Florian Weimer wrote:
* Seth Mattinen:
4. Multihome.
Or get upstream from someone who does, and who is small enough to be
able to get additional upstream upon short notice. I know that this
solution isn't always cost-effective. 8-/
(Multihoming alone isn't a solution because it's hard to fi
On 11/3/08, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if anyone is actually saying anything new here, please point it out.
> otherwise this seems like a lot of folk rehashing things from 1992 and
> every year since, trying to demonstrate how smart they are, which
> demonstrates how smart they are
> Not all of us have been on the list since 92 or other years. Not all
> of us are as informed about these things as you might be.
that's why we have it every year. only this year the volume has been
radically increased with no increase in content, just pontification.
randy
Randy Bush wrote:
if anyone is actually saying anything new here, please point it out.
otherwise this seems like a lot of folk rehashing things from 1992 and
every year since, trying to demonstrate how smart they are, which
demonstrates how smart they are not.
Not all of us have been on the
"Justin M. Streiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> Ah yes, I suspect we can get all the network operators here to agree that
>> any
>> customer of another ISP should buy a second connection "just in case". Maybe
>> this breakage will turn out to be th
if anyone is actually saying anything new here, please point it out.
otherwise this seems like a lot of folk rehashing things from 1992 and
every year since, trying to demonstrate how smart they are, which
demonstrates how smart they are not.
randy
Adam Rothschild wrote:
>On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
>> work [...]
>
>This is less than clear, and largely dependent on a specific
>organization's [in]ability to function if their internet
Patrick wrote:
>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 de
On Sunday 02 November 2008 10:28:31 Joe Greco wrote:
> previous poster wrote:
> > so perhaps look at
> > your own setup and decide that you need that 2nd connection to back you
> > up when first one fails. This is a simple business logic.
> Is it just me, or is this awful logic?
Awful or not, th
> No, but the providers who provide those connections should be multihomed.
> If they're not, I'd consider switching providers. Simple as that.
Am I the only one to whom this sounds really strange?
I really doubt that customers going to buy Sprint EVDO service are asking
about "are you multihom
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
> No, but the providers who provide those connections should be multihomed.
> If they're not, I'd consider switching providers. Simple as that.
>
> jms
multihomed to whichever parties decide to generate split ups on purpose
in the intarrwebbz.. meaning: all of them.. (you can never tell which on
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Ah yes, I suspect we can get all the network operators here to agree that any
customer of another ISP should buy a second connection "just in case". Maybe
this breakage will turn out to be the best way for everyone to double their
customer base overni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rod Beck wrote:
> I'll make one comment before 'Alex the Hammer' closes this discussion
> for straying into politics.
>
> Clearly regulating the incumbents to unbundle local loops has worked
> very well in some European countries (France and possibly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
> Dave Blaine wrote:
>> There are at least three ways to address this Sprint / Cogent partition
> I'd be fairly reluctant to allow the government to get involved in
> peering relationships too deeply. Australia has some very
snip. Of course, it appears that Sprint
didn't communicate anything to its customers, either.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Randy Epstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:50 PM
To: 'Frank Bulk'; 'Rod Beck'; 'Patrick Giagnocavo'
>It would be better to regulate some type of communication to customers
>*before* depeering occurs, much in the same way that the SEC requires
>publicly traded companies to communicate certain things a certain times to
>its shareholders.
Wait. Cogent's known about this risk factor for some time
rick Giagnocavo; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
I'll make one comment before 'Alex the Hammer' closes this discussion for
straying into politics.
Clearly regulating the incumbents to unbundle local loops has worked very
well in some Euro
Repent repent, for the end is near.
People like to say that the Internet interprets (censorship,
monopolies, clue deficits, et al.) as congestion, and routes around --
but they got the causality exactly backwards. The Internet is an
epiphenomenon of the possibility of bypass, which enables
On 11/2/08, Matthew Petach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/2/08, Adam Rothschild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
> >
> > This is less than clear, and
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:09:43 -0500
From: Adam Rothschild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
> work [...]
...
If anything, these recent de-peerings underscore the lack of w
On 11/2/08, Adam Rothschild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
>
> > work [...]
>
> This is less than clear, and largely dependent on a specific
> organization's [
On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
> work [...]
This is less than clear, and largely dependent on a specific
organization's [in]ability to function if their internets go down.
End-site multihomin
I am well aware how retarded this sounds to an average end-user, and
for that I am glad I am not in a buisness where I need to explain it
to them. But experience gained working for a party involved in a
previus Cogent spat I am well aware of what the SLAs and service sold
is.
You can chan
On Nov 2, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Anders Lindbäck wrote:
Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that
contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of
a limit in your contract.
