Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[list]

On 07/23/2014 06:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 07/23/2014 06:05 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
>> The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective
>> in most scenarios.
> 
> No, the problem is that those companies don't define "the problem" the
> same way that we do. :)

+1

I would go a little farther.  Certain market/MBA/investor types see
engineering as a "risk" to which a business case has to be formed and
accepted.  PR et al is considered "damage control", and sometimes gets
lumped in with advertising and such.  The Powers That Be think "going to
the mat" is a more sure way to protect their profits, bonus, and jobs
than risking their life on the actions of those weird, hard-to-control
propeller-heads.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Doug Barton]

On 07/23/2014 06:05 PM, Scott Helms wrote:

The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective
in most scenarios.


No, the problem is that those companies don't define "the problem" the 
same way that we do. :)


Doug

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Matthew Petach]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Jimmy Hess  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> [snip]
> > Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*?
>
> Probably noone... at least not without compromising and first
> peering with Netflix.
>
> It would be interesting if Google, Wikimedia, CBS/ABC, CNN, Walmart,
> Espn, Salesforce, BoFa, Weather.com, Dropbox, Paypal, Netflix,
> Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Wordpress.com,
> Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Forbes, Zillow,   formed a
> little club and said
>
>
> "OK, Tier1.. providers.. we're not paying you guys for transit
> anymore; your customers want our stuff  and will consider their
> internet service DOWN if they can't get it.   You are going to pay us
> for a fast lane to our content now.  If you want it,  please start
> sending us your bids, now."
>
>
>
> > Cheers,
> > -- jra
> --
> -JH
>
>
Any discussions among some subsets of those
named entities that may or may not have ever
occurred may have quickly stumbled across
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_in_restraint_of_trade
and decided that colluding to form such a cartel
might potentially be a Bad Thing(tm), at which
point those discussions which may not have
indeed ever happened instead adjourned to
the bar for much safer forms of discourse.

Matt

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Scott Helms]

The problem is marketing/spin/lobbying is both cheaper and more effective
in most scenarios.


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 03:50:40PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote:
> > I would love to see the Verizon blog response on that...
>
> I would love to see Verizon invest the resources (both financial and
> personnel) that are being deployed to update their blog, lobby Congress,
> lobby the FCC, astroturf, issue press releases, etc.  in actual real
> live engineering that would -- and I know this is a ridiculous concept,
> so bear with me -- fix the root cause of the problem.
>
> ---rsk
>

RE: DDoS mitigation Equinix?

[Kate Gerry]

Have you checked out Staminus? It's run by Matt Mahvi (a constant NANOG 
attendee). We have a customer that uses Staminus and they have done great.

--
Kate Gerry

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Abuse Contact
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:26 PM
To: Christopher Morrow
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: DDoS mitigation Equinix?

I actually use GigeNET at the moment for DDoS protection and they're terrible. 
Their trigger detection is terrible at picking up attacks and my attack is 
barely ever mitigated because of it.


On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Christopher Morrow < morrowc.li...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Ameen Pishdadi 
> wrote:
> > It was none of the mentioned , didn't wanna come off as advertising ..
> Gigenet is the company
> >
>
> ok, cool the OP probably is interested... thanks!
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jul 20, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi 
> >>> 
> wrote:
> >>> Equinix doesn't provide Ddos protection ,  cloud flare is able to
> mitigate attacks by spreading out the traffic across 20-30 different 
> pops which are mostly located at Equinix. Cloud flare is pretty much a 
> cdn , people have been using cdns for years to mitigate Ddos like 
> akaimi , wasn't really popular though because of how expensive cdns 
> like Akamai were, btw they recently bought prolexic. Cloud flare as 
> far as I know does not sell Ddos protection service by any other means 
> then there web proxy/cache service. Also there core business isn't 
> Ddos protection it's website optimization via cdn type setup.
> >>>
> >>> Our company also uses Equinix and other carrier hotels to provide 
> >>> Ddos
> protection,
> >>
> >> 'our company' .. since use used 3 different names of companies in 
> >> the previous part of the message, which one is 'our' ?
> >>
> >> we provide a connection to our network by cross connects or peering 
> >> exchanges , 1 gig or 10 gig and filter the Ddos before it leaves 
> >> our network, this can be on full time or only when an attack is detected.
> >>> Other methods of filtered traffic delivery are gre VPN tunnels and
> reverse proxy method. The difference between us  , prolexic vs cloud 
> flare is the different delivery methods allow protection against 
> attacks towards other services and protocols besides http 
> protocol/websites, and protection against entire networks versus an 
> individual domain, it's just a different business model going after different 
> market segments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
>  On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <
> stopabuseandrep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
>  I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits 
>  like
> large
>  companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I 
>  don't
> get it,
>  how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from
> them or
>  whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost?
> 
>  Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
>  On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <
> stopabuseandrep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
>  I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits 
>  like
> large
>  companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I 
>  don't
> get it,
>  how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from
> them or
>  whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost?
> 
>  Thanks!
>

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Jimmy Hess]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
[snip]
> Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*?

