> -Original Message-
> From: Rettke, Brian
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:50 PM
> To: George Bonser; JC Dill; NANOG list
> Subject: RE: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
> Interesting point. I'd also like to point out that putting the cost on
> the content providers
Interesting point. I'd also like to point out that putting the cost on the
content providers rather than the network may raise the cost of the content
service, but only to those that want that service. In effect, if the transport
provider is paying for the bandwidth generated by a content provid
> From: JC Dill
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:20 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
>
> On 15/12/10 10:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> >
> > If the customer pays the cost of the transport, a provider with
> better
> > transport efficiency /
- Original Message -
> From: "JC Dill"
> > see also my running rant about Verizon-inspired state laws
> > *forbidding*
> > municipalities to charter monopoly transport-only fiber providers,
> > renting
> > to all comers on non-discriminatory terms, which is the only
> > practical
> > way I
> From: JC Dill
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:20 PM
> To: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
>
> On 15/12/10 10:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> >
> > If the customer pays the cost of the transport, a provider with
> better
> > transport efficiency
On 15/12/10 10:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
If the customer pays the cost of the transport, a provider with better
transport efficiency / quality ratio wins.
This (and everything that followed) assumes the customer has a choice of
providers. For most customers who already have Comcast, they
On 15/12/10 9:29 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
The underlying problem, of course, is lack of usable last-mile competition;
I agree.
see also my running rant about Verizon-inspired state laws *forbidding*
municipalities to charter monopoly transport-only fiber providers, renting
to all comers on n
> From: JC Dill
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 9:13 PM
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
> Sure, Comcast's customers are also paying Comcast. But Comcast wants
> to
> get paid from the content provider. I think they are betting that in
> t
- Original Message -
> From: "JC Dill"
> If I drive from SF to LA for business or for personal purposes, my costs
> for the drive are the same. But the economy of doing it for business
> depends on what the client is willing to pay me. If they want me to
> drive to LA but only pay $10, it'
On 15/12/10 2:47 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
On 2010-12-15-12:15:47, Kevin Neal wrote:
Also assuming the backbone and distribution upgrades required between
their data centers and their customers costs nothing. It's not free
to get bandwidth from Point A (port with TATA) to Point B (Customer).
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
> I don't see how this point, however valid, should factor into the
> discussion. Missing from this thread is that Comcast's topology and
> economics for hauling bits between a neutral collocation facility and
> broadband subscriber are the
> From: Jeff Wheeler
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 7:24 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: peering, derivatives, and big brother
>
> Invisible Hand Networks was really meant to be a spot market. The
> same problem exists with bandwidth spot markets that always has
> existed, the cost
Invisible Hand Networks was really meant to be a spot market. The
same problem exists with bandwidth spot markets that always has
existed, the cost of ports to maintain sufficient capacity to the
exchange, and the lack of critical mass, meaning that the spot
bandwidth is either pretty expensive, o
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:05:26PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 4:47 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
> > Folk in
> > content/hosting should find this all more than a little bit scary.
>
> So you don't think the money content providers will pay Comcast won't
> reflect on other eyeball netwo
This should also be a wake-up call that for whatever reason (who cares what for
this discussion), if our bandwidth demands exceed our bandwidth supply, we must
become more efficient at using our bandwidth. I'm hoping that we not only
discuss peering and bandwidth, management and implementation,
On 12/15/2010 4:47 PM, Adam Rothschild wrote:
Folk in
content/hosting should find this all more than a little bit scary.
So you don't think the money content providers will pay Comcast won't
reflect on other eyeball networks who aren't important/large enough to
request financing? ie, Comcast
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:28 AM, mikea wrote:
> More to the point, I think it wouldn't be an NDA, but a security
> classification on the knowledge of the backdoors, and probably one not
> subject to automatic downgrading.
Someone working on a classified project or having access to classified
info
FCC petitions are piling in against Comcast:
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016064165
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020923751
Full disclose: I've signed one as well that should be filed tomorrow.
Also: WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 -- The office of Sen. Berni
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:38:27PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I believe Comcast has made clear their position that they feel content
providers should be paying them for access to their customers. I've seen
them repeatedly state that they feel n
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 04:38:27PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> I believe Comcast has made clear their position that they feel content
> providers should be paying them for access to their customers. I've seen
> them repeatedly state that they feel networks who send them too much
> traf
1) Sure, if those streams are only video streams and they can only exist at
5mbps. In reality, a network of 16 million users has lots of types of
streams and some like file downloads, UDP data for game players, video with
user buffers, etc, are capable of getting squeezed a little.
