Re: Did I miss a problem: FCC and CISA stress need for access during pandemic

Good question - Of the listed “key points” the first and second, regarding designation as essential employees, has been explicitly included in the several state and county orders that I’ve personally read. By no means a complete survey, but at least some locales are aware of the issue. The only o

Re: RIPE NCC Executive Board election

To many (or most) of the people participating in this thread - I enjoy watching flame wars as much - perhaps more - than the next person... But please keep in mind the NANOG mailing list guidelines at https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ as well as the Code of Conduct that's included

Re: FCC grants WISPs temporary 5.9 GHz spectrum access

Indeed, this does seem like good news under the current situation. It's good for users, and it's nice PR for both the FCC and the WISPs. But I'm curious: What do these 33 operators anticipate after the STA expires in 60 days? Obviously their plans may need to adjust depending on the pandemic respo

Reminder: NANOG 77 call for presentations is open

ghlights Page posted Sep. 30, 2019 NANOG 77 Agenda Posted Oct. 21, 2019 Speaker FINAL presentations DUE (NO CHANGES accepted after this date) Oct. 27, 2019 Lightning Talk Submissions Open, Onsite Registration Begins We look forward to seeing you in October in Austin, Texas! Sincerely,

NANOG 77 call for presentations is open

nference. Materials received after that date may be updated on the website after the completion of the conference. We look forward to seeing you in October in Austin, Texas! Sincerely, Benson Schliesser On behalf of the NANOG PC

NANOG 76 call for presentations is open

d on the website after the completion of the conference. We look forward to seeing you in June in Washington, DC! Sincerely, Benson Schliesser On behalf of the NANOG PC

Re: Oct. 3, 2018 EAS Presidential Alert test

Hi, Andy. I don't have a helpful answer for you, because I'm at the NANOG meeting in Canada right now and as far as I could tell none of the attendees' phones alerted. But I am curious if perhaps your office has a micro-cell for AT&T, or something like that, which might have caused different behav

Re: ARIN RPKI TAL deployment issues

Hi, John. On Tue, Sep 25, 2018, 22:56 John Curran wrote: > > Indeed - In the process of complying with a different legal environment, > ARIN sometimes has to behave differently than RIRs that are located > elsewhere... > > [...] > > The significant difference for ARIN is that we operate under a

Re: Recent trouble with QUIC?

Hi, Sean. I had precisely this experience, mostly noticed just in the past day or so. I assumed it was an effect of the firewall/NAT setup that my corporate IT network has implemented, because it often is a culprit in these kind of situations... But noticing that it was only for QUIC connections t

Re: Thousands of hosts on a gigabit LAN, maybe not

Morrow's comment about the ARMD WG notwithstanding, there might be some useful context in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-karir-armd-statistics-01 Cheers, -Benson Christopher Morrow May 8, 2015 at 12:19 PM consider the pain of also ipv6's link-local gamery.

Re: Wisdom of using 100.64/10 (RFC6598) space in an Amazon VPC deployment

Hi, Eric - Bill already described the salient points. The "transition" space is meant to be used for cases where there are multiple stacked NATs, such as CGN with CPE-based NAT. In theory, if the NAT implementations support it, one could use it repeatedly by stacking NAT on top of NAT ad naus

Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as t

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

On 2013-06-21 4:54 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: Again, this only matters if you place a great deal of importance both on the notion that size equals fairness, and that fairness is more important than efficiency. ... I think the point is here that networks are nudging these decisions by making cer

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

On Jun 19, 2013, at 23:41, "Siegel, David" wrote: > Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have a > way of evaluating the relative burdens. Every major net flow Analytics > vendor is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that > each party

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:09, Martin Barry wrote: > On 20 June 2013 13:07, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Benson Schliesser >> wrote: >>> The sending peer (or their customer) has more control over cost. >> >> I'll assume that, by

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in system that existed at that time. However today what you describe no longer really makes any sense. While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric routing, your t

Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue

On 2013-06-19 7:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote: as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point. randy What do you mean "not really bu

Re: shared address space... a reality!