Probably noone... at least not without compromising and first
peering with Netflix.

It would be interesting if Google, Wikimedia, CBS/ABC, CNN, Walmart,
Espn, Salesforce, BoFa, Weather.com, Dropbox, Paypal, Netflix,
Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, Wordpress.com,
Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, Reddit, Forbes, Zillow,   formed a
little club and said


"OK, Tier1.. providers.. we're not paying you guys for transit
anymore; your customers want our stuff  and will consider their
internet service DOWN if they can't get it.   You are going to pay us
for a fast lane to our content now.  If you want it,  please start
sending us your bids, now."



> Cheers,
> -- jra
--
-JH

v6 adoption

[Mark Allman]

A shameless flog as it seems like it could be of interest to some
folks...

We have been assessing v6 adoption from a bunch of angles lately.  We
have written up a paper on the results of our analysis that will be
presented next month at SIGCOMM.  This is an update and extension of the
analysis that Mike Bailey presented a few NANOG meetings ago.  The paper
is:

Jakub Czyz, Mark Allman, Jing Zhang, Scott Iekel-Johnson,
Eric Osterweil, Michael Bailey.  Measuring IPv6 Adoption,
ACM SIGCOMM, August 2014.  To appear.
http://www.icir.org/mallman/pubs/CAZ+14/

Comments certainly welcome.

allman





pgppYsieExGHg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[John Osmon]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 09:55:39AM -0500, Steven Saner wrote:
[...]
> Now, it is tempting to suggest that the electric cooperative should take
> on the project.

I've seen that exact scenario happen in rural New Mexico.  The Co-op 
members wanted dial-up access, and couldn't get it.  They asked the
co-op board to build an ISP, and they did.  They weren't great at the
job, but no one else was putting in access ports within the local
calling area.

A few years later, we bought their customer base.  The co-op was happy
to sell to someone that "did Internet for a living."  We gave them
enough money to make the board and members happy with their investment.

So, yeah.  I'd say it's more than tempting to suggest that an
electric co-op could take on broadband projects.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Larry Sheldon]

On 7/23/2014 10:24 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Funny story.  There are a huge number of independent telcos in Iowa. The
reason: early on, farmers discovered that you could turn pairs of barbed
wired strands into party lines.  Things developed from there.


In California in the 1960s Pacific had tariffs for un-francised 
territories for "toll stations" and "farmer lines"--the later often 
terminating at a small cord board.


I recall taking a clearance from a repairman as "somebody left the gate 
open".


--
Requiescas in pace o email   Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio  Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
  (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

Re: DDoS mitigation Equinix?

[Abuse Contact]

I actually use GigeNET at the moment for DDoS protection and they're
terrible. Their trigger detection is terrible at picking up attacks and my
attack is barely ever mitigated because of it.


On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:54 PM, Ameen Pishdadi 
> wrote:
> > It was none of the mentioned , didn't wanna come off as advertising ..
> Gigenet is the company
> >
>
> ok, cool the OP probably is interested... thanks!
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >> On Jul 20, 2014, at 1:51 PM, Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Ameen Pishdadi 
> wrote:
> >>> Equinix doesn't provide Ddos protection ,  cloud flare is able to
> mitigate attacks by spreading out the traffic across 20-30 different pops
> which are mostly located at Equinix. Cloud flare is pretty much a cdn ,
> people have been using cdns for years to mitigate Ddos like akaimi , wasn't
> really popular though because of how expensive cdns like Akamai were, btw
> they recently bought prolexic. Cloud flare as far as I know does not sell
> Ddos protection service by any other means then there web proxy/cache
> service. Also there core business isn't Ddos protection it's website
> optimization via cdn type setup.
> >>>
> >>> Our company also uses Equinix and other carrier hotels to provide Ddos
> protection,
> >>
> >> 'our company' .. since use used 3 different names of companies in the
> >> previous part of the message, which one is 'our' ?
> >>
> >> we provide a connection to our network by cross connects or peering
> >> exchanges , 1 gig or 10 gig and filter the Ddos before it leaves our
> >> network, this can be on full time or only when an attack is detected.
> >>> Other methods of filtered traffic delivery are gre VPN tunnels and
> reverse proxy method. The difference between us  , prolexic vs cloud flare
> is the different delivery methods allow protection against attacks towards
> other services and protocols besides http protocol/websites, and protection
> against entire networks versus an individual domain, it's just a different
> business model going after different market segments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
>  On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <
> stopabuseandrep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
>  I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like
> large
>  companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't
> get it,
>  how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from
> them or
>  whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost?
> 
>  Thanks!
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
>  On Jul 19, 2014, at 2:44 AM, Abuse Contact <
> stopabuseandrep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>  Hi,
>  I've heard that using Equinix has it's DDoS protection benefits like
> large
>  companies such as CloudFlare use them for DDoS mitigation, I don't
> get it,
>  how do they help with DDoS protection? You still get a 1Gbit from
> them or
>  whatever and also do you guys know around how much they'd cost?
> 
>  Thanks!
>

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 03:50:40PM -0500, Blake Hudson wrote:
> I would love to see the Verizon blog response on that...

