Re: route flap dampening

On Apr 27, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Jack Bates wrote: Jonathan Park wrote: Hello all, I was wondering how many of you use route flap dampening in your network. If you have it enabled, what is the main reason? We've been considering it after the last flap around the world; perhaps with extremely

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:48 PM, Jack Bates wrote: Joe Provo wrote: And the overall message is that only the (prefix holder|originating ASn[s]) can tell you if it is intended or not. Sadly, this is not a useful metric for a third-party to use to determine prefix annoucnement legitimacy. Perha

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

On Apr 22, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Kevin Loch wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote: Zhenkai Zhu wrote: I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with the same

Re: IPv4 Anycast?

On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote: Zhenkai Zhu wrote: I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that the anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet with the same origin AS? Yes, and it is commonly done. I was under the impression anycas

Re: Fiber cut in SF area

On Apr 10, 2009, at 3:41 PM, Scott Doty wrote: George William Herbert wrote: Scott Doty wrote: (Personally, I can think of a "MAE-Clueless" episode that was worse than this, but that was in the 90's...) The gas main strike out front of the building in Santa Clara? Or something else? -ge

Re: Vandalism Likely ...

On Apr 10, 2009, at 2:00 PM, Steven M. Callahan wrote: On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I didn't see a smiley. And I seriously doubt metal recyclers are going 10 feet down into man holes, breaking into locked cabinets, cutting _fiber_optic_ cables (not c

Re: Vandalism Likely ...

On Apr 10, 2009, at 12:57 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: at least this year its been changed from "Terrorists" to "Vandals". (when most likley, its over-aggressive metals recyclers who have run out of catalitic converters to steal...) I didn't see a smiley. And I seriously doubt me

Re: Forward Erasure Correction (FEC) and network performance

On Apr 10, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: I work with FEC in various ways, mostly to protect video streams against packet loss, including as co-chair of the IETF FECFRAME WG and in the Video Services Forum. Most FEC is driven by congestion in the edge, RF issues on wireless LANs,

Re: Outside plant protection, fiber cuts, interwebz down oh noes!

On Apr 9, 2009, at 6:04 PM, Charles Wyble wrote: Seriously though I want to start some discussion around outside plant protection. This isn't the middle of the ocean or desert after all. There were multiple fiber cuts in a major metropolitan area, resulting in the loss of critical infrast

Re: shipping pre-built cabinets vs. build-on-site

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Joe Abley wrote: Anybody here have experience shipping pre-built cabinets, with ~20U of routers and servers installed, connected and tested, to remote sites for deployment? How tall are the doors in the destination datacenter? How much weight can be rolled over the rai

Re: Can you see these AS links:)

On Mar 31, 2009, at 10:56 PM, Kai Chen wrote: As part of a research project here at Northwestern, we have found quite a few unexpected AS-level links that do not appear in public available BGP tables. We really need your help in validating them; for anyone who knows links associated with an

Re: Akamai wierdness

Belive it or not, n...@akamai.com is a real address which is read and responds 24/7. Perhaps using the RFC required address would be more productive than e- mailing 10k strangers? -- TTFN, patrick Sent from my iPhone 3-J, please excuse any errors. (That's 3-Jezuz for the uninitiated.) On

Re: speakeasy connectivity

On Mar 17, 2009, at 9:38 PM, John Martinez wrote: Anyone having issues with speakeasy dsl connectivity? Supposedly they're having a national outage. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: Comcast - No complaints! [was: Re: Craptastic Service!

On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:26 PM, JC Dill wrote: Seth Mattinen wrote: If I give someone money to do something, and they fail to meet the contracted metrics, what else can they give me except money back? They can pay a penalty. Simply giving you your money back may not make you whole. Many bu

Re: Great outage of 1997 - Does anyone recall?

On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:47 AM, Randy Bush wrote: Does anyone have the full story on this? bottom line: o do not redistribute bgp into igp o do not redistribute dynamic igp into bgp o filter your peers and customers And don't

Re: Great outage of 1997 - Does anyone recall?

