On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 06:09:02 PM Dave Bell wrote:
> VRFs are not horrible hacks.
Except when operators stress them to the limit by running
the full Internet table inside them. But this is one of
those religious arguments.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed mess
Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate…
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin
wrote:
> Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate "sound bite"
>
> - Kevin
>
> 215-313-1083
>
>> On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>>
>> Yes, the more accurate state
Hi Ray
Okey, I'll be soon.
On Wed, 14 May 2014 13:13:09 -0400
Ray Soucy wrote:
> Thanks for this,
>
> Have you posted this to the VyOS project forums? It would make a nice
> addition to the wiki (*cough* I've been trying to find some help to
> complete the VyOS user guide).
>
>
> On Tue, Ma
I don’t disagree. However, given the choice between Comcast and broadband
services in NL, Chatanooga, or Seoul, just to name a few, Comcast loses badly.
Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 5:15 PM, Jared
Having an actual free market would require having competition. So long as we
have monopoly layer 1 providers being allowed to use that monopoly as leverage
for higher layer service monopolies, (or oligopolies), an actual free market is
virtually impossible.
The result of deregulating the curren
Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead
of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband), Akamai,
Ookla, etc
What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial transit
business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercia
It’s possible I’m missing something, but it looks like traffic from Comcast
business customers in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area is not all making it
through Chicago to my VPN endpoints. Testing to some of my address space
from one of the Comcast remote VPN sites, I can get to some numbers and not
Looking into.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Metro-Inet Netops
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:10 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Possible Comcast Load Balancing issues in Chicago?
It’s possible I’m missing something, but it looks like traff
Unfortunately these build-outs are primarily in subscriber facing
bandwidth and number of headend locations (to add more customers to the
network). These peering point/transit connection issues have been going
on for a long time, evidenced by Level 3 coming out with this post.
Comcast is also
There is no gaming on measurements and disputes are isolated and temporary with
issues not unique over the history of the internet. I think all the same
rhetorical quotes continue to be reused
- Kevin
> On May 15, 2014, at 11:43 AM, "Scott Berkman" wrote:
>
> Unfortunately these build-
The westin is for all affective purposes connected to the building where the
conference is. It would be the closest, the others are a bit further, blocks
are very long in Bellevue so keep that in mind when looking at the maps.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.
On May 15, 2014, at 11:50 AM, McElearney, Kevin
wrote:
> There is no gaming on measurements and disputes are isolated and temporary
> with issues not unique over the history of the internet. I think all the
> same rhetorical quotes continue to be reused
>
Kevin,
in the past most issues we
Seems to have cleared up about 30 minutes ago.
Thanks,
Mark Mayfield
City of Roseville – AS 54371
Network Systems Engineer
2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
651-792-7098 Office
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Courtney
Se
This is a smart group. If if that was true I think every internet site /
service one visits from home would be a negatively impacted. That is not the
case
As I said before, Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of
capacity. Wholesale $$ are very small, highly competitive and onl
Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers".
Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then you
throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin <
kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrot
Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to
trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for the
same reason. I'm going to stop for a while.
- Kevin
On May 15, 2014, at 12:42 PM, "Nick B"
mailto:n...@pelagiris.org>> wrote:
Yes, you'v
> There is no gaming on measurements and disputes are isolated and temporary =
> with issues not unique over the history of the internet. I think all the s=
> ame rhetorical quotes continue to be reused
An awesome example of the fundamental spin inherent in all of
this. For carefully selected va
On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps "fast lane"
I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog
has included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no
'fast lane' being constructed, rather just varying degrees of _slow_
To be fair, I have no evidence that Comcast demanded money in advance. As
far as I can tell, Level 3, Cogent and Comcast all agree on the rest
though, Comcast's peering filled up. Both Level 3 and Cogent
offered/requested to upgrade. Then at least Cogent (IIRC?) offered to
upgrade *and pay Comca
It had been my impression that ONTs, like most other consumer modems,
came with built-in router capabilities (along with ATA for voice).
