in the list, to help
people find missing or since-disconnected peers at the IXP in an
automated fashion.
-- Niels.
On 2014-12-22 15:45, Song Li wrote:
在 2014/12/22 22:26, Nick Hilliard 写道:
On 22/12/2014 13:50, Jeroen Massar wrote:
IXs themselves do not have ASNs, as they are Layer 2 providers.
most modern IXPs will have an ASN for their route server, and possibly a
separate asn for their mgmt
- the IXP participants keep their IRRDB information fully up-to-date
Geez anything else but the fully up-to-date IRRDB please. That just won't fly.
That's why I said that an up to date IRRDB would have been a nice side effect
of IXP filtering.
- the IXP operators put in mechanisms to stop
versed with RIPE myself so I'm not sure whether there's a way to
handle this situation.
adam
-Original Message-
From: Jérôme Nicolle [mailto:jer...@ceriz.fr]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 6:03 PM
To: Nick Hilliard; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Filter on IXP
Le 28/02/2014 17:52, Nick
works for leaf networks. The moment your ixp supports larger
networks, it will break things horribly.
It also assumes that:
- all your IXP members use route servers (not generally true)
- the IXP kit can filter layer 3 traffic on all supported port
configurations (including .1q / LAGs) for both
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
There are many places where automated RPF makes a lot of sense. An IXP is
not one of them.
That make sense. Everyone is rightly resistant to automated filtering.
But could we automate getting the word out instead?
Can
neutrality is a key factor to maintain reasonable interconnexion
density.
Instead, IXPs _could_ enforce BCP38 too. Mapping the route-server's
received routes to ingress _and_ egress ACLs on IXP ports would mitigate
the role of BCP38 offenders within member ports. It's almost like uRPF
is a wet-dream for anyone willing to kill the network.
IXP's neutrality is a key factor to maintain reasonable interconnexion
density.
Instead, IXPs _could_ enforce BCP38 too. Mapping the route-server's
received routes to ingress _and_ egress ACLs on IXP ports would mitigate
the role of BCP38
It would be really cool if peering exchanges could police ntp on
their connected members.
Well, THIS looks like the worst idea ever.
while i agree that this is an extremely stupid idea, clearly you have
not been reading this list for very long
randy
Le 28/02/2014 17:00, Jay Ashworth a écrit :
From: Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr
Instead, IXPs _could_ enforce BCP38 too. Mapping the route-server's
received routes to ingress _and_ egress ACLs on IXP ports would mitigate
the role of BCP38 offenders within member ports. It's almost like uRPF
Hi Randy,
Le 28/02/2014 17:15, Randy Bush a écrit :
clearly you have not been reading this list for very long
Well... Busted. All things considered, there surelly has been more
stupid proposals.
--
Jérôme Nicolle
+33 6 19 31 27 14
On 28/02/2014 15:42, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
Instead, IXPs _could_ enforce BCP38 too. Mapping the route-server's
received routes to ingress _and_ egress ACLs on IXP ports would mitigate
the role of BCP38 offenders within member ports. It's almost like uRPF
in an intelligent and useable form
On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:52 , Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 28/02/2014 15:42, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
Instead, IXPs _could_ enforce BCP38 too. Mapping the route-server's
received routes to ingress _and_ egress ACLs on IXP ports would mitigate
the role of BCP38 offenders within member
Le 28/02/2014 17:52, Nick Hilliard a écrit :
this will break horribly as soon as you have an IXP member which provides
transit to other multihomed networks.
It could break if filters are based on announced prefixes. That's
preciselly why uRPF is often useless.
On the other hand, if a member
As well as being first to be open-ix certified, I think LINX hit a second
first that is as interesting;
https://www.linx.net/service/publicpeering/novafiles/nova-usgov-reports.html
Applause +LINX
Best,
-M
On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
As well as being first to be open-ix certified, I think LINX hit a second
first that is as interesting;
https://www.linx.net/service/publicpeering/novafiles/nova-usgov-reports.html
…and is this function being
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote:
As well as being first to be open-ix certified, I think LINX hit a second
first that is as interesting;
in the future? It's a rhetorical question
applicable to any starting IXP.
Indeed. I think that ISPs who understand their business model well
enough to understand the effect the IXP will have on their
average-per-bit-delivery-cost is essential. I think it's also
essential that they have some
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.netwrote:
Indeed. I think that ISPs who understand their business model well
enough to understand the effect the IXP will have on their
average-per-bit-delivery-cost is essential. I think it's also essential
that they have
On 23/08/13 09:56, Mark Leonard wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 6:52 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
What CIRA is doing is providing support in the areas where previous
efforts have struggled, providing hardware, accounts payable, legal, help
with incorporation and forming sensible
Bill, not true.