On Feb 22, 2009, at 1:39 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: On Feb 22, 2009, at 2:28 PM, neal rauhauser wrote: Does anyone have the full story on this? Avi happened to be next to me when I read the first post in this thread - and re-

Re: real hardware router VS linux router

On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Blackford wrote: In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/ RSP720CXL or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a limitation I would think. I've aske

Re: Global Blackhole Service

On Feb 14, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Steven M. Bellovin: As Randy and Valdis have pointed out, if this isn't done very carefully it's an open invitation to a new, very effective DoS technique. You can't do this without authoritative knowledge of exactly who owns any prefix; y

Re: World famous cabling disasters?

On Feb 10, 2009, at 10:16 PM, joe mcguckin wrote: I'm looking for a couple of pictures of the worst cabling infrastructure ever seem. One Wilshire meet me room comes to mind. Anyone got any links to their photo albums, etc? I've always considered this the worst:

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:52 PM, Dave Temkin wrote: Chuck Anderson wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0100, Matthias Leisi wrote: Mark Andrews schrieb: I don't see any reason to complain based on those numbers. It's just a extremely high growth period due to technology

Re: 97.128.0.0/9 allocation to verizon wireless

On Feb 10, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Matthias Leisi wrote: Mark Andrews schrieb: I don't see any reason to complain based on those numbers. It's just a extremely high growth period due to technology change over bring in new functionality. OTOH, Verizon is not the only provider

Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

On Feb 7, 2009, at 2:09 AM, Nathan Ward wrote: On 6/02/2009, at 12:00 PM, Joe Maimon wrote: This assignment policy is NOT enough for every particle of sand on earth, which is what I thought we were getting. There is enough for 3616 /64s, or 14 /56s per square centimetre of the earth's surf

Re: Networking performance

On Feb 6, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Deric Kwok wrote: I would like to ask your professional experience about switch throughput I have Gig Switchs eg: H P3400 /3500, cisco c4 948../ dlink In their spec, they said that it can handles Gig So far, I couldn't see their ports are used up over 200M in mrtg

v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand each cable modem a /64? That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a discussion about it on the ipv6-ops list. I'm n

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)

On Feb 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Scott Howard wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses. Of course they will! A /48 is only the equivalent of 65536 "networks"

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 3, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Except the RIRs won't give you another /48 when you have only used one trillion IP addresses. Are you sure? According to ARIN staff, current implementation of policy is that all requests are approved since

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:39 AM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message , "Patrick W. Gilmor e" writes: On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Anthony Roberts wrote: Let's face it - they're going to have to come up with much more creative $200/hour chucklehead consultants to burn through that much anytime soon.

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Anthony Roberts wrote: Let's face it - they're going to have to come up with much more creative $200/hour chucklehead consultants to burn through that much anytime soon. It has been my experience that when you give someone a huge address space to play with (e

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:47 PM, David Conrad wrote: On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote: Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network. Is this true? This will cause endless entertainment when IANA allocates 1

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 2, 2009, at 11:10 AM, Bruce Grobler wrote: Most ISP's, if not all, null route 1.0.0.0/8 therefore you shouldn't encounter any problems using it in a private network. Until IANA runs out and gives that space to Google or MS or Comcast or $WHATEVER_THAT_NETWORK_TALKS_TO. -- TTFN, patr

Re: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space

On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Trey Darley wrote: Some colleagues and I are running into a bit of a problem. We've been using RFC 1918 Class A space but due to the way subnets have been allocated we are pondering the use of public IP space. A

Re: "IP networks will feel traffic pain in 2009" (C|Net & Cisco)

On Jan 21, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: Excellent idea. It is a shame content owners do not see the utility in your idea. To bring this back to an operational topic, just because a content owner does not want to work with someone on this, does the lack of external bandwidth / infrastr

Re: "IP networks will feel traffic pain in 2009" (C|Net & Cisco)

On Jan 21, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Google is not the only company which will put caches into any provider - or school (which is really just a special case provider) - with enough traffic. A school with 30 machines probably would

Re: expectations for bgp peering?

