On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Song Li wrote:
> According to this principle, if an AS suddenly announced a lot of updates (as
> below), can it be regarded as an anomaly such as BGP session reset?
Yes. It's wise to monitor BGP announcements received from peers, and to
investigate when large numb
- Original Message -
> > On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:43, Mark Tinka wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >>
> >> So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the
> >> arithmetic easy, and that means if we can put 44 people
> >> on that, that the MRC cost
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> IMHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I
>> prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure provider) must be
>> prohibited from playing at the higher layers.
>
> Owen ha
> Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
> horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
> service you can come up with today does.
Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when
that claim could have been made about co
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
>>
>> Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a
>> line.
>>
>> Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus
>> pr
Correct me if I'm wrong but the solid optics power meter is just rebranded PPI?
Also what about a decent but reasonably priced OSA?
Suggestions?
Tim Kaufman
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Walter
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:02 PM
To:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
service you can come up with today does.
Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when
that claim could have bee
Has anyone seen/touched Huawei's Atom Router? It was announced at the Mobile
World Congress 2014.. haven't seen anything on the Interweb since. I'd be
interested in getting one or two units to play in my lab!
http://www.huawei.com/mwc2014/en/articles/hw-328011.htm
Eric
Well,
Wasn't the Huawei CEO that stated that they where not interested
into the US market.
( And by proxy ... the Canadian one )
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/23/huawei_not_interested_in_us/
And a bunch of ban's around Oct 2013 from a wide variety of countries...
That
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
> OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1
> facilities
> back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large
> numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to deliver
> what
Hi,
I can think of two reasons for such behavior:
- one of the attributes of these routes changed suddenly, so they have
been reannounced by your peer,
- you sent a 'route refresh' request to this peer, asking him to
reannounce all his table.
Other than that, I don't see why a peer would res
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:21:05PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Jay Ashworth"
>
> > > Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and
> > > Verizon.
> > >
> > > http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/
> >
> >
Huawei has sales personal in the US and does sell here. See
http://huawei.com/us/about-huawei/contact-us/index.htm
And for a more recent Huawei management statement, see
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2014-04/28/content_17470474.htm
"Huawei executive says it still seeks US sales"
Thanks,
Don
- Original Message -
> From: "Eugeniu Patrascu"
> In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables
> running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU
> regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a
> project whereby
- Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin"
> I can think of issues that arise when the municipality provides layer
> 2 services.
>
> 1. Enthusiasm (hence funding) for public works projects waxes and
> wanes. Generally it waxes long enough to get some portion of the
> original works p
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:27 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
>>>
>>> Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a
>>> line.
>>>
>>> Rather d
On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
>>> horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
>>> service you can come up with today does.
>> Well, not in the foreseeable futur
On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1
> facilities
> back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large
> numbers of customers)
I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly
and effectively.
I'm a fan of either:
Dark fibre to every house.
Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP.
All ran by an entity forbidden from retail.
Ideally a mix of both, soft handover for no thrills ISP
Gah,
While I'd agree that Netflix shouldn't get free transit, AT&T shouldn't be
charging for better access than Netflix can get over other tier 1s.
Likewise, for local delivery there's nothing wrong with peering. Besides,
when a small ISP starts up they have to buy transit/lay fibre to a major
Po
20 matches
Mail list logo
