On 06/17/2017 02:10 PM, Jeremy Austin wrote:
> I appreciate that a target of 35,000 per county or "county equivalent"
> (parish, borough?) is just a number — but I believe I would prefer a metric
> keyed to actual geographic population density rather than to political or
> municipal boundaries qua
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
> It does have a few color pictures, though. And one comic strip.
>
Upvote for use of 'caisson'.
There is at least one thing that Sen. Ted Stevens got right; in the fiber
era, the Internet really *is* a series of tubes.
I appreciate t
, October 30, 2016 9:19 PM
To: Rod Beck; Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality in Canada
On 2016-10-30 14:20, Rod Beck wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
>
> What is the status of net neutrality in Canada?
The Telecom Act has had a clasue against undue
preference/discrimination, as well as a &qu
On 2016-10-30 14:20, Rod Beck wrote:
> Hi Jean,
>
>
> What is the status of net neutrality in Canada?
The Telecom Act has had a clasue against undue
preference/discrimination, as well as a "cannot control content", but
both have loopholes. (27(2) , a carrier can argue a
preference/discriminatio
Hi Jean,
What is the status of net neutrality in Canada?
Regards,
Roderick.
From: NANOG on behalf of Jean-Francois Mezei
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2016 6:52 PM
To: Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: FYI: Net Neutrality in Canada
This is a heads up, the CRTC (Canad
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
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
Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -
>>
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>> To: "Matthew Huff"
>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
>> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
>> Subject: Re:
;> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>&
p://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Matthew Huff"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
> Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
> Co
ons
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest Internet Exchange
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Matthew Huff"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2
west-ix.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> To: "Matthew Huff"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
> Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and
>
ernet Exchange
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong"
To: "Matthew Huff"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2015 11:44:57 AM
Subject: Re: net neutrality peering dispute between CenturyTel/Qwest and Cogent
in Dallas
Th
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
Minor nit: McDowell is a former two term commissioner, but was not a
chairman. He is, however, a real standout in terms of understanding the
Internet and has many of the most coherent comments of any commissioner
since his appointment. He was a leader in the campaign to push back the
attempts o
On 7/20/2014 11:08 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks
which update the screen less often than 30 times
>An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
>doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
>why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks
>which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did
>say he used it for doi
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Paul S. wrote:
>
> For all intents and purposes, it actually does work fine -- yeah.
>
> I've got a few friends who bought it, it seems to work fine.
This is way off topic, but
This topic was covered back in the beginning of the year at:
http://tiama
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:35 , William Herrin wrote:
>> An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
>> doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
>> why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any differenc
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:35 , William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
>> Michael Thomas writes:
>>> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
watch the network providers c
On 7/19/2014 午前 03:35, William Herrin wrote:
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Michael Thomas writes:
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
watch the network providers completely lose their s
> I just use it as a monitor for my compooter, so it doesn't bother me at
> all. Which is pretty much
> the only thing you can do with 4k these days... not much content
> available that i know of.
Pretty much the only thing it will ever be good for.
4K doesn't look so good at 30Hz if things mov
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
> Michael Thomas writes:
>> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>> /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
>>> watch the network providers completely lose their shit
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/S
On 07/18/2014 11:05 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Michael Thomas writes:
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
watch the network providers completely lose their shit
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-U
Michael Thomas writes:
> On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> /me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
>> watch the network providers completely lose their shit
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
>
> $339!
>
On 7/16/2014 1:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/16/2014 08:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-interne
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
watch the network providers completely lose their shit
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
$339!
I use it for doing dev. It's *fabul
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:08:58 -0600, Brett Glass said:
> Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined,
> range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and
> about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to
> accept more input. (Yes, machines c
On Jul 15, 2014, at 08:19 , Naslund, Steve wrote:
> I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are
> near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes,
> a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of
> carr
"In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened,
and nothing is broken that needs fixing."
