On 07/18/2014 10:43 PM, Ca By wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2014 5:55 PM, "Jay Ashworth" wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>>> My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual
>>> central control (one brain).
>> Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious syste
Daniel Corbe wrote:
Ca By writes:
On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
landline custo
- Original Message -
> From: "Ca By"
> Subject: Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix
> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
> >
> > Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
>
> That's interesting that they hav
On 7/22/14, 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote:
> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>>
>> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
>>
http://bgp.he.net/AS6167
> That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
> for the competitive wireless market than they ha
On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most part)
> pricing.
http://bgp.he.net/AS6167
It has more to do with the fact that until recently they were a joint venture
of Verizon and vodafone. That changed in February
Ca By writes:
> On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>>
>> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
>>
>
> That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
> for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
> landline customers.
Isn't it interesting how that coincides with pay per bit (for the most
part) pricing.
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000
http://twitter.com/kscotthelms
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Ca By wrote:
On Jul 22, 2014 7:04 AM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>
> Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
>
That's interesting that they have a different capacity management strategy
for the competitive wireless market than they have for their captive
landline customers.
Seems market forces are maki
Verizon wireless has other transits apart from 701.
Sent via telepathy
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Ca By wrote:
>
> Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
> practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also
> suffer the same performance is
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Ca By wrote:
> Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
> practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also
> suffer the same performance issue?
As I understand it, both Verizon and Verizon Wireless rely primarily
Question: does verizon wireless have a different capacity / peering
practice from verizon broadband ? Or do verizon wireless customers also
suffer the same performance issue?
It's not as if Brett is doing the public a service. There is Charter
Cable and CenturyLink DSL available in Laramie. He's just a wireless
provider with some crappy infrastructure that's bitter that he can't
"borrow" bandwidth from the University of Wyoming anymore, resulting
in a loss of his 100% m
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 09:47:34PM +0900, Paul S. wrote:
> On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote:
> >On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >>- Original Message -
> >>>From: "Owen DeLong"
> >>>But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
> >>>the
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Michael Conlen wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Owen DeLong"
> >
> >> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
> >> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
>
When exactly did we sign up for a discreet math course `-`
On 7/21/2014 午後 09:31, Michael Conlen wrote:
On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong"
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
there is no such th
On Jul 18, 2014, at 2:32 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
>> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
>
> "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive,
Ah, yes... /those/ numbers.
Lyrically put, Valdis; thanks.
On July 19, 2014 6:28:26 PM EDT, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
>
>> I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant.
>
>The last time I checked, the FCC data was a ste
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:32:42 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
> I wonder what the original FCC data actually said. And meant.
The last time I checked, the FCC data was a steaming pile of dingo's
kidneys due to the way they overstated access. It was done on a per-county
basis, and if the service was of
- Original Message -
> From: "Barry Shein"
> On July 18, 2014 at 14:49 j...@baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote:
> > Original Message -
> > > From: "Barry Shein"
> >
> > > I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband
> > > users
> > > have one and only one provid
On July 18, 2014 at 14:49 j...@baylink.com (Jay Ashworth) wrote:
> Original Message -
> > From: "Barry Shein"
>
> > I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users
> > have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3
> > or more. And a t
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:45:29 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitiv
e, symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet from'"
> > -- Seth Breidbart.
> Note th
On Jul 18, 2014 5:55 PM, "Jay Ashworth" wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Owen DeLong"
>
> > My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual
> > central control (one brain).
>
> Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes
> *wide* use of
> On Jul 17, 2014, at 5:19 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> The problem is partly a technological one. If you have a fiber span from
> east<-> west it doesn't make sense to OEO when you can just plop in a bidi
> amplifier.
Almost certainly, most of the fiber going through the building just hits
- Original Message -
> From: "Steve Noble"
> I know you will see the irony in my next statement..
>
> Brett: you should talk to level 3 again, they are looking to connect
> to anyone to help with Netflix connectivity.
>
> http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-me
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual
> central control (one brain).
Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious system; your body makes
*wide* use of distributed processing.
> Human bodies which do not have that p
On Jul 14, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since
> many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do
> with Internet access.
And there are a number of ISPs with multiple ASNs.
If you look up the his
My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual central control
(one brain).
Human bodies which do not have that property suffer badly from it.
There is no central brain managing what we call "THE internet" and my point
isn't that INTERNETs don't exist, it's that there's no part
Hi Jared,
I know you will see the irony in my next statement..
