A minitel - in the United States!
Scott C. McGrath
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Ian Dickinson wrote:
>
> >>Which almost begs the question - what's the oddest "WTF??" anybody's willing to
> >>admit finding under a raised floor, or up in a ceiling or cable chase or
> >>similar
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, John Ferriby wrote:
> The ops staff moved all the grated tiles to a central area and used
> to play adult-sized air hockey complete with a rubber puck and
> sticks... but only late at night.
'login;' ran a story about 4-5 years ago about some machine room in the UK
(I think)
On Wednesday 07 July 2004 02:43 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which almost begs the question - what's the oddest "WTF??" anybody's
> willing to admit finding under a raised floor, or up in a ceiling or cable
> chase or similar location? (Feel free to change names to protect the
guilty
> if need b
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Patrick Muldoon wrote:
> At my last job while working at an earthstation in Texas where I had some
> equipment, I looked up from the raised floor and found myself staring at a
> scorpion. Being that I am from the Northeast where we don't seem to have
> those things, it pretty
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> Water -- about 8" of it...
>
> We had a two-level area below the raised floor in the computer room.
> The deeper area was flooded; fortunately, there was only solid
snakes in the water, which had swum (swam?) in through the entrance
facility for t
On Wednesday 07 July 2004 02:43 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Which almost begs the question - what's the oddest "WTF??" anybody's
> willing to admit finding under a raised floor, or up in a ceiling or cable
> chase or similar location? (Feel free to change names to protect the guilty
> if need b
>>Which almost begs the question - what's the oddest "WTF??" anybody's willing to
>>admit finding under a raised floor, or up in a ceiling or cable chase or
>>similar location? (Feel free to change names to protect the guilty if need
>>be:)
>
>Water -- about 8" of it...
Air -- about 8 feet of
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Valdis.Kletni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
>Which almost begs the question - what's the oddest "WTF??" anybody's willing to
>admit finding under a raised floor, or up in a ceiling or cable chase or
>similar location? (Feel free to change names to protect the guilty
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 08:46:49 EDT, Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Everyone running their cable wherever they want with no controls,
> and abandoning it all in place makes a huge mess, and is one way
> to think about it.
While clearing out the space that eventually ended up being repurpo
Careful with those invokations, Vijay.
> As we have seen before in previous lives, and I'm pretty sure stephen
> stuart will step in, normalizing "throw the ethernet over the wall"
> school of design just leads to an incredible amount of pain when trying
> to operate, run and actually document wh
> Thanks. Precisely the issue. Being humans involved in this, there is a
