RE: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
Ralph, Your false assumption is that any of these folks would sign a MLPA at a new or existing peering point, where such an agreement did not already exist. The major reason most of these guys are on the AADS MLPA is that they don't want to Unsign it. In other words, it's a done deal, a fact on the ground, not something they care to revise - something historic, not current. Even if there was an MLPA at PAIX, introduced tomorrow, there is vanishingly small chance that anyone would sign up. For that matter, in many ways MLPAs are counterintuitive to the very idea of peering, because there is no mechanism to ensure that both partners in any given relationship are peers, in the sense of size, network, traffic balance, etc. That is why most folks prefer BLPAs these days - it allows you to be much pickier about who you peer with, and ensure they are a proper counterpart to your network. - Daniel Golding -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 10:29 AM To: Majdi S. Abbas Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects) traffic. If you're going to have to negotiate bilateral agreements to cover the bulk of your peering traffic, why not consistantly negotiate bilateral agreements? Randy (Group Telecom) snubbed me when I asked to peer at TorIX. Group Telecom is on the AADS MLPA. ATT Canada has a tough policy re peering as well, and is on the AADS MLPA. I'm sure there are others among the AADS MLPA signatories that would refuse bilateral peering if I approached them. -Ralph
Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects]
On Mon, 20 May 2002 12:08:32 EDT, Chris Woodfield said: Intermedia, for example, was EBITDA positive for all of the time I was working for them, yet was bleeding approx. $100 million plus in interest payments per year. This created a very real cash crunch that prompted the sale to Worldcom. I believe the *original* comment was If they're EBITDA-negative, they're *really* screwed without more cash(*). -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech (*) As many dot-bombed discovered when the bubble burst... msg01974/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects]
My take on ebitda, it is what non profitable companies use to put a positive spin on their situation. Bri On Mon, 20 May 2002, Chris Woodfield wrote: The main fallacy of EBITDA is that a lot of people confuse EBIDTA figures with cash flow figures. While the utility of a quarterly figure showing cash flow PL, stripping off all noncash transactions, would be substantial, most companies prefer to quote EBIDTA instead, which, while disregarding all noncash figures, also removes interest and taxes as well, both of which are very much recurring cash expenditures and should be included in cash-flow PL figures. In the absence of a cash-flow P/L figure, a lot of people look at EBITDA instead and forget about the very real cash expenditures involved with interest and taxes (and often other case expenditures that the company chooses to throw out in order to make the number look better). Intermedia, for example, was EBITDA positive for all of the time I was working for them, yet was bleeding approx. $100 million plus in interest payments per year. This created a very real cash crunch that prompted the sale to Worldcom. -C On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 06:09:56PM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote: On Sat, 18 May 2002, Mike Leber wrote: press releases regarding their other choices, or perhaps considering whether the companies they consider alternatives are EBITDA postive (making a profit, or in otherwords will exist in 12 months) today (not in an imaginary planned future) or for the few that are EBITDA positive, whether they actually seem to want your business. EBITDA positive does not mean profitable, or even necessarily financially stable. EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amoritization -- all things that tend to have an impact on your finances. If you were using EBITDA as the measure of your personal financial situation, you could spend far more than your after tax income, but less than your before tax income, and declare yourself to have come out ahead. Your bank, however, probably wouldn't see it that way. The same goes for corporate finance, except that the corporations that were announcing their EBITDA numbers as the important financial data often had enough in the bank, and enough market cap, that it didn't become a critical problem for a few years. My understanding is that EBITDA does have legitimate accounting uses, but I'm not clear on what they are. I'm tempted to label this message as off-topic nitpicking, but given that the biggest problem with Internet stability at the moment seems to be financial, I'm not sure it is. -Steve Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Interconnects
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes: PAIX shares MFN/Abovenet's peering agreements? That's quite a trick. ... No. PAIX has no peering agreements of any kind. This is not to slam PAIX or Paul Vixie - I'm a big PAIX fan, and Paul has done a superb job. However, MFN adds no value, and only hurts PAIX's credibility with it's massive financial problem. PAIX without MFN will, once again, be a great thing. Hopefully this will be soon. To the best of my knowledge, our parent company's woes have not been noticed by PAIX's customers (unless such a customer has its own separate relationship to the parent company, which PAIX would have no knowledge of.) And, thanks for your kind words. -- Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] President, PAIX.Net Inc.
Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
traffic. If you're going to have to negotiate bilateral agreements to cover the bulk of your peering traffic, why not consistantly negotiate bilateral agreements? Randy (Group Telecom) snubbed me when I asked to peer at TorIX. Group Telecom is on the AADS MLPA. ATT Canada has a tough policy re peering as well, and is on the AADS MLPA. I'm sure there are others among the AADS MLPA signatories that would refuse bilateral peering if I approached them. -Ralph
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perhaps better late than never... PAIX LINX both have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s). I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step. Uhm, another dumb question. Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network operators do LINX for example permits very specifically IPv4 only, no multicast including routing protocols etc, no mac broadcasts ie spantree. I think theres a danger on very large switching fabrics that if youre not specific things will happen that are detrimental to all members.. all major switching problems I know of at LINX were caused by members doing something not permitted by the rules... Just because you -could- do something without the operator knowing doesnt mean you should, the rules are there for everyones protection and I think the fact that when people do things they shouldnt it has caused problems speaks for itself in that respect. Steve What step does Equinix (or any other layer 2 exchange) need to do? The ATM NAPs might have an issue due to ATM/ARP, but even then I suspect two consenting network operators could use static IPv6 ARP tables without the NAP operator doing anything.
