Theres an increasing number of psuedo-wire connections tho, you could regard
these L2 extensions an extension of the switch as a whole making it
international.
Thats not really applicable in my view, the psuedo-wire is no
different to a long fibre extension and they are only used to connect
This report has been generated at Fri Jan 10 21:49:53 2003 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table
If not there, how about Florida?
http://www.napoftheamericas.net/
--
Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I remember back at APRICOT in 1999 that some folks (Dave Rand and
colleagues maybe?) were talking about an initiative to provide an AP
Peering Ring...
Just out of curiosity on this topic. Is there anyone who ever managed
to get a distributed peering point to work? If I remember history
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Neil J. McRae wrote:
Theres an increasing number of psuedo-wire connections tho, you could regard
these L2 extensions an extension of the switch as a whole making it
international.
Thats not really applicable in my view, the psuedo-wire is no
different to a long
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, batz wrote:
I suppose that any ISP can turn off a connection they deem
a threat to the rest of their operations, but I think this
incident can serve as an example of how ISP's can get dragged
into political spats. It shows how Verio was manipulated
by Dow to squelch
I know that ATT and WorldCom both have pops in San
Juan. I'm not familiar with T-data.
If you're looking for robustness, go with Miami:
pretty much everyone has a pop there.
David Barak
fully RFC 1925 compliant
--- Ray Burkholder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I work for an ISP in St. Thomas, US
Hey,
Your best bet is to go with Miami, although it may be a bit
expensive to get longhaul circuits to there.. Miami is the closest major
bandwidth place from your location.. They even have internet exchange over
there on behalf of South and Central American based ISP's.
-hc
I came across a decent Cisco article that discusses how
to calculate traffic shaping parameters for links
that are on one end ATM and the other Frame relay.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/121/frf8_shaping.html
The second to the last paragraph in that article
suggests that ATM SCR's should be
Does Arcos hit the USVI? http://www.nwncable.com/ Their pricing looks good
and they are close by to NAP of the Americas.
Jeremy
- Original Message -
From: Haesu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Puerto Rico
Hi all -
If you are not a Peering Coordinator attending NANOG 27 then you needn't
read any further.
The 6th Peering BOF at NANOG will be held Monday night and focuses on
helping Peering Coordinators make contact with other Peering Coordinators
using Peering Personals. We solicit Peering
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Ray Burkholder wrote:
Anyway, ATT has undersea fibre to Puerto Rico. We want to get a DS3
into a Puerto Rico peering center where we can get connectivity to some
combo of ATT, Sprint, Worldcom, and T-Data. Is anyone familiar with
such a location in
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
Just out of curiosity on this topic. Is there anyone who ever managed
to get a distributed peering point to work? If I remember history
somewhat correct, the first attempt was D-GIX back in 1993(?). That
failed (if Peter
Recently came across the paper below on the Los ALamos site and it
addresses a topic discussed earlier about how traffic is redistributed
when a node is compromised. When the researchers included capacity
loads in their equations they find some pretty severe consequences (3000
of 5000
Actually I know there was something of an IX starting down there
about 1999. I believe it was in the small cellular companies
facility. One of the guys from Netrail, Nathan Estes, went down to
help them out for a week. The name escapes me but perhaps he could
post it here if he recalls the
On 2003-01-09-13:13:23, batz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I suppose that any ISP can turn off a connection they deem
a threat to the rest of their operations, but I think this
incident can serve as an example of how ISP's can get dragged
into political spats. It shows how Verio was
I have some history of that effort. It did not gain
traction and folded in less than a year.
Actually I know there was something of an IX starting down there
about 1999. I believe it was in the small cellular companies
facility. One of the guys from Netrail, Nathan
However, NOTA doesn't have either ATT or WorldCom...
so if you don't mind using other carriers, there were
a bunch of medium-size players, and I believe a couple
of large ones there.
David Barak
fully RFC 1925 compliant.
--- Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As many people have pointed
The helpful guy at NOTA indicated that ATT does have significant
presence there. Worldcom is hidden in there somewhere as well. The
only one that didn't have direct presence was T-Data, but was accessible
through a different hop. I think the location fits my needs quite
nicely based upon
However, NOTA doesn't have either ATT or WorldCom...
so, did any of the much-ballyhooed florida (misnomered) naps actually
manage to attract the significant (== big tier-1) isps?
randy
so, did any of the much-ballyhooed florida (misnomered) naps actually
manage to attract the significant (== big tier-1) isps?
http://www.napoftheamericas.net/membersrepresentativecustomerlist.cfm
http://www.napoftheamericas.net/memberscarriers.cfm
are they connected and peering, i.e. packets
Hi NANOG,
Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We
have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom
of the building (in the telco room) to the top of the building. We have
cisco switches on either end and we are seeing about 5-20%
On Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 12:08:08PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
so, did any of the much-ballyhooed florida (misnomered) naps actually
manage to attract the significant (== big tier-1) isps?
http://www.napoftheamericas.net/membersrepresentativecustomerlist.cfm
I must point out that BellSouth's MIX is gone
Also, I am curious about NOTA's lomng term plans given that most of the
building where the NAP is at is rented by Global Crossing -- at least has
been before ch. 11
- Original Message -
From: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Ray Burkholder
100 meters is, in fact, the distance limitation for Fast Ethernet, but you
can usually exceed that if the link is full duplex. Note that I'm not
recommending that you do so, just stating that it is possible.