Following on our vision for Canada to have an IXP in every major city,
specifically for Calgary, CIRA worked with CYBERA to organize a town hall
meeting in Calgary, on September 14, 2013. At the meeting, we had interested
members of the community (Content delivery, ISP
://www.albertaix.ca/peers/
[3] https://prefix.pch.net/applications/ixpdir/
[4] http://yycix.ca/peers.html
[5] http://www.tcpiputils.com/browse/as/54982
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jacques Latour jacques.lat...@cira.cawrote:
Bill, not true.
Following on our vision for Canada to have an IXP in every
On 8/23/2013 1:30 PM, Jacques Latour wrote:
Bill, not true.
Following on our vision for Canada to have an IXP in every major city,
specifically for Calgary, CIRA worked with CYBERA to organize a town hall
meeting in Calgary, on September 14, 2013. At the meeting, we had interested
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:06 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 8/21/13 6:56 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
but how do you represent seattle colonolizing bc?
keep your potatoes out of my pig.
Ugh. Suddenly your talk of potatoes in pigs
makes colon-olizing seem almost meaningful
I think CANIX in Toronto has been dead for years. I used to operate the switch
for it in my days at UUNET in the 90s.
In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1?
On 2013-08-20, at 23:14, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Christopher Morrell
On 2013-08-21, at 6:40, Christopher Morrell
christopher.morrell.na...@gmail.com wrote:
I think CANIX in Toronto has been dead for years. I used to operate the
switch for it in my days at UUNET in the 90s.
Yes, very dead.
In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1?
Peer1
In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1?
Peer1 exchanges are only open to Peer1 customers, I believe. At least,
that's how it worked in Toronto the last time I looked.
that is not an exchange. most isps have switches in their transit
infrastructure.
randy
by 100Km in width as most of the population lives within
100Km of the Canada-US border, but yes, it's a big country.
Since then, QIX in Montreal has opened up from a research-only IXP, to a
neutral peering facility. MBIX in Winnipeg has started, and YYCIX in
Calgary is up and running as well
The main reason we are collecting feedback for Vancouver is that both VANTX and
PIX are not member based IXP organizations, VANTX is owned and operated by
BCnet, a RE organization, and PIX is owned and operated by Peer1.
We heard from a few people in Vancouver that they would like to have
On Aug 21, 2013, at 3:57 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1?
Peer1 exchanges are only open to Peer1 customers, I believe. At least,
that's how it worked in Toronto the last time I looked.
that is not an exchange. most isps
Correct. The ones in black are exchanges, the ones in gray are things
that someone asserted to have been exchanges, or asserted will be
exchanges.
glad it's all so black and white, well grey. :)
as i use an old fashioned mail reader, it's all
(set-foreground-color navajo white)
to me.
On 8/21/13 6:56 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
but how do you represent seattle colonolizing bc?
keep your potatoes out of my pig.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_War
randy
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Randy Bush wrote:
In Montreal, is anyone at the Peer1 exchange other than Peer1?
Peer1 exchanges are only open to Peer1 customers, I believe. At least,
that's how it worked in Toronto the last time I looked.
that is not an exchange. most isps have switches in their
are asserting different things (i.e. that something is,
and is not, an IXP) the situation is, by definition, contentious. We move
things into the definitely an exchange and show it in black text when we're
able to observe a number of things:
- Three or more participants
- Shared layer-2 switch fabric
At 10:21 AM 21/08/2013, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote
The Peer1 setups remind me very much of what Group Telecom (defunct
Canadian backbone provider) did in the very late 90's and the very
early part of the last decade. They had them in nearly every city
they had their facilities, but the
New IXP founders typically contact our staff
wow! i did not know we had the ixp god here! lemme go back to my
camera-ready dreadline. :)
- Three or more participants
- Shared layer-2 switch fabric across which participants peer with
each other, exchanging customer routes
- New
) was to give the community of interest (gawd what
a PC-style phrase) assurance that the IXP would not be held hostage to a
bottom-line or to the dictates of the single owner. In other words,
neutral.
