Re: Level3 issues from Denver to San Jose?

I'm seeing some packet loss out of one of my routers in San Diego, we peer with L3. ping 4.69.132.57 so gi3/8 repeat 1000 size 5000 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 1000, 5000-byte ICMP Echos to 4.69.132.57, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of x.y.d.z !.!!

Re: TWT - Comcast congestion

On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > I don't know about their connection to TWT, but Comcast has definitely > been running their transits congested. The most obvious one from recent > months is Tata, which appears to be massively congested for upwards of > 12 hours a d

Level3 issues from Denver to San Jose?

I'm seeing packetloss starting at ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net(4.69.132.37) destined down to San Jose (4.69.132.57). 10. ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net 1.5% 11. ae-3-3.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.6% 12. ae-92-92.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9% 13. ae-4-99.edge2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9% Is

Re: TWT - Comcast congestion

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:53:25PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > I'm not privy to the deal, but I will point out as reported it makes no > sense, so there is something else going on here. This is where both > sids are hiding the real truth. I suspect it's one of two scenarios: > > - Comcast de

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Andrew Koch wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin wrote: >> >>> So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp >>> electrical service at my house. But I don't pay for a

Re: [NANOG-announce] Reminder: Today is the last day to register for NANOG 51 at the early bird rate

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, David Meyer wrote: Register today to get the early bird rate. Looking forward to seeing you in Miami. I just tried (to take advantage of the early-bird rate) and it looks like the registration code is busted. Internal Server Error The server encountered an internal err

Re: TWT - Comcast congestion

In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:24:47PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > I never said otherwise. The PR is pretty clear: Level 3 says that > Comcast, their TRANSIT CUSTOMER, demanded that Level 3 pay them because > of a ratio imbalance. Level 3, not wanting to cause massive

Re: TWT - Comcast congestion

While its "pile on Comcast night", I'll add that that the Comcast peers with Cablevision Lightpath are also a mess in New York, Ashburn and Chicago right now. Have been for at least the last hour or two. According to Cablevision we were not the first to report it and the feedback I have from them

Re: TWT - Comcast congestion

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:45:57PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: > Actually it appears to be Level 3 who fired the first PR salvo running > to the FCC, if the date stamps on the statements are right. So it's > really Level 3 framing as a net neutrality peering issue the fact that > Comcast balked a

Re: Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010

logmein/hamachi Actually pretty useful for those who can't (won't) purchase gear to do it. I use it.. Warren Bailey | RF Engineer General Communication, Inc. 2550 Denali St. Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99503 907.868.5911 desk 907.903.5410 mobile 907.947.7616 followme http://www.gci.com On 11/30

Re: Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:41 PM, bill manning wrote: > 96 days left Martin?  Don't think we'll make it past January? > --bill I doubt whether or not there are more than 60 days left for the IANA pool. The number of addresses that remain for normal allocation happens to be identical to the approxi

Re: TWT - Comcast congestion

In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:12:23PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > The part that I find most interesting about this current debacle is how > Comcast has managed to convince people that this is a peering dispute, > when in reality Comcast and Level3 have never been peer

Re: TWT - Comcast congestion

I would have said OK, and then we'll go ahead and renew your contract with us at current price + $X/Mbps. Jeff On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> We have seen the same thing with other carriers. As fa

Re: TWT - Comcast congestion

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote: > We have seen the same thing with other carriers. As far as I can see, > Comcast is congested, at least at Equinix in San Jose. Since this is > all over private connections (at least in our case), the fabric is not > an issue. > >

Re: wikileaks unreachable

On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:18:18PM -0500, Andrew Kirch said: >Lets be clear here, I'm not encouraging DDoS, I'm enjoying the >possibility that someone will hopefully put a jacketed hollowpoint in >Assange. Not to promote equine defibrilation, but just so you all feel better - http://www.mi

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

Marshall Eubanks wrote: http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_16526623?source =rss The cable companies are losing subs at an increasing rate. People are using them for internet and not buying the television programming. If Comcast can't collect from their "cord-cutting" cus

Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010

Hi, The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of four /8 IPv4 blocks to ARIN and RIPE NCC in November 2010: 5/8, 23/8, 37/8 and 100/8. You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml http://www.iana.org/ass

Re: Cage nuts/rack hw near SAVVIS DC3 (Sterling VA)

As always, thanks to the responses off list, we're all sorted now. On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:32, "Christopher J. Pilkington" wrote: > Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally > near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a > local supply here, and somehow the rack

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

GigaOm has begin tracking this story: http://gigaom.com/2010/11/30/a-play-by-play-on-the-comcast-and-level-3-spat On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > > Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know > what is said publically rarely matches the reality behind