The assertion that ONTs have built-in routing capabilities has been
challenged.
Can anyone confirm whether ONTs generally have routing (aka: home router
that d
> What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial
transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber customers).
Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of capacity, and some
of the largest Internet companies as customers.
Peers that are balanced o
And the "unbalanced" peers / transit?
-Blake
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, McElearney, Kevin
wrote:
> This is a smart group. If if that was true I think every internet site /
> service one visits from home would be a negatively impacted. That is not the
> case
>
> As I said before, Comcas
On 14-05-15 10:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
> legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
Twisted pair is certantly "legacy".
Is there a feeling that coax cable/DOSCIS is also "legacy" in terms of
current capacity/speeds ? Or is that technolog
On May 15, 2014, at 1:11 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
>
> It had been my impression that ONTs, like most other consumer modems,
> came with built-in router capabilities (along with ATA for voice).
>
> The assertion that ONTs have built-in routing capabilities has been
> challenged.
>
> Can
On May 15, 2014, at 7:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin
wrote:
> Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead
> of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband),
> Akamai, Ookla, etc
I didn’t say they weren’t doing any upgrades/buildouts.
I will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquitous in this argument.
> If the local distribution networks would like to actually build
> something fast, then this would be a different story.
Okay, then c
Jean-Francois,
I've seen it done both ways, and _usually_ newer ONTs will have the
capacity even if its not used. Having said that there is no real
standardization between vendors other than the physical layer (and even
that's not great) so what's common for one vendor may well be unheard of
for
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
>>
>> 2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps "fast lane"
>>
>
> I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog has
> included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no 'fast
>
I notice Cisco's new ME4600 ONT's come in two flavors, one (the
"Residential GateWay") with all the bells and whistles that you'd expect in
an all-in-one home router (voice ports, small ethernet switch, wifi access
point) and another (the "Single Family Unit") that looks a lot more basic
and is lik
On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, "Nick B" wrote:
>Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers².
>Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then
>you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
>Nick
That is categorically untrue, however nice a sound
Mark,
Faulty circuit was removed from path. NOC is working with TATA(AS6453) to
repair. Thanks.
Courtney Smith
Network Engineer
Comcast
http://www.comcastwholesale.com/
-Original Message-
From: Mark Mayfield [mailto:mark.mayfi...@metro-inet.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 12:04 P
By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow us
to refuse to upgrade full peers"?
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason <
jason_living...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, "Nick B" wrote:
>
>
> >Yes, you've got "some of the largest Inte
On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, "Nick B" mailto:n...@pelagiris.org>>
wrote:
By "categorically untrue" do you mean "FCC's open internet rules allow us to
refuse to upgrade full peers"?
Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain it
to 1G, for example. What if a peer wants t
At 01:11 PM 15/05/2014, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
It had been my impression that ONTs, like most other consumer modems,
came with built-in router capabilities (along with ATA for voice).
The assertion that ONTs have built-in routing capabilities has been
challenged.
By who?
Can anyone con
Many thanks for the answers so far.
On 14-05-15 13:35, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>>The assertion that ONTs have built-in routing capabilities has been
>>challenged.
>
> By who?
A rather large company in Canada whose name contains the last name of
the inventor of the Telephone :-) (actually from
Yes, throttling an entire ISP by refusing to upgrade peering is clearly a
way to avoid technically throttling. Interestingly enough only Comcast and
Verizon are having this problem, though I'm sure now that you have set an
example others will follow.
Nick
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Livingo
Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 1s of
'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the day
the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on service
flows, while service flows can have equal priority I doubt most operators
will se
Blake Dunlap wrote:
> And the "unbalanced" peers / transit?
Surely it is too much to expect a service provider to actually provide
service even if it is not entirely fair and balanced. It's not like,
you know, anyone was paying them to provide a service ...
