On Fri, 4 Nov 2005, Drew Weaver wrote:
> Well, the other funny thing is that SBC doesn't just spend its
> own money to build these networks. They get all sorts of help from
> gov't, etc with taxes and multiple other breaks.
>
> I think that was the original complaint.
Comcast is wrong, she
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Erik Haagsman
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: John Payne; Patrick W.Gilmore; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:48
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:13:27PM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
>For me, plenty, but a four-POP single-state network usually has
>different constraints on "scalable".
Right.
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 06:20:39PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
> I think Pete is saying that as long as you aren't a contr
For me, plenty, but a four-POP single-state network usually has
different constraints on "scalable". However, I'd categorize it as one
community-list per MED tier (i.e. if you just want near/far, that's two
tiers, etc.) and one community-list entry per POP (or group of POPs, if
you have some
Jeff Aitken wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:44:20PM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
I came up with a reasonably scalable solution using communities and
route-map continue, but:
For what value of "scalable"?
For me, plenty, but a four-POP single-state network usually has
different constraints
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Jeff Aitken wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:44:20PM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
> > I came up with a reasonably scalable solution using communities and
> > route-map continue, but:
>
> For what value of "scalable"?
anything, its 'scalable' :)
Steve
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 02:44:20PM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
> I came up with a reasonably scalable solution using communities and
> route-map continue, but:
For what value of "scalable"?
--Jeff
I don't understand them, either. However, if you define incoming
traffic as "bad", it encourages depeering by the receiving side if the
incoming/outgoing ratio exceeds a certain value, especially among
close-to-tier-1 carriers: the traffic does not automatically disappear
just because you depee
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Yes with enough time and energy (or a small enough network) you *can* beat
perfect MEDs out of the system (and your customers). You can selectively
deaggregate the hell out of your network, then you can zero out all the
known aggregate blocks and regions that are
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 08:22:20AM -0600, Pete Templin wrote:
>
> Time out here. John set the stage: cold potato addressed the long haul
> (or at least that's the assumption in place when I hopped on board). If
> NetA and NetB are honoring MED (or other appropriate knob), NetA->NetB
> traffi
> Sounds like an extremely short-sighted view of the Net and it's
> economics. Claiming content providers should be charged for "using"
> broadband access-pipes is fine and dandy, but coveniently forgetting
> that without content there probably wouldn't be a great deal of
> customers wanting broad
On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 18:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:46:20 EST, John Payne said:
> > What am I missing?
>
> Obviously, the same thing that management at SBC is missing:
> He argued that because SBC and others have invested to build high-speed
> networks, they
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Pete Templin wrote:
John Curran wrote:
Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul; there's still cost on the
receiving network even if its handed off at the closest interconnect
to the final destination(s).
And there's still revenue, as the traffic is going to cus
for a totally different spin, my little router mess (not daytime job) is
starting to depeer folk who intentionally deaggregate.
and gosh, my config builds sure run faster!
randy
---
> From: Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 16:22:43 -1000
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject:
On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:46:20 EST, John Payne said:
> That is something that has always confused me about ratio based
> peering disputes.
> Surely it is the responsibility of the content-sucking network to
> build and engineer to meet the demands of *their* customers (and
> build the cost of
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:16:58AM -0500, vijay gill wrote:
>
> Pete Templin wrote:
> >
> >
> >John Curran wrote:
> >
> >>Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul; there's still cost on the
> >>receiving network even if its handed off at the closest interconnect
> >>to the final destination(s).
>
* John Payne:
> That is something that has always confused me about ratio based
> peering disputes.
I don't understand them, either. However, if you define incoming
traffic as "bad", it encourages depeering by the receiving side if the
incoming/outgoing ratio exceeds a certain value, especial
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Payne wrote:
What am I missing?
That it's a pure power play.
market position is important
If by market position you are referring to who needs/wants/can do without
the traffi
On Nov 1, 2005, at 10:04 AM, John Curran wrote:
At 9:40 AM -0500 11/1/05, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I think everyone agrees that unbalanced ratios can create a
situation where one side pays more than the other. However,
assuming something can be used to keep the costs equal (e.g. cold-
On Nov 1, 2005, at 11:46 AM, John Payne wrote:
On Nov 1, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
If your business model is to provide flat-rate access, it is not
_my_ responsibility to ensure your customers do not use more
access than your flat-rate can compensate you to deliver.
