On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
>
> I wish my Debian mirror would just be the "mirror.debian.net" *service*
> (not host), and the network could choose the best for me.
Try http.debian.net see: http://http.debian.net
-Jim P.
On Jun 29, 2013 12:23 AM, "Christopher Morrow"
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Octavio Alvarez
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:20:21 -0700, Christopher Morrow
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Runs in top of UDP"... "Is not UDP"...
> >>
> >> If it has protocol set to 17 it is UDP.
> >
>
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:20:21 -0700, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Runs in top of UDP"... "Is not UDP"...
>>
>> If it has protocol set to 17 it is UDP.
>
>
> So QUIC is an algorithm instead of a protocol?
it's as much a protocol as
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Octavio Alvarez
> wrote:
>
>> That's the point exactly. Google has more power and popularity to
>> influence adoption of a protocol, just like with SPDY and QUIC.
>
> This is the main reason why I'm very suppor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/28/2013 10:56 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> If you're willing to do without modern features, you should be able to pick
> up a ton of gear that does
all this for dirt cheap. A 7513 with channelized DS-3 cards is still
quite spiffy for terminating s
On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:24 PM, Octavio Alvarez wrote:
> That's the point exactly. Google has more power and popularity to
> influence adoption of a protocol, just like with SPDY and QUIC.
This is the main reason why I'm very supportive of this effort. I'm a bit
skeptical of what I have read so
On Jun 28, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Mike wrote:
> I am a clec with colocated facilities, and my targets are rural unserved
> areas where none of the factors above are considerations. I just want to
> connect with anyone who's done this and has a qualified technical opinion on
> optimal deployment st
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:20:21 -0700, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
"Runs in top of UDP"... "Is not UDP"...
If it has protocol set to 17 it is UDP.
So QUIC is an algorithm instead of a protocol?
SCTP is not NAT friendly (to the best of my knowledge), SHIM6 is
IPv6-specific and can help you "rec
On 06/28/2013 06:21 PM, Eric Wieling wrote:
I am a clec with colocated facilities, and my targets are rural
unserved areas where none of the factors above are considerations. I
just want to connect with anyone who's done this and has a qualified
technical opinion on optimal deployment strategie
The problem being a CLEC is getting access to repeater housings.
Usually limits you to a few kft. At least you can get up to 15mbps/pair now.
On Jun 28, 2013 6:23 PM, "Eric Wieling" wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike [mailto:mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 2
-Original Message-
From: Mike [mailto:mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 8:26 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Service provider T1/PPP question
On 06/28/2013 12:56 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
>
> I think this post seems like a flashback. I would not consider a
On 06/28/2013 12:56 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
I think this post seems like a flashback. I would not consider a T-1 to really
be broadband anymore and it is pretty much limited to a business environment
the way tariffs work. As far as MLPPP, it seems to be pretty stable now where
you need mu
On Jun 28, 2013 6:24 PM, "Octavio Alvarez"
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:57:48 -0700, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
>> again... not a super smart on this stuff, but..
>>
>>> protocol that could be similar to UDP but work on the application layer.
>>
>>
>> it's not 'similar to UDP', it is in f
On 6/28/13 3:36 PM, Robert Glover wrote:
On 6/28/2013 3:27 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I've had native IPv6 from Charter since January 2013.
~Seth
Are you a Charter Business fiber customer doing BGP with IPv6 PI space?
Yes to all. They're one of the providers I multihome with.
~Seth
On 6/28/2013 3:27 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> I've had native IPv6 from Charter since January 2013.
>
> ~Seth
>
Are you a Charter Business fiber customer doing BGP with IPv6 PI space?
-Robert
On 6/28/13 3:16 PM, Robert Glover wrote:
Anyone from Charter have any information on when IPv6 peering will be
available to Charter Business customers?
My response from support was "Charter is not currently providing IPV6
customer peering"
Looking back in the NANOG archives, I see back in May t
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:57:48 -0700, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
again... not a super smart on this stuff, but..
why does it require OS modifications? isn't this just going be
'chrome' (or 'other application') asking for a udp socket and spewing
line-rate-foo out of that? isn't the application goi
> Looking back in the NANOG archives, I see back in May there was mention
> of a field trial for Charter Business customers. Did that become a "thing"?
Forgot to add, that is May of *2012*
Anyone from Charter have any information on when IPv6 peering will be
available to Charter Business customers?
My response from support was "Charter is not currently providing IPV6
customer peering"
Looking back in the NANOG archives, I see back in May there was mention
of a field trial for Chart
On 29.06.2013, at 1:38, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:28:39 -0700, joel jaeggli said:
>
>> SCTP is used successfully for the purpose for which it was intended,
>> which is connecting SS7 switches over IP. It's not as much a posterchild
>> for an application agnostic tr
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 06/28/2013 01:16 PM, Josh Hoppes wrote:
>
>> My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from
>> congesting links?
