On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:00:35AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
Also, if you're dealing with ISPs that use public peering points,
those may be a performance concern, but in the US that's mostly not
Tier1-Tier1.
(Linx
PWG Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:00:35 -0400
PWG From: Patrick W Gilmore
PWG Any particular reason you would worry about public peering
PWG points these days?
ANES, perhaps? Those who finally found old NANOG-L and i-a
archives have decided public peering is bad.
H let's see cheap,
RAS Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 02:07:06 -0400
RAS From: Richard A Steenbergen
RAS What is with people in this industry, who latch onto an idea
RAS and won't let go? If someone was talking about 80286 based
RAS machines in 2004 we would all be in utter disbelief, but you
RAS can still routinely find
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 the current
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 is
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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 a
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 would
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
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 that?
JW
JW
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
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
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
as
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 engineers
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, 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
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 volume?
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 to? You
-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 Jul
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
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-connects
i look forward to my next trip to sweden, where i expect many
nice free lunches
randy
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
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're
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) AC for
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
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 want
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.
Though
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