I would love to see Verizon invest the resources (both financial and
personnel) that are being deployed to update their blog, lobby Congress,
lobby the FCC, astroturf, issue press releases, etc.  in actual real
live engineering that would -- and I know this is a ridiculous concept,
so bear with me -- fix the root cause of the problem.

---rsk

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Jared Mauch]

On Jul 23, 2014, at 4:33 PM, William Herrin  wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Morris  wrote:
>> What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio?
> 
> Anybody else think peering ratios miss the point? Netflix is
> theoretically in a position to have their app generate empty
> back-traffic at a rate that maintains any necessary peering ratios,
> but surely Verizon would scream bloody murder if they did.

I would love to see the process improve here.  Ratios are one way to measure 
value, but when networks are dissimilar it’s hard to compare them.  

Regional ASN vs Global ASN, wholesale vs consumer vs enterprise vs CDN and 
datacenter all make a difference.

I’m wondering if the change at vz when it comes to upload:download ratio is 
going to cause broader changes in the marketplace.  I suspect it will and those 
in the US consumer/SMB space may see benefits.  I’d love to see symmetric 
services from my home carrier.

- Jared

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Blake Hudson]

William Herrin wrote the following on 7/23/2014 3:33 PM:

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Morris  wrote:

What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio?

Anybody else think peering ratios miss the point? Netflix is
theoretically in a position to have their app generate empty
back-traffic at a rate that maintains any necessary peering ratios,
but surely Verizon would scream bloody murder if they did.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




I would love to see the Verizon blog response on that...

 There appears to be no congestion within the 
Verizon network, but there is congestion in this little red area where 
the Verizon user connects to the Verizon network. The Verizon customer 
has failed to negotiate reasonable commercial terms that allow him or 
her to send traffic to Netflix at the requested rate. The customer is 
dropping packets... not us.

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Shawn Morris  wrote:
> What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio?

Anybody else think peering ratios miss the point? Netflix is
theoretically in a position to have their app generate empty
back-traffic at a rate that maintains any necessary peering ratios,
but surely Verizon would scream bloody murder if they did.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Shawn Morris]

What responsibility does Verizon have to maintain this ratio?  Are they 
being faithful to the agreement when they make no effort to compete in 
the wholesale market?  What content players buy transit from Verizon to 
reach networks other than Verizon's?


On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 03:25:49PM -0600, Jason Iannone wrote:

You didn't misunderstand me.  But that's not the only point I was
making.  Yes, Netflix pays Cogent for access to the networks it
doesn't have interconnections with.  Cogent and Verizon have a 1.8:1
peering agreement.  Cogent sends more than that and as such is in
breach of contract.  It's not unfair for the breaching party to accept
penalties.  So it's not exactly Netflix's responsibility, it's
Cogent's.  They're responsible for providing their customer, Netflix,
with the service they purchased.

Netflix's problem is that their application generates a third of the
internet's traffic.  That leads to special considerations for Netflix
as it makes its transit and interconnection contracts.  Anyone
promising anything to Netflix should consider its bitweight.

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:

- Original Message -

From: "Jason Iannone" 



Lots of blame to go around. Verizon isn't an eyeball only network
(Comcast would have a more difficult time describing itself as
anything but), so a reasonable peering policy should apply. In
Verizon's case, 1.8:1. I speculate that without Netflix, Cogent and
L3 are largely within the specifications of their peering agreements.
Netflix knows how much traffic it sends. If its transit is doing
their due diligence, they'll also know. It didn't come as a surprise
to either transit provider that they were going to fill their pipes
into at least some eyeball provider peers. Cogent is notoriously hard
nosed when it comes to disputes, and Level3 caved very early in the
fight. Anyway, this is a simple peering dispute between carriers that
almost certainly knew they were participating with the internet's
number one traffic generator and eyeballs wanting to get back into the
contractual green. Also, I don't think it's out of line for anyone to
ask for free stuff.


I might be misreading your posting here, Jason, but it sounds as if you
are playing into Verizon's argument that this traffic is somehow Netflix's
*fault*/"responsibility", rather than merely being the other side of
flows *initiated by Verizon FiOS customers*.

Did I misunderstand you?

Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Blake Hudson]

That answer seem overly simple: Comcast's answer was Comcast and 
Verizon's answer was Verizon... Seems that is what is occurring for both 
of these parties.


The debate has been over whether this is fair (keeping in mind that 
Netflix has a standing offer to peer at their own cost to any ISP with 
sufficient traffic levels). I can't blame these guys for wanting Netflix 
as a customer. After all, Netflix probably pays their bills on time and 
generate a lot of traffic which equates to a good revenue stream.