(Now going for-profit could have been tempered with issuing one share per
peer and having share
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
New IXP founders typically contact our staff
wow! i did not know we had the ixp god here! lemme go back to my
camera-ready dreadline. :)
- Three or more participants
- Shared layer-2 switch fabric across which
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:10:32PM -0400, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest
could run a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long
as they had pricing and policies that
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Randy Bush wrote:
and i would add carrier neutrality, i can haul fiber from anyone into
the exchange. this is pretty critical in the exchanges where i have
played.
Facility neutrality especially. If the IXP is inside a non-neutral DC,
it and its peers are always under
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:10:32PM -0400, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest could run
a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long as they had
pricing and policies that
all so black and white, well grey. :)
When different people are asserting different things (i.e. that
something is, and is not, an IXP) the situation is, by definition,
contentious. We move things into the definitely an exchange and show
it in black text when we're able to observe a number
that's already
been written, are any of these IXPs capable of becoming self-sustaining in
the future? It's a rhetorical question applicable to any starting IXP and
requires an understanding of the local environment.
wfms
At 01:15 PM 21/08/2013, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
Facility neutrality especially. If the IXP is inside a non-neutral
DC, it and its peers are always under constant threat of being
squeezed out or shutdown by any number of circumstances. If the
co-lo business were separate from
anxiety lies with the future: Given everything that's already been
written, are any of these IXPs capable of becoming self-sustaining in the
future? It's a rhetorical question applicable to any starting IXP and
requires an understanding of the local environment.
wfms
Omnibus reply warning. Skip this one unless you're really into IXP trivia.
On Aug 21, 2013, at 7:52 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
- New participation is not too rigorously constrained (at least a
domestic ISP new market entrant should be able to participate)
imiho, it is also nice
Hi Randy,
On 2013-08-20, at 01:05, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
As you may know CIRA has been working with groups across Canada to
establish new IXPs.
wow! i thought there were a lot of ixps, torix, vantx, ...
The TorIX has been the most significant exchange point with growth and
are these open, neutral, ixps, a la six etc? or big players trying to
save the internet from itself?
would some of the *local* providers in the areas who actually use the
cira ixen care to report on the experience?
ok, i have heard privately from folk who i respect. cira seems to be on
the
On 20 August 2013 09:05, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ok, i have heard privately from folk who i respect. cira seems to be on
the up and up and doing good professional work.
haha. yes, because Canadians are normally so sinister and nefarious...
On 08/20/2013 09:52 AM, Harald Koch wrote:
On 20 August 2013 09:05, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ok, i have heard privately from folk who i respect. cira seems to be on
the up and up and doing good professional work.
haha. yes, because Canadians are normally so sinister and nefarious...
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Harald Koch c...@pobox.com wrote:
On 20 August 2013 09:05, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ok, i have heard privately from folk who i respect. cira seems to be on
the up and up and doing good professional work.
haha. yes, because Canadians are normally so
On August 20, 2013 at 11:12 alte...@alter3d.ca (Peter Kristolaitis) wrote:
On 08/20/2013 09:52 AM, Harald Koch wrote:
On 20 August 2013 09:05, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ok, i have heard privately from folk who i respect. cira seems to be on
the up and up and doing good
At 02:36 PM 20/08/2013, Barry Shein wrote:
US Senator Ted Cruz just renounced his Canadian (dual w/ US)
citizenship.
I'm just saying.
My take on Canada? Quiet...too quiet...
So we can count him with the likes of Conrad Black? :D
--
-Barry Shein
The World |
in a country 5000 km wide is not good enough.
Since then, QIX in Montreal has opened up from a research-only IXP, to a
neutral peering facility. MBIX in Winnipeg has started, and YYCIX in
Calgary is up and running as well. Vancouver is still lacking.
are these open, neutral, ixps, a la six etc? or big
The old generation QIX (in Montreal) has been around a long time as an IXP
where commercial players have been present. It was managed and operated by RISQ
(a research network) but most of the members were commercial.
The new generation of QIX is managed much like TorIX and continues
On Aug 20, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Christopher Morrell
christopher.morrell.na...@gmail.com wrote:
In Winnipeg, isn't there also the WPGIX? Do you have two competing IXPs in
Winnipeg?
There are nominally competing efforts in Winnipeg (MBIX and WPGIX), Calgary
(YYCIX and AlbertaIX), Montreal (QIX
in the areas who actually use the
cira ixen care to report on the experience?
When we started this work, we didn't know that Vancouver already had
an IXP
in depth research, eh?
