Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Dragos Ruiu wrote: > Bet you a beer it won't happen. :) I will let you know next February when my rabbit ears stop working :) ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: "Scott Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? From: Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was an element of multi-pronged lobbying approaches... Look at who is saying it and it's quite obvious... "Jim Cicconi, vice president of legislative affairs for AT&T, warned... scott" ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] Cogent Router dropping packets
(Crossed Fingers) Cogent's network seems "OK", for now. I've received several responses asking for details on how I would avoid Cogent. It looks like getting a connection to the AT&T network will allow us to serve our customers on their DSLS and use their direct peering to the Time Warner network for our customers with cable Internet. If anyone has any ideas on how this will work, please let me know. For instance, do most networks prefer to keep packets on their network until closest to the end point or might a network just send the traffic through cogent in another part of their network a few hops away? -Original Message- From: Mike Fedyk Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets I spoke too soon: Host Loss% Snt Last Avg Best Wrst StDev 1. adsl-63-194-XXX-XXX.dsl.lsan03.pacbell.net 0.0% 1099.2 19.2 8.4 57.9 11.0 2. dist3-vlan60.irvnca.sbcglobal.net 0.9% 1098.4 16.7 8.3 45.6 9.6 3. bb1-p6-7.emhril.ameritech.net 0.0% 1098.6 36.3 8.5 256.6 44.2 4. ex2-p14-0.eqlaca.sbcglobal.net 0.0% 109 10.3 39.4 9.3 209.3 46.2 5. te8-1.mpd01.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com0.0% 108 32.4 34.3 9.3 238.6 45.1 6. vl3491.ccr02.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com 3.7% 108 17.0 23.4 12.9 98.9 13.4 7. te3-4.ccr01.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 17.6% 108 39.1 28.8 16.4 198.9 22.1 8. vl3805.na21.b002695-2.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com 12.0% 108 34.1 27.6 17.0 68.7 11.2 9. PAETEC_Communications_Inc.demarc.cogentco.com 10.2% 108 22.4 35.3 17.0 168.7 27.8 10. gi-4-0-1-3.core01.lsajca01.paetec.net 18.5% 108 21.2 34.2 21.0 188.6 20.6 11. po-5-0-0.core01.anhmca01.paetec.net10.3% 108 35.7 33.9 20.5 232.7 23.9 12. gi-3-0-0.edge03.anhmca01.paetec.net13.0% 108 21.0 31.6 20.2 157.9 16.6 13. 74.10.xxx.xxx 11.1% 108 25.7 33.9 25.2 55.2 8.9 14. 74.10.xxx.xxx 15.7% 108 26.7 35.7 25.0 70.8 11.7 -Original Message- From: Mike Fedyk Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 2:15 PM To: Ryan Harden Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Cogent Router dropping packets Thank you, the issue seems to be fixed now at Cogent. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[Nanog] [admin] Re: ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Jeff Shultz wrote: > Mike Lieman wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 > >> > From: "Mike Lieman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > >> > > > >> > > >> > It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes > >> > everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in > >> > statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. > > > > If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in > > such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they > > could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards > > would be ensconced in Law? > > > > Are we really going to get into politics here? I smell trolls. Yes, this is getting very offtopic very fast. Politics, philosophy and legal are explicitly forbidden on the list, and this hits all 3. Could y'all knock it off, please? Please see this for NANOG AUP: http://www.nanog.org/aup.html Off-topic: * Whining as in, "so-and-so are terrible lawbreakers and they owe us". * Network neutrality (this has been discussed to death here) - unless you have something poignant to add and you've read in detail what has been said previously. * Anything political that does not have operational impact. * Anything legal that does not have operational impact. On-topic: * Operational impact of legal/political/financial external constraints. -alex ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On 18-Apr-08, at 1:45 PM, David Coulson wrote: > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is >> supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% >> of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one >> until >> it became too late. ) > This is not accurate. In 2009 the US is terminating analog (NTSC) > transmission of 'over the air' broadcasts. It has nothing to do with > 'high definition' broadcasts. OTA broadcasts will just be done using > ATSC, rather than NTSC. It will continue to provide SD programming. Bet you a beer it won't happen. :) Just like the mandated HD broadcasts in top markets by 1997 or else they lose license. cheers, --dr ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Mike Lieman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 >> > From: "Mike Lieman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html >> > > >> > >> > It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes >> > everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in >> > statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. > > If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in > such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they > could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards > would be ensconced in Law? > Are we really going to get into politics here? I smell trolls. -- Jeff Shultz ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400 > > From: "Mike Lieman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > > > > > > It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes > > everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in > > statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. If it's impossible to hold AT&T accountable for violating the Law in such a blatant, wholesale manner, how could anyone believe that they could be held accountable to whatever Network Neutrality standards would be ensconced in Law? ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in statutory penalties for their unlawful spying. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
> > If the cable operators put their broadcast content onto an access > network multicast . . . Then how could they resell the same content to > europe? hello, my biggest problem in understanding the ip6 / multicast concept is " if the whole internet were multicast enabled " and there is no unicast stream would´nt this not decrease_the_traffic_to_a_reasonable amount ??!! regards marc - Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -- John F. Kennedy, 35th US president Les enfants teribbles - research and deployment Marc Manthey - Hildeboldplatz 1a D - 50672 Köln - Germany Tel.:0049-221-3558032 Mobil:0049-1577-3329231 jabber :[EMAIL PROTECTED] blog : http://www.let.de ipv6 http://stattfernsehen.com/matrix ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] List Change [was Re: [OT] Fwd: Photo]
