Re: Level 3's side of the story

2005-10-09 Thread jmalcolm
Richard A Steenbergen writes: For anyone keeping score, the last two times Cogent was depeered, it responded by intentionally blocking connectivity to the network in question, despite the fact that both of those networks were Sprint customers and thus perfectly reachable under the Sprint

Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering

2005-10-05 Thread jmalcolm
Daniel Golding writes: They can. Cogent has transit and is preventing traffic from traversing its transit connection to reach Level(3). Level(3) does not have transit - they are in a condition of settlement free interconnection (SFI). The ball is in Cogent's court. This is not the first time or

Re: cost of doing business (was:Re: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent)

2005-04-17 Thread jmalcolm
Brandon Butterworth writes: Perhaps they aim to keep driving the competition out of business to ensure there's a cheap supply of equipment so they can grow whilst charging so little? There are several problems with such a plan, even were someone to attempt it. One, overall traffic is still

RE: cost of doing business (was:Re: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent)

2005-04-17 Thread jmalcolm
Hannigan, Martin writes: As long as the hardware can keep up, the amount of glass in spectrum in the ground should make this an impossibility for the near term, 10 years plus. Fiber isn't useful by itself; there are two obvious things needed to turn a piece of glass into something that can carry

cost of doing business (was:Re: OpenTransit (france telecom) depeers cogent)

2005-04-16 Thread jmalcolm
Mikael Abrahamsson writes: So what will people do? Stop selling when their networks are full? Ignore the economics and let other business carry the cost of bulk internet? Go for cheaper platforms? Go bankrupt (if no other business can carry the cost) ? This problem will be fixed when the

Re: Anyone familiar with the SBC product lingo?

2005-04-16 Thread jmalcolm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On the contrary, you get better redundancy by sticking to one carrier and making sure that they really provide separacy though the entire span of the circuit. If you have two carriers running fibre to yoiur building down the same conduit, then you do NOT have separacy

Re: Re: T1 vs. T2 [WAS: Apology: [Tier-2 reachability and multihoming]]

2005-03-30 Thread jmalcolm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Again, I'd be interested in hearing from one of the bigger ones on this: UUNet, ATT, Sprint, Level3, QWest If you can't say anything, I understand. You don't need them to say anything - just look at what they are advertising. Are they advertising each other's

Re: Tornados in Ashburn (Equinix affected)

2004-09-18 Thread jmalcolm
From the NWS: A tornadic thunderstorm moved into eastern Loudoun County from western Fairfax County in the vicinity of the Washington Dulles International Airport. This tornado passed within one half mile of the National Weather Service forecast office in Sterling. This prompted the weather

TAT 14 failure

2003-11-25 Thread jmalcolm
The northern leg of TAT14 seems to have just taken an outage about an hour ago. As the southern leg was already down due to other faults, this will probably be an exciting time for many providers.

Worm Bandwidth [was Re: Santa Fe city government computers knocked out by worm]

2003-11-24 Thread jmalcolm
Stuart Staniford writes: It would seem for the Internet to reliably resist bandwidth attacks from future worms, it has to be, roughly bigger in the middle than at the edges. If this is the case, then the worm can choke edges at the sites it infects, but the rest of the net can still function.

Re: Worm Bandwidth [was Re: Santa Fe city government computers knocked out by worm]

2003-11-24 Thread jmalcolm
Stuart Staniford writes: I wasn't advocating a solution, just observing the way things would have to be for worms to be purely a buy a bigger box problem (as I think Sean was suggesting if I didn't misunderstand him). Ah. It would generally seem that ISPs would provide more downstream