--Blake

Phil Rosenthal wrote the following on 7/23/2014 12:09 PM:

With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:

Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach 
Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?

-P

On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild  wrote:


I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of 
commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at 
scale and absent congestion.  I contend that there is not.

I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering 
partner...

$0.02,
-a

On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans  wrote:


Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and
other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
works very wellthey don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct
peering is possible.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO





If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
*already*,
even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?

Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?


So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?

Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?

Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.

brandon

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Phil Rosenthal]

On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Adam Rothschild  wrote:

> Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks 
> who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China 
> Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up 
> traffic.
> 
> (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, 
> unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.)

If this is Comcast’s position, it is patently absurd. In 2005, I had several 
options available to buy transit from with reasonably good connectivity to >90% 
of the Internet’s eyeballs (eg: Level3, Global Crossings, NTT). While DT and 
China Telecom may have a huge presence in certain parts of the world — 
suggesting using them for general delivery in the USA.

As far as I am concerned, Netflix is sticking their neck out for the good of 
the internet here — and the don’t really have to.  Netflix has money.  Netflix 
has many pops. They can “just pay”. They can buy from whomever they have to. 
They can change their codecs however they need. 

The “little guy” doesn’t have those options, and Netflix’s battle is really for 
their benefit.

-Phil

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Hugo Slabbert]

...damn; hit Adam in the replies but missed the list...:

> With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
>
> Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach
Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?

Netflix switching transit providers seems like a bad idea at this point.

Comcast: "See?! Now what if we had spent all this time and money to augment
our capacity to Cogent/Level3 to handle the inbound Netflix traffic? Now we
have to do a bunch of work to upgrade/migrate infrastructure over to
$NEWTRANSIT just because Netflix felt like it?!"

I'm not saying it's necessarily the right argument, but most of this war is
about PR anyway...

--
Hugo

Hugo Slabbert

cell: 604.617.3133
email: hugo.slabb...@slabnet.com

"If kindness doesn't work, try more kindness." Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Adam Rothschild  wrote:

> Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure
> networks who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and
> China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to
> scale up traffic.
>
> (I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports,
> unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.)
>
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal  wrote:
>
> > With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
> >
> > Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach
> Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
> >
> > -P
> >
> > On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild  wrote:
> >
> >> I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of
> commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at
> scale and absent congestion.  I contend that there is not.
> >>
> >> I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a
> peering partner...
> >>
> >> $0.02,
> >> -a
> >>
> >> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
> >>> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base
> and
> >>> other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
> >>> works very wellthey don't depend heavily on transit delivery if
> direct
> >>> peering is possible.
> >>>
> >>> Thank You
> >>> Bob Evans
> >>> CTO
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> > If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1],
> given
> > Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
> > *already*,
> > even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound
> traffic?
> 
>  Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
>  asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with
> their
>  previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from
> pussies?
> 
> > So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
> 
>  Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would
> they
>  not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
> 
>  Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
> 
>  brandon
> 
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Adam Rothschild]

Comcast’s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure networks 
who don’t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and China Telecom, 
and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to scale up traffic.

(I believe this was in one of Jason Livingood’s posts to broadbandreports, 
unfortunately I don’t have a citation handy.)

On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Phil Rosenthal  wrote:

> With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:
> 
> Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach 
> Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?
> 
> -P
> 
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild  wrote:
> 
>> I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of 
>> commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at 
>> scale and absent congestion.  I contend that there is not.
>> 
>> I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering 
>> partner...
>> 
>> $0.02,
>> -a
>> 
>> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans  wrote:
>> 
>>> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
>>> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and
>>> other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
>>> works very wellthey don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct
>>> peering is possible.
>>> 
>>> Thank You
>>> Bob Evans
>>> CTO
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
> *already*,
> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
 
 Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
 asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
 previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
 
> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
 
 Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
 not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
 
 Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
 
 brandon
 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Phil Rosenthal]

With this war of blog posts — perhaps Netflix should ask this question:

Who can we buy transit from who has sufficient peering capacity to reach 
Comcast’s and Verizon’s customers?

-P

On Jul 23, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Adam Rothschild  wrote:

> I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of 
> commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at 
> scale and absent congestion.  I contend that there is not.
> 
> I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering 
> partner...
> 
> $0.02,
> -a
> 
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans  wrote:
> 
>> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
>> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and
>> other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
>> works very wellthey don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct
>> peering is possible.
>> 
>> Thank You
>> Bob Evans
>> CTO
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
 If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
 Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
 *already*,
 even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
>>> 
>>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
>>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
>>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
>>> 
 So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
>>> 
>>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
>>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
>>> 
>>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
>>> 
>>> brandon
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Adam Rothschild]

I think the confusion by Jay and others is that there is a plethora of 
commercial options available for sending traffic to Comcast or Verizon, at 
scale and absent congestion.  I contend that there is not.