I'm sure it happened much sooner than 72 hours post allocation. In fact, there were probably folks already squatting on that space long before any of this. Maybe their life just got a little easier. :) Cheers, -Benson On Mar 15, 2012, at 3:57 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: > > More like "wast

Re: Sad IPv4 story?

On Dec 9, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Mark Blackman wrote: >> On Dec 9, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Fred Baker wrote: >>> We're going to be hearing a lot more of these. It's the nature of finite >>> resources, and of human nature when faced with them. At some point, this >>> will find its way into courtrooms under

Re: Sad IPv4 story?

too high for a competitive environment. And maybe by then the price of IPv4 addresses will have made IPv6 deployment a much more obvious choice to reluctant CFO-types.) Cheers, -Benson --- Disclaimers: 1. I am not a lawyer, and nothing in this message should be construed as advice. 2. I,

Re: IP addresses are now assets

It's hard to sustain that kind of commitment... so we need to form a Humor Advisory Committee. Their job would be to determine which behaviors the community finds most humorous. When the community doesn't produce enough material, the comedy HAC would write jokes on our behalf (for adoption by Jo

Re: Botnets buying up IPv4 address space

The important outcome is that transfers are documented. Making it easier for sellers to update Whois (so it points to the buyer) will encourage documentation. If "needs justification" is ever a disincentive to update Whois, then it will discourage documentation. Granted, a seller that doesn't

Re: Botnets buying up IPv4 address space

On Oct 7, 2011, at 1:31 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > What do you mean with "purchasing or renting IPv4". > > Last time that I check it was not possible in the RIR world. Nevertheless, it is possible in the real world. > On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:11, Joly MacFie wrote: > >> I'd welcome co

Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

Hi, Paul. On Sep 22, 2011, at 8:03 PM, Paul Vixie wrote: >> My understanding is that the NomCom consists of 7 people. Of those, 2 >> come from the board and 2 come from the AC. Together, those 4 members of >> the existing establishment choose the remaining 3 NomCom members. In the >> past, there

Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

Hi, Paul. On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:43, Paul Vixie wrote: > Benson Schliesser writes: > >> For what it's worth, I agree that ARIN has a pretty good governance >> structure. (With the exception of NomCom this year, which is shamefully >> unbalanced.) ... > &g

Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

On Sep 18, 2011, at 21:20, John Curran wrote: > On Sep 18, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> >> In John's case (on behalf of ARIN as is befitting his role) he welcomes >> change as long as it's funneled through the ARIN-managed channels. In other

Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

On Sep 18, 2011, at 15:51, Randy Bush wrote: >> I'm told of others that have bought legacy IPv4 prefixes with no >> intention of updating whois at this time - no desire to enter into a >> relationship with ARIN and be subjected to existing "policy", for >> instance. > > so your point is that yo

Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

On Sep 18, 2011, at 3:09 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> IPv4 trading is already taking place, what are you (as operators) >> planning to do when asked to route prefixes that have been >> bought/sold? Will you accept alternative (whois) registry sources? > > why the heck should i have to? the iana an

Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a nationwide network

On Sep 18, 2011, at 10:49 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > i just think that we, as a culture, have let things get wy out of > whack. john is paid to defend the status grow. I like that: "status grow". It seems pretty clear to me that, as humans, we're not very good at organizational contraction.

Re: Anybody can participate in the IETF (Was: Why is IPv6 broken?)

On Jul 11, 2011, at 7:19 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > Again, this is only hard to understand (or accept) if you don't know > how your routers work. > * why do you think there is an ARP and ND table? > * why do you think there are policers to protect the CPU from > excessive ARP/ND punts or traffic?

Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:21 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Jun 17, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> Aw, Jeezus. >> >> No. Just, no. >> >> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/202245/ > > You just learned about this now? On a related topic, the US DoJ recently wrote a letter suggesting

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 4:26 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > I don't think the cost of IPv4 addresses has anywhere to go but up. > This mysterious Nortel/Microsoft transaction would seem to give > credibility to an assumption of increasing cost. I think we can agree on this. It is the natural result of e

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Benson Schliesser > wrote: >> Meanwhile, under the current system, ARIN has managed to accumulate a >$25M >> cash reserve despite an increasing budget. (see >> https://www.arin.net/p

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 19, 2011, at 2:56 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 19, 2011, at 10:19 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: >> Are you saying there are people who advocate creating a new ecosystem >> of service providers for supplying several things that the RIRs >> exclusively supply today? > > Yes. > >> Sign me up.

