:I guess the moon is in phase with some star somewhere, and now it's time to
:argue who's root is he "real" root... Barf. Enough already - we all have
:our own roots. one guy follows Vixies roots, while I typically roll my
:own. Many others do other things.
The moon was full last tuesday -
Dear all,
I've been trying to check out domains from whois.register.com, however, it
always reports "No match for domain"!!
Is it working? Do you know where I can query domains details registered in
register.com? Many thanks!
Cho
Can someone provide basic details on hot potato routing (I am referring to multiple peering interconnections between 2 ISPs) ?
Is it implemented by BGP or not ?
Regards
wgScarica il nuovo Yahoo! Messenger: con webcam, nuove faccine e tante altre novità!
Hello Cho,
Monday, July 01, 2002, 5:39:01 AM, you wrote:
CMF> I've been trying to check out domains from whois.register.com, however, it
CMF> always reports "No match for domain"!!
CMF> Is it working? Do you know where I can query domains details registered in
CMF> register.com? Many thanks!
WG> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:50:22 +0200 (CEST)
WG> From: "[iso-8859-1] Walter Green"
WG> Can someone provide basic details on hot potato routing (I am
WG> referring to multiple peering interconnections between 2
WG> ISPs) ?
WG>
WG> Is it implemented by BGP or not ?
Please, we're still dealin
Paul Vixie wrote:
> knowing that the
> pain can be transformed from "can't exchange traffic" pain into "must
> pay money" pain tends to reinforce this perception.
Imagine that. :\
> when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention
> has always resulted. even when th
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 01:49:20PM -0400, Mitchell, Dan wrote:
> On a side note: Folks should keep an eye on Allegiance Internet (the folks
> I work for). They picked up the old Digex / Intermedia Business Internet
> backbone and are in the process of integrating it (under AS2548).
> Financiall
Link isn't working this morning.
Jane
PJ> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:29:38 -0400
PJ> From: Pawlukiewicz Jane
PJ> Link isn't working this morning.
Urgent! Panic! This is of utmost importance to the operation of
the Internet!
Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting,
Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to
point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be 0
or 255?
For e.g.:
Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address?
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifawor
"Mitchell, Dan" wrote:
> Plan on seeing an SLA of 99.999%
Better-than-PSTN reliability, coming soon to an ALGX salesrep near you!
What next, Dan, 6 9's?
Rizzo, Frank
Hi JothirLatha,
Clearly it's possible to do this:
4500_3#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with
CNTL/Z.
4500_3(config)#int lo1
4500_3(config-if)#no ip addr
4500_3(config-if)#ip addr 10.1.1.0 255.255.255.255
4500_3(config-if)#int lo2
4500_3(con
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 07:53:32AM -0700, JothirLatha Jaganathan wrote:
>
> Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to
> point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be 0
> or 255?
>
> For e.g.:
>
> Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address?
% host core3.sfrn.ca
core3.sfrn.ca.rcn.ne
JJ> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 07:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
JJ> From: JothirLatha Jaganathan
JJ> Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to
JJ> point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be 0
JJ> or 255?
JJ>
JJ> For e.g.:
JJ>
JJ> Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address?
You sort of answered
In the referenced message, JothirLatha Jaganathan said:
>
> Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to
> point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be 0
> or 255?
>
> For e.g.:
>
> Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address?
Yes, it is valid, as is 10.1.1.0/31, for ptp links.
On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
>
>Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by
>>revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage.
>
>A good proxy for the above is to ask the question:
>
Because it works - the Internet, that is. If peering were broken, the
Internet would not function in any sort of reasonable manner. However, it is
functioning quite nicely today, even with a huge amount of finacial chaos.
Why mess with something that actually works properly? And if you are going
William,
It would be quite surprising if an informational RFC changed anyone's
peering policy or opinions on peering. Peering is as much or more so, a
function of business and business relationships, rather than simply a
technical method of accomplishing interconnection. Networks peer when they
> >If they think they do, then an interconnection is set up between X
> >and Y. However, if one party feels that they do NOT derive equal
> >value by interconnecting with the other, than that party usually
> >balks.
>
> This doesn't make any sense at all. Why should X care how much value Y
> On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
> >
> >Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when
> considered by
> >>revenue, profitability, number of customers, or
> geographical coverage.
