On Monday, July 14, 2014 07:32:43 PM Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> Mark,
>
> BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is
> targeting RR which is not in the forwarding path, so
> there¹s no forwarding towards any destination filtered
> out from RIB.
> Using it selectively on a forwarding node
On 7/16/2014 1:57 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 07/16/2014 08:45 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 7/16/14 7:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Relevant article by former FCC Chair
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/14/this-is-why-the-government-should-never-control-the-interne
On 7/17/14, 2:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
/me makes popcorn and waits for 4K displays to drop under US$1K and
watch the network providers completely lose their shit
http://www.amazon.com/Seiki-SE39UY04-39-Inch-Ultra-120Hz/dp/B00DOPGO2G
$339!
I use it for doing dev. It's *fabul
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 13:08:58 -0600, Brett Glass said:
> Estimates of the maximum bandwidths of all the human senses, combined,
> range between the capacity of a T1 line (at the low end) and
> about 4 Mbps (at the high end). A human being simply is not wired to
> accept more input. (Yes, machines c
On Jul 15, 2014, at 08:19 , Naslund, Steve wrote:
> I don't believe either of those points. I will grant you that the LECs are
> near monopolies in some rural areas, but these are few and far between. Yes,
> a LEC may control the last mile but I can usually get circuits from a lot of
> carr
I meant that comment as more of a snark that if someone wants to argue
let's let the market take care of it then first we should reign in the
govt-issued monopolies and small-N oligopolies.
I just read, I could dig it up, that about 1/3 of all broadband users
have one and only one provider, abou
On Thu, July 10, 2014 8:01 pm, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Here's a link to a post from VZN's public policy blog, about Netflix.
>
(...)
>
>
> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/why-is-netflix-buffering-dispelling-the-congestion-myth
And today, Level 3 responds:
http://blog.level3.com/global
On 7/13/14, 5:30 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I've got a 50 pound bag of Purina Troll Chow to get rid of, so I'll opine
> that a user on The World was more "on the internet" than your average
> person stuck behind a NAT. And the most appropriate description of those
> poor souls who are do
"In truth, however, market failures like these have never happened,
and nothing is broken that needs fixing."
Prefixing a statement with "in truth" doesn't actually make it true, Bob.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
> Relevant article by former FCC Chair
>
> http://ww
On Jul 15, 2014, at 9:48 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
>>
>> At 05:10 PM 7/15/2014, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>>> Layer3 runs right through Laramie. With a redundant run slightly south.
>>> What conversations have you had with them?...
>>
>> At
When was the last time you did an ARIN request for resources for a large or
x-large provider?
I have reasonably recent (<2 years ago) experience doing requests for XX-Small,
X-Small,
Small, Large, and X-Large organizations, including 2 organizations that
qualified for /24s
(the max size for a l
On Jul 14, 2014, at 23:24 , Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:05:21PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote:
>> At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
>>
>>> Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform,
>>
>> Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger
>> one
On Jul 14, 2014, at 21:21 , Brett Glass wrote:
> Mike:
>
> An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very awkward and
> primitive routing system that requires constant babysitting and tweaking and,
> after lo these many years, still doesn't deliver the security or robustness
On 14/07/2014 18:32, Jeff Tantsura wrote:
> BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is targeting RR which
> is not in the forwarding path, so there¹s no forwarding towards any
> destination filtered out from RIB.
> Using it selectively on a forwarding node is error prone and in case of
> Let Comcast, TW, AT&T, Verizon, etc relinquish their monopoly
> protections and then perhaps we can see something resembling a free
> and open business climate evolve. Even that would deny that they
> already have become vast and powerful on these govt-mandated
> sinecures.
The problem with this
On Jul 14, 2014, at 08:17 , Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>> On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
>>> or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix
>>> shell != internet.
>>
>> You mean when you sat at a unix shell
On 17 July 2014 00:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
> If Netflix had a closed or limited peering policy, then I'd say "shame on
> Netlfix". If Netflix only peered
> in an exchange point or two near corporate HQ and didn't have an extensive
> nationwide network, I'd
> say shame on Netflix. Reality is that N
17 matches
Mail list logo
