On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Neil Harris wrote:
> On 22/06/13 16:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as well.
Matt
Or indeed by the media player sending large amounts of traffic back to
>>> the CDN via auxiliary HTTP POST requ
On 22/06/13 16:34, Owen DeLong wrote:
That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as well.
Matt
Or indeed by the media player sending large amounts of traffic back to the CDN
via auxiliary HTTP POST requests?
Neil
That would assume that the client has symmetrical upstream bandw
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Robert M. Enger wrote:
> Perhaps last-mile operators should
> A) advertise each of their metropolitan regional systems as a separate AS
> B) establish an interconnection point in each region where they will accept
> traffic destined for their in-region customers wi
When you convert your botnet to a business model, you have to change the name.
If it's a business, the politically correct term is "Elastic Cloud Computing"
Owen
On Jun 22, 2013, at 6:19 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
> Botnets to help with peering ratio's could be a new business model? :)
>
>
> On
Botnets to help with peering ratio's could be a new business model? :)
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Neil Harris
> wrote:
> > On 22/06/13 13:08, Matthew Petach wrote:
> >> That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as w
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> On 22/06/13 13:08, Matthew Petach wrote:
>> That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as well.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Or indeed by the media player sending large amounts of traffic back to the
> CDN via auxiliary HTTP POST requests?
ah.
>>
>> That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as well.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>
> Or indeed by the media player sending large amounts of traffic back to the
> CDN via auxiliary HTTP POST requests?
>
> Neil
>
>
>
That would assume that the client has symmetrical upstream bandwidth ove
On 22/06/13 13:08, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:29 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:39:56 +0200, Niels Bakker said:
You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets
going in and out.
And even if the number of packets match, there's the whole "1500 byte
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:29 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:39:56 +0200, Niels Bakker said:
>
> > You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets
> > going in and out.
>
> And even if the number of packets match, there's the whole "1500 bytes
> of data, 64 bytes of ACK" t
>> i have not been able to find it easily, but some years back rexford
>> and others published on a crypto method for peers to negotiate
>> traffic adjustment between multiple peering points with minimal
>> disclosure. it was a cool paper.
> I don't know Jen's work on this off the top of my head,
On Jun 21, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On 2013-06-21 4:54 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> Again, this only matters if you place a great deal of importance both on the
>> notion that size equals fairness, and that fairness is more important than
>> efficiency.
>> ...
>>> I think th
On 2013-06-21 4:54 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Again, this only matters if you place a great deal of importance both on the
notion that size equals fairness, and that fairness is more important than
efficiency.
...
I think the point is here that networks are nudging these decisions by making
cer
On Jun 20, 2013, at 1:39 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets going in
> and out.
I'm aware that neither the quantity nor the size of packets in each direction
are equal. I'm just hard-pressed to think of a reason why this matters, and
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 6/20/2013 10:26 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Many things aren't as obvious as you state above. Take for example routing
table growth. There's going to be a big boom in selling routers (or turning
off full routes) when folks devices melt at 512k routes in t
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 12:26:01AM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
[snip]
> Also, if you don't have data, best to keep your opinion to yourself,
> because you might well be wrong.
The deuce you say! Replacing uninformed conjecture and conspiracy
theories with actual data? Next thing you know there
On 6/20/2013 10:26 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Many things aren't as obvious as you state above. Take for example routing
> table growth. There's going to be a big boom in selling routers (or turning
> off full routes) when folks devices melt at 512k routes in the coming years.
Indeed. We're ru
On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:10 PM, "Aaron C. de Bruyn" wrote:
> Why is there a variable charge for bandwidth anyways?
>
> In a very simplistic setup, if I have a router that costs $X and I run a $5
> CAT6 cable to someone elses router which cost them $Y, plus a bit of
> maintenance time to set up the
Maybe someone could enlighten my ignorance on this issue.
Why is there a variable charge for bandwidth anyways?
In a very simplistic setup, if I have a router that costs $X and I run a $5
CAT6 cable to someone elses router which cost them $Y, plus a bit of
maintenance time to set up the connectio
It's only cutting off your nose to spite your face if you look at the
internet BU in a vacuum. The issue comes when they can get far more money
from their existing product line, than what they get being a dumb bandwidth
pipe to their customers.
They don't want reasonable or even unreasonable prici
On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Robert M. Enger wrote:
> Perhaps last-mile operators should
> A) advertise each of their metropolitan regional systems as a separate AS
> B) establish an interconnection point in each region where they will accept
> traffic destined for their in-region customers wit
Perhaps last-mile operators should
A) advertise each of their metropolitan regional systems as a separate AS
B) establish an interconnection point in each region where they will accept
traffic destined for their in-region customers without charging any fee
This leaves the operational model of W
* o...@delong.com (Owen DeLong) [Thu 20 Jun 2013, 23:38 CEST]:
On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
* wo...@pch.net (Bill Woodcock) [Thu 20 Jun 2013, 16:59 CEST]:
On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Benson Schliesser
wrote:
Right. By "sending peer" I meant the network transmitting a pa
On Jun 20, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> * wo...@pch.net (Bill Woodcock) [Thu 20 Jun 2013, 16:59 CEST]:
>> On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>
>>> Right. By "sending peer" I meant the network transmitting a packet,
>>> unidirectional flow, or other aggregate of
On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 22:39:56 +0200, Niels Bakker said:
> You're mistaken if you think that CDNs have equal number of packets
> going in and out.
