RE: Level3 problems
Hmmm ... I suppose I would prefer this community not be made an explicit source of information for a reporter. Implicitly, if reporters must hang off this thread, they should be able to discern impact from perspective given here. However, if questions like the one(s) asked below became standard on this thread, then soon the function of the group slants to something other than a forum to aid (each other) in the proper management of the affairs of Network Operators ... and may morph into something far less useful. No intention to scare ... -gh -Original Message- From: Alex Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 1:43 PM To: Gary Hale Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Level3 problems Gary, I understand your statement, but I am sure the gentleman below does not. If you want a story to be done, so that the world can see how something like this can impact thousands of businesses, the best bet would be to help educate this guy so that he has something to write. Are, were you trying to scare him off from doing a story? Personally, I am quote fed up with the issues that the huge providers have and cause, yet never have anyone document it, find out about it, or do anything about it. I laud this guys effort for actually trying to do his job and expose something that needs to be exposed. I am now putting on my level-3 bullet proof jacket, and will be looking over my shoulder for the next 3 NANOGs. On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Gary Hale wrote: Are you kidding? -gh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:03 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Level3 problems I'm a reporter with InformationWeek magazine. I'm trying to get an idea of the significance of this morning's outage. Has Level 3 communicated with you about the cause of the outage? How greatly did the outage affect you or your customers? Was this an unusually large event? Thanks, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net
RE: Level3 problems
Not delusional ... just prefer it not be an explicit thread to all of the community ... or ... consistent w/ your observation below (ref. lurking) ... -gh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 9:57 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Level3 problems Hmmm ... I suppose I would prefer this community not be made an explicit source of information for a reporter. You're about 10 years too late. Reporters have been lurking on the NANOG list for at least that long. Only the newbie reporters post info requests to the lists. The pros send private emails to list members or go to a NANOG meeting and prowl the hallways. Or did you somehow think that the Internet was a secret network for the members of some private club? --Michael Dillon
RE: Level3 problems
Are you kidding? -gh -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:03 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Level3 problems I'm a reporter with InformationWeek magazine. I'm trying to get an idea of the significance of this morning's outage. Has Level 3 communicated with you about the cause of the outage? How greatly did the outage affect you or your customers? Was this an unusually large event? Thanks, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
The question is too simplistic ... It is not (simply) a matter of small vs. big or being on your own network from source-to-destination. Peering is an enabler ... and gives all an opportunity to share content globally ... kinda' fundamental to the Internet consortium. Is your question, 'Since fiber is so cheap, why doesn't everyone build an autonomous, facilities-based, global Internet network that competes for narrowband/broadband pullers of data and hosting/data centers/etc. for content providers (pulled-fromers or pushers of data)? Gary -Original Message- From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:46 PM To: Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be had for $20 per megabit per second? The smaller guys that don't buy transit buy the gigabit. Michel.
RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
Daniel, That is way too cynical ... and does not address the question of whether building your own transport ever runs counter to the Internet as a consortium. There are business justifications that underpin peering relationships ... and they are based on understanding (or ... philosophy) Gary -Original Message- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:36 AM To: Gary Hale; Michel Py; Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit On 4/20/04 8:45 AM, Gary Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is too simplistic ... It is not (simply) a matter of small vs. big or being on your own network from source-to-destination. Peering is an enabler ... and gives all an opportunity to share content globally ... kinda' fundamental to the Internet consortium. Is your question, 'Since fiber is so cheap, why doesn't everyone build an autonomous, facilities-based, global Internet network that competes for narrowband/broadband pullers of data and hosting/data centers/etc. for content providers (pulled-fromers or pushers of data)? Gary -Original Message- From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:46 PM To: Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be had for $20 per megabit per second? The smaller guys that don't buy transit buy the gigabit. Michel. Gary, Peering is an enabler gives all an opportunity to share content globally fundamental to the Internet consortium This is like the greatest hits compendium collected from various failed 1990's service provider business plans :) People should be careful. Peering is a business/networking arrangement that can save them money (or not). Those who try to imbue it with philosophical significance must be viewed with skepticism. Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group
RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
I disagree ... but sure do appreciate your tone ... :) Regards, Gary -Original Message- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:32 PM To: Gary Hale; Michel Py; Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Cynical? Gee, I hope so. Anyone who reads that sort of fluff needs to be cynical. Lack of appropriate cynicism led, in part, to the recent unpleasantness in the telecommunications industry. Words like enabling, leveraging, mindshare, b2b, e-*, i-*, et al, are considered harmful to fruitful operational discussion :) -- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group On 4/20/04 2:17 PM, Gary Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Daniel, That is way too cynical ... and does not address the question of whether building your own transport ever runs counter to the Internet as a consortium. There are business justifications that underpin peering relationships ... and they are based on understanding (or ... philosophy) Gary -Original Message- From: Daniel Golding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 10:36 AM To: Gary Hale; Michel Py; Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit On 4/20/04 8:45 AM, Gary Hale [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is too simplistic ... It is not (simply) a matter of small vs. big or being on your own network from source-to-destination. Peering is an enabler ... and gives all an opportunity to share content globally ... kinda' fundamental to the Internet consortium. Is your question, 'Since fiber is so cheap, why doesn't everyone build an autonomous, facilities-based, global Internet network that competes for narrowband/broadband pullers of data and hosting/data centers/etc. for content providers (pulled-fromers or pushers of data)? Gary -Original Message- From: Michel Py [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 10:46 PM To: Gordon Cook; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit Peering? Who needs peering if transit can be had for $20 per megabit per second? The smaller guys that don't buy transit buy the gigabit. Michel. Gary, Peering is an enabler gives all an opportunity to share content globally fundamental to the Internet consortium This is like the greatest hits compendium collected from various failed 1990's service provider business plans :) People should be careful. Peering is a business/networking arrangement that can save them money (or not). Those who try to imbue it with philosophical significance must be viewed with skepticism. Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group
