So, at the end of the week, I *had* been paying $10/mb to
send traffic through transit to reach the whole rest of the
internet. Now, I'm paying $5+$4+$4+$5+$2, or $30, and
I don't have a full set of routes, so I've still got to keep
paying the transit provider as well at $10.
I would like to ag
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:01:36PM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> Maybe it is time to try a free market.
Can't do that, it would be UnAmerican!
- Matt
--
I can only guess that the designer of the things had a major Toilet Duck
habit and had managed to score a couple of industrial-sized bottles o
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Gus Crichton wrote:
Hope you networking experts can shed some light on a concern I have
please. I am multihoming using 2 ISPs to the internet, due to reasons
outside my control, my primary preferred link keeps dropping a number of
times a day forcing traffic to my backup a
On 5/14/2014 5:14 PM, Gus Crichton wrote:
The route calculations by the upstream tier 1s and 2s handle the route
calculations but if I do this too many times consuming their resources, is
there a penalty/blackmark on my AS? Is this monitored even by the tier1s and 2s?
Generally I don't like
Owen,
I've seen a vast difference between Comcast and others in the "marketplace".
Right now, if I had the choice between Comcast and a "legacy" telco, I would
pick Comcast hands-down for:
a) performance
b) IPv6 support
c) willingness to work on issues
- Jared
On May 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Mc
On 5/14/2014 4:27 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach
wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge
2/3 the price of full transit for just their routes when they
represent less than 1/10th of the overall traffic volume.
My guess
Hi there,
Hope you networking experts can shed some light on a concern I have please. I
am multihoming using 2 ISPs to the internet, due to reasons outside my control,
my primary preferred link keeps dropping a number of times a day forcing
traffic to my backup and vice-versa when the primary c
Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite"
- Kevin
215-313-1083
> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
> Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
> ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades
> or addition
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> > I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3
> the price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less
> than 1/10th of the overall traff
Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades
or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary.
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
>>
>> So they seek new sources of reve
>
> So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
>> competition any way they can.
>>
>
No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of
> revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and
> aggressively growing over the top services (whic
--As of May 14, 2014 9:23:21 AM -0500, char...@thefnf.org is alleged to
have said:
So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
competition any way they can.
No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of
revenue, they'd be massively expanding into u
On 13 May 2014, at 15:49, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> So is there just reluctant acceptance of this law, or is there
> push-back and plans to repeal, or...?
This was news to me when I heard about it the other day (because apparently I
am a bad kiwi and do not keep myself informed), but it does soun
Thanks for this,
Have you posted this to the VyOS project forums? It would make a nice
addition to the wiki (*cough* I've been trying to find some help to
complete the VyOS user guide).
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Naoto MATSUMOTO
wrote:
> Hi all!
>
>
> We wrote TIPS memo about the Basic I
On May 14, 2014, at 5:47 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:27:57 AM Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
>> Are there any real-world models out there for
>> revenue-sharing between app/content providers and access
>> networks which would eliminate or reduce 'paid peering'
>> (an alternat
It depends on the service you are providing. If its fully managed up to the
customer premises, I fail to see how you can get away without knowing what
addressing the customer is using.
On 14 May 2014 17:16, wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2014 17:09:02 +0100, Dave Bell said:
>
> > People use VRF's to pro
On Wed, 14 May 2014 17:09:02 +0100, Dave Bell said:
> People use VRF's to provide Layer3 VPNs to customers. Customers
> typically use overlapping address space in their networks.
That's the customer's problem inside their networks. If you have
overlapping address space in *your own greenfield* n
On 14 May 2014 16:14, wrote:
> On 2014-05-13 16:37, Kyle Leissner wrote:
> RFC
>>
>> 1918,
>
>
> ewww. v6 sir! Greenfield network and everything.
>
>> VRF, Overlapping Address Space,
>
>
> ewww again. Those are horrible hacks, v6 all the things.
People use VRF's to provide Layer3 VPNs to custom
On 2014-05-13 16:37, Kyle Leissner wrote:
I would like recommendations on the following software/hardware
elements required to run an access network. Assume you are building a
greenfield network using a combination of access technologies such as
DSL, GPON, AE, and WiFi.
What a timely thread! W
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 05:52:58PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On May 13, 2014, at 17:47 , Tony Wicks wrote:
>
> >> Cc: NANOG list
> >> Subject: Re: New Zealand Spy Agency To Vet Network Builds, Provider Staff
> >>
> >> I didn't see the NSA telling us what we had to buy are demanding adva
hey,
Subscriber Management/BRAS/BNG: Redback was the big player back in the day, but
I believe they are no longer. Juniper has their Subscriber Management feature
pack on their MX routers, and Cisco has their Broadband Network Gateway on
their ASR routers. Besides these two vendors I am not s
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 03:35:41 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
> Last I looked, you were free to change out the kit on
> your submarine cable to anything you wanted once the
> cable was landed.
Things could have changed now, but if memory serves, you
would be asked to reconfirm your kit during interv
On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They
see
no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more
profit without it.
There is the issue of control over the mar
No, they just intercept whatever gear you do purchase before it gets to your
loading dock and then seal it back up with their modifications.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
> On May 13, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> I didn’t see the NSA telling us what we had to buy are dema
While I applaud NZ being open and honest about it, I do think that they have
gone quite a bit further than the NSA and that their proposal is far more
damaging.
Owen
On May 13, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Exactly. They just broke in and left a trail of open doors behind.
>
On May 13, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Tony Wicks wrote:
>> Cc: NANOG list
>> Subject: Re: New Zealand Spy Agency To Vet Network Builds, Provider Staff
>>
>> I didn't see the NSA telling us what we had to buy are demanding advance
> approval rights on our maintenance procedures.
>>
>> Owen
>
> Try to g
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:27:57 AM Roland Dobbins wrote:
> Are there any real-world models out there for
> revenue-sharing between app/content providers and access
> networks which would eliminate or reduce 'paid peering'
> (an alternate way to think of it is as 'delimited
> transit', another
They already have all the information and did it for you.
You are just not aware of it.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.
Usually your system and network admins receive those themselves as part of
either support contracts or simply by registering for the appropriate
notification/mailing list.
Perhaps these links will help you out as well:
http://cve.mitre.org/about/index.html
http://cve.mitre.org/compatible/compati
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:11:30 AM Matthew Petach wrote:
> I'm constantly amazed at how access networks
> think they can charge 2/3 the price of full transit
> for just their routes when they represent less than
> 1/10th of the overall traffic volume. The math just
> doesn't work out. It's n
On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3 the
> price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less than
> 1/10th of the overall traffic volume.
My guess is that from the perspective of the acce
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
> [...]
> The reality is an increasingly directly peered Internet doesn't sit well if
> you are in the business of being the middle man. Now if you will, why do
> transit companies themselves charge content companies to deliver bits? How
> is it
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 09:04:11 AM Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> The problem with the internet is that while it had
> promises of wild growth in the 90s and 00s, once
> penetration reaches a certain level, growth stabilizes.
That depends on your point-of-view and/or interpretation of
"growth
On 5/12/2014 7:25 PM, Mr. Queue wrote:
> Almost a week of this now.. OVH/lvl3 at dal-1-6k.
>
> Thank you sir may I have another..
>
> http://weathermap.ovh.net/usa
>
Sorry about that, it was my first mail to the list so it was held over
a bit for moderation. However, it's back at it and I'
On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
> They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They see
> no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more
> profit without it.
There is the issue of control over the market. But also the pressure
from shareholders
35 matches
Mail list logo