Brett: you should talk to level 3 again, they are looking to connect to
anyone to help with Netflix connectivity.
http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/
The above URL is a great place to start.
On
On Jul 18, 2014, at 16:12 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>>> - Original Message -
From: "Owen DeLong"
>>>
But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 6:03 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> But the part that will really bend your mind is when
> you realize that there is no such thing as
> "THE Internet".
Hi Owen,
Your body consists of many millions of distinct biological entities
(cells) operating cooperatively and competitively
On 7/15/14, 10:04 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
>
>> At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>> I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And
>> caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it.
>
>
> BTW, with the
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Owen DeLong"
> >
> >> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize
> >> that
> >> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
>
On Jul 18, 2014, at 11:32 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
>> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
>
> "The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, t
Original Message -
> From: "Barry Shein"
> I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users
> have one and only one provider, about 1/3 have 2, and about 1/3 have 3
> or more. And a tiny sliver have zero, hence "about".
Perhaps, if you count DSL as broadband, or you
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen DeLong"
> But the part that will really bend your mind is when you realize that
> there is no such thing as "THE Internet".
"The Internet as "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive, transitive,
symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reac
I meant that comment as more of a snark that if someone wants to argue
let's let the market take care of it then first we should reign in the
govt-issued monopolies and small-N oligopolies.
I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users
have one and only one provider, abou
On Thu, July 10, 2014 8:01 pm, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix.
>
(...)
>
>
> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelling-the-congestion-myth
And today, Level 3 responds:
http://blog.level3.com/global
On 7/13/14, 5:30 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I've got a 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow to get rid of, so I'll opine
> that a user on The World was more "on the internet" than your average
> person stuck behind a NAT. And the most appropriate description of those
> poor souls who are do
On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:48 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
>>
>> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>>> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south.
>>> What conversations have you had with them?...
>>
>> At
When was the last time you did an ARIN request for resources for a large or
x-large provider?
I have reasonably recent (<2 years ago) experience doing requests for XX-Small,
X-Small,
Small, Large, and X-Large organizations, including 2 organizations that
qualified for /24s
(the max size for a l
On Jul 14, 2014, at 23:24 , Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
>> At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
>>
>>> Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform,
>>
>> Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger
>> one
On Jul 14, 2014, at 21:21 , Brett Glass wrote:
> Mike:
>
> An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and
> primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking and,
> after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or robustness
> Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly
> protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free
> and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they
> already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated
> sinecures.
The problem with this
On Jul 14, 2014, at 08:17 , Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>> On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
>>> or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix
>>> shell != internet.
>>
>> You mean when you sat at a unix shell
On 17 July 2014 00:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If Netflix had a closed or limited peering policy, then I'd say "shame on
> Netlfix". If Netflix only peered
> in an exchange point or two near corporate HQ and didn't have an extensive
> nationwide network, I'd
> say shame on Netflix. Reality is that N
FCC Counsel Jonathan Sallet spoke at the USA-IGF today - I've pulled it
out as a clip
https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf-usa-2014/videos/56799195
--
---
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhat
On Jul 16, 2014, at 17:14 , Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass wrote:
>>
>>> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
>>>
ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I
Hello
This is so simple.
ISP offers xxMbps and should deliver that to the customer.
Dear customer. If you cannot stream full quality, upgrade .
Dear ISP stop promising xxMbps if you advertise a port cap lower than
theoretical port bandwidth. Basically fraud.
On Jul 16, 2014 7:19 PM, "Owen DeLon
On 7/16/2014 8:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass wrote:
>>
>>> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
>>>
ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest
Brett,
Why would Netflix pay your ISP?
You are, Brett, a tiny ISP. Only 200 customers. That's barely a /24 of IP
addresses.
What will happen instead is that your customers will pay to subsidize the
network of larger ISPs who do have that marketing power.
This is the true risk. Of Netflix is als
On 07/16/2014 05:14 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Not for nothing, but in the old days, if I asked Netflix to send me a CD
in the mail, they paid the postage - out of the fee I paid them.
And now they pay to pump bits out from their servers to their customers.
What's your point?
