On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
On Monday 22 October 2007 19:20, David Andersen wrote:
Followed by a recent explosion in fiber-to-the-home buildout by NTT.
"About 8.8 million Japanese homes have fiber lines -- roughly nine
times the number in the United States." -- particular
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now if any of you guys have a lead on an affordable way to get 225 40GigE's
from here to someplace that can *take* 225 40Gig-E's... ;)
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0611.pdf
It does not cost all that much, relatively, to upgrade a net
I did consulting work for NTT in 2001 and 2002 and visited their Tokyo
headquarters twice. NTT has two ILEC divisions, NTT East and NTT West. The ILEC
management told me in conversations that there was no money in
fiber-to-the-home; the entire rollout was due to government pressure and was
well
Yup, matches my experience (designing/deploying AOL's swan song JP
network infrastructure) during the same period.
The "ILECs" were artifacts of the Japanese regulators' 1997 effort to
relieve the last mile facilities death grip on services, ala the
(1984) US MFJ / AT&T breakup. The new c.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> I believe the bittorrent client Azureus actually does prioritize based on
> subnet, picking local subnet hosts first (such as when used in a large NAT'd
> environment).
>
> -brandon
That hasn't been my experience with some of the statistics coming
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Sam Stickland wrote:
Does anyone know if there are any plans by Microsoft to push this out
as a Windows XP update as well?
You can achieve the same thing by running a utility such as TCP
Optimizer.
http://www.speedguide.net/downloads.php
Tu
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Sam Stickland wrote:
servers. From this little bit of evidence I can blazenly extrpolate to
suggest that maximum bandwidth consumption is currently limited to some
noticable degree by the lack of widely deployed TCP window size tuning. Links
that are currently uncongested
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007, Sam Stickland wrote:
> I'm concerned that if Microsoft were to post this as a patch to Windows
> XP/2003 then we would see the effects of this "all at once", instead of
> the gradual process of Vista deployment. Anyone agree?
You need both ends to have large buffers so TC
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007, Sam Stickland wrote:
I'm concerned that if Microsoft were to post this as a patch to Windows
XP/2003 then we would see the effects of this "all at once", instead of
the gradual process of Vista deployment. Anyone agree?
You need both ends to
On Tue, October 23, 2007 2:55 am, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> 3) Is there any chance US providers could offer similar technologies at
> similar prices, or are there significant differences (regulation,
> distance etc) that prevent it from being viable?
For the UK (and NL), on the tech side we're seein
On 22-okt-2007, at 18:12, Sean Donelan wrote:
Network operators probably aren't operating from altruistic
principles, but for most network operators when the pain isn't
spread equally across the the customer base it represents a
"fairness" issue. If 490 customers are complaining about bad
On Oct 23, 2007, at 7:18 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22-okt-2007, at 18:12, Sean Donelan wrote:
Network operators probably aren't operating from altruistic
principles, but for most network operators when the pain isn't
spread equally across the the customer base it represents a
On 23-okt-2007, at 14:52, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I also would like to see a UDP scavenger service, for those
applications that generate lots of bits but
can tolerate fairly high packet losses without replacement. (VLBI,
for example, can in principle live with 10% packet loss without
much
In a message written on Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:20:49PM -0400, David Andersen
wrote:
> The Washington Post article claims that:
[snip]
>
> b) Fresh new wire installed after WWII
>
I have to wonder what percentage of the population is using phone
lines installed before WWII?
I live in a suburb
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 22-okt-2007, at 18:12, Sean Donelan wrote:
Network operators probably aren't operating from altruistic
principles, but for most network operators when the pain isn't spread
equally across the the customer base it represents a "fairness"
issue. If 490 customer
On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-okt-2007, at 14:52, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I also would like to see a UDP scavenger service, for those
applications that generate lots of bits but
can tolerate fairly high packet losses without replacement. (VLBI,
for exampl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Oct 23, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Oct 22, 2007 at 10:20:49PM -0400,
David Andersen wrote:
The Washington Post article claims that:
[snip]
b) Fresh new wire installed after WWII
I have to wonder
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:10:45AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You want to make my day? Come up with a way that Joe Sixpack can *back up*
> that 500 gigabyte hard drive that's in a $600 computer (in other words, if
> that backup scheme costs Joe much more than $50, *it wont happen*).