It seemed that
On 12/15/10 2:37 PM, Randy Epstein wrote:
> Jon,
> If ratios are really a concern and you really need to maximize your port
> capacity, there are ways to balance this; balance your customer base. Start
> hosting content. Now, this might not help on private peering interconnects,
> but if you peer
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 -0500, Mikel Waxler wrote:
Bandwidth is not allocated in static blocks on a
first come first serve basis. It is shared across all users. ...
a single new connection would not noticeably effect others.
I love how people demonstrate how they've failed most of the mat
On 2010-12-15-12:15:47, Kevin Neal wrote:
> Also assuming the backbone and distribution upgrades required between
> their data centers and their customers costs nothing. It's not free
> to get bandwidth from Point A (port with TATA) to Point B (Customer).
I don't see how this point, however vali
Again, I was not commenting on the state of comcast's pipe. God knows I want it
bigger. I was saying that some of the assumptions upon which he made based
points were false.
--Original Message--
From: Nathan Angelacos
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks
Jon,
>Ratios only make sense between peers. When you're buying transit, you
>don't get to enforce ratios and tell your transit providers you're not
>going to pay (or they're going to pay you) because they're sending you too
>much traffic. Back when I ran a dialup network, and our traffic pr
On 12/15/10 14:13, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 EST, Mikel Waxler said:
The reality is that most customers do not make uncapped connections. File
servers cap bandwidth per user and certain services, like gaming or
streaming media have a maximum rate. As long as th
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 15:51:05 EST, Mikel Waxler said:
> The reality is that most customers do not make uncapped connections. File
> servers cap bandwidth per user and certain services, like gaming or
> streaming media have a maximum rate. As long as the average data rate
> allocated per customer is
On 12/15/2010 3:51 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
That depends on your definition of 'never'. You can oversell your
network capacity...everyone does...and not run with the pipes full 99%
or better of the time.
At max capacity, we'd run roughly double our total transit capacity, yet
we rarely exceed 70
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Mikel Waxler wrote:
1) "If you were a Comcast customer attempting to stream Netflix via this
connection, the movie would be completely unwatchable."
This is a false conclusion. Bandwidth is not allocated in static blocks on a
first come first serve basis. It is shared acros
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike. [mailto:the.li...@mgm51.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 3:29 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Alleged backdoor in OpenBSD's IPSEC implementation.
>
> On 12/15/2010 at 10:25 AM Bryan Irvine wrote:
> |
> |Anyone know the trustworthy-ness of
It seems you are making some false assertions.
1) "If you were a Comcast customer attempting to stream Netflix via this
connection, the movie would be completely unwatchable."
This is a false conclusion. Bandwidth is not allocated in static blocks on a
first come first serve basis. It is shared a
On 12/15/2010 at 10:25 AM Bryan Irvine wrote:
|On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Mike. wrote:
|>
|> On 12/15/2010 at 9:17 AM Ben wrote:
|>
|> |On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Stefan Fouant <
|> |sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
|> |
|> |> > -Original Message-
|> |> > From: mikea [ma
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 02:25:53PM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> From Tata? I'd eat my own hand if they were paying more than $1-2
> across the board.
I know people who have offered them hundreds of gigs of settlement free
transit (including myself), but clearly they aren't interested. FYI a
larg
I remember 5 years ago a company called Invisible Hand Networks that
tried something like that.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Laurent GUERBY [mailto:laur...@guerby.net]
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 3:07 PM
To: George Bonser
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: peering, derivative
You mean it is not a settlement free peering agreement?
(sorry top post, following trend)
~J
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeffrey Lyon [mailto:jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 11:26 AM
> To: Jack Bates
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Some truth about
> See Ken Thompson's classic paper "Reflections on trusting trust",
Also see David A Wheeler's "Countering Trusting Trust through Diverse
Double-Compiling"
--
Eitan Adler
On 12/15/2010 1:13 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
They can't be paying more than a couple of dollars per Mbps.
