Re: Tier Zero (was Re: Tier 2 - Lease?)
Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by Tier 1. ;-) We do buy from a number of providers, many of which would be considered Tier 1 by many people. On Thu, 4 May 2006, Jon Lyons wrote: Internap? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 11:25:35AM -0500, John Dupuy wrote: From an off-list discussion: Does anyone know of an ISP that has paid transit from all known SFP (Tier 1) providers? (sort of the old SAVVIS model on steroids.) John why would anyone do that? --bill - Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2ยข/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote: I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will actually happen is the development of a spot market in IPv4 address space. That's a sucker bet. What's worse is that unless people start changing their tune soon and make the ownership of IP space official, this will be a black market (like it is now, just much bigger). -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Payne wrote: What am I missing? That it's a pure power play. Peering is only distantly associated with costs or responsibilities. It has to do with what company has the intestinal fortitude to draw a line in the sand and stick with it no matter how many customers cancel their service. Those with a critical mass of traffic and the right amount of guts win. Everyone else loses the peering game. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Brandon Ross wrote: On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Payne wrote: What am I missing? That it's a pure power play. market position is important If by market position you are referring to who needs/wants/can do without the traffic more, yes. Peering is only distantly associated with costs or responsibilities. no, peering is entirely associated with costs or responsibilities.. what other reason is there to peer ? I was probably being a bit too dramatic with that statement. What I'm trying to get across is that it doesn't matter who is supposed to pay for their customers' traffic. It doesn't matter that I have a million dialup users, if I can use my market position to get someone else to peer with me for free that's all that matters. The fact that those 1 million customers pay me is irrelevant. It has to do with what company has the intestinal fortitude to draw a line in the sand and stick with it no matter how many customers cancel their service. have to weigh up the gains and losses to see if that is a good or bad thing tho. Of course. Those with a critical mass of traffic and the right amount of guts win. markets are always stacked in favour of the larger players in that way.. saying 'hey i'm a little guy, give me chance' generally goes unheard Quite true. Everyone else loses the peering game. not peering isnt necessarily losing, there are networks who would peer with me if i turned up in asia or the west coast, but my cost to get there is greater than sticking to transit. You don't have to tell me that, I work for Internap, we've made a business out of not peering, and doing quite well at it. I said loses the peering game. I didn't say they lost the game in entirety. Similarly, just because a company wins the peering game (fully peered with all other default free networks) doesn't mean it wins the business game. Just take a look at a former employer of mine, 4006 was default free, but that doesn't mean that we made any money. to get a new peer, both sides need to feel they are gaining value Or one side needs to be more scared of the other side cutting them off. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: IPv6 news
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sure that there will be a frantic scramble, but I don't expect it to last long enough for an IPv4 black market to form. There's already a black market in IPv4. I've seen plenty of offers to buy address space through various underhanded schemes. Most take the form of creating a shell company that the space is registered to and then the buyer acquiring that company. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: IPv6 news
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes. Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG? I, for one, would be very interesting in such a system. Distribution of commodities is almost universally done best by capital markets. There is a slight problem here. Commodities are things which are bought and sold. In other words, one party has legal title to the commodity and transfers that legal title to another party. Since nobody has legal title to any IPv4 addresses, nobody can sell them in the first place. That's exactly the change I've been advocating for years. Instead of continuing with this socialistic concept that IP space is somehow owned by everyone, we should, instead, give title for IP space and allow those titles to be bought and sold freely. Classic economics teaches of the tragedy of the commons. I can't think of too many things that look more like a commons than the current IP space. By my own best estimates, 50% of the allocated space today is wasted in one way or another, either it is used inefficiently by staticly addressing things that don't need to be static, hoarded to prevent organizations from having to make additional requests to an RIR, or legacy assignments where the orgs that have them have no incentive to give them up. Almost all of the exhaustion problems that are on the horizon are being directly caused by inefficient use of this scarce resource, certainly all of the above is solved by a capital market. Of course you can get around this by selling the networks that use the IPv4 addresses, but then you are getting away from the realm of commodities. A commodity is a fairly generic product and networks are far from generic. Again, converting to a capitalistic system is how we can stop this underhanded practice. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: IPv6 news
