RE: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg.
Hi Yasir, Thanks a lot for your immediate reply. I tried calling the number you provided, that does not lead to "Chunghwa Telecom" in Taiwan. However, it leads to some other organization and they are unable to understand when I speak in English :-( -Nat --- On Thu, 12/8/10, Yasir Munir Abbasi wrote: From: Yasir Munir Abbasi Subject: RE: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg. To: "ptb...@yahoo.com" , "nanog@nanog.org" Date: Thursday, 12 August, 2010, 11:59 AM 0800-080-100 Yasir Abbasi -Original Message- From: Natarajan Balasubramanian [mailto:ptb...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg. Note: I need the Technical Support Contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom" in Taiwan. --- On Thu, 12/8/10, Natarajan Balasubramanian wrote: From: Natarajan Balasubramanian Subject: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg. To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Thursday, 12 August, 2010, 11:48 AM Hi All, Does anyone have the contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom's" Business Users - Technical Support number ? -Nat
RE: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg.
0800-080-100 Yasir Abbasi -Original Message- From: Natarajan Balasubramanian [mailto:ptb...@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 11:24 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg. Note: I need the Technical Support Contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom" in Taiwan. --- On Thu, 12/8/10, Natarajan Balasubramanian wrote: From: Natarajan Balasubramanian Subject: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg. To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Thursday, 12 August, 2010, 11:48 AM Hi All, Does anyone have the contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom's" Business Users - Technical Support number ? -Nat
Re: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg.
Note: I need the Technical Support Contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom" in Taiwan. --- On Thu, 12/8/10, Natarajan Balasubramanian wrote: From: Natarajan Balasubramanian Subject: Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg. To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Thursday, 12 August, 2010, 11:48 AM Hi All, Does anyone have the contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom's" Business Users - Technical Support number ? -Nat
Chunghwa Telecom Tech Support Reg.
Hi All, Does anyone have the contact number for "Chunghwa Telecom's" Business Users - Technical Support number ? -Nat
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:53:18PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On 8/11/10 12:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > > Nice to see this change > > > > APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long > > distance links are expensive). Now that US wants to peer with Asia, > > pricing may become more balanced... > > I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A megabit > in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged for for the > transport cost across the pacific. Because the percentage of traffic that actually stays in India, as compared to that which transits the Pacific, is miniscule. If you're asking for enough bandwidth / throwing enough money around, I'm sure you could get an Indian-only deal, but you'd need to make it worth the while for the provider to setup the config, given that either way they'll be getting your money, and you won't be using a lot of transpacific traffic. Note also that it's unlikely that the provider will be getting a differentiated rate from their upstreams for internal traffic, and you may have to settle for peering-only access (if your chosen provider is connected to any peering points). - Matt -- Ruby's the only language I've ever used that feels like it was designed by a programmer, and not by a hardware engineer (Java, C, C++), an academic theorist (Lisp, Haskell, OCaml), or an editor of PC World (Python). -- William Morgan
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
CIP went with BT (Concert) I still clearly remember the very long concall when we separated it from it BIPP connections. :) -jim On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote: > >> MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-Datanet had all >> of the fiber running to key locations at the time and could drastically cut >> MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI and their traffic was put on this same >> network. MCI went belly up and Verizon bought the network. > > Although not directly involved in the MCI Internet operations, I read all the > announcements that came across the email when I worked at MCI from early 1993 > to late 1998. > > My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later > acquisition by the Worldcom monster (no, no biases here :-). While this was > going on MCI was building and running what was called the BIPP (Basic IP > Platform) internally. That product was at least reasonably successful, > enough so that some gummint powers that be required divestiture of the BIPP > from the company that would come out of the proposed acquisition of MCI by > Worldcom. The regulators felt that Worldcom would have too large a share of > the North American Internet traffic. The BIPP went with BT IIRC, and I think > finally landed in Global Crossing's assets. > > --Chris >
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
BIPP was sold to C&W where it continued to use MCI transmission and facilities. In November 2000, C&W had rebuilt it on their own facilities (just a bit larger). Quite soon after the completion of the new network in 2000, C&W marketing was forecasting the need for a network that was ten times the size of their current backbone (the new network was four times the size of the original iMCI). C&W was chapter 7 within 12 months. BTW: C&W sued Worldcom and won a $250M settlement on the basis that MCI had hidden the iMCI sales and marketing team in the sale. The assets of C&W were sold to Savvis. jy On 12/08/2010, at 5:10 AM, Chris Boyd wrote: > > On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote: > >> MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-Datanet had all >> of the fiber running to key locations at the time and could drastically cut >> MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI and their traffic was put on this same >> network. MCI went belly up and Verizon bought the network. > > Although not directly involved in the MCI Internet operations, I read all the > announcements that came across the email when I worked at MCI from early 1993 > to late 1998. > > My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later > acquisition by the Worldcom monster (no, no biases here :-). While this was > going on MCI was building and running what was called the BIPP (Basic IP > Platform) internally. That product was at least reasonably successful, > enough so that some gummint powers that be required divestiture of the BIPP > from the company that would come out of the proposed acquisition of MCI by > Worldcom. The regulators felt that Worldcom would have too large a share of > the North American Internet traffic. The BIPP went with BT IIRC, and I think > finally landed in Global Crossing's assets. > > --Chris >
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
I think for most of us iMCI'ers its a very big diffrence that iMCI != MCIWorldcom -jim Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -Original Message- From: "Jeffrey S. Young" Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 09:26:29 To: John Lee Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Andrew Odlyzko Subject: Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History Worldcom bought MFS. Worldcom bought MCI. Worldcom bought UUnet. In your statement s/MCI/Worldcom/g I don't know if UUnet was part of Worldcom when MO first made statements about backbone growth, but I do know that internetMCI was still part of MCI and therefore, MCI was not a part of Worldcom. May seem like splitting hairs to some, but it is important to a few of us to point out that we never worked under Ebbers. Not that we had a choice :-). Growth of the NAPs during this period is a poor indicator of growth. Because of the glitch you mention in carrying capacity the tier 1's all but abandoned the NAPs for peering between themselves and from that point forward (mid '97) preferred direct peering arrangements. jy On 12/08/2010, at 4:13 AM, John Lee wrote: > Andrew, > > Earlier this week I had a meeting with the ex-Director of the Network > Operations Center for MFS-Datanet/MCI whose tenure was through 1999. From > 1994 to 1998 they were re-architeching the Frame Relay and ATM networks to > handle the growth in traffic including these new facilities called peering > points of MAE-East and MAE-West. From