Re: Interconnects
On Sat, 18 May 2002 11:14:47 +0100 (BST) Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2002, Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perhaps better late than never... PAIX LINX both have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s). I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step. Uhm, another dumb question. Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network operators do LINX for example permits very specifically IPv4 only, no multicast including routing protocols etc, no mac broadcasts ie spantree. Doesn't the LINX have a separate LAN for a multicast exchange ? I know that this was set up, but I don't know what it's current status is. Regards Marshall Eubanks I think theres a danger on very large switching fabrics that if youre not specific things will happen that are detrimental to all members.. all major switching problems I know of at LINX were caused by members doing something not permitted by the rules... Just because you -could- do something without the operator knowing doesnt mean you should, the rules are there for everyones protection and I think the fact that when people do things they shouldnt it has caused problems speaks for itself in that respect. Steve What step does Equinix (or any other layer 2 exchange) need to do? The ATM NAPs might have an issue due to ATM/ARP, but even then I suspect two consenting network operators could use static IPv6 ARP tables without the NAP operator doing anything.
Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
On 17 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote: I welcome any further questions about PAIX's health or future. When we Why no optional MLPA like AADS? Even though AADS is overpriced, I considered it just because of the long list of companies that are signed up on the MLPA. -Ralph
Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
I welcome any further questions about PAIX's health or future. [...] Why no optional MLPA like AADS? [...] we had one at first. after a few years of approximately no signatories, we stopped trying. my own experience is that bilaterals are more useful for engineering purposes and that multilaterals are kind of swampy. but if there's interest, we'll find the old paperwork and shuffle it anew. -- Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNXE)
Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
Why no optional MLPA like AADS? [...] we had one at first. after a few years of approximately no signatories, we stopped trying. my own experience is that bilaterals are more useful for engineering purposes and that multilaterals are kind of swampy. One BGP session instead of dozens is more convenient. Maybe not more useful for engineering, but certainly less work than negotiating and configuring a bunch of sessions for bilateral peering. For smaller ISPs like mine, knowing in advance that you won't get snubbed for peering after connecting to an exchange is the big attraction. Given the dozens of signatories on the AADS MLPA, it looks like they can be quite popular. -Ralph
Re: Interconnects
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Sat, 18 May 2002 11:14:47 +0100 (BST) Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2002, Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perhaps better late than never... PAIX LINX both have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s). I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step. Uhm, another dumb question. Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network operators do LINX for example permits very specifically IPv4 only, no multicast including routing protocols etc, no mac broadcasts ie spantree. Doesn't the LINX have a separate LAN for a multicast exchange ? I know that this was set up, but I don't know what it's current status is. Yep, its a completely separate LAN operated by LINX.. theres a number of members using it. Actually, I'm not one of them.. I was thinking about this today and wondered if people think they are benefiting at all from using multicast exchange points or even just receiving multicast over say a tunnel. I know the benefits of the technology but in reality, today, is anyone using multicast as an ISP and getting something out of it over unicast? Steve Regards Marshall Eubanks I think theres a danger on very large switching fabrics that if youre not specific things will happen that are detrimental to all members.. all major switching problems I know of at LINX were caused by members doing something not permitted by the rules... Just because you -could- do something without the operator knowing doesnt mean you should, the rules are there for everyones protection and I think the fact that when people do things they shouldnt it has caused problems speaks for itself in that respect. Steve What step does Equinix (or any other layer 2 exchange) need to do? The ATM NAPs might have an issue due to ATM/ARP, but even then I suspect two consenting network operators could use static IPv6 ARP tables without the NAP operator doing anything.
EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects]
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Mike Leber wrote: press releases regarding their other choices, or perhaps considering whether the companies they consider alternatives are EBITDA postive (making a profit, or in otherwords will exist in 12 months) today (not in an imaginary planned future) or for the few that are EBITDA positive, whether they actually seem to want your business. EBITDA positive does not mean profitable, or even necessarily financially stable. EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amoritization -- all things that tend to have an impact on your finances. If you were using EBITDA as the measure of your personal financial situation, you could spend far more than your after tax income, but less than your before tax income, and declare yourself to have come out ahead. Your bank, however, probably wouldn't see it that way. The same goes for corporate finance, except that the corporations that were announcing their EBITDA numbers as the important financial data often had enough in the bank, and enough market cap, that it didn't become a critical problem for a few years. My understanding is that EBITDA does have legitimate accounting uses, but I'm not clear on what they are. I'm tempted to label this message as off-topic nitpicking, but given that the biggest problem with Internet stability at the moment seems to be financial, I'm not sure it is. -Steve Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects]
