On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
When 5% of the users don't play nicely with the rest of the 95% of the
users; how can network operators manage the network so every user
receives a fair share of the network capacity?
By making sure that the 5% of users upstream capacity doesn't cause
On Fri, Oct 26, 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> If I'm sitting at the end of 8Mb/768k cable modem link, and paying
> for it, I should damned well be able to use it anytime I want.
>
> 24x7.
>
> As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't
> deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't
deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or "only during foo time".
All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it.
I think you have confused a circuit switch network with a pac
This sounds like the latest noise about global warming and how we are
all going to disappear if we do not go "green" soon. Not to trivialize
the issue but its getting to the point where it sounds like fear
mongering. The crisis of the internet scenario mentioned here sounds the
same
Sounds
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When 5% of the users don't play nicely with the rest of the 95% of
>the users; how can network operators manage the network so every user
>receives a fair share of the network capacity?
I don't know if t
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I don't follow this, on a statistical average. This is P2P, right ? So if I
send you a piece
of a file this will go out my door once, and in your door once, after a
certain (& finite !) number of hops
(i.e., transmissions to and from other peers).
On 10/26/07, Dave Pooser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I did in the past in a similar situation was sign up for an MSN
> account, complain that my office couldn't email me, and keep escalating
> until I reached somebody who understood the problem. Of course the
> circumstances were somewhat d
A friend of mine who is a Jehova's Witness read something about the
Internet and the end of the world in Watchtower recently. Could it be
the same thing do you think?
Perhaps they got it right this time?
--
Leigh Porter
Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
> Isn't this same Dr. Larry Roberts who 5 years ag
And with working QoS and DSCP tagging flat rate works just fine.
Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
> Flat rate schemes have been spreading over the kicking and
> screaming bodies of telecom executives (bodies that are
> very much alive because of all the feasting on the profits
> produced by flat rates).
Rod Beck wrote:
>
> > The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they
> > consume each month or the bytes generated by different
> > applications. The schemes being advocated in this discussion
> > require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
>
> "Actually, it sounds a lot like the Ele
Isn't this same Dr. Larry Roberts who 5 years ago was claiming, "based
on data from the 19 largest ISPs," or something like that, that Internet
traffic was growing 4x each year, and so the world should rush to order
his latest toys (from Caspian Networks, at that time)?
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~
Flat rate schemes have been spreading over the kicking and
screaming bodies of telecom executives (bodies that are
very much alive because of all the feasting on the profits
produced by flat rates). It is truly amazing how telecom
has consistently fought flat rates for over a century
(a couple of
On 10/25/07, Al Iverson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 10/25/07, Weier, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Any Hotmail/MSN/Live postmasters around?
> >
> > My company sends subscription-based news emails -- which go to thousands of
> > users within Hotmail/MSN/Live. I appear to be getting
Dear AboveNet Customer,
AboveNet has experienced a network event.
Start Date & Time:5:15pm Eastern Time
Event Description:An outage on AboveNet's Long Haul Network has impacted
IP connectivity to SFO3. We currently have Field Engineers
investigating this outage and will give additional upd
> Does anyone actually believe that an ISP could know that they've got an
> OC48 down, but not which one it was?
That would pretty much be determined by how much MPLS tomfoolery was
involved.
-Bill
Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:54:27PM -0700, Jason Matthews wrote:
I lost nearly all of my bgp routes to Above a few minutes ago. The NOC
has they have an oc48 down some where, as of this writing the location
has not been localized.
Does anyone actually believe tha
On Thu Oct 25, 2007 at 02:54:27PM -0700, Jason Matthews wrote:
> I lost nearly all of my bgp routes to Above a few minutes ago. The NOC
> has they have an oc48 down some where, as of this writing the location
> has not been localized.
Does anyone actually believe that an ISP could know that the
I lost nearly all of my bgp routes to Above a few minutes ago. The NOC
has they have an oc48 down some where, as of this writing the location
has not been localized.
j.
Paul Vixie wrote:
> "Dr. Larry Roberts, co-founder of the ARPANET and inventor of packet
> switching, predicts the Internet is headed for a major crisis in an article
> published on the Internet Evolution web site today. Internet traffic is now
> growing much more quickly than the rate at which ro
On Oct 25, 2007, at 1:09 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I have raised this issue with P2P promoters, and they all feel
that the
limit will be about at the limit of what people can watch (i.e., full
rate video for whatever duration they want to watch su
On 25 Oct 2007 at 17:02 -0400, Jason Frisvold allegedly wrote:
> Anyone have any experience with these Anagran flow routers? Are they
> that much of a departure from traditional routing that it makes a big
> difference?
There's no difference in routing per se. Rather it's in-band
signaling of Q
When we start migrating to IPv6, wouldn't state-aware forwarding be
required for a good part of the traffic that is being translated from
customer IPv6 to a legacy IPv4 ?
I'm a personal fan of topology-based forwarding, but this is limited
to the address space of the topology we currently use, wh
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> "Dr. Larry Roberts, co-founder of the ARPANET and inventor of packet
> switching, predicts the Internet is headed for a major crisis in an
> article published on the Internet Evolution web site today. Internet
> traffic is now growing much more quickly t
On 10/25/07, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> an economic crisis. Of course, Roberts has an agenda. He's now CEO of Anagran
> Inc., which makes a technology called flow-based routing that, Roberts claims,
> will solve all of the world's routing problems in one go."