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> If anybody has any doubts and/or I can clarify anything about my >> interests, let me know. > > could you please clarify your relationship to depository.com? I know some of the people involved in Depository, and I have spoken with them about w

Re: IPv4 address exchange

Hi, Randy. On Apr 18, 2011, at 9:20 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> I introduced several policy proposals to ARIN that deal with the >> question of authority and ownership. >> ... >> If anybody on NANOG supports these concepts, please express your >> support to PPML so that the proposals can move forwar

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:33 PM, David Conrad wrote: > As far as I can tell, the participants in ARIN's processes are more > interested in trying to be a regulator than in being a registry. Given ARIN > is not a government body and it does not have full buy-in from those who they > would try to re

Re: IPv4 address exchange

On Apr 18, 2011, at 6:33 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Also, doesn't the Microsoft-Nortel transaction violate NPRM 8.3 in that > according to the court documents I've seen, John Curran has stated unambiguously (on the ARIN PPML mailing list) that NRPM policy *was* followed. While I may disagree,

Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million

On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > So I wonder rhetorically speaking.. what happens when a bankruptcy > court accidentally sells something that doesn't actually exist, > ... > Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community > participants voluntarily r

Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million

Hi, John. On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:35 AM, John Curran wrote: >> http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html > > Read the comment at the end (attached here for reference). >> Did you have an opportunity to review the actual docket materials, or is >> your "coverage" bas

Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Randy Bush wrote: There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in operating production networks.

Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 22, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Tony Hain wrote: > Seriously, some people will not move until the path they are on is already > burning, which is why they did nothing over the last 5 years despite knowing > that the IANA pool was exhausting much faster than they had wanted to > believe. It took gett

Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:40 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6 is >> the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position seems to >> be most pronounced from people not involved in operating production >> networks. But

Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:54 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 02:29:23 CST, Benson Schliesser said: >> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that IPv6 >> is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this position >

Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:14 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> There seems to be a position, taken by others on these lists, that >> IPv6 is the only address family that matters. Interestingly, this >> position seems to be most pronounced from people not involved in >> operating production networks. > > exc

Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 21, 2011, at 10:16 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 19:08, Dan Wing wrote: > >> Its title, filename, abstract, and introduction all say the problems >> are specific to NAT444. Which is untrue. > > I just re-read the filename, abstract and introduction, and I disagr

Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Chris Grundemann wrote: > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 16:07, Benson Schliesser > wrote: > >> Broken DNS will result in problems browsing the web. That doesn't make it >> accurate to claim that the web is broken, and it's particularly w

Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 18, 2011, at 4:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Feb 18, 2011, at 2:26 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> The document is titled "Assessing the Impact of NAT444 on Network >> Applications" and it claims to discuss NAT444 issues. However, it conflates >> NAT444

Re: [arin-ppml] NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 18, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Feb 18, 2011, at 12:24 AM, Zed Usser wrote: >> >> There's a bit of critique on the NAT444 document on the BEHAVE IETF WG list. >> >> "draft-donley-nat444-impacts-01 is somewhat misleading. It claims to >> analyze NAT444, but it really analy

Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

On Feb 11, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Michael Dillon wrote: > Not true. Two of my former employers went to ARIN every year or two and > received blocks around a /16 in size, specifically for use on global IP > networks > that did not intend to ever announce those addresses on the Internet. There > are se

NAT444 rumors (was Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...)