Despite the chatter, I think we should all congratulate Merit on a very smooth and orderly transition to the new server. No, it was not perfect, but given all the possible outcomes, we are definitely in the top quartile. IMHO, of course. -- TTFN, patrick ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:51:59 -0700 > From: Jacob Appelbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo > > Megaera wrote: > > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list for > > years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've subscribed > > to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had been > > dumped too. > > > > This has happened to me as well. I was a digest subscriber and now I'm > getting each message. Did someone tamper with the settings or was there > an administrative mistake? I don't have the message, but, a few days ago, there was a message from Betty that basically said that the list was moving and that we would have to recreate any individual settings... And that would be a good time to set a password. Regards, Gregory Hicks > > Regards, > Jacob > > ___ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog --- Gregory Hicks| Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 2655 Seely Ave M/S 9A1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] NANOG list changes
Seems to have forgotten I subscribed to the digest as well. Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -Original Message- From: Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:22:49 To:NANOG Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't been following the list for a few months. They also changed the message headers and they no longer include the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] matthew black network services california state university, long beach 1250 bellflower boulevard long beach, ca 90840-0101 On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Welcome to the NANOG@nanog.org mailing list! > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > nanog@nanog.org > > General information about the mailing list is at: [...snip] ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] NANOG list changes
Matthew Black wrote: > OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't > been following the list for a few months. They also > changed the message headers and they no longer include > the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. > > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] looks like you can use: X-BeenThere: nanog@nanog.org Rob++ -- | |Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __o |Life: [EMAIL PROTECTED]_`\<,_ | (_)/ (_) |"They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance." | -- Major General John Sedgwick ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[Nanog] List Change [was Re: [OT] Fwd: Photo]
It was an announced change. List moved to new platform. Check your archives for: Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:05:56 -0400 From: "Betty J. Burke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: List Transistion /lc On Apr 18, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Megaera wrote: > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the > list for > years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've > subscribed > to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings > had been > dumped too. > > Any ideas? > > > -- > God grant me the senility to forget the people that I never > liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones that I do, > and the eyesight to tell the difference. > > ___ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] NANOG list changes
> From: Matthew Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: NANOG > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:22:49 -0700 > Subject: [Nanog] NANOG list changes > > OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't > been following the list for a few months. They also > changed the message headers and they no longer include > the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. > > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Try this: X-BeenThere: nanog@nanog.org > > matthew black > network services > california state university, long beach > 1250 bellflower boulevard > long beach, ca 90840-0101 > > > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:02 + > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Welcome to the NANOG@nanog.org mailing list! > > > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > > > nanog@nanog.org > > > > General information about the mailing list is at: > [...snip] > > ___ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog --- Gregory Hicks| Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 2655 Seely Ave M/S 9A1 San Jose, CA 95134 I am perfectly capable of learning from my mistakes. I will surely learn a great deal today. "A democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding on what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the results of the decision." "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
If the cable operators put their broadcast content onto an access network multicast . . . Then how could they resell the same content to europe? > -Original Message- > From: Scott Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:15 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010 > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat > dubious (working for a company that produces video for online > distribution) - although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as > "in 3 years' time, 20 typical households will generate more > traffic than the entire Internet today". Is there some secret > plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical households" in the next > 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't have accurate > figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be > generated by any single household regardless of equipment > installed, torrents traded or videos downloaded. Even given a > liberal application of Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the > case in 2010 either. > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims > were (if they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from > ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers > were tossed into the air without any mention of how they were > derived. A cynical person might be tempted to think it was > all a scare tactic to soften up legislators for the next wave > of "reasonable network management" practices that just happen > to have significant revenue streams attached to them ... > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED],darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 > http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key > > ___ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo
Megaera wrote: > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list for > years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've subscribed > to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had been > dumped too. > This has happened to me as well. I was a digest subscriber and now I'm getting each message. Did someone tamper with the settings or was there an administrative mistake? Regards, Jacob ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html >> >> I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious >> (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - > > I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is > supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% > of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until > it became too late. ) I'm part of the 60%... since I'm on satellite I believe I don't need to switch... in fact it would cost me more to get service in HD now if I did switch. I suspect there are a lot of me's out there. -- Jeff Shultz ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo
> I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list > for > years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've > subscribed > to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had > been > dumped too. > > Any ideas? http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg07543.html See the message from Betty Burke from Thursday April 17th. New server, new list. I'm guessing the virus notifications were accidentally missed during the migration. -John ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Megaera wrote: > I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list > for years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've > subscribed to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list > settings had been dumped too. Yes, there was an email prior regarding list transition from Majordomo to mailman. If you missed the email, it is here: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg07543.html Sorry about virus notices. Merit needs to change mailman (or MTA) settings to drop virus-infected emails instead of stripping/bouncing/whatever. If you'd like to discuss mailing list operations, you should do it on [EMAIL PROTECTED], not here. Thanks -alex [MLC chair] ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is > supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% > of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until > it became too late. ) This is not accurate. In 2009 the US is terminating analog (NTSC) transmission of 'over the air' broadcasts. It has nothing to do with 'high definition' broadcasts. OTA broadcasts will just be done using ATSC, rather than NTSC. It will continue to provide SD programming. David ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious > (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - > although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 > typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet > today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical > households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't > have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated > by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents > traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of > Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. 40 Gbps? Does anyone think the Internet has fewer than twenty 40 Gbps links' worth of traffic? I know individual networks that have more traffic. Could we get 100 Gbps to the home by 2010? Hell, we're having trouble getting 100 Gbps to the CORE by 2010 thanx to companies like Sun forcing 40 Gbps ethernet down the IEEE's throat. Not that 100 Gbps would be enough anyway to make his statement true. > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? His answers are so far off, they're not even wrong. Basis? You don't need a basis for such blatantly and objectively false information that even the most newbie neophyte laughs their ass off while reading it. Good thing C|Net asked "vice president of legislative affairs" about traffic statistics. Or maybe they didn't ask, but they sure listened. Perhaps they should ask the Network Architect about the legislative implications around NN laws. Actually, they would probably get more useful answers than asking a lawyer about bandwidth. C|Net-- I'd say the same about at&t, but -- TTFN, patrick > Internal reports from ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were > tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A > cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to > soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network > management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue > streams attached to them ... > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED],darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 > http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key > > ___ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] NANOG list changes
On Apr 18, 2008, at 16:22, Matthew Black wrote: > They also > changed the message headers and they no longer include > the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. > > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to work (for procmail): :0: * ^List-Id:.*nanog\.nanog\.org .Mailing\ Lists.nanog/ I can't complain about the list moving to nanog.org, it seems quite appropriate. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious > (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - > although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 > typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet Maybe if "typical household" is defined as "close relatives of Peter Lothberg." Either that, or he meant 30 instead of 3. Regards Marshall > > today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical > households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't > have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated > by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents > traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of > Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were > tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A > cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to > soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network > management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue > streams attached to them ... > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED],darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 > http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key > > ___ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was an element of multi-pronged lobbying approaches, reminiscent of the 'fiber to the home' tax break series that hit a handful of years back that got us pretty much nothing. Given trivial tech milestones like these: http://www.thelocal.se/7869/20070712/ (2007) http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=82315 (2005) I call bullshit. Besides, by 2010 we'll be staring down a global economy collapse and people will be too busy trying to find food to get online and download movies. - billn On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Francis wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious > (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - > although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 > typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet > today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical > households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't > have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated > by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents > traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of > Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were > tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A > cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to > soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network > management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue > streams attached to them ... > ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo
I was wondering what was going on myself. I've been a member of the list for years now (non-posting) and this afternoon I get a notice that I've subscribed to NANOG followed by two quick virus notices - and my list settings had been dumped too. Any ideas? -- God grant me the senility to forget the people that I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones that I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html > > I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious > (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40% of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until it became too late. ) > although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 > typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet > today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical > households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't > have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" > generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated > by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents > traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of > Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. > > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if > they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? > Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were Maybe he has been trading on "the Internet is going to die" since 1981 and his shorts on the Internet are coming due in 2010? I mean this sounds as much like all the other pump and dump things I have read :). > tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A > cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to > soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network > management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue > streams attached to them ... > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED],darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 > http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key > > ___ > NANOG mailing list > NANOG@nanog.org > http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[Nanog] unsubscribe
unsubscribe Cox Communications, Inc. -- Blake Gillman Sr. IP Architect Office: 623.328.2994 Mobile: 602.694.2085 1550 West Deer Valley Road Phoenix, AZ 85027 ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[Nanog] 1275k st. DC
Anyone else seeing issues there? -Matt ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[Nanog] NANOG list changes
OK, looks like they changed servers recently. I haven't been following the list for a few months. They also changed the message headers and they no longer include the Sender: header that my filter uses on incoming e-mail. Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] matthew black network services california state university, long beach 1250 bellflower boulevard long beach, ca 90840-0101 On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:00:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Welcome to the NANOG@nanog.org mailing list! > > To post to this list, send your email to: > > nanog@nanog.org > > General information about the mailing list is at: [...snip] ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] [OT] Fwd: Photo
The viruses, or the virus emails? -Original Message- From: Patrick W. Gilmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 4:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Nanog] Fwd: Photo On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:08 PM, sean wrote: > WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) > > The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus > scanner: > > Attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. > Action taken: deleted > VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) > > The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] > Video_part.mim. The infected attachment has been deleted. Impressive. I didn't know the new server had a virus scanner on it. Perhaps we should just delete these instead of forwarding them to the list? I'm also impressed that Sean moved to India: Received: from ibm-ii (121.247.233-225.kol-bb-dynamic.vsnl.net.in [121.247.233.225] (may be forged)) by chopin.merit.edu (MOS 3.8.2-GA) with SMTP id AQD07945; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:08:32 -0400 (EDT) :) -- TTFN, patrick ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) - although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today". Is there some secret plan to put 40Gb ethernet to "typical households" in the next 3 years that I haven't heard about? I don't have accurate figures on how much traffic "the entire Internet" generates, but I'm fairly certain that 5% of it could not be generated by any single household regardless of equipment installed, torrents traded or videos downloaded. Even given a liberal application of Moore's Law, I doubt that would be the case in 2010 either. Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if they even had a basis at all)? Internal reports from ATT engineering? Perusal of industry news sources? IRC? A lot of scary numbers were tossed into the air without any mention of how they were derived. A cynical person might be tempted to think it was all a scare tactic to soften up legislators for the next wave of "reasonable network management" practices that just happen to have significant revenue streams attached to them ... -- [EMAIL PROTECTED],darkuncle.net} || 0x5537F527 http://darkuncle.net/pubkey.asc for public key ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
Re: [Nanog] Fwd: Photo
On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:08 PM, sean wrote: > WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) > > The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus > scanner: > > Attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. > Action taken: deleted > VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) > > The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] > Video_part.mim. The infected attachment has been deleted. Impressive. I didn't know the new server had a virus scanner on it. Perhaps we should just delete these instead of forwarding them to the list? I'm also impressed that Sean moved to India: Received: from ibm-ii (121.247.233-225.kol-bb-dynamic.vsnl.net.in [121.247.233.225] (may be forged)) by chopin.merit.edu (MOS 3.8.2-GA) with SMTP id AQD07945; Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:08:32 -0400 (EDT) :) -- TTFN, patrick ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
[Nanog] Fwd: Photo
WARNING!!! (from chopin.merit.edu) The following message attachments were flagged by the antivirus scanner: Attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim, virus infected: W32/Parite-B. Action taken: deleted VIRUS WARNING Message (from chopin.merit.edu) The virus W32/Parite-B was detected in email attachment [2.2] Video_part.mim. The infected attachment has been deleted. ___ NANOG mailing list NANOG@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