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Steve Gibbard wrote: EBITDA positive does not mean profitable, or even necessarily financially stable. EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amoritization Correct, however I was trying to provide a simplified translation. A company that isn't EBITDA positive can't survive by declaring bankruptcy becausee even after they get rid of the interest payments they will still have a negative run rate. The reason for using EBITDA as an early indicator for financial health when analyzing companies is that it allows you to look at the health of the operation independent of their debt structure and prior capital expenditures (depreciation and amortization) so that you can get a better idea of their cash flow. The reason why cash flow matters is because when a company runs out of cash bankruptcy is imminent. Profitiability from a PL statement (expecially for public companies) involves so many components that it frequently doesn't allow you to evaluate a company until it has matured. The same goes for corporate finance, except that the corporations that were announcing their EBITDA numbers as the important financial data often had enough in the bank, and enough market cap, that it didn't become a critical problem for a few years. True, however by looking at EBITDA and current assets (cash in the bank) you can get a quick picture of the likely hood a company solving anything by declaring bankruptcy and a rough time frame to their imminent demise. My understanding is that EBITDA does have legitimate accounting uses, but I'm not clear on what they are. I hope you find my explanation above a useful rule of thumb. I'm tempted to label this message as off-topic nitpicking, but given that the biggest problem with Internet stability at the moment seems to be financial, I'm not sure it is. Due to the fact that I've had to order redundant capacity from multiple vendors in situations where there was enough traditional physical network redundancy, this seems to have become an important network provisioning issue. Mike. +--- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C ---+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 04:51:27PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: One BGP session instead of dozens is more convenient. Maybe not more useful for engineering, but certainly less work than negotiating and configuring a bunch of sessions for bilateral peering. For smaller ISPs like mine, knowing in advance that you won't get snubbed for peering after connecting to an exchange is the big attraction. Given the dozens of signatories on the AADS MLPA, it looks like they can be quite popular. Strictly speaking, I don't think a route-server is required to multilaterally peer, but they certainly help. However, there are a couple of big catches, particularly on an ATM or similar switching fabric: 1) One or two sessions, one or two VCs...if they go down, you will lose all your peering at that site. 2) The possibility of blackholing traffic to a peer who you have a downed VC to, but who is still advertising their prefixes to the route server. Additionally, quality of peering does not necessarily correlate to quantity of peering. I'm not going to claim that it's a bad thing to peer with a large number of typically smaller providers, but they don't always account for a statistically signifigant portion of your traffic. If you're going to have to negotiate bilateral agreements to cover the bulk of your peering traffic, why not consistantly negotiate bilateral agreements? --msa
Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects]
EBITDA positive does not mean profitable, or even necessarily financially stable. Right you are. So please let me clarify my earlier statement (that PAIX has been modestly profitable for years). If we were not a wholly owned subsidiary we would owe income taxes. When we have been wholly owned by companies who were paying income taxes, some of the taxes they had to pay were because of PAIX. (Presumably this positive our income situation will make it easy for MFN to sell us.) Let's have a look at Extreme Networks' recently published financials. (Bring up http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/e/extr.html to follow along.) These folks showed a net loss this quarter yet the analysts applauded them and their stock shot up a bit because they had a nonrecurring charge larger than their net loss. This tells analysts that the company would have taxable income if not for the nonrecurring event, which gives them hope for the next quarter. On http://biz.yahoo.com/fin/l/e/extr_ai.html we even see that in the year ending July 2000 they paid $10M in income taxes, which tells us that maybe they know how that feels and want to do it again some day. I like EBITDA as a yardstick for measuring one company against another if they are otherwise similar and I'm looking for a differentiator. But I don't personally buy stock based on EBITDA numbers -- I want to see actual net income and, paradoxically, I love a company who has to pay income tax because it means they had INCOME to pay taxes on. -- Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
Re: Interconnects
Hi Iljitsch, I would not consider Sprint NAP, a place closed to new customers for several years, an important interconnect location in the US. ATM based IXs are not as participant rich as they were 2-3 years ago. The fastest growing US interconnect locations are cross-connect enabled. PAIX Equinix. Equinix-Ashburn, PAIX-Seattle, Equinix-Newark and Equinix-Dallas and others have seen participation grow with a diverse blend of traffic from cable operators, telcos and content providers. Tier-1 means what? Look for growing sources of traffic. Your mileage may vary, -ren At 11:48 AM 5/17/2002 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: A bunch of us are thinking about multihoming solutions for IPv6. For this purpose, it is useful to know a bit more about how actual networks (rather than the ones existing only as ASCII drawings) interconnect. So: - What are the 12 - 18 most important interconnect locations in the world? MAE East, the Ameritech, Sprint and PacBell NAPs, PAIX, LINX and AMS-IX come to mind, but from where I'm sitting it's hard to judge whether others are important or marginal. - To how many of them do typical tier-1 and tier-2 networks connect? - Using private or public interconnects?
Re: Interconnects
That depends on your corporate needs for power, security, remote hands, etc. The extended services found at Equinix PAIX are very important for many networks. -ren At 08:00 AM 5/17/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: What about NYIIX/6IIX? Being in Telehouse where there are no monthly fees for for cross-connects gives it a financial advantage over Equinix. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc. On Fri, 17 May 2002, ren wrote: Hi Iljitsch, I would not consider Sprint NAP, a place closed to new customers for several years, an important interconnect location in the US. ATM based IXs are not as participant rich as they were 2-3 years ago. The fastest growing US interconnect locations are cross-connect enabled. PAIX Equinix. Equinix-Ashburn, PAIX-Seattle, Equinix-Newark and Equinix-Dallas and others have seen participation grow with a diverse blend of traffic from cable operators, telcos and content providers. Tier-1 means what? Look for growing sources of traffic. Your mileage may vary, -ren At 11:48 AM 5/17/2002 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: A bunch of us are thinking about multihoming solutions for IPv6. For this purpose, it is useful to know a bit more about how actual networks (rather than the ones existing only as ASCII drawings) interconnect. So: - What are the 12 - 18 most important interconnect locations in the world? MAE East, the Ameritech, Sprint and PacBell NAPs, PAIX, LINX and AMS-IX come to mind, but from where I'm sitting it's hard to judge whether others are important or marginal. - To how many of them do typical tier-1 and tier-2 networks connect? - Using private or public interconnects?
