On Thu Jul 20 Mike Hammet wrote:
> If they (or anyone else) want to give me free service to use as I see fit
> (well, legally), I'll gladly accept their offer.
I once had free IP transit from Cogent for about a year after I told them to
shove it.
Not that it did me much good.
- Jared
On 5/5/23, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Juxtapose that against 100Gbps pricing:
>
> * EUR473 @ 10km.
> * EUR1,300 @ 25km.
> * EUR1,500 @ 30km.
> * EUR2,600 @ 40km.
> * EUR3,925 @ 80km.
You can get 100G optics for less than half those prices.
For reference, here are publicly listed prices for optics
On 2/28/23, Pascal Masha wrote:
> How much will these cost?
ADVA said 4ish grand each. Probably less than five.
- Jared
Looks like coherent 100G in the QSFP28 form factor is finally on the horizon.
From the datasheet:
* 100G coherent DWDM in QSFP28 form factor
* tunable, flexible grid
* 300 km with amplification, 120 km without
* industrial or commercial temperature
* 5 watts
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> I would expect the trend to become that ISP's refuse to accommodate 3rd
>> party vendors shenanigans to the point where it hampers their operations or
>> to the point where it cost them more to do so.
>
> $ISP_1 refuses to accommodate Sony’s shenanigans…
>
Francis Booth wrote:
> I think you’re jumping to conclusions that Sony is doing this purely from the
> darkness in their hearts.
I confess to being momentously surprised if this wasn't the driving reason :)
> The same thing could be said about Netflix and Hulu blocking traffic from
>
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> If I'm a gamer, and one of my possible ISPs is using CGN, and from time to
> time stops working, and another ISP is providing me a public and/or static
> IPv4 address, always working, and there is not too much price difference,
> what I will do?
Changing
Es.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30/3/22, 21:02, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown"
escribió:
Not to necessarily disagree with you, but that is more of a Sony problem
than an IPv4 problem.
- Jared
Jordi Palet wrote:
It is not a fixed one-time cost ... be
> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
> >>>
> >>> Out of interest, how would this come about?
> >>
> >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services.
> > Could you please be more specific about which
.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30/3/22, 18:38, "NANOG en nombre de Jared Brown"
escribió:
Randy Carpenter wrote:
> >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
>
never accelerated in hardware.
> Everything else is so expensive (x86) per Gbps, that CGNAT is not visible in
> the cost.
>
> Eduard
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+vasilenko.eduard=huawei@nanog.org] On
> Behalf Of Jared Brown
> Sent: W
Randy Carpenter wrote:
> >> >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >> >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Out of interest, how would this come about?
> >> >>
> >> >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services.
> >>
Randy Carpenter wrote:
> >> >> Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
> >> >
> >> > Out of interest, how would this come about?
> >>
> >> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services.
> > Could you please
An oft-cited driver of IPv6 adoption is the cost of scaling CGNAT or equivalent
infrastructure for IPv4.
Those of you facing costs for scaling CGNAT, are your per unit costs rising or
declining faster or slower than your IPv4 traffic growth?
I ask because I realize I am not fit to evaluate the
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
> >
> > Out of interest, how would this come about?
>
> ISPs are facing ever growing costs to continue providing IPv4 services.
Could you please be more specific about which costs you are
Doug McIntyre wrote:
> > Jared Brown wrote:
> > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > > When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
> >
> > Out of interest, how would this come about?
>
> It already happens, more along the lines of
Most IPv6 transition mechanisms involve some form of (CG)NAT. After watching a
NANOG presentation on MAP-T, I have a question regarding this.
Why isn't MAP-T more prevalent, given that it is (almost) stateless on the
provider side?
Is it CPE support, the headache of moving state to the CPE,
Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> When your ISP starts charging $X/Month for legacy protocol support
Out of interest, how would this come about?
- Jared
Accidentally put the wrong link for the translation.
Here is the correct link to the machine translation:
https://twitter.com/JiriVysin/status/1500560017640067077
--
According to Nexta (Belorussian media outlet: https://nexta.tv ,
According to Nexta (Belorussian media outlet: https://nexta.tv ,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexta ) Russia has begun active preparations to
disconnection from the global Internet.
No later than March 11, all servers and domains must be transferred to the
Russian zone. In addition, detailed
Mikrotik claims a multirate 1G / 10G / 25G SFP28
https://mikrotik.com/product/xs_31lc10d
- Jared
I don't know what they are putting in the water in Korea, but strange things
are reported from there.
In addition to the SK Telecom shenanigans, apparently KT can't tell the
difference between a DDoS and a routing error.