roughly 1990 to then end of 1996 they > saw traffic on their switches grow at 50-70% growth every 6 months. By the > last half of 1996 there was a head of line blocking problem on the DEC FDDI > switches that was "regularly" bringing down the Internet. The architecture > had lower traffic circuits were going through concentrators while higher > traffic circuits were directly attached to ports on the switchs. > > > > MFS-Datanet was not going to take the hit for the interruptions to the > Internet and was going to inform the trade press there was a problem with DEC > FDDI switches so Digital "gave" six switches for the re-architecture of the > MAEs to solve the problem. Once this problem was solved the first quarter of > 1997 saw a 70% jump in traffic that quarter alone. This "historical event" > would in my memory be the genesis of the 100% traffic growth in 100 days > legend. (So it was only 70% in 90 days which for the marketing folks does not > cut it so 100% in 100 days sounds much better?? :) ) > > > > MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-Datanet had all > of the fiber running to key locations at the time and could drastically cut > MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI and their traffic was put on this same > network. MCI went belly up and Verizon bought the network. > > > > Personal Note: from 1983 to 90 I worked for Hayes the modem folks and became > the Godfather to Ascend communications with Jeanette, Rob, Jay and Steve > whose team produced the TNT line of modem/ISDN to Ethernet central site > concentrators (in the early ninties) that drove a large portion of the user > traffic to the Internet at the time, generating the "bubble". > > > > John (ISDN) Lee > > From: Andrew Odlyzko [odly...@umn.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:55 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth myths > > Since several members of this list requested it, here is a summary > of the responses to my request for information about Internet growth > during the telecom bubble, in particular the perceptions of the > O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet "Internet doubling every 100 days" > myth. > > First of all, many thanks to all those who responded, on and off-list. > This involved extensive correspondence and some long phone conversations, > and helped fill out the picture of those very confusing times (and > also made it even clearer than before that there were many different > perspectives on what was happening). > > The entire message is rather long, but it is written in sections, > to make it easy to get the gist quickly and neglect the rest. > > Andrew > > > --- > > 1. Short summary: People who got into the game late, or had been > working at small ISPs or other enterprises, were generally willing > to give serious credence to the "Internet doubling every 100 days" > tale. The old-timers, especially those who worked for large ISPs > or other large corporate establishment or research networks, were > convinced by the late 1990s that this tale was false, but did not > talk about it publicly, even inside the NANOG community. > > --- > > 2. Longer version: The range of views was very wide, and hard to > give justice to in full. But there seemed to be two distinct > groups, and the con
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
On my BB. I'm waiting for someone to correct this thread by saying MFS bought UUNET for ~2bill and WCOM absorbed MFS. That is all. - Original Message - From: Jeffrey S. Young To: John Lee Cc: nanog@nanog.org ; Andrew Odlyzko Sent: Wed Aug 11 19:26:29 2010 Subject: Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History Worldcom bought MFS. Worldcom bought MCI. Worldcom bought UUnet. In your statement s/MCI/Worldcom/g I don't know if UUnet was part of Worldcom when MO first made statements about backbone growth, but I do know that internetMCI was still part of MCI and therefore, MCI was not a part of Worldcom. May seem like splitting hairs to some, but it is important to a few of us to point out that we never worked under Ebbers. Not that we had a choice :-). Growth of the NAPs during this period is a poor indicator of growth. Because of the glitch you mention in carrying capacity the tier 1's all but abandoned the NAPs for peering between themselves and from that point forward (mid '97) preferred direct peering arrangements. jy On 12/08/2010, at 4:13 AM, John Lee wrote: > Andrew, > > Earlier this week I had a meeting with the ex-Director of the Network > Operations Center for MFS-Datanet/MCI whose tenure was through 1999. From > 1994 to 1998 they were re-architeching the Frame Relay and ATM networks to > handle the growth in traffic including these new facilities called peering > points of MAE-East and MAE-West. From roughly 1990 to then end of 1996 they > saw traffic on their switches grow at 50-70% growth every 6 months. By the > last half of 1996 there was a head of line blocking problem on the DEC FDDI > switches that was "regularly" bringing down the Internet. The architecture > had lower traffic circuits were going through concentrators while higher > traffic circuits were directly attached to ports on the switchs. > > > > MFS-Datanet was not going to take the hit for the interruptions to the > Internet and was going to inform the trade press there was a problem with DEC > FDDI switches so Digital "gave" six switches for the re-architecture of the > MAEs to solve the problem. Once this problem was solved the first quarter of > 1997 saw a 70% jump in traffic that quarter alone. This "historical event" > would in my memory be the genesis of the 100% traffic growth in 100 days > legend. (So it was only 70% in 90 days which for the marketing folks does not > cut it so 100% in 100 days sounds much better?? :) ) > > > > MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-Datanet had all > of the fiber running to key locations at the time and could drastically cut > MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI and their traffic was put on this same > network. MCI went belly up and Verizon bought the network. > > > > Personal Note: from 1983 to 90 I worked for Hayes the modem folks and became > the Godfather to Ascend communications with Jeanette, Rob, Jay and Steve > whose team produced the TNT line of modem/ISDN to Ethernet central site > concentrators (in the early ninties) that drove a large portion of the user > traffic to the Internet at the time, generating the "bubble". > > > > John (ISDN) Lee > > From: Andrew Odlyzko [odly...@umn.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:55 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth myths > > Since several members of this list requested it, here is a summary > of the responses to my request for information about Internet growth > during the telecom bubble, in particular the perceptions of the > O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet "Internet doubling every 100 days" > myth. > > First of all, many thanks to all those who responded, on and off-list. > This involved extensive correspondence and some long phone conversations, > and helped fill out the picture of those very confusing times (and > also made it even clearer than before that there were many different > perspectives on what was happening). > > The entire message is rather long, but it is written in sections, > to make it easy to get the gist quickly and neglect the rest. > > Andrew > > > --- > > 1. Short summary: People who got into the game late, or had been > working at small ISPs or other enterprises, were generally willing > to give serious credence to the "Internet doubling every 100 days" > tale. The old-timers, especially those who worked for large ISPs > or other large corporate establishment or research networks, were > convinced by the late 1990s that this tale was false, but did not > talk about it publicly, even inside the NANOG community. > > --- > > 2. Longer version: The range of views was very wide, and hard to > give justice to in full. But there seemed to be two distinct > groups, and the consensus views (w
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
