On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
The dialup case results in a very large number of users of a large
number of ISPs being single-homed to one or the other of these
outfits. Keep that in mind too when you next sign a contract for
wholesale dialup service.
Dialup costs are $5 a
Now Cogent is also offering free transit for single-homed
L3 customers to spite L3 after depeering - majority of such
single-homed
transit customers are in fact these dsl/dialup ISPs Cogent is after
which is why they were willing to make this offer ...
Didn't the free peering offer happen
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:27:24 PDT, David Schwartz said:
Level 3 cut of Cogent's connectivity. Until and unless they give some
reason that makes sense, they are no longer making the effort and are not
part of the internet.
If I had a garden, things would grow *so* wonderfully next year
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:15:58PM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
That reminds me. If you remember the whole thing started with that L3
complains that Cogent is trying to steal its customers. I kind of checked
and it appears Cogent is after dialup/dsl/cable ISPs who as you can
guess have
--On den 28 september 2005 10.03.47 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that all gTLD are controlled only in the US (even more
than the root is). So, they are international only in name.
.museum is operated from Sweden.
--
Måns Nilsson
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:19:07AM +0200,
MÃ¥ns Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 34 lines which said:
.museum is operated from Sweden.
Correct, Europeans will stop using .com and switch to .museum, its
main competitor :-)
Ehehe..Thats really good answer..
On 10/6/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:19:07AM +0200, Måns Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote a message of 34 lines which said: .museum is operated from Sweden.
Correct, Europeans will stop using .com and switch to
Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling
internet access ?
--
Tony Sarendal - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IP/Unix
-= The scorpion replied,
I couldn't help it, it's my nature =-
While I realize that the nuke survivable thing is probably an old
wives tale, it seems ridiculous that the Internet can't adjust by
routing any packets that used to go directly from Cogent to Level 3
though some 3rd (and) 4th (and) 5th set of providers that are connected
in some fashion
Time to quote Geoff Huston one more time.
A true peer relationship is based on the supposition that either party
can terminate the interconnection relationship and that the other party
does not consider such an action a competitively hostile act. If one
party has a high reliance on the
Cogent and L3 had _no_ interconnectivity besides the direct peering
relationship. L3 knew it, Cogent knew it. L3 made a decision to
sever that direct relationship, and bifurcation ensued. This was not
only not a surprised, it was expected. Whether Cogent is a tier
one or not is
Depeering never makes sense to me. Customers of both companies are
expecting their vendor to connect them to the customers of the other
company. These customers are each paying their respective vendor for
this service. Why should one vendor pay the other for this traffic that
is
All the
while, Cogent undercuts the market of every other carrier who isn't as
efficient as they are, leading to massive losses, bankruptcy filing
after
bankruptcy filing, out of court reorganizations and purchases for
foreign
companies, etc.
Banks and Venture Capitalists love this.
1000 users, 15 hours, isn't all that much when you think about it - At
some
point in the near future, an split such as this is almost assured
ofhaving FCC
attention due to the consequential consumer business impact.
If I understand the way existing VoIP service work,
this depeering
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few years ago you could probably bamboozle them about your
secret sauce containing transit free, peering, x exchange points
and so on. Today I suspect they are less susceptible to that
kind of story and more likely to rely on the experience of
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, J. Oquendo wrote:
/* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking morning */
if you just would have followed your own advise..
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote:
Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet
access ?
Personally I think it's good strategy to multihome with one tier-1 and
one not so tier-1. The ones further down the foodchain are more likely
to be peering whores and
As Randy pointed out, this conversation has been fairly clue free.
Working as a peering coordinator for a large ISP I can tell you
that most of the posts in this thread have been so wrong it makes
me laugh.
ISP's are businesses, and let me tell you that peering is no
exception. People seem to
--- Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is strange that people have to be reminded no
network has the
right to use any other network's resources without
permission.
Most people realize this in one direction. For
instance, the tier
ones love to point out Cogent has no
Pekka Savola [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
er... the first depeering flaps have -already- occured in IPv6
space. there are several (mostly EU-based) ISPs that refuse to
peer w/ folks using 3ffe:: space and/or filter that prefix.
On 10/6/05 1:41 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
They can. Cogent has transit and is preventing traffic from
traversing its
transit connection to reach Level(3). Level(3) does not have
transit - they
are in a condition of
On 10/6/05 6:43 AM, tony sarendal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling
internet access ?
Its a great sales argument. That's why everyone claims to be one. It just
sounds SO good. And its not like the Peering Police are going to enforce
/* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking morning
*/
Let me be the first to congratulate you on such
an excellent idea.
--Michael Dillon
I've been told verbally (still waiting for it in writing) that UUNet and
TWTC (4323) are about to depeer (today?). I wouldn't have guessed TWTC
had SFI with UUNet...so maybe they're just falling back from paid peering
to cheaper transit.
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote:
Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet
access ?
its the same as it always was, its a marketing positive. but thats because the
market is dumb.
if you wish to make your purchasing decision on 'tier-1' status thats up
On Oct 6, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
Cogent does purchase transit from Verio to Sprint, AOL, and other
locations (but not to Level 3). Perhaps Dan would like to explain
why that is relevant to the discussion at hand? Or why that puts the
ball in Cogent's court?