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20211025006253320
- Jared
Not to be outdone, British Telecom joins the cephalopod games:
“Every Tbps (terabit-per-second) of data consumed over and above current levels
costs about £50m,” says Marc Allera, the chief executive of BT’s consumer
division. “In the last year alone we’ve seen 4Tbps of extra usage and the cost
Doug Barton wrote:
> One incentive I haven't seen anyone mention is that ISPs don't want to
> charge customers what it really costs to provide them access.
For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true.
For this to work, I am really trying hard to ignore inconvenient facts like:
Mark Tinka wrote:
>> Well, yes. Or you could just stream content that is guaranteed to be
>> compatible with the device used.
>
> People on this list would bother to check compatibility.
>
> Jane + Thatho just point & click.
Since we aren't talking about random pirated content, but p2p
Mark Tinka wrote:
> Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I know BitTorrent to
> work is the file is downloaded to disk, unarchived and then listed as
> ready to watch.
That's not how it works. Several streaming BitTorrent clients specifically
request blocks in order so that you can
On Sunday, 30 May 2021 Mike Hammet wrote:
> Why 100/100?
Because subsidies should only be used for long term solutions.
The definition of broadband is mainly relevant to determine who should receive
subsidies. Commercial broadband has already far surpassed the minimums.
- Jared
On Mon, May 31, 2021 Mike Hammett wrote:
> Muni broadband does suck, but that's another thread for another day.
Excluding cases where muni broadband doesn't suck, why does muni broadband
suck?
Personally I wouldn't mind more access to dark fiber à la Stokab, much like
the dry copper pairs
Grant Taylor wrote:
> The process takes multiple weeks.
Out of interest, why does it take multiple weeks to edit a GEO IP entry?
I wonder why Google even has this problem at all. If you've so much as looked
at Google maps or used any app that uses location services then Google knows
with a
Kevin,
One of the presented options isn't like the others. As such the comparison
isn't really fair, especially if you expect to run your business longer than 7
years.
If you buy more IPv4 space you will neither have to deal with CGNAT nor worry
about traffic growth. Both of those benefits
Hello NANOG!
Does anybody have anything, good or bad, to say about Cogent's Global Peer
Exchange?
Jared
Turns out I was wrong, again.
There is at least one vendor that offers pluggable 100G QSFP28 optics that can
reach 120 km with amplification.
Thanks to everybody that reached out! I appreciate all the input and lessons
learned.
Jared
The 100 km leg completes a ring.
Jared
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2020
From: "Ben Cannon"
To: "Jared Brown"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 100G over 100 km of dark fiber
You could break this into 10x 10g coherent lanes, but you’re going to end up
back close to
Hello NANOG!
I need to push 100G over 100 km of dark fiber. Since there are no 100G
pluggable optics with this reach (~25 dB), I have been offered coherent
transport systems to solve my problem. This is all good and well, except total
system costs start from high five figures.
So, my question
I believe this belongs here:
Getting Fiber to My Town by Jared Mauch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASXJgvy3mEg (YouTube video of NLnog
presentation)
https://nlnog.net/static/live/nlnog_live_sep_2020_jared.pdf (slides for
presentation)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24424910#24430901
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2020
From: "Matt Harris"
>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:52 AM Jared Brown
>> mailto:nanog-...@mail.com]> wrote:
>> My no-effort quote from last month lists just the box at $13,000. Once you
>> are all in the total is that 1.5 mul
From: Mike Hammett
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 08:17:26 -0500 (CDT)
> I've been wondering a similar thing for how to take advantage of the 150k -
> 250k hardware routes the CRS317 now has in
> v7 beta. That many routes should cover the peering tables for most operators,
> maybe even transit's
My no-effort quote from last month lists just the box at $13,000. Once you are
all in the total is that 1.5 multiple Baldur mentioned compared to OP.
However, if you google "mx204 price" the first hit wants very much to sell you
one for <$11,000. Caveat emptor and YMMV.
Jared
> Yes I too
Hello all!
Last week the Internet Archive upgraded their bandwidth 30% from 47 Gbps to 62
Gbps. It was all gobbled up immediately. There's a lovely solid green graph
showing how usage grows vertically as each interface comes online until it too
is 100% saturated. Looking at the graph legend
Hello NANOG!
Does anybody have any experience with Cloudflare's "Magic" IP Transit? Good,
bad or ugly?
Jared
There are a few approaches to culling the routing table. You can do it either
statically or dynamically, according to your needs.
1. Filtering based on upstream communities
Slimming down the Internet routing table
41 matches
Mail list logo
