I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the NFL cities) right now, and
150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any metro with population
greater than 50K in a 100 sq Km area will need a neutral exchange point
(even if it's 1500 sqft in the bottom of a bank building.)
What application will
PV Date: 14 Nov 2002 05:14:30 +
PV From: Paul Vixie
[ re number of US exchange points ]
DD Right now seems domestically 6 may be all we need.
PV I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the NFL cities) right
PV now, and 150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any
PV metro with population
Dale Levesque [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
Attachment:
MIME Type: multipart/alternative
-
Does anyone in here now of a South Florida Network Operators Group, or
something similar, and if
I'm putting the number closer to 40 (the NFL cities) right now, and
150 by the end of the decade, and ultimately any metro with population
greater than 50K in a 100 sq Km area will need a neutral exchange point
(even if it's 1500 sqft in the bottom of a bank building.)
What application
Well thanks for the agreement Ed.
Philosophically, I agree with Paul. I think 40 exchange points would
be a benefit. At this time though, there is no model that would
support it.
1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap. Meaning distance peering
becomes more attractive. L3 also has an MPLS
Good Morning,
I am interested in how everyone who is affected by the recent Spanish
Judicial order to block specific terrorist affiliated sites from access to
Spanish nationals?
Without re-starting the endless debate over how impossible this is in
fact, since that is obvious -
Does anyone know where I can get a list of compuserve's proxy ip's?
Thanks,
Jason
--
Jason Beltrame
INetU, Inc.(tm)- http://www.INetU.net
Electronic commerce - Web development - Web
not meaning to sound facetious but have you asked compuserve?
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Jason Beltrame wrote:
Does anyone know where I can get a list of compuserve's proxy ip's?
Thanks,
Jason
--
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:22:09 -0500 David Diaz wrote:
2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
David;
I recommend some quality time with journals covering South
Korea, broadband, online gaming and video rental.
regards,
fletcher
Thus spake [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:22:09 -0500 David Diaz wrote:
2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
David;
I recommend some quality time with journals covering South
Korea, broadband, online gaming and video rental.
Current peering
Wired covered several of these topics in their August issue.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/korea.html
The article points out several subtle, yet fundamental,
changes that happen socially and psychologically once the
broadband network is available everywhere, to virtually
everyone,
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 12:11 PM -0500
-- Jim Deleskie [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
Its my understanding that since Akamai is based on DNS resolves if you
where to use the method of blocking it within the DNS system it would
make no difference. Although I'm no Akamai expert.
Still seems that none of these requires peering every 100 km.
Latency is still not a factor in this case.
People seem to prefer cost of quality at this time.
Good
Fast
Cheap
Pick any two.
As far as digital libraries and content and such... proxies and
caches would fill the roll here.
Used to be when it first came out, Wired was a mag the best quality printing
on no substance I had ever seen, really seemed like a borderline artist mag.
The colors were amazing. I see now, upon looking at a recent issue, their
content seems to have improved dramatically.
Brian
-
DD Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:22:09 -0500
DD From: David Diaz
DD 1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap. Meaning distance
DD peering becomes more attractive. L3 also has an MPLS product
DD so you pay by the meg. I am surprised a great many peers are
DD using this. But apparently CFOs love it
At 18:31 + 11/14/02, E.B. Dreger wrote:
DD Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:22:09 -0500
DD From: David Diaz
DD 1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap. Meaning distance
DD peering becomes more attractive. L3 also has an MPLS product
DD so you pay by the meg. I am surprised a great many peers are
Thus spake E.B. Dreger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
DD 1) Long haul circuits are dirt cheap. Meaning distance
DD peering becomes more attractive. L3 also has an MPLS product
DD so you pay by the meg. I am surprised a great many peers are
DD using this. But apparently CFOs love it
Uebercheap
This all strikes me as incorrect. The function of the domain
name system is primarily to translate an IP number into a domain name,
vice versa. If a user wishes to browse to
http://64.236.16.20
he/she will arrive also at
www.cnn.com.
The domain name is propagated and subsequently refreshed
Helo,
Might be a simple question But... I've got no idea what the answer
could be...
In the early days, one only had a .com address space (amongst the most
popular ones). These days, there is .com(this) and .com(that) and any
kind of .(whatever) you can think of.
My question...
How does
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:11:14 EST, Jim Deleskie [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Its my understanding that since Akamai is based on DNS resolves if you where
to use the method of blocking it within the DNS system it would make no
difference. Although I'm no Akamai expert.
The Akamai gotcha is that if
well current practice seems to be to declare yourself the legitimate root
authority and go out and set them up
however for the rest of us who either like the internet to continue to function
in a predictable manner or are mere mortals not worthy of declaring ourselves
root the answer is you cant
SS Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:32:55 -0600
SS From: Stephen Sprunk
SS Incorrect. Cheap longhaul favors a few centralized
SS exchanges. If there is no economic value in keeping traffic
SS local, it is in carriers' interests to minimize the number of
SS peering points.