I, too, have found Netflix highly responsive and professional, as a peering 
partner...

$0.02,
-a

On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Bob Evans  wrote:

> Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
> peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and
> other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
> works very wellthey don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct
> peering is possible.
> 
> Thank You
> Bob Evans
> CTO
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
>>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
>>> *already*,
>>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
>> 
>> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
>> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
>> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
>> 
>>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
>> 
>> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
>> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
>> 
>> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
>> 
>> brandon
>> 
> 
> 

Starting a greenfield(ish) small (10k subs?) multihomed (two ASN) , dual stacked, wireless ISP - i can haz advice?

[charles]

Hey everybody,

So all this talk about monopolies, small ISPs vs the big bad netflix  , 
muni fiber etc etc has been interesting. Lots and lots of talk, lots of 
interesting links etc.


I'm an action/results oriented individual, and have been working on 
actually building out a grassroots ISP, instead of just talking about 
it. :)


Over the past year or so, I've been involved with an effort to launch a 
community ISP in the Kansas City MO area. It's got several towers up now 
and a decent amount of users. It's been funded by the community that it 
serves. Feel free to ask any questions you have about the details. It's 
an open network in all aspects (design, business model etc). It is 
intentionally designed/operated in such a way that all aspects can be 
disclosed.


We are now ready to take the next step and obtain an ASN and v6 space 
(also looks like we can get a /24 of v4 space as well).


What are the things that we should do before we get those resources? 
What should we do immediately after? What books/rfc/bcp should we be 
most familiar with?


As is typical of many small outfits, we have an incredibly high degree 
of software skill, and a limited budget which goes entirely to hardware.


This is a greenfield network. We've got Ubiquiti gear for the backbone. 
Running a mix of QMP routers with BMX6 as the IGP linked over AirOS l2 
bridge "pseudowires". We'll be homed to two AS upstreams. Using pfSense 
as the WAN edge routers.


From all my reading of the list, it seems like key things to do in this 
scenario:


1) Have full flow telemetry at all points to help with (D)DOS 
mitigation.

2) Do CGN in pools (so perhaps ~500 to 1k users behind each IP)?
3) Provision a /56 of v6 space to each end user. I was thinking of 
having the CPE with CeroWRT and be multi SSID with a /64 per. I'm 
interested in folks thoughts on this?

4) Upsell a public v4 address if someone requires it
5) Of course implement bcp38

I'm mostly interested in technical feedback. Business model etc type 
feedback is welcome as well, but not the primary purpose of this 
message. :)


Thanks!

Charles Wyble
CTO Free Network Foundation

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

On 7/23/14 5:30 AM, Scott Helms wrote:

The people involved in the bond arrangements
almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable
path to getting repaid than an open system.


I assumed this was true, that bonds with the revenue stream based upon 
rights-of-way lease only, or row+dark-fiber, or ... were each 
incrementally easier to sell, having incrementally larger per-customer 
revenue shares.


If anyone has specific bonds, or bonding experiences they can point to 
I'd appreciate the pointers.


TiA,
Eric

Re: Akamai contact/ Infrastructure,CDN

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

I would email their Network Support group, netsupport-...@akamai.com.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

On Jul 23, 2014, at 11:33 , Payam Poursaied  wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Can someone from Akamai contact me offlist. Specially those who deal with
> infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 

Akamai contact/ Infrastructure,CDN

[Payam Poursaied]

Hi Everyone,

Can someone from Akamai contact me offlist. Specially those who deal with
infrastructure.

 

Regards

 

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Bob Evans]

Most likely Netflix writes policies to filter known cogent conflict
peers...Chances are they use cogent to reach the cogent customer base and
other peers.  I know from experience that peering directly with Netflix
works very wellthey don't depend heavily on transit delivery if direct
peering is possible.

Thank You
Bob Evans
CTO




>> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
>> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people
>> *already*,
>> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?
>
> Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
> asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
> previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies?
>
>> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?
>
> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?
>
> Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.
>
> brandon
>

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given
> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*,
> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?

Did they not buy from Level 3 as well?


> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?

Because that's the business Cogent is in? Underprice everybody but the
buyer gets what he gets without any real recourse if it isn't good
enough. Good money as a bottom feeder as long as you don't make the
mistake of selling a dollar for fifty cents.


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Brandon Butterworth
 wrote:
> Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
> not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?

Just so.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Miles Fidelman]

Steven Saner wrote:

In the US, in midwest rural areas at least, you see do quite a few
cooperatives in the realm of things like power distribution. It isn't
quite the same as neighbors getting together to build a network, but it
has some of the same elements. I live outside of the city and I am a
member of a rural electric cooperative. Compared to when I was in the
city on the local regulated monopoly grid, my rates are lower, the
number of outages are fewer and the overall quality of service is
better. I don't know if that is necessarily a common experience, but it
is mine. It seems to me that in rural areas a cooperative framework
could be ideal for networks as well.