Worldcom bought MFS. Worldcom bought MCI. Worldcom bought UUnet. In your statement s/MCI/Worldcom/g I don't know if UUnet was part of Worldcom when MO first made statements about backbone growth, but I do know that internetMCI was still part of MCI and therefore, MCI was not a part of Worldcom. May seem like splitting hairs to some, but it is important to a few of us to point out that we never worked under Ebbers. Not that we had a choice :-). Growth of the NAPs during this period is a poor indicator of growth. Because of the glitch you mention in carrying capacity the tier 1's all but abandoned the NAPs for peering between themselves and from that point forward (mid '97) preferred direct peering arrangements. jy On 12/08/2010, at 4:13 AM, John Lee wrote: > Andrew, > > Earlier this week I had a meeting with the ex-Director of the Network > Operations Center for MFS-Datanet/MCI whose tenure was through 1999. From > 1994 to 1998 they were re-architeching the Frame Relay and ATM networks to > handle the growth in traffic including these new facilities called peering > points of MAE-East and MAE-West. From roughly 1990 to then end of 1996 they > saw traffic on their switches grow at 50-70% growth every 6 months. By the > last half of 1996 there was a head of line blocking problem on the DEC FDDI > switches that was "regularly" bringing down the Internet. The architecture > had lower traffic circuits were going through concentrators while higher > traffic circuits were directly attached to ports on the switchs. > > > > MFS-Datanet was not going to take the hit for the interruptions to the > Internet and was going to inform the trade press there was a problem with DEC > FDDI switches so Digital "gave" six switches for the re-architecture of the > MAEs to solve the problem. Once this problem was solved the first quarter of > 1997 saw a 70% jump in traffic that quarter alone. This "historical event" > would in my memory be the genesis of the 100% traffic growth in 100 days > legend. (So it was only 70% in 90 days which for the marketing folks does not > cut it so 100% in 100 days sounds much better?? :) ) > > > > MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-Datanet had all > of the fiber running to key locations at the time and could drastically cut > MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI and their traffic was put on this same > network. MCI went belly up and Verizon bought the network. > > > > Personal Note: from 1983 to 90 I worked for Hayes the modem folks and became > the Godfather to Ascend communications with Jeanette, Rob, Jay and Steve > whose team produced the TNT line of modem/ISDN to Ethernet central site > concentrators (in the early ninties) that drove a large portion of the user > traffic to the Internet at the time, generating the "bubble". > > > > John (ISDN) Lee > > From: Andrew Odlyzko [odly...@umn.edu] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:55 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth myths > > Since several members of this list requested it, here is a summary > of the responses to my request for information about Internet growth > during the telecom bubble, in particular the perceptions of the > O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet "Internet doubling every 100 days" > myth. > > First of all, many thanks to all those who responded, on and off-list. > This involved extensive correspondence and some long phone conversations, > and helped fill out the picture of those very confusing times (and > also made it even clearer than before that there were many different > perspectives on what was happening). > > The entire message is rather long, but it is written in sections, > to make it easy to get the gist quickly and neglect the rest. > > Andrew > > > --- > > 1. Short summary: People who got into the game late, or had been > working at small ISPs or other enterprises, were generally willing > to give serious credence to the "Internet doubling every 100 days" > tale. The old-timers, especially those who worked for large ISPs > or other large corporate establishment or research networks, were > convinced by the late 1990s that this tale was false, but did not > talk about it publicly, even inside the NANOG community. > > --- > > 2. Longer version: The range of views was very wide, and hard to > give justice to in full. But there seemed to be two distinct > groups, and the consensus views (which obviously exclude quite > a few people) appear to have been: > > 2A: Those who entered the field in the late 1990s, especially > if they worked for small ISPs or other small enterprises, tended > to regard the claim seriously. (But it should be remarked that > hardly anybody devoted too much effort or thought to the claim, > they
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
Around 40% of our low-end/budget VPS hosting customers are based in APAC. It's common for departing customers to cite the primary reason as seeking lower latency to their regions. Sent while on the go, please excuse terseness. On Aug 11, 2010, at 17:03, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > >> I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A megabit >> in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged for for the >> transport cost across the pacific. > > Obviously I can't speak for the providers in question, but I'd guess that the > cost for transit in AP is strongly related to the cost of long-haul > transport. Once upon a time, the majority of Internet traffic in AP > countries *did* originate in the US. Does anybody have data that this is > changing? > > Cheers, > -Benson > > >
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Leigh Porter wrote: Well, it would be hard to change because who would host in country when it costs so much to do so. It'd be much cheaper to host out of the country thereby exasperating the whole problem. Well some of us have no choice. We provide hosted video conferencing solutions that require us to be closer to our subscribers. Some providers will lower their rates if you can show them most of your traffic will stay local. <> Nathan StrattonCTO, BlinkMind, Inc. nathan at robotics.net nathan at blinkmind.com http://www.robotics.nethttp://www.blinkmind.com
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
On 11 Aug 10, at 5:15 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> Obviously I can't speak for the providers in question, but I'd guess >> that the cost for transit in AP is strongly related to the cost of >> long-haul transport. > > Start with something that can be effectively isolated from the > transpacific path. > > Gotten a quote for a 1Gbe or 10Gbe between two cities in India recently? That could be useful. Sadly, I have no first-hand knowledge of these costs. How does in-country transport compare to trans-Pacific transport cost? (i.e. on a per Mbps per kilometer or similar metric) I assume it's cheaper in-country / in-region compared to trans-oceanic. Is this true? Once that's known, I'd also look at the opposite: excluding any last-mile transport costs, what is the price per Mbps for transit service? That transit price has to accommodate both the local/in-region transport as well as trans-oceanic transport costs borne by the provider. If the locale of traffic is shifting, then the provider's transport costs are also shifting from one category to another. My advice to anybody looking to buy AP regional transit, assuming that trans-oceanic bandwidth is more expensive than regional bandwidth, is to negotiate a lower price in exchange for only in-region routes. If my assumption about bandwidth costs is backwards, then you're out of luck. (Maybe we need lower taxes, higher bribes, or more competition..?) Cheers, -Benson
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
On 11 Aug 10, at 2:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote: > My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later > acquisition by the Worldcom monster (no, no biases here :-). While this was > going on MCI was building and running what was called the BIPP (Basic IP > Platform) internally. That product was at least reasonably successful, > enough so that some gummint powers that be required divestiture of the BIPP > from the company that would come out of the proposed acquisition of MCI by > Worldcom. The regulators felt that Worldcom would have too large a share of > the North American Internet traffic. The BIPP went with BT IIRC, and I think > finally landed in Global Crossing's assets. Actually, Cable & Wireless acquired the BIPP after regulators forced Worldcom to divest one of their networks. C&W developed a new network architecture as an evolution of BIPP called "N3", based on MPLS as an ATM replacement for TE. (Perhaps somebody that worked at C&W back then can comment on N3; I can't recall what it stood for.) After a few years, C&W reorganized their American operations into a separate entity, which subsequently went bankrupt. Savvis (my current employer) bought the assets out of bankruptcy court. We then upgraded the N3 network to support better QoS, higher capacity, etc, and call it the "ATN" (Application Transport Network). The current Savvis core network, AS3561, is thus the evolved offspring of the MCI Internet Services / Internet-MCI network. Of course, before all of this, MCI built the network as a commercial Internet platform in parallel to their ARPA network. That's before my time, unfortunately, so I don't know many details. For instance I'm uncertain how the ASN has changed over the years. Anybody with more history and/or corrections would be appreciated. Cheers, -Benson
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