Re: Interconnects
PAIX is a division of MFN (Metropolitan Fiber Networks) as Above.NET is as well. That means they share MFN's connectivity and peering agreements and as such are incredibly rich environments. Especially with someone like Paul Vixie running it, (PAIX that is) my take is that these are number one providers. I must admit though that I am a staunch Above.NET supporter and have been for ages having a single digit customer ID. Todd - Original Message - From: ren [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Ralph Doncaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 5:01 AM Subject: Re: Interconnects That depends on your corporate needs for power, security, remote hands, etc. The extended services found at Equinix PAIX are very important for many networks. -ren At 08:00 AM 5/17/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: What about NYIIX/6IIX? Being in Telehouse where there are no monthly fees for for cross-connects gives it a financial advantage over Equinix. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc. On Fri, 17 May 2002, ren wrote: Hi Iljitsch, I would not consider Sprint NAP, a place closed to new customers for several years, an important interconnect location in the US. ATM based IXs are not as participant rich as they were 2-3 years ago. The fastest growing US interconnect locations are cross-connect enabled. PAIX Equinix. Equinix-Ashburn, PAIX-Seattle, Equinix-Newark and Equinix-Dallas and others have seen participation grow with a diverse blend of traffic from cable operators, telcos and content providers. Tier-1 means what? Look for growing sources of traffic. Your mileage may vary, -ren At 11:48 AM 5/17/2002 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: A bunch of us are thinking about multihoming solutions for IPv6. For this purpose, it is useful to know a bit more about how actual networks (rather than the ones existing only as ASCII drawings) interconnect. So: - What are the 12 - 18 most important interconnect locations in the world? MAE East, the Ameritech, Sprint and PacBell NAPs, PAIX, LINX and AMS-IX come to mind, but from where I'm sitting it's hard to judge whether others are important or marginal. - To how many of them do typical tier-1 and tier-2 networks connect? - Using private or public interconnects?
Re: Interconnects
Tier-1 means what? Lately, 'Tier-1' and '[near] bankruptcy' seem to be interchangable. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: What about NYIIX/6IIX? Being in Telehouse where there are no monthly fees for for cross-connects gives it a financial advantage over Equinix. While I agree, IIX relatively speaking is small -- aggregating about 450 to 500 mb/s. Also, you don't find many US-based internation networks there (ie, UU, Sprint, CW, PSI/Cogent, etc.); however, the participation of Asian and European networks is very impressive. Also, the IIX is run the way I like a NAP run (as if my opinion matters on this); cheap, simplistic, and reliable. I don't know of any other NAP that can claim all three. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com div. of Doncaster Consulting Inc. On Fri, 17 May 2002, ren wrote: Hi Iljitsch, I would not consider Sprint NAP, a place closed to new customers for several years, an important interconnect location in the US. ATM based IXs are not as participant rich as they were 2-3 years ago. The fastest growing US interconnect locations are cross-connect enabled. PAIX Equinix. Equinix-Ashburn, PAIX-Seattle, Equinix-Newark and Equinix-Dallas and others have seen participation grow with a diverse blend of traffic from cable operators, telcos and content providers. Tier-1 means what? Look for growing sources of traffic. Your mileage may vary, -ren At 11:48 AM 5/17/2002 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: A bunch of us are thinking about multihoming solutions for IPv6. For this purpose, it is useful to know a bit more about how actual networks (rather than the ones existing only as ASCII drawings) interconnect. So: - What are the 12 - 18 most important interconnect locations in the world? MAE East, the Ameritech, Sprint and PacBell NAPs, PAIX, LINX and AMS-IX come to mind, but from where I'm sitting it's hard to judge whether others are important or marginal. - To how many of them do typical tier-1 and tier-2 networks connect? - Using private or public interconnects? -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Re: Interconnects
If that is true then everybody is a Tier-1 carrier. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tier-1 means what? Lately, 'Tier-1' and '[near] bankruptcy' seem to be interchangable. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Re: Interconnects
ADC Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:50:29 -0400 ADC From: Anthony D Cennami ADC If that is true then everybody is a Tier-1 carrier. Well, it seems that most everybody claims to be Tier 1. Maybe the bad karma is coming back to bite. ;-) -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: Interconnects
There are some relatively small regionals like NYIIX where you won't find many large carriers, but they still have their own little nitch markets. There's been rumors of NYIIX and PAIX-NY linking up like SIX and PAIX-seattle. * Price - In these times of cost conciousness (and transit available for less than the price of peering), many people are taking a step back and realizing that PAIX services are OUTRAGEOUSLY priced vs the competition. Some big carriers are turning down their PAIX switch ports, even at Palo Alto. Which is why I was surprised that Paul offered PAIX-seattle connectivity for a $300 one-time charge for those who are already connected to SIX. -Ralph
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: There are some relatively small regionals like NYIIX where you won't find many large carriers, but they still have their own little nitch markets. There's been rumors of NYIIX and PAIX-NY linking up like SIX and PAIX-seattle. True, but PAIX-NY is not exactly anything to salivate over. * Price - In these times of cost conciousness (and transit available for less than the price of peering), many people are taking a step back and realizing that PAIX services are OUTRAGEOUSLY priced vs the competition. Some big carriers are turning down their PAIX switch ports, even at Palo Alto. Which is why I was surprised that Paul offered PAIX-seattle connectivity for a $300 one-time charge for those who are already connected to SIX. Good point. Folks running the NAPs have to realize that in this day, you can buy relatively good transit in the $50 to $200/meg range. This makes getting capacity to, colo'ing at, and paying for NAP port cost more than transit, in many cases. IIX is the only exchange point that I've run across that is priced as it should be. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Re: Interconnects
perhaps better late than never... PAIX LINX both have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s). I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step. --bill
Re: Interconnects
Is it necessary for you to continually air personal grievances on this public list? The question related to places where network interconnect, not who's friends with who this week. Flames welcome in private!! Steve On Fri, 17 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote: PAIX is a division of MFN (Metropolitan Fiber Networks) as Above.NET is as well. That means they share MFN's connectivity and peering agreements and as such are incredibly rich environments. Especially with someone like Paul Vixie running it, (PAIX that is) my take is that these are number one providers. I must admit though that I am a staunch Above.NET supporter and have been for ages having a single digit customer ID. Todd Incredibly rich environments indeed: -- Metromedia Fiber misses interest payment By BARBARA WOLLER THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: May 17, 2002) WHITE PLAINS - Metromedia Fiber Network - which has been struggling for months to avoid a filing for bankruptcy court protection - reported Wednesday night that it did not pay about $32 million in interest that was due that day on $650 million of 10 percent senior notes. The White Plains-based company, which has built fiber-optic broadband communications systems within cities, said it will be in default on the loan if it does not make the payment before a 30-day grace period expires. The company also announced that it is delaying the filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of its quarterly report for the period ended March 31. Metromedia Fiber had previously announced that it had delayed filing with the SEC of its annual report for the year ending Dec. 31, 2001. We're attempting to restructure the debt, said company spokeswoman Kara Carbone. We're still working on all alternatives. But if we don't, we may have to seek protection under Chapter 11. Industry analyst Victor Valdivia of Hudson River Analytics said yesterday that he expects the company will ultimately file for Chapter 11 protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We don't think there's a lot of upside at this point, Valdivia said. In March, the company defaulted on an $8.1 million interest payment due to Nortel Networks on a $231 million loan. In mid-April the company defaulted on a $30 million interest payment on a loan of $975 million from Verizon Communications. Metromedia Fiber was able to stave off Chapter 11 in October when it secured a $611 financial package in an environment where lenders have not been willing to provide money to telecom companies. But the company's troubles did not go away. The industry has seen a meltdown in the weak economy, and Metromedia Fiber has suffered because many of its customers cannot pay their bills.
