Since Exodus is mostly a webhoster, do they have an asymmetric traffic
flow. Isn't bulk of the bandwidth is outbound from Exodus. Won't this
just increase the distance and AS count for Exodus outbound traffic,
making Exodus hosting even less desirable?
Well spotted. Everybody sees this
On 2002-03-26-12:58:09, Chris Woodfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IIRC, Exodus had arrangements with at least some of their peering
partners where in exchange for the toleration of the asymetric
traffic flow at peering points, they would honor MEDs sent to them
by said peering partners.
I'm presuming that Exodus is planning to get the transit they need after this
depeering via CW's peering points? If so, this makes a certain amount of sense - no
need to maintain separate peering circuits; this is probably just a step in the
eventual assimilation of Exodus' IP backbone into
snip
Should be interesting to see how this impacts the ability to reach
sites hosted at Exodus.
/snip
nothing complicated. just means you will utilize a transit provider to reach
Exodus hosted sites instead of direct public peer. unless you privately peer
with CW. the bottom line - it will now
I wrote:
Of course there's little point in maintaining an overlay network with the
same AS and separate peering.
^^^
I meant different AS.
-Bill
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Chris Flores wrote:
snip
Should be interesting to see how this impacts the ability to reach
sites hosted at Exodus.
/snip
nothing complicated. just means you will utilize a transit provider to reach
Exodus hosted sites instead of direct public peer. unless you
It is a free market and they can do anything they want.
If you have 5000 routes, and OC48c backbone and 3 OC3s worth of traffic at
a 2:1 ratio; peering with CW is a snap.
It clearly improved the ability of new players to enter the market for the
FCC to aprove the transfer of MCI Internet
From the sound of things, it seems that CW might have been better off migrating
AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)
I am assuming that the reasons it's not happening like this are much more political
than technical.
-C
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:18:04AM -0800, Bill Woodcock
From the sound of things, it seems that CW might have been better off migrating
AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)
I think that's what CW's engineering group thinks is happening. :-/
I will say that CW maintains a good backbone internally, even if it's
pretty
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:20:02 + (GMT)
From: Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On another angle, if enough people refuse to take CW routes
from transit preferring only peering nar, thats a
conspiracy! Good plan tho.
But if provider X becomes undesirable, I'd expect people to
-Original Message-
AS3561 (InternetMCI) was once the number 1 ISP, by almost every
measure that existed. The marketplace has not been kind to CW
since they bought AS3561. Why isn't Adam Smith's Invisible Hand
rewarding CW? Is CW number 5 or 6 these days?
I think all that shows
the Invisible Hand said you should talk to the face instead. Go figure.
A monk I met on the street, however, said: Even stupid companies can make
smart decisions sometimes, the trouble is that you can only tell in hindsight
whether the choices made were the right ones.
I was also given a copy
At 10:18 AM 26-03-02 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
You mean Exodus are well connected and CW limit themselves which gives
longer paths and increased latency.
Longer paths definitely, increased jitter probably, increased latency
At 10:40 PM 3/26/2002 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 11:49 AM 26-03-02 -0800, Sean M. Doran wrote:
the Invisible Hand said you should talk to the face instead. Go figure.
A monk I met on the street, however, said: Even stupid companies can make
smart decisions sometimes, the trouble is that
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
In general, as companies and backbones merge and eliminate old ASNs, that
would reduce the overall AS path length.
This isn't something I really care to make a big argument of, but my point
was that for many ISPs, the path will go
Okay, okay, when is someone going to start posting as Dean S. Moran?
-Bill
to end, the latency should improve. The majors/tier1s like ATT, UUnet,
Genuity and CW provide SLAs end-to-end *within* their ASN. They control
the pipes, they know what they can take and they don't have to worry about
some overloaded peering link. So as consolidation takes place, we should
The universal service requirement is governmental protection for
the incumbent. Or are you suggesting that the requirement for
universal service is natural, rather than regulatory?
Monopolies (there is nothing natural about them) are normal
only when they are socially established and
The universal service requirement is governmental protection for
the incumbent.
Wrong answer again. The reason the majority of natural monopolies were
established was the prolifiration of non-compatible systems.
Or are you suggesting that the requirement for universal service is natural,
Did I miss something or did my email get subscribed to the wrong list
somewhere?!
Steve
(no wise words.. except maybe never eat yellow snow.. worth remembering,
could save your life one day..)
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Sean M. Doran wrote:
Three men are portrayed sipping a ladle filled
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:58:40 -0500
From: Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In my experience, the odds of any given path sucking are far
greater than the odds of that path going away. Therefore I
would rather have one path which doesn't suck than two paths
which may.
!
route-map
At 07:58 PM 3/26/2002 -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:31:52PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Are we talking AS_Path attributes here? If so, all this means
is that now we don't announce OTHER BACKBONE routes to CW/EXODUS,
which we probably weren't doing
22 matches
Mail list logo