True. However, cheap
Gawie Marais (Home) wrote:
Might be a simple question But... I've got no idea what the answer
could be...
In the early days, one only had a .com address space (amongst the most
popular ones). These days, there is .com(this) and .com(that) and any
kind of .(whatever) you can think of.
My
Helo,
Might be a simple question But... I've got no idea what the answer
could be...
In the early days, one only had a .com address space (amongst the most
popular ones). These days, there is .com(this) and .com(that) and any
kind of .(whatever) you can think of.
My question...
How does
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:52 PM -0500
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:11:14 EST, Jim Deleskie [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Its my understanding that since Akamai is based on DNS resolves if you
where to use the method of blocking it within the DNS system it
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:52 PM +0100
-- hostmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
This all strikes me as incorrect. The function of the domain name system
is primarily to translate an IP number into a domain name, vice versa. If
a user wishes to browse to http://64.236.16.20
This all strikes me as incorrect. The function of the domain name system is
primarily to translate an IP number into a domain name, vice versa. If a
user wishes to browse to http://64.236.16.20 he/she will arrive also at
www.cnn.com.
Remember some servers won't work with IP address,
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
number of alternative paths routing algorithms wil lhave to consider.
Anything like that would require serious
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:26:21 EST, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not if you block the domain name terrorist.com from resolving at the
caching name server, only if you block the IP address to which is resolves
on your routers. (Which in many cases will be an Akamai server inside
I've been looking for some technical descriptions on how DirecPC works
from a TCP/IP point of view. Does anyone out there have some
references? I have not been able to find anything too detailed, and
from what I have been told, they are not too forthcoming when
contacted directly.
I know the
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:53:59PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote:
I've been looking for some technical descriptions on how DirecPC works
from a TCP/IP point of view. Does anyone out there have some
references? I have not been able to find anything too detailed, and
from what I have been told,
Well there are some two way dish solutions for consumers now that don't
need a dial-uplink. I think dishnetwork has such a thing as does direct
tv. Doesn't help much but does help people in remote areas.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Crist J. Clark wrote:
I've been looking for some technical
## On 2002-11-14 14:44 -0800 Vadim Antonov typed:
VA
VA
VA On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
VA
VA 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
VA
VA Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
VA number of alternative paths routing
If you don't get an answer here, you might want to try the isp-satellites list.
http://isp-lists.isp-planet.com/isp-satellites/
Also, there are a -few- knowledgable folks on alt.satellite.direcpc.
Good luck...I'd be interested in hearing the description myself.
--Michael
- Original
At 05:28 PM 11/14/2002, Patrick W. Gilmore most definitely
admitted:
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 8:52 PM
+0100
-- hostmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
This all strikes me as incorrect. The function
of the domain name system
is primarily to translate an IP number into a domain
Once upon a time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:26:21 EST, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not if you block the domain name terrorist.com from resolving at the
caching name server, only if you block the IP address to which is resolves
on
Scott,
Just an f.y.i., Charlie Ergan (DishNetwork) said he couldn't see how the business
plan could succeed and pulled out of StarBand. They are currently in Chap. 11.
http://65.186.192.177/liarband/ch11.html
--Michael
- Original Message -
From: Scott Granados [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
-- On Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:01 PM -0500
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:26:21 EST, Patrick W. Gilmore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Not if you block the domain name terrorist.com from resolving at the
caching name server, only if you block the IP address to
-- On Friday, November 15, 2002 12:45 AM +0100
-- hostmaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] supposedly wrote:
At 05:28 PM 11/14/2002, Patrick W. Gilmore most definitely admitted:
Suppose they just make it a law that each ISP has to block domain.com
in their caching name servers?
Who is 'they', Patrick
Voice of reason...
The only possible reason I can think of is if these data networks
replace the present voice infrastructure. Think about it, if we
really all do replace our phones with some video screen like in the
movies, then yes, most of those calls stay local within the cities.
Mom
At 1:20 +0200 11/15/02, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
## On 2002-11-14 14:44 -0800 Vadim Antonov typed:
VA
VA
VA On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, David Diaz wrote:
VA
VA 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
VA
VA Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
VA 2) There is a lack of a killer app requiring peering every 100 sq Km.
VA
VA Peering every 100 sq km is absolutely infeasible. Just think of the
VA number of alternative paths routing algorithms wil lhave to consider.
VA
VA Anything like
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:59:59 CST, Chris Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
You don't. If you configure your name server to block resolution of
terrorist.com, you'll never find out that it goes to an Akamai server.
Unfortunately, the politicians would actually believe that.
43 matches
Mail list logo