On 8/11/10 2:03 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > >> I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A >> megabit in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged >> for for the transport cost across the pacific. > > Obviously I can't speak for the providers in question, but I'd guess > that the cost for transit in AP is strongly related to the cost of > long-haul transport. Start with something that can be effectively isolated from the transpacific path. Gotten a quote for a 1Gbe or 10Gbe between two cities in India recently? map that onto what you'd pay for a similar path in the US, count the extra zeros (once you account for the fact that INR is 46.91 to the dollar). > Once upon a time, the majority of Internet > traffic in AP countries *did* originate in the US. Does anybody have > data that this is changing? > Cheers, -Benson > > >
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
My feeling is that the Chinese market suffice to its own needs, now that all the major websites have their equivalent in Chinese and are more popular than the Chinese translation of US/EU based web sites. I have heard of large data Centres being built in AP. Google spoke at one time to do its own trans-pacific link, because it could not find anything suitable. I guess the location of akamai caches could be telling... I may also suspect economical models of trans-pacific fiber may be different from economical model for trans-atlantic fiber, which would explain difference in costs. I have heard of things like that, but don't have firm data. So it is empirical data, but I think things are changing. Understanding the landscape and the reason behind the costs may help negotiate a better deal. Finally, have you considered peering with Australia to see if it gives you access to the AP market at better cost? - Original Message - From: "Benson Schliesser" To: "Joel Jaeggli" , "Franck Martin" , "nanog" Sent: Thursday, 12 August, 2010 9:03:34 AM Subject: Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A megabit > in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged for for the > transport cost across the pacific. Obviously I can't speak for the providers in question, but I'd guess that the cost for transit in AP is strongly related to the cost of long-haul transport. Once upon a time, the majority of Internet traffic in AP countries *did* originate in the US. Does anybody have data that this is changing? Cheers, -Benson
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
On 11 Aug 2010, at 22:03, Benson Schliesser wrote: > > On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > >> I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A megabit >> in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged for for the >> transport cost across the pacific. > > Obviously I can't speak for the providers in question, but I'd guess that the > cost for transit in AP is strongly related to the cost of long-haul > transport. Once upon a time, the majority of Internet traffic in AP > countries *did* originate in the US. Does anybody have data that this is > changing? > > Cheers, > -Benson > > > Well, it would be hard to change because who would host in country when it costs so much to do so. It'd be much cheaper to host out of the country thereby exasperating the whole problem. -- Leigh Porter
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A megabit > in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged for for the > transport cost across the pacific. Obviously I can't speak for the providers in question, but I'd guess that the cost for transit in AP is strongly related to the cost of long-haul transport. Once upon a time, the majority of Internet traffic in AP countries *did* originate in the US. Does anybody have data that this is changing? Cheers, -Benson
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
"...the cost of captial, and regulatory or monopoloy capture than it does with some artifical lack of price equilibrium." now that sounds like fodder for a different list ;) On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On 8/11/10 12:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > > Nice to see this change > > > > APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long > > distance links are expensive). Now that US wants to peer with Asia, > > pricing may become more balanced... > > I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A megabit > in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged for for the > transport cost across the pacific. > > The answer has more to do with the maturity of comms infrastructure, the > cost of captial, and regulatory or monopoloy capture than it does with > some artifical lack of price equilibrium. > > > - Original Message - From: "David Ulevitch" > > To: na...@merit.edu Sent: Thursday, 12 August, > > 2010 7:00:12 AM Subject: Cost of transit and options in APAC > > > > Hi Nanog, > > > > As we extend our reach into Asia, we're finding that our typical > > carriers (see: upstreams of AS36692) who provide service to us in > > North America and Europe are not able to offer us service in Asia > > either (1) at all or (2) at prices remotely resembling our pricing > > in NA and EU. For example: Level(3) simply has no presence in Asia > > and on the pricing side, NTT, GBLX, Verizon and others' pricing is > > many times higher than their NA and EU pricing. In most cases, it's > > 10 or more times higher. > > > > Additionally, some of the networks seem to market their network > > based on their reach into the US, rather than their reach into actual > > users in Asia, which is what we're looking for. > > > > So my question is, what are non-APAC-based networks doing as they > > expand into Asia for transit beyond peering with whomever will peer > > with them to get close to actual users in Asia? > > > > Are people using regional carriers? Are people just paying the > > "crazy" (compared to US pricing) bandwidth costs? Are people doing > > peering-only setups out there? Any help would be useful -- > > hopefully this is on-topic for NANOG, which I think it is, since I'm > > curious how NA operators deal with these challenges as they expand > > into APAC. > > > > I'm happy to summarize responses later if there is interest. > > > > Thanks, David > > > > > > > -- Respectfully, Chris Hart Developer / System Administrator Insuremonkey.com 2080 E. Flamingo, Suite 223 Las Vegas, NV 89119
MPLS providers between Portland OR and NYC
Does anyone have any recommendations or experience to share about any L2 providers in the Portland OR, and NYC markets? Specifically, providers that can do 1Gbit between those cities, with reasonable SLAs. Comments off-list would be greatly appreciated! -- Brent Jones br...@servuhome.net
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
On Aug 11, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Randy Whitney wrote: > On 8/11/2010 3:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote: >> >> On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote: >> >>> MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and >>> MFS-Datanet had all of the fiber running to key locations at the >>> time and could drastically cut MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI >>> and their traffic was put on this same network. MCI went belly up >>> and Verizon bought the network. >> >> Although not directly involved in the MCI Internet operations, I read >> all the announcements that came across the email when I worked at MCI >> from early 1993 to late 1998. >> >> My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later >> acquisition by the Worldcom monster (no, no biases here :-). While >> this was going on MCI was building and running what was called the >> BIPP (Basic IP Platform) internally. That product was at least >> reasonably successful, enough so that some gummint powers that be >> required divestiture of the BIPP from the company that would come out >> of the proposed acquisition of MCI by Worldcom. The regulators felt >> that Worldcom would have too large a share of the North American >> Internet traffic. The BIPP went with BT IIRC, and I think finally >> landed in Global Crossing's assets. What happened to VBNS in all of this ? Marshall >> >> --Chris > > Correct order of (in)digestion UUNet > MFS > Worldcom >< MCI > Verizon. > > There were other multi-way acquisitions in-between as well (CNS, ANS, etc.) > > -Randy. > > >
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
