- Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell
higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical
plant. The physical plant operating companies should sell access to the
physical plant to higher level
On 2010/12/21 08:15, Matthew Palmer wrote:
That would be why 32-bit ASNs have been requestable for the last
couple of
years(?); you could have been prodding providers with it doesn't work, fix
it for a while now.
- Matt
Although I realise that, the problem in South Africa is that we
On Monday, December 20, 2010 06:36:03 pm you wrote:
Those are all still sub-T1 on the uplink and well below normal CMTS service
speeds. Low-end CMTS is around 15Mbps/7Mbps.
Yeah, at least with the T-1 you aren't oversubscribed. One company for whom I
consult was going to go from their T-1 to
I faced a similar challenge. If you have line of sight to something, you can do
fixed wireless for maybe 200-400 depending on the gear and frequencies
involved. Check out the ubnt 365 or m5 gear. Cheap as in disposable. Works
quite well. Then order a Comcast business connection there and call
Check out http://www.wispdirectory.com
Go to Contact Us and fill out the form. If you are only a mile away
from a WISP, there is a chance they will build out to you.
On 12/20/2010 6:14 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
Where I live, about 50 miles south of Atlanta down I-85, there is no
consumer
On 12/21/2010 4:57 AM, Heinrich Strauss wrote:
Although I realise that, the problem in South Africa is that we
essentially still have a Telecoms Monopoly: The local loop belongs to
Telkom SA who also competes with ISPs in providing Internet access to
clients, so growth in the ISP sector is
On 12/21/10 1:42 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Bzzt! It's -not- illegal to put a letter inside a FedEx box. It just has
to have the appropriate (USPS) postage on it, _as_well_ as paying the FedEx
service/delivery fee. This is true if it is just the letter you're sending,
or if it is a sealed
On Dec 21, 2010, at 2:42 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
- Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell
higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical
plant. The physical plant operating companies should
The Comcast proposed business model is simply wrong, and unsustainable without
essentially being a protection racket. Pay us more money or your service will
be kneecapped
We have laws against extortion.
We also have laws against warrantless wiretaps. Comcast seeks retroactive
On 12/20/10 9:07 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Dec 20, 2010, at 8:51 01PM, JC Dill wrote:
Do you have any cites saying that this was actually rolled out? Or did the
project get cut during the financial crisis, and never actually rolled out?
The issue I have with all these cites is that none
Sincerely,
Brian A . Rettke
RHCT, CCDP, CCNP, CCIP
Network Engineer, CableONE Internet Services
-Original Message-
From: Lamar Owen [mailto:lo...@pari.edu]
Interestingly enough, we've tried to do H.323 with some folks on a CMTS
connection, and have yet to succeed in smooth video.
- Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Yeah... I'd rather see it done in such a way that there is a
prohibition of common ownership or management. Essentially,
require that the stock be split and each current owner receives
one share in each company with any shareholders who own more than
A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made
a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE,
Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple
feeds. I think that website also had text files with the comparisons.
Maybe this is a good place to start..
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/compare/
- Jared
On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made
a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE,
Jared Mauch wrote:
Maybe this is a good place to start..
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/compare/
- Jared
On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made
a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different
Hello Everyone:
Merit will be performing maintenance on the server providing for the NANOG
mailing list at 5:00 PM EST today. The anticipated downtime is less than 5
minutes. If you have any questions please send let us know at adm...@nanog.org.
Regards,
Mike
On behalf of the NANOG
Thanks. I think the DFP might be a better fit, but right now it's timing
out.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:39 AM
To: frnk...@iname.com
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
Maybe
On 12/20/2010 8:51 PM, JC Dill wrote:
On 20/12/10 2:15 PM, David Sparro wrote:
There is no monopoly. They've already experimented with that and
(apparently) decided that it wasn't worth it.
In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:47:45PM -0500, David Sparro
wrote:
I still think that the link shows that the factors are more economic
than regulatory. As you point out, even where the regulatory obstacles
have been overcome, it is not clear that Verizon ever actually did
On Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:26:48 am Rettke, Brian wrote:
The problem is probably not the connection speed, but congestion on the CMTS.
If the downstream is saturated (too many people watching Netflix on a node)
the available shared bandwidth may not be enough to support your real-time
Does anyone have COX NOC contact number??
Thx
Luiz Rosas
IP Network Engineer
Astound/Wave Broadband
San Francisco, CA 94124
415-349-2940 Office
650-642-4638 Mobile
On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote:
A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made
a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different operators (i.e. HE,
Cogent, Sprint, etc), making the point that a full view might take multiple
feeds. I think that website
Size doesn't matter. It's how well you use it.
Route it, baby...
;)
On 12/21/10 1:56 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 12/21/2010 11:32, Frank Bulk wrote:
A week or more ago someone posted in NANOG or elsewhere a site that had made
a comparison of the IPv6 BGP table sizes of different
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:42:09AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
So if it's illegal for you to put a letter inside a FedEx box,
Bzzt! It's -not- illegal to put a letter inside a FedEx box. It just has
to have the appropriate (USPS) postage on it,
On 21 Dec 2010, at 07:18, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Jim Gettys wrote:
Common knowledge among whom? I'm hardly a naive Internet user.