[...rewind...]
wrote:
> This is a
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 1s of
> 'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the day
> the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on service
> flows, while service
Chris,
You're not reading what I said, nor did I make a statement anything like
one of the silly things you referenced (640k ram etc). Prioritization
isn't that complex and today we handle the maximum amount of complexity
already since everything is the same priority right now.
You're trying to
Calix makes a number of ONTs some with residential gateways, some that are
just bridges
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Aled Morris wrote:
> I notice Cisco's new ME4600 ONT's come in two flavors, one (the
> "Residential GateWay") with all the bells and whistles that you'd expect in
> an all-in
So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced you
can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where does it
end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
To use an analogy, if you and I agree to buy a car together and agree to switch
o
I said I would step away, but trying to keep some level of emotion out of
this... We all need "rational actor" behavior in the ecosystem. We need our
policies and agree to live up to those policies between players. Random and
inconsistent behavior does not build a well functioning market and is
> Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers².
> Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then
> you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
> Nick
Claims by some large ISPs that this is “untrue” rest on the claim that they
don’t do t
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> > On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
> >> 2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps "fast lane"
> >
> > I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here.A lot of the dialog has
> > included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no '
I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your
customers are requesting that they send through you if you cannot
maintain a balanced peer relationship with them. It's shameful that
access networks are attempting to not pay for their leeching of mass
amounts of data in clear vio
On May 15, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> On 14-05-15 10:26, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Choosing between Comcast and a legacy Telco is like choosing between
>> legionnaire’s disease and SARS.
>
> Twisted pair is certantly "legacy".
>
> Is there a feeling that coax cable/DOSCIS is
That link is broken and insists that I install a windows upgrade for Flash on
my Mac.
Owen
On May 15, 2014, at 10:17 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
>
>> It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquito
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
No idea -- I use NoScript and block Flash (as well as other dangerous
& annoying embedded content) and it works for me.
- - ferg
On 5/15/2014 11:31 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> That link is broken and insists that I install a windows upgrade
> for F
On Thu, 15 May 2014, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
Are there examples where a telco has deployed ONTs with the router
built-in and enabled ? Or would almost all FTTH deployments be made with
any routing disabled and the ONT acting as a pure ethernet bridge ?
Can we please stop equating FTTH and
> Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain=
> it to 1G, for example.
Throttling is also trying to cram 20G of traffic through that same 10G
link.
> What if a peer wants to go from a balanced relation=
> ship to 10,000:1, well outside of the policy binding the r
From: Paul Ferguson
On 5/15/2014 10:06 AM, Ryan Brooks wrote:
> It's a shame the use of 'fast lane' is ubiquitous in this argument.
> If the local distribution networks would like to actually build
> something fast, then this would be a different story.
Okay, then call it the "faster lane" or
AFAIK Comcast wasn't consuming, "mass amounts of data" from Level 3
(Netflix's transit to them). Are you implying that a retail customer has a
similar expectation (or should) as a tier 1 ISP has for peering? I hope
not, that would be hyperbole verging on the silly. Retail customer
agreement spel
If traffic is unbalanced, what determines who is the payer and who is the
payee? Apparently whoever can hold on to their customers better while
performance is shit.
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
> I agree, and those peers should be then paid for the bits that your
> custo
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
> Chris,
>
> You're not reading what I said, nor did I make a statement anything like
> one of the silly things you referenced (640k ram etc). Prioritization isn't
yes I made a joke. (*three of them actually)
> that complex and today we handle
> So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain balanced y=
> ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where do=
> es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
It doesn't strike you as a ridiculous promise to extract from someone?
"H
> That link is broken and insists that I install a windows upgrade for =
> Flash on my Mac.
Try
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"We
On 5/15/14, 3:05 PM, "Joe Greco" wrote:
>"Hi I'm an Internet company. I don't actually know what the next big
>thing next year will be but I promise that I won't host it on my network
>and cause our traffic to become lopsided."
>
>Wow. Is that what you're saying?
Of course not.
JL
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
> > So by extension, if you enter an agreement and promise to remain
> balanced y=
> > ou can just willfully throw that out and abuse the heck out of it? Where
> do=
> > es it end? Why even bother having peering policies at all then?