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, 17 May 2002 18:46:15 BST, Stephen J. Wilcox said: The question related to places where network interconnect, not who's friends with who this week. (Note - I'm assuming here the news story is factual. If not, that's a whole different spin on things...) Well... missing a $32M payment *does* say something about whether they will or will not be around to interconnect with. Although Mitch has a reputation around here, he *is* on the mark this time - when the time to Chapter 11 may be less than time to deliver circuits to get to there, you may want to investigate ordering circuits to connect elsewhere -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech msg01857/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Interconnects
As I think someone implied earlier, I think filing a Chapter 11 is becoming quite trendy and everyone will want one soon so as not to be left out .. status symbol if you like :) On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2002 18:46:15 BST, Stephen J. Wilcox said: The question related to places where network interconnect, not who's friends with who this week. (Note - I'm assuming here the news story is factual. If not, that's a whole different spin on things...) Well... missing a $32M payment *does* say something about whether they will or will not be around to interconnect with. Although Mitch has a reputation around here, he *is* on the mark this time - when the time to Chapter 11 may be less than time to deliver circuits to get to there, you may want to investigate ordering circuits to connect elsewhere
Re: Interconnects
I don't think a story detailing a companies fiscal standing and near future liklihood of a Chapter 11 filing would be characterized as a 'personal grievance.' Not until that company pulls the plug on its customers, facilities and network and leaves a lot of companies out to dry. In any case, I think it's only fair that people are afforded the opportunity to make an informed decision about who they do business with, whether that information is technical or financial in nature would appear to be irrelevant. That is one of the main purposes of this and other similar lists. If anything, I think it is you who is fending your 'personal' opinion of a company, rather than providing a sound argument in their defence. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it necessary for you to continually air personal grievances on this public list? The question related to places where network interconnect, not who's friends with who this week. Flames welcome in private!! Steve On Fri, 17 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote: PAIX is a division of MFN (Metropolitan Fiber Networks) as Above.NET is as well. That means they share MFN's connectivity and peering agreements and as such are incredibly rich environments. Especially with someone like Paul Vixie running it, (PAIX that is) my take is that these are number one providers. I must admit though that I am a staunch Above.NET supporter and have been for ages having a single digit customer ID. Todd Incredibly rich environments indeed: -- Metromedia Fiber misses interest payment By BARBARA WOLLER THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: May 17, 2002) WHITE PLAINS - Metromedia Fiber Network - which has been struggling for months to avoid a filing for bankruptcy court protection - reported Wednesday night that it did not pay about $32 million in interest that was due that day on $650 million of 10 percent senior notes. The White Plains-based company, which has built fiber-optic broadband communications systems within cities, said it will be in default on the loan if it does not make the payment before a 30-day grace period expires. The company also announced that it is delaying the filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of its quarterly report for the period ended March 31. Metromedia Fiber had previously announced that it had delayed filing with the SEC of its annual report for the year ending Dec. 31, 2001. We're attempting to restructure the debt, said company spokeswoman Kara Carbone. We're still working on all alternatives. But if we don't, we may have to seek protection under Chapter 11. Industry analyst Victor Valdivia of Hudson River Analytics said yesterday that he expects the company will ultimately file for Chapter 11 protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We don't think there's a lot of upside at this point, Valdivia said. In March, the company defaulted on an $8.1 million interest payment due to Nortel Networks on a $231 million loan. In mid-April the company defaulted on a $30 million interest payment on a loan of $975 million from Verizon Communications. Metromedia Fiber was able to stave off Chapter 11 in October when it secured a $611 financial package in an environment where lenders have not been willing to provide money to telecom companies. But the company's troubles did not go away. The industry has seen a meltdown in the weak economy, and Metromedia Fiber has suffered because many of its customers cannot pay their bills.