Prefixing a statement with "in truth" doesn't actually make it true, Bob.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Relevant article by former FCC Chair
>
> http://ww
On 7/16/14 3:30 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
> In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer —
> traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
In a common hypothetical they cite, ISPs would slow — or buffer —
traffic for Netflix unless it unfairly pays for more access points,
or “off ramps,” and better qu
Le 16/07/2014 17:45, Eric Brunner-Williams a écrit :
> On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
>> Relevant article by former FCC Chair
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
>>
>
> It reads like a hit piece
On July 15, 2014 at 13:08 na...@brettglass.com (Brett Glass) wrote:
> At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> >There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which
> >it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
>
> Very true. And there's another f
On 07/16/2014 12:24 PM, Collin Anderson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton mailto:do...@dougbarton.us>> wrote:
Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece,
what did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is
misstated or overb
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what
> did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated
> or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a "hit
> piece."
>
Tim
On 07/16/2014 08:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
It reads like a hit piece (by a Repu
dead. I'd like to talk about neutrality in symmetry on
consumer access services. I'd gladly trade my 30/5 for 15/15 with the
ability to host services for the ~$60/mo I pay today.
Jason
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> Re: Net Neutrality
>
> In the
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
It reads like a hit piece (by a Republican "free markets" ideologue) on
a (Progressive) De
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-internet/
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Wow, first time I ever saw this line so thanks for the text.
partnerships among interested entities...that leaves it open to all.
Unless, a bureaucrat wants to pull out this some other supporting
documentssomething additional that is all encompassing like our equal
opportunity, filed and r
ETCs aside for a moment, the NTIA used to give out an awful lot of money
for rural electrification, then for telecom - a lot of it going to small
players, coops, and municipalities. A Probably still does - though I
haven't followed the program in recent years. Yes, writing and selling
a grant
Here is the actual document for defining what the federal government
considers to be an ETC. Keep in mind that state level boards actually make
the designation based on these, and potentially state level regulations, so
there is some variation based on the state(s) you operate in. Having said,
th
Page 9-10 from the Connect America Fund (CAF) Report and Order on Rural
Broadband Experiments. I don't think this needs translation, but please
read carefully.
*2.*
We concluded in the Tech Transitions Order that we would encourage
participation in
the rural broadband experiments from a
On 2014-07-16 04:04, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Brett Glass"
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined,
range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and
about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to
a
Oh I agree Brett. My point was for flecher. We lost business once the
government school discount happened. Its an example to what you speak
ofall the time red tape overhead designed to give to LEcs business.
And one of my companies is a CLEC.
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
> I'll just say that we'
- Original Message -
> From: "Brett Glass"
> Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined,
> range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and
> about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to
> accept more input. (Yes, machines cou
Any ISP can tap into Erate funding. We are a WISP and lots of our
school customers get Erate funding/discounts.
On 7/15/2014 8:53 PM, Bob Evans wrote:
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is
riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for
i
I'll just say that we've consulted legal counsel about what it would take
to become an ETC, and it's simply too burdensome for us to consider. We'd
need to become a telephone company, at the very time when old fashioned
telephone service is becoming a thing of the past. (We enthusiastically
suppor
I think your point needs to be explained. Because anything gnment is
riddled will large carrier benefiting. Look at the school discounts for
internet services...pretty much just for LECs.
Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO
> I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with
> everythi
I have stayed out of much of this, but can't help myself. Along with
everything else, you are seriously misinformed about the process of
becoming an ETC. It is not onerous. Please stop. You are giving rural
ISPs a bad reputation.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At
At 05:06 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Do you see Connect America Fund, the successor to Universal Service Fund,
as a threat to US rural WISPs or as the possible solution for them ?
It's a major threat to rural WISPs and all competitive ISPs. Here's
why. The FCC is demanding that ISPs beco
>
>
> The things that are making my life difficult at the moment include the
> following:
>
> * Government agencies attempting to impose requirements upon us and then
> denying us the resources we need to fulfill them;
>
> * Government agencies trying to dictate what users can buy rather than
> all
Brett,
You've more or less accurately described the reality of the situation.