On Feb 10, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> In terms of CGN44 versus NAT444, I'd like to see evidence of something that >> breaks in NAT444 but not CGN44. People seem to have a gut expectation that >> this is the case, and I'm open to the possibility. But testing aimed at >> demonstra

Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:53 AM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 2/10/2011 8:36 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> DS-lite is still CGN. > > It is still LSN, but it is not NAT444, and the failure rate reduces because > of that. Also, DS-Lite guarantees that you have IPv6 connectivity. NAT44

Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

On Feb 9, 2011, at 6:01 PM, Jack Bates wrote: > On 2/9/2011 5:56 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: >> Or 6rd and go native on their permanent prefix as the forklift upgrade >> schedule allows. Oh well, it's better than nothing or Crummier Grade NAT. > > ds-lite tends to be friendlier LSN from vario

Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters

On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Lynda wrote: > On 2/8/2011 2:46 PM, Brandon Butterworth wrote: >>> Before arin etc it was possible to request ip space and on the >>> form specify you would not be connecting to the Internet. >> >> So those off net users can't complain if ARIN allocated the >> same ra

Re: Membership model

We all know that many people have no IPv6 connectivity. But I've only heard about future Internet-users without IPv4 connectivity... I didn't realize it was reality for Owen today. (Even my IPv6 phone via T-Mobile has NAT64 connectivity to www.newnog.org.) Cheers, -Benson On Feb 7, 2011, at

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:48 PM, John Curran wrote: > You are correct that consensus doesn't assure legality; hence > all draft policies receive a specific staff and legal review > during the development process. Thanks, John. I'm aware of the legal review, as well as the AC and board "gateway

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > The fact that a very large number of network operators use the data > contained in the RIR system in a cooperative manner is convenient > and makes the internet substantially more useful than I can imagine > it would be under alternative scenarios.

Re: "Leasing" of space via non-connectivity providers

On Feb 5, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: >> If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy, >> it's presumptuous to presume the power of expropriation. > > No one presumes it, and a lot of us ar

Re: Post-Exhaustion-phase "punishment" for early adopters

On Feb 4, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > On Feb 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Heinrich Strauss wrote: >> So once the "early" adopters migrate their networks to IPv6, there is no >> business need to maintain the IPv4 allocation and that will be returned to >> the free pool, since Business would see

Re: And so it ends...

On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:22 PM, John Curran wrote: > To be clear, that's not ARIN "legally compelling an entity to cease using > a specific block of address space" We've never claimed that authority, > and I'm not aware of any entity that does claim such authority to compel > organizations to make

Re: And so it ends...

On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:29 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 3, 2011, at 3:42 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> Second, neither ICANN nor the USG has (to my knowledge) declared the RIRs to >> be "successor registries" (whatever they are). > > David - ARIN succeeded Network Solutions in 1997 in the per

Re: And so it ends...

On Feb 3, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote: > Abssolutely *NOT*. their unique status derives from the actions of a > contractor "faithfully executing" it's duties on the behalf of the U.S. > Gov't. 'Antitrust' does not apply to the Gov't, nor to those acting > on its behalf, nor to anyone

Re: And so it ends...

On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:57 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:51 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >>> Such transfers should be reported when noticed, so the resources can be >>> reclaimed and reissued. >> >> Is any RIR authorized, in a legal sense, t

Re: And so it ends...

On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:39 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:22 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote: >> That's what the RIR might say. But without legal authority (e.g. under >> contract, as a regulator, or through statutory authority) it is difficult or >

Re: And so it ends...

On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:30 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: > >> The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's become >> irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things become >> less stable as lots of orgs rus

Re: Last of ipv4 /8's allocated

On Feb 1, 2011, at 8:10 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: > Randy Carpenter wrote: >> Touché! That could theoretically happen. I think Apple should buy HPQDEC >> just so they can announce 16/7 :-) > > Nah, one should buy the other just so they can hand over a /7 to APNIC. How would they justify tha

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Dongting Yu wrote: > Since we are already talking about RIRs, I am curious, who will sign > the legacy blocks in RPKI? Since they pre-exist the RIR, it's not clear that any one RIR has authority until asked. (For a discussion of rights, authority, etc, see http://c

Re: quietly....