On 8/11/10 12:29 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > Nice to see this change > > APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long > distance links are expensive). Now that US wants to peer with Asia, > pricing may become more balanced... I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A megabit in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged for for the transport cost across the pacific. The answer has more to do with the maturity of comms infrastructure, the cost of captial, and regulatory or monopoloy capture than it does with some artifical lack of price equilibrium. > - Original Message - From: "David Ulevitch" > To: na...@merit.edu Sent: Thursday, 12 August, > 2010 7:00:12 AM Subject: Cost of transit and options in APAC > > Hi Nanog, > > As we extend our reach into Asia, we're finding that our typical > carriers (see: upstreams of AS36692) who provide service to us in > North America and Europe are not able to offer us service in Asia > either (1) at all or (2) at prices remotely resembling our pricing > in NA and EU. For example: Level(3) simply has no presence in Asia > and on the pricing side, NTT, GBLX, Verizon and others' pricing is > many times higher than their NA and EU pricing. In most cases, it's > 10 or more times higher. > > Additionally, some of the networks seem to market their network > based on their reach into the US, rather than their reach into actual > users in Asia, which is what we're looking for. > > So my question is, what are non-APAC-based networks doing as they > expand into Asia for transit beyond peering with whomever will peer > with them to get close to actual users in Asia? > > Are people using regional carriers? Are people just paying the > "crazy" (compared to US pricing) bandwidth costs? Are people doing > peering-only setups out there? Any help would be useful -- > hopefully this is on-topic for NANOG, which I think it is, since I'm > curious how NA operators deal with these challenges as they expand > into APAC. > > I'm happy to summarize responses later if there is interest. > > Thanks, David > >
Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble
Jessica, As I explained in an email in response to your earlier posting, my paper makes it very clear that Mike O'Dell and John Sidgmore were, for most of the time in the 1997-2001 time frame, talking of a doubling every 100 days of capacity, not traffic, and only for UUNet. (In fact, the Sidgmore paper from Vortex98 that I have just posted, at http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/isources/sidgmore-vortex98b.pdf, has him saying pretty explicitly that UUNet was gaining market share, and the rest of the industry was growing more slowly.) However, the press, and the public, assumed that the traffic of the entire Internet was growing at those rates. How people could make such a mistake is a mystery that I point out as a mystery in my paper. In fact, the Sidgmore paper has an interesting exchange. In the Q&A session (included in the paper), Bob Lucky asks Sidgmore about traffic growth, clearly assuming that Sidgmore had been talking of traffic. Sidgmore responds, very clearly talking about capacity, but clearly assuming that Lucky had asked about capacity. So here we have a record of two people, both industry insiders, talking past each other. Another mystery to add to the others. If you want to get into this further, let's take the discussion off-list, as I doubt this picayune non-operational matter will interest too many folks here. Best regards, Andrew Jessica Yu wrote: > Wait a sec, you seems to assume that the 'Doubling every 100 days" statement > was referring to the Internet traffic not just UUNet traffic. My > recollection > was that the statement was referring to UUNet traffic based on the stats > collected in a period of time (see my previous email). That is why I urged > the > author of the paper to make this important distinction. If one made a > prediction based on stats collected and the prediction was not accurate due > to > the imperfection of stats (in this case, it may be caused by a short term > growth abnormally, as Jeff Young pointed out), it is unfair to assume the > person > misled public on purpose. > > Thanks! > > --Jessica > > > > > From: Kenny Sallee > To: Jessica Yu ; Andrew Odlyzko > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 4:01:00 PM > Subject: Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Jessica Yu wrote: > I do not know if making such distinction would alter the conclusion of your > >paper. But, to me, there is a difference between one to predict the growth > >of > >one particular network based on the stats collected than one to predict the > >growth of the entire Internet with no solid data. > >Thanks!--Jessica > > > Agree with Jessica: you can't say the 'Internet' doubles every x number of > days/amount of time no matter what the number of days or amount of time is. > The > 'Internet' is a series of tubes...hahaha couldn't help itAs we all know > the > Internet is a bunch of providers plugged into each other. Provider A may see > an > 10x increase in traffic every month while provider B may not. For example, > if > Google makes a deal with Verizon only Verizon will see a huge increase in > traffic internally and less externally (or vice versa). Until Google goes > somewhere else! So the whole 'myth' of Internet doubling every 100 days to > me > is something someone (ODell it seems) made up to appease someone higher in > the > chain or a government committee that really doesn't get it. IE - it's > marketing > talk to quantify something. I guess if all the ISP's in the world provided a > central repository bandwidth numbers they have on their backbone then you > could > make up some stats about Internet traffic as a whole. But without that - it > just doesn't make much sense. > > > > Just my .02 > Kenny > > > >
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
Chris Boyd writes: > My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later > acquisition by the Worldcom monster (no, no biases here :-). MFS acquired UUnet Technologies on 12 August 1996. On 31 December 1996, MFS "merged with and into WorldCom, Inc" although it sure looked like an acquisition to those of us who were watching from the sidelines. -r
Re: Cost of transit and options in APAC
Nice to see this change APAC has been obliged to pay the cost to peer with the US (long distance links are expensive). Now that US wants to peer with Asia, pricing may become more balanced... - Original Message - From: "David Ulevitch" To: na...@merit.edu Sent: Thursday, 12 August, 2010 7:00:12 AM Subject: Cost of transit and options in APAC Hi Nanog, As we extend our reach into Asia, we're finding that our typical carriers (see: upstreams of AS36692) who provide service to us in North America and Europe are not able to offer us service in Asia either (1) at all or (2) at prices remotely resembling our pricing in NA and EU. For example: Level(3) simply has no presence in Asia and on the pricing side, NTT, GBLX, Verizon and others' pricing is many times higher than their NA and EU pricing. In most cases, it's 10 or more times higher. Additionally, some of the networks seem to market their network based on their reach into the US, rather than their reach into actual users in Asia, which is what we're looking for. So my question is, what are non-APAC-based networks doing as they expand into Asia for transit beyond peering with whomever will peer with them to get close to actual users in Asia? Are people using regional carriers? Are people just paying the "crazy" (compared to US pricing) bandwidth costs? Are people doing peering-only setups out there? Any help would be useful -- hopefully this is on-topic for NANOG, which I think it is, since I'm curious how NA operators deal with these challenges as they expand into APAC. I'm happy to summarize responses later if there is interest. Thanks, David
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
On 8/11/2010 3:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote: On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote: MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-Datanet had all of the fiber running to key locations at the time and could drastically cut MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI and their traffic was put on this same network. MCI went belly up and Verizon bought the network. Although not directly involved in the MCI Internet operations, I read all the announcements that came across the email when I worked at MCI from early 1993 to late 1998. My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later acquisition by the Worldcom monster (no, no biases here :-). While this was going on MCI was building and running what was called the BIPP (Basic IP Platform) internally. That product was at least reasonably successful, enough so that some gummint powers that be required divestiture of the BIPP from the company that would come out of the proposed acquisition of MCI by Worldcom. The regulators felt that Worldcom would have too large a share of the North American Internet traffic. The BIPP went with BT IIRC, and I think finally landed in Global Crossing's assets. --Chris Correct order of (in)digestion UUNet > MFS > Worldcom >< MCI > Verizon. There were other multi-way acquisitions in-between as well (CNS, ANS, etc.) -Randy.