Please feel free to proceed with the "dealing with it" suggestion that I
also made as part of the post you responded to. :)
Good luck,
Doug
On 07/15/2014 01:42 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug
At 02:16 PM 7/15/2014, Joly MacFie wrote:
>And, in my experience, one needs around double or more of the listed bandwidth
>for a robust streaming connection.
This is only true if the connection is of poor quality and dropped packets lead
to regular 50% cuts in the data rate. Most users (and th
At 01:24 PM 7/15/2014, Doug Barton wrote:
Just off the top of my head
More than one person in a location, and they are watching different shows.
How many do you allow for per household? Do they want to pay to be
able to saturate everyone's senses simultaneously, with different
programm
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined,
> range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and
> about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to
> accept more input. (Yes, machines
If you want to join the millions of comments, apparently the deadline
has been extended to midnight, July 18th.[1]
Eliot
[1]
http://online.wsj.com/articles/fcc-extends-comment-period-for-net-neutrality-1405449739
On 7/15/14, 10:02 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> http://internetassociation.org/
Brett Glass writes:
> At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> >There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which
> >it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
>
> Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
>
> Estimates of the maximum bandwi
On 07/15/2014 12:08 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which
it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
Estimates of the maxim
At 12:19 PM 7/15/2014, Barry Shein wrote:
There exists a low and high (practical) bandwidth range within which
it simply doesn't make any difference to a given business model.
Very true. And there's another factor to consider.
Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combi
Re: Net Neutrality
In the past all attempts to create a content competitor to the
internet-at-large -- to create the one true commercial content
provider -- have failed.
For example, AOL, Prodigy, various "portals", MSN, Netscape, on and
on. We can split hairs about who goes on the li
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 6:24 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> I think what will really drive everything is the
> market forces. You either provide what your
> end user wants or you go out of business.
Hi Steve,
Barrier to entry tends to negate "market forces."
I dislike Verizon. Their FiOS service
Steve,
I'd question you're use of the word rural if this statement is accurate, "Yes,
a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot
of carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in rural
areas and we do not have much problem getting Sprint and CenturyL
I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are
near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes, a
LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of
carriers. A company I work for has over 50 locations mostly in r
Sorry to be cold about this but as high speed connectivity becomes more
necessity than luxury, the market will still react. For example, I could move
to the top of a mountain with no electric however most of us would not. If I
was buying a home and I could not get decent high speed Internet,
Reality has a well-known liberal bias
-Blake
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Graham Donaldson
wrote:
> On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote:
>>>
>>> My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
>>
>>
>> Well that escalated quickly.
>
>
> You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. So
On 2014-07-15 13:24, Ray Soucy wrote:
My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
Well that escalated quickly.
You're right, I should have kept my mouth shut. Sorry about that. It's
just an opinion, you're all welcome to have your own opinion of it, I'm
wasn't intended for debate,
> My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
Well that escalated quickly.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Graham Donaldson wrote:
> On 2014-07-15 12:11, manning wrote:
>
>> (youtube was
>> a grand, failed, experiment)
>>
>>
> It was? I stopped watching broadcast TV in about 2010, and
On 2014-07-15 12:11, manning wrote:
(youtube was
a grand, failed, experiment)
It was? I stopped watching broadcast TV in about 2010, and watch
Netflix, downloaded video, other streaming, and Youtube in roughly equal
amounts. My main gripe with Netflix is overly liberal bias.
But this is
regarding content, I’m not sure you and I live in the same media space, but I
live in the same space as Springsteen who wrote "57 CHANNELS (AND NOTHIN' ON)”
reports of TW in NYC having 2000 channels and nothing on are common. granted
that major BB providers -own- a lot of content, but they cert
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Naslund, Steve
wrote:
> I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You
> either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business.
There's the problem. In my neck of the woods, there is one and only one
provider. They have a guar
Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband
providers are both
- near-monopolies in their access areas
- content providers
Not a situation where market forces can work all that well.
Miles Fidelman
Naslund, Steve wrote:
Net Neutrality is really something that has me w
Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to
be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet
interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in
the business a long time and remember how peering kind of evolved
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Neil Harris wrote:
> On 22/06/13 16:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as well.