On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Jon Lewis wrote: As for the "you're not allowed to prepend" thing, have you experimented to see what happens if you try? Unless they're giving you special pricing based on the idea that they're providing you with strictly backup transit, they shouldn't be doing

Re: expectations for bgp peering?

On Jan 21, 2009, at 12:25 AM, mike wrote: So I am just wondering what my expecations should be in a bgp peering scenario where I am multihomed with my own ASN and arin assigned ip space. At issue is the fact that my backup isp forced me to use ebgp multihop to peer with a router internal to

Re: "IP networks will feel traffic pain in 2009" (C|Net & Cisco)

On Jan 20, 2009, at 7:40 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: On Tue, Jan 20, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Define "cached". For instance, most of the video today (which apparently had 12 zeros in the bits per second number) was "cached", if you ask the CDNs serving it. Sound

Re: "IP networks will feel traffic pain in 2009" (C|Net & Cisco)

On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:37 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: to play devils advocate, how much impact does caching have on the total traffic flow anyway? Less and less would be my estimate. How much video is cached ? How much P2P is cached ? Define "cached". For instance, most of

Re: "IP networks will feel traffic pain in 2009" (C|Net & Cisco)

On Jan 20, 2009, at 2:58 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Paul Vixie wrote: "Cisco VNI projections indicate that IP traffic will increase at a combined annual growth rate (CAGR) of 46 percent from 2007 to 2012, nearly doubling every two years. This will result in an annual

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

On Jan 15, 2009, at 3:54 AM, Andy Davidson wrote: On 14 Jan 2009, at 16:06, Jeroen Massar wrote: Simon Lockhart wrote: (Yes, I'm in the minority that thinks that Randy hasn't done anything bad) Nah, I agree with Randy's experiment too. People should protect their networks better and this is

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

Seriously, you believe it's OK to blame the guy whose ASN was spoofed for spending too long researching it? I was _literally_ shaking my head when I read that. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 13 Jan 2009, at 15:32, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Joe Abley wrote: Were the victim Heh, if only there was any sign of a victim. The guy who spent time & effort investigating why his AS was misused announce

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

On Jan 13, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Joe Abley wrote: Were the victim Heh, if only there was any sign of a victim. The guy who spent time & effort investigating why his AS was misused announced it here. I'd call that at least a sign. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: How can anyone seriously argue the ASN owner is somehow wrong and keep a straight face? How can anyone else who actually runs a network not see that as ridiculous? Speaking purely as an

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Filtering and other manipulation happened on your router, prepending my ASN is putting that information into every router. That seems to be a serious qualitative difference to me. Do you disagree? I think

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

On Jan 13, 2009, at 1:11 PM, David Barak wrote: --- On Tue, 1/13/09, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: Personally, I would be upset if someone injected a route with my ASN in the AS_PATH without my permission. Why? Is this a theoretical "because it's ugly" complaint

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

On Jan 13, 2009, at 11:53 AM, David Barak wrote: --- On Tue, 1/13/09, Jared Mauch wrote: No, they are both victims. If I inject a path that purports there is an edge between two networks which are engaged in a bitter dispute, (i'll use cogent & sprint as an example) - _1239_174_ that

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

On Jan 12, 2009, at 5:55 PM, Michienne Dixon wrote: But isn't this method kind of related to how an network from the Mediterranean/Mid-east went about blocking what they felt was undesirable/offensive content from entering their network? No. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: Anyone notice strange announcements for 174.128.31.0/24

On Jan 12, 2009, at 4:12 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 2009-01-12, at 15:39, Florian Weimer wrote: So does "academic" mean "unethical" these days? I think this is over the line. You can't put other people's IDs into routing data on production networks. (Well, technically you can, obviously, but yo

