* baldur.nordd...@gmail.com (Baldur Norddahl) [Tue 23 Feb 2016, 14:25 CET]:
SFP modules will generally have UPC connectors. You therefore need
to use cables with UPC at one end and APC at the other end.
If you use a APC-APC cable you will have 3-6 dB of optical loss. If
it is a short connectio
Hi All,
Any SunGard on list?
Having a path issue from multiple ISPs in the UK.
Cheers,
James.
Today I am unable to connect to my usual SIP servers from my T-W cable
account. I've tried two Sipura terminal adapters and the softphone in
Jitsi, and I can't connect to either callcentric.com or
voipdiscount.com, and the network connection is otherwise looking
normal. The SIP providers are up,
Anyone know what's actually going on here? We received the following
information from the two of them, and this just started a week or so ago.
*From Cogent, the transit provider for a branch office of ours:*
Dear Cogent Customer,
Thank you for contacting Cogent Customer Support for information
Not sure. I got the same thing today as well.
Is this some kind of ipv6 war?
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clark
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:25 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Cogent & Google IPv6
Anyone know what's actually going on her
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6,
shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer points where another
peer DOES peer with Google IPv6 and get you in?
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
On 2/24/16 2:43 PM, Damien Burke wrote:
Not sure. I
If you connected to Internet ONLY through Cogent - there is no other
way. If you have another upstreams - Google should be reachable.
On 24.02.16 21:46, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Cogent isn't peering with Google IPv6,
> shouldn't the traffic flow out to one of their peer
To answer Matt’s question, NO.
Assume Cogent peers with NTT. Assume Google peers with NTT. NTT has very good
v6 connectivity (not an assumption).
Cogent cannot send a packet to NTT and say “please hand this to Google”. Nor
can Google hand a packet to NTT with a destination of Cogent.
Under thi
This is Google saying that Google does not want to pay for traffic to
Cogent. If Cogent wants to exchange any traffic with Google, Cogent is
invited to peer directly with Google. Of course Cogent refuses. And now
Cogent is not only missing the part of IPv6 internet that is Hurricane
Electric single
Are HE & Google the new L3 & FT?
Nah, L3 would never have baked Cogent a cake. :)
Shall we start a pool? Only problem is, should the pool be “who will disconnect
from Cogent next?” or “when will Cogent blink?” I’m voting for the former.
--
TTFN,
patrick
> On Feb 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Baldur N
Whomever hurts the most will blink first. I don't really care who that is. I
have no ill will towards "double dipping". Either they do or they don't offer
the desired connectivity and I'm moving on.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
htt
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes
wrote:
Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work?
Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view
of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is
paying them for every prefix they accept.
I have already shut down peering with cogent over ipv6 entirely (two weeks ago)
over this issue.
Cogent needs to get it together and work it out. Google is our overlord - you
cannot refuse them.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Patrick W. Gi
Isn't that how "Tier 1s" have always operated? Like, always? Customers or peers
with peers subject to various requirements.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Ricky Beam"
Agreed on all points. “Double dipping” is not morally abhorrent, or even
slightly slimy. However, Cogent customers paid Cogent to connect to The
Internet, not “The other networks that are paying Cogent”. So in this case, if
I had to make a choice of which provider to drop, I’d stick with Google.
“Tier One” used to mean SFI or customer downstream to every prefix on the ‘Net.
Today it is more like “transit free”, since some “tier one” providers have paid
peering.
And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero
dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers,
*nods* and everything is pros and cons. In one's situation, does Cogent have
enough pros to overcome the cons? Same for HE or any other carrier. If I get
full tables (v4 and b6) from multiple networks and\or I peer with the networks
that are missing from a particular provider's offering, I may v
Transit providers are the mdidlemen of the internet, I see no problem with
the concept of "double dipping". It's their fiber and infrastructure, if
you want access to everything on their network, including other people on
their network, pay for it or find a way to get access.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016
> From nanog-boun...@nanog.org Wed Feb 24 21:03:17 2016
> In one's situation, does Cogent have enough pros to overcome the
> cons? Same for HE or any other carrier.
Who cares, with everyone trying to be IPv6 transit free and covering it
with a settlement free peering policy it may accidentally tu
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore
wrote:
And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have
zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At
least not the big ones.)
Show me a single connection to Cogent for which Cogent isn't b
On Feb 24, 2016, at 4:48 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore
> wrote:
>> And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero
>> dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At least not
>> the big ones.)
>
> S
On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:51:55 -0500, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> Or do you think Cogent is paying all of them? That is a possibility, but it
> means that Cogent is not getting paid - by definition.
All depends how creative their accountants are... :)
pgpW8dCKWjsxu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
What is the standard terminology for strands of dark fiber spliced together
to form a continuous path between points A and Z?
I have seen:
- *fiber circuit* [but also seen used to denote a connection at the
network layer over a physical fiber connection. This definition of circuit
would
On 2/24/2016 14:55, Fletcher Kittredge wrote:
What is the standard terminology for strands of dark fiber spliced together
to form a continuous path between points A and Z?
I have seen:
- *fiber circuit* [but also seen used to denote a connection at the
network layer over a physical fibe
24 matches
Mail list logo