Anyone actually looking into the matter. The Cisco fair-queue command was
introduced in IOS 11.0 according to
--Congestion == oversubscribed. I would love to see a public posting or
notice or something on my ISP's website showing current flows and congestion
(the Cacti driven Network Weathermap is one such tool I've seen networks use;
one of my providers used to have one publicly available, and it was
Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far
too powerful a lobbying force, but, I think that would be the best
thing for the consumers.
Presumably for both the consumers *and* every company involved in
network services who doesn't have the luck of a historical
On 12/20/2010 06:36 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
snip
I'm happy for you. The ATT cable plant in my neighborhood is unable to
sustain any better than 1.5mbps/384k on ADSL.
And mine (older Baltimore-area, ex-bell atlantic, now verizon) won't
sustain 384x384 at 15k ft, it works with about 10% packet
On Dec 20, 2010, at 11:18 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Jim Gettys wrote:
Common knowledge among whom? I'm hardly a naive Internet user.
Anyone actually looking into the matter. The Cisco fair-queue command was
introduced in IOS 11.0 according to
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one
provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from
public route-view servers.
ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%)
Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%)
GLBX AS3549: 3,706 (91.8%)
Not sure what route-server you are speaking of, but a quick peek at what we
send on a customer session I see:
NTT (2914) sends 3868 prefixes.
If the route server contacts me in private, we can likely set up a view from
2914 or 2914-customer perspective.
- Jared
On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:18 PM,
The provider who gave me the information didn't tell me what public route
server they used. They didn't analyze all ASNs, just the handful I listed.
It would be interesting if someone set up a daily report that documented all
the IPv6 routes an ASN carried, and then tracked both the absolute
Here's what I see:
Level 3: 2949
HE: 3775
NTT: 3867
Init7: 3665
Mike
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com
w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050
PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
On 12/21/2010 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one
provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from
public route-view servers.
ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%)
Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%)
On 12/21/2010 7:10 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 12/21/2010 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one
provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from
public route-view servers.
ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%)
On 12/21/2010 14:18, Frank Bulk wrote:
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one
provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from
public route-view servers.
ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%)
Cogent AS174: 2,864 (71.0%)
Hi all,
I have a customer who is looking for examples of WCCPv2 deployments
for traffic levels 3 gige (and above, up to 10ge.)
Now I know that theoretically there's no reason why this shouldn't
be the case, but as I don't have a lab of 10GE capable Cisco L3 devices,
I'm unable to verify that
On 12/21/2010 7:10 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
On 12/21/2010 5:18 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one
provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from
public route-view servers.
ATT AS7018: 2,851 (70.7%)
On 12/21/2010 10:49 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Obviously, this probably won't happen. The Telcos in the US have far too
powerful a
lobbying force snip
Owen
Sad that we can admit this fact so freely.
On Dec 21, 2010, at 4:20 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 12/21/2010 14:18, Frank Bulk wrote:
There are 4,035 routes in the global IPv6 routing table. This is what one
provider passed on to me for routes (/48 or larger prefixes), extracted from
public route-view servers.
ATT AS7018: 2,851
On 12/21/2010 10:19, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The lesson here is that we need to decided what it is we are offering. As an
ISP, we never offered different rates by distance or for different types of
traffic. We did offer different rates for different sized pipes (aka volume).
That is, we
Looks like AS13722 (Default Route, Inc), is advertising both
2607:ff08:cafe::/48 and 2607:ff08::/32.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Mike Tancsa [mailto:m...@sentex.net]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 6:19 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: IPv6 BGP table size comparisons
On 12/21/2010
I could not find this information on any Wikis, but this is the sort
of thing that would be nice to be able to find out without posting on
the list or asking around (obviously.) I have quickly made a couple
of entries with simple enough formatting that anyone can go onto
Wikipedia, click Edit,
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 06:41:09PM -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Contrary to popular belief the average person tend to severely dislike
all forms of road construction or having their yard repeatedly torn up.
I know it's all happy fun times to say let's have 10 water/electrical
providers and
HE routes missing on Cogents side?
I would guess HE routes missing at Cogent and Cogent routes missing at HE.
Remember the cake?
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Hurricane-Cake
.jpg
Or was that rectified? Mahtan?
Randy
At 14:01 21/12/2010 -0500, Scott Morris wrote:
Actually it depends on the # of route injects and withdrawls.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
-Hank
Size doesn't matter. It's how well you use it.
Route it, baby...
;)
On 12/21/10 1:56 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
On 12/21/2010 11:32,
An old classic, but maybe it will help put everyone in the holiday spirit.
The Twelve Days of NYIIX
On the first day of Christmas, NYIIX gave to me,
A BPDU from someone's spanning tree.
On the second day of Christmas, NYIIX gave to me,
Two forwarding
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_by_major_transit_providers
'Maximum Prefix Length' may be an over-simplifying metric. FWIW, we're
certainly not a major transit provider, but we do allow /48 in the
designated PI ranges but not
48 matches
Mail list logo