Re: Cogent Haiku v2.0

On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Soucy, Ray wrote: We peer with Cogent. They are very competitive in terms of pricing. To be honest, Cogent has been pretty good to us. As long as you have a 2nd peer (which it sounds like you do) for backup I'd say they're a pretty safe bet. I think you mean s

Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread)

On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Martin List-Petersen wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Mike, Aside from the occasional peering wars i've never had or witnessed any serious issues with Cogent. If you want some redundanc

Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread)

On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Mike, Aside from the occasional peering wars i've never had or witnessed any serious issues with Cogent. If you want some redundancy you might also try some

Re: Cogent (was the poetry thread)

On Jan 12, 2009, at 1:17 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Mike, Aside from the occasional peering wars i've never had or witnessed any serious issues with Cogent. If you want some redundancy you might also try some other similarly priced providers like WBS Connect, HE, or BtN.

Re: Ethical DDoS drone network

On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:54 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: On Jan 5, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I can think of several instances where it _must_ be external. For instance, as I said before, knowing which intermediate networks are incapable of handling the additional load is useful

Re: Ethical DDoS drone network

On Jan 5, 2009, at 3:39 AM, Gadi Evron wrote: On Sun, 4 Jan 2009, kris foster wrote: On Jan 4, 2009, at 11:11 PM, Gadi Evron wrote: On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Jan 5, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I can

Re: Ethical DDoS drone network

On Jan 5, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote: On Jan 5, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: You want to 'attack' yourself, I do not see any problems. And I see lots of possible benefits. This can be done internally using various traffic-generation and exploit-tes

Re: Ethical DDoS drone network

On Jan 4, 2009, at 9:18 PM, deles...@gmail.com wrote: Super risky. This would be a 99% legal worry plus. Unless all the end points and networks they cross sign off on it the risk is beyond huge. Since when do I need permission of "networks they cross" to send data from a machine I (legi

Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet

On Dec 19, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Joe Greco wrote: As for routing table size, no router which can handle 10s of Gbps is at all bothered by the size of the global table, ... as long as it isn't something like a Cisco Catalyst 6509 with SUP720 and doesn't have a PFC3BXL helping out ... ... or if

Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet

On Dec 19, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Joe Abley wrote: It'd be nice if some grad student somewhere with friends in the operations community was to experiment with /24s carved out of larger blocks from all over the planet and present some empirical data. We don't need a student. We have actual ne

Re: Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet

Even if a longer prefix like a /24 is announced, chances of people accepting it is slim. Especially, as you say, if the RIR allocation is something larger than /24 And I have a feeling acceptance /24 route announcements of anything other than legacy classful space, infrastructure space like the

Re: What is the most standard subnet length on internet

On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Even if a longer prefix like a /24 is announced, chances of people accepting it is slim. Especially, as you say, if the RIR allocation is something larger than /24 And I have a feeling acceptance /24 route announcements of anything o

Re: _65000_ in as-path - paging 8544, 16229, 37958

On Dec 10, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Cvetan Ivanov wrote: Marshall Eubanks wrote: Is there some reason why 65000 is especially problematic ? 65000 and above are private as numbers and should not be seen in the global table. 64512 & above. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: an over-the-top data center

On Dec 1, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: On 1-Dec-08, at 10:27 AM, Danny McPherson wrote: On a related noted, some have professed that adapting old ships into data centers would provide eco-friendly secure data center solutions. Your data connection to shore is going to be tenuous

Re: an over-the-top data center

On Dec 1, 2008, at 2:05 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: End of day, an IXP is not some magical thing. It is an ethernet switch allowing multiple networks to exchange traffic more easily than direct interconnection - and that is all it should be. It should not be

Re: an over-the-top data center

On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:06 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote: End of day, an IXP is not some magical thing. It is an ethernet switch allowing multiple networks to exchange traffic more easily than direct interconnection - and that is all it should be. It should not be mission critical. Treating it as

Re: an over-the-top data center

On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Randy Bush wrote: some go to sweden for the weather. some go for netnode. netnode does not go to them. and yes, netnod is bunkered up the ying yang. qed. By your logic, every IXP which has any participants is a good model and cannot be improved. An obvious lo

Re: an over-the-top data center

On Dec 1, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Randy Bush wrote: I don't think any IXP can become a significant player on the Internet today by only attracting participants from the country in question. netnod is very successful. i guess they must operate from more than sweden, then, eh? NetNod is successful.