Doug
On Jul 14, 2014, at 06:46 , Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> [ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's
> behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert post-
> Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass wrote:
At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you
look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers,
On Jul 13, 2014, at 16:00 , Brett Glass wrote:
> At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
>
>> ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
>> the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you
>> look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers,
>
> My
> However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an
> ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the solution
> is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the streams in
> encrypted form, passing a decryption key to the user via a separate,
>
On 7/16/14, 3:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , na...@brettglass.com wrote:
If Netflix continues on its current course, ALL ISPs -- not just rural ones,
will eventually be forced to rebel. And it will not be pretty.
I don't think so. I think the reality is that access pr
On Jul 13, 2014, at 09:09 , na...@brettglass.com wrote:
> At 11:39 PM 7/12/2014, Steven Tardy wrote:
>
>> How would "4U of rent" and 500W($50) electricity *not* save money?
>
> Because, on top of that, we'd have huge bandwidth expenses. And Netflix
> would refuse to cover any of that out of the
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:
>
>> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south.
>> What conversations have you had with them?...
>
> At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us
At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:
Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly
south. What conversations have you had with them?...
At first, Level3 completely refused us. Then, they quoted us a rate
several times higher than either of our existing upstreams fo
> On Jul 15, 2014, at 8:03 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
>
> At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>> Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
>> much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
>> an outrageous rate). You have a li
Brett, you are missing my point. I am no expert on wireless links and the
equipment I pointed at might be garbage. But you have a backhaul problem
that you need to solve. If not that equipment, then something else.
You are balking up the wrong tree with Netflix. People want high bandwidth
video an
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
>> that's your call,
>>
>
> We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've
> mentioned, users can get
This is a lot of why I have a lot of respect for the wireless guys I
know or have met that clearly know their wireless, even if some of
them are wingnuts outside of the wireless domain. Wireless is
Hard(tm), and doesn't really overlap a lot with other ISP knowledge
sets.
-Blake
On Tue, Jul 15, 20
At 12:18 PM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
If you are picky enough to prefer other radios that cost more on Mbps/$,
that's your call,
We need reliability. That particular radio wouldn't cut it. As I've
mentioned, users can get away with much less bandwidth if the quality
is high, so going for a
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
>
> Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned
>> AirFiber 5, which goes much longer.
>>
>
> Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version, because we
> rej
At 11:40 AM 7/15/2014, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
Read again. You answered thinking about AirFiber 24, while he mentioned
AirFiber 5, which goes much longer.
Ah. I assumed that you were talking about the 24 GHz version,
because we rejected the 5 GHz radio the moment we scanned the data
sheet. It doe
Brett,
You should investigate TVWS (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_(radio) it works extremely well
in your kind of scenario and at a minimum will solve your over the air data
rate challenges.
The release of TVWS has provided WISPs in rural areas with almost 1 GHz of
unlicensed space a
>
> >Given your expertise seems to be wireless links, you could also backhaul
> >using Ubiquiti Airfiber: http://www.ubnt.com/airfiber/airfiber5/
>
> That Ubiquiti radio reaches at most one mile reliably due to rain fade.
> Most of
> our links go much farther. Wireless is our specialty and we do kn
At 09:30 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>If that is the case, how would peering with Netflix help you any?
It would not, and that is the point. Netflix' "peering" scheme (again,
I take issue with the use of the term) doesn't help ISPs with high
backhaul costs. Measures to reduce the amoun
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>
> The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least amount of
>> money.
>>
>
> I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree. And
> caching is the best way. Netfl
If you're an ISP and you can't afford even the highest price per IP on
that list, you have bigger problems than how much it costs to bring
Netflix traffic to your customers.
Matthew Kaufman
On 7/15/2014 7:58 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
Matt:
Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are econom
On 7/13/2014 12:54 PM, na...@brettglass.com wrote:
However, if there is any concern about either a Netflix server OR an
ISP's cache being used to obtain illicit copies of the video, the
solution
is simple. This is a trivial problem to solve. Send and store the
streams in
encrypted form, passi
On 07/15/2014 07:33 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Here is the number one reason to have an ASN and your own addresses:
> If you are using your upstream provider's address space and dump
> them, you will have to renumber. That is a big deal for anyone with
> a large internet facing presence and usual
On Jul 15, 2014, at 10:58 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
> Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
> shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
Actually, they're not even discrete numbers, but address blocks (If there
were specific costs asso
On 15 July 2014 17:03, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> >Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
> >much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
> >an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place w
Which is their perfect right as a business. If their service starts sucking
because of it, they will not be in business long. The end user will quickly
figure out the Netflix sucks no matter who your Internet provider is and poof,
they will be gone. Market forces at work.