>
> It doesn'
I guess I should have said this another way.
Everyone knows Comcast uses (or used) Sandvine for shaping (unless
they've finished building a new probably internal solution, I'm sure
this is another secret we'll only have rumors to work with, ). By
shaping other traffic (IPSEC VPNs or P2P traff
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 07:29:06AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> The result of deregulating the current environment would only be more pain
> and cost to the consumer than we currently have with no improvement in
> speeds or capabilities and no additional innovation.
Indeed. While I certainly under
On 5/15/14, 4:16 PM, "Scott Berkman"
mailto:sc...@sberkman.net>> wrote:
Everyone knows Comcast uses (or used) Sandvine for shaping (unless
they've finished building a new probably internal solution, I'm sure
this is another secret we'll only have rumors to work with, ).
Comcast turned off Sandvin
Kevin first thank you for posting to NANOG to help with the issues...not
every day we see Comcast executive on engineering mailing lists. *LOL*
I have two issues with the comments:
1. You mention that congestion issues to Comcast peers are temporary. I
notice AS6543 "Tata Communication" - major
Yes Kevin, this is understood - but valid observation from Nick.
Can you pls answer my question first? Very curious.
Arvinder
> Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to
> trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for
> the same reason.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> So, at the end of the week, I *had* been paying $10/mb to
>> send traffic through transit to reach the whole rest of the
>> internet. Now, I'm paying $5+$4+$4+$5+$2, or $30, and
>> I don't have a full set of routes, so I've still got to kee
Jason, like Kevin, thank you very much for opening up to us. It is not
every day that someone so close to the issues posts with insight.
>From what we see here in India, it is true only Comcast and Verizon are
access networks with peering problems. We are able to reach Cox, RCN,
Charter, Sonoma
Jason I think it is important to consider that you are operating your AS
7922 to serve a global Internet.
In US, there is not a lot of choke because all the big Internet property -
Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon - pay toll to reach Comcast Broadband
customer. If they do not pay u, there is n
Owen this is interesting I think also...but how do u prove motive?
Arvinder
>> Yes, you've got "some of the largest Internet companies as customers².
>> Because you told them "if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you". Then
>> you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument.
>> Nick
>
> Cl
Hi all. Does anyone know whether GoDaddy is alive/down?
thanks
Takashi
Their existing agreements notwithstanding, I believe the problem many have with
Comcast's balanced ratio requirement is that they have 10s of millions of
customers, all or almost all of whom are sold "unbalanced" services. In
addition the majority of their customers are end users, who are also g
What issues are you experiencing? I have a site that has been
intermittently reachable since Monday. I don't have many details as I just
took over but I'm almost certain it's GoDaddy hosted. It is not a secure
site. However, sometimes https works.
Eddie
Network Engineer
On May 15, 2014 7:44 PM, "t
Hi,
On May 15, 2014, at 12:12 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote:
> Jason I think it is important to consider that you are operating your AS
> 7922 to serve a global Internet.
Actually, I suspect Jason is operating 'his' AS to serve Comcast customers
and/or shareholders...
Regards,
-drc
si
Calix's indoor ONT (836GE) come with RG functionality by default:
http://www.calix.com/systems/p-series/calix_residential_services_gateways.html
but they also have a software load for their 700GE-series ONTs:
http://www.calix.com/news/press_releases/press_release_20130611.html
Frank
-Original
There's been a whole lot of chatter recently
about whether or not it's sensible to require
balanced peering ratios when selling heavily
unbalanced services to customers.
There's a very simple solution, it seems.
Just have every website, every streaming
service, every bit of consumable internet
dat
On 14-05-15 16:17, Keenan Tims wrote:
> As primarily an eyeball network with a token (8000 quoted) number of transit
> customers it does not seem reasonable for them to expect balanced ratios on
> peering links.
Pardon my ignorance here, but isn't there a massive difference between
settlement
75 matches
Mail list logo