Re: an over-the-top data center

On Dec 1, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote: --On söndag, söndag 30 nov 2008 23.05.01 -0500 "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In Sweden, the reason to not choose NetNod (and to go with the smaller exchangepoints) is price and only price. No swedish ISP I kn

Re: an over-the-top data center

On Nov 30, 2008, at 10:50 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Patrick W. Gilmore) [Mon 01 Dec 2008, 02:34 CET]: On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote: The advantage of this swedish data centre is that even if its location is well known, it is pretty hard to harm the

Re: an over-the-top data center

On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:04 PM, Jean-François Mezei wrote: The thing about a carrier hotel is that it cannot be a secret location since you need to allow various carriers and ISPs to have physical access to the building so they can install/manage their servers/routers/switches. The advantage of th

Re: Potential Prefix Hijack

Possibly silly question: If a small ISP is leaking a full table and you cannot reach them, why not contact their upstreams? Can't really check a router from here, but I saw (for instance) Verio mentioned. I am certain as2914 runs a 24/7 NOC and is responsive. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: Why do some companies get depeered and some don't?

On Nov 5, 2008, at 6:14 AM, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote: Isn't it because the receiver is more likely to backhaul the traffic further, due to hot-potato routing - at least in the case of large networks with multiple points of interconnect? That's the reason given. One can argue over whether

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

go. So I guess you could say the current situation is a political success. -- TTFN, patrick -Original Message----- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 8:10 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts On Nov 4,

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

On Nov 4, 2008, at 11:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:49 AM, David Freedman wrote: 2. The Internet cannot "route around" de-peering I know everyone believes "the Internet routes around failures". While occasionally true, it d

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

On Nov 4, 2008, at 9:49 AM, David Freedman wrote: 2. The Internet cannot "route around" de-peering I know everyone believes "the Internet routes around failures". While occasionally true, it does not hold in this case. To "route around" the "failure" would require transit. See item #1.

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

On Nov 3, 2008, at 8:16 PM, George William Herbert wrote: Patrick writes: 3. Standard transit contracts do not guarantee full connectivity If you are a Cogent customer, it is very unlikely your contract will allow you SLA or other credits for not being able to reach Sprint unless you negotiated

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

On Nov 3, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Rod Beck wrote: And a 'Tier One' nework is a transit-free network that can reach all end points (end user IP addresses)? A transit free network that has no settlements. Which means no network is strictly "tier one". Read

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Tore Anderson wrote: Another point worth mentioning is that the traffic is going to flow between those two ISPs _anyway_. I believe the events of 2-3 days ago disproves your assertion. Therefore, in many cases the only ones to profit from them not reaching a pee

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:03 AM, David Schwartz wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: 4. There is a reason behind ratios which has nothing to do with telco "sender-pays" There is an alleged reason. Peering rations were first 'big news' when BBN wanted to de-peer Above.Net

Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?

On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:01 AM, Daniel Senie wrote: At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote: On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote: > Problem resolved? https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php Reading this accounting of Sprint's side of the story reveals something that's no

Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage

On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:41 AM, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker- Kamphuis MP wrote: No, but the providers who provide those connections should be multihomed. If they're not, I'd consider switching providers. Simple as that. multihomed to whichever parties decide to generate split ups on

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

On Nov 3, 2008, at 4:26 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: * Patrick W. Gilmore: 1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transit Both Sprint & Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I carefully avoided saying "tier one"?) Whether one or both _should_ have transit is not a fact,

Re: Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

On Nov 3, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Paul Wall wrote: On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 1:26 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 1. Neither Sprint nor Cogent have transit Both Sprint & Cogent are transit-free networks. (Notice how I carefully avoided saying "tier one"?)

