In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:59:25PM -0600, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
I believe that's what I said. To be perfectly clear, what I'm saying is:
* Comcast acted first by demanding fees
* Level 3 went public first by whining about it after they agreed to pay
* Comcast was
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 06:31:39AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:59:25PM -0600, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
I believe that's what I said. To be perfectly clear, what I'm saying is:
* Comcast acted first by demanding fees
* Level 3 went
Comcast has released additional details publically. Of course, this is
their side of the story, so I wouldn't believe it hook line and sinker
but it helps fill in the gaps.
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/11/comcasts-letter-to-fcc-on-level-3.html
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE
I've collected my fav links (inc. nanog posts) on this topic on
http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1504.
If there are issues with my brief explanation please let me know.
j
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
Comcast has released additional details publically.
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:29:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org
Anyone else seeing this or know the cause?
5: ash1-pr2-xe-2-3-0-0.us.twtelecom.net (66.192.244.214) 29.758ms
6: pos-3-11-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.145) asymm 11
846.582ms
7:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
We have seen the same thing with other carriers. As far as I can see,
Comcast is congested, at least at Equinix in San Jose. Since this is
all over private connections (at least in our case), the fabric is not
an issue.
Maybe
I would have said OK, and then we'll go ahead and renew your contract
with us at current price + $X/Mbps.
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
We have seen the same thing with other
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:12:23PM -0600, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
The part that I find most interesting about this current debacle is how
Comcast has managed to convince people that this is a peering dispute,
when in reality Comcast and Level3 have never been peers
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:45:57PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Actually it appears to be Level 3 who fired the first PR salvo running
to the FCC, if the date stamps on the statements are right. So it's
really Level 3 framing as a net neutrality peering issue the fact that
Comcast balked at
While its pile on Comcast night, I'll add that that the Comcast peers with
Cablevision Lightpath are also a mess in New York, Ashburn and Chicago right
now. Have been for at least the last hour or two. According to Cablevision
we were not the first to report it and the feedback I have from them
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:24:47PM -0600, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
I never said otherwise. The PR is pretty clear: Level 3 says that
Comcast, their TRANSIT CUSTOMER, demanded that Level 3 pay them because
of a ratio imbalance. Level 3, not wanting to cause massive
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:53:25PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I'm not privy to the deal, but I will point out as reported it makes no
sense, so there is something else going on here. This is where both
sids are hiding the real truth. I suspect it's one of two scenarios:
- Comcast
On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I don't know about their connection to TWT, but Comcast has definitely
been running their transits congested. The most obvious one from recent
months is Tata, which appears to be massively congested for upwards of
12 hours a day
13 matches
Mail list logo