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > NAT solves exactly one problem. It provides a way to reduce address > consumption to work around a shortage of addresses. > > It does not solve any other problem(s). In all fairness, that's not really true. It just doesn't solve other problems

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-ltamgmt-00 which I'm in the process of reading. Perhaps there is a way to balance between "fully distributed" and "centralized", e.g. by supporting multiple roots and different trust domains. Cheers, -Benson > On 1 Feb

Re: A top-down RPKI model a threat to human freedom? (was Re: Level 3's IRR Database)

On Feb 1, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Martin Millnert wrote: >> Here be dragons, > >> It should be fairly obvious, by most recently what's going on in >> Egypt, why allowing a government to control the Internet is a Really >> Bad Idea. >> >

Re: ipv4's last graph

On Feb 1, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > >> Is there really any value in trying to distribute graphs that will all >> be flat before the end of the year? > > we're ops, often stick in the mud traditionalists and even somewhat > supersitious. we've had ipv4 graphs for over 15 years. we l

Re: Verizon acquiring Terremark

On Jan 31, 2011, at 10:25 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > >> What does neutral really mean anyways? Terremark has sold, is selling and > > It is the same concept as network neutrality. > An example of a non-neutral IP network is one where a competitor's website or > service is blocked by the network o

Re: Connectivity status for Egypt

On Jan 28, 2011, at 1:44 PM, andrew.wallace wrote: > We should be asking the Egyptians to stagger the return of services so that > infrastructure isn't affected, when connectivity is deemed to be allowed to > come back online. > > Andrew Wallace > > --- > > British IT Security Consultant Y

Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network

On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:39 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > On 1/6/2011 9:28 PM, Dan Wing wrote: >> >> Skype could make it work with direct UDP packets in about 92% of >> cases, per Google's published direct-to-direct statistic at >> http://code.google.com/apis/talk/libjingle/important_concepts.html >

Re: Problems with removing NAT from a network

On Jan 5, 2011, at 10:31 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > > Which is one of the reasons why DS-lite is a better solution for > providing legacy access to the IPv4 Internet than NAT64/DNS64. > DS-lite only breaks what NAT44 breaks. DS-lite doesn't break new > things. > Or just run a dual-stack network

Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute

On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote: > ... Level3 must think that their business > would be better off with regulatory oversight of peering, or they > would not have taken this action. And they might be correct in thinking that, if we assume the peering ecosystem is changing i.e.

Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the

On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > How effective have variations on hot potato routing been, historically? > I seem to recall Cogent made lots of noises early on about how they > could do hot potato routing to encourage peering, but over the years > that didn't seem to pan out that

Re: "potential new and different architectural approach" to solve the Comcast - L3 dispute

On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Loránd Jakab wrote: > Since it is Friday, maybe some of peering experts have some time to > speculate what this new approach proposed by Comcast might be, as they > assert it would represent "a significant shift of Internet infrastructure." > > http://www.lightreadin

Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC

On 12 Aug 10, at 7:26 AM, Dorian Kim wrote: >> Sadly, I have no first-hand knowledge of these costs. How does in-country >> transport compare to trans-Pacific transport cost? (i.e. on a per Mbps per >> kilometer or similar metric) I assume it's cheaper in-country / in-region >> compared to t

Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC

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

Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History

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

Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC

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

Re: multicast nightmare #42 - REDUX

Is the packet loss uniform for each receiver? Or is there a pattern to the loss, e.g. each receiver hears a different / non-overlapping 50% of the packets? Off the cuff, I'd suspect a problem with IGMP snooping. Cheers, -Benson On 14 Oct 09, at 12:36 PM, Adrian Minta wrote: Philip Lavi

Re: Data Centers in England

Philip- I'm only really familiar with my employer's facilities: Savvis has data centers in London, Slough, and Reading with good exchange connectivity*. There is a financial-firm oriented microsite at http://financial.savvis.net/ , but beware the annoying* embedded video. You can look at htt

Re: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation

On Mon, September 8, 2008 09:46, Scott Brim wrote: > Also, ASNs are not > aggregatable so we can't use them to represent a large number of > independently routed networks. Scott, I'm not sure an Autonomous System would want to be aggregated. By its nature it is capable of having arbitrary connec