Hi Yasir,
Thanks a lot for your immediate reply. I tried calling the number you provided,
that does not lead to "Chunghwa Telecom" in Taiwan. However, it leads to some
other organization and they are unable to understand when I speak in English :-(
-Nat
--- On Thu, 12/8/10, Yasir Munir Abbasi wr
0800-080-100
Yasir Abbasi
-Original Message-
From: Natarajan Balasubramanian [mailto:ptb...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:24 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg.
Note: I need the Technical Support Contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom" in
Note: I need the Technical Support Contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom" in
Taiwan.
--- On Thu, 12/8/10, Natarajan Balasubramanian wrote:
From: Natarajan Balasubramanian
Subject: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg.
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thursday, 12 August, 2010, 11:48 AM
Hi All,
Does anyo
Hi All,
Does anyone have the contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom's" Business Users -
Technical Support number ?
-Nat
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:53:18PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 8/11/10 12:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> > Nice to see this change
> >
> > APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long
> > distance links are expensive). Now that US wants to peer with Asia,
> > pricing may
CIP went with BT (Concert) I still clearly remember the very long
concall when we separated it from it BIPP connections. :)
-jim
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote:
>
>> MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-D
BIPP was sold to C&W where it continued to use MCI transmission and facilities.
In November 2000, C&W had rebuilt it on their own facilities (just a bit
larger). Quite soon after the completion of the new network in 2000, C&W
marketing was forecasting the need for a network that was ten times
I think for most of us iMCI'ers its a very big diffrence that iMCI !=
MCIWorldcom
-jim
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-Original Message-
From: "Jeffrey S. Young"
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:26:29
To: John Lee
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Andrew Odlyzko
Subject: Re:
On my BB. I'm waiting for someone to correct this thread by saying MFS bought
UUNET for ~2bill and WCOM absorbed MFS.
That is all.
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey S. Young
To: John Lee
Cc: nanog@nanog.org ; Andrew Odlyzko
Sent: Wed Aug 11 19:26:29 2010
Subject: Re: off-topic: summ
Worldcom bought MFS.
Worldcom bought MCI.
Worldcom bought UUnet.
In your statement s/MCI/Worldcom/g
I don't know if UUnet was part of Worldcom when MO first made statements about
backbone growth, but I do know that internetMCI was still part of MCI and
therefore, MCI was not a part of Worldcom.
Around 40% of our low-end/budget VPS hosting customers are based in APAC. It's
common for departing customers to cite the primary reason as seeking lower
latency to their regions.
Sent while on the go, please excuse terseness.
On Aug 11, 2010, at 17:03, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On 11 Au
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Leigh Porter wrote:
Well, it would be hard to change because who would host in country when it
costs so much to do so. It'd be much cheaper to host out of the country thereby
exasperating the whole problem.
Well some of us have no choice. We provide hosted video conferen
On 11 Aug 10, at 5:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Obviously I can't speak for the providers in question, but I'd guess
>> that the cost for transit in AP is strongly related to the cost of
>> long-haul transport.
>
> Start with something that can be effectively isolated from the
> transpacific pa
On 11 Aug 10, at 2:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
> My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later
> acquisition by the Worldcom monster (no, no biases here :-). While this was
> going on MCI was building and running what was called the BIPP (Basic IP
> Platform) internally. T
On 8/11/10 2:03 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A
>> megabit in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged
>> for for the transport cost across the pacific.
>
> Obviously
My feeling is that the Chinese market suffice to its own needs, now that all
the major websites have their equivalent in Chinese and are more popular than
the Chinese translation of US/EU based web sites.
I have heard of large data Centres being built in AP.
Google spoke at one time to do its o
On 11 Aug 2010, at 22:03, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
> On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A megabit
>> in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged for for the
>> transport cost across the pacific.
>
> Ob
On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A megabit
> in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged for for the
> transport cost across the pacific.
Obviously I can't speak for the providers in question, but I'd guess
"...the cost of captial, and regulatory or monopoloy capture than it does
with
some artifical lack of price equilibrium."
now that sounds like fodder for a different list ;)
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 8/11/10 12:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> > Nice to see this ch
Does anyone have any recommendations or experience to share about any
L2 providers in the Portland OR, and NYC markets?
Specifically, providers that can do 1Gbit between those cities, with
reasonable SLAs.
Comments off-list would be greatly appreciated!
--
Brent Jones
br...@servuhome.net
On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Randy Whitney wrote:
> On 8/11/2010 3:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote:
>>
>>> MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and
>>> MFS-Datanet had all of the fiber running to key locations at the
>>> time and could
On 8/11/10 12:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> Nice to see this change
>
> APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long
> distance links are expensive). Now that US wants to peer with Asia,
> pricing may become more balanced...
I think the question is more like why am I being
Jessica,
As I explained in an email in response to your earlier posting, my
paper makes it very clear that Mike O'Dell and John Sidgmore were,
for most of the time in the 1997-2001 time frame, talking of a
doubling every 100 days of capacity, not traffic, and only for
UUNet. (In fact, the Sidgmor
Chris Boyd writes:
> My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later
> acquisition by the Worldcom monster (no, no biases here :-).
MFS acquired UUnet Technologies on 12 August 1996.
On 31 December 1996, MFS "merged with and into WorldCom, Inc" although
it sure looked like
Nice to see this change
APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long distance links
are expensive). Now that US wants to peer with Asia, pricing may become more
balanced...
