweetheart deal to
move traffic from Akamai to Level 3. Part of the reason they are
willing to go so low on the price to Netflix is they will get to double
dip by charging Netflix for the bits and charging Comcast for the bits,
since Comcast is a customer! But wait, they also get to triple dip,
they provide the long haul fiber to Comcast, so when Comcast needs more
capacity to get to the peering points to move the traffic that money
also goes back to Level 3! Patrick, from Akamai, is unhappy at losing
all the business, and/or bemused at the ruckus this will cause and
chooses to kick the hornets nest on NANOG.

One last thing, before we do some careful word parsing. CDN’s like
Akamai and LimeLight want to be close to the end user, and the
networks with end users want them to be close to the end user. It
doesn’t make sense to haul the bits across the country for any party
involved. Akamai does this by locating clusters inside providers
networks, LimeLight does it by provisioning bandwidth from their
data centers directly to distribution points on eyeball networks.

So let’s go back and look at the public statements now:

Level 3 said:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3….
-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp

“On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first
time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet
online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such
content.”

Comcast said:
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcast-….

“Comcast has long established and mutually acceptable commercial
arrangements with Level 3’s Content Delivery Network (CDN) competitors
in delivering the same types of traffic to our customers. Comcast
offered Level 3 the same terms it offers to Level 3’s CDN competitors
for the same traffic.”

You can make both of these statements make sense if the real situation
is that Comcast told Level 3 they needed to act like a CDN if they were
going to host Netflix. Rather than having Comcast pay as a customer,
they needed to show up in various Comcast distribution centers around
the country where they could drop traffic off “locally”. To Comcast
this is the same deal other CDN’s get, it matches their statement. To
Level 3, this means paying a fee for bandwidth to these locations, and
being that they are Comcast locations it may even mean colocation fees
or other charges directly to Comcast. Comcast said if you’re not going
to show up and do things like the CDN players then we’re going to hold
you to a reasonable peering policy, like we would anyone else making us
run the bits the old way.

The most interesting thing to me about all of this is these companies
clearly had a close relationship, fiber, voice, and IP transit all on
long term deals. If my speculation is right I’m a bit surprised Level 3
would choose to piss off such a long term large customer by bringing
Netflix to the party like this, which is one of the reasons I doubt my
speculation a bit.

But, to bring things full circle, neither of the public statements tell
the whole story here. They each tell one small nugget, the nugget that
side wants the press to run with so they can score political points.

Business is messy, and as I’ve said throughout this thread this isn’t
about peering policies or ratios, there are deeper business interests
on both sides. This article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3….

Suggests Level 3 is adding 2.9 Terabits of capacity just for Netflix.
I’m sure a lot of that is going to Comcast users, since they are the
largest residential broadband ISP.

Messy. Very messy.

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

Comcast: Pay Or No Play (NFLX, CMCSA) in [Market-Ticker].

I totally agree with SFGATE on this one..and the reasons given for opposition are totally accurate and standing within Constitutional principles.

The New York Times Goes Nuts, Says The Government Should Regulate Google’s Search Algorithm (GOOG).