$10 tops for any provider than can hand off a 10GE pipe; and at
full-rate multiple 10GE, you can expect it to be less than $5.
Jack
>From Tata? I'd eat my own hand if they were paying more than $1-2
across the board.
Jeff
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 1:13 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>>
>> They can't be paying more than a couple of dollars per Mbps.
>>
>
> $10 tops for any provider than can h
They can't be paying more than a couple of dollars per Mbps.
Jeff
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Justin Wilson wrote:
> Ay 10 Gig levels bandwidth should be much much cheaper than $30 /Mbit.
> --
> Justin Wilson
> Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
> http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP News
> http://www.t
> > More to the point, I think it wouldn't be an NDA, but a security
> > classification on the knowledge of the backdoors, and probably one not
> > subject to automatic downgrading.
>
> Please pardon my ignorance on the matter as I am not involved in any way
> with Open Source development, but it
On 12/15/2010 05:09 AM, ML wrote:
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
"Comcast has 15.930 million high-speed internet customers"
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate thi
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Mike. wrote:
>
> On 12/15/2010 at 9:17 AM Ben wrote:
>
> |On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Stefan Fouant <
> |sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
> |
> |> > -Original Message-
> |> > From: mikea [mailto:mi...@mikea.ath.cx]
> |> > Sent: Wednesday, Decembe
On 12/15/2010 at 9:17 AM Ben wrote:
|On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Stefan Fouant <
|sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
|
|> > -Original Message-
|> > From: mikea [mailto:mi...@mikea.ath.cx]
|> > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:28 AM
|> > To: nanog@nanog.org
|> > Subject: Re: Al
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Stefan Fouant <
sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: mikea [mailto:mi...@mikea.ath.cx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:28 AM
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Alleged backdoor in OpenBSD's IPSEC implementati
Also assuming the backbone and distribution upgrades required between
their data centers and their customers costs nothing. It's not free
to get bandwidth from Point A (port with TATA) to Point B (Customer).
-Kevin Neal
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:09 AM, ML wrote:
>
>> According to:
>> http://en.
update.. hoax it appears.
http://www.itworld.com/open-source/130820/openbsdfbi-allegations-denied-named-participant
--
This message and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged
information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or
distribution by anyone ot
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:00:56PM -0500, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: mikea [mailto:mi...@mikea.ath.cx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:28 AM
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Alleged backdoor in OpenBSD's IPSEC implementation.
> >
> > >
> > > Some
> -Original Message-
> From: mikea [mailto:mi...@mikea.ath.cx]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:28 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Alleged backdoor in OpenBSD's IPSEC implementation.
>
> >
> > Someone is confusing FBI with NSA, methinks. And yes, if this is
> > the kind of th
Ay 10 Gig levels bandwidth should be much much cheaper than $30 /Mbit.
--
Justin Wilson
Aol & Yahoo IM: j2sw
http://www.mtin.net/blog xISP News
http://www.twitter.com/j2sw Follow me on Twitter
Wisp Consulting Tower Climbing Network Support
From: Jon Lewis
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 1
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate this particular link.
Did I compute something wrong?
At that bandwidth level, isn't $30/mbit roughly an
On Dec 15, 2010, at 10:09 AM, ML wrote:
>
>> According to:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
>> "Comcast has 15.930 million high-speed internet customers"
>>
>> If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
>> that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
>
According to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast
"Comcast has 15.930 million high-speed internet customers"
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate this particular link.
Did I compute s
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:51:24PM -0800, Michael J Wise wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:39:02PM -0800, Chaim Rieger said:
> >> Does anyone remember the last time a law enforcement agency had
> >> someone sign a 10 year NDA on a backdoor?
> >>
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 05:31 -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> Laurent,
>
> >If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
> >that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
> >to properly desaturate this particular link.
>
> >Did I compute something wrong?
>
> >Laurent
Laurent,
>If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
>that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
>to properly desaturate this particular link.
>Did I compute something wrong?
>Laurent
Yes, now you need to multiply that by the numerous other ports that have
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 16:20 -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:24:45 -0500, Craig L Uebringer
> wrote:
> > Same crap I've seen on loads of provider networks.
>
> No ISP I've ever worked for or with has ever willingly ran their transit
> (or peering) links at capacity.
>
> (Gra
57 matches
Mail list logo
