RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
Agreed. I know nothing about the pricing but last time I had a problem with BGP, it only took a few minutes to get someone with enable and clue, calling their general support number posted on their website. The problem was on their end and it was fixed while I was on the phone. Arguably one of the fastest response times I've ever had with a vendor. -Paul On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 20:40, Daniel Golding wrote: > Level(3) is generally very good. Great engineering team and very reliable. > I'm not sure if their pricing will maintain their business model in the > long run, but I certainly hope so. > > - Daniel Golding > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Sean Crandall wrote: > > > > > > One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any > > > comments good/bad on > > > reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. > > > I also realize > > > that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) > > > > I have about 5 GB of IP transit connections from Level3 across 8 markets > > (plus using their facilities for our backbone). Level3 has been very solid > > on the IP transit side. > > > > MFN/AboveNet has also been very good to us. > > > > -Sean > > > > Sean P. Crandall > > VP Engineering Operations > > MegaPath Networks Inc. > > 6691 Owens Drive > > Pleasanton, CA 94588 > > (925) 201-2530 (office) > > (925) 201-2550 (fax) > > > > > > -- Paul Timmins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
Level(3) is generally very good. Great engineering team and very reliable. I'm not sure if their pricing will maintain their business model in the long run, but I certainly hope so. - Daniel Golding On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Sean Crandall wrote: > > > One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any > > comments good/bad on > > reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. > > I also realize > > that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) > > I have about 5 GB of IP transit connections from Level3 across 8 markets > (plus using their facilities for our backbone). Level3 has been very solid > on the IP transit side. > > MFN/AboveNet has also been very good to us. > > -Sean > > Sean P. Crandall > VP Engineering Operations > MegaPath Networks Inc. > 6691 Owens Drive > Pleasanton, CA 94588 > (925) 201-2530 (office) > (925) 201-2550 (fax) > > >
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
> Once upon a time, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Are people idiots or do they just not possess equipment capable of > > trashing 92 byte icmp traffic and letting the small amount of normal > > traffic through unhindered? > > Well, when we used the policy routing example from the Cisco advisory to > drop just 92 byte ICMP traffic, we had other random types of traffic > dropped as well (possibly an IOS bug, but who knows). It is cisco. There are no bugs. They are unknown features. When Cisco does figure out what that those packets are, they will document it. Alex
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
Temkin, David wrote: We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable future. Are people idiots or do they just not possess equipment capable of trashing 92 byte icmp traffic and letting the small amount of normal traffic through unhindered? They are raising freakin' complaints from users who think the Microsoft ICMP tracert command is just the end all, be all and is of course completely WRONG with rate-limiting in effect. -Jack
Re: Fw: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
Selon "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > > Rate-limiting ICMP is 'ok' if you, as the provider, think its worthwhile
> > > and you, as the provider, want to deal with the headache phone calls...
> >
> > Would it be fair to say that UUNET haven't been asked by Homeland Security
> > to do the rate limiting that GLBX claim they have been asked to do? Has
>
> That is not fair at all :) DHS asked 'all ISPs' to filter 'all relevant
> traffic' for this latest set of MS worm events. Some ISPs did the
> filtering in part or in whole, others didn't...
>
> I would think that any ISP should have made the decision to take action
> not based on DHS's decree, but on the requirements of their network. So,
> if the ISP's network was adversely impacted by this even, or any other,
> they should take the action that is appropriate for their situation. That
> action might be to filter some or all of the items in DHS's decree, it
> might be to drop prefixes on the floor or turn down customers, or a whole
> host of other options.
>
> Doing things for the govt 'because they asked nicely' is not really the
> best of plans, certianly they don't know the mechanics of your network,
> mine, GBLX's, C&W's or anyone elses... they should not dictate a solution.
> They really should work with their industry reps to 'get the word out'
> about a problem and 'make people aware' that there could be a crisis.
> Dictating solutions to 'problems' that might not exist is hardly a way to
> get people to help you out in your cause :) Oh, and why didn't they beat
> on the original software vendor about this?? Ok, no more rant for me :)
>
> > anyone else been asked to rate limit by the U.S. Department of Homeland
> > Security?
> >
>
> Just about everyone with a large enough US office was asked by DHS, in a
> public statement...
