On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Stephen Stuart wrote:
http://www.rackears.com/
Damn, I'm in the wrong business. From the above-mentioned site:
Cisco Cat. 2924M/2912M (2U) style kit$40.00
C
Stephen
On Wed, 18 Dec 2002, Charles Sprickman wrote:
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Stephen Stuart wrote:
http://www.rackears.com/
Damn, I'm in the wrong business. From the above-mentioned site:
Cisco Cat. 2924M/2912M (2U) style kit$40.00
Think that's high? Check out Cisco's price, and you'll see
Anyone happen to have more information on the problems that have been
happening with the peering between Cogent and Level3. Cogent gives the
standard answer when you call support, but some more specific
information would be great.
Thanks
Dale
Possibly a result of this:
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?s=threadid=96985
Kevin
Anyone happen to have more information on the problems that have been
happening with the peering between Cogent and Level3. Cogent gives the
standard answer when you call support, but some more
Might have to do with
http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-bandwidth/0212/msg00978.html
(AOL vs Cogent Peering issue)
---Mike
At 09:51 AM 18/12/2002 -0500, Dale Levesque wrote:
Anyone happen to have more information on the problems that have been
happening with the peering between
Due to announcement of the NANOG dates that collides with NordNOG,
NordNOG will change the dates.
NordNOG-2 will be held at 13-14 February 2002. The change of dates also
means that we will change the venue.
The venue for the conference will be :
Marievik Konferens
Årstaängsvägen 1 B
AOL (AS1668) stopped peering with cogent yesterday for reasons they did
not disclose publicly. Cogent sends same letter to all customers who
asked for what is going on and in the letter they say that two weeks
ago, peering to AOL was upgraded to OC48 from OC12 and now for some
reason AOL
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:44:55AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AOL (AS1668) stopped peering with cogent yesterday for reasons they did
not disclose publicly. Cogent sends same letter to all customers who
asked for what is going on and in the letter they say that two weeks
ago,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 01:12:02PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:44:55AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AOL (AS1668) stopped peering with cogent yesterday for reasons they did
not disclose publicly. Cogent sends same letter to all customers who
I pointed that out on another list too but somebody else responded that
abovenet to aol connection is congested as it is and more then likely
would not have been able to take all the extra traffic. I'm not a customer
of MFN/abovenet so I really do not know but I did not like it how cogent
Hello all,
I've been trying (rather unsuccessfully) to get a hold of iwon/excite.
They're blocking my mail servers (safepages.com domain), and I'd like to
talk to them about it.
My question:
Does anyone have a NOC or mail admin contact for Excite/Iwon that they
would be willing to share?
In a message written on Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:02:13AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I pointed that out on another list too but somebody else responded that
abovenet to aol connection is congested as it is and more then likely
would not have been able to take all the extra traffic. I'm
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 08:44:55AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AOL (AS1668) stopped peering with cogent yesterday for reasons they did
not disclose publicly. Cogent sends same letter to all customers who
asked for what is going on and in the letter they say that two weeks
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 12:24:31PM -0600, Basil Kruglov wrote:
Why wouldn't Cogent create a community string to provide its multihomed
customers with prepend 16631 (or customer asn) to Level3 peering sessions
to control inbounds better?
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem with
Meeting registration for NANOG 27, February 9-11, 2003,
in Phoenix will open on January 2.
Hotel information is now posted at:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/hotel.html
Call for Presentations:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/call27.html
(Note: deadline for proposals is January 6.)
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:36:04PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Why wouldn't Cogent create a community string to provide its multihomed
customers with prepend 16631 (or customer asn) to Level3 peering sessions
to control inbounds better?
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem with congestion on the inbound
direction. Fix your reverse path.
Customers of Cogent should be/are more concerned about congestion on the
inbounds at Level3 - Cogent; outbound is way too easy to control.
Cogent has a pile of available inbound -
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 03:23:04PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem with congestion on the inbound
direction. Fix your reverse path.
Customers of Cogent should be/are more concerned about congestion on the
inbounds at Level3 - Cogent;
Thing is if your connection is completely full one way, it'll effect
traffic the other way too. It should not be happening with syncronyous
connections, but practical observation is that it does! I suspect router
hardware is to blame (possibly packet cache is way full) and I'v seen
it happen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thing is if your connection is completely full one way, it'll effect
traffic the other way too. It should not be happening with syncronyous
connections, but practical observation is that it does! I suspect router
hardware is to blame (possibly packet cache is way
Me thinks Cogent doesn't have a problem with congestion on the inbound
direction. Fix your reverse path.
Customers of Cogent should be/are more concerned about congestion on the
inbounds at Level3 - Cogent; outbound is way too easy to control.
Cogent has a pile of
Of course, your right about what needs to be fixed! But situation with
cogent is such that I do not have that option. Their peering link with
level3 is congested because of all the traffic going to AOL and some of
traffic destined to me is going through same link the other way and
So what is the story on fiber cuts today? Several people asked me, but I
didn't have anything.
Thing is if your connection is completely full one way, it'll effect
traffic the other way too.
My thoughts are Cogents primary customers are sites that are looking for
very cheap bandwidth, which most likely is adult content. Therefore they
would look more like a content provider than a
I have to disagree with you. I dont think most of their customers
are adult content or the likes looking for cheap transit. I think
there model was to attract business users that wouldnt use the full
pipe. They can burst but arent expected to saturate the pipe 24x7.
It's not a bad model,
Fyi
http://www.directvinternet.com/
another one bites the dust.
If anyone has a usenet server and would like a feed let me know. (FYI
current full feed is 72mb/s) We also can peer bandwidth at any of our sites
which you can see at http://www.webusenet.com/peering.html (PAIX ATL and
Palo Alto are too)
Thanks
Dwight
But they let them
all go. So ones the chef(s) were out the door, who maintains it?
It's not exactly a status quo situation. It was treated in house as,
well we have the peering so why do we need all these pain in the butt
expensive guys?
We could use another one or two of these
Well I believe some are doing consulting. And expensive is relative.
I think their multimillion investment with worth more then a couple
of guys salaries.
Different peers want to see different things. Some want balanced
traffic, certain traffic levels, number of locations etc etc. Many
of
Some possibly good information about what's going on:
Cogent had a test peering arrangement with AOL. That means that it was
just a test to see what the ratio of cogent/aol traffic is to see whether or
not they qualify for a real peering arrangement. Cogent did not meet that
requirement, so AOL
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 10:00:48PM -0500, Gil Cohen wrote:
I think AOL purchases transit from L(3), so by Cogent pushing all their
AOL-bound traffic through their L(3) peering pipes, they're hoping that
it'll push AOL's transit bill up. This is going to be their playing card. I
think.
Not
My thoughts are Cogents primary customers are sites that are looking for
very cheap bandwidth, which most likely is adult content. Therefore they
would look more like a content provider than a transit provider.
Cogent is making in roads at a lot of Universities who want, as we all
know,
On 2002-12-18-23:10:48, Brian Wallingford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looking for an electrical contractor in the northeast (preferably in
the Providence/Boston area) capable of placing an existing Lorain
rectifier battery array in service. All work must comply to local
(Providence) code. Job
I wonder if this isn't a way to slap cogent around for their lower price
points. After all how much grumbling do we hear on various lists about $30
/ meg. Seems there is more to this story because on the surface this makes
no sense. Why would an eyeball provider remove itself from the content
34 matches
Mail list logo
