Re: used hardware
I buy a lot of gear from Peter Giberd at Townsend. I have been working with him for a good 7 years. It's budded into a friendship, good people there. -B http://www.townsendassets.com/ On Dec 18, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Bill Lewis wrote: http://www.networkhardware.com/ContactNHR/ Mostly Cisco, but I think they'll do Juniper. Bill -- -Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:34:05 -0800 -From: Mehmet Akcin -Subject: used hardware.. -To: "nanog@nanog.org list" -Message-ID: <16e6d13c-ab9c-4ea5-8e73-59172dd28...@akcin.net> -Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii -Hello there.. -I am looking to sell and buy some used hardware, where is the best place for this, other than ebay ? -Mostly juniper stuff -thanks in advance. -Mehmet
Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts
Incase this has not hit the list yet: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/153194/sprint_reconnects_cogent_but_differences_are_unresolved.html Sprint Reconnects Cogent, but Differences Are Unresolved Mikael Ricknäs, IDG News Service Monday, November 03, 2008 7:50 AM PST On Sunday Sprint Nextel reconnected its network with Cogent Communications after severing it earlier last week. The reconnection is only temporary, as the core issues in this dispute have not changed, Sprint said in a statement to its customers. As a result, it is again possible for Sprint customers and Cogent customers to directly communicate across the Internet. Data supplied by Keynote Systems confirms that the two networks are again communicating with each other. Sprint's view of what led up to its disconnecting from Cogent Communications on Oct. 30 differs substantially from what Cogent has stated. In shutting down the peering between the two, Sprint violated a contractual obligation to exchange Internet traffic with Cogent on a settlement-free peering basis, according to Cogent. But that's just fiction, according to Sprint, because at no time did the two enter into an actual contract. In 2006, Sprint and Cogent formed a trial agreement that ended in September last year. A three-month commercial trial indicated that Cogent didn't meet the minimum traffic exchange criteria agreed to by both parties, according to Sprint. As a result, settlement-free peering was not established, Sprint said. Instead, Sprint wants Cogent to pay for its ongoing connection to the Sprint network. But despite repeated collection attempts by Sprint, Cogent has not done that. Nonpayment on Cogent's part is the reason Sprint decided to disconnect from Cogent last week, a process that had started on Oct. 7, and shouldn't have come as a surprise for Cogent, Sprint said in its customer statement. What happens next remains to be seen. The two operators are involved in litigation over the matter. Sprint filed a lawsuit against Cogent on Sept. 2 in Fairfax County Circuit Court in Virginia for breach of contract. On its part, Cogent said it wants settlement-free peering with Sprint.
Re: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent
True... however this depeering may have created more of a mess for Sprint's marketing and their customers than they predicted, which has a negative impact on business and would not be fun to explain at a board meeting. I guess it's hard for sweater vests to understand that until it smacks them in the face. -Barrett On Nov 1, 2008, at 5:00 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: On 11/1/08, Barrett Lyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... In this case, it's very clear that customers are impacted and the Internet as a whole suffers, which is really unfortunate. The end result of a business decision has been to sacrifice the customer's needs, trust, and ability to communicate. It's a bad maxim to subscribe to! I really hope that other networks do apply more thinking into peering than just what's best for business -- it sure shows off an ugly underbelly. -Barrett Unfortunately, as I'm sure you're all too aware, for public companies, it's very hard to get away with saying "I was doing what was right for the Internet, not what would make my business the most money" at a shareholder meeting, or during an earning's call with Wall Street analysts; they tend to be very unforgiving of actions that aren't in line with the short-term profit-making goal, to the point where CEOs have been ousted and class-action lawsuits threatened when it seems the actions being taken weren't geared to optimize profits for the shareholders. Converging two threads together, I think the same pressure affects IPv6 deployment and will affect IPv6 peering; while it would be *best* for the Internet if everyone put the time and resources forward to get dual-stacked now, bring up widespread peering, and get IPv6 to a point where it's a viable transport mechanism, the real fact of the matter is that there's no profit motive in moving to IPv6 at the moment, so people just aren't going to do it, no matter how much it may be "best for the Internet". Fix the market drivers for public companies, and then we can fix the Internet; otherwise, we'll always be steering towards that which makes sense for the business, regardless of which customers of other networks it hurts, or which resource exhaustion cliff it hurtles us towards. Putting on a devil's advocate hat for a moment...if various international regulatory bodies and government agencies mandated universal connectivity via both IPv4 and IPv6, depeering would cease to be an issue; regardless of what the business side said, companies would not be allowed to partition the Internet, and widespread adoption of IPv6 would be forced, rather than being a "maybe someday" case. Downside is that prices would go up, and expansion into new regions would slow down, as the costs associated with developing new areas would bring a much higher price tag. It would be better for the Internet as a whole, but worse for most of the individual users of it, from a cost perspective. Would you still say things were better for the overall Internet at that point, if it meant everyone had to pay more in order to ensure that universal connectivity? I'm cheap, so I'm leaning towards the side of letting the market work these issues out; but I'm always willing to listen to other thoughts on the matter. :) Matt
Re: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent
Patrick, To further your point about the dynamics of peering: Not to sound overly altruistic, but nowhere in there did I see, "it's good for the Internet". If peering was less of a raw business decision, the Internet would be a better place. In this case, if they left it status quo and congested, at least users could send smoke signals across the two networks and could at least communicate. The implications of this depeering could be pretty severe. If you dive into business ethics, there's some pretty serious moral dilemmas involved with cutting communications between two major networks. This could be taken to an extreme if it causes VoIP calls to fail and ultimately disrupts someone's 911 calling. In less reaching situations, someone can't SMS with their wife to know what to bring home from the grocery store. Regardless of how stupid relying on the Internet is (I know it's sad we can't) I do feel networks have a moral responsibility to provide continuity. As you know, beyond business, peering can decrease latency, increase throughput, and provide better network engineering, thus increasing the scale of the overall Internet. As a technologist and entrepreneur I try to do what's best for the Internet in my peering decisions rather than what Bill Lumbergh would say, "umm yeah, do what's best for the company". In this case, it's very clear that customers are impacted and the Internet as a whole suffers, which is really unfortunate. The end result of a business decision has been to sacrifice the customer's needs, trust, and ability to communicate. It's a bad maxim to subscribe to! I really hope that other networks do apply more thinking into peering than just what's best for business -- it sure shows off an ugly underbelly. -Barrett On Nov 1, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, bas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too.. "You content hosters are sending us too much traffic, we want money to upgrade ports and transport all that traffic" Complete reverse logic imho. It is always eyeball network customers that request data. (except for a small portion of iphone/blackberry push email, but that can't account for much.) Traffic sources tend to be concentrated in large data centers (easier to service), while traffic sinks (DSL, cable, wireless) are widespread and costly to upgrade. The sink customers don't want to pay more (and there's at least some competition), so the sink providers look to see where else they get income to pay for their needed network upgrades. Combined with hot-potato routing, the first part of that paragraph is a fancy way of saying "I have to carry the large packet a long way, you have to carry the small packet a long way". It is not "fair". This is almost a good reason, but not quite. (It can also be offset by moving the source next to the sink, through cold-potato routing / MEDs, anycast, CDNs, etc.) The second part is a good business reason. Profitable revenue is good, costs are bad. There are good business reasons not to pay the sink as well. But neither decision is obvious or the same for everyone. Peering is complicated, people should stop trying to generalize it. Peering is a business tool. For years & years many people have claimed that to "peer" you must be equal. Bullshit. If I can make more or spend less by peering, I should do it. If not, I should not. Full stop. Notice the complete lack of regard for how big you are, how much capacity your backbone has, how many ASes are downstream of you, etc.? When I go to buy routers or hire employees or any other business transaction, I don't say "that router vendor is making more money than I am, so I won't buy from him". If people applied "peering" logic to anything else, they'd be laughed out of a job. Don't know about you, but I am in business to make money, not measure my anatomy. How big the next guy is doesn't enter into my equation - other than how it affects my bottom line. To be clear, it is entirely possible that peering does not save you money. Vijay is right, most people can't measure their COGS to save their life. And if the network in question cannot, there's no way in hell the prospective peer can. If you are a huge point source of traffic and want to peer, I may save money by saying no and paying a transit provider to deliver the packet to me where I want it (especially at today's prices). Fiber, routers, colo, NOC employees, engineers, etc., are all not free ya know. You can claim my customers asked for the data and therefore I have a requirement to peer, but you would be deluded. What my customer and I have agreed has _nothing_ to do with you or your needs. You don't tell me how to run my network, and I won't tell you ho