Since you
On 06/10/05, Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote:
Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when selling internet
access ?
its the same as it always was, its a marketing positive. but thats because the
market is dumb.
if you wish
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
/* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking morning
*/
Let me be the first to congratulate you on such
an excellent idea.
--Michael Dillon
Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my
previous
Is being a tier-1 now a good or bad sales argument when
selling internet access ?
Its a great sales argument. That's why everyone claims to be
one. It just sounds SO good. And its not like the Peering
Police are going to enforce it. What does it mean in real
life? Nothing. Nada. An
since i can not mail to you
randy
---
From: Mail Delivery System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:33:15 +
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent
On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, tony sarendal wrote:
This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind
of event happen.
Purchasing a single-homed service from a Tier-1 provider will
guarantee that you
are affected by this every time it happens.
s/every time it
A consortium of companies using this NAP would engineer the network
since
most times government officials have little clue on the engineering
side
of things, nor would they understand it more than those already in the
industry.
Having read this thread,
I'm going to assume most of the
/* tip never write e-mail within the first hour of your waking
morning
*/
Let me be the first to congratulate you on such
an excellent idea.
Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my
previous idea `could` work for all parties.
Somehow I think you
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 10:26 -0400, J. Oquendo wrote:
Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my
previous idea `could` work for all parties. Of course those making
financial decisions would likely hate this idea since it would somehow
manage to hurt their
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
since i can not mail to you
rfc compliance, it's not just a good idea...
ANSWER SECTION:
politrix.org. 3600IN MX 10 209.94.123.155.
:( (unless ICANN just opened a new TLD: .155 ?)
randy
---
From: Mail Delivery System
Greetings - We've added a few new talks for LA, marked with ***. Abstracts
are at http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0510/topics.html.
SUNDAY ACTIVITIES
-
- All-day Tutorial (9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.)
Getting Started with IPv6
Level: Introductory
Jordi Palet,
On 06/10/05, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 6, 2005, at 10:19 AM, tony sarendal wrote:
This is not the first and certainly not the last time we see this kind
of event happen.
Purchasing a single-homed service from a Tier-1 provider will
guarantee that you
are
J. Oquendo wrote:
Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What about the
roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where those
backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly enforced
rulesets they'd have to follow. The irony of this is that it
Finally, some press taking notice:
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4531
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:56 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
J. Oquendo wrote:
Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What about the
roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where those
backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly
Erik Haagsman wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 11:56 -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
This partitioning is exactly what we predicted in many meetings when
discussion the terms of the contracts.
Markets are inefficient for infrastructure and tend toward monopoly.
How does replacing
William Allen Simpson wrote:
How do you expect to enforce your member regulations?
Again (to keep this on-topic), this partitioning is exactly what we
predicted. And I don't see your member regulations having any effect.
Following up on my own post, according to
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Finally, some press taking notice:
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=4531
More at:
http://news.com.com/Network+feud+leads+to+Net+blackout/2100-1038_3-5889592.html
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/68174
On Oct 6, 2005, at 11:56 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Let me be the punching bag for pondering this on NANOG... What
about the
roles of governments building a consortium with Teir-1 NSP's where
those
backbone Tiers are regulated and have predefined, strictly enforced
rulesets they'd
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:33:38PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
It's more likely someone skimps on connections they pay per meg for than
peering links, therefore it's in my expereience more likely to be
uncongested on peering links than transit links.
Sometimes yes, sometimes. no.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Allen Simpson) [Thu 06 Oct 2005, 19:10 CEST]:
Following up on my own post, according to
http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/
Useful page, isn't it?
Cogent, Open
Level(3), Not public
We Dare B.V., Open
So, what did your member organization do to resolve this
On Oct 6, 2005, at 2:47 AM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Inbound traffic doesn't cost them anything? That old adage only
applies to
end user transit purchasers who have doing extra outbound and thus
have
free inbound under the higher of in or out billing. For folks
operating an actual
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic
exchange was paid for and there was no settlement
free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid
full transit and paid partial transit on the menu?
This assumes that one party wants to receive the bits more than
Niels Bakker wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Allen Simpson) [Thu 06 Oct 2005,
19:10 CEST]:
Following up on my own post, according to
http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/
Useful page, isn't it?
I wish that all IXs had one.
Cogent, Open
Level(3), Not public
We Dare B.V., Open
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:59:01PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
You are mistaken.
If I sent 100 Gbps outbound and 20 inbound, I can sell 40-60 Gbps of
additional inbound for FAR, FAR less than 40-60 Gbps of additional
outbound.
Zero cost? Probably not. Trivial cost?
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, J. Oquendo wrote:
Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my
previous idea `could` work for all parties. Of course those making
financial decisions would likely hate this idea since it would somehow
manage to hurt their business in their
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Following up on my own post, according to
http://www.ams-ix.net/connected/
Useful page, isn't it?
I wish that all IXs had one.