>
Rough agreement; with a fair amount of
... : what about attemtpting to approach the (at least current)
ROOT CAUSE(S) albeit likely fairly (even more than patching the outcome)
cumbersome (but in the long run..)...
;)
-- if having bought a car I discover the brakes doesn't really do their job
(in spite of the car, considering other aspects, being (easy|nice) to
drive :), I'd rather (chat|complain) with the vendor, than asking the
highway provider to patch my way along.. building cotton walls.. ('cause
I wouldn't want my highway provider limit my driving experience in the
case I eventually run into a better performing car..). More subtle highway
speed versus security considerations... neglected, of course :)
mh
--
Michael Hallgren, http://m.hallgren.free.fr/, mh2198-ripe
Re: Fw: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
> As attacks evolve and transform are we really to believe that rate > limiting icmp will have some value in the attacks of tomorrow? no. nor those of today. the only way we're going to flatten the increase of attack volume, or even turn it into a decrease, is with various forms of admission control which are considered "the greater evil" by a lot of the half baked civil libertarians who inhabit the internet at layer 9. for example, edge urpf. for example, full realtime multinoc issue tracking. for example, route filtering based on rir allocations. for example, peering agreements that require active intermediation when downstreams misbehave. "you can have peace. or you can have freedom. don't ever count on having both at once." -LL (RAH) -- Paul Vixie
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
> > Along these lines, how does this limiting affect akamai or other 'ping > > for distance' type localization services? I'd think their data would > > get somewhat skewed, right? using icmp to predict tcp performance has always been a silly idea; it doesn't take any icmp rate limit policy changes to make it silly. other silly ways to try to predict tcp performance include aspath length comparisons, stupid dns tricks, or geographic distance comparisons. the only reliable way to know what tcp will do is execute it. not just the syn/synack as in some blast protocols i know of, but the whole session. and the predictive value of the information you'll gain from this decays rather quickly unless you have a lot of it for trending/aggregation. "gee, ping was faster to A but tcp was faster to B, do you s'pose there could be a satellite link, or a 9600 baud modem, in the system somewhere?" -- Paul Vixie
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
At 12:39 PM 8/28/2003, you wrote: > Along these lines, how does this limiting affect akamai or other 'ping for > distance' type localization services? I'd think their data would get > somewhat skewed, right? Perhaps they'll come up with a more advanced system of monitoring? probally the best way to do that is to track the download speed either with cookies (with subnet info) or by subnet only to determine the best localization. With an imperfect system of tracking localization, you will get imperfect results. I'm not sure about other implementations, but our Akamai boxes in our datacenter receive all traffic requests which originate from our address space as predefined with Akamai. I believe they also somehow factor in address space announcements originated via our AS as well since they asked for our AS when we originally started working with them. -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:55:26PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote: > > > > > While rate limiting ICMP can be a good thing, it has to be done > > carefully and probably can't be uniform across the backbone. (think of > > a common site that gets pinged whenever someone wants to test to see > > if their connection went down or if it's just loaded.. Limit ICMP into > > them impropperly and lots of folks notice.) Such limiting also has to > > undergo periodic tuning as traffic levels increase, traffic patterns > > shift, and so forth. > > Along these lines, how does this limiting affect akamai or other 'ping for > distance' type localization services? I'd think their data would get > somewhat skewed, right? Perhaps they'll come up with a more advanced system of monitoring? probally the best way to do that is to track the download speed either with cookies (with subnet info) or by subnet only to determine the best localization. With an imperfect system of tracking localization, you will get imperfect results. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't > > recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're > > doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent > > to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and > > forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice > > MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations. > > We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced > ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings > through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After > contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP > rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not > remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable > future. Homeland Security recommended the filtering of ports 137-139 but have not, to my knowledge, recommended rate limiting ICMP. I speak for Global Crossing when I say that ICMP rate limiting has existed on the Global Crossing network, inbound from peers, for a long time ... we learned our lesson from the Yahoo DDoS attack (when they were one of our customers) back in the day and it was shortly thereafter that we implemented the rate limiters. Over the past 24 hours we've performed some experimentation that shows outbound rate limiters being also of value and we're looking at the specifics of differentiating between happy ICMP and naughty 92 byte packet ICMP and treating the latter with very strict rules ... like we would dump it on the floor. This, I believe, will stomp on the bad traffic but allow the happy traffic to pass unmolested. The rate-limiters have become more interesting recently, meaning they've actually started dropping packets (quite a lot in some cases) because of the widespread exploitation of unpatched windows machines. Our results show that were we to raise the size of the queues the quantity of ICMP is such that it would just fill it up and if we permit all ICMP to pass unfettered we would find some peering circuits that become conjested. Our customers would not appreciate the latter either. -Steve
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
