Level(3) is generally very good. Great engineering team and very reliable.
I'm not sure if their pricing will maintain their business model in the
long run, but I certainly hope so.
- Daniel Golding
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Sean Crandall wrote:
One of the providers we are looking at is
Agreed. I know nothing about the pricing but last time I had a problem
with BGP, it only took a few minutes to get someone with enable and
clue, calling their general support number posted on their website. The
problem was on their end and it was fixed while I was on the phone.
Arguably one of
Temkin, David wrote:
We've noticed that one of our upstreams (Global Crossing) has introduced
ICMP rate limiting 4/5 days ago. This means that any traceroutes/pings
through them look awful (up to 60% apparent packet loss). After
contacting their NOC, they said that the directive to install
Once upon a time, Jack Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Are people idiots or do they just not possess equipment capable of
trashing 92 byte icmp traffic and letting the small amount of normal
traffic through unhindered?
Well, when we used the policy routing example from the Cisco
In a message written on Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 04:39:42PM -0500, Matthew Sweet wrote:
Alot of carriers that have a Nationwide backbone actually lease their
circuits (Layer 1 and 2) through various other carriers.
There are actually a lot more layers than that, not that most people
interested in
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Sean Crandall wrote:
I have about 5 GB of IP transit connections from Level3 across 8 markets
(plus using their facilities for our backbone). Level3 has been very solid
on the IP transit side.
MFN/AboveNet has also been very good to us.
Another happy Level3
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't
recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're
doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic sent
to them) which is causing
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 01:23:40PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't
recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're
doing (propogating routes to
last weekend, but that it was only on a temporary basis.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 8:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: GLBX ICMP rate limiting (was RE: Tier-1 without their own
backbone?)
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003
Of the DDOS attacks I have had to deal with in the past year I have seen
none which were icmp based.
As attacks evolve and transform are we really to believe that rate limiting
icmp will have some value in the attacks of tomorrow?
-Gordon
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 08:48:50AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
they [customers] expect a bit of loss when transiting a peering
circuit or public fabric, and if the loss is only of icmp they
tend to not care.
Um, since when? My customers expect perfection and if they don't get
it, they're gonna
At 09:26 AM 8/28/2003, you wrote:
It takes some education to the customers, but after they understand why,
most are receptive.
Especially when they get DOS'ed.
We have been rate limiting ICMP for a long time, however, it is only
recently that the percentage limit has been reached and people have
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a similarly sized connection to MFN/AboveNet, which I won't
recommend at this time due to some very questionable null routing they're
doing (propogating routes to destinations, then bitbucketing traffic
On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 03:55:26PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
While rate limiting ICMP can be a good thing, it has to be done
carefully and probably can't be uniform across the backbone. (think of
a common site that gets pinged
At 12:39 PM 8/28/2003, you wrote:
Along these lines, how does this limiting affect akamai or other 'ping for
distance' type localization services? I'd think their data would get
somewhat skewed, right?
Perhaps they'll come up with a more advanced system of
monitoring?
probally
Along these lines, how does this limiting affect akamai or other 'ping
for distance' type localization services? I'd think their data would
get somewhat skewed, right?
using icmp to predict tcp performance has always been a silly idea; it
doesn't take any icmp rate limit policy changes to
As attacks evolve and transform are we really to believe that rate
limiting icmp will have some value in the attacks of tomorrow?
no. nor those of today. the only way we're going to flatten the increase
of attack volume, or even turn it into a decrease, is with various forms of
admission
Selon Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Rate-limiting ICMP is 'ok' if you, as the provider, think its worthwhile
and you, as the provider, want to deal with the headache
Hello...
On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 12:32, Rick Ernst wrote:
We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac
OC-3. One of the responses came back with we won't be competive with
provider because they don't have their own backbone.
Is there a cross-reference for
Rick Ernst wrote:
One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any comments good/bad on
reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and ATT. I also realize
that the they suck less list changes continuously... :)
Look for one which has working abuse department which actually
I have a Level-3 OC-3 in Miami. So far they have proved to be more
stable than my other 2 upstreams. Never had a problem with their
helpdesk either!
Regards,
--
Joel Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] | IP Engineer
http://www.ntera.net/ | Ntera
One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any
comments good/bad on
reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and ATT.
I also realize
that the they suck less list changes continuously... :)
I have about 5 GB of IP transit connections from Level3 across 8 markets
(plus
Subject: RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any
comments good/bad on
reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and ATT.
I also realize
that the they suck less list changes continuously... :)
I have about 5 GB of IP
Subject: RE: Tier-1 without their own backbone?
One of the providers we are looking at is Level-3. Any
comments good/bad on
reliability and clue? We already have UU, Sprint, and ATT.
I also realize
that the they suck less list changes continuously... :)
I have about 5 GB of IP transit
Well don't send messages to a list from an address that you don't want
to receive responses to...
After sending an offlist response:
This is probably because this is an internal account that no one is
supposed to be sending mail to. If you are sending it mail, you are
probably a low-life,
Hi there Rick!
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Rick Ernst wrote:
We are sending out feelers for adding an additional DS-3, or possibly frac
OC-3. One of the responses came back with we won't be competive with
provider because they don't have their own backbone.
Alot of carriers that have a
I guess it depends on your traffic type and destination. Level 3 has
a lot of connectivity to content providers such as yahoo and
microsoft. As Joel P pointed out they have been a reliable backbone
with a lot of capacity.
They also have knowledgeable peering people although they lean
27 matches
Mail list logo