I wish everyones was as complete as LINX's:
https://www.linx.net/www_public/our_members/peering_matrix/
On Oct 6, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:59:01PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
You are mistaken.
If I sent 100 Gbps outbound and 20 inbound, I can sell 40-60 Gbps of
additional inbound for FAR, FAR less than 40-60 Gbps of additional
outbound.
On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:27:24 PDT, David Schwartz said:
Level 3 cut of Cogent's connectivity. Until and unless they
give some
reason that makes sense, they are no longer making the effort
and are not
part of the internet.
If I had a garden, things would grow *so* wonderfully
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:54:34 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I realize that the nuke survivable thing is probably an old
wives tale, it seems ridiculous that the Internet can't adjust by
[...]
It's not a myth. If the Internet were running RIP instead of BGP
For the Internet, I
There is another point here. For anyone signing contracts where the
buyer has significant bargaining power with the seller, you can
specifically stipulate that connectivity to the seller's network is
not-good-enough to save them from paying an SLA event or indeed
breaching the contract. (What
on Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 03:25:54PM -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:54:34 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I realize that the nuke survivable thing is probably an old
wives tale, it seems ridiculous that the Internet can't adjust by
[...]
It's not a myth. If
Title: MPLScon 2006 Call for Presentations
The Call for Presentations for MPLScon 2006 is now available at http://www.mplscon.com/speaker/submit_pres.html
MPLScon 2006 takes place May 22-26 in New York City. Please see the above web site for additional details or contact me with any questions
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Steven Champeon wrote:
on Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 03:25:54PM -0500, John Kristoff wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:54:34 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I realize that the nuke survivable thing is probably an old
wives tale, it seems ridiculous that the Internet can't
Michael Dillon wrote:
P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic
exchange was paid for and there was no settlement
free interconnect at all? I.e. paid peering, paid
full transit and paid partial transit on the menu?
Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater
On Wednesday 05 October 2005 15:52, JC Dill wrote:
Matthew Crocker wrote:
Ok, I *pay* Cogent for 'Direct Internet Access' which is IP Transit
service. I *cannot* get to part of the internet via Cogent right now.
[snip]
*not* providing complete Internet access, I really don't care who's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Schliesser, Benson) writes:
Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit:
the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes?
If both the sender and receiver are being billed for the traffic by
their respective (different) service providers (all
I would think in NANOG that one would know the simple fact that 'The
Complete
Internet' is complete and utter fiction, and does not exist. What
does exist
is a complex, dynamic, even stochastic set of relationships between
autonomous networks, who can pick and choose their relationships
Customers don't want to pay for a stochastic set of relationships,
they will pay for the Internet however.
Perhaps we have lied to the them?
The internet has always been a stochastic set of relationships -- some
relationships of which are based upon two people getting drunk together at
In a message written on Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 06:36:00PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
All philosophy aside, it does bother me that a simple single depeering can
cause such an uproar in a network supposedly immune to nuclear war (even
though the Internet was not designed from the start to survive
If you don't have enable on a router, and you've never negotiated
peering with a transit free ISP then you're not qualified to comment.
You really don't understand what's going on here, and it's not, I
repeat, not a technical problem. There is nothing wrong with the
technology, architecture,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deepak Jain) [Fri 07 Oct 2005, 02:29 CEST]:
I think Cogent's offer of providing free transit to all single homed
Level3 customers is particularly clever and being underpublicized. I
wouldn't be surprised if Cogent is in more buildings than Level3 with a
high degree of
on peering, transit, and why Vadim should be flogged... :)
Vadim (i think) frist coined the term Tier-N for classifying ISPs. Nice
marketing term.
wrt peering, tranist, and the relative importance of communications channels...
) the PSTN is not ubiquitious ... it is NOT possible to
I guess a significant part of the single-homed networks behind Level(3)
would be in PA space owned by them, and thus will find the initial step
towards multihoming very hard to take (renumbering into PI or their own
PA space).
Its absolutely a high bar. It is no higher than changing
Probably the most authoritative statement out there is at
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/23/msg00081.html
I quote:
So the motivation for Paul's work was to provide a minimal but highly
survivable one-way communications arrangement to get out the go-code; it
On 6-Oct-2005, at 19:38, Schliesser, Benson wrote:
Customers don't want to pay for a stochastic set of relationships,
they will pay for the Internet however.
What is Internet? Let's channel Seth Breidbart briefly and call it
the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive
Benson Schliesser wrote:Michael Dillon wrote: P.S. would the Internet be worse off if all traffic . exchange was paid for and there was no settlement free interconnect at all?
I.e. paid peering, paid full transit and paid partial transit on the menu?Would you care to speculate on which party
On Oct 7, 2005, at 1:17 AM, Silver Tiger wrote:
Provider A has host/service/user traffic that we will call Blue
Bricks
that need to be moved outside their network.
Provider B has host/service/user traffic that we will call Red
Bricks that
need to be moved outside their network..
Both
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Further, the internet has always been a best-effort medium.
Can someone please explain how Level 3 is making a best effort to
connect their customers to Cogent's customers?
Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from
mostly-content networks to
74 matches
Mail list logo