At 09:26 AM 8/28/2003, you wrote: It takes some education to the customers, but after they understand why, most are receptive. Especially when they get DOS'ed. We have been rate limiting ICMP for a long time, however, it is only recently that the percentage limit has been reached and people have started to see "packet loss" as a result. However, the fact that customers stay up and are not affected by the latest DOS attacks and real traffic makes it to the proper destination makes a slight increase in support calls well worth it. -Robert Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Good will, like a good name, is got by many actions, and lost by one." - Francis Jeffrey
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:48:50AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > they [customers] expect a bit of loss when transiting a peering > circuit or public fabric, and if the loss is only of icmp they > tend to not care. Um, since when? My customers expect perfection and if they don't get it, they're gonna gripe. Even if it's just the appearance of a problem (through traceroute and ICMP echo or similar), I'm going to hear about it. Personally, I tollerate a little loss. But I'm an engineer. I'm not a customer who has little or no concept of how the internet works and who doesn't really want to. The customer just wants it to work and when it doesn't they expect me to fix it, not explain to them that there really isn't a problem and that it's all in their head. > > What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX? > > here's one of many i've posted in the past, note it's also > related to securing machines. > > http://www.ultraviolet.org/mail-archives/nanog.2002/0168.html > > I recommend everyone do such icmp rate-limits on their > peering circuits and public exchange fabrics to what is a 'normal' > traffic flow on your network. The above message from the archives > is from Jan 2002, if these were a problem then and still are now, > perhaps people should either 1) accept that this is part of normal > internet operations, or 2) decide that this is enough and it's time > to seriously do something about these things. While rate limiting ICMP can be a good thing, it has to be done carefully and probably can't be uniform across the backbone. (think of a common site that gets pinged whenever someone wants to test to see if their connection went down or if it's just loaded.. Limit ICMP into them impropperly and lots of folks notice.) Such limiting also has to undergo periodic tuning as traffic levels increase, traffic patterns shift, and so forth. If a provider is willing to put the effort into it to do it right, I'm all for it. If they're just gonna arbitrarily decide that the allowable flow rate is 200k across an OC48 and never touch it again then that policy is going to cause problems. --- Wayne Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Fw: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
Of the DDOS attacks I have had to deal with in the past year I have seen none which were icmp based. As attacks evolve and transform are we really to believe that rate limiting icmp will have some value in the attacks of tomorrow? -Gordon > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't > > recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're > > doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent > > to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and > > forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice > > MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations. > > We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced > ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings > through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After > contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP > rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not > remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable > future. > > What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX? > > Cheers, > > Rich >
RE: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
Not that Yipes is necessarily a transit provider by any means, but they have done the same thing within the cores of their network. I was troubleshooting an issue yesterday that was pointing to them for 15-20% packet loss, and I called them and they stated that they started rate limiting ICMP last weekend, but that it was only on a temporary basis. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?) On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't > recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing > they're doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing > traffic sent to them) which is causing complaints from some of our > customers and forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers > notice MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations. We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable future. What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX? Cheers, Rich
Re: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:23:40PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't > > recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're > > doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent > > to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and > > forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice > > MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations. > > We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced > ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings > through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After > contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP > rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not > remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable > future. I guess this depends on the type of interconnect you have with them. If you're speaking across a public-IX or private (or even paid) peering link, this doesn't seem unreasonable that they would limit traffic to a particular percentage across that circuit. I think the key is to determine what is 'normal' and what obviously constitutes an out of the ordinary amount of ICMP traffic. If you're a customer, there's not really a good reason to rate-limit your icmp traffic. customers tend to notice and gripe. they expect a bit of loss when transiting a peering circuit or public fabric, and if the loss is only of icmp they tend to not care. This is why when I receive escalated tickets I check using non-icmp based tools as well as using icmp based tools. > What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX? here's one of many i've posted in the past, note it's also related to securing machines. http://www.ultraviolet.org/mail-archives/nanog.2002/0168.html I recommend everyone do such icmp rate-limits on their peering circuits and public exchange fabrics to what is a 'normal' traffic flow on your network. The above message from the archives is from Jan 2002, if these were a problem then and still are now, perhaps people should either 1) accept that this is part of normal internet operations, or 2) decide that this is enough and it's time to seriously do something about these things. - Jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?)