> >
> >A good proxy for the above is to a
Is there a list anywhere of allocated IP blocks?
I need to update my IDS sensor's table of valid blocks. It's alarming on
some traffic coming from 67, 68 and 219, which I know were not allocated
until fairly recently.
Is there a simple list somewhere, i.e:
4.0.0.0/8
6.0.0.0/8
219.0.0.0
Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> A vague sense of unfairness or unhappyness is the worst of reasons to
> regulate an industry.
>
> - Daniel Golding
How about an industry being the origin of the 3 largest recorded
fraud/bankruptcies in American History ?
Air Travel: Limited resources (gates), public safety issues, public
infrastructure used (ATC system).
Commercial Fishing: Limited resources, environmental issues
Conventional Telco: Pre-existing monopoly using what was essentially public
ifrastructure. Same goes for Cable TV.
How do IP networks
IANA.org of course!
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Mike Batchelor wrote:
>
> Is there a list anywhere of allocated IP blocks?
>
> I need to update my IDS sensor's table of valid blocks. It's alarming on
> some traffic coming from 67, 68 and 219, which I know were not allocated
> until fairly recentl
Thanks, I was looking at ARIN... wrong place for that, it would seem! ;)
--On Monday, July 01, 2002 6:18 PM +0100 "Stephen J. Wilcox"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IANA.org of course!
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Mike Batchelor wrote:
>
>>
>> Is there a list anywhere of allocated IP blocks?
>>
>>
What is the connection between unregulated peering and the financial
difficulties we have seen?
The problems have been caused by:
- Bad business models
- Greed
- Corporate officers who have shirked their fudiciary responsibilities to
the stockholders
If you can somehow tie peering into this,
But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food,
they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it,
no?
--Phil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
David Schwartz
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 12:45 PM
I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
through their current peers.
The fact that they failed, having had such extensive peeri
Rob Thomas maintains a a nice list:
http://www.cymru.com/Documents/bogon-list.html
--
Rafi
## On 2002-07-01 10:12 -0700 Mike Batchelor typed:
MB>
MB> Is there a list anywhere of allocated IP blocks?
MB>
MB> I need to update my IDS sensor's table of valid blocks. It's alarming on
M
More detail on how Cisco does this at:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/25.shtml
specifically, see step 10:
"10. When both paths are external, prefer the path that was received first
(the oldest one). This step minimizes route-flap, since a newer path won't
displace an older one, even if i
Unnamed Administration sources reported that Deepak Jain said:
>
> Why would bankruptcies be a good reason to introduce regulation into peering
> or the Internet business?
The thing to fear is what's already happening; the fallen are
being bought by Monopoly-plAyers, anxious to get Back to w
You can also find the converse, the routes that /aren't/
registered (or supposed to be sending traffic), with
whois -h whois.radb.net rs-martians
Pete.
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Mike Batchelor wrote:
> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 10:22:30 -0700
> From: Mike Batchelor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Stephen J
> What is the connection between unregulated peering and the financial
> difficulties we have seen?
>
> The problems have been caused by:
>
> - Bad business models
> - Greed
> - Corporate officers who have shirked their fudiciary responsibilities to
> the stockholders
>
> If you can somehow
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500, Paul A Flores wrote:
>Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
>Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If
>party X feels that party Y is gaining more from the interconnect that they
>are, X mi
> i completely understand that acquisition is a common and valid means to grow
> a business. however, with closed peering as a way of life for our industry,
> a lot of deals are done which only make money for the investment bankers and
> don't actually "grow business". closed peering is all abo
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:38:57PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
> through their
>From: Paul A Flores <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory
>issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of
>mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. The only way _I_
>would buy off on that, would be to ha
> Here's a fun exercise: Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if your
> operating costs a) increase, b) decrease, or c) remain the same.
If your full cost of peering with UUNET (including things such as
depreciation) comes to $400 per mbit/sec and via a promisig local ISP you
can get transit to U
At 02:15 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
>>From: Paul A Flores <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>Since this is basically a financial issue (and not really a regulatory
>>issue), the only way you could make it 'fair' is to have some kind of
>>mandate from a government body to MAKE peering 'fair'. Th
Paul A Flores wrote:
> > On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
> > >
> > >Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't you think they would if they could? :)
>
> Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
> Y feel like they are getting ripped, they w
>> i completely understand that acquisition is a common and valid means to grow
>> a business. however, with closed peering as a way of life for our industry,
>> a lot of deals are done which only make money for the investment bankers and
>> don't actually "grow business". closed peering is al
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:36:00PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Here's a fun exercise: Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if your
> > operating costs a) increase, b) decrease, or c) remain the same.