- Original Message -
From: "David Ulevitch"
To: na...@merit.edu
Sent: Thursday, 12 August,
On 8/11/2010 3:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote:
MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and
MFS-Datanet had all of the fiber running to key locations at the
time and could drastically cut MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI
and their traffic w
The window for comments closes tomorrow.
Of course, the window for comments that somehow paint ICANN as a
bastion of fools never closes, but anyone in the access and above
business that opines on the structure, and interests, of registrars
and registries, who opines after tomorrow, but not bef
On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote:
> MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-Datanet had all
> of the fiber running to key locations at the time and could drastically cut
> MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI and their traffic was put on this same
> network. MCI
Hi Nanog,
As we extend our reach into Asia, we're finding that our typical
carriers (see: upstreams of AS36692) who provide service to us in
North America and Europe are not able to offer us service in Asia
either (1) at all or (2) at prices remotely resembling our pricing in
NA and EU. For examp
Andrew,
Earlier this week I had a meeting with the ex-Director of the Network
Operations Center for MFS-Datanet/MCI whose tenure was through 1999. From 1994
to 1998 they were re-architeching the Frame Relay and ATM networks to handle
the growth in traffic including these new facilities called p
Dear colleagues,
LACNOG is pleased to announce the opening of registration to
participate in the LACNOG 2010 meeting to be held in conjunction with
LACNIC XIV and the 4th Brazilian PTT Forum.
This joint event will take place from 19 to 22 October 2010, at the
Caesar Park International Airport Hot
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:23:01 CDT, Jeff Harper said:
> This is kind of like one person saying they're not going to listen to a
> radio station anymore.
"And the only reason I'm singing you this song now is cause you may know
somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and
Wait a sec, you seems to assume that the 'Doubling every 100 days" statement
was referring to the Internet traffic not just UUNet traffic. My recollection
was that the statement was referring to UUNet traffic based on the stats
collected in a period of time (see my previous email). That is why
This is kind of like one person saying they're not going to listen to a
radio station anymore.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:s...@cb3rob.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:53 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Cc: akt...@lists.piratenpartei.de; algem...@lists.pir
Since several members of this list requested it, here is a summary
of the responses to my request for information about Internet growth
during the telecom bubble, in particular the perceptions of the
O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet "Internet doubling every 100 days"
myth.
First of all, many than
> Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
> undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to see
> as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an
> example:
>
> Should the following networks, to which list more will
Other clients eh? Something tells your transit would be completely
useless on days where new microsoft/adobe/protools/games gets released.
Just saying.
c
On 8/11/2010 6:29 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain
> in the world, as w
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:25 +, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> it is:
>
> c) RIAA/MPAA members trying to make ISPs liable for what customers do in
> order to somehow fork the isp into kicking out the customer, as they
> refuse to simply go to court against the customer but rather prefer to
> ha
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:29 +, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it,
if you think that is a good sales point... do you actually have any
legitimate customers?
william
Not that I am speaking for anybody but myself here. I'll killfile
this thread now
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
wrote:
>
>> btw, considering that you appearantly run a larger network than the 3
>> networks we own and operate, willing to sell? :P
>
> That would be rarther fu
Hi!
btw, considering that you appearantly run a larger network than the 3
networks we own and operate, willing to sell? :P
That would be rarther funny Sven, you buying IBM. Sweet dreams.
Bye,
Raymond.
btw, considering that you appearantly run a larger network than the 3
networks we own and operate, willing to sell? :P
--
Greetings,
Sven Olaf Kamphuis,
CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG
=
Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in
the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites in
the entire world, until a few mon
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in
> the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites in
> the entire world, until a few months ago.
no, that doesnt matter as much as just h
hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in
the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites
in the entire world, until a few months ago.
not to mention several of our other clients ;)
i'd suggest you do your homework properly next time :P
next up on the list: disney, paramount pictures, sony music entertainment,
sony pictures entertainment, most of vivendi/universal group, viacom..
all of these organisations have well established themselves on the list of
organisations not worthy to have their traffic relayed for free.
--
Gree
it is:
c) RIAA/MPAA members trying to make ISPs liable for what customers do in
order to somehow fork the isp into kicking out the customer, as they
refuse to simply go to court against the customer but rather prefer to
harrass their ISP or their isp's isp..
Well guess what, we don't really
If you announce anything worth reaching in that AS of yours .. MAYBE,
JUST MAYBE they'd care rather than yawn
84.22.96.0/19 has, for instance - 84.22.96.254 cock-is.huge.nl
If sony music etc want to engage in a size war with you, that's
entirely up to them.
Meanwhile, please leave nanog out of
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:52:53 + (UTC)
Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
> Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
> undermining net-neutrality over the past few months,
What is your definition of violating net-neutrality?
Is it
(a) carriers ransoming content provide
Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely
undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to
see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to
set an example:
Should the following networks, to which list more will be added
In article <621c1b2c-f7e3-438f-9ddd-d5dc41979...@gmail.com>, kris foster
quotes Jeremy Orbell
Anyway, the full press release which I quoted from can be read on page 3
of the following PDF:https://www.linx.net/files/hotlinx/hotlinx-20.pdf
And on page 2 there's the "Internet Time x4" meme, whi
51 matches
Mail list logo