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't > recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're > doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent > to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and > forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice > MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations. We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install the ICMP rate limiting was from the Homeland Security folks and that they would not remove them or change the rate at which they limit in the foreseeable future. What are other transit providers doing about this or is it just GLBX? Cheers, Rich
RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Sean Crandall wrote: > I have about 5 GB of IP transit connections from Level3 across 8 markets > (plus using their facilities for our backbone). Level3 has been very solid > on the IP transit side. > > MFN/AboveNet has also been very good to us. Another happy Level3 customer. We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent to them) which is causing complaints from some of our customers and forcing us to make routing adjustments as the customers notice MFN/AboveNet has broken our connectivity to these destinations. Or as they say, I encourage my competitors buy from them. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route System Administrator| therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:39:42PM -0500, Matthew Sweet wrote: > Alot of carriers that have a "Nationwide backbone" actually lease their > circuits (Layer 1 and 2) through various other carriers. There are actually a lot more layers than that, not that most people interested in buying a circuit should care. Possible ownership changes occur at: - Owner of the right of way. - Owner of the duct. - Owner of the cable in the duct. - Owner of the fiber in the cable. - Owner of the wavelength on the fiber. - Owner of the circuit on the wavelength. - Owner of the channel on the circuit. - Owner of the VC on the channel (at least, for MPLS, ATM, and Frame) - Owner of the router. (I'll stop there for backbone purposes.) When people ask about ownership, I think they generally want to know the answer to three related questions: 1) Do you have the ability to turn up additional capacity "in time"? 2) Do you own the right bits of infrastructure so you can control cost (with right being the operative word, not a specific level)? 3) Do you have enough control over the chain above such that it won't be broken if someone who owns another part goes Chapter 7|11? I do wonder who owns it all. Most companies, even if they own their own fiber (fiber in the cable, or cable in the duct) don't own the duct or right of way. Many of the right of way owners don't do circuit or IP services at all. As a practical matter, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot where the divide is, as long as the company has it structured so the answers to those three questions are positive. -- Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
I guess it depends on your traffic type and destination. Level 3 has a lot of connectivity to content providers such as yahoo and microsoft. As Joel P pointed out they have been a reliable backbone with a lot of capacity. They also have knowledgeable peering people although they lean towards the restrictive side on policy (starting about a 18 months ago) Dave At 12:32 -0700 8/27/03, Rick Ernst wrote: We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with because they don't have their own backbone. Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this just something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, Sprint, and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ? One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) Thanks, Rick
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
Hi there Rick! On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Rick Ernst wrote: > > > We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac > OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with > because they don't have their own backbone. > Alot of carriers that have a "Nationwide backbone" actually lease their circuits (Layer 1 and 2) through various other carriers. > Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this just > something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, Sprint, > and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ? > Wish I knew of one. Just keep in mind, though, that just because a carrier does not own it's own fiber / long-haul circuits does not mean they suck. It's the routers that are doing the work for the customer. A circuit is a circuit: it either works or it doesn't (wish I could say the same for IP routers.) For some people, this is a big issue (especially if the carrier is in or just coming out of Chapter 11 :-) .) > One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on > reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize > that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) > We just migrated from Genuity to Level 3 down in Miami, FL. With careful planning, the total downtime was about 5 seconds. The engineer I worked with was excellent and very professional. Level 3 had an issue this past weekend that caused latency issues (due to the worm or some DDoS attack of a customer of theirs in Puerto Rico). We had some issues and it took a few hours to resolve, but that was it. Level 3's NOC and TMG were top-notch in talking to me and did not hold any information back. They are one of the nicest NOC groups I have ever spoken to. I have to give Level 3 a thumbs up. They really have a nice network and a good NOC/engineering staff. Hope this information helps you out. Matt
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