Funny story.  There are a huge number of independent telcos in Iowa.  
The reason: early on, farmers discovered that you could turn pairs of 
barbed wired strands into party lines.  Things developed from there.

Now, it is tempting to suggest that the electric cooperative should take
on the project. After all they have a network of electric poles, it
doesn't seem that it would be that hard to hang fiber on them. However,
I fear that it would be enough outside of the management's wheelhouse
that it could end badly. Would probably need a completely separate
management team to do it right.



Don't kid yourselves - they ARE involved in telecom.  Take a look at:
http://www.nreca.coop/
http://www.nrtc.coop/pub/us/

Electric utilities are neck deep in telecom - what with SCADA and smart 
grid stuff to worry about.  It's just that other than Boston Edison, 
which spawned RCN, it's the munis and coops that are the only ones going 
into retail telecom - essentially driven by the same motivations that 
created them in the first place ("the big guys aren't showing to provide 
 - we need to do it ourselves"). Electric utilities have a leg up, in 
that they have poles, trucks, people, billing, and everyone in town is a 
customer - telecom is an easy step.


Looked at another way - municipal utilities are just coops writ large 
(or coops are munis write small) - either way its about user/community 
ownership and control of local infrastructure. Smaller communities seem 
to favor coops, larger ones seem to favor municipal utlities.


Miles Fidelman



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.    Yogi Berra

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[William Herrin]

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> IIRC, going from 1pr to 3pr raised my build cost about 12ish %, going to
>> 6pr would have been another 12%, cause you have term equipment costs to
>> think about in addition to the fiber cost, which is delta.

25% of a lot of money is a lot more money. You'd have to sell the
investment to voters who, for the most part, are a lot more worried
about taxing and borrowing for the ever-underfunded roads, schools,
fire and police departments.


On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> Isn't splicing cost a driving factor here? The above percentage points, do
> they include the cost of labor for fusion splicing of the fiber?

Not necessarily. If you wait to splice until there's an order (hence a
pending revenue stream) you can just lay the cable. This also means
you only build the last-mile cable to the neighborhood splicing point,
typically a small fraction of the distance all the way back to the
data center. Then you put in a fraction of that number of strands from
the splicing point back to the data center and add more later if
they're ever needed.

If you lay 6 fibers expecting an average use of 1.5, you'll probably
even save money in the long run this way. OTOH, this means you have to
have at least one qualified field splicer permanently on staff, which
could be a problem for a small system. 'Cause you really can't have
the service providers splicing your fiber... just look in your office
building's telephone closet if you want to see how that sort of
approach works out.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: 
Can I solve your unusual networking challenges?

Re: Netflix To Cogent To World

[Brandon Butterworth]

> If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given 
> Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*,
> even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?

Perhaps Netflix expect this to be an ongoing problem with moree ISPs
asking them to pay to deliver (following Bretts lead ;-), so with their
previous transits experience why would they continue to buy from pussies? 

> So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?

Previous events have shown Cognet only use live rounds, so why would they
not take the opportunity to get a bigger gun?

Mutually assured domination. Perhaps one will buy the other sometime.

brandon

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Steven Saner]

On 07/23/2014 07:58 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:
> 
>> for a more open approach.  The people involved in the bond arrangements
>> almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more
>> reliable
>> path to getting repaid than an open system.
> 
> Another model is the one described for instance in
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXYaAd5ubok . This has worked
> successfully in Sweden as well, people getting together and putting in
> ducts or fiber themselves.
> 
> In the countryside, people (at least in Sweden) people are used to
> cooperating in maintenance of roads and other things, one neighbor has a
> backhoe, second one has a snowplow attachment and everybody helps out.
> It's a lot easier to accept digging on your property when it's your
> neighborhood people getting together in doing something, instead of
> $BIGTELCO that has screwed you before and will screw you again, wanting
> to do the same thing. Also, after putting it in, you own the
> infrastructure, so it might actually be a good investment and raise your
> property value.
> 

In the US, in midwest rural areas at least, you see do quite a few
cooperatives in the realm of things like power distribution. It isn't
quite the same as neighbors getting together to build a network, but it
has some of the same elements. I live outside of the city and I am a
member of a rural electric cooperative. Compared to when I was in the
city on the local regulated monopoly grid, my rates are lower, the
number of outages are fewer and the overall quality of service is
better. I don't know if that is necessarily a common experience, but it
is mine. It seems to me that in rural areas a cooperative framework
could be ideal for networks as well.

Now, it is tempting to suggest that the electric cooperative should take
on the project. After all they have a network of electric poles, it
doesn't seem that it would be that hard to hang fiber on them. However,
I fear that it would be enough outside of the management's wheelhouse
that it could end badly. Would probably need a completely separate
management team to do it right.