There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract,
adding
> Nice interpretation of my statement..
>
> A reasonable effort and a contractual guarantee are two different
> things, a reasonable effort could be defined as economicly feasable
> for instance.
"Economically feasible?"
If it isn't economically feasible, then repair your pricing model so th
Nice interpretation of my statement..
A reasonable effort and a contractual guarantee are two different
things, a reasonable effort could be defined as economicly feasable
for instance.
My point was that in Cogents case this is really a force majeure
situation and in Sprints case unless y
William Warren wrote:
If things were truly operating as designed the internet would be able to
automatically route around this depeering..the problem is not only do
these two depeer but they also totally block any other traffic coming in
from the other side. This is not how things should be d
> > But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
> > work, two connections at home, two connections for each mobile device,
> > just to ensure that when large providers stop working together you can
> > still reach what you need to reach.
>
> I think you're misinterpreting w
* Seth Mattinen:
> 4. Multihome.
Or get upstream from someone who does, and who is small enough to be
able to get additional upstream upon short notice. I know that this
solution isn't always cost-effective. 8-/
(Multihoming alone isn't a solution because it's hard to figure out
how independent
> Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that
> contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of
> a limit in your contract.
>
> There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract,
> adding one would be a rather bad idea since there
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
James Jun wrote:
As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I
also have
no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either
networks. If you are complaining about Sprint<->Cogent depeering and have
customers demanding for your miss
>
> But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
> work, two connections at home, two connections for each mobile device,
> just to ensure that when large providers stop working together you can
> still reach what you need to reach.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm t
Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that
contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of
a limit in your contract.
There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract,
adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no deliv
> As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have
> no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either
> networks. If you are complaining about Sprint<->Cogent depeering and have
> customers demanding for your mission-critical services, then you are
James Jun wrote:
How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable
price?
If no body steps up, we don't need it.
There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked
capitalism can have disastrous results.
And there are lot of examples and a
James Jun wrote:
As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have
no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either
networks. If you are complaining about Sprint<->Cogent depeering and have
customers demanding for your mission-critical services, th
At 09:33 AM 11/2/2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote:
It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government intervention
The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive
would be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive would
be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is selling access
to it, mandate that customers can demand a refund in case the "Internet
Access" doesn't provide access to enough a big part
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote:
It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government
intervention
The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive would
be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is selling access to
it, mandate that customers can d
> > How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable
> price?
> > If no body steps up, we don't need it.
>
> There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked
> capitalism can have disastrous results.
And there are lot of examples and ample evidence in history, in m
I'll make one comment before 'Alex the Hammer' closes this discussion for
straying into politics.
Clearly regulating the incumbents to unbundle local loops has worked very well
in some European countries (France and possibly others). Clearly US financial
deregulation has cost the world dearly.
Marc Farnum Rendino wrote:
> Folks -
>
> At some point, a society decides that X is important enough to the
> society as a whole, that something official is in the overall
> interest. Roads, immigration, whatever. That it's necessary to require
> that some things be done (or not be done).
>
> Pee
Marc Farnum Rendino wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sheldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
More regs and more laws is certainly not in the running.
Why?
That is the way government works, too much, too late, in the wrong place.
How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide
Folks -
At some point, a society decides that X is important enough to the
society as a whole, that something official is in the overall
interest. Roads, immigration, whatever. That it's necessary to require
that some things be done (or not be done).
Peering may very well not be in that category,
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sheldon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More regs and more laws is certainly not in the running.
Why?
> How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable price?
> If no body steps up, we don't need it.
There seems to be ample evidence, in man
Dave Blaine wrote:
There are at least three ways to address this Sprint / Cogent partition:
1. Send Vint Cerf back up to Capitol Hill with a doomsday
scenario of what would happen to the economy if anyone else
gets as stupid as Sprint has been, begging for laws that any
tier-1 or tier-2 who want
Dave Blaine wrote:
There are at least three ways to address this Sprint / Cogent partition
I'd be fairly reluctant to allow the government to get involved in
peering relationships too deeply. Australia has some very wierd
consquences of our government doing so almost ten years on. One of
tho
Dave Blaine wrote:
Which is the best way?
More regs and more laws is certainly not in the running.
How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable
price? If no body steps up, we don't need it.
There are at least three ways to address this Sprint / Cogent partition:
1. Send Vint Cerf back up to Capitol Hill with a doomsday
scenario of what would happen to the economy if anyone else
gets as stupid as Sprint has been, begging for laws that any
tier-1 or tier-2 who wants to de-peer needs to
50 matches
Mail list logo