Re: I slogged through it so you don't have to -- ICANN Vertical Integration WG for dummies
The window for comments closes tomorrow. Of course, the window for comments that somehow paint ICANN as a bastion of fools never closes, but anyone in the access and above business that opines on the structure, and interests, of registrars and registries, who opines after tomorrow, but not before tomorrow, is pretty much null routed. The public comments mailbox is vi-pdp-initial-rep...@icann.org Eric
Re: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote: > MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-Datanet had all > of the fiber running to key locations at the time and could drastically cut > MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI and their traffic was put on this same > network. MCI went belly up and Verizon bought the network. Although not directly involved in the MCI Internet operations, I read all the announcements that came across the email when I worked at MCI from early 1993 to late 1998. My recollection is that Worldcom bought out MFS. UUnet was a later acquisition by the Worldcom monster (no, no biases here :-). While this was going on MCI was building and running what was called the BIPP (Basic IP Platform) internally. That product was at least reasonably successful, enough so that some gummint powers that be required divestiture of the BIPP from the company that would come out of the proposed acquisition of MCI by Worldcom. The regulators felt that Worldcom would have too large a share of the North American Internet traffic. The BIPP went with BT IIRC, and I think finally landed in Global Crossing's assets. --Chris
Cost of transit and options in APAC
Hi Nanog, As we extend our reach into Asia, we're finding that our typical carriers (see: upstreams of AS36692) who provide service to us in North America and Europe are not able to offer us service in Asia either (1) at all or (2) at prices remotely resembling our pricing in NA and EU. For example: Level(3) simply has no presence in Asia and on the pricing side, NTT, GBLX, Verizon and others' pricing is many times higher than their NA and EU pricing. In most cases, it's 10 or more times higher. Additionally, some of the networks seem to market their network based on their reach into the US, rather than their reach into actual users in Asia, which is what we're looking for. So my question is, what are non-APAC-based networks doing as they expand into Asia for transit beyond peering with whomever will peer with them to get close to actual users in Asia? Are people using regional carriers? Are people just paying the "crazy" (compared to US pricing) bandwidth costs? Are people doing peering-only setups out there? Any help would be useful -- hopefully this is on-topic for NANOG, which I think it is, since I'm curious how NA operators deal with these challenges as they expand into APAC. I'm happy to summarize responses later if there is interest. Thanks, David
RE: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth History
Andrew, Earlier this week I had a meeting with the ex-Director of the Network Operations Center for MFS-Datanet/MCI whose tenure was through 1999. From 1994 to 1998 they were re-architeching the Frame Relay and ATM networks to handle the growth in traffic including these new facilities called peering points of MAE-East and MAE-West. From roughly 1990 to then end of 1996 they saw traffic on their switches grow at 50-70% growth every 6 months. By the last half of 1996 there was a head of line blocking problem on the DEC FDDI switches that was "regularly" bringing down the Internet. The architecture had lower traffic circuits were going through concentrators while higher traffic circuits were directly attached to ports on the switchs. MFS-Datanet was not going to take the hit for the interruptions to the Internet and was going to inform the trade press there was a problem with DEC FDDI switches so Digital "gave" six switches for the re-architecture of the MAEs to solve the problem. Once this problem was solved the first quarter of 1997 saw a 70% jump in traffic that quarter alone. This "historical event" would in my memory be the genesis of the 100% traffic growth in 100 days legend. (So it was only 70% in 90 days which for the marketing folks does not cut it so 100% in 100 days sounds much better?? :) ) MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-Datanet had all of the fiber running to key locations at the time and could drastically cut MCI's costs. UUNET "merged" with MCI and their traffic was put on this same network. MCI went belly up and Verizon bought the network. Personal Note: from 1983 to 90 I worked for Hayes the modem folks and became the Godfather to Ascend communications with Jeanette, Rob, Jay and Steve whose team produced the TNT line of modem/ISDN to Ethernet central site concentrators (in the early ninties) that drove a large portion of the user traffic to the Internet at the time, generating the "bubble". John (ISDN) Lee From: Andrew Odlyzko [odly...@umn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 12:55 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth myths Since several members of this list requested it, here is a summary of the responses to my request for information about Internet growth during the telecom bubble, in particular the perceptions of the O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet "Internet doubling every 100 days" myth. First of all, many thanks to all those who responded, on and off-list. This involved extensive correspondence and some long phone conversations, and helped fill out the picture of those very confusing times (and also made it even clearer than before that there were many different perspectives on what was happening). The entire message is rather long, but it is written in sections, to make it easy to get the gist quickly and neglect the rest. Andrew --- 1. Short summary: People who got into the game late, or had been working at small ISPs or other enterprises, were generally willing to give serious credence to the "Internet doubling every 100 days" tale. The old-timers, especially those who worked for large ISPs or other large corporate establishment or research networks, were convinced by the late 1990s that this tale was false, but did not talk about it publicly, even inside the NANOG community. --- 2. Longer version: The range of views was very wide, and hard to give justice to in full. But there seemed to be two distinct groups, and the consensus views (which obviously exclude quite a few people) appear to have been: 2A: Those who entered the field in the late 1990s, especially if they worked for small ISPs or other small enterprises, tended to regard the claim seriously. (But it should be remarked that hardly anybody devoted too much effort or thought to the claim, they were too busy putting out fires in their own backyards to worry about global issues.) They remembered periods of desperate efforts to keep up with exploding demand in their businesses. We saw just a few hours ago a post about LINX growing 5.5x in one year. Somebody else wrote about growing their business's traffic 1,000x in 2 years, or about 30x per year. People involved in such incidents often tended to think that their experience during such times might not have been untypical. 2B: Those who worked at places with large traffic, and especially those who got into the field in the early 1990s, were quite sure by the late 1990s that the UUNet fable was just that. Comments regarding everything emanating from UUNet during that period included phrases like "blowing smoke," "rolling our eyes," "taking it with a rock of salt." They had no direct knowledge of what went on inside UUNet, but from watching peering traffic, talking to salespeople about
LACNOC 2010 - Meeting Registration
Dear colleagues, LACNOG is pleased to announce the opening of registration to participate in the LACNOG 2010 meeting to be held in conjunction with LACNIC XIV and the 4th Brazilian PTT Forum. This joint event will take place from 19 to 22 October 2010, at the Caesar Park International Airport Hotel in Guarulhos, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Register now at: http://www.lacnog.org/en/eventos/lacnog-2010/registro Book your hotel at: http://www.lacnog.org/en/eventos/lacnog-2010/hospedaje Information and other details are available at the meeting website: http://www.lacnog.org/en/eventos/lacnog-2010/inicio LACNOG Program Committee
Re: RE: net-neutrality
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:23:01 CDT, Jeff Harper said: > This is kind of like one person saying they're not going to listen to a > radio station anymore. "And the only reason I'm singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if your in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, You can get anything you want, at Alice's restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement." Of course, that *does* require finding 49 other like-minded people. pgpkn62UNISdB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble
Wait a sec, you seems to assume that the 'Doubling every 100 days" statement was referring to the Internet traffic not just UUNet traffic. My recollection was that the statement was referring to UUNet traffic based on the stats collected in a period of time (see my previous email). That is why I urged the author of the paper to make this important distinction. If one made a prediction based on stats collected and the prediction was not accurate due to the imperfection of stats (in this case, it may be caused by a short term growth abnormally, as Jeff Young pointed out), it is unfair to assume the person misled public on purpose. Thanks! --Jessica From: Kenny Sallee To: Jessica Yu ; Andrew Odlyzko Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 4:01:00 PM Subject: Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Jessica Yu wrote: I do not know if making such distinction would alter the conclusion of your >paper. But, to me, there is a difference between one to predict the growth of >one particular network based on the stats collected than one to predict the >growth of the entire Internet with no solid data. >Thanks!--Jessica > Agree with Jessica: you can't say the 'Internet' doubles every x number of days/amount of time no matter what the number of days or amount of time is. The 'Internet' is a series of tubes...hahaha couldn't help itAs we all know the Internet is a bunch of providers plugged into each other. Provider A may see an 10x increase in traffic every month while provider B may not. For example, if Google makes a deal with Verizon only Verizon will see a huge increase in traffic internally and less externally (or vice versa). Until Google goes somewhere else! So the whole 'myth' of Internet doubling every 100 days to me is something someone (ODell it seems) made up to appease someone higher in the chain or a government committee that really doesn't get it. IE - it's marketing talk to quantify something. I guess if all the ISP's in the world provided a central repository bandwidth numbers they have on their backbone then you could make up some stats about Internet traffic as a whole. But without that - it just doesn't make much sense. Just my .02 Kenny