Re: Interconnects
There are some relatively small regionals like NYIIX where you won't find many large carriers, but they still have their own little nitch markets. There's been rumors of NYIIX and PAIX-NY linking up like SIX and PAIX-seattle. It's not a rumour. PAIX is interconnecting with NYIIX as soon as the fiber engineering people say that the photons will travel end to end. * Price - In these times of cost conciousness (and transit available for less than the price of peering), many people are taking a step back and realizing that PAIX services are OUTRAGEOUSLY priced vs the competition. Some big carriers are turning down their PAIX switch ports, even at Palo Alto. Which is why I was surprised that Paul offered PAIX-seattle connectivity for a $300 one-time charge for those who are already connected to SIX. We aren't silly, and since it would be silly to fail to recognize that some peers want/need different service levels than others, we recognized it and are acting on it.
Re: Interconnects
MH Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:39:13 -0400 (EDT) MH From: Mitch Halmu MH Incredibly rich environments indeed: sarcasm Well, I guess that financial status says everything about their technical ability, doesn't it? /sarcasm -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: Interconnects
I know what happens when an ISP dies, what happens when a registrar dies? T. - Original Message - From: Anthony D Cennami [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Mitch Halmu [EMAIL PROTECTED]; todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ralph Doncaster [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ren [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 11:09 AM Subject: Re: Interconnects I don't think a story detailing a companies fiscal standing and near future liklihood of a Chapter 11 filing would be characterized as a 'personal grievance.' Not until that company pulls the plug on its customers, facilities and network and leaves a lot of companies out to dry. In any case, I think it's only fair that people are afforded the opportunity to make an informed decision about who they do business with, whether that information is technical or financial in nature would appear to be irrelevant. That is one of the main purposes of this and other similar lists. If anything, I think it is you who is fending your 'personal' opinion of a company, rather than providing a sound argument in their defence. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it necessary for you to continually air personal grievances on this public list? The question related to places where network interconnect, not who's friends with who this week. Flames welcome in private!! Steve On Fri, 17 May 2002, Mitch Halmu wrote: On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote: PAIX is a division of MFN (Metropolitan Fiber Networks) as Above.NET is as well. That means they share MFN's connectivity and peering agreements and as such are incredibly rich environments. Especially with someone like Paul Vixie running it, (PAIX that is) my take is that these are number one providers. I must admit though that I am a staunch Above.NET supporter and have been for ages having a single digit customer ID. Todd Incredibly rich environments indeed: -- Metromedia Fiber misses interest payment By BARBARA WOLLER THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: May 17, 2002) WHITE PLAINS - Metromedia Fiber Network - which has been struggling for months to avoid a filing for bankruptcy court protection - reported Wednesday night that it did not pay about $32 million in interest that was due that day on $650 million of 10 percent senior notes. The White Plains-based company, which has built fiber-optic broadband communications systems within cities, said it will be in default on the loan if it does not make the payment before a 30-day grace period expires. The company also announced that it is delaying the filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of its quarterly report for the period ended March 31. Metromedia Fiber had previously announced that it had delayed filing with the SEC of its annual report for the year ending Dec. 31, 2001. We're attempting to restructure the debt, said company spokeswoman Kara Carbone. We're still working on all alternatives. But if we don't, we may have to seek protection under Chapter 11. Industry analyst Victor Valdivia of Hudson River Analytics said yesterday that he expects the company will ultimately file for Chapter 11 protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We don't think there's a lot of upside at this point, Valdivia said. In March, the company defaulted on an $8.1 million interest payment due to Nortel Networks on a $231 million loan. In mid-April the company defaulted on a $30 million interest payment on a loan of $975 million from Verizon Communications. Metromedia Fiber was able to stave off Chapter 11 in October when it secured a $611 financial package in an environment where lenders have not been willing to provide money to telecom companies. But the company's troubles did not go away. The industry has seen a meltdown in the weak economy, and Metromedia Fiber has suffered because many of its customers cannot pay their bills.
Re: Interconnects
Yes, it does. A company who cannot pay their engineers or hire new ones will certainly wind up performing poorly compared to one with adequate resources. As an on-going customer having to deal with their support engineers, or better yet, lack thereof, I can attest to this. Valiant attempt at sarcasm is duly noted though. Anthony [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: MH Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:39:13 -0400 (EDT) MH From: Mitch Halmu MH Incredibly rich environments indeed: sarcasm Well, I guess that financial status says everything about their technical ability, doesn't it? /sarcasm -- Eddy Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence ~ Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT) From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to be blocked.
Re: Interconnects
Mitch what has MFN's financial problems have to do with the quality of the agreements that are in place for peering. If you are worried that they may blow off the face of the earth - I too agree that money is tight and there are a number of other meltdowns coming as the real winners of the Internet race start to emerge. Todd - Original Message - From: Mitch Halmu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: todd glassey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Ralph Doncaster [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ren [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 17, 2002 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Interconnects On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote: PAIX is a division of MFN (Metropolitan Fiber Networks) as Above.NET is as well. That means they share MFN's connectivity and peering agreements and as such are incredibly rich environments. Especially with someone like Paul Vixie running it, (PAIX that is) my take is that these are number one providers. I must admit though that I am a staunch Above.NET supporter and have been for ages having a single digit customer ID. Todd Incredibly rich environments indeed: -- Metromedia Fiber misses interest payment By BARBARA WOLLER THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: May 17, 2002) WHITE PLAINS - Metromedia Fiber Network - which has been struggling for months to avoid a filing for bankruptcy court protection - reported Wednesday night that it did not pay about $32 million in interest that was due that day on $650 million of 10 percent senior notes. The White Plains-based company, which has built fiber-optic broadband communications systems within cities, said it will be in default on the loan if it does not make the payment before a 30-day grace period expires. The company also announced that it is delaying the filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of its quarterly report for the period ended March 31. Metromedia Fiber had previously announced that it had delayed filing with the SEC of its annual report for the year ending Dec. 31, 2001. We're attempting to restructure the debt, said company spokeswoman Kara Carbone. We're still working on all alternatives. But if we don't, we may have to seek protection under Chapter 11. Industry analyst Victor Valdivia of Hudson River Analytics said yesterday that he expects the company will ultimately file for Chapter 11 protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. We don't think there's a lot of upside at this point, Valdivia said. In March, the company defaulted on an $8.1 million interest payment due to Nortel Networks on a $231 million loan. In mid-April the company defaulted on a $30 million interest payment on a loan of $975 million from Verizon Communications. Metromedia Fiber was able to stave off Chapter 11 in October when it secured a $611 financial package in an environment where lenders have not been willing to provide money to telecom companies. But the company's troubles did not go away. The industry has seen a meltdown in the weak economy, and Metromedia Fiber has suffered because many of its customers cannot pay their bills.