Matt
Or indeed by the media player sending large amounts of traffic back to
>>> the CDN via auxiliary HTTP POST requ
On 22/06/13 16:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as well.
Matt
Or indeed by the media player sending large amounts of traffic back to the CDN
via auxiliary HTTP POST requests?
Neil
That would assume that the client has symmetrical upstream bandw
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Robert M. Enger wrote:
> Perhaps last-mile operators should
> A) advertise each of their metropolitan regional systems as a separate AS
> B) establish an interconnection point in each region where they will accept
> traffic destined for their in-region customers wi
When you convert your botnet to a business model, you have to change the name.
If it's a business, the politically correct term is "Elastic Cloud Computing"
Owen
On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:19 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
> Botnets to help with peering ratio's could be a new business model? :)
>
>
> On
Botnets to help with peering ratio's could be a new business model? :)
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Neil Harris
> wrote:
> > On 22/06/13 13:08, Matthew Petach wrote:
> >> That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as w
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> On 22/06/13 13:08, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as well.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Or indeed by the media player sending large amounts of traffic back to the
> CDN via auxiliary HTTP POST requests?
ah.
>>
>> That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as well.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Or indeed by the media player sending large amounts of traffic back to the
> CDN via auxiliary HTTP POST requests?
>
> Neil
>
>
>
That would assume that the client has symmetrical upstream bandwidth ove
On 22/06/13 13:08, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:39:56 +0200, Niels Bakker said:
You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets
going in and out.
And even if the number of packets match, there's the whole "1500 byte
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:29 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:39:56 +0200, Niels Bakker said:
>
> > You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets
> > going in and out.
>
> And even if the number of packets match, there's the whole "1500 bytes
> of data, 64 bytes of ACK" t
>> i have not been able to find it easily, but some years back rexford
>> and others published on a crypto method for peers to negotiate
>> traffic adjustment between multiple peering points with minimal
>> disclosure. it was a cool paper.
> I don't know Jen's work on this off the top of my head,
On Jun 21, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> 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 th
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
On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets going in
> and out.
I'm aware that neither the quantity nor the size of packets in each direction
are equal. I'm just hard-pressed to think of a reason why this matters, and
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 6/20/2013 10:26 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Many things aren't as obvious as you state above. Take for example routing
table growth. There's going to be a big boom in selling routers (or turning
off full routes) when folks devices melt at 512k routes in t
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:26:01AM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
[snip]
> Also, if you don't have data, best to keep your opinion to yourself,
> because you might well be wrong.
The deuce you say! Replacing uninformed conjecture and conspiracy
theories with actual data? Next thing you know there
On 6/20/2013 10:26 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Many things aren't as obvious as you state above. Take for example routing
> table growth. There's going to be a big boom in selling routers (or turning
> off full routes) when folks devices melt at 512k routes in the coming years.
Indeed. We're ru
On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:10 PM, "Aaron C. de Bruyn" wrote:
> Why is there a variable charge for bandwidth anyways?
>
> In a very simplistic setup, if I have a router that costs $X and I run a $5
> CAT6 cable to someone elses router which cost them $Y, plus a bit of
> maintenance time to set up the
Maybe someone could enlighten my ignorance on this issue.
Why is there a variable charge for bandwidth anyways?
In a very simplistic setup, if I have a router that costs $X and I run a $5
CAT6 cable to someone elses router which cost them $Y, plus a bit of
maintenance time to set up the connectio
It's only cutting off your nose to spite your face if you look at the
internet BU in a vacuum. The issue comes when they can get far more money
from their existing product line, than what they get being a dumb bandwidth
pipe to their customers.
They don't want reasonable or even unreasonable prici
On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Robert M. Enger wrote:
> Perhaps last-mile operators should
> A) advertise each of their metropolitan regional systems as a separate AS
> B) establish an interconnection point in each region where they will accept
> traffic destined for their in-region customers wit
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
