On 16/Aug/15 00:50, Harry McGregor wrote:
>
>
>
> Before this happens (ie when hell freezes over), I would like to see
> new home communities deploying fiber networks as part of the building
> of the "master plan" of the community. That way the home owners
> association can go out for bid ev
Sean Donelan Opined Thusly,
"Generally I don't believe ISPs that claim 100% uptime or 0% packet loss."
I have seen a "perfect score" on a Keynote evaluation, while we had a rather
nasty outage outside a preststed maintenance window. When we objected that the
outages was a planned maintenance t
On 08/15/2015 09:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The most viable solution, IMHO, is to require a separation between physical
infrastructure providers and those that provide services over that
infrastructure. Breaking the tight coupling between the two and requiring
physical infrastructure provider
On 15/Aug/15 22:45, jim deleskie wrote:
> There is more to it, then just being tired of it, it take, $$ and time
> and bodies to build a network, even in 1 country. Its not something
> everyone can do. I suspect the "game" and transit networks, will
> continue long after most of us are no long
There is more to it, then just being tired of it, it take, $$ and time and
bodies to build a network, even in 1 country. Its not something everyone
can do. I suspect the "game" and transit networks, will continue long
after most of us are no long "playing"
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Mark
On 15/Aug/15 22:01, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> IMHO, there’s only one yes answer here… If enough of the eyeball/content
> providers are able to cooperate and peer with each other directly, you might
> see a significant impact (reduction in need) on transit providers as their
> entire
> business wou
On 15/Aug/15 19:32, jim deleskie wrote:
> In my 20+ yrs now of playing this game, "everyone" has had a turn thinking
> their content/eyeballs are special and should get free "peering".
That's why those tired of playing the game build their own networks to
take out the middleman, for better or w
Let me turn that on its head…
I don’t think anyone’s eyeballs are special.
I don’t think anyone’s content is special.
I think everyone should get free peering with any network whose customers
expect to be able to reach that other network’s customers.
Ignoring for a moment the idea of maximizing
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015, Glen Kent wrote:
bets are off on whether it will get dropped or not. However, the key point
is that the core usually does not drop too many packets - the probability
of drops are highest in the access side.
Is this correct?
1. TCP (and most other IP protocols) depends on,
I dunno, Jim, that sounds almost like you might
think the inevitable outcome will be an "everyone
pays" model of settlements, the way telcos do
it. Unfortunately, in that model, the only winners
are the transit networks in the middle, because
no accounting department is going to want to
keep track
Quite the inverse, I'd say; most of the capacity
headaches center around the handoff between
networks, and most of the congestion points
I come across are with private peering links
where one party or the other is unwilling or
unable to augment capacity. The first and
last mile are fine, but the h
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
> Is there a paper or a presentation that discusses the drops in the core?
Hi Glen,
Probably, but I don't know where to point you.
> If i were to break the total path into three legs -- the first, middle and
> the last, then are you saying that
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 11:01:56PM +0530, Glen Kent wrote:
> Is there a paper or a presentation that discusses the drops in the core?
>
> If i were to break the total path into three legs -- the first, middle
> and the last, then are you saying that the probability of packet loss
> is perhaps 1/3
That was just an example, that list has to be completed on a specific
network or scenario, it changes dramatically. Imagine you were to create a
list for a DoD network instead of public peering based network, it would
change dramatically.
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
> Wh
In my 20+ yrs now of playing this game, "everyone" has had a turn thinking
their content/eyeballs are special and should get free "peering".
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Arrogance is the only reason I can think of why the incumbents think that
> way. I'd be surprised if
Is there a paper or a presentation that discusses the drops in the core?
If i were to break the total path into three legs -- the first, middle and
the last, then are you saying that the probability of packet loss is
perhaps 1/3 in each leg (because the packet passes through different IXes).
That
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I would say that the probability of a packet drop at any particular peering
> point is less than the probability at one of the two edges.
>
> However, given that most packets are likely to traverse multiple peering
> points between the two edge
Hi Glen,
If you first list the causes of a dropped packet, then you can figure out
how likely they are at different points in time (first\last\peer\etc) by
making some assumptions.
Here's an **example**:
*Cause | Location | Likelihood*
Congestion | Last mile | Low
Congestion | First mile | Low
C
I think we're on the same side, just saying it differently substituting greed
for arrogance.
Additionally, the last mile providers are acting no differently than a carrier
would, getting paid on both sides... only carriers are typically balanced
ratios where as last mile\first mile are not.
I would say that the probability of a packet drop at any particular peering
point is less than the probability at one of the two edges.
However, given that most packets are likely to traverse multiple peering
points between the two edges, the probability of a packet drop along
the way at one of th
Your reply implies that your understanding does not match my intended meaning.
(IOW, Perhaps you did not receive what I intended to transmit)
I’m saying that the incumbents in an act of unreasonable greed are demanding
money for peering from providers with a lot of content providers while also
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
> Youre saying that the probability of packet drop at peering points would
> roughly match that at the edge. Is it? I thought that most core switches
> have minimal buffering and really do cut-through forwarding. The idea is
> that the traffic that
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
> On Tue Aug 11, 2015 at 01:35:28pm -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > Absolutely feel free to use it; I haven't seen a single message on it
> in...
> > well, it was 3 years ago I was in datacenters regularly, so I'm goin with
> > "3 years". :-)
Hi Bill,
Just making sure that i get your point:
Youre saying that the probability of packet drop at peering points would
roughly match that at the edge. Is it? I thought that most core switches
have minimal buffering and really do cut-through forwarding. The idea is
that the traffic that they re
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
> Is it fair to say that most traffic drops happen in the access layers, or
> the first and the last miles, and the % of packet drops in the core are
> minimal? So, if the packet has made it past the first mile and has
> "entered" the core then ch
Arrogance is the only reason I can think of why the incumbents think that way.
I'd be surprised if any competitive providers (regardless of their market
dominance) would expect free peering.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exch
I'd guess first\last\peering.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest Internet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Glen Kent"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:47:31 AM
Subject: Dro
Hi,
Is it fair to say that most traffic drops happen in the access layers, or
the first and the last miles, and the % of packet drops in the core are
minimal? So, if the packet has made it past the first mile and has
"entered" the core then chances are high that the packet will safely get
across t
This issue isn’t limited to Cogent.
There is this bizarre belief by the larger eyeball networks (and CC, VZ, and TW
are the worst offenders, pretty much in that order) that they are entitled to
be paid by both the content provider _AND_ the eyeball user for carrying bits
between the two.
In a
On 08/15/2015 06:40 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
neither side wants to upgrade their peeing
Oh, the irony of this typo of "peering"...
It's only partially about net neutrality. Cogent provides cheap bandwidth for
content providers, and sends a lot of traffic to eyeball networks. In the past,
peering partners expected symmetrical load sharing. Cogent feels that eyeball
networks should be happy to carry their traffic since the cu
One thing which is not so obvious is to reduce false positive.
This is hard when you have a mix of traffic profiles/patterns within
your network, with customers in differents domains (scientists,
financials, video addicted, torrent addicted, etc...) with different
bandwidth.
a)
Does anybody t
32 matches
Mail list logo
