Re: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

Hallo Sabine, lange nichts gehoert ... On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:51:11AM +0200, Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote: > > > > At least each IXP member would have direct connectivity to such > > infrastructural services (DNS, NTP, WHOIS, NNTP??) and thereby their > > customers would benefit from it. >

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

> . They have an AS of their own, which is free to > peer with, in which a number of crucial services are located, for ...as long as you provide transit for free. Which I don't see why you wouldn't. Even Tier-1 providers (and ex- such..:) ) do this. Best regards, - ku

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

Stephen J. Wilcox wrote (on Jun 06): > Indeed, for example k.root-servers.net is hosted at LINX and is reachable > globally by this kind of setup.. A few of LINXs' members also transit the services provided by LINX "for the good of the community" - ie, at zero cost. That includes k.root. I don't

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > &

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:31:21PM +0200, Daniel Concepcion wrote: > > > Yes, but there is problem about the transit for the network of the IXP > In my experience, some big providers only have the commercial view of > internet. If an IXP decides to offer infrastructural services then you hav

RE: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

m: Arnold Nipper [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 6. júna 2002 16:29 > To: Daniska Tomas > Cc: Nipper, Arnold; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server. > > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:13:08PM +0200, Daniska Tomas wrote: > > how would you guarante

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

--On Thursday, June 06, 2002 10:16:34 -0400 Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > While a good idea, not everyone can announce or reach the > IX fabrics that they connect to or are out there. > > One solution to that problem is to have the IX operate a > zeebra/gated/whatnot bo

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

Yes, but there is problem about the transit for the network of the IXP In my experience, some big providers only have the commercial view of internet. Really, if all the IXP members give some transit to the IXP for essential services, internet will be more robust. Daniel Intelideas On Thu

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 04:13:08PM +0200, Daniska Tomas wrote: > how would you guarantee connectivity? > as you have a lot of ISPs around you it should be really easy to get some connectivity. Very easy: tell some friendly ISP to announce your prefix/AS to outside. > should each isp present sh

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:43 AM > Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest n

RE: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

Sent: 6. júna 2002 16:07 > To: Jan-Ahrent Czmok; Sabine Dolderer/Denic > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns

Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:43 AM Subject: Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server. Hello, DENIC runs currently several secondarys (not only DE but