>>
>
> The FAQ claims they're paying attention to that, but I haven't read the
> details. I sure hope they
BGP Update Report
Interval: 20-Jun-13 -to- 27-Jun-13 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS35819 44046 2.2% 93.7 -- MOBILY-AS Etihad Etisalat
Company (Mobily)
2 - AS47331
This report has been generated at Fri Jun 28 21:13:56 2013 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
On 06/28/2013 02:28 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 6/28/13 2:15 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 06/28/2013 02:07 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thomas"
My first reaction to this was why not SCTP, but apparently they think
Simple Computer Telephony Protocol? Did
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:28:39 -0700, joel jaeggli said:
> SCTP is used successfully for the purpose for which it was intended,
> which is connecting SS7 switches over IP. It's not as much a posterchild
> for an application agnostic transport as some people would like to think.
OK, I'll bite... doe
On 6/28/13 2:15 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 06/28/2013 02:07 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thomas"
My first reaction to this was why not SCTP, but apparently they think
Simple Computer Telephony Protocol? Did anyone ever actually
implement that?
No:
--- m...@mtcc.com wrote:
From: Michael Thomas
On 06/28/2013 02:07 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Michael Thomas"
>> My first reaction to this was why not SCTP, but apparently they think
> Simple Computer Telephony Protocol? Did anyone ever actually implement th
On 06/28/2013 02:07 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thomas"
My first reaction to this was why not SCTP, but apparently they think
Simple Computer Telephony Protocol? Did anyone ever actually implement that?
No:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stream_C
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Thomas"
> My first reaction to this was why not SCTP, but apparently they think
Simple Computer Telephony Protocol? Did anyone ever actually implement that?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@bayl
I took that as path agnostic.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
> > "In the presence of layer-3 load-balancers, a multiplexed transport has
> the
> > potential to allow the different data flows, coming and going to a
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Phil Fagan wrote:
> "In the presence of layer-3 load-balancers, a multiplexed transport has the
> potential to allow the different data flows, coming and going to a client,
> to be served on a single server." - Google
>
> I'll drink the juice
i don't think much ju
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:39:04 -0700, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Octavio Alvarez
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like a UDP replacement. If this is true, then OS-level support
>>> will
>>> be needed. If t
The idea reminds me of uTP in terms of congestion handling.
--
Tassos
Josh Hoppes wrote on 28/6/2013 23:16:
> My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from
> congesting links?
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-tech
"In the presence of layer-3 load-balancers, a multiplexed transport has the
potential to allow the different data flows, coming and going to a client,
to be served on a single server." - Google
I'll drink the juice
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 20
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:39:04 -0700, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
Sounds like a UDP replacement. If this is true, then OS-level support
will
be needed. If they are on this, then it's the perfect opportunity to fix
some other problems wit
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Octavio Alvarez
wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:09:43 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1
>
> Sounds like a UDP replacement. If
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:09:43 -0700, Michael Thomas wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1
Sorry if this is a little more on the dev side, and less on the ops side
but since
it's Google, it
On 06/28/2013 01:16 PM, Josh Hoppes wrote:
My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from
congesting links?
The FAQ claims they're paying attention to that, but I haven't read the
details. I sure hope they grok that not understanding Van Jacobson dooms
you to repeat it.
https
My first question is, how are they going to keep themselves from
congesting links?
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1
>
> Sorry if this is a
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/google-making-the-web-faster-with-protocol-that-reduces-round-trips/?comments=1
Sorry if this is a little more on the dev side, and less on the ops side but
since
it's Google, it will almost certainly affect the ops side eventually.
My first
-Original Message-
From: Ricky Beam [mailto:jfb...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:45 PM
To: NANOG list; Mike
Subject: Re: Service provider T1/PPP question
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:07:45 -0400, Mike
wrote:
>> I am wanting to offer a broadband over T1 service and have the ...
>s/
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 00:07:45 -0400, Mike
wrote:
I am wanting to offer a broadband over T1 service and have the ...
s/broadband/internet/
A T1 is miles away from "broadband" these days.
Having done this with Cisco gear (*years* ago), you want to avoid MLPPP
whenever possible. We did CEF p
About 30 years ago, when I first got involved with the Net (Usenet; thanks to
USF and Spaf for the link, and Larry Strickland at SPJC for servers), one of
the topics that everyone loved to rant about were supposed plans from the
Neilsen Companies to put cameras on set top boxes and use them to get
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap
Subject: Re: SixXS Contact Date: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 09:43:19PM +0200 Quoting
Måns Nilsson (mansa...@besserwisser.org):
> Personally, even though I'm on the same IRC channel as one of the admins
> and could have all support I want, I went with HE. Zero trouble. Excellent
> service. I'm peering w
45 matches
Mail list logo