Anyone have any experien
IN fairness, most P2P applications such as bittorrent already have the
settings there, they are not setup by default. Also, they do limit the
amount of dl and ul based on the bandwidth the user sets up. The
application is setup to handle it, the users usually just set the
bandwidth all the way up
"Dr. Larry Roberts, co-founder of the ARPANET and inventor of packet
switching, predicts the Internet is headed for a major crisis in an article
published on the Internet Evolution web site today. Internet traffic is now
growing much more quickly than the rate at which router cost is decreasing,
R
> > Seems to me a programmer setting a default schedule in an
> application is
> > far simpler than many of the other suggestions I've seen for solving
> > this problem.
>
> End users do not have any interest in saving ISP upstream
> bandwidth,
they also have no interest in learning so setting de
> I have read the postmaster doco at MSN. I have put SPFs for SenderID into
> many of my news station domains but it doesn't seem to be affecting my success
> at delivery over other domains which do not yet have any such configs. What
> am I missing to get un"blacklisted"? I can't seem to find
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Geo. wrote:
Seems to me a programmer setting a default schedule in an application is
far simpler than many of the other suggestions I've seen for solving
this problem.
End users do not have any interest in saving ISP upstream bandwidth, their
interest is to get as much
On 10/25/07, Weier, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any Hotmail/MSN/Live postmasters around?
>
> My company sends subscription-based news emails -- which go to thousands of
> users within Hotmail/MSN/Live. I appear to be getting blocked recently
> after years of success.
Hotmail mail adminis
Paul,,
I seem to remember Hotmail having issues with this type of mechanism..
You may want to do a search on "Hotmail Violating RFC"S" or something to
that effect to verify this.
Have fun
ErIc
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behal
On 24-okt-2007, at 17:39, Rod Beck wrote:
> A simpler and hence less costly approach for those providers
> serving mass markets is to stick to flat rate pricing and outlaw
> high-bandwidth applications that are used by only a small number of
> end users.
That's not going to work in the long
> Actually, it sounds a lot like the Electric7 tariffs found in the UK for
> electricity. These are typically used by low income people who have less
> education than the average population. And yet they can understand the
> concept of saving money by using more electricity at night.
I can't comm
Any Hotmail/MSN/Live postmasters around?
My company sends subscription-based news emails -- which go to thousands of
users within Hotmail/MSN/Live. I appear to be getting blocked recently after
years of success.
I have read the postmaster doco at MSN. I have put SPFs for SenderID into many
> The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they
> consume each month or the bytes generated by different
> applications. The schemes being advocated in this discussion
> require that the end users be Layer 3 engineers.
"Actually, it sounds a lot like the Electric7 tariffs found in the
Are you thinking of scavenger on the upload or download? Because it's just
upload, it's only the subscriber's provider that needs to concern themselves
with their maintaining the tags -- they will do the necessary traffic
engineering to ensure it's not 'damaging' the upstream of their other
subsc
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I have raised this issue with P2P promoters, and they all feel that the
limit will be about at the limit of what people can watch (i.e., full
rate video for whatever duration they want to watch such, at somewhere
between 1
and 10 Mbps). From that reg
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where has it been proven that adding capacity won't solve the P2P
bandwidth problem? I'm aware that some studies have shown that P2P
demand increases when capacity is added, but I am not aware that anyone
has attempted to see if there is an upper lim
On Oct 25, 2007, at 12:24 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Rep. Boucher's solution: more capacity, even though it has
been demonstrated many times more capacity doesn't actually
solve this particular problem.
Where has it been proven that adding capacity won't solve the P2P
bandwidth problem
> Rep. Boucher's solution: more capacity, even though it has
> been demonstrated many times more capacity doesn't actually
> solve this particular problem.
Where has it been proven that adding capacity won't solve the P2P
bandwidth problem? I'm aware that some studies have shown that P2P
demand
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The result is network engineering by politician, and many reasonable things
can no longer be done.
I don't see that.
Here come the Congresspeople. After ICANN, next legistlative IETF
standards for what is acceptable network management.
htt
On Oct 24, 2007, at 8:11 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Rod Beck wrote:
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield
should
be the easiest,
On Oct 25, 2007, at 6:49 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 24-okt-2007, at 17:39, Rod Beck wrote:
A simpler and hence less costly approach for those providers
serving mass markets is to stick to flat rate pricing and outlaw
high-bandwidth applications that are used by only a small numbe
On 25-okt-2007, at 3:33, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I really think that a two-tiered QOS system such as the scavenger
suggestion is workable if the applications can do the marking. Has
anyone done any testing to see if DSCP bits are able to travel
unscathed
through the
On 24-okt-2007, at 17:39, Rod Beck wrote:
A simpler and hence less costly approach for those providers
serving mass markets is to stick to flat rate pricing and outlaw
high-bandwidth applications that are used by only a small number of
end users.
That's not going to work in the long run.
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 24-okt-2007, at 16:44, Rod Beck wrote:
>
>> The vast bulk of users have no idea how many bytes they consume each
>> month or the bytes generated by different applications. The schemes
>> being advocated in this discussion require that the end users be
>> Layer 3
46 matches
Mail list logo