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote: Mitch what has MFN's financial problems have to do with the quality of the agreements that are in place for peering. Easy. It fills, and then no one wants to pay to increase it. If I am not mistaken, this has happened already. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [EMAIL PROTECTED], latency, Al Reuben -- --Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, 17 May 2002, todd glassey wrote: I know what happens when an ISP dies, what happens when a registrar dies? T. I am pretty certain that the names revert to whatever entity is contracted to maintain the database for that TLD. Though most likely if a registrar were to die, another registrar would try to buy them out -- assuming it met with ICANN approval. allan -- Allan Liska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.allan.org
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perhaps better late than never... PAIX LINX both have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s). I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step. Uhm, another dumb question. Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network operators do What step does Equinix (or any other layer 2 exchange) need to do? The ATM NAPs might have an issue due to ATM/ARP, but even then I suspect two consenting network operators could use static IPv6 ARP tables without the NAP operator doing anything.
Re: Interconnects
Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network operators do What consenting network operators do bilaterally in an L2 environment where their actions might possibly affect other customers of the L2 exchange is of great interest to the exchange point provider. Take multicast at an exchange point, for instance. IGMP is an edge protocol, not used in the exchange of multicast information between autonomous systems. Since there's no IGMP to snoop, multicast packets are flooded to all ports of an Ethernet-based L2 fabric. Combine that fact with the fact that a range of port speeds are offered, and stir: you could get into a sitation where multicast traffic solicited by one high-speed port customer of another high-speed port customer drowns out lower-speed port customers (especially when available speeds span two orders of magnitude). For this reason, multicast traffic exchange on Ethernet-based L2 exchange points is often conducted on a separate switch fabric, or a separate VLAN (as in the case of PAIX). When we see PIM on the main unicast VLAN, we ask the PIM speaker to take it to the multicast VLAN (for which we provide IPv4 address assignment just like the other). Consenting network operators also engage in practices such as connecting their exchange point switch ports into an aggregation switch of their own, and then connecting their aggregation switches together to implement private peering. If not properly configured and maintained, this has the potential to introduce loops in the switching fabric that can lead to a variety of failure modes for other participants. Engineering an L2 fabric that implements an administrative boundary between many networks prsents unique challenges, from cases such as those outlined above, helping providers learn how to detect and correct cases having default pointed at them, all the way to explaining to Juniper router owners that their policed discards counter increments because other participants emit CDP packets (and some of the other non-IP protocols you mention, but most often CDP). More germane to your questioning of Bill's point, though, items such as IPv6 address assignment, and an engineering staff prepared to deal with IPv6-related questions and issues, determine whether an exchange point supports IPv6 above and beyond just letting it happen on their switch fabric. Stephen (now VP of Engineering at PAIX, as well as being a founder, etc.)
Re: Interconnects
In the referenced message, Sean Donelan said: On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perhaps better late than never... PAIX LINX both have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s). I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step. Uhm, another dumb question. Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network operators do They probably only care on broadcast-based protocols, since is more than the consenting networks. Might also include multicast, which could then get you into the realm of pim snooping, which might then get you up into the ipv4 and ipv6 arena.
Re: Interconnects
It's not a rumour. PAIX is interconnecting with NYIIX as soon as the fiber engineering people say that the photons will travel end to end. Will PAIX be around as an entity capable of providing any services in 3 month? PAIX is modestly profitable and has been for years. We are quite healthy. (I cannot answer questions or respond to rumours about the parent company, MFN. PAIX is an arm's length subsidiary.) When a company makes such business decisions, would this company be around to make that $300 one time charge worth more than a dinner at Sagami in next 3 month? If you're not happy with the service we provide, please let me know or talk to your client services rep.
