LOL, the subject was just for amusement since I know I'll get alot of
flames.
Of course paying for delivery of packets works... settlement based peering
is what doesn't work.
Mike.
ps. sorry, long week and a too private sense of humor.
+--- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C
http://www.cbronline.com/cbr.nsf/latestnews/3D7D494A2E3C728A80256BF4001084B0?Opendocument
07/12/2002
Curtain Being Drawn on KPNQwest Network
The future of the KPNQwest network looks bleak, after the Customer
Support
KPNQwest
IF there is a SBC PBI routing enginer reading this can you please contact
me privately.
Thanks,
Michael
JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My premise is that in the end, content providers want to send lots of
packets more than end users want to pay to receive them. Joe is not
willing to pay an equally high rate to get the packets that content
providers are willing to pay to send them. Thus,
so I'm wrong and the two /10's can't be aggregated?
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I beg to differ...
c/o Tony Bates, UU are only kept off the top spot by Telstra's apparent policy
of deaggregating!
1) Gains by aggregating at the origin AS level
--- 05Jul02 ---
ASnum
I beg to differ...
c/o Tony Bates, UU are only kept off the top spot by Telstra's
apparent policy of deaggregating!
I don't speak for UUNET, not a shareholder, don't have any say over
their routing policies; that said, there are a couple reasons that
might be the case:
1. Deaggregation to
Just having my saturday afternoon stir really but .. :
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Stephen Stuart wrote:
I beg to differ...
c/o Tony Bates, UU are only kept off the top spot by Telstra's
apparent policy of deaggregating!
I don't speak for UUNET, not a shareholder, don't have any say over
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Stephen Stuart wrote:
1. Deaggregation to help spread out traffic flow. As someone who used
to send a lot of traffic toward some big providers, it can be hard
to balance traffic efficiently when all you get is one short prefix
at multiple peering points.
1. Deaggregation to help spread out traffic flow. As someone who used
to send a lot of traffic toward some big providers, it can be hard
to balance traffic efficiently when all you get is one short prefix
at multiple peering points. Having more-specifics, and possibly
A
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Indeed, I know from personal experience the heartbreak of supplying
no-export to a BGP peer who does not honor it, and propagates the
more-specific prefixes that I give them globally.
I'm wondering how many folks out there choose not to honor
As a telco we see a number of these services, based around premium rate dialup
access.
I have to say that so far none appears to have worked even ones we have done
that were advertised as part of the largest TV shows at the time.
For most applications, eg sports, porn it can only work if the
Well, end of the week and the responses dried up pretty quickly, I think thats a
response in itself to my question!
Okay, heres a summary which was requested by a few people:
Other people too are interested in my questions, they dont implement QoS in any
saleable manner and wonder how it can
Well our transit BGP just this minute went along with the circuit to KPNQ.
I cant confirm as theres no NOC but looks like it may be it .. ?
Steve
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Andre Chapuis wrote:
http://www.cbronline.com/cbr.nsf/latestnews/3D7D494A2E3C728A80256BF4001084B0?Opendocument
Hi
I Could confirm that the AS286 is dead in Spain (286 2845249 754590
00 1d17hActive)
The national AS2134 appears to be live but announce only 14 prefix. They
announce to us 100 prefix before of their financial crash.
Regards,
Daniel
On Sunday 14 July 2002 02:48,
What vendor by default does not take action on no-export???
Certainly cisco and juniper both honor it by default.
To get back to the original question of 63/9 being announced it can be entertaining to
watch for other fishy routes to show up in the routing table, like 63/8. I know of at
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 09:21:16PM -0400, Frank Scalzo wrote:
The underlying problem, is that there are no good widely deployed
solutions for controlling what the large backbones inject into the
routing table at peering points. A large tier 1 deaggregates towards
another bad things happen.
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 10:20:01PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Supposidly Level 3 requires IRR filtering on their peers, but do they
actually try to enforce this? I know they do an excellent job maintaining
their own IRR entries, but I'm certain they peer with people who don't
have
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 04:00:42PM -0700, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Please also respond if you weren't aware that you have to explicitly
implement the policy of honoring no-export - while the community vaue
is well-known, the policy is not built-in.
If you do not wipe out the communities that
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 04:00:42PM -0700, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Please also respond if you weren't aware that you have to explicitly
implement the policy of honoring no-export - while the community vaue
is well-known, the policy is not built-in.
If you do not wipe out the communities
19 matches
Mail list logo
