Re: eBay is looking for network heavies...
You are such an optimist ;-) Sometimes those who can remember the past get to repeat it anyway. TV On June 6, 2015 6:53:20 AM EDT, Dorian Kim dor...@blackrose.org wrote: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” -Santayana Quite relevant in our industry that seems be more hell bent on rehashing ideas and plot lines than Hollywood. -dorian On Jun 6, 2015, at 6:43 AM, shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: My first thought on reading that was who the hell cares if a person knows about internet culture. But than I had to reconsider - it's a very apt way of telling if someone read the right books :) I would also add Ritchie, Thompson, and Diffie to that list (since you ask about Larry, it's only appropriate). On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 6:32 AM, jim deleskie deles...@gmail.com wrote: I remember you asking me who Jon was :) I have since added to my list of interview questions... sad but the number of people with clue is declining not increasing. On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote: Back in 2000 at Amazon, HR somehow decided to have me do the phone interviews for neteng. I'd go through questions on routing and what not, then at the end I would ask questions like, Who was Jon Postel? Who is Larry Wall? Who is Paul Vixie? What are layers 8 9? Explain the RTFM protocol. What is NANOG? Those answers (or long silences) told me more about the candidate than most of the technical questions. -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: AWS Elastic IP architecture
Point of clarification: AWS customer IP subnets can overlap, but customer VPCs that encompass overlapping subnets cannot peer with each other. In other words, the standard arguments in favor of address uniqueness still apply. TV On May 31, 2015 7:23:37 AM EDT, Andras Toth diosbej...@gmail.com wrote: Congratulations for missing the point Matt, when I sent my email (which by the way went for moderation) there wasn't a discussion about Classic vs VPC yet. The discussion was no ipv6 in AWS which is not true as I mentioned in my previous email. I did not state it works everywhere, but it does work. In fact as Owen mentioned the following, I assumed he is talking about Classic because this statement is only true there. In VPC you can define your own IP subnets and it can overlap with other customers, so basically everyone can have their own 10.0.0.0/24 for example. They are known to be running multiple copies of RFC-1918 in disparate localities already. In terms of scale, modulo the nightmare that must make of their management network and the fragility of what happens when company A in datacenter A wants to talk to company A in datacenter B and they both have the same 10-NET addresses Andras On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote: On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 01:38:05AM +1000, Andras Toth wrote: Perhaps if that energy which was spent on raging, instead was spent on a Google search, then all those words would've been unnecessary. Official documentation: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/ElasticLoadBalancing/latest/DeveloperGuide/elb-internet-facing-load-balancers.html#internet-facing-ip-addresses Congratulations, you've managed to find exactly the same info as Owen already covered: Load balancers in a VPC support IPv4 addresses only. and Load balancers in EC2-Classic support both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. - Matt -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
On Jan 28, 2010, at 7:47 AM, Richard Barnes wrote: What I've heard is that the driver is IPv4 exhaustion: Comcast is starting to have enough subscribers that it can't address them all out of 10/8 -- ~millions of subscribers, each with 1 IP address (e.g., for user data / control of the cable box). But then that begs the question of why lots of other very large retail Internet access providers have not indicated that they're committed to the same course of action (?). They're certainly not the only provider that employs a public IP address-intensive access model, so where are the other retail IPv6 trial announcements/pre-announcements? If they start appearing with some frequency real soon now, then maybe it's just a time-until-overflow issue. If not, then maybe there are other/better explanations. TV On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote: Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:16 -0800 From: George Bonser gbon...@seven.com -Original Message- From: William McCall Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 7:51 PM Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials Saw this today too. This is a good step forward for adoption. Without going too far, what was the driving factor/selling point to moving towards this trial? SWAG: Comcast is a mobile operator. At some point NAT becomes very expensive for mobile devices and it makes sense to use IPv6 where you don't need to do NAT. Once you deploy v6 on your mobile net, it is to your advantage to have the stuff your mobile devices connect to also be v6. Do do THAT your network needs to transport v6 and once your net is ipv6 enabled, there is no reason not to leverage that capability to the rest of your network. /SWAG My gut instinct says that mobile operators will be a major player in v6 adoption. SWAG is wrong. Comcast is a major cable TV, telephone (VoIP), and Internet provider, but they don't do mobile (so far). -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials
On Jan 28, 2010, at 9:07 AM, TJ wrote: -Original Message- From: tv...@eyeconomics.com [mailto:tv...@eyeconomics.com] Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 08:12 To: Richard Barnes Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: Comcast IPv6 Trials SNIP But then that begs the question of why lots of other very large retail Internet access providers have not indicated that they're committed to the same course of action (?). They're certainly not the only provider that employs a public IP address- intensive access model, so where are the other retail IPv6 trial announcements/pre-announcements? Other providers are moving in that direction, atleast a couple are (as a swag) 6-18 months behind Comcast ... /TJ I have no particular reason to to doubt that claim, and lots of reasons to actively hope that you are right. That said, the appearance of more public commitments like this -- and sooner rather than later -- could make a large difference, e.g., by reducing the general level of uncertainty (and uncertainty-amplifying speculation) during the terminal stages of IPv4 allocation. While no commercial entity would (and none should) willingly make such a public commitment before they're ready, it would be prudent to consider the potential downsides of that looming uncertainty when making judgements about how ready (or perhaps ready enough) should be defined. TV
Re: Anyone see a game changer here?
