let's just say that my experience is not all that reliable. i
i suspect it varies greatly between colo/sub-switch providers.
but considering the cost, i ain't got no complaints. qed.
randy
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:39:03PM -0700, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> building owners. so, though the six does have a core, it is
> also kinda splattered into switches all over the building; with
> ease of connection and low cost being achieved at the expense
> of reliability.
Thoug
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> but you seem to think they are served in exchange points, and not
> just to those that run them, but to all comers. very cool.
>
> sad to say, we're past 1999 now. out here in the free world (and
> those countries we bomb and/or invade[0]) folk seem to w
beware. six is funny. it's in seattle's carrier hotel, the
westin, 32 floors of racks, more colo providers than fleas on a
dawg, and very very low inter-suite fiber rates from the
building owners. so, though the six does have a core, it is
also kinda splattered into switches all over the buildi
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:57:20AM -0700, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> At the Seattle Internet Exchange a, granted, smaller peering exchange,
> you have to account for the following costs (and, mind you, this list is
> not exhaustive).
>
> 1) 1 Rack
> 2) Space for the rack in a secure facility
> 3)
>> i look forward to my next trip to sweden, where i expect many
>> nice free lunches
> If you start working in a resturant, you can probably expect that.
but you seem to think they are served in exchange points, and not
just to those that run them, but to all comers. very cool.
sad to say, we'
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> i look forward to my next trip to sweden, where i expect many
> nice free lunches
If you start working in a resturant, you can probably expect that.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i look forward to my next trip to sweden, where i expect many
nice free lunches
randy
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Michael Smith wrote:
> 1) 1 Rack
> 2) Space for the rack in a secure facility
> 3) AC for the equipment
> 4) Power for the equipment (including line and UPS)
This can be had for approx $300-1000 a month in my market.
> 5) Fiber and Copper runs to the facility for cross-conne
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> This is simply untrue.
>
> Whilst it is possible to establish an exchange with minimal cost if it is
> successful your costs will soon escalate.
>
> To provide carrier class service for the worlds top carriers you need to invest
> in the latest
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Mikael Abrahamsson
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 10:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point
speed
> publicly available?]
>
>
> On Sat, 3
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > no. in the first case, you're just hiding the incremental costs.
> > eventually, some bean counter is gonna want to recover them, and
> > then folk get quite unhappy.
>
> What costs are you referring
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 08:47:11AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> The price being charged for the public exchange ports is
> >> non-trivial
> > Only at the (very few) commercial exchanges. The vast majority
> > are free or of trivial expense.
>
> by count of small 10/100 switches or by traffic
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
> Does the person that sweeps the floor do so for free? And supply the
> broom?
The marginal cost of half a rack being occupied by an IX switch in a
multi-hundred-rack facility is negiglabe. Yes, it should carry a cost of a
few hundred dollars
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
no. in the first case, you're just hiding the incremental costs.
eventually, some bean counter is gonna want to recover them, and
then folk get quite unhappy.
What costs are you referring to? You basically need a few hours time per
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> no. in the first case, you're just hiding the incremental costs.
> eventually, some bean counter is gonna want to recover them, and
> then folk get quite unhappy.
What costs are you referring to? You basically need a few hours time per
month from enginee
> What is significant traffic? What is the cost? If you have an exchange
> with let's say 20 people connected to it and they all connect using GE.
> Running this exchange in an existing facility with existing people, you
> can easily run it for under $10k per year per connected operator or less
>
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> it costs to build, maintain, and manage an exchange which carries
> significant traffic. costs get recovered. life is simple.
What is significant traffic? What is the cost? If you have an exchange
with let's say 20 people connected to it and they all con
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, ren wrote:
> 5. Costs. Private peering is expensive, don't let anyone fool you. There
> is a resource investment in human terms that is rarely calculated properly,
I agree with you 100%. Working at a nordic european operator being present
at LINX, AMSIX and all the northe
JW> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:22:34 -0400
JW> From: Jeff Wasilko
JW> On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 06:45:44AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
JW> >
JW> > Uh, how much additional down-time did you want? Rolling
JW> > the clock back a decade isn't going to make things
JW> > _better_.
JW>
JW> Why do you say t
>> The price being charged for the public exchange ports is
>> non-trivial
> Only at the (very few) commercial exchanges. The vast majority
> are free or of trivial expense.
by count of small 10/100 switches or by traffic volume?
it costs to build, maintain, and manage an exchange which carries
PGB> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:28:10 +0100
PGB> From: Per Gregers Bilse
PGB> At least the previous outage (a couple of weeks ago) had
PGB> nothing to do with anycast, I was getting NXDOMAIN replies
PGB> back, and no kind of fallback or non-anycast deployment
PGB> would have helped.
Moreover, it w
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 06:45:44AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
> > Can't we just go back to non-anycast, please?
>
> Uh, how much additional down-time did you want? Rolling the clock back a
> decade isn't going to make things _better_.
Why
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 08:28:50AM -0400, ren wrote:
> At 02:07 AM 7/3/2004 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >b) The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
> > (especially compared to the cost of transit these days!), and is billed
> > on a port basis instead of
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Jeff Wasilko wrote:
> Can't we just go back to non-anycast, please?
Uh, how much additional down-time did you want? Rolling the clock back a
decade isn't going to make things _better_.
-Bill
Bill Woodcock writes on 7/3/2004 7:02 PM:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
Only at the (very few) commercial exchanges. The vast majority are free
or of trivial expense. But some people really like t
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> 10.1.0.1 Anycast1 (x50 boxes)
> 10.2.0.1 Anycast2 (x50 boxes - different to anycast1)
> In each scenario two systems have to fail to take out any one customer.. but
> isnt the bottom one better for the usual pro anycast reasons?
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
Only at the (very few) commercial exchanges. The vast majority are free
or of trivial expense. But some people really like to lose money, since
then they get to hang
In a message written on Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 05:55:13PM -0700, Matt Ghali wrote:
> DNS traffic, surprisingly, is not very "fat". It is no HTTP nor SMTP.
>
> The engineering behind appropriately sizing a unicast fallback would
> be pretty trivial, especially compared to building a somewhat-robust
>
At 02:07 AM 7/3/2004 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
b) The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
(especially compared to the cost of transit these days!), and is billed
on a port basis instead of a usage basis (at least in the US). Since
public peering is tr
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> b) The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
>(especially compared to the cost of transit these days!), and is billed
>on a port basis instead of a usage basis (at least in the US). Since
>public peering i
On Jul 2, 2:48pm, Jeff Wasilko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 02, 2004 at 02:38:12PM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
> > run .org, I just think a blanket statement "anycast is bad" is, well,
> > bad.)
>
> I'd be totally happy to see a combination, too. It's just pretty
> obvious that
32 matches
Mail list logo
