A comment from Jeremy Orbell at LINX:
--
The period of growth being discussed predates my own involvement in the
industry as I didn't join LINX until 2003. However I do know that LINX
regularly announced new traffic milestones at the exchange as they happened
back in the late 90s. I've looked b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
At the time these statements were made it was possible to make reasonable
assumptions about the size of the Internet. As a Tier 1 knew how much traffic
our
customer links generated by the size of the link. We knew exactly how much
traffic stayed
Top posting reformatted.
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
> >
> >> That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
> >> excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE
> >> loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with
> >> most anything. for
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:42:43 PDT, Joseph Jackson said:
> The way I understand it is if you aren't paying for preferred service then
> your VPN traffic would be at the bottom of the stack on forwarding. So while
> it gets around GeoIP stuff vpns would be subject to the same quality of
> service
>
> From: Joseph Jackson
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:42:43 -0700
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jer...@mompl.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:33 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
>
> Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > Tha
Isn't the essence of consensus is to find common areas of agreement while
punting on the rest. There's plenty to focus on that IS in there, like
transparency and FCC control?
Kevin Oberman wrote:
>
>> That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
>> excellent lip servic
-Original Message-
From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jer...@mompl.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 3:33 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
Kevin Oberman wrote:
> That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
> excellent lip se
On 4 Aug 2010, at 17:58, Thomas Weible wrote:
> Cisco did a quite good job on implementing the DDM characteristics of the
> optics. So why not to take a 32dB or even 41dB power budget SFP and make it
> workable in the switch / router. Works like charm in some setups and you see
> straight the
Kevin Oberman wrote:
That said, the actual, published document has some huge issues. It pays
excellent lip service to net neutrality, but it has simply HUGE
loopholes with lots of weasel words that could be used to get away with
most anything. for example, it expressly excludes and wireless netwo
It makes the thread very hard to follow.
> Why not?
> > Please don't top post!
> From: Justin Horstman
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:54:12 -0700
>
> That link is silly, and completely opposite to what they said
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Hoffman [mailto:hhoff...@ip-solutions
That link is silly, and completely opposite to what they said
-Original Message-
From: Harry Hoffman [mailto:hhoff...@ip-solutions.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 11:00 AM
To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Google wants your Internet to be faster
Heh, we
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Nathan Eisenberg
wrote:
> > Maybe the ISP's should move this choice to the consumer.
>
> The consumer already has this option on many SOHO firewalls. No action by
> ISPs is required. But this is totally irrelevant to the idea of Net
> Neutrality.
>
>
Yes - but y
Heh, well is seems like one of the PIRGs is joining the fray, at least
in PA:
http://www.pennpirg.org/action/google?id4=es
On Mon, 2010-08-09 at 15:46 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 15:29:46 EDT, Joly MacFie said:
> > Nor ensure 'lawful' content
>
> Do you *really*
so you'd like to foist the problem off to the provider
> (cost/configuration) and benefit? Are you willing to pay some
> incrementally higher charge per month for that service? what about for
> security services? Do you think there are enough folks willing to pay
> for this sort of thing that it'd
> Maybe the ISP's should move this choice to the consumer.
The consumer already has this option on many SOHO firewalls. No action by ISPs
is required. But this is totally irrelevant to the idea of Net Neutrality.
> I view this exercise as paying for priority when the circuit is full -- like
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Kenny Sallee wrote:
> Maybe the ISP's should move this choice to the consumer. The last mile is
> 'usually' where congestion really hits. Why not build a portal for
> consumers to go in an choose what's important to them? I know some MPLS VPN
> providers do so
I don't see providers ever pushing it that far down the stream. Would you be
willing to pay more for your consumer connection to maintain those types of
features? Business connections, absolutely.
It's really about controlling bandwidth on the shared link, not your
individual home connection. So
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Nathan Eisenberg
wrote:
> > Is there a performance difference between the Internet and Internet2?
> > Should that be allowed, or must all IP networks have the same
> > performance?
>
> I think that statement may confuse metrics like performance and capacity,
> with
> Is there a performance difference between the Internet and Internet2?
> Should that be allowed, or must all IP networks have the same
> performance?
I think that statement may confuse metrics like performance and capacity, with
the action of intentionally QOS'ing Netflix over Youtube over the s
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Zaid Ali wrote:
The devil is always in the details. The Network management piece is quite
glossed over and gives a different perception in the summary. You can't
perform the proposed network management piece without
In article
, Kenny
Sallee writes
So the whole 'myth' of Internet doubling every 100 days to me is
something someone (ODell it seems) made up to appease someone higher in
the chain or a government committee that really doesn't get it.
[Whether it was really 100 days, or 200 days...] a statist
22 matches
Mail list logo