And even if the number of packets match, there's the whole "1500 bytes
of data, 64 bytes of ACK" thing to factor in...
pgp0aUntNCndk.pgp
Description:
* wo...@pch.net (Bill Woodcock) [Thu 20 Jun 2013, 16:59 CEST]:
On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
Right. By "sending peer" I meant the network transmitting a
packet, unidirectional flow, or other aggregate of traffic into
another network. I'm not assuming anything about wh
> The tools cannot estimate burden into the peers network very well,
> particularly when longest-exit routing is implement to balance the
> mileage burden, so each party shares their information with each other
> and compares data in order to make decisions.
>
> It's not common, but there are a ha
On Jun 20, 2013, at 5:37 AM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Right. By "sending peer" I meant the network transmitting a packet,
> unidirectional flow, or other aggregate of traffic into another
> network. I'm not assuming anything about whether they are offering
> "content" or something else - I thin
ul of peers that share this information
with each other.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Benson Schliesser [mailto:bens...@queuefull.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:45 AM
To: Siegel, David
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: net neutrality and peering war
On Jun 19, 2013, at 23:41, "Siegel, David" wrote:
> Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have a
> way of evaluating the relative burdens. Every major net flow Analytics
> vendor is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that
> each party
On Jun 20, 2013, at 8:09, Martin Barry wrote:
> On 20 June 2013 13:07, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Benson Schliesser
>> wrote:
>>> The sending peer (or their customer) has more control over cost.
>>
>> I'll assume that, by "sending peer," you mean the content network.
On 20 June 2013 13:07, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Benson Schliesser
> wrote:
> > The sending peer (or their customer) has more control over cost.
>
> I'll assume that, by "sending peer," you mean the content network. If so,
> I disagree. The content network has no co
On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> The sending peer (or their customer) has more control over cost.
I'll assume that, by "sending peer," you mean the content network. If so, I
disagree. The content network has no control whatsoever over the location of
the eyeball custo
Let's not kid ourselves, the transit providers are just as greedy. Even the
tier 2 ones (minus HE). My favorite is when they turn down your request
because you have an out of band circuit in a remote pop with them. As if
we're stuffing 800G of traffic down a 1G circuit that's never seen 100K of
tra
Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have a
way of evaluating the relative burdens. Every major net flow Analytics vendor
is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that each party
can calculate not only how much traffic they carry for each
On 2013-06-19 8:46 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
That was a great argument in 1993, and was in fact largely true in system that
existed at that time. However today what you describe no longer really makes
any sense.
While it is technically true that the protocols favor asymmetric routing, your
t
On Jun 19, 2013, at 7:31 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> What do you mean "not really buy the balanced traffic story"? Ratio can
> matter when routing is asymmetric. (If costs can be approximated as distance
> x volume, forwarding hot-potato places a higher burden on the recipient...)
> And we
On 2013-06-19 7:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some
are eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a
lot of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's
point. randy
What do you mean "not really bu
peering terms, don't you think?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Wayne E Bouchard [mailto:w...@typo.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:03 PM
To: Dorian Kim
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:44:15PM -0400, Dorian Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > > as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
> > > eyeballs and some are eye can
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 06:39:48PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
> > eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
> > of words to justify variou
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
> Verizon wishes money to accept data it requested from other vendors, film
> at 11.
The phrase you're looking for is, "double billing." Same byte, two payers.
-Bill
--
William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
On Jun 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> as someone who does not really buy the balanced traffic story, some are
> eyeballs and some are eye candy and that's just life, seems like a lot
> of words to justify various attempts at control, higgenbottom's point.
I agree with Randy, but will
Or alternately:
Verizon wishes money to accept data it requested from other vendors, film
at 11.
It's all in the application of the angular momentum...
-Blake
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> > Even better by Verizon -
> >
> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unba
> Even better by Verizon -
> http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalanced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon-cogent-dispute
>
> Some may recognize the name of the author for the WSJ article given
> she attended NANOG in Orlando -
> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424
Even better by Verizon -
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/unbalanced-peering-and-the-real-story-behind-the-verizon-cogent-dispute
Some may recognize the name of the author for the WSJ article given
she attended NANOG in Orlando -
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323836
good article by Stacey Higginbotham
http://gigaom.com/2013/06/19/peering-pressure-the-secret-battle-to-control-the-future-of-the-internet/
46 matches
Mail list logo