RE: net-neutrality
This is kind of like one person saying they're not going to listen to a radio station anymore. > -Original Message- > From: Sven Olaf Kamphuis [mailto:s...@cb3rob.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 5:53 AM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Cc: akt...@lists.piratenpartei.de; algem...@lists.piratenpartij.nl > Subject: net-neutrality > > Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely > undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to > see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to > set an example: > > Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over > the > coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain > a > traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount > to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply > no > more internets for them... sorry peeps. > > > 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET > 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC > 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS > 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV > 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2 > 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA > 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA > 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA > 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613 > 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET > > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > === > == > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B > BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152- > 26410799 > RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net > === > == > C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > > === > == > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >
off-topic: summary on Internet traffic growth myths
Since several members of this list requested it, here is a summary of the responses to my request for information about Internet growth during the telecom bubble, in particular the perceptions of the O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet "Internet doubling every 100 days" myth. First of all, many thanks to all those who responded, on and off-list. This involved extensive correspondence and some long phone conversations, and helped fill out the picture of those very confusing times (and also made it even clearer than before that there were many different perspectives on what was happening). The entire message is rather long, but it is written in sections, to make it easy to get the gist quickly and neglect the rest. Andrew --- 1. Short summary: People who got into the game late, or had been working at small ISPs or other enterprises, were generally willing to give serious credence to the "Internet doubling every 100 days" tale. The old-timers, especially those who worked for large ISPs or other large corporate establishment or research networks, were convinced by the late 1990s that this tale was false, but did not talk about it publicly, even inside the NANOG community. --- 2. Longer version: The range of views was very wide, and hard to give justice to in full. But there seemed to be two distinct groups, and the consensus views (which obviously exclude quite a few people) appear to have been: 2A: Those who entered the field in the late 1990s, especially if they worked for small ISPs or other small enterprises, tended to regard the claim seriously. (But it should be remarked that hardly anybody devoted too much effort or thought to the claim, they were too busy putting out fires in their own backyards to worry about global issues.) They remembered periods of desperate efforts to keep up with exploding demand in their businesses. We saw just a few hours ago a post about LINX growing 5.5x in one year. Somebody else wrote about growing their business's traffic 1,000x in 2 years, or about 30x per year. People involved in such incidents often tended to think that their experience during such times might not have been untypical. 2B: Those who worked at places with large traffic, and especially those who got into the field in the early 1990s, were quite sure by the late 1990s that the UUNet fable was just that. Comments regarding everything emanating from UUNet during that period included phrases like "blowing smoke," "rolling our eyes," "taking it with a rock of salt." They had no direct knowledge of what went on inside UUNet, but from watching peering traffic, talking to salespeople about customer losses and wins, and to suppliers about deliveries of equipment, they could be pretty certain that neither the traffic nor the capacity of UUNet could be exploding at the mythical rates. They could see occasional spikes in traffic growth at some customers, or in some parts of their networks, but overall could see traffic growth settling down to a fairly regular doubling or a bit more than doubling each year. However, they did not discuss this in public, and I discuss that below, in point #4. --- 3. Growth spurt in mid-1990s: The old-timers also provided very informative feedback about the global Internet traffic growth spurt in the 1995-96 time frame. It did hit suddenly and unexpectedly. (I am still trying to get confirmation on this, but I believe one of the informants said that before this period, the engineers at that person's Tier-1 ISP would routinely double the forecasts provided by the marketing team. At the peak of the bubble, the marketers would demand that the engineers plan for double the capacity that the engineers thought was going to be necessary.) Moreover, the dramatic slowdown in traffic growth that took place in 1997 was, at least in a number of cases, due substantially to a capacity crunch. Router and photonic equipment manufacturers did not have the technology needed for the traffic, and ILECs were slow in supplying access as well as backbone links. Hence the traffic growth spurt in 1996-96 was followed by a capacity growth spurt in 1997-98, which helped provide more credibility for the myth. --- 4. Information viscosity: This incident provides far more information confirming the concept of "information viscosity" that I wrote about in my paper, that important and relevant information was available, but was not widely dispersed. Why did the information that Internet traffic was not doubling every 100 days get out to the public? It was not a closely guarded national security secret, after all. There seemed to be many reasons operating. In the case of Genuity (as the quote from Scott Marcus in my paper
RE: net-neutrality
> Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely > undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to see > as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an > example: > > Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the > coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a > traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount to 1 > euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no more > internets > for them... sorry peeps. Just so I understand correctly, you're implementing what is tantamount to a 'violation of net neutrality' in order to punish these organizations for attempting to protect their intellectual property? You seem to value the neutral natural state of the internet at large. If you're upset by the way these businesses have conducted themselves, find a response which doesn't violate your own ethics. Otherwise, you look like a hypocrite throwing a tantrum. Best Regards, Nathan Eisenberg
Re: net-neutrality
Other clients eh? Something tells your transit would be completely useless on days where new microsoft/adobe/protools/games gets released. Just saying. c On 8/11/2010 6:29 AM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain > in the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted > websites in the entire world, until a few months ago. > > not to mention several of our other clients ;) > > i'd suggest you do your homework properly next time :P > > the MAFIAA surely did :P > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: net-neutrality
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:25 +, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > it is: > > c) RIAA/MPAA members trying to make ISPs liable for what customers do in > order to somehow fork the isp into kicking out the customer, as they > refuse to simply go to court against the customer but rather prefer to > harrass their ISP or their isp's isp.. > did you stop taking your medication today? net-neutrality has nothing to do with following the law. if you do not like the copyright enforcement law in the netherlands, then change the law in the netherlands. nanog is not your soapbox, and I for one, am tired of hearing about how you host thepiratebay (which is, for the last few years at least, a pretty shitty torrent tracker anyway). so please, for the love of $deity, stop posting your crap to this list. by the way, you're still invited to provide a list of legitimate (e.g. not warez) customers you have. i'm pretty sure that you do not have any though. william
Re: net-neutrality
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 11:29 +, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, if you think that is a good sales point... do you actually have any legitimate customers? william
Re: net-neutrality
Not that I am speaking for anybody but myself here. I'll killfile this thread now On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote: > >> btw, considering that you appearantly run a larger network than the 3 >> networks we own and operate, willing to sell? :P > > That would be rarther funny Sven, you buying IBM. Sweet dreams. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Re: net-neutrality
Hi! btw, considering that you appearantly run a larger network than the 3 networks we own and operate, willing to sell? :P That would be rarther funny Sven, you buying IBM. Sweet dreams. Bye, Raymond.