>
> If your full cost of peering with UUNET (including things such as
> depreciation)
Thanks to all of you for your kind reply.
--- JothirLatha Jaganathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can any one tell me if the last byte of a point to
> point or loopback ipaddress with 32 bit mask can be
> 0
> or 255?
>
> For e.g.:
>
> Is 10.1.1.0/32 a valid interace address?
>
>
> _
At 03:01 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
>>[deleted]
>>
>>the second network. If they peer, their traffic ratio will be
>>1:1 yet both networks gain significant ( imho ) benefit. Bill and keep
>>seems the only sensible way to me.
>
>---
>
>If they peer, the traffic ratio will _NOT_ be 1:1
Paul Vixie wrote:
---
i completely understand that acquisition is a common and valid means to
grow a business. however, with closed peering as a way of life for our
industry, a lot of deals are done which only make money for the
investment bankers and don't actually "grow business". closed pee
---
>
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
> through their current peers.
Reduced latency? Shorter hop counts? (
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:11:46 -0500, Paul A Flores wrote:
>
> >Since it seems we are speaking of 'zero cost' interconnects, if Either X OR
> >Y feel like they are getting ripped, they won't (and shouldn't) do it. If
> >party X feels that party Y is gaini
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 12:06:18PM -0700, Clayton Fiske wrote:
>
> Nor does it cost $0 on top of that $200 to buy transit. This may hold
> true to some degree for a small-ish network, but probably not for a
> larger one. Even factoring in depreciation, line cards, etc, I would
> imagine you won'
---
If they peer, the traffic ratio will _NOT_ be 1:1, more like 10:1 or
1:10 [depending on which way you are looking].
---
It will not be a 1:1 push pull ratio, BUT it will be 1:1 in a "expensive
part of ISP1:expensive part of ISP2" ratio...
--Phil
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:15:16PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> #1 Do you honestly believe that you wont run into any customers who will
> say "why should I buy from abovenet if I can peer with them? They will
> take a big percentage of my traffic and do it for free."
So the question for A
In article
,
Phil Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Apples and oranges. Wcom isn't talking about dropping AT&T as a peer,
>they just don't want to peer with "Joe Six Pack ISP". Wcom would likely
>not peer with most ISPs, and I wouldn't expect them to. They gain
>absolutely nothing from it
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 01:38:57PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
> through their
>From: Clayton Fiske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Nor does it cost $0 on top of that $200 to buy transit.
But, looking at today's $/bit ratio, peering is not a big of a monetary
beneift as it used to be. BAck when you only needed a DS3 to the naps for
peering, and transit cost $1200 a megabit, peer
In your example, it could work, but they would probably still prefer you
paid 'someone' for it, even if it isn't them. (The mere fact that you
are paying keeps you unable to compete directly with them)
--Phil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
---
>
> I would venture to say that to WorldCom, all traffic is destined to a
> peer, or a customer, and they NEVER pay for traffic. Peering with them
> is entirely a courtesy from them to you, as they can always see you
> through their current peers.
I think you missed the definition of "ti
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 04:13:42PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> That's my definition of "Tier 1", in case you hadn't guessed.
Then what are you "venturing to guess"?
> You are saying that Wcom doesn't peer enough to remain financially
> viable?
I don't think Worldcom's peering has anythin
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:20:32PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
> I don't think "peering could not overcome corrupt financial officers and
> $3B in debt" equates to "peering has no relation to financial
> difficulties" exactly.
>
> Here's a fun exercise: Drop your 5 busiest peers, and see if
> "sd" == Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We (UUNET) have an internal document that we've been using for a few
>> years as the basis for tests of security features of equipment to be
>> connected to our backbone. We're interested in making it public so
>> that it can be improved
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:51:58PM -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
>
> But, looking at today's $/bit ratio, peering is not a big of a monetary
> beneift as it used to be. BAck when you only needed a DS3 to the naps for
> peering, and transit cost $1200 a megabit, peering was a great cost savines.
