Re: Carrier Options in Hong Kong
Raymond, Thanks for the response. Would you say then any 'major proivder' is fine for HK? Based on my tests w\ Lumen everything seems fine. I'll check the other ASNs. My posts are not making it to the list. I've done the following tests. The only 'bad one' was net-navigator. >> Thank you. Would you say it's fair to say that Lumen would be fine to reach >> the eyeballs based on the following I believe they peer locally with the >> Cogents\Lumens of the world. Looking at BGP.he.net AS9444 I found some HKT >> IPs and pinged from the Lumen looking glass >> >> >> Hong Kong Telecommunications (HKT) Limited >> >> Target: 120.88.245.3 with 64 data bytes Success rate sent/received = (1/1) >> packets >> Round-Trip min/avg/max = 1ms/1ms/1ms >> >> AS38819 - HKT GPRS network >> HONGKONG CHINA Ping results for:14.0.183.254 >> (14-0-183-254.static.pccw-hkt.com) >> >> Target: 14.0.183.254 with 64 data bytesSuccess rate sent/received = (1/1) >> packets >> Round-Trip min/avg/max = 2ms/2ms/2ms >> = >> >> The only remotely 'far' one was >> >> === >> Hong Kong Telecommunications (HKT) Limited Mass Internet >> >> traceroute to 1.65.190.108 (1.65.190.108), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets >> 1 gi0-0-0-18.221.rcr11.b061570-1.hkg02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.250.193) >> 0.861 ms 0.879 ms >> 2 be3692.ccr21.hkg02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.80.33) 1.079 ms 1.159 ms >> 3 be2414.rcr51.hkg01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.88.50) 1.772 ms 1.667 ms >> 4 pccw.hkg01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.140.66) 8.791 ms 3.131 ms >> 5 HundredGE0-3-0-0.br02.hkg08.pccwbtn.net (63.223.29.194) 3.234 ms 3.232 ms >> 6 csl.te0-1-0-14.br02.hkg08.pccwbtn.net (63.217.66.30) 3.290 ms 3.367 ms >> 7 * * >> 8 * * >> 9 * * >> 10 1-65-190-108.static.netvigator.com (1.65.190.108) 47.453 ms 47.441 ms >> === >> >> Cogent has similar results. >> >> If anyone has access to IPs in HK and doesn't mind helping please ping from >> cogent or lumen LG. >> >> Just want to ensure I'm not missing anything here in my analysis. >> >> Thanks >> - Nanoguser99 >> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, December 19th, 2021 at 1:01 PM, Raymond Leung wrote: > Hong Kong isn't that bad, PCCW Netvigator AS4760, HKBN AS9269, HGC AS9304 are > all announcing their customer route throughout HKIX > > HKBN is one of the largest operator on the market too, and most of the ISP > are willing to exchange traffic via IX > > Raymond Leung > Senior Network Engineer > JNCIE-SP #2456, MIET, MIEEE > [Booking.com](https://www.booking.com/) > Making it easier for everyone > to experience the world. > > Mobile: +31629703060, +447490674066 > Tel: +31207094728 > > On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 3:41 AM Eric Kuhnke wrote: > >> I think the biggest difference between what the IP transit providers have >> described is that PCCW is also a major middle-mile and last-mile provider in >> Hong Kong. You'll find their 100Mbps to gigabit class end user service in >> apartments, condos and office buildings throughout the city. >> >> The non-HK based transit providers that would be in a top-40 CAIDA ASRANK >> size are generally not operators of last mile connectivity within the city. >> >> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 2:54 PM nanoguser99 via NANOG >> wrote: >> >>> Nanog, >>> >>> Currently my organization uses PCCW which we pay through the nose for and >>> I'm looking to cut them. This was put in place before me. I was informed >>> that PCCW is "the carrier" in Hong Kong but based on my analysis I'm not >>> sure that's the case. My analysis of carriers such as Lumen and Cogent put >>> them on par with PCCW. Pings to random IPs in HK are reasonable fast on all >>> of them, same with pings to cloud providers. Access to mainland is not a >>> hard requirement but just to check they all had 300+ ms latency to known >>> IPs in Shanghai and Tanjin. >>> >>> I know some regions such as Korea or Dubai are monopolized where the wrong >>> carrier takes you on a far away path to get a few blocks down the street. >>> >>> I don't need anything special, just general DIA and good access to eyeballs >>> and internet. I just wanted to see people's opinions here as APAC >>> connectivity can be tricky. >>> >>> - Nanoguser99 >>> >>> Sent with >>> [ProtonMail](https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://protonmail.com/__;!!FzMMvhmfRQ!6BO0OIyDKS4mnx6jZWPywpDMkAoIHgyaluYjJIu7MiW9OJH_oWeQj4QqoMe5-ir0AWmH$) >>> Secure Email.