Sprint v. Cogent, some clarity & facts

Having skimmed the Sprint / Cogent threads, I saw multiple errors and lots of really bad guesses. Instead of replying individually, I thought I would sum up a few facts so everyone was on the same page. This way when we run off into another 100 post thread, we can at least -start- from re

Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?

On Nov 2, 2008, at 7:06 PM, Randy Epstein wrote: https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php Yes, I've read it. They need to fix their . So while Cogent was depeered by Sprint, we contacted the CEO of Cogent on Friday to try and arrange at least a temporary peering arrangement so that bits flowed

Re: Why do some companies get depeered and some don't?

On Nov 2, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Brandon Galbraith wrote: On 11/2/08, Joe Maimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Nelson Lai wrote: Why do some companies like Cogent get depeered relatively often and companies like Teleglobe don't even

Re: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent

On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, bas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too.. "You content hosters are sending us too much traffic, we want money to upgrade ports and transport all that traffic" Complete re

Re: Why do some companies get depeered and some don't?

On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Nelson Lai wrote: Why do some companies like Cogent get depeered relatively often and companies like Teleglobe don't even get talked about and operate in silence free from depeering? That's funny. One of the first networks to de-peer Cogent was Teleglobe. Th

Re: Sprint / Cogent

On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting : [snip] While I agree regulation is a possible outcome, I am always amazed at the US gov't self-delusion that they can somehow regulate something like the Internet. End

Re: Sprint / Cogent

On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote: On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:20:23PM -0400, Randy Epstein wrote: We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the mean time, we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent. Randy, This brings up something

Re: Peering - Benefits?

On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:05 AM, vijay gill wrote: On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote: This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly because people cannot figure out their COGS.

Re: Peering - Benefits?

On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote: This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not peering. There are some small arguments to

Re: Sprint / Cogent

On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Joe Greco wrote: Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include a potential depeering. Not a theory. -- TTFN, patrick

Re: Peering - Benefits?

enly across four providers, this lets you drop one with no loss of redundancy. Plus you get all the other things peering is good for. -- TTFN, patrick -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:15 PM To: NANOG list Subj

Re: Peering - Benefits?

On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Todd Underwood wrote: so far there have been some good values articulated and there may be more (reach, latency, diversity of path, diversity of capacity, control, flexibility, options, price negotation) and some additional costs have been mentioned (capex for peeri

Re: peeringdb admin contact?

On Oct 13, 2008, at 3:52 PM, matthew zeier wrote: Been trying to get someone from [EMAIL PROTECTED] to get back to me but haven't had any luck. Anyone? [EMAIL PROTECTED] The e-mail address is on the front page of , you don't even have to log in to see it. Tha

Re: Google's PUE

and see if they release more. -- TTFN, patrick On Oct 1, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: [#include: boiler-plate apology for operational content] Google has released its PUE numbers: <http://www.google.com/corporate/datacenters/measuring.html> There is a nice explanatio

Reading NANOG-Futures [was: Hey ISC, thanks for providing free wifi to intercage!]

On Oct 2, 2008, at 9:33 AM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: Joe Abley wrote: How about moving the meta-nanog themes in this thread to nanog- futures, instead of adding to the noise on the main list? Because nobody reads it? I've been called a lot of things, but I can't seem to remember bein

Re: Google's PUE

On Oct 1, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Martin Hannigan wrote: Personally, I think only a self-owned DC could get that low. A general purpose DC would have too many inefficiencies since someone like Equinix must have randomly sized cages, routers and servers, custom-built suites, etc. By owning both sides

Google's PUE

[#include: boiler-plate apology for operational content] Google has released its PUE numbers: There is a nice explanation of this, including a graph showing why DC efficiency is more important than machine efficiency (on the second

Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)

t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: There is no law or even custom stopping me from asking you to prove you are worthy to connect to my network. There may not be a law preventing you from asking him for proof of legitimate customers, but there is a law preventing him

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >