This is an auto-generated mail on Fri May 17 23:00:00 PDT 2002
It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully
you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look
through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you
perform.
Check http:
> Actually, doesn't MFN usually outsource this to Bechtel, Keyspan
> Communications and others? :)
I don't know. It wouldn't change my position on the subject, which is
that it's their fiber, and in NYC it's a large and complex plant, and
they've got people working on the PAIX/NYIIX path who kn
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Is it necessary for you to continually air personal grievances on this
> public list?
Apparently.
I'd tell Mitch personally that I'm tired of the crap he pulls on this
mailing list, but he refuses mail from me, probably because I've indicated
sa
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 03:24:38PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> I had the same thought. However, it turns out to light a path there's all
> kinds of climbing down into manholes that has to happen. I'm no fiber expert,
> but the parent company (MFN) does employ such experts, so let's remain cal
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> I would expect that if the Equinix exchange participants were IPv6
> >> hungry ...
>
> Let me toss in a question that may really be dumb... what are those
> that are hungry for IPV6 doing with it?
Id guess meeting customer demand?
> I figure that
We had this discussion some time back on a different mailing list
(mboned ?.. not sure). I don't remember who was actually trying to
collect different options here, but in general, either all participants
at such a MIX agree who is the best upstream router for some multicast
traffic - then it's
>> or, use link-local address on IX switch as documented in
>> draft-kato-bgp-ipv6-link-local-01.txt.
> Unfortunatly, that technique does not have broad commercial
> implementation. In addition, there was some pushback from
> the IETF IDR wg on using this technique. So
>
> > Often, participants expect to have an IP address assigned for their
> > use on an exchange. Usually these delegations are from a common
> > block. Where they are not, its hard to tell an exchange from a
> > bunch of point2point links. LINX and PAIX have IPv6 prefixes that
>
> Often, participants expect to have an IP address assigned for their
> use on an exchange. Usually these delegations are from a common
> block. Where they are not, its hard to tell an exchange from a
> bunch of point2point links. LINX and PAIX have IPv6 prefixes that
>
(sorry if you see it twice)
>> >A bunch of us are thinking about multihoming solutions for IPv6. For this
>> >purpose, it is useful to know a bit more about how actual networks (rather
>> >than the ones existing only as ASCII drawings) interconnect. So:
>> >
>> >- What are the 12 - 18 mo
## On 2002-05-17 16:57 -0600 Lyndon Nerenberg typed:
LN>
LN> Is there anyone out there still providing DVMRP multicast tunnels?
LN> Our network provider simply isn't interested in providing native
LN> multicast. If anyone close to Group Telecom (sorry, I don't have
LN> their AS handy at the mome
> What do commercial network operators, who are required to use Microsoft,
> use
their resumes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I would expect that if the Equinix exchange participants were IPv6
>> hungry ...
Let me toss in a question that may really be dumb... what are those
that are hungry for IPV6 doing with it?
I figure that organizations that run IPV6 now think they are
ahead of the ga
Is there anyone out there still providing DVMRP multicast tunnels?
Our network provider simply isn't interested in providing native
multicast. If anyone close to Group Telecom (sorry, I don't have
their AS handy at the moment) would be willing to establish a
tunnel with us, please contact me dire
> > Mitch what has MFN's financial problems have to do with the quality of
> > the agreements that are in place for peering.
>
> Easy. It fills, and then no one wants to pay to increase it.
>
> If I am not mistaken, this has happened already.
Actually, only the Palo Alto location was ever in t
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > perhaps better late than never... PAIX & LINX both
> > have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s).
> > I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step.
>
> Uhm, another dumb question.
>
> Why does the operator of a laye
In a message written on Fri, May 17, 2002 at 03:24:38PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
> I had the same thought. However, it turns out to light a path there's all
> kinds of climbing down into manholes that has to happen. I'm no fiber expert,
> but the parent company (MFN) does employ such experts, s
> > It's not a rumour. PAIX is interconnecting with NYIIX as soon as the
> > fiber engineering people say that the photons will travel end to end.
>
> Listen, I am not trying to be antagonistic, but: Why does this take so
> long? PAIX-NY is a MFN facility, so, presumably, there is MFN fiber the
> > It's not a rumour. PAIX is interconnecting with NYIIX as soon as the
> > fiber engineering people say that the photons will travel end to end.
>
> Will PAIX be around as an entity capable of providing any services in 3
> month?
PAIX is modestly profitable and has been for years. We are q
Hmm, I was thinking about the topic of multicast at broadcast exchanges, and
had a weird thought.
Presently, the various participants may have divergent peering relationships
and routing preferences. Such that RPF choices for the same (s,g) can
go back to different places.
If I remember correct
In the referenced message, Sean Donelan said:
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > perhaps better late than never... PAIX & LINX both
> > have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s).
> > I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step.
>
> Uhm, another dumb
> Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what
> protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing
> Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network
> operators do
What consenting network operators do bilaterally in an L2 environment
where their
On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> perhaps better late than never... PAIX & LINX both
> have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s).
> I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step.
Uhm, another dumb question.
Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange
Ok, extremely dumb question. But I'm sure lots of other people have
already solved this one.
Network operators have been using various PGPs to exchange confidential
information for many years. I have my own personal PGP key for my own
use and a nice Unix box of my own. There are licensed versi
On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote:
> Mitch what has MFN's financial problems have to do with the quality of the
> agreements that are in place for peering. If you are worried that they may
> blow off the face of the earth - I too agree that money is tight and there
> are a number of othe
On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote:
>
> I know what happens when an ISP dies, what happens when a registrar dies?
>
> T.
I am pretty certain that the names revert to whatever entity is contracted
to maintain the database for that TLD. Though most likely if a registrar
were to die, anot
On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote:
>
> Mitch what has MFN's financial problems have to do with the quality of the
> agreements that are in place for peering.
Easy. It fills, and then no one wants to pay to increase it.
If I am not mistaken, this has happened already.
-- Alex Rubens
On Fri, 17 May 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> MH> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
> MH> From: Mitch Halmu
>
> MH> "Incredibly rich environments" indeed:
>
>
>
> Well, I guess that financial status says everything about their
> technical ability, doesn't it?
>
>
/me reminds Eddy t
Mitch what has MFN's financial problems have to do with the quality of the
agreements that are in place for peering. If you are worried that they may
blow off the face of the earth - I too agree that money is tight and there
are a number of other meltdowns coming as the real winners of the Inter
Yes, it does. A company who cannot pay their engineers or hire new ones
will certainly wind up performing poorly compared to one with adequate
resources. As an on-going customer having to deal with their support
engineers, or better yet, lack thereof, I can attest to this.
Valiant attempt
I know what happens when an ISP dies, what happens when a registrar dies?
T.
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony D Cennami" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Mitch Halmu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "todd glassey"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ralph Doncaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "ren"
MH> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:39:13 -0400 (EDT)
MH> From: Mitch Halmu
MH> "Incredibly rich environments" indeed:
Well, I guess that financial status says everything about their
technical ability, doesn't it?
--
Eddy
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 79
On 17 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > There's been rumors of NYIIX and PAIX-NY linking up like SIX and
> > PAIX-seattle.
>
> It's not a rumour. PAIX is interconnecting with NYIIX as soon as the
> fiber engineering people say that the photons will travel end to end.
Listen, I am not trying to
On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 18:46:15 BST, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said:
> > The question related to places where network interconnect, not who's
> > friends with who this week.
>
> (Note - I'm assuming here the news story is factual. If not, that's
> a whole
> > There's been rumors of NYIIX and PAIX-NY linking up like SIX and
> > PAIX-seattle.
>
> It's not a rumour. PAIX is interconnecting with NYIIX as soon as the
> fiber engineering people say that the photons will travel end to end.
Will PAIX be around as an entity capable of providing any serv
> > There are some relatively small regionals like NYIIX where you won't find
> > many large carriers, but they still have their own little nitch markets.
>
> There's been rumors of NYIIX and PAIX-NY linking up like SIX and
> PAIX-seattle.
It's not a rumour. PAIX is interconnecting with NYII
I don't think a story detailing a companies fiscal standing and near
future liklihood of a Chapter 11 filing would be characterized as a
'personal grievance.' Not until that company pulls the plug on its
customers, facilities and network and leaves a lot of companies out to dry.
In any case,
As I think someone implied earlier, I think filing a Chapter 11 is
becoming quite trendy and everyone will want one soon so as not to be left
out .. status symbol if you like :)
On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002 18:46:15 BST, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said:
> > The
On Fri, 17 May 2002 18:46:15 BST, "Stephen J. Wilcox" said:
> The question related to places where network interconnect, not who's
> friends with who this week.
(Note - I'm assuming here the news story is factual. If not, that's
a whole different spin on things...)
Well... missing a $32M paymen
> > Unfortunately, things like TCP ECN and ICMP 'Frag Needed' are often considered
> > "funny packets".
> I know ECN etc have been used to evade firewalls but afaik have not been
> known in and of themselves to compromise or crash hosts or make them do
> any "funny things" besides dropping the
On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2002 14:44:58 PDT, Dan Hollis said:
> > On Thu, 16 May 2002, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> > > I can't help it if your host does funny things when I send them funny
> > > packets :-)
> > Why are you sending funny packets?
> Unfortunately,
Is it necessary for you to continually air personal grievances on this
public list?
The question related to places where network interconnect, not who's
friends with who this week.
Flames welcome in private!!
Steve
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd g
On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote:
> PAIX is a division of MFN (Metropolitan Fiber Networks) as Above.NET is as
> well. That means they share MFN's connectivity and peering agreements and as
> such are incredibly rich environments. Especially with someone like Paul
> Vixie running it, (PA
I'd like to second that as well. Paix pao1 where I had termination was
very worth while. Several ipv6 peers in there as well including nokea
and a few others. Just as an asside, it was well run as well as having
a lot of people to peer with.
