Yes, frankly, it doesn't cost us (NANOG) anything - the sponsors like to do
it for the "cool" factor, and so long as it's not an undue burden on us,
they can throw as much bandwidth at us as they'd like.

-Dave

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 4:02 PM, James Breeden <ja...@arenalgroup.co> wrote:

> Yeah, I was wondering about that 4x100G. is that a necessity or a "because
> we can" move?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Eric Dugas
> Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 4:35 PM
> To: Aaron Gould <aar...@gvtc.com>
> Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> Subject: RE: NANOG 70 network diagram and upstream
>
> And the 4x100G. That's four times the capacity of the network I work for.
> ~100k subs.
>
> On Jun 2, 2017 16:54, "Aaron Gould" <aar...@gvtc.com> wrote:
>
> > Btw....
> >
> > Wow, a ~2 million dollar boundary (dual PTX1000's) for the NANOG 70
> > conference.... geez
> >
> > -aaron
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Eric Kuhnke
> > Sent: Friday, June 2, 2017 1:43 PM
> > To: nanog@nanog.org list <nanog@nanog.org>
> > Subject: NANOG 70 network diagram and upstream
> >
> > Just a small thing, but as one of the folks who used to work on the
> > core network gear of AS11404, the network diagram has something in it
> > that might confuse attendees as to who is really sponsoring the upstream:
> >
> > https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog70/diagram
> >
> > AS11404 was formerly known as Spectrum Networks, acquired in 2013 by
> > Wavedivision Holdings LLC (Wave Broadband) and became the backbone of
> > the Wave network. It's a totally different thing than the Charter
> > service which is trademarked as as Spectrum.
> >
> > https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/11404
> >
> > The logo in the right side bubble there shouldn't be the
> > Charter/Spectrum trademarked font, but rather should be Wave, who
> > built the dark fiber into the hotel and are providing the upstream.
> > The last mile fiber into the hotel is Wave.
> >
> >
> > -Eric
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to