[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Schwartz) writes:
I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more
expensive to receive traffic than to send it.
It is? For everybody? For always? That's a BIG statement. Can
you justify?
In those cases where it in fact is and there's
Peering Ratios?
It is very timely that the upcoming NANOG Peering BOF X in Los Angeles
will have a debate on this very subject: Traffic Ratios - a valid
settlement metric or dinosaur from the dot.bomb past.
I'm sure the strongest arguments from these threads will be clearly
articulated (in a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Schwartz) writes:
My point is simply that the your customers are getting more out of
our network that our customers are argument is bull. Your customers are
paying you to carry their traffic over your network.
whenever you think you have a reasonable design,
in a pay-me-now-or-pay-me-later scenario, you have to pick now
vs. later.
(it's a pity that the internet, for all its power, cannot alter
that rule.)
It should be noted that if one opts for 'later', you can do quick and
dirty games with NAT. Do not renumber, change providers and put a
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:41:55 BST, Stephen J. Wilcox said:
my rule would be if your provider can manage an autonomous system better
than
you and multihoming isnt a requirement of your business then let them take
on
the management
I'm
Yes, indeed, I think it makes sense to multihome my humble enduser pc.
Right now all I can get is aDSL and it does not matter what provider
because they all use DTAG.DE infrastructure.
Maybe cable will be choce. It is not as fast as aDSL at least not here
and it will take another two or three
Look into multi6 - which basically proposes new network layer above ip
but below tcp and that new layer would provide common end-point for
system with multiple ip addresses.
A closer possibility right now is dns multi-homing based on incoming
request ip, i.e. dns server would answer with
On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Look into multi6 - which basically proposes new network layer above ip
multi6 is dead, long live shim6... attend and discuss in Vancouver.
(also, I'm fairly sure it's not going to help if you only have a single
provider)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Schwartz) writes:
I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more
expensive to receive traffic than to send it.
It is? For everybody? For always? That's a BIG statement. Can you justify?
...
The question is whether the benefit to each
On Oct 8, 2005, at 7:02 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from
mostly-content networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good
reason to
not peer.
I think the industry simply needs to accept that it's more
expensive to
receive traffic
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual
contracts. Please post the relevant sections, Mr Wilcox.
the contract talks of on-net
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me that the ideal here would be for the industry to agree on a
dispute resolution mechanism and for all bilateral peering agreements to
include the same arbitration clause. For this kind of arbitration to function
well, the arbitrators
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
On 10/6/05 10:37 AM, 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
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 20:41:55 BST, Stephen J. Wilcox said:
my rule would be if your provider can manage an autonomous system better than
you and multihoming isnt a requirement of your business then let them take on
the management
I'm willing to bet there's a lot of single-homed customers of
Take-away: Do not single home. ...
so, CIDR was a bad idea, and we should push forward with one AS per
end-site and a global routing table of 500 million entries?
I think that's unnecessarily one dimensional. The needs of business to
be connected in a reliable fashion are above and
I'm willing to bet there's a lot of single-homed customers of both Cogent
and L3 that 2 weeks ago didn't think multihoming was a requirement of
their business either, who now are contemplating it. Plus possibly some
single-homed customers of other large providers as well.
any ISP likely to
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:54:37PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
Various people have stated that uneven data flows (e.g. from
mostly-content networks to mostly-eyeball networks) is a good reason to
not peer. I'd love to know how it improves Level 3's network to have
data from Cogent arrive over
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, JC Dill wrote:
to pay (anyone) to transit the data. Why does L3 care if Cogent sends the
data for free via peering, or pays someone ELSE to transit the data?
Anything to increase a competitors spending must be good, right?
The more expenses a competitor has, the higher
Would you care to speculate on which party receives the greater benefit:
the sender of bytes, or the receiver of bytes?
Nope!
I'll let the economists argue about that question.
Probably on some other list where people know a lot
more about the issue of value than on this list.
--Michael
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, tony sarendal wrote:
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
On 05 Oct 2005, at 13:44 , Charles Gucker wrote:
Oh man, I have to jump in here for a moment. Not that I agree with
what happened, but to refute your claim that Cogent can get L3
elsewhere, it goes both ways. L3 can also get Cogent connectivity
elsewhere. This is a big game of chicken, it
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, JC Dill wrote:
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?
thats not what alex means as you know. and
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 believe it was indeed a myth. I wasn't there,
but
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, JC Dill wrote:
IMHO all L3 customers have a valid argument that Level 3 is in default of any
service contract that calls for best effort or similar on L3's part.
can you cite the relevant clause in your Level3 contract that brings you to this
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:29:06AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
You also forgot that Providers A B have to pay cab fare to get to
those geographically dispersed corners. One might have to take the
cab a lot longer than the other, incurring more time money.
You also forgot ...