Tha
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Brandon Ross wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Payne wrote:
>
> > What am I missing?
>
> That it's a pure power play.
market position is important
> Peering is only distantly associated with costs or responsibilities.
no, peering is entirely associated with costs or r
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Payne wrote:
What am I missing?
That it's a pure power play. Peering is only distantly associated with
costs or responsibilities. It has to do with what company has the
intestinal fortitude to draw a line in the sand and stick with it no
matter how many customers
On Nov 1, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
If your business model is to provide flat-rate access, it is not
_my_ responsibility to ensure your customers do not use more access
than your flat-rate can compensate you to deliver.
That is something that has always confused me about
Pete Templin wrote:
John Curran wrote:
Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul; there's still cost on the
receiving network even if its handed off at the closest interconnect
to the final destination(s).
And there's still revenue, as the traffic is going to customers (we all
filter our p
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, John Curran wrote:
I do not see how one network can tell another: "You can't send me what
my customers are requesting of you."
Depeering seems to say exactly that, no?
No. Presumably, that traffic's still going to be exchanged between the
two networks' customers. Depe
John Curran wrote:
Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul; there's still cost on the
receiving network even if its handed off at the closest interconnect
to the final destination(s).
And there's still revenue, as the traffic is going to customers (we all
filter our prefixes carefully, rig
At 9:40 AM -0500 11/1/05, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>I think everyone agrees that unbalanced ratios can create a situation where
>one side pays more than the other. However, assuming something can be used to
>keep the costs equal (e.g. cold-potato?),
Cold-potato only addresses the long-haul;
On Nov 1, 2005, at 7:53 AM, John Curran wrote:
At 12:27 PM + 11/1/05, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Hi John,
Even with cold-potato routing, there is an expense in handling
increased
levels of traffic that is destined for your network. This
increase in traffic
often has no new revenue asso
At 12:27 PM + 11/1/05, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>Hi John,
>
>> Even with cold-potato routing, there is an expense in handling increased
>> levels of traffic that is destined for your network. This increase in
>> traffic
>> often has no new revenue associated with it, because it is fanning ou
Hi John,
> Even with cold-potato routing, there is an expense in handling increased
> levels of traffic that is destined for your network. This increase in traffic
> often has no new revenue associated with it, because it is fanning out to
> thousands of flat-rate consumer/small-business connect
At 12:56 AM -0400 10/29/05, Daniel Golding wrote:
>I have no specific information, but I'm guessing there is a per-mbps charge
>that kicks in at certain ratio levels. ...
>
>I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out Level(3)'s goal in all this. A bit
>of incremental revenue? For all of this trouble
On 10/28/05 7:37 PM, "Crist Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Eric Louie wrote:
>> Now, one really needs to wonder why the agreement could not be reached
>> *prior* to the depeering on 10/5
>>
>> It's not rocket science.
>
> As people have pointed out repeatedly, this was surely not rocket
On 10/28/05 5:45 PM, "JC Dill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Christopher Woodfield wrote:
>>
>> "...the companies have agreed to the settlement-free exchange of
>> traffic subject to specific payments if certain obligations are not met."
>>
>> So it does look like Cogent bent somwhat...I'm
Eric Louie wrote:
Now, one really needs to wonder why the agreement could not be reached
*prior* to the depeering on 10/5
It's not rocket science.
As people have pointed out repeatedly, this was surely not rocket science
since it wasn't a technical problem at all. It was a business conflict.
Christopher Woodfield wrote:
"...the companies have agreed to the settlement-free exchange of
traffic subject to specific payments if certain obligations are not met."
So it does look like Cogent bent somwhat...I'm guessing they agreed to
pay some sort of "traffic imbalance fee"?
Ther
ess you have
nothing
better to do)
Who are the next discontent couples?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of
Jared Mauch
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:08 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
http://biz.
ared Mauch
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 11:08 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: cogent+ Level(3) are ok now
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051028/laf022.html?.v=27
The internet will not end on November(9)th :)
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051028/laf022.html?.v=27
The internet will not end on November(9)th :)
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
38 matches
Mail list logo