Fwd: Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010

96 days left Martin? Don't think we'll make it past January? --bill Begin forwarded message: > From: Leo Vegoda > Date: November 30, 2010 12:27:11 PST > To: Leo Vegoda > Subject: [janog:10168] Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010 > Reply-To: ja...@janog.gr.jp > > Hi, > > The IAN

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Great detective work and it feels very probable that you are largely correct. The pieces together quite nicely. Love the L3 LG part. I dont think they were out to get Comcast specifically but the whole internet, L3 is a large global player and sell lots of transit bits. More bits to sell and p

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:46:27AM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote: > Clearly, to balance out the traffic ratios, content providers should set their > server MTUs to 64 bytes. That way, small HTTP request packets will be > nicely balanced out by small HTTP reply packets. If the

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

A follow on to my post, because it's got me thinking about "Network Neutrality". What we have is old world scenarios not matching the new world order. Let's do some diagrams. The way things used to be, scenario #1: Segment ASegment B Segment C Segment D |

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Does "build it, and they will come" now become a business liability? Yes, a business should stake out appropriate agreements in order to ensure relevant product delivery, but they also shouldn't be punished (for lack of a better word) for not foreseeing the success of said product- perhaps a "shar

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as >> long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic >> exchanged. If it becomes wildly lopside

Re: TWT - Comcast congestion

> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:29:31 -0500 (EST) > From: Jon Lewis > > Anyone else seeing this or know the cause? > > 5: ash1-pr2-xe-2-3-0-0.us.twtelecom.net (66.192.244.214) 29.758ms > 6: pos-3-11-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.145) asymm 11 > 846.582ms > 7: pos-1-7-0-0

[NANOG-announce] Reminder: Today is the last day to register for NANOG 51 at the early bird rate

Register today to get the early bird rate. Looking forward to seeing you in Miami. Dave (for the NANOG PC) ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote: ... >> Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's >> clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD business >> and so they are strong arming other providers t

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Maybe I am oversimplifying this a bit, but the way I see this situation is this: 1. L3 is carrying traffic for a popular service 2. Comcast customers want that service. 3. Comcast and L3 peer with each other (i.e. very little cost for either) (So, Comcast is paying very little to get that dat

Re: wireless data caps [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions]

-- Original Message --- From: William Herrin Sent: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:17:45 -0500 > I checked it out when I updated my credit card number online > recently. The billing page has a place to describe a cap and overage > charges. It's listed as unlimited. Not saying you're wrong.

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote: >> My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether. > > Its 5GB, trust me on that one. I checked it out when I updated my credit card number online recently. The billing page h

Re: Static routes and reverse DNS with Cogeco

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:02:07PM +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: > > 1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24 2. I was > > told > > they "do not do static routes" when I asked if I could have my /24 circuit > > converted to a /30 and have the remaining subnets routed to my

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know what is said publically rarely matches the reality behind the scenes. In this particular case my spidy sense tells me there is absolutely something interesting behind the scenes, but the question is what. I'd never really paid atten

RE: Static routes and reverse DNS with Cogeco

> 1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24 2. I was told > they "do not do static routes" when I asked if I could have my /24 circuit > converted to a /30 and have the remaining subnets routed to my end of /30. > Their suggested meathod is to put a router running proxy arp in

Static routes and reverse DNS with Cogeco

I am assist a small cable system that is using cogeco as their backbone provider, and am running into some issues. I was wondering if anyone else has had sucess working with them. My issues are the following. 1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24 2. I was told they "d

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

I used to have an unlimited EVDO service from Sprint, when they changed to 5GB I called to complain and was advised that my plan was grandfathered, my new limit 5GB but with $0/GB overage. Jeff On Nov 30, 2010 11:24 AM, "Brielle Bruns" wrote: On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > My Ve

Re: Cage nuts/rack hw near SAVVIS DC3 (Sterling VA)

Owen DeLong writes: > On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: > >> Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally >> near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a >> local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with >> a 2:1 screw:nut

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:47 AM, George Bonser wrote: > > >> Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's >> clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD >> business and so they are strong arming other providers to affect >> Netflix's business model. Bu

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

> Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's > clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD > business and so they are strong arming other providers to affect > Netflix's business model. But as others have stated what would happen > if > Comcast star

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

On 11/30/2010 10:23 AM, Rettke, Brian wrote: I think we need to start with education at every level. Watching 1-2 movies a day, some additional streaming content, using the VoIP phone whenever, and surfing the web is normal behavior. Running occasional P2P is normal behavior. What are you us

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

MetroPCS also offers unlimited EVDO. Owen On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote: > On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote: >> My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether. >> > > Its 5GB, trust me on that one. Former roommate worked for Verizon Wireless