On 23-okt-2007, at 15:43, Sam Stickland wrote:
What I would like is a system where there are two diffserv traffic
classes: normal and scavenger-like. When a user trips some
predefined traffic limit within a certain period, all their
traffic is put in the scavenger bucket which takes a back
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:18:01PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 22-okt-2007, at 18:12, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> >Network operators probably aren't operating from altruistic
> >principles, but for most network operators when the pain isn't
> >spread equally across the the customer
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 03:13:42AM +, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> According to
> http://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/
> Comcast's blocking affects connections to non-Comcast users. This
> means that they're trying to manage their upstream connect
Tim Franklin wrote:
For the UK (and NL), on the tech side we're seeing some success with EFM
on copper, in this particular case on an Actelis platform. It's a new
unit in the CO, from 1-8 pairs from the CO to the customer premises, up to
a total bandwidth across all pairs of 40Mb/s in each dire
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-okt-2007, at 15:43, Sam Stickland wrote:
What I would like is a system where there are two diffserv traffic
classes: normal and scavenger-like. When a user trips some
predefined traffic limit within a certain period, all their traffic
is put in the scavenger
On 10/23/07, Joe Provo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:18:01PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> > On 22-okt-2007, at 18:12, Sean Donelan wrote:
> >
> > The problem here is that they seem to be using a sledge hammer:
> > BitTorrent is essentially left dead in the
On Tue, October 23, 2007 4:06 pm, Jack Bates wrote:
> Errr, 8 pairs per customer? Even 4 is a step backwards. If we're going to
> do construction at that level, might as well drop in fiber. We're still
> enjoying the fact that ADSL runs on 1/2 a pair while the customer's
> phone service is out.
Joe Provo wrote:
>A provider-hosted solution which
> managed to transparently handle this across multiple clients and
> trackers would likely be popular with the end users.
but not with the rights holders...
J
--
COO
Entanet International
T: 0870 770 9580
W: http://www.enta.net/
L: http://ti
In a message written on Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:34:00AM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> While I expect end-users to miss the boat that providers use stat-mux
> calculations to build and price their networks, I'm floored to see the
> sentiment on NANOG. No edge provider of geographic scope/scale will
>
Tim Franklin wrote:
Doing (or getting the incumbent to do, where the last mile is a monopoly)
a little bit more of what you already do seems to be an awful lot easier
than doing something completely different. Certainly in the (admittedly
all European) countries where I've seen it done, getting
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The problem here is that they seem to be using a sledge hammer: BitTorrent is
essentially left dead in the water. And they deny doing anything, to boot.
A reasonable approach would be to throttle the offending applications to make
them fit insi
--- On Tue, 10/23/07, Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While I'm sure you can find some row houses in
> $big_city that have
> old copper I find it hard to believe that "pre WWII
> wire" is holding
> us back. Wasn't it Sprint back in like 1982 or 1984
> made a big
> deal about their enti
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-10-23-verizon-fios-plan_N.htm
20 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, fully symmetrical for $65.
Strangely enough it's where they compete with CableVisions 30Mbps
down, 5Mbps up plan first.
--
Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http
I wonder if they will permit BGP announcements from the business grade
FIOS service? Does anyone know?
I was pleased when during the Q/A the question of service caps was posed
as one of the first items.
Regards,
Edward A. Trdina III
Senior Network/Systems Engineer
Clayton Kendall, Inc.
Edward A. Trdina III wrote:
> I wonder if they will permit BGP announcements from the business grade
> FIOS service? Does anyone know?
man tun|tinc|openvpn|*swan|ipsec|...
If they don't allow it and you can live with a few bytes of overhead per
packet, nothing (except hard firewalling and doing
My apologies if I wasn't clear -- my point was that caching toward the
client base changes installed architectures, an expensive proposition. If
caching will find any success it needs to be at the lowest possible price
point, which means collocating where access and transport meet, not in the
fie
We're living in a DOCSIS 1.1 and 2.0 world, which gives us 40 down, 9 up in
a best case. Considering that there are ~4 upstream ports for every
downstream port, the MSOs are already operating their network in a 40:36 or
almost 1:1 ratio. It's just that upstream is a much more precious item that
On 10/23/07, Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-10-23-verizon-fios-plan_N.htm
>
> 20 Mbps down, 20 Mbps up, fully symmetrical for $65.
That's pretty sweet, now all they have to do is start laying the fiber
over here...
36 matches
Mail list logo