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:22:25 -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>
>But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food,
>they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it,
>no?
>
>--Phil
Obviously any business would like to get the highest possible price f
On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:15:21 -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
>You wouldn't buy the notion of reciprical billing? I think this would most
>likely be the fairest, but maybe the hardest to implement. It would either
>have to be done at the end points, or at every interconnect. In this
>method, if the
DJ> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:58:10 -0400
DJ> From: Deepak Jain
DJ> You achieve price symmetry when push/pull ratios match or
DJ> approach each other because the amount of bits x distance for
DJ> each party is more equal. This is what many tier-1's would
DJ> consider an equal peering relationsh
On 1 Jul 2002, Eric Brandwine wrote:
> The doc currently states "This option MUST be available on a
> per-interface basis." Perhaps going one step further, and requiring
> per-interface application of ACLs that are checked against the
> purported source address would be useful.
We may just be
> Agreed completely.
> BUT, your logic is very much "perfect world". There are a quite few
> reasons why this doesn't work "in the real world", same as communism
> works great in theory, but not in the real world.
actually, i'd argue that communism's theoretical basis has been roughed up
over th
>From: dre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>You might be able to sit in a colo and buy some cheap transit from one
>provider (especially if the colo isn't carrier neutral). However, if you
>want diversity in your upstreams, peering quickly becomes a reality.
If you have to buy an OC48 (or dark fiber) f
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Richard Irving
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:15 PM
To: Daniel Golding
Cc: Paul Vixie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
Daniel Golding wrote:
>
> A vague sense of unfairness or unhapp
[deleted]
To put this another way, imagine two networks. One is a large
content provider, they target webhosting customers. One is a large
access provider, they target end-users. I think that being able to reach
a large number of end-users is a benefit to the first network. I also
think that
The reason we have this industry alive is investment bankers. Had we not had
it, there would not have been abundance of fiber, abundance of competition
and easy accessibility of IP. Like it or not, without these games we would
have still though of a T1 as of a huge pipe.
True, and without
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:01:50PM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> [deleted]
>
> To put this another way, imagine two networks. One is a large
> content provider, they target webhosting customers. One is a large
> access provider, they target end-users. I think that being able to reach
> a lar
Deepak Jain wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Richard Irving
> Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:15 PM
> To: Daniel Golding
> Cc: Paul Vixie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
>
> How about an industry being
I don't see that either.
Whether you do hot potato or cold potato routing, one of the ISPs is paying
more (i.e. number of bits x distance) than the other one.
Simply put, the web hosting content is being delivered to the access
provider either at first or last exit. If its first exit, the acce
In a message written on Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 03:51:58PM -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
> that to just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as
> low as $50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for the
> router, plus $7K a month for rack and power, and monthl
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> There is no way for a company to price transit below their peering
> costs and make money. So the question becomes, is $50/meg too low.
> I believe so. I think that the companies selling at $50 a meg are
> in a desperate attempt to get revenue in the d
> There is no way for a company to price transit below their peering
> costs and make money.
this may be true, but it's the level(3) business model. and the
rest of the industry got suckered into dropping their drawers to
match. kinda like a bunch of old men drinking poison to see who
dies fir
>From what I've experience on Cisco routers. The RID isn't the final
deciding factor, it has been the route that was first present. I had a
router peering with 10.0.0.6 and 10.0.0.7 and if I reset BGP on .6 the .7
route will stick and even though .6 comes back up the .7 route will stay.
BGP res
While I do assert the validity of concerns for the economic repercussions as
a result of laissez-fair 'Internet' practices, I don't believe the sky is
falling. There is enough economic strength to maintain the use we actually
get out of necessary pipes, and continued growth will, in do time, supp
>>> There is no way for a company to price transit below their peering
>>> costs and make money.
>> this may be true, but it's the level(3) business model. and the
>> rest of the industry got suckered into dropping their drawers to
>> match. kinda like a bunch of old men drinking poison to see
> Today, it is almost a wash, and sometimes more expensive to peer that to
> just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as low as
> $50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for the router,
> plus $7K a month for rack and power, and monthly costs for y
DJ> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 20:10:44 -0400
DJ> From: Deepak Jain
[ snipping throughout ]
DJ> [Y]ou are running over mileage based pipes.