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote: > On the subject of marketing for years the wireless operators sold unlimited > data plans. Now they are coming back and saying well unlimited is really 5 > GB. the biggest problem I have with these is the fact that a single software update

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

I just wanted to stop and say I'm glad we can have this kind of debate :) I think we need to start with education at every level. Watching 1-2 movies a day, some additional streaming content, using the VoIP phone whenever, and surfing the web is normal behavior. Running occasional P2P is normal

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote: My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether. Its 5GB, trust me on that one. Former roommate worked for Verizon Wireless as a high level blackberry tech in the local call center - they quietly added the cap to all plans over

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:47 AM, William Warren wrote: > On 11/30/2010 12:09 AM, Andrew Koch wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin  wrote: >> >>> So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp >>> electrical service at my house. But I don't pay for a 200 amp

Re: wikileaks unreachable

On Nov 28, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > anyone know why https://www.wikileaks.org/ is not reachable? nations > state level censors trying to close the barn door after the horse has > left? > > randy > > That was two days ago - as of this morning, there is apparently another From @w

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Seth Mattinen wrote: On 11/29/10 3:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: But this isn't a technology problem, or a ratio problem. Comcast's blog specifically mentions unbalanced ratios as an issue. They're an "eyes network". What do they expect? Look at typical traffic profile

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:47:10PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Ratios were an excuse used by GTEi to try and force Exodus, Above.Net, and > Global Center to pay for peering back in 1998. It had a valid, technical > reason behind it - the cost of bit-miles.[*] Unfort

Re: starwars.com subdomain hijacked?

Novator (Canadian web-shopping company, used to be FTD's big partner) is responsible for shop.starwars.com so I think all that's happened here is Novator forgot to renew a domain. domainsatcost.ca is rebel.com is Momentous.ca and they own yourdomainhasexpired.com. -Rich On 22 Nov 10, at 12:

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/30/2010 9:06 AM, William Warren wrote: This whole mess concerns me about the future of the internet. If the traffic can't get to the clients by routing around a depeering..is the internet really working as designed? I don't think so. Peering has become the gateway to the ultimate in netwo

Telstra Breakup (Was Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions)

the news: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86782/20101130/telstra-nbn-deal-set-to-reshape-australia-s-telecommunication-industry.htm http://www.theage.com.au/national/parliament-approves-telstra-split-20101129-18dy0.html The summary is that Australian Parliament just voted to break up Telstra (which is parti

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

William, Why be concerned? Operators have pulled this trick several times over the course of history and each time the good guys prevail. It proves that the system works. Jeff On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:06 AM, William Warren wrote: > On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote: >> >> -BEGIN PGP

Re: The i-root china reroute finally makes fox news. And congress.

Not if it's traffic is re-routed/compromised. ;) Jeff On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > > Too much SciFi, nothing better and more effective than a fully loaded > also if it can fly remotely operated. > > -J > > -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.ne

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

On Nov 30, 2010, at 4:46 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus & Global Center to agree >> to pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the rest is >> history. > > Patrick - > > Y

Re: Cage nuts/rack hw near SAVVIS DC3 (Sterling VA)

On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: > Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally > near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a > local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with > a 2:1 screw:nuts ratio. > > -cjp Graybar i

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I understand th

Re: The i-root china reroute finally makes fox news. And congress.

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:28 PM, David Hiers wrote: > This little border skirmish is a good reminder that we build and > operate one of the key battlegrounds on which all current and future > wars are, and will be, fought. Too much SciFi, nothing better and more effective than a fully loaded ol'

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

replies inline On 11/30/2010 12:09 AM, Andrew Koch wrote: On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin wrote: So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp electrical service at my house. But I don't pay for a 200 amp service, I pay for kilowatt-hours of usage. There

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

On Nov 30, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: >> And before we get too much into HD vs Codecs vs 720P vs 1080p vs >> "true HD" marketing BS, I capture out of my camera's HDMI port at >> 3Gbit/s and I am not running 4:4:4 color. So what is HD and what it >> the allowable compression for

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote: Or why don't you build a network to places that Comcast peers at; and bypass L3 completely and negotiate a peering relationship directly with Comcast? We tried Comcast wouldn't peer with us because they considered us a compeititor. Seriously this has n

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

I've read through the entire thread thus far, and there are several very interesting points. I'd like to know more about the Australian experiment? But there were a couple of disparate comments that seem highly related, so I'll reply to them jointly here: On 11/30/10 2:59 AM, JC Dill wrote: W

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 11/30/2010 07:59 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: Or why don't you build a network to places that Comcast peers at; and bypass L3 completely and negotiate a peering relationship directly with Comcast? We tried Comcast wouldn't peer with us because they considered us a compeititor. Seriously thi