Well don't send messages to a list from an address that you don't want to receive responses to... After sending an offlist response: > This is probably because this is an internal account that no one is > supposed to be sending mail to. If you are sending it mail, you are > probably a low-life, bottom feeding scum sucking spammer who will > burn in hell. NO addresses at this domain EVER want to hear from you. > > What part of that don't you understand? > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Message rejected by recipient. I believe this particular case has been brought to the attention of the list before, no? That said, I remember hearing that Level3 tried not to do the smaller stuff directly, but that situation may be different now. -- "Since when is skepticism un-American? Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same..." (Sleater-Kinney - "Combat Rock")
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
--On Wednesday, August 27, 2003 15:53:44 -0500 John Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I hear that Level 3 is good but do they handle small stuff like T-1? We may be looking to dual-home soon and will be looking around. Remember, Level(3) bought (at least some of) genuity/bbn. I was always impressed with the genuity folks. We just switched a DS3 to the AS3356 backbone from AS1 on Monday. Smoothest turn up I've ever had. LER - Original Message - From: "Sean Crandall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Rick Ernst'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 15:48 Subject: RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone? > One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any > comments good/bad on > reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. > I also realize > that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) I have about 5 GB of IP transit connections from Level3 across 8 markets (plus using their facilities for our backbone). Level3 has been very solid on the IP transit side. MFN/AboveNet has also been very good to us. -Sean Sean P. Crandall VP Engineering Operations MegaPath Networks Inc. 6691 Owens Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925) 201-2530 (office) (925) 201-2550 (fax) -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
I hear that Level 3 is good but do they handle small stuff like T-1? We may be looking to dual-home soon and will be looking around. - Original Message - From: "Sean Crandall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Rick Ernst'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 15:48 Subject: RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone? > > > One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any > > comments good/bad on > > reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. > > I also realize > > that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) > > I have about 5 GB of IP transit connections from Level3 across 8 markets > (plus using their facilities for our backbone). Level3 has been very solid > on the IP transit side. > > MFN/AboveNet has also been very good to us. > > -Sean > > Sean P. Crandall > VP Engineering Operations > MegaPath Networks Inc. > 6691 Owens Drive > Pleasanton, CA 94588 > (925) 201-2530 (office) > (925) 201-2550 (fax) > > > >
RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
> One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any > comments good/bad on > reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. > I also realize > that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) I have about 5 GB of IP transit connections from Level3 across 8 markets (plus using their facilities for our backbone). Level3 has been very solid on the IP transit side. MFN/AboveNet has also been very good to us. -Sean Sean P. Crandall VP Engineering Operations MegaPath Networks Inc. 6691 Owens Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 (925) 201-2530 (office) (925) 201-2550 (fax)
RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
I have a Level-3 OC-3 in Miami. So far they have proved to be more stable than my other 2 upstreams. Never had a problem with their helpdesk either! Regards, -- Joel Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | IP Engineer http://www.ntera.net/ | Ntera 305.914.3412 >>-Original Message- >>From: Rick Ernst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 3:33 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Tier-1 without their own backbone? >> >> >> >>We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac >>OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with >> because they don't have their own backbone. >> >>Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this >>just >>something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, >>Sprint, >>and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ? >> >>One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad >>on >>reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also >>realize >>that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) >> >>Thanks, >>Rick >>
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
Rick Ernst wrote: One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) Look for one which has working abuse department which actually takes action. Example of one which doesn´t would be the likes of Cogent. Verio comes to mind. Pete
Re: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
Hello... On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 12:32, Rick Ernst wrote: > We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac > OC-3. One of the responses came back with "we won't be competive with > because they don't have their own backbone. > > Is there a cross-reference for provider vs network backbone, or is this just > something that we have to ask each provider for? I "assume" that UU, Sprint, > and AT&T are self-owned backbones, but others... ? > > One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on I use Level-3 out of the LA Equinix facility. From a content provider point of view, they rule. I have never had a problem with them, solid as a rock. > reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and AT&T. I also realize > that the "they suck less" list changes continuously... :) > I hope more people respond to this part "for future reference". > Thanks, > Rick -- Christopher McCrory "The guy that keeps the servers running" [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pricegrabber.com Let's face it, there's no Hollow Earth, no robots, and no 'mute rays.' And even if there were, waxed paper is no defense. I tried it. Only tinfoil works.