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Daniel Golding wrote: On 10/12/05 3:13 PM, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: geoff's predictions for a very lively market in v4 space will seriously come into play. Maybe its time to have a serious talk about IPv4 commodity trading schemes. Anyone interested in this enough to have a BOF at ARIN/NANOG? I, for one, would be very interesting in such a system. Distribution of commodities is almost universally done best by capital markets. Unfortunately I won't be at the next NANOG. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 Internap Skype: brandonross Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: New Outage Hits Comcast Subscribers
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Jeff Cole wrote: Brandon Ross wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Sean Donelan wrote: Its called DHCP/PPP, both will auto-magically configure the correct DNS Which doesn't work very well when your provider cannot keep a DNS server up for 10 minutes at a time. See the beginning of this thread. Run bind locally on your laptop. I already do that. I wasn't referring to myself, I was referring to other users who might not have the skills or interest in running their own DNS daemons. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 InternapYahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: New Outage Hits Comcast Subscribers
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the question remains, does the poster think that network operators should band together and operate shared anycast recursive DNS services? Or does the poster think that network operators should operate many recursive DNS servers throughout their infrastructure and tie them together using anycast? I don't know what the other poster(s) were referring to, but I was not suggesting that network operators try to run some unified DNS infrastructure. It is an intriguing idea, however. If anycast is a good idea for recursive DNS service, then there is a 3rd party business opportunity here to operate global recursive DNS services so that network operators can focus on running the network, not on providing services like DNS resolution. Perhaps even more interesting is being able to sell anycasted reverse DNS service directly to users that are connected to incompetent providers. ;-) Seriously, though, some benefits can be imagined, like being able to use the same DNS server on my laptop no matter where in the world I plug in. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 InternapYahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: New Outage Hits Comcast Subscribers
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Daniel Senie wrote: It's unclear why anycast would be required. Well, DDoS attacks tend to be less effective when they are spread over a large number of anycasted hosts. That was the main reason I attempted to get anycasted DNS servers online there when I worked there. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 InternapYahoo: BrandonNRoss
RE: New Outage Hits Comcast Subscribers
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Alexander Kiwerski wrote: But Comcast sure makes a great profit by charging a 2 or 3-nine's price for a 1.5-nine service ;-) What's really funny here is that they are spending at a 5 9's level, they just don't implement in a 5 9's architecture. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 InternapYahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: New Outage Hits Comcast Subscribers
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Sean Donelan wrote: On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: people do that today unforunately they do it with 198.6.1.1 :( Its called DHCP/PPP, both will auto-magically configure the correct DNS for your current network connection. If your laptop changes IP addresses, it should get new network configuration details for the current network. Which doesn't work very well when your provider cannot keep a DNS server up for 10 minutes at a time. See the beginning of this thread. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 InternapYahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: New Outage Hits Comcast Subscribers
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Peter John Hill wrote: Let me inform you of an exciting new concept... Anycast DNS... It is not difficult... Get with the freaking program... I attempted to get DNS deployed under anycast when I worked there. As you can see, I don't work there any more. Draw your own conclusions. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 InternapYahoo: BrandonNRoss
Hotel
Just called the Rio to make my reservation. They had a small amount of difficulty finding the special rate for the meeting. They said that if you give them the group code S01NAN5, it will make it easier to find. Someone may want to add this to the hotel info page. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNRoss Director, Network Engineering ICQ: 2269442 InternapYahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: Finding clue at comcast.net