If your run length is more than 100 meters, and you're running half duplex,
then I
Steve,
What type medium are you using? If it is normal Cat5/6 then the
limitation is 100 meters for total distance and as you approach that
limit the signal degrades. That said, 100baseFX can run for 400 meters
due to the fact that it is fiber, both are part of the fast Ethernet
I used to see these exact same results when I would setup Wireless pop's on
towers taller than 400Ft. I was able to push the envelope a bit, however
when I saw the issues that you speak of, it was when I had bad crimps, or
sometimes a bad cable all together. Cat5 should be fine for this... if
And you are using shielded cable, correct?
Best regards,
__
Al Rowland
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Bruce Robertson
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 12:19 PM
To: Steve Rude
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Al Rowland wrote:
And you are using shielded cable, correct?
Nah, I'm guessing he strung bare copper seperated by cotton balls.
That's what I like to use in my 27-floor 100tx runs.
Andy
Andy Dills
I now have a prototype spreadsheet. Email
me offline if you are interested in
getting a copy...maybe helping in making
it more accurate.
Thanks,
BM
-Original Message-
From: Peter E. Fry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
You could use fiber and a fiber conversion box.
Or you could use a switch or repeater half way.
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Steve Rude wrote:
Hi NANOG,
Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We
have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the
Actually andy, the oc192 wiccs in the 2600 series work better.
:)
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Andy Dills wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Al Rowland wrote:
And you are using shielded cable, correct?
Nah, I'm guessing he strung bare copper seperated by cotton balls.
That's what I like to use in
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Douglas A. Dever wrote:
Previously, Steve Rude ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi NANOG,
Could someone please help me with a fast ethernet problem I am having. We
have a POP in a 27 floor building, and have a rj45 run from the the bottom
of the building (in
you need to put a fluke lanmeter or similar device (with tdr) to validate
the cable... you may just need to reterminate the ends, but it's also
likely that it's simply way out of spec.
joelja
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Steve Rude wrote:
Hi NANOG,
Could someone please help me with a fast
Steve,
What type medium are you using? If it is normal Cat5/6 then the
limitation is 100 meters for total distance and as you approach that
limit the signal degrades. That said, 100baseFX can run for 400 meters
due to the fact that it is fiber, both are part of the fast Ethernet
putting a shield on cat5 or 6 cable doesn't significantly increase the
noise rejection vs utp cat 5 at 100mb/s, you're shielding already
balanced cable pairs.
moreover they're signifcantly harder to install since they need to be
properly grounded and shielded at both ends.
joelja
On Fri,
Dang. Snapple - out nose.
I hear aluminum coated dental floss is making a comeback in the wiring
racket...
Nah, I'm guessing he strung bare copper seperated by cotton balls.
That's what I like to use in my 27-floor 100tx runs.
Andy
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 13:26
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: fast ethernet limits
snip
moreover they're signifcantly harder to install
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Stephen Fisher wrote:
I've seen people use shielded CAT5 to protect it from interference but
they didn't bother grounding the shielding on either end
In the me too category, I've seen a company install wireless on top of
the Netherland's highest building (The
I believe your pushing the limits as to ethernet over Cat5.
I can suggest you use the very best cable (shielded of course) you can get,
and be meticulous in your connector installations and you might get away
with it. Avoid other wiring if possible (fat chance huh?) and anything
electrical
just go mm fiber..
Bri
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
you need to put a fluke lanmeter or similar device (with tdr) to validate
the cable... you may just need to reterminate the ends, but it's also
likely that it's simply way out of spec.
joelja
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003,
Wonder if there is an iij america contact around if so could you contact
me off list.
Thanks
Scott
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
[...]
moreover they're signifcantly harder to install since they need to be
properly grounded and shielded at both ends.
I've actually seen some very impressive ground loops. I'd ground one
end. (Actually I'd use fiber, but hey.)
Peter E. Fry
At 09:33 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
In response to Randy and Bill(s), this seems to come down to a
trade off of
commercial vs technical. A lot of us agree this is technically not
the best way
and produces
Y'all havin fun with them straw men, Bill?
Original Message
From: William B. Norton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: US-Asia Peering
At 09:33 AM 1/10/2003 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
In response to Randy and Bill(s), this
45 matches
Mail list logo