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, JC Dill wrote:
IMHO all L3 customers have a valid argument that Level 3 is in default of
any
service contract that calls for best effort or similar on L3's part.
can you cite the relevant
Jay Adelson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 01:29:06AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
You also forgot that Providers A B have to pay cab fare to get to
those geographically dispersed corners. One might have to take the
cab a lot longer than the other, incurring more time money.
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 03:17:53AM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 10:54:37PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
AFAICT there's only one reason to break off peering, and it's to force
Cogent to pay (anyone) to transit the data. Why does L3 care if Cogent
sends the data
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
In a message written on Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:40:50AM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
Yes, you would be correct. Which offers an interesting thought: why would
it be important for you then but not now? If the issue impacts your
customers, then why not spend the 3 minutes reconfiguring your
Rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual
contracts. Please post the relevant sections, Mr Wilcox.
the contract talks of on-net traffic, off-net traffic and excused
outages
excused outages includes that of third party network providers
off-net traffic has
On 10/6/05 10:30 AM, Randy Bush [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 it.
On 10/6/05 10:37 AM, 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
*Leo Bicknell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
I think Dave Reed should have just said to the reporter that the
Internet survived 9/11 so well because it was largely a
non-centralized network that does not depend on any kind of central
traffic control. It's like a road network where every driver(packet)
is free to detour around obstructions.
What is Internet? Let's channel Seth Breidbart briefly and call it
the largest equivalence class in the reflexive transitive symmetric
closure of the relationship can be reached by an IP packet from. It
should be clear that the nature and extent of this network depends
very much on
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 22:54:37 PDT, JC Dill said:
I also believe that Cogent has a valid argument that Level 3's behavior
is anti-competitive in a market where the tier 1 networks *collectively*
have a 100% complete monopoly on the business of offering transit-free
backbone internet
Paul Vixie wrote:
[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)
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 02:53:02AM -0600, Lewis Butler wrote:
On 05 Oct 2005, at 13:44 , Charles Gucker wrote:
Oh man, I have to jump in here for a moment. Not that I agree with
what happened, but to refute your claim that Cogent can get L3
elsewhere, it goes both ways. L3 can also get
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, William Allen Simpson wrote:
Rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual
contracts. Please post the relevant sections, Mr Wilcox.
the contract talks of on-net traffic, off-net traffic and excused outages
excused outages
On Oct 7, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Charles Gucker wrote:
Simply put, yes. Longer answer, Level(3) would have to kiss
and make up with Cogent before the sessions would be coordinated to
be turned up. There would certainly have to be a renewed level of
communication between these two networks to
On Oct 7, 2005, at 11:31 AM, Daniel Golding wrote:
Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring this
out.
If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can not
support
multiple Internet pipes, than you have a suboptimal business model (to
put
it lightly)
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Oct 6, 2005, at 8:32 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
* [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.
Yes, and
At 01:37 PM 10/7/2005, you wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring this out.
If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can
not support
multiple Internet pipes, than you have a suboptimal business
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes:
Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring this out.
If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can not support
multiple Internet pipes, than you have a suboptimal business model (to put
it lightly)
so, CIDR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Gucker) writes:
Ok, as I understand it, Level3 can get Cogent connectivity back
simply be restoring the peering that they suspended, right?
that's what this press release says:
http://www.cogentco.com/htdocs/press.php?func=detailperson_id=62
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Schliesser, Benson) writes:
If it's still common for one to be billed only for highest of in
vs. out then there's no way to compare the benefits since there's
always a shadow direction and it won't be symmetric among flow
endpoints.
Thank you, Paul. I'd be
On 07 Oct 2005 19:00:46 +, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Gucker) writes:
Ok, as I understand it, Level3 can get Cogent connectivity back
simply be restoring the peering that they suspended, right?
First off, that's not my quote. ;-) Second, it
Yeah, we just noticed the same..
BGP routing table entry for 38.0.0.0/8, version 23735501
Paths: (3 available, best #1, table Default-IP-Routing-Table)
Flag: 0x220
Advertised to peer-groups:
core
Advertised to non peer-group peers:
64.39.2.107 212.100.225.49
3356 174, (received used)
* [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.
For educational purposes, could someone elaborate on how this would work?
If
On Oct 7, 2005, at 11:54 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes:
Take-away: Do not single home. I'm shocked folks aren't figuring
this out.
If you are a webhoster or enterprise and your business model can
not support
multiple Internet pipes, than you have a
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
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, 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
--- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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
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 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
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
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
A couple weeks later than expected, but as of Oct 5 02:51AM EDT it looks
like 3356 and 174 are no longer reachable.
lg.level3.net:
Show Level 3 (Washington, DC) BGP routes for 38.9.51.20
No matching routes found for 38.9.51.20.
www.cogentco.com looking glass:
Tracing the route to
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
A couple weeks later than expected, but as of Oct 5 02:51AM EDT it looks
like 3356 and 174 are no longer reachable.
lg.level3.net:
Show Level 3 (Washington, DC) BGP routes for 38.9.51.20
No matching routes found for 38.9.51.20.
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
