This appears to be affecting Telia as well. Here was their last update:
"Concerning the cable break near Cleveland we have been informed that
the cables have been intentionally sabotaged. The provider informed that
they need to change the whole damaged fibre part and that is 3600 feet.
Fibr
Deepak Jain wrote:
That said, Cogent's page says nothing about sabotage
(status.cogentco.com) and I can't find the reference on teliasonera's
page Link please?
The updates I received from Telia have only been verbal, but they
indicated that an entire span of fiber would need to be replac
LayeredTech operates out of both the Savvis and Databank facilities in
the DFW area -- many customers on their Savvis network were hit hard.
"We are currently experiencing issues upstream from our Savvis IDC.
Savvis was performing un-scheduled maintainence on a backbone devices
which has caused
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Not a lot more I can say, other than argghhh!
You have a residential bandwidth offering with a price point that is
possible because of massive oversubscription that is in violent
competition with a technology that aims to make use of all that "idle"
network capacity
Sean Figgins wrote:
Eric Spaeth wrote:
> With rate-shaping they would need to have the P2P identification widget
> in-line with the data path to be able to classify and mark traffic so
> that it can be queued/throttled appropriately.
The Sandvine, in particular, is designed to be
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Personally, I see a big difference between rate-shaping and sending
RSTs. (I suppose you could view RSTs as allocating 0 bps, but that's
not a helpful distinction.)
I see a big difference as well.
With rate-shaping they would need to have the P2P identification wi
Clinton Popovich wrote:
For anyone who is not aware this Comcast issue does have a solutions
and its called iptables… works great for those behind either the great
firewall of china or the great firewall of Comcast…
http://redhatcat.blogspot.com/2007/09/beating-sandvine-with-linux-iptables.
Leo Bicknell wrote:
I'm a bit confused by your statement. Are you saying it's more
cost effective for ISP's to carry downloads thousands of miles
across the US before giving them to the end user than it is to allow
a local end user to "upload" them to other local end users?
Not to speak on Jo
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If your network cannot handle the traffic, don't offer the services.
In network access for the masses, downstream bandwidth has always been
easier to deliver than upstream. It's been that way since modem
manufacturers found they could leverage a single digital/analog
Joe Greco wrote:
Well, because when you promise someone an Internet connection, they usually
expect it to work. Is it reasonable for Comcast to unilaterally decide that
my P2P filesharing of my family photos and video clips is bad?
Comcast is currently providing 1GB of web hosting space pe
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Maybe Comcast should fix their broken network architecture if 10 users
sending their own data using TCP (or something else with TCP-like
congestion control) can break the 490 other people on a node.
That's somewhat like saying you should fix your debt problem by
acqu
Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
If I recall well, Cisco GSRs impose low priority and/or limits for all
ICMP traffic flowing thru the box, not just packets to/from router
itself, and there's not a knob to adjust that.
There'd be no reason to limit ICMP globally -- for traffic through a
router it's all IP
12 matches
Mail list logo