Re: Interconnects
It's not a rumour. PAIX is interconnecting with NYIIX as soon as the fiber engineering people say that the photons will travel end to end. Listen, I am not trying to be antagonistic, but: Why does this take so long? PAIX-NY is a MFN facility, so, presumably, there is MFN fiber there and ready to go. 25 Broadway is a MFN building, and has been for some time (as in, many people have MFN fiber there). I can't comprehend how this can take so long. I had the same thought. However, it turns out to light a path there's all kinds of climbing down into manholes that has to happen. I'm no fiber expert, but the parent company (MFN) does employ such experts, so let's remain calm. -- Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNXE)
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, 17 May 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perhaps better late than never... PAIX LINX both have IPv6 capabilities at/on the exchange fabric(s). I am not aware that Equinix has taken that step. Uhm, another dumb question. Why does the operator of a layer 2 exchange care (or know) what protocols your are using? IPv4, IPv6, heck I remember seeing Appletalk, OSI and DECNET on MAE-EAST. What consenting network operators do What step does Equinix (or any other layer 2 exchange) need to do? The ATM NAPs might have an issue due to ATM/ARP, but even then I suspect two consenting network operators could use static IPv6 ARP tables without the NAP operator doing anything. Two things: IPv6 can and does take advantage of larger MTU sizes. Selection of switch fabric makes a difference. Often, participants expect to have an IP address assigned for their use on an exchange. Usually these delegations are from a common block. Where they are not, its hard to tell an exchange from a bunch of point2point links. LINX and PAIX have IPv6 prefixes that participants can use. I would expect that if the Equinix exchange participants were IPv6 hungry, they would ask for a way to get a v6 address for their connection. And I would expect Equinix would find a way to accomodate them. Otherwise you are correct, the operators don't have to coordinate at all, except on a bilateral basis and then whats the point of the exchange? :)
PAIX (was Re: Interconnects)
Mitch what has MFN's financial problems have to do with the quality of the agreements that are in place for peering. Easy. It fills, and then no one wants to pay to increase it. If I am not mistaken, this has happened already. Actually, only the Palo Alto location was ever in this situation, and the parent at the time was Digital Equipment Corporation. MFN did pay to increase it when their time came. Six PAIX locations are open today and there is active peering occuring at all of them and there is room for more peers at all of them. Here's the list in case anybody was curious. site |shipto --+-- atl1 | 56 Marrieta St, Floor 5 and 7, Atlanta GA 30303-2885 dfw1 | 1950 Stemmons Fwy, 1st Floor, Dallas TX 75207-3107 jfk1 | 76 9th Ave, #734, New York NY 19911-5201 sea1 | 2001 6th St, 12th Floor, Seattle WA 98121-2855 pao1 | 529 Bryant St, Palo Alto, CA 95301 USA iad1 | 7990 Science Applications Ct, Vienna VA 0- (6 rows) We are also providing port only services at several Abovenet locations, several Switch and Data locations, Dataplex (in Hungary), and e-exchange at 200 Paul St in San Francisco. With more to come. We have exchange agreements in place with SIX (active) and NYIIX (pending), with more to come. I welcome any further questions about PAIX's health or future. When we started this as a DEC business unit in ~1995 we had a 100 year business plan in mind. Looks to me like we're not quite finished, but that we've made an excellent beginning. There's much, much, much more to come. I can't answer questions about PAIX's current parent (MFN) other than to say that there was a press release a month or so back wherein PAIX was called a nonstrategic asset and that they intended to sell us. -- Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNXE)
Re: Interconnects
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would expect that if the Equinix exchange participants were IPv6 hungry ... Let me toss in a question that may really be dumb... what are those that are hungry for IPV6 doing with it? I figure that organizations that run IPV6 now think they are ahead of the game. Are they? Is this something that responsible ISPs should be doing? Would this turn our network into one big NAT area when we have to translate into IPV4 addresses at the edge to get to the real Internet? -mark !bankrupt, hence !Tier1
Re: Interconnects
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would expect that if the Equinix exchange participants were IPv6 hungry ... Let me toss in a question that may really be dumb... what are those that are hungry for IPV6 doing with it? Id guess meeting customer demand? I figure that organizations that run IPV6 now think they are ahead of the game. Are they? Is this something that responsible ISPs should be doing? Depends on what you think the game is. Being able to get more address space than you can conceivably need can be a powerful motivator. Would this turn our network into one big NAT area when we have to translate into IPV4 addresses at the edge to get to the real Internet? Perhaps. The migration issues are not all that well thought out and there are some real pitfalls in the details. Call it early adopter syndrome. -mark !bankrupt, hence !Tier1
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 03:24:38PM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote: I had the same thought. However, it turns out to light a path there's all kinds of climbing down into manholes that has to happen. I'm no fiber expert, but the parent company (MFN) does employ such experts, so let's remain calm. Actually, doesn't MFN usually outsource this to Bechtel, Keyspan Communications and others? :)
Re: Interconnects
Often, participants expect to have an IP address assigned for their use on an exchange. Usually these delegations are from a common block. Where they are not, its hard to tell an exchange from a bunch of point2point links. LINX and PAIX have IPv6 prefixes that participants can use. or, use link-local address on IX switch as documented in draft-kato-bgp-ipv6-link-local-01.txt. itojun
Re: Interconnects
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: Is it necessary for you to continually air personal grievances on this public list? Apparently. I'd tell Mitch personally that I'm tired of the crap he pulls on this mailing list, but he refuses mail from me, probably because I've indicated same to him personally in the past. -- Steve Sobol, CTO (Server Guru, Network Janitor and Head Geek) JustThe.net LLC, Mentor On The Lake, OH 888.480.4NET http://JustThe.net In a 32-bit world, you're a 2-bit user/You've got your own newsgroup: alt.total.loser - Weird Al Yankovic, It's All About the Pentiums
Re: Interconnects
or, use link-local address on IX switch as documented in draft-kato-bgp-ipv6-link-local-01.txt. Unfortunatly, that technique does not have broad commercial implementation. In addition, there was some pushback from the IETF IDR wg on using this technique. So its still a bit iffy, although a very elegent haq. (we used it in LA for a while but could not get folks to adopt it.) cisco IOS can do it, IIRC. i'm always doing it with zebra . anyway, i'm not sure if it fits broad implementation, so i'll stop. itojun
Re: Interconnects
Actually, doesn't MFN usually outsource this to Bechtel, Keyspan Communications and others? :) I don't know. It wouldn't change my position on the subject, which is that it's their fiber, and in NYC it's a large and complex plant, and they've got people working on the PAIX/NYIIX path who know a lot more about fiber in general AND this plant in particular than I do. -- Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] President, PAIX.Net Inc. (NASD:MFNX)