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Matt wrote: As far as networking problems, I think most folks on NANOG would agree that to run a stable network, the network needs to be designed and operated by a single organization. I guess it depends on your geographic definition of an organization. Perhaps that's where our opinions diverge. I never meant to imply that there was any relationship in this matter to geography. I strongly believe, however, that everyone with the passwords to the routers report to the same relatively flat organization (i.e. to find the person in management who is responsible for the whole thing shouldn't take going all the way up to the CTO or CEO). I think it makes sense especially in larger organizations to have a centralized reporting structure and to geographically centralize other functions such as network monitoring and ordering. Indeed. However, I don't believe it's often in customers' or an organization's best interests to move technical expertise to a national NOC. I've been on both sides of the fence, and there are good examples of organizations that maintained a centralized reporting structure while maintaining a local market technical base (Mediaone was a good example of that model). I don't disagree here, but like both of us have said, those technical bases MUST report up into the same, relatively flat structure. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNR ICQ: 2269442 Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
RE: Finding clue at comcast.net
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Eric Kagan wrote: I was informed legacy ATTBI setup is still different from the router / infrastructure side. (i.e. Old ATTBI has ping and ports blocked that native Comcast does not) That is true for the moment. We're in the process of rectifying that. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNR Principal IP Engineer ICQ: 2269442 Comcast IP Services Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: RE: Finding clue at comcast.net
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Alan Spicer wrote: Now I'm not suggesting anyone lie ... or such a thing ... but say you called the local office on a cold sales call asking for the person that handles their data networking. As you work your way through that try to find out who is the Head Engineer(s). From there try to find out who handles the CMTS equipment (Cisco uBR?) equipment in the local office Head End, and likely who handles the network including routers and switches and such. I wouldn't recommend that actually. The local folks do not have any control over the IP infrastructure, they only handle the HFC plant. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNR Principal IP Engineer ICQ: 2269442 Comcast IP Services Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: Finding clue at comcast.net
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: *sigh* Y'know, I could live with it if I could even have a mailbox to which I could send detailed trouble reports, even if no one looked at them on the next day. While their routing seems to be fairly stable these days, there would be times I'd traceroute from several sites I could reach and take views from multiple looking glasses, giving me a pretty fair idea where, and even what, the problem is. I'll probably regret this, but I guess you found it. I'm quite interested in any detailed trouble reports NANOGers can provide, especially on the routing side. I will not be able to respond right away, but I'm quite interested in improving our infrastructure and service. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNR Principal IP Engineer ICQ: 2269442 Comcast IP Services Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: Finding clue at comcast.net
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Matt wrote: I wouldn't recommend that actually. The local folks do not have any control over the IP infrastructure, they only handle the HFC plant. Do you think that may have anything to do with the complaints cited here? Nope, most of the complaints here seem to be about technical support. As far as networking problems, I think most folks on NANOG would agree that to run a stable network, the network needs to be designed and operated by a single organization. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNR Principal IP Engineer ICQ: 2269442 Comcast IP Services Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Re: Annoying dynamic DNS updates
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote: Well, default-configured Microsoft applications have an application that lets you send a machine popup dialog boxes; it's been discussed here recently because spammers abuse it and (related discussion) it uses Port 135, so it might or might not be blocked by Comcast.net. 135 is, indeed, blocked by Comcast. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNR Principal IP Engineer ICQ: 2269442 Comcast IP Services Yahoo: BrandonNRoss
Local SMTP server
Is anyone else having trouble with the local SMTP server here in Phoenix: Mon Feb 10 13:13:57 bross@pigeon:~ $ telnet srv34.nanog27.merit.net 25 Trying 192.35.164.34... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host It appears that no SMTP server is running here. That address doesn't appear to respond to ping either, but that may not be important. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNR VP OperationsICQ: 2269442 Sockeye Networks
Re: Local SMTP server
It seems to be working now, thanks to whomever fixed it: Mon Feb 10 13:24:52 bross@pigeon:~ $ telnet srv34.nanog27.merit.net 25 Trying 192.35.164.34... Connected to srv34.nanog27.merit.net. Escape character is '^]'. 220 rat.merit.edu ESMTP Sendmail 8.12.6/8.12.6; Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:38:50 -0500 (EST) ^] telnet quit On Mon, 10 Feb 2003, Brandon Ross wrote: Is anyone else having trouble with the local SMTP server here in Phoenix: Mon Feb 10 13:13:57 bross@pigeon:~ $ telnet srv34.nanog27.merit.net 25 Trying 192.35.164.34... telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host It appears that no SMTP server is running here. That address doesn't appear to respond to ping either, but that may not be important. -- Brandon Ross AIM: BrandonNR VP OperationsICQ: 2269442 Sockeye Networks
