Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:00:52PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote: I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own network. Mr. Bennett, You know when I first read your post, I assumed you were just ignorant and confused about the topic of peering on the Internet. Then I

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Richard Bennett
Thank you for your insights. Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:00:52PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote: I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own network. Mr. Bennett, You know when I first read your post, I assumed you were just

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread William Allen Simpson
Richard Bennett wrote: Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity. Sure, no problem. -- Richard Bennett Research Fellow Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Washington, DC In summary, Mr Bennett is an unregistered lobbyist, employed by other registered

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Richard Bennett
Now you've descended from Steenbergen's hair-splitting between on-net routes (the mechanism) vs. on-net access (the actual product) into Simpson's straight-up lying. ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network Neutrality,

RE: [SPAM-HEADER] - Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering - Email has different SMTP TO: and MIME TO: fields in the email addresses

2009-11-25 Thread Rod Beck
Hi Richard, I am late to this dicussion. So I don't have a full understanding of the context or history of this debate. It is clear to many of us that Telcos lost the content wars and this is their way of trying to get a slice of the content providers (Google, Microsoft, etc.) add revenues.

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Paul Wall
RB- Where can we find data on your group's funding sources? If we're to continue this discussion, we need to establish bias and motive, which you've not covered on your own accord. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: Now you've descended from

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Aaron Cossey
Would you care to elaborate on how the investigation of someones funding sources is operationally relevant to the rest of the list? Aaron Cossey aaron.cos...@gmail.com On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Paul Wall pauldotw...@gmail.com wrote: RB- Where can we find data on your group's funding

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Randy Bush
Would you care to elaborate on how the investigation of someones funding sources is operationally relevant to the rest of the list? please no we have a greedy troll. stop feeding it. procmail is your friend. randy

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Richard Bennett
I didn't bring this discussion over here, hippie. Randy Bush wrote: Would you care to elaborate on how the investigation of someones funding sources is operationally relevant to the rest of the list? please no we have a greedy troll. stop feeding it. procmail is your friend. randy

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said: ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network Neutrality, http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=63. All of four paragraphs, which don't in fact address what

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Jared Mauch
On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:13 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said: ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network Neutrality,

RE: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Ivan Pepelnjak
Oh wait, those billions got pocketed - if the massive fiber buildout had happened, we'd have so much bandwidth that neutrality wouldn't be an issue... Maybe this is how the fiber got used :)) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFoG

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Richard Bennett
Click through to the PDF, it's a 16 page paper. RB [1]valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 PST, Richard Bennett said: ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality in principle, having released a paper on A Third Way on Network Neutrality,

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Darren Bolding
Whether or not Mr Bennett has any idea what he is talking about- and I have started to develop an opinion on that subject myself- I really would rather not see Nanog become a forum for partisan political discussion. There are _lots_ of places for that, which as a political junkie I read

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Richard Bennett
(pardon me if this message is not formatted correctly, T-bird doesn't like this list) I agree that this is not the proper venue for discussion of the politics of Internet regulation; the post I wrote for GigaOm has comments enabled, and many people with an anti-capitalist bone to pick have

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:29:33PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote: (pardon me if this message is not formatted correctly, T-bird doesn't like this list) I agree that this is not the proper venue for discussion of the politics of Internet regulation; the post I wrote for GigaOm has comments

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-25 Thread Richard A Steenbergen
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 02:29:33PM -0800, Richard Bennett wrote: * One claim I made in my blog post is that traffic increases on the Internet aren't measured by MINTS very well. MINTS uses data from Meet-me switches, but IX's and colos are pulling x-connects like mad so more and more

fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-24 Thread Suresh Ramasubramanian
http://gigaom.com/2009/11/22/how-video-is-changing-the-internet/ Does the FTC's question 106 hurt paid peering or not? 88 comments. Makes real interesting reading, I must say. srs

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-24 Thread Richard Bennett
Yes, it's a good old-fashioned Usenet-style flame-fest. Sort of. It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since nobody has any facts. RB Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: http://gigaom.com/2009/11/22/how-video-is-changing-the-internet/ Does the FTC's question 106 hurt

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-24 Thread Niels Bakker
* rich...@bennett.com (Richard Bennett) [Wed 25 Nov 2009, 05:56 CET]: It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since nobody has any facts. You're projecting. -- Niels.

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-24 Thread Randy Bush
It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since nobody has any facts. not really. it's just that those with the facts have no reason to blab them and reasons not to do so. randy

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-24 Thread Richard Bennett
I haven't found a good source who knows what's going on outside his own network. Randy Bush wrote: It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since nobody has any facts. not really. it's just that those with the facts have no reason to blab them and reasons not to

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-24 Thread Paul Wall
On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett rich...@bennett.com wrote: It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since nobody has any facts. Indeed you can. This is one of things where the people with the hard facts aren't talking due to NDA, regard for their pride, or both. In the

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-24 Thread Richard Bennett
Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity. Paul Wall wrote: On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett [1]rich...@bennett.com wrote: It turns out you can say any damn thing you want about peering since nobody has any facts. Indeed you can. This is one of things where the people

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-24 Thread Richard Bennett
Of course, the FCC/FTC could always get involved and mandate full disclosure and peering neutrality. That might be fun. RB Richard Bennett wrote: Speculation about how the money flows is a worthwhile activity. Paul Wall wrote: On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett [1]rich...@bennett.com wrote:

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering

2009-11-24 Thread bmanning
and in the absence of source routing, why would I care what happens past the first hop? to the extent I can know, document, and prove my internal network and its connectivity to its peers, that becomes the item of value, the reputation of the network and its treatment of its peers,