On Jan 16, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Fred Baker wrote: On Jan 15, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Bruce Williams wrote: Can you prove you are not Chinese and my computer is not hacked? Fred is your real name, isn't it? You are Fred, aren't you? You. Says so on my business card... IMG_2226_2.jpg 看的也不見！ TV
Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
On Dec 29, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Dan White wrote: On 29/12/09 12:20 -0500, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote: Better than the typical block outbound 25 filtering we do now. In fact, in a perfect world ISPs would offer residential customers reduced experience versions of castration that decrease the cost along with decreasing what you have access to. At the bottom level it would be essentially a thin client running a terminal service (or an emulated thin client using a web browser) with all applications in the cloud and nothing sitting on the home PC; mid-level would be web plus common email clients and chat/IM; high level adds popular apps like Skype, P2P, games, etc. I think that a fairly large percentage of homes that only want access to online content and email would be very happy with the bottom tiers. Many would probably like the cloud approach where all of the crazy updating, rebooting, etc. is taken out of the hands of the consumer. WebTV, meet the 21st century :) The customers in the market for such a service would be least likely to understand your explanation of the service. Do you offer a new lower tier service, or rebrand your residential service, and try to explain how you're taking away services they probably don't need. It's been my experience that if you tell someone you're taking away something, they tend to value it even if they don't know what it is. As well they should. As well we all should. None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely require, or merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or two from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain) functionality so tightly around what we want/need today that the prospect of getting anything different is effectively eliminated. TV
Re: ip-precedence for management traffic
On Dec 29, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Randy Bush wrote: None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely require, or merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or two from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain) functionality so tightly around what we want/need today that the prospect of getting anything different is effectively eliminated. this is the telco solution to the nasty disruptive technologies spawned by the internet I could be mistaken, but I think Tom's point was we could give people the ebony black bell phone, that'd really suck for us as a business/community. sorry, i should have been more clear that i was agreeing with tom. replies might not be assumed to be in opposition. I got that ;-) Chris is right, but so is Randy. IMO if the net is ultimately diminished in this manner, either through commission or omission, eating anything other than our own dog food would be neither defensible, nor sustainable for long. The rotary phone was great in its time, but that time has passed -- today there's lot more at stake than handset color. TV
Re: Chinese bgp metering story
Nobody here remembers ICAIS? This is actually an old story/ambition, which started elsewhere, and not long after the the 1997-1998 rebalancing of ITU-mediated switched telecom settlements. Two nuggets from the history books pasted in below. Of course, just because it's not new doesn't mean that it's not newsworthy. As I recall, this issue precipitated a fairly titanic behind-the-scenes struggle last time around... TV _ AAP NEWSFEED July 15, 1999, Thursday Telstra chief calls for equitable Net traffic cost sharing SYDNEY, July 15 AAP - Telstra Corp Ltd chief executive Ziggy Switkowski today called for an equitable arrangement for sharing the cost of carrying Internet traffic to and from the United States.In an address to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) business conference here, Dr Switkowski said US operators were currently enjoying an implied subsidy of 30 per cent of the costs of international Internet connection... The charging system operates on a similar principle to that used in international phone charging arrangements, he said. For Australia alone, that represents approximately $50 million a year, and the sum varies from country to country depending on usage, Dr Switkowski said. Telstra's view is that the future of e-commerce could be undermined if investment in capacity growth does not match growth in demand. But infrastructure providers outside the US need to have sufficient confidence in cost sharing to invest in new capacity to meet the exploding demand for bandwidth... _ Economist October 19, 1996 Too cheap to meter? The fact that the Internet seems free to many of its users has been one reason for its success. Now it may have to change. But how? ...If the costs of the telephone companies and the Internet are similar, why are their methods of pricing different? The answer is that telecoms charges bear little relation to costs. The telephone industry is regulated nearly everywhere and in most countries prices are set by bureaucrats and commissions; real costs are hidden by a layer of crosssubsidies. The Internet, on the other hand, is essentially unregulated. At present, telephone companies typically make less than half their revenue from fixed charges rather than from the price of each call. Tim Kelly, of the International Telecommunication Union in Geneva, reckons that the share of revenue from connection charges and monthly rentals has risen in the past decade from about 33% to 40%; he expects an increase to around 60% over the next ten years. The companies are not keen on such rebalancing, since it usually involves reducing lucrative call charges rather than increasing fixed charges. But without it, they are vulnerable to competition, including competition from the Internet, which can offer rival services far less expensively... ...Such settlements are a source of endless argument: America's long- distance carriers complain that local telephone companies overcharge them. Moreover, they transfer huge sums of money between countries: in 1994, carriers based in the United States handed over a net $ 4.3 billion to foreign carriers. Because countries in which telephoning is cheap (such as America) tend to ring countries where calls are dearer, American carriers grumble that they are subsidising the inefficient and uncompetitive. Gradually, therefore, telephone companies are moving towards a sender-keeps-all system, where they will charge each other a flat fee for access to a certain amount of transmission capacity, rather than bill each other on the basis of use. That would bring them increasingly into line with what happens on the Internet, where settlement is rudimentary. There are payments between each of the Internet's hierarchy of links: access providers pay their regional network and regional networks pay the companies that operate the high-capacity long-distance parts, the backbone of the system. But such payments are mostly based on the availability of capacity, not its use: service providers simply agree to carry each other's traffic without totting up precise bills. This encourages a hot-potato approach: Internet access providers hand traffic on as quickly as possible to the carrier taking it to its ultimate destination. That benefits small service providers and irritates big ones, who say they get little reward for the effort of carrying the traffic for most of its journey. In turn, this lessens their incentive to invest in new capacity. The problem of settlement is worse for access providers outside America. Led by Singapore Telecom and Australia's Telstra, they complain that they have to pay all the cost of leasing lines between their country and the United States. The rest of the planet subsidises the United States, argues Barry Greene, who works for Cisco, a maker of routers, but was previously with Singnet,
Re: Comcast outage in central NJ
There was a total outage for 6+ hours in at least one Richmond VA neighborhood yesterday, ending around 6:00PM. Cable STB software had clearly been updated when everything came back up, but I have no idea whether the two events were related. TV On Dec 3, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Jeffrey Negro wrote: Update - Comcast repaired the problem. Not sure if there are other areas still with problems though. Jeffrey -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Negro [mailto:jne...@billtrust.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:04 AM To: NANOG Subject: Comcast outage in central NJ There appears to be a Comcast outage in central NJ, more specifically in the South Brunswick area. Comcast appears to be aware of the outage as per the message I got when I called them. Anyone hear any details on the issue, or an ETA for repair yet? Jeffrey
Fwd: [IP] [warning: layer 8/9] Strange bedfellows, aka a joint statement from Verizon Wireless and Google
Interesting, curious... but meaningful? To my mind Google's language seems to be focused on wireline issues, which I guess are probably quite a bit easier for Verizon Wireless to accommodate. Conversely, VW's emphasis on continuing self-regulation of wireless access would seem to be of secondary importance, at best, to Google. Does this mean that a future of combat over my (TCP) ports is somewhat less likely? Does this mean that Google won't be offering me FTTH within the next 2-3 years? Inquiring minds take note! TV Begin forwarded message: From: David Farber d...@farber.net Date: October 22, 2009 7:27:48 AM EDT To: ip i...@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet - a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google. Reply-To: d...@farber.net A Technology and Telecommunications Policy Blog Thursday, October 22, 2009 Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet The following is a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google. Verizon and Google might seem unlikely bedfellows in the current debate around network neutrality, or an open Internet. And while it's true we do disagree quite strongly about certain aspects of government policy in this area--such as whether mobile networks should even be part of the discussion--there are many issues on which we agree. For starters we both think it's essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform--where people can access any content (so long as it's legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice. There are two key factors driving innovation on the web today. First is the programming language of the Internet, which was designed over forty years ago by engineers who wanted the freedom to communicate from any computer, anywhere in the world. It enables Macs to talk to PCs, Blackberry Storms to iPhones, the newest computers to the oldest hardware on the planet across any kind of network--cable, DSL, fiber, mobile, WiFi or even dial up. Second, private investment is dramatically increasing broadband capacity and the intelligence of networks, creating the infrastructure to support ever more sophisticated applications. As a result, however or wherever you access the Internet the people you want to connect with can receive your message. There is no central authority that can step in and prevent you from talking to someone else, or that imposes rules prescribing what services should be available. Transformative is an over-used word, especially in the tech sector. But the Internet has genuinely changed the world. Consumers of all stripes can decide which services they want to use and the companies they trust to provide them. In addition, if you're an entrepreneur with a big idea, you can launch your service online and instantly connect to an audience of billions. You don't need advance permission to use the network. At the same time, network providers are free to develop new applications, either on their own or in collaboration with others. This kind of innovation without permission has changed the way we do business forever, fueling unprecedented collaboration, creativity and opportunity. And because America has been at the forefront of most of these changes, we have disproportionately benefited in terms of economic growth and job creation. So, in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission's national plan to bring broadband to all Americans, we understand its decision to start a debate about how best to protect and promote the openness of the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has promised a thoughtful, transparent decision-making process, and we look forward to taking part in the analysis and discussion that is to follow. We believe this kind of process can work, because as the two of us have debated these issues we have found a number of basic concepts to agree on. First, it's obvious that users should continue to have the final say about their web experience, from the networks and software they use, to the hardware they plug in to the Internet and the services they access online. The Internet revolution has been people powered from the very beginning, and should remain so. The minute that anyone, whether from government or the private sector, starts to control how people use the Internet, it is the beginning of the end of the Net as we know it. Second, advanced and open networks are essential to the future development of the Web. Policies that continue to provide incentives for investment and innovation are a vital part of the debate we are now beginning. Third, the FCC's existing wireline broadband principles make clear that users are in charge of all aspects of their Internet experience--from access to apps and content. So we think it makes sense for the Commission to establish that these
Re: ISP/VPN's to China?
On Oct 22, 2009, at 7:38 AM, Chris Edwards wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Alex Balashov wrote: | Understood. I guess the angle I was going more for was: Is this actually | practical to do in a country with almost as many Internet users as the US has | people? | | I had always assumed that broad policies and ACLs work in China, but most | forms of DPI and traffic pattern analysis aren't practical simply for | computational feasibility reasons. Not unless the system were highly | distributed. Perhaps they only need make an example of a few, and thus introduce an element of fear for everyone else. Not a few, but rather quite a lot, albeit only infrequently, and at unpredictable intervals, with a very high inclusion/exclusion error rate -- an artifact of the absence clear and easily demonstrable line between compliance/non-compliance (which is itself an artifact of the 内部 [internally published only] nature of many of the related rules). http://www.usc.cuhk.edu.hk/wk_wzdetails.asp?id=2791 www.usc.cuhk.edu.hk/webmanager/wkfiles/2791_1_paper.pdf TV
Re: ISP/VPN's to China?
On Oct 22, 2009, at 8:14 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: On Thursday 22 October 2009 12:38:11 Chris Edwards wrote: On Thu, 22 Oct 2009, Alex Balashov wrote: | Understood. I guess the angle I was going more for was: Is this | actually practical to do in a country with almost as many Internet users | as the US has people? | | I had always assumed that broad policies and ACLs work in China, but most | forms of DPI and traffic pattern analysis aren't practical simply for | computational feasibility reasons. Not unless the system were highly | distributed. Perhaps they only need make an example of a few, and thus introduce an element of fear for everyone else. I had always assumed that the Gt. Firewall, and especially the fake RST element of it, existed precisely to let the geeks and weirdos stand out of the naive traffic so they could be subjected to special treatment. Similarly, this is the approach the Iranians seem to have taken after their disputed election - although there isn't a telco monopoly, there's a wholesale transit monopoly, and they just had the transit provider rate-limit everyone. My understanding of this was that normal users would give up and do something else, and only people who really wanted to reach the outside world or each other - i.e. potential subversives - would keep trying. Therefore, not only would the volume of traffic to DPI, proxy etc be lower, but the concentration of suspect traffic in it would be higher. From this point of view, I suppose there's some value in using an IPSec or SSL VPN, because that's what corporate traveller applications tend to use and they'll therefore never cut it off. I mean, are you suggesting that the assistant party secretary of Wuhan won't be able to log into CommunistSpace (Iike Facebook with Chinese characteristics) while he's on the road? Unthinkable! Generally speaking, the definition of corporate traveller applications in such cases == Whatever anyone tries to do from the following specific address ranges, which are known to be accessible exclusively inside certain international hotels, exclusively to users who are willing to pay the equivalent of 1-2 weeks of avg. local income for the privilege). TV
Re: ISP/VPN's to China?
Very interesting rundown of current infrastructure option -- thanks! On Oct 21, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Benjamin Billon wrote: Hi, if you're talking about Mainland China in general (not Hong Kong specifically), indeed IPSEC VPN may not provide desired level of service. During the time I spent there, we opted for: - CNC MPLS for 4 sites in China - Equant MPLS between Beijing and other worldwide sites - Then replaced at high price Equant by Verizon MPLS in order to connect worldwide sites through Pacific links instead of Suez Canal - Then replaced Verizon by higher bandwidth Equant MPLS because Verizon's service was seriously bad. Not the link, but the service around it. At that time, Verizon used China Telecom as contractor, and I think Equant used CNC. Not sure about that, though. Verizon = CT: also consistent with my memory (and an easy guess since there is no alternative) Equant = CNC: Perhaps you mean China Unicom =) TV Between each site (Beijing to three others in China, and Beijing to others worldwide), there was backup IPSEC VPN set up just in case. Hopefully we didn't had to use them, because they was down from time to time and bandwidth was inconsistent. Great Firewall buddy is not to charge this time. ChrisSerafin a écrit : I have a client in the US looking to connect up an office in China and I'm wondering what type of connections are avilable and wether IPSEC VPNs can be established through the 'Great firewall of China'. I talked to a China Telcom rep in the US that says that the network congestion even in China makes VPN's difficult. From their website, I see that the majority of the country is using xDSL, or 2MB dedicated lines. Can anyone shed any light on this topic? Thanks! ch...@chrisserafin.com
Re: Datacenter recommendations - China and Latin America
On Sep 9, 2009, at 4:11 AM, Benjamin Billon wrote: From a cost, operational, and routing perspective, the same would be true if you got a CT link in Los Angeles or San Francisco. I can't be sure (didn't try myself, sorry) but I think CT links are more filtered from outside PRC (HK being included in PRC) Perhaps, but I believe that would only be consistently/reliably true for the smallish international intra-enterprise links of non-network services companies, e.g., between manufacturer-x's CN subsidiary and manufacturer-x's offshore corporate HQ. Since CT and CNC You mean China Unicom =) Indeed -- thanks for the correction. control all routes between China and everywhere else in the world-- including HK -- and the outsideCN-to-insideCN segment is going to be the most expensive and complicated element of any path between China and anywhere else, the choice of interconnect location with your preferred China-side service provider provider is largely going to be a matter of personal taste/local convenience. and when asking to go through the Great Firewall, you (I don't mean YOU, TV) should first focus on your objectives. Do you truly think that because you got a network foot inside Mainland China, your services will be easy to reach for all Chinese Netizens? Exactly the right question. However (unless I am badly dated on these points also), the phrasing could be a little misleading, because: 1. You* will not get a layer-3 network foot inside China -- not one that's bigger than a LAN anyway, and certainly not one that's connected to anything outside China without first transiting CT or CUC (that's what I meant by Chinese autonomous routing domain). 2. You* will not get (or alternately, not want) to extend a layer-2 network foot inside China, because at best you'll get no further than the CT or CUC office closest to the landing station -- and that would put you in no different operational position (except perhaps much poorer) than if you interconnected in HK, LA, etc. Indirectly managed, locally hosted, and directly on-net with one of the two large access providers is the only formula that *might* make some kind of presence in China different from better than trying to reach Chinese Internet users from across the border. But even that can be quite challenging to arrange and maintain over time... Nuff said (but would be grateful for other corrections/updates based on very recent firsthand experience), TV
Re: Datacenter recommendations - China and Latin America
On Sep 8, 2009, at 12:35 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: Shane Ronan wrote: I'd recommend Equinix which has a site in Hong Kong which I would recommend over mainland China. http://www.equinix.com/locations/map/asiapacific/hongkong/ What is the Great Firewall relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland PRC, as compared to the mainland PRC vs. the rest of the world? Broadly speaking, the relationships are identical -- otherwise many/ most things that are currently in China would be in HK. TV -- Alex Balashov - Principal Evariste Systems Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/ Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670 Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Re: Datacenter recommendations - China and Latin America [SUMMARY]
For those who have a real need for both hosting within the Chinese autonomous routing domain *and* good, English-friendly remote hands support, I would also recommend considering the Silk Road Technologies data center in Hangzhou: http://www.srt.com.cn/en/ TV On Sep 8, 2009, at 3:57 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote: Hello: Thank you to everyone that provided off-list recommendations. I've compiled the list of providers in no particular order. Regards, Mike Latin America - Securehost - http://www.securehost.com - Triara (Telmex) - http://www.triara.com/Datacenter.htm - KIO Networks - Xertix - Hortolandia - CyDC (Brazil Telecom) - http://www.cydc.com.br - ALOG - http://www.alog.com.br - Terremark - http://www.terremark.com.br - Locaweb (Brazil) China/Hong Kong - Telehouse Beijing - http://www.telehouse.com/globalfacilities.php#asia - Vianet - http://www.21vianet.com/en/index.jsp - Mega-Iadvantage - http://www.iadvantage.net/facilities/facilities_megai_main.html - Dailan - InterNAP (partnering with Equinix) - Equinix - http://www.equinix.com/locations/map/asiapacific/hongkong/ -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Re: Datacenter recommendations - China and Latin America
On Sep 8, 2009, at 5:20 PM, Benjamin Billon wrote: You could get a China Telecom link in HK as well as many others: sit astride the Great Firewall! From a cost, operational, and routing perspective, the same would be true if you got a CT link in Los Angeles or San Francisco. Since CT and CNC control all routes between China and everywhere else in the world-- including HK -- and the outsideCN-to-insideCN segment is going to be the most expensive and complicated element of any path between China and anywhere else, the choice of interconnect location with your preferred China-side service provider provider is largely going to be a matter of personal taste/local convenience. Don't get me wrong, I like Hong Kong too -- just trying to make sure that everyone understands the situation clearly... TV What is the Great Firewall relationship between Hong Kong and the mainland PRC, as compared to the mainland PRC vs. the rest of the world?
Re: Redundant AS's
On Mar 17, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Simon Brilus wrote: Out of interest, is there a report that details the number of unused older AS's in the Internet and what is being done to recover them to recycle, as we approach the 53k mark and the 32 bit numbering scheme, it strikes me that we probably have a lot of stagnant AS's out there due to takeovers etc.. Any thoughts? Simon It's a bit dated now, but the RIPE report, ASN MIA, sounds like what you're looking for... www.apnic.net/meetings/21/docs/sigs/routing/routing-pres-uijterwaal-asn-mia.ppt TV
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
Repent repent, for the end is near. People like to say that the Internet interprets (censorship, monopolies, clue deficits, et al.) as congestion, and routes around -- but they got the causality exactly backwards. The Internet is an epiphenomenon of the possibility of bypass, which enables cost discovery, which enables cost-effective routing -- at least wherever bypass is possible. But bypass is only possible where someone has invested in alternate paths, and those kind of investments (no matter how large or small) have been almost always been entirely contingent on positive regulation of the pro-competitive kind... That is to say, the kind that the US pioneered but subsequently abandoned, the kind that Japan and Korea et al. subsequently adopted (and which still holds), the kind that many countries in Western Europe et al. have adopted even more recently... and which still holds.* Those who are currently willfully violating the conventional routing services distinctions would be wise to be patient a little longer; the only thing you'll buy now is cartelization, regulation of which may not ultimately favor your interests. Those who are currently actively attempting to kill bypass altogether would be wise to be desist; no one is going to think that the idea/expectation/requirement of multiple, fully redundant fiber entrance to every residence is anything other than absurd, so the rhetoric of facilities based competition is about find to its proper place in the ashcan of history. Work it out, or else someone else will do it for you. And they won't be entirely clueless if it comes to that. TV *re: the latest NANOG iteration of the AU debate: nothing that the ACCC could have done would have made any major difference, because Antipodeans speak English, and ever since 1999 the continent has been captive to whatever CIT could/did (i.e., couldn't/didn't) do. Bu that may be changing too...
