Richard A Steenbergen writes:
>For anyone keeping score, the
>last two times Cogent was depeered, it responded by intentionally blocking
>connectivity to the network in question, despite the fact that both of
>those networks were Sprint customers and thus perfectly reachable under
>the Sprint
Daniel Golding writes:
>They can. Cogent has transit and is preventing traffic from traversing its
>transit connection to reach Level(3). Level(3) does not have transit - they
>are in a condition of settlement free interconnection (SFI). The ball is in
>Cogent's court. This is not the first time o
Hannigan, Martin writes:
>As long as the hardware can keep up, the amount of glass in spectrum
>in the ground should make this an impossibility for the near term,
>10 years plus.
Fiber isn't useful by itself; there are two obvious things needed to
turn a piece of glass into something that can car
Brandon Butterworth writes:
>Perhaps they aim to keep driving the competition out of business
>to ensure there's a cheap supply of equipment so they can grow
>whilst charging so little?
There are several problems with such a plan, even were someone to
attempt it. One, overall traffic is still gro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On the contrary, you get better redundancy by sticking to
>one carrier and making sure that they really provide
>separacy though the entire span of the circuit. If you
>have two carriers running fibre to yoiur building down
>the same conduit, then you do NOT have separa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>In my opinion, the following rule of thumb is reasonable.
>
>1 path is enough for a site/enterprise that shuts
>down its services evenings and weekends.
>
>2 paths is enough for a site/enterprise that provides
>a 24 hour, 7 day per week service.
>
>3 paths is enough for
Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
>So what will people do? Stop selling when their networks are full? Ignore
>the economics and let other business carry the cost of bulk internet? Go
>for cheaper platforms? Go bankrupt (if no other business can carry the
>cost) ?
This problem will be fixed when the e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Again, I'd be interested in hearing from one of the bigger ones on this:
>UUNet, AT&T, Sprint, Level3, QWest If you can't say anything, I
>understand.
You don't need them to say anything - just look at what they are
advertising. Are they advertising each other's
>From the NWS:
A tornadic thunderstorm moved into eastern Loudoun County from
western Fairfax County in the vicinity of the Washington Dulles
International Airport. This tornado passed within one half mile of
the National Weather Service forecast office in Sterling. This
prompted the weather
The GRFs started with gated, but throughout the time they were an
Ascend product the code base moved farther and farther away from
that. Unfortunately, the result wasn't ever quite ready for production
use, though not through any lack of effort on the part of the Ascend
GRF guys. Fortunately many
The northern leg of TAT14 seems to have just taken an outage about an
hour ago. As the southern leg was already down due to other faults,
this will probably be an exciting time for many providers.
Stuart Staniford writes:
>I wasn't advocating a solution, just observing the way things would
>have to be for worms to be purely a "buy a bigger box" problem (as I
>think Sean was suggesting if I didn't misunderstand him).
Ah.
>It would generally seem that ISPs would provide more downstream
>
Stuart Staniford writes:
>It would seem for the Internet to reliably resist bandwidth attacks
>from future worms, it has to be, roughly "bigger in the middle than at
>the edges". If this is the case, then the worm can choke edges at the
>sites it infects, but the rest of the net can still func
13 matches
Mail list logo