On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote:
>
> P
perhaps better late than never... PAIX & LINX both
have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s).
I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step.
--bill
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> > There are some relatively small regionals like NYIIX where you won't find
> > many large carriers, but they still have their own little nitch markets.
>
> There's been rumors of NYIIX and PAIX-NY linking up like SIX and
> PAIX-seattle.
True, b
> There are some relatively small regionals like NYIIX where you won't find
> many large carriers, but they still have their own little nitch markets.
There's been rumors of NYIIX and PAIX-NY linking up like SIX and
PAIX-seattle.
> * Price - In these times of cost conciousness (and transit
ADC> Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:50:29 -0400
ADC> From: Anthony D Cennami
ADC> If that is true then everybody is a Tier-1 carrier.
Well, it seems that most everybody claims to be "Tier 1". Maybe
the bad karma is coming back to bite. ;-)
--
Eddy
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Div
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 11:48:32AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> A bunch of us are thinking about multihoming solutions for IPv6. For this
> purpose, it is useful to know a bit more about how actual networks (rather
> than the ones existing only as ASCII drawings) interconnect. So:
>
>
If that is true then everybody is a Tier-1 carrier.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Tier-1 means what?
>>
>
> Lately, 'Tier-1' and '[near] bankruptcy' seem to be interchangable.
>
>
>
>
> -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben --
> --Net Access Corporatio
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 01:00:52AM -0700, Dan Hollis said, in response
to a message on Thu, 16 May 2002 by Dragos Ruiu :
But how do you plan to arbitrate disputes about what merits blackholing
and not on behalf of others? And what guidelines do you use to decide
on how to initiate black hol
On Fri, 17 May 2002, ren wrote:
>
> That depends on your corporate needs for power, security, remote hands,
> etc. The extended services found at Equinix & PAIX are very important for
> many networks.
Of which Telehouse seems to better than all the others, on all fronts.
-- Alex Rubenstein,
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> What about NYIIX/6IIX?
> Being in Telehouse where there are no monthly fees for for cross-connects
> gives it a financial advantage over Equinix.
While I agree, IIX relatively speaking is small -- aggregating about 450
to 500 mb/s.
Also, you do
> Tier-1 means what?
Lately, 'Tier-1' and '[near] bankruptcy' seem to be interchangable.
-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben --
--Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 12:50:40AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> On Thu, 16 May 2002, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> > But that said. Blackholing as a response for portscanning
> > is stupid.
> > If you are a small communications end-point it's dumb.
> > Just run portsentry for a while with auto-fire
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 02:44:58PM -0700, Dan Hollis said, in response
to a message on Thu, 16 May 2002 by Dragos Ruiu :
Some people are get all hyper and complain. Which is silly imho.
If you don't like it, stop your network from responding to it.
Thats exactly what we plan to do with BGP
PAIX is a division of MFN (Metropolitan Fiber Networks) as Above.NET is as
well. That means they share MFN's connectivity and peering agreements and as
such are incredibly rich environments. Especially with someone like Paul
Vixie running it, (PAIX that is) my take is that these are number one
pr
On Thu, 16 May 2002 14:44:58 PDT, Dan Hollis said:
> On Thu, 16 May 2002, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> > I can't help it if your host does funny things when I send them funny
> > packets :-)
>
> Why are you sending funny packets?
Unfortunately, things like TCP ECN and ICMP 'Frag Needed' are often c
That depends on your corporate needs for power, security, remote hands,
etc. The extended services found at Equinix & PAIX are very important for
many networks.
-ren
At 08:00 AM 5/17/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>What about NYIIX/6IIX?
>Being in Telehouse where there are no monthly fee
What about NYIIX/6IIX?
Being in Telehouse where there are no monthly fees for for cross-connects
gives it a financial advantage over Equinix.
Ralph Doncaster
principal, IStop.com
div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc.
On Fri, 17 May 2002, ren wrote:
>
> Hi Iljitsch,
>
> I would not consider
Hi Iljitsch,
I would not consider Sprint NAP, a place closed to new customers for
several years, an important interconnect location in the US. ATM based IXs
are not as participant rich as they were 2-3 years ago.
The fastest growing US interconnect locations are cross-connect
enabled. PAIX
A bunch of us are thinking about multihoming solutions for IPv6. For this
purpose, it is useful to know a bit more about how actual networks (rather
than the ones existing only as ASCII drawings) interconnect. So:
- What are the 12 - 18 most important interconnect locations in the world?
MAE E
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> But how do you plan to arbitrate disputes about what merits blackholing
> and not on behalf of others? And what guidelines do you use to decide
> on how to initiate black holing? (not critical here, just curious?)
Thats the beauty here, one can provid
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> But that said. Blackholing as a response for portscanning
> is stupid.
> If you are a small communications end-point it's dumb.
> Just run portsentry for a while with auto-firewall rules
> if you need convincing.
> If you are a communications service pro
64 matches
Mail list logo