Steve
>>The name o
I can't believe that you actually believe that Brett. The reason the cost goes
down as the number of IPs goes up is because these blocks are not managed
address by address, they are managed as a single entity. ARIN has almost the
same amount of labor and management involved whether it is a /24
At 08:48 AM 7/15/2014, Naslund, Steve wrote:
The name of the game is to decongest your network for the least
amount of money.
I disagree with some of your other points, but on this we agree.
And caching is the best way. Netflix refuses to allow it.
--Brett Glass
On 15 July 2014 04:51, Brett Glass wrote:
> Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, as
> a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't
> require money to change hands.)
In my book (As a network operator in the UK) Netflix's proposed
arran
At 06:49 AM 7/15/2014, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>Ah but they are charging you for it. You are paying approximately 40x as
>much for your bandwidth as you should be (you said you paid 20 USD/Mbps -
>an outrageous rate). You have a link to a place where you can buy 1 Gbps
>flatrate for USD 500 per mo
Matt:
Here's the thing. With physical goods, there are economies of scale in
shipping and delivering them in bulk. But IP addresses are simply numbers!
Since there's already a base fee to cover the fixed costs, there's no
reason for the cost per IP to be different. And, in fact, good reason
for
I am just guessing but you probably have not been in the service provider
space. Peering in my experience has always required an ASN and BGP as a
pre-requisite. That is because all service providers use BGP communities and
various other mechanisms to control these connections. Sure you could
If you are a multi-homed end user and you feel that a BGP configuration for
that is a big management nightmare then you probably should not be running BGP.
It would take me somewhere less than 15 minutes to set this up with two
carriers and unless the carrier's are at drastically different tier
In common ISP language, peering is a connection between equals that is mutually
beneficial so no money usually changes hands, peering connections are usually
AS to AS without the ability to transit through to other AS (or at least some
kind of policy that prevents you from using your peer for fu
On 15 July 2014 06:21, Brett Glass wrote:
> Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone
> routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me
> anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move.
>
Ah but they are charging you f
Matt,
IP address portability isn't really a problem, but I understand your point
of view a bit better. One of the things we figured out is that ARIN allows
for non-connected operators to reallocate blocks. It does frequently
confuse whoever the ISP is getting their tier 1 connectivity from and i
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
> At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
>
> >Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform,
>
> Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger
> ones. And a much
> larger share of their revenues as the bas
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that, misleadingly, as
> a way of attempting to characterize the connection as one that doesn't
> require money to change hands.)
'peering' here probably really means 'bgp peer', and it pr
On 15/07/14 10:39, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Matthew Petach"
>>
>>> It's now called "Any2 Denver":
>>>
>>> Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street
>>> address for it anywhere among their literature
Charles:
Not trying to seize the last word here, but did want to make one final
point. Just because I let each of my upstreams route for me does NOT
mean I am single-homed; only that I handle multi-homing differently.
There are commercial appliances available that do this, though I
happen to have
In message <201407150421.waa26...@mail.lariat.net>, Brett Glass writes:
> Mike:
>
> An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very
> awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant
> babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still
> doesn't deliver th
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Brett Glass wrote:
> Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone
> routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me
> anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move.
Last comment on the thr
Thanks, I am so happy I now understand what an ASN and BGP are. I had no
clue!
Fuck it, we don't need BGP anywhere. Everyone go static!
Back to the binge drinking now as I started when I first started reading
this thread...
-Mike
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> Mike:
>
Mike:
An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very
awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant
babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still
doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining
this token number (and a bunch of IP
> But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't
> require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP
> address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any
> kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a stati
On 7/15/2014 午後 12:51, Brett Glass wrote:
But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection
doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a
registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or
a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as
At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
>Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform,
Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger
ones. And a much
larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being "in the club" to start
with.
>but do recognize that such
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:54:52PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
>
[...]
>
> And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore.
>
I think I want this on a T-shirt.
So we are splitting hairs with what "peering" means? And I am sure Netflix
(or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than happy to
statically route to you? Doubtful.
Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, I am a
smaller ISP than you I am sure and I hav
Netflix's arrangement isn't "peeering." (They call it that,
misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection
as one that doesn't require money to change hands.)
ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is
not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be "peering."
1 - 100 of 291 matches
Mail list logo