Re: Cage nuts/rack hw near SAVVIS DC3 (Sterling VA)

Any Greybar should have them, but they're not going to do you any favors on price. -wil On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote: > Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally > near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a > local supply her

Cage nuts/rack hw near SAVVIS DC3 (Sterling VA)

Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with a 2:1 screw:nuts ratio. -cjp

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > I will be the first to advocate the government use minimal to no > regulation where there is active competition and consumer choice, > and thus folks can "vote with their dollars". > > Broadband in the US is not in that boat.  Too many consum

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote: Okay's let's say L3 gives in to Comcast and pays them. L3 then turns around and charges us (providers) more to cover the additional money they have to pay Comcast now. Why don't you, and other providers, demand L3 give you the same settlement-free peerin

Re: Ratios & peering [was: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions]

On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus & Global Center to agree to > pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the rest is > history. Patrick - Your summary is incorrect. To be perfectly clear on the history:

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

> And before we get too much into HD vs Codecs vs 720P vs 1080p vs > "true HD" marketing BS, I capture out of my camera's HDMI port at > 3Gbit/s and I am not running 4:4:4 color. So what is HD and what it > the allowable compression for it still to be considered as such. Whatever marketing feel l

Re: experience with equinix exchange

Re, meh...@akcin.net (Mehmet Akcin) wrote: > > But all the traffic on every Equinix and PAIX switch combined, is still > > lower than the traffic on any one of the three large exchanges in Europe. > > It really is all about the PNIs. > I wonder how is NOTA like, do they ever make the traffic i

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

* Valdis Kletnieks: > On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 17:11:18 CST, Jack Bates said: >> I agree. This type of maneuver is no different than ESPN3 charging the >> ISP for the ISP customers to access the content. Both are unscalable >> models that threaten the foundation of an open Internet. > > Oddly enough,

Re: [v6ops] Conclusions? - Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 21:34, Doug Barton wrote: > If you're looking for serious feedback: We are. > 3. I've never had a problem calling it "field," I think that 5952 is a > perfectly good normative ref for that, and I don't understand what the > fuss is about. :) I seem to remember one of t

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:23:41 + Ben Butler wrote: > Part of the problem is the content providers do not encode properly, we have > seen this all along with images on webs sties as access speeds have > increased. There is no penalty on the content provider for lazy programming, > cpu cycles

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

On the subject of marketing for years the wireless operators sold unlimited data plans. Now they are coming back and saying well unlimited is really 5 GB. -Original Message- From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 11:17 PM To: Ben Butler Cc: NANOG

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions

It may have something to do with that Level3 is now hosting all the streaming content for Netflixs. Cheers Ryan -Original Message- From: Thomas Donnelly [mailto:tad1...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:52 PM To: Rettke, Brian; Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list; Guerra, Ruben Sub

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > > I understand that politics is off-topic, but this pol

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

aka the Australian NBN model ? Or taking the Allied Fiber 'real-estate' model to the edge. It's not beyond possibility that some US muni's may go for it. j > Recipe for success is to have a neutral entity whose business idea is to > rent out fiber to anyone who wants to rent it, and who goes al

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Joly MacFie wrote: Afterwards, I asked her about the effect of competition. She remarked that, according to her research, countries with competition, such as the Euro unbundling regimes like the UK, actually had a much higher likelihood of such network management practices

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

On 30/11/2010, at 6:17 PM, Kevin Blackham wrote: > On Nov 29, 2010, at 15:57, William Warren > wrote: > >> I think Karl Denninger has this one called right: >> http://market-ticker.org/post=173522 > > I don't think so. Let's do a little math exercise: > > Comcast charges me $75/mo for my pip

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

* Seth Mattinen: > On 11/29/2010 14:49, Aaron Wendel wrote: >> A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands >> more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and >> pass on the costs to the customers demanding it. >> > > But then Comcast might h

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

It's a popular concept that competition will resolve NN concerns. A couple of weeks back I taped Barbara Van Schewick expounding on her theme that blocking, discrimination, and/or access charges, ARE acceptable if at the users - rather than provider's - discretion. http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1459

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions

Ben Butler wrote: Same hymn sheet, if they pay enough the cost averaging model works again and we don't have to worry about latency critical or transfer volume. The problem is that they wont pay for it. I became interested in these guys: http://www.plus.net/?home=hometop in 2008 because they

Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast's Actions

No matter what, Comcast is the loser. If subscribers can't access content they will be calling Comcast customer service. Only a small fraction of those subscribers will have any clue who L3 is or why that's important and even fewer will be understanding of Comcast's position. They're not in the pos