We and BCNet are planning a town hall style meeting in late September,
tentatively September 26, to talk about the IXP needs
On 26/06/2012 07:45, Graham Beneke wrote:
Which FOSS flow collectors do an decent/adequate job at crunching about
10Gbps worth of flows and presenting it in a useful way?
Just to clarify - there are 3 switch fabrics involved here. One from
vendor C, one from vendor J and a third new fabric
on flows support and caveats with the
various vendors and platforms since the this third vendor still must be
chosen and it would be handy to quantify the flows support of the proposed
platform.
Graham,
INEX has open-sourced its IXP provisioning system (github.com/inex), and
part
on a medium sized IXP. All we have at the moment is some MRTG
graphs and we're trying to get a better view into IPv4 vs IPv6, src and
dst MACs, packet sizes and also perhaps port protocol trends.
I found Richard A. Steenbergen's NANOG 39 presentation and not much
since then.
Is it still correct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 06/25/2012 10:45 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
Hi All
I'm busy doing some digging to find a solution for collecting
layer-2 flows data on a medium sized IXP. All we have at the moment
is some MRTG graphs and we're trying to get a better
Hi All
I'm busy doing some digging to find a solution for collecting layer-2
flows data on a medium sized IXP. All we have at the moment is some MRTG
graphs and we're trying to get a better view into IPv4 vs IPv6, src and
dst MACs, packet sizes and also perhaps port protocol trends.
I
exchange participants leave an ixp, lots of people don't
bother to remove the bgp sessions. If as a newcomer to the IXP you get a
re-used ip address, without md5 it can sometimes be possible to do
Interesting and Bad Things with old sessions from other ixp participants.
FWIW, for the INEX route
On 9 Mar 2012, at 22:24, Jay Hanke wrote:
How critical is BGP MD5 at Internet Exchange Points? Would lack of
support for MD5 authentication on route servers prevent some peers
from multilaterally connecting? Do most exchange operators support it?
At LONAP in London, the route-servers do not
Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org writes:
Because TCP MD5 packets touch a router's CPU, using MD5 introduces a
new attack vector - see nanogii passim
(e.g. http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog39/presentations/Scholl.pdf).
Don't do it. :-)
Tom's slide deck is often misinterpreted - the salient
How critical is BGP MD5 at Internet Exchange Points? Would lack of
support for MD5 authentication on route servers prevent some peers
from multilaterally connecting? Do most exchange operators support it?
Thanks!
Jay
/2012-January/thread.html
Search for MD5.
Most IXP route servers support it, few require it. So even if you do it on
your side, doesn't mean someone else did it on their side.
I've never seen anyone refuse to connect to an IXP route server that did not,
but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened
I'm looking for connectivity options in the Mexico City area. Initial
impressions suggest Mexico has a fairly closed market. That being
said:
Who offers good IP/BGP connectivity in and around Mexico City?Who
offers good Ethernet connectivity in and around Mexico City?Who offers
wave/fiber services
Hi,
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:44:56 -0800
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:36:28PM -0500,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
leaking the IX prefix to customers, to me, seems like a recipe for
much wider/unintended leakage :(
Oh, it is. I remember
From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 7:04 PM
To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
mksm...@adhost.commailto:mksm
17, 2011 7:04 PM
To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost mksm...@adhost.com
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com]
Sent
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
mksm...@adhost.com wrote:
Sorry for the misfire on my last email. The 206.81.80.0/23 network is
assigned to the SIX from ARIN. In general, we don't want
people to announce that space to the DFZ, so the three providers listed above
-Original Message-
From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com
[mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 11:34 AM
To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
Cc: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Internet Exchange Point(IXP
On 2011-02-18, at 14:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
mksm...@adhost.com wrote:
Sorry for the misfire on my last email. The 206.81.80.0/23 network is
assigned to the SIX from ARIN. In general, we don't want
people to announce
In a message written on Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:34:21PM -0500, Christopher
Morrow wrote:
why is it a good idea to send this to your customers? the next-hop
info is surely only useful to your local network? done right it's even
only relevant to the IX connected router, right? it seems wholely
about routing bits, I missed your
point about people being able to ping an IX interface... I'd submit
that in many networks the path to the nexthop may be a vastly
different one than the path to 'the broken thing' through the
isp/ixp/isp set of routers.
I meant: Is the nexthop in your (the ixp
to them.
hopefully the path to the IXP prefix is the same as to the item they
are testing failure of? :)
, but can't find
a reference really quick that they get transit for it from a couple
of providers so those that don't peer still have the route.
I mean really, you have a block. If your IXP matters it's already
taking up space in all of the largest ISP's tables anyway, so there's no
saving a route
through the
SIX connection if I announce the /23 to them.
hopefully the path to the IXP prefix is the same as to the item they
are testing failure of? :)
Of course it isn't. Perhaps you missed my implication in the original
mail I wrote. :)
The customers cloging up your help desk with this sort
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
The customers cloging up your help desk with this sort of stuff are
idiots. Unfortunately that's where the majority of your helpdesk time
goes...
i admit to missing it :( but yes, now with the explanation, I get your point
routers may use several IP prefixes for routing,
how often does the IP prefixes have their own AS?
2. For type 2, all peers connected to the IXP must work in the same subnet
required by Ethernet rules. Is possible that the subnet IP prefixes belong
to some private IP address space, such as 192.168.x.x
-Original Message-
From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:03 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
I'm doing some research on multiple origin AS problems of IXPs. As I know,
generally there are two
In a message written on Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:17:48AM +, Michael K. Smith
- Adhost wrote:
On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned addresses that
we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above). Hopefully the addresses
aren't being announced at all, although we
On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned
addresses that we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above).
Hopefully the addresses aren't being announced at all, although we
sometimes have to chase down people that announce it.
I've had to deal with exchanges like this in
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
mksm...@adhost.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:03 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
I'm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Yaoqing(Joey) Liu wrote:
As I know, generally there are two types of IXPs
This is incorrect.
type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3
This is not an IXP. This is a router. That router would be owned
type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3
This is not an IXP. This is a router. That router would be owned by
someone, who would have some sort of policy in the router, which would
make it an Internet service provider, not an Internet exchange point.
this from the guy who pushed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
this from the guy who pushed layer three exchange points for years?
rofl!
I was one of the people who built one in 1994, and used it quite happily for a
few years, until it had outlasted its need.
On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange
traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange
point
On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs
exchange traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest
exchange point for
On 3/4/10 8:57 AM, Jay Hanke jha...@myclearwave.net wrote:
snip
We've seen the same issues in Minnesota. Locally referred to as the Chicago
Problem. Adding on to point 3, there is also a lack of neutral facilities
with a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the next carrier connecting.
In
On 2010-03-03, at 18:51, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange
traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange
point for Alaska ISPs?
PCH doesn't know of
On 3/4/10 8:57 AM, Jay Hanke jha...@myclearwave.net wrote:
snip
We've seen the same issues in Minnesota. Locally referred to as the
Chicago
. Problem. Adding on to point 3, there is also a lack of neutral
facilities
with a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the next carrier
connecting.
Subject: RE: Alaska IXP?
On 3/4/10 8:57 AM, Jay Hanke jha...@myclearwave.net wrote:
snip
We've seen the same issues in Minnesota. Locally referred to as the
Chicago
. Problem. Adding on to point 3, there is also a lack of neutral
facilities
with a sufficient amount of traffic to justify the next
On Mar 4, 2010, at 10:33 AM, Jay Hanke wrote:
From the looks of the link it looks like there is a bit of traction at the
MadIX. One of the other interested carriers has talked to the University of
MN and they showed some interest in participating. The trick is getting the
first couple of
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:41:38 CST, Aaron Wendel said:
We have very similar issues in Kansas City. A couple years ago we set up a
local exchange point but it's had issues gaining traction due to a lack of
understanding more than anything else. In these smaller markets people have
a hard time
On Mar 4, 2010, at 12:13 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:41:38 CST, Aaron Wendel said:
We have very similar issues in Kansas City. A couple years ago we set up a
local exchange point but it's had issues gaining traction due to a lack of
understanding more than
[snip]
Does anybody have some numbers they're able to share? In the two small
ISPs
in the boonies scenario, *is* there enough cross traffic to make an
interconnect worth it? (I'd expect that gaming/IM/email across town to a
friend
on The Other ISP would dominate here?) Or are both
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Or at the cogent website ($4/meg) do the cost justify peering anymore?
Personally I'd rather pay $10 for something that works, than $4 for
something that doesn't
sc...@zaphod:~$ telnet www.cogentco.com 80
Trying
Joe Abley wrote:
On 2010-03-03, at 18:51, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:13 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Are there any common locations in Alaska where multiple local ISPs exchange
traffic, either transit or peering? Or is Seattle the closest exchange
point for Alaska
101 - 200 of 284 matches
Mail list logo