RE: Carrier Options in Hong Kong
Eric Dugas, I'm not seeing that, seems llike they do peer locally. These tests are Lumen but cogent was similar. I believe they peer locally with the Cogents\Lumens of the world. Looking at BGP.he.net AS9444 I found some HKT IPs and pinged from the Lumen looking glass Hong Kong Telecommunications (HKT) Limited Target: 120.88.245.3 with 64 data bytes Success rate sent/received = (1/1) packets Round-Trip min/avg/max = 1ms/1ms/1ms AS38819 - HKT GPRS network HONGKONG CHINA Ping results for: 14.0.183.254 (14-0-183-254.static.pccw-hkt.com) Target: 14.0.183.254 with 64 data bytes Success rate sent/received = (1/1) packets Round-Trip min/avg/max = 2ms/2ms/2ms = The only remotely 'far' one was === Hong Kong Telecommunications (HKT) Limited Mass Internet traceroute to 1.65.190.108 (1.65.190.108), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets 1 gi0-0-0-18.221.rcr11.b061570-1.hkg02.atlas.cogentco.com (66.250.250.193) 0.861 ms 0.879 ms 2 be3692.ccr21.hkg02.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.80.33) 1.079 ms 1.159 ms 3 be2414.rcr51.hkg01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.88.50) 1.772 ms 1.667 ms 4 pccw.hkg01.atlas.cogentco.com (154.54.140.66) 8.791 ms 3.131 ms 5 HundredGE0-3-0-0.br02.hkg08.pccwbtn.net (63.223.29.194) 3.234 ms 3.232 ms 6 csl.te0-1-0-14.br02.hkg08.pccwbtn.net (63.217.66.30) 3.290 ms 3.367 ms 7 * * 8 * * 9 * * 10 1-65-190-108.static.netvigator.com (1.65.190.108) 47.453 ms 47.441 ms === Cogent has similar results. If anyone has access to IPs in HK and doesn't mind helping please ping from cogent or lumen LG. Just want to ensure I'm not missing anything here in my analysis. Thanks - Nanoguser99 Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 18th, 2021 at 3:08 AM, David Guo wrote: > Eric, none of the carriers you mention in HK has local connection, other HK > ISPs will route to US if they don’t peer with you. > > Currently we are using NTT and Telstra, which has good connectivity in Asia > except mainland China. > > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Eric Dugas > via NANOG > Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2021 3:12 AM > To: nanoguser99 > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Carrier Options in Hong Kong > > I am in no way an expert in APAC but all of the IP carriers I have in NA are > present in HK: Cogent, Tata, Telia, Zayo. > > My guess is a good portion of the interconnections with other IP carriers, > CDNs and such will be either in Singapore or Tokyo. > > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 1:56 PM nanoguser99 via NANOG wrote: > >> Nanog, >> >> Currently my organization uses PCCW which we pay through the nose for and >> I'm looking to cut them. This was put in place before me. I was informed >> that PCCW is "the carrier" in Hong Kong but based on my analysis I'm not >> sure that's the case. My analysis of carriers such as Lumen and Cogent put >> them on par with PCCW. Pings to random IPs in HK are reasonable fast on all >> of them, same with pings to cloud providers. Access to mainland is not a >> hard requirement but just to check they all had 300+ ms latency to known IPs >> in Shanghai and Tanjin. >> >> I know some regions such as Korea or Dubai are monopolized where the wrong >> carrier takes you on a far away path to get a few blocks down the street. >> >> I don't need anything special, just general DIA and good access to eyeballs >> and internet. I just wanted to see people's opinions here as APAC >> connectivity can be tricky. >> >> - Nanoguser99 >> >> Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com/) Secure Email.
One year since Nashville Christmas Day bombing (Dec 25, 2020)
https://wpln.org/post/the-christmas-day-bombing-cut-off-emergency-communications-across-tennessee-heres-whats-changed-since/ It’s been nearly a year since an RV exploded outside an AT&T data center in downtown Nashville. Damage from the blast resulted in major disruptions to phone and internet service for days, including to 911 call centers — more than 60 in Tennessee. Both the state and AT&T have been working to prevent similar outages in the future. [...] “I’m not trying to get up here and be an apologist for AT&T by any means, whatsoever,” he told the board in May, a few months before the contract was approved. “But they did do a very good job answering our questions.”
Happy Holidays
*Wishing you + yours a very warm holiday season from NANOG. *
RE: [EXTERNAL] Happy Holidays
Same to everyone out there!! From: NANOG On Behalf Of Nanog News Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 3:17 PM To: nanog-annou...@nanog.org; nanog@nanog.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Happy Holidays Wishing you + yours a very warm holiday season from NANOG.
Re: [EXTERNAL] Happy Holidays
HH - -- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > On Dec 22, 2021, at 17:13, Mann, Jason via NANOG wrote: > > > Same to everyone out there!! > > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Nanog News > Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 3:17 PM > To: nanog-annou...@nanog.org; nanog@nanog.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Happy Holidays > > Wishing you + yours a very warm holiday season from NANOG.