Exactly. And ingress:egress is meant as an attempt to address
the issue, is it not? If traffic flows are "close enough" to
equal in both directions, everyon
I switch traffic measured in gbits, and everything is kept on private
peering at the moment (although that is likely to change in the
not-too-distant future).
I doubt I will push more than 200 on the public exchange I am thinking
of joining... Many public exchanges either feature few large carri
RAS> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:07:06 -0400
RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen
RAS> If there is more than ~150Gbps of traffic total (counting
RAS> the traffic only once through the system) going through the
RAS> US backbones I'd be very surprised.
Oversimplifying the model, this works out to ~500
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 09:11:15PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> > Today, it is almost a wash, and sometimes more expensive to peer that to
> > just buy transit. When you can arrange transit contracts to be as low as
> > $50 a megabit, and to sit in a PAIX facility costs you $150K for t
Deepak Jain wrote:
>
> I don't see that either.
>
> Whether you do hot potato or cold potato routing, one of the ISPs is paying
> more (i.e. number of bits x distance) than the other one.
Perhaps, but if they are limiting it to their own customers,
which is implied by "peering", as opposed to
Your argument, specifically regarding customer's expectations vis-a-vis
their purchase agreement has nothing to do with peering and everything to do
with connectivity. A customer has every right to expect connectivity to
Internet destinations, but has no right to tell their provider HOW to do
it
WCOM (or anyone) has a certain amount of cost (people, management, etc) to
deal with a peer. If they are a respectable network, they notify their peers
of maintenance, and field their calls when sessions disappear. A large ISPs
fees generally tend to be higher than a Joe Six Pack ISP.
Regional
I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing",
"dropping OC48 to IXs".
Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be switching many
gigs of data per second and yet where is it all going? Not on the IX graphs
anyway
Did someone mention large ban
1) I am sure we could bounce all our signals off of satellites too. We could
pick a provider for our telecom needs that does not do mileage sensitive
pricing, or we could just buy transit from another provider and run tunnels.
That really isn't the point, you are running over mileage based pipes
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 12:47:36AM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> I'm curious about all these comments on bandwidth, "few Mbs is nothing",
> "dropping OC48 to IXs".
>
> Theres an imbalance somewhere, everyone on this list claims to be
> switching many gigs of data per second and yet where
My math shows ~500bps per US citizen:
Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens.
--Phil
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
E.B. Dreger
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 9:21 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint peering polic
At 09:54 PM 7/1/2002 -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
>My math shows ~500bps per US citizen:
>Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens.
This also assumes US citizens don't sleep.
--
Grant A. Kirkwood - grant(at)tnarg.org
Fingerprint = D337 48C4 4D00 232D 3444 1D5D 27F6 055A BF0C 4A
EBD> Oversimplifying the model, this works out to ~500 kbps per
EBD> US citizen. Allowing for burstiness, I offer 50 GB/mo
EBD> transfer as conservative for said bandwidth level.
off-list> My math shows ~500bps per US citizen:
off-list> Assuming 150,000,000,000 bits and 280,000,000 citizens.
T
At 04:33 PM 7/1/2002 -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > There is no way for a company to price transit below their peering
> > costs and make money.
>
>this may be true, but it's the level(3) business model. and the
>rest of the industry got suckered into dropping their drawers to
>match. kinda like
Has anyone tried to apply/follow the ITU work on network security
for telecommunications carriers? Some folks have suggested using them
for Internet service providers.
[COM17-D19] Lucent Technologies (Q10/17): Towards the model for network
security framework
http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com
> Link isn't working this morning.
Thanks Jane. I've taken the liberty of copying all interested parties.
Frank
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 21:07:06 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> It's all so much posturing, just like the people who claim they need OC768
> now or any time in the near future, or the people who sell 1Mbps customers
> on the fact that their OC192 links are impor
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 11:03:45PM -0500, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
>
> Several estimates floating around (*) suggest between 60 and 100 PB
> (petabytes) per month of US backbone traffic, which works out to 180 and
> 300 Gb/s average traffic.
Oh I should also point out that I was guessing as to tra
Just a FYI folksfrom one of the hacker lists I'm on...
>Speaking of taking down the internet
>
> > Extra points for only needing to affect one device and having that device
> > successfully spread the payload to every other device as a part of it's
> > routine network communications. Think
97 matches
Mail list logo