Steve

-- 
--
Steven Saner   Voice:  316-858-3000
Director of Network Operations  Fax:  316-858-3001
Hubris Communicationshttp://www.hubris.net

Netflix To Cogent To World

[Jay Ashworth]

While thinking about this double play over the weekend, a very interesting
chain of thoughts occurred to me.

If I were Netflix, why would I buy all my transit from Cogent[1], given 
Cogent's propensity for getting into peering fights with people *already*,
even before *I* start sending them 1000:1 asymmetric outbound traffic?

Presumably because they're offering me a helluva deal on the bandwidth.

So why would Cogent offer Netflix a helluva deal?

Perhaps because they were smart enough to see how popular NF would become...
and thought it would make an excellent stalking horse in their own peering
fights?  

Who's gonna depeer Cogent *now*?

Cheers,
-- jra
[1] This is my understanding, though of course I'm not privy.
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Jay Ashworth wrote:


- Original Message -

From: "Doug Barton" 



I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit
building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or
so.


Heh, great minds think alike, as I was contemplating the same issue that
Keenan raised. My number of pairs was 5 though ... 1 each for TV, Phone,
and Internet providers, 1 as a spare in case something breaks, and 1 for
the thing that hasn't been invented yet. The thinking being that strands
of dark fiber are cheaper then retrenching, etc.


IIRC, going from 1pr to 3pr raised my build cost about 12ish %, going to
6pr would have been another 12%, cause you have term equipment costs to
think about in addition to the fiber cost, which is delta.

Conductors are cheap, people are pricey.


Isn't splicing cost a driving factor here? The above percentage points, do 
they include the cost of labor for fusion splicing of the fiber?


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Doug Barton" 

> > I was planning AE, and to deploy 3 pair per drop, except on multiunit
> > building, where my overbuild ratio would be between 1.6 and 1.2 or
> > so.
> 
> Heh, great minds think alike, as I was contemplating the same issue that
> Keenan raised. My number of pairs was 5 though ... 1 each for TV, Phone,
> and Internet providers, 1 as a spare in case something breaks, and 1 for
> the thing that hasn't been invented yet. The thinking being that strands
> of dark fiber are cheaper then retrenching, etc.

IIRC, going from 1pr to 3pr raised my build cost about 12ish %, going to
6pr would have been another 12%, cause you have term equipment costs to
think about in addition to the fiber cost, which is delta.

Conductors are cheap, people are pricey.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?)

[Ca By]

On Jul 23, 2014 12:34 AM, "Dorian Kim"  wrote:
>
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:23 AM, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>
> >> We don't have a direct customer relationship with NTT so am hoping
> >> someone on this list may be able to pass this information along or
> >> investigate on our behalf.
> >>
> >> Ray
> >>
> >>
> > I'm sure there's NTT folks watching the thread go
> > past, but it's unlikely they'd be in a position to
> > say anything in a public forum like this one way
> > or the other.  ^_^;
>
> Is there anything to be said that adds anything to what is already a well
> established situation regarding Verizon vs. much of the Internet?
>
> -dorian

Fooled me once shame on you. Fooled me twice... Dont by service from
companies that allow peering wars to happen at paying customers expense
(verzon, cogent, ...)

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Scott Helms]

Mikael,

Fiber length is least representative measure of work as it relates to
putting fiber in the ground.  Now, its impressive that they did anything
but if a professional crew took more than a couple of months to do this
they'd be out of a job.  I

'd be much more impressed by a lower distance covered but more homes and
businesses connected or the cabling being ready for connection (ie homes
passed).


Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson 
wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>  They are also running into serious problems trying to scale and while
>> getting 400 homes wired up is laudable, having it take more than two years
>> is not impressive at all.
>>
>
> I am impressed by it. 200km of fiber is not easy to do.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:


They are also running into serious problems trying to scale and while
getting 400 homes wired up is laudable, having it take more than two years
is not impressive at all.


I am impressed by it. 200km of fiber is not easy to do.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Scott Helms]

Mikael,

Its an interesting idea and I'd like to see some communities try it here.
 Having said that, I anticipate that B4RN style networks will run into some
substantial maintenance and reliability issues over time.  I love the quote
in the economist from the farmer's wife who learned (assuming automated)
fusion splicing, "It’s only like knitting,” but that doesn't make me
confident about the quality of the splices nor the cabling in general.


They are also running into serious problems trying to scale and while
getting 400 homes wired up is laudable, having it take more than two years
is not impressive at all.

"B4RN is a case in point. In two years its volunteers have laid 200km of
cable, and wired up around 400 homes, without any taxpayer money."

