>From AfterLogic you may use the following webmail clients:
- without calendar -> WebMail-lite PHP
- with personal calendar -> WebMail PHP
- with calendar and full sharing exchange style -> Aurora
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:50 PM, Guillaume Tournat
wrote:
> Zimbra is a full featured groupware se
On 14 June 2016 at 22:38, Owen DeLong wrote:
> So I just watched the video of Dave’s talk.
>
Me too and I was confused about what the point of it was.
I had always assumed the customers of those IXs he singled out were
generally happy with the service they were getting and the money they are
pa
> I am not at NANOG67 and am following this issue remotely. Excuse me
> if I am getting this all wrong. Dave shows a slide that LINX made
> $2.3M profit and AMS-IX made $4.1M last year and Randy states "that
> the IXPs run us over to make an extra penny"?
confusing coincidence and causality is a
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
>
>
> Me too and I was confused about what the point of it was.
>
> I had always assumed the customers of those IXs he singled out were
> generally happy with the service they were getting and the money they are
> paying.
>
> Is Dave trying to s
I agree that the SIX is a fine organization, but the framework of the
organization has little to do with the members getting screwed over. A
non-profit donation-based IX that doesn't produce results could be screwing its
"customers" over more than a MRC-based for-profit IX that does produce.
I
In a message written on Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 08:25:04AM +0300, Hank Nussbacher
wrote:
> I am not at NANOG67 and am following this issue remotely. Excuse me if I am
> getting this all wrong. Dave shows a slide that LINX made $2.3M profit and
> AMS-IX made $4.1M last year and Randy states "that
Dave Temkin wrote:
> I was pointing out facts about IXPs that many did not know, including the
> actual organizational structure.
Dave,
was this talk about IXPs in general, or the 4 IXPs you named in your talk?
Nick
Confirming problems making or receiving calls to phone numbers with a Florida
LATA, no matter where those phones actually reside. (In this case, SW PA.)
Verizon wireless website shows "temporarily unavailable while we upgrade our
systems" on selected My Vz pages.
..Allen
> On Jun 14, 2016, a
General, with the four being used as varying examples. I could have included US
IXP's, but almost none publish their prices and the ones that do only started
recently, so the comparison wasn't worthwhile.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:39 AM -0500, "Nick Hilliard" wrote:
Dave Temkin wr
Anyone seeing any issues with routing into Boston? We have a DOCSIS link
that seems unroutable past 350 E Cermak in Chicago, traceroutes from two
carries here in Michigan stop there. We have a fiber (EDI/BGP) with them at
the same location and I'm not seeing any issues on that link.
The site itsel
I'd be glad to take a look. I'll reply off-list to get more details from
you.
Thanks,
John
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 9:16 AM, Spencer Ryan wrote:
> Anyone seeing any issues with routing into Boston? We have a DOCSIS link
> that seems unroutable past 350 E Cermak in Chicago, traceroutes from two
>
Hi Dave,
Dave Temkin wrote:
> General, with the four being used as varying examples.
Then there is a problem - you only presented info relating to those four
organisations, not for any other IXP, at least outside a small number of
sponsor-supported IXPs in the US.
With respect to all parties inv
I hope you'll excuse the aggressive snipping, as I wanted to try to address
as many of your points without repeating myself as possible.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> Dave Temkin wrote:
>
> With respect to all parties involved in this discussion, I'd sugges
Hello,
a little question :)
For mobile operators using v6 on their networks, how do you manage
link-local communication between mobile phones ?
While I understand it's layer 2 related, am i able for example to make
ping sweep and be able to communicate directly with other phone (customer) ?
-
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Willy MANGA wrote:
Hello,
a little question :)
For mobile operators using v6 on their networks, how do you manage
link-local communication between mobile phones ?
While I understand it's layer 2 related, am i able for example to make
ping sweep and be able to communicate
On 6/15/16 8:56 AM, Willy MANGA wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a little question :)
>
> For mobile operators using v6 on their networks, how do you manage
> link-local communication between mobile phones ?
the link local address is bound to eps bearer the other end of which is
the p-gw.
so it's a point-to
> Perhaps Dave was advocating the SIX model
that is where the big euro exchanges started. then they got equinix
envy and colonialism. let's see (and help) the six avoid these diseases
over the next years.
randy
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016, Randy Bush wrote:
that is where the big euro exchanges started. then they got equinix
envy and colonialism. let's see (and help) the six avoid these diseases
over the next years.
Well, the customers also wanted more functions and features. They wanted
sFLOW statistics
> So here we are now... Where do we want to go?
I think IXPs have indeed become too much like ISPs, providing more services but
also increasing complexity and cost. I prefer simple, scalable and cheap
solutions!
I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some nice
graphs a
> I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some
> nice graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a
> separate switch :)
come to seattle. but mikael has a point. big peers do their own
s-flow, and sparkly things. then smaller ix members want those things
too
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016, Sander Steffann wrote:
I want to go to an IXP being a nice simple ethernet switch. Add some
nice graphs and a route server, and we're done. Redundancy is a separate
switch :)
So how should the larger distributed IXPs solve this? Provide optical DWDM
transport? Dark fiber
On 6/15/16 11:23, Sander Steffann wrote:
I think IXPs have indeed become too much like ISPs, providing more services but
also increasing complexity and cost. I prefer simple, scalable and cheap
solutions!
That was one thing mentioned in the talk, "just give me layer 2" or
something to that
On 6/15/16 05:37, Mike Hammett wrote:
I agree that the SIX is a fine organization, but the framework of the organization has
little to do with the members getting screwed over. A non-profit donation-based IX that
doesn't produce results could be screwing its "customers" over more than a
MRC-ba
Getting people to show up can be a challenge. I've been asked by members of two
midwestern IXes to come to their markets because their existing
donation-supported loose and easy IX isn't really doing anything for them. Not
arguing models, arguing that what should matter is results.
-
M
On 6/12/16, 8:10 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Seth Mattinen"
wrote:
>On 6/7/16 4:23 AM, Davide Davini wrote:
>> Today I discovered Netflix flagged my IPv6 IP block as "proxy/VPN" and I
>> can't use it if I don't disable the HE tunnel, which is the only way for
>> me to have IPv6 at the moment.
>
>
On 15.06.2016 20:23, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> So here we are now... Where do we want to go?
>
> I think IXPs have indeed become too much like ISPs, providing more
> services but also increasing complexity and cost. I prefer simple,
> scalable and cheap solutions!
>
You all know this saying: Fas
On 15.06.2016 21:14, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 6/15/16 05:37, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> I agree that the SIX is a fine organization, but the framework of
>> the organization has little to do with the members getting screwed
>> over. A non-profit donation-based IX that doesn't produce results
>> could
>>> On 6/15/16 05:37, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> A non-profit donation-based IX that doesn't produce results
>>> could be screwing its "customers" over more than a MRC-based
>>> for-profit IX that does produce.
>>
>> On 15.06.2016 21:14, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> An IX just needs to "produce" a layer
On 6/15/16 4:03 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
There’s a difference between the cost and the product. As regards the cost,
Arnold is exactly right. Across the many hundreds of exchanges that we’ve
worked with over the past 22 years, our observation has been that, at a rough
average, most IXPs spen
a lot of PR fluff, but this may be of interest:
http://www.wired.com/2016/06/barefoot-networks-new-chips-will-transform-tech-industry/
https://barefootnetworks.com/media/white_papers/Barefoot-Worlds-Fastest-Most-Programmable-Networks.pdf
Based on their investors, could have interesting results
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 6/15/16 4:03 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> There’s a difference between the cost and the product. As regards the
>> cost, Arnold is exactly right. Across the many hundreds of exchanges that
>> we’ve worked with over the past 22 years, our o
On 6/15/16 8:24 PM, Ca By wrote:
Cough cough ARIN cough. I don't know why they need to meet face to face
2 or 3 times a year. But, i am sure ppml will tell you it is a ground up
process and these people on ppml like traveling and talking about
policy And they do what members want.
Yeah, I
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> a lot of PR fluff, but this may be of interest:
>
>
> http://www.wired.com/2016/06/barefoot-networks-new-chips-will-transform-tech-industry/
>
>
> https://barefootnetworks.com/media/white_papers/Barefoot-Worlds-Fastest-Most-Programmable-Networks.p
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 22:24, Ca By wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/15/16 4:03 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>>>
[ clip ]
>
> I also like sfmix and fl-ix.
FL-IX is great. It created real competition in the American South and for the
Americas peering.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> SFMIX is great. But poorly distributed. We should support their efforts, but
> how many IXPs do we need in the Bay area? AMS-IX Bay Area is creating a
> market along with SFMIX.
>
SFMIX is in 5 physical locations(
https://www.sfmix.o
> On Jun 16, 2016, at 01:12, Leslie wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>> SFMIX is great. But poorly distributed. We should support their efforts, but
>> how many IXPs do we need in the Bay area? AMS-IX Bay Area is creating a
>> market along with SFMIX.
>
Looks very promising!
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:21 AM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> a lot of PR fluff, but this may be of interest:
>
> http://www.wired.com/2016/06/barefoot-networks-new-chips-will-transform-tech-industry/
>
> https://barefootnetworks.com/media/white_papers/Barefoot-Worlds-Fastest-Most-P
37 matches
Mail list logo
