I've collected my fav links (inc. nanog posts) on this topic on
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1504.
If there are issues with my brief explanation please let me know.
j
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> Comcast has released additional details publically. Of course, this
Comcast has released additional details publically. Of course, this is
their side of the story, so I wouldn't believe it hook line and sinker
but it helps fill in the gaps.
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcasts-letter-to-fcc-on-level-3.html
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 06:31:39AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:59:25PM -0600, Richard A
> Steenbergen wrote:
> > I believe that's what I said. To be perfectly clear, what I'm saying is:
> >
> > * Comcast acted first by demanding fees
> > * Level 3
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:59:25PM -0600, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
> I believe that's what I said. To be perfectly clear, what I'm saying is:
>
> * Comcast acted first by demanding fees
> * Level 3 went public first by whining about it after they agreed to pay
> * Comcast
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
wrote:
> uncongested access. This is the kind of action that virtually BEGS for
> government involvement, which will probably end badly for all networks.
This depends on the eventual regulatory mechanism and the goals it
intends to promote.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
>
>
> 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
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-cr01.atlanta.ga.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.87.86) asymm 8
866.718ms
8: pos-1-11
15 matches
Mail list logo