Re: net-neutrality
btw, considering that you appearantly run a larger network than the 3 networks we own and operate, willing to sell? :P -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG = Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net = C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle = Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites in the entire world, until a few months ago. no, that doesnt matter as much as just how much traffic you actually exchange with those asns
Re: net-neutrality
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites in the entire world, until a few months ago. no, that doesnt matter as much as just how much traffic you actually exchange with those asns just for your info, this is just the first step, we can make it severely more nasty for them :P. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG = Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net = C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle = Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Re: net-neutrality
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in > the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites in > the entire world, until a few months ago. no, that doesnt matter as much as just how much traffic you actually exchange with those asns
Re: net-neutrality
hmm funny, it had the piratebay on it, the 3rd most visted .org domain in the world, as well as number 7 or so on the list of most visted websites in the entire world, until a few months ago. not to mention several of our other clients ;) i'd suggest you do your homework properly next time :P the MAFIAA surely did :P -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG = Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net = C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle = Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: If you announce anything worth reaching in that AS of yours .. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE they'd care rather than yawn 84.22.96.0/19 has, for instance - 84.22.96.254 cock-is.huge.nl If sony music etc want to engage in a size war with you, that's entirely up to them. Meanwhile, please leave nanog out of this. It is your toy AS with what looks like little or no production traffic on it, and you're free to play with it as you like. --srs On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an example: Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no more internets for them... sorry peeps. 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG = Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net = C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle = Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Re: net-neutrality
next up on the list: disney, paramount pictures, sony music entertainment, sony pictures entertainment, most of vivendi/universal group, viacom.. all of these organisations have well established themselves on the list of organisations not worthy to have their traffic relayed for free. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG = Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net = C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle = Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Mark Smith wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:52:53 + (UTC) Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, What is your definition of violating net-neutrality? Is it (a) carriers ransoming content providers so that only then will the content providers receive fair, equal and unfettered access to the carriers' customers? or (b) applying QoS to customer traffic if necessary because TCP was designed to suck up all the bandwidth available (to try to achieve 100% return on investment in the network capex), based on an original assumption that there'd be short bursts of TCP traffic, and now some applications, particular P2P ones, which use TCP, now create constant rather than bursty load on the network, resulting in congestion and impacting latency sensitive applications such as VoIP and gaming? which they seem to see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an example: Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no more internets for them... sorry peeps. 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG = Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net = C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle = Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Re: net-neutrality
it is: c) RIAA/MPAA members trying to make ISPs liable for what customers do in order to somehow fork the isp into kicking out the customer, as they refuse to simply go to court against the customer but rather prefer to harrass their ISP or their isp's isp.. Well guess what, we don't really feel like giving them something for free (their traffic being relayed over our infrastructure) if they act hostile, if they can't get the piratebay ITSELF to shut down, we can only conclude the piratebay has the RIGHT to internet just as much as they do, actually more, as the piratebay paid us, and they don't. (so let's change the payment structure a bit and make these people pay us too ;) see also the various piratebay cases, as well as the fact that universal music germany gmbh can't be fucked to pay for their own court fees if they need a court order to get us to give out an address (the poor fuckers, whatever happened to mtv-cribs ;) -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG = Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net = C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle = Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Mark Smith wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:52:53 + (UTC) Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, What is your definition of violating net-neutrality? Is it (a) carriers ransoming content providers so that only then will the content providers receive fair, equal and unfettered access to the carriers' customers? or (b) applying QoS to customer traffic if necessary because TCP was designed to suck up all the bandwidth available (to try to achieve 100% return on investment in the network capex), based on an original assumption that there'd be short bursts of TCP traffic, and now some applications, particular P2P ones, which use TCP, now create constant rather than bursty load on the network, resulting in congestion and impacting latency sensitive applications such as VoIP and gaming? which they seem to see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an example: Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no more internets for them... sorry peeps. 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG = Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net = C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle = Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Re: net-neutrality
If you announce anything worth reaching in that AS of yours .. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE they'd care rather than yawn 84.22.96.0/19 has, for instance - 84.22.96.254 cock-is.huge.nl If sony music etc want to engage in a size war with you, that's entirely up to them. Meanwhile, please leave nanog out of this. It is your toy AS with what looks like little or no production traffic on it, and you're free to play with it as you like. --srs On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely > undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to see > as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an > example: > > Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the > coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a > traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount to > 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no more > internets for them... sorry peeps. > > > 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET > 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC > 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS > 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV > 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2 > 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA > 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA > 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA > 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613 > 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET > > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > = > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net > = > C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > > = > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)
Re: net-neutrality
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:52:53 + (UTC) Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely > undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, What is your definition of violating net-neutrality? Is it (a) carriers ransoming content providers so that only then will the content providers receive fair, equal and unfettered access to the carriers' customers? or (b) applying QoS to customer traffic if necessary because TCP was designed to suck up all the bandwidth available (to try to achieve 100% return on investment in the network capex), based on an original assumption that there'd be short bursts of TCP traffic, and now some applications, particular P2P ones, which use TCP, now create constant rather than bursty load on the network, resulting in congestion and impacting latency sensitive applications such as VoIP and gaming? > which they seem to > see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to > set an example: > > Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the > coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a > traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount > to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no > more internets for them... sorry peeps. > > > 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET > 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC > 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS > 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV > 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2 > 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA > 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA > 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA > 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613 > 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET > > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > = > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B > BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net > = > C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > > = > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > >
net-neutrality
Hi, considering the fact that several organisations have been severely undermining net-neutrality over the past few months, which they seem to see as less important than their copyright bullshit, we have decided to set an example: Should the following networks, to which list more will be added over the coming month, desire to exchange traffic with AS34109, they can obtain a traffic relay contract at sa...@cb3rob.net, the costs of which amount to 1 euros per month, excl. 19% VAT, if not, well, then it's simply no more internets for them... sorry peeps. 193.108.8.0/21#GEMA-NET 195.109.249.64/29#SONYMUSIC 195.143.92.160/27#SBMG1-NETS 212.123.224.240/29#Net-WEGENER-MEDIA-BV 212.123.227.64/29#BumaStemra2 212.136.193.216/29#BUMA 212.78.179.240/28#BUMA-STEMRA 213.208.242.160/29#NL-COLT-BUMA-STEMRA 217.148.80.112/28#NL-NXS-CUST-1004613 85.236.46.0/24#IX-UNIVERSAL-NET -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG = Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration:HRA 42834 B BERLINPhone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE:CBSK1-RIPEe-Mail: s...@cb3rob.net = C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle = Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble
In article <621c1b2c-f7e3-438f-9ddd-d5dc41979...@gmail.com>, kris foster quotes Jeremy Orbell Anyway, the full press release which I quoted from can be read on page 3 of the following PDF:https://www.linx.net/files/hotlinx/hotlinx-20.pdf And on page 2 there's the "Internet Time x4" meme, which was indeed in its heyday in 2001. -- Roland Perry