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21601265-frustrated-country-dwellers-build-their-own-internet-connections-going-underground




Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678) 507-5000

http://twitter.com/kscotthelms



On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson 
wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:
>
>  for a more open approach.  The people involved in the bond arrangements
>> almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more
>> reliable
>> path to getting repaid than an open system.
>>
>
> Another model is the one described for instance in
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXYaAd5ubok . This has worked
> successfully in Sweden as well, people getting together and putting in
> ducts or fiber themselves.
>
> In the countryside, people (at least in Sweden) people are used to
> cooperating in maintenance of roads and other things, one neighbor has a
> backhoe, second one has a snowplow attachment and everybody helps out. It's
> a lot easier to accept digging on your property when it's your neighborhood
> people getting together in doing something, instead of $BIGTELCO that has
> screwed you before and will screw you again, wanting to do the same thing.
> Also, after putting it in, you own the infrastructure, so it might actually
> be a good investment and raise your property value.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
>

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014, Scott Helms wrote:


for a more open approach.  The people involved in the bond arrangements
almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable
path to getting repaid than an open system.


Another model is the one described for instance in 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXYaAd5ubok . This has worked successfully 
in Sweden as well, people getting together and putting in ducts or fiber 
themselves.


In the countryside, people (at least in Sweden) people are used to 
cooperating in maintenance of roads and other things, one neighbor has a 
backhoe, second one has a snowplow attachment and everybody helps out. 
It's a lot easier to accept digging on your property when it's your 
neighborhood people getting together in doing something, instead of 
$BIGTELCO that has screwed you before and will screw you again, wanting to 
do the same thing. Also, after putting it in, you own the infrastructure, 
so it might actually be a good investment and raise your property value.


--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: Muni Fiber and Politics

[Scott Helms]

That's not an excuse, its simply the political reality here in the US.
 There is a narrow place band on the size scale for a municipality where
its politically acceptable in most places AND there is a true gap in
coverage.  In nearly all of the larger areas, though there are some
exceptions, there is very little reason for a muni to go through the pain,
and it is most certainly painful, any time a city considers any kinds of
moves in this direction a certain percentage of the voters there will have
the same position that Bill Herrin has written from.  It takes a real need
to exist in the minds of enough voters to get past that and get to a place
where spending money is politically feasible.  I would add that this is
much harder in some parts of the country than in others and this is one of
the reasons that you see muni's building layer 3 networks rather than going
for a more open approach.  The people involved in the bond arrangements
almost invariably see having the city the layer 3 provider as more reliable
path to getting repaid than an open system.





On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:31 AM, mcfbbqroast .  wrote:

> > The chances that a muni network in North America has both 10-20k
> apartments
> and needs to build its own fiber are pretty much non-existent.  We don't
> have the population density that exists in much of Europe and our cities
> are much less dense.
>
> I'm tired of seeing these excuses in the US. New Zealand is much less
> dense than the US and has a good municipal style open access fiber network
> being built.
>
>>
>>

Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?)

[Fredy Kuenzler]

Am 23.07.2014 09:23, schrieb Matthew Petach:
> So, Verizon is saying that Level3 into them is congested, NTT into
> them is congested...sounds like there might be a bit of a trend
> happening here.

They (Verizon) should issue a list of those which are _not_ congested. I
guess the list would be rather short...

*SCNR*

-- 
Fredy Kuenzler

-
Fiber7. No Limits.
https://www.fiber7.ch
-

Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.
AS13030
St.-Georgen-Strasse 70
CH-8400 Winterthur
Skype:   flyingpotato
Phone:   +41 44 315 4400
Fax: +41 44 315 4401
Twitter: @init7 / @kuenzler
http://www.init7.net/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?)

[Dorian Kim]

On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:23 AM, Matthew Petach  wrote:

>> We don't have a direct customer relationship with NTT so am hoping
>> someone on this list may be able to pass this information along or
>> investigate on our behalf.
>> 
>> Ray
>> 
>> 
> I'm sure there's NTT folks watching the thread go
> past, but it's unlikely they'd be in a position to
> say anything in a public forum like this one way
> or the other.  ^_^;

Is there anything to be said that adds anything to what is already a well
established situation regarding Verizon vs. much of the Internet?

-dorian

Re: Connectivity issue between Verizon and Amazon EC2 (NTT issue?)

[Matthew Petach]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Ray Van Dolson  wrote:

> [...]
> Further update -- Verizon indicates that the issue is related to
> saturation on a peering link between themselves and NTT.  Verizon is
> pointing to the NTT side as the source of the saturation / congestion.
>

So, Verizon is saying that Level3 into them is congested,
NTT into them is congested...sounds like there might
be a bit of a trend happening here.  I wonder if
Verizon is having trouble provisioning sufficient
capacity to support all of their customers?  If
so, it would kinda suck to be stuck being their
customer at the moment if you can't get to
places you want to reach.  :(


>
> We don't have a direct customer relationship with NTT so am hoping
> someone on this list may be able to pass this information along or
> investigate on our behalf.
>
> Ray
>
>
I'm sure there's NTT folks watching the thread go
past, but it's unlikely they'd be in a position to
say anything in a public forum like this one way
or the other.  ^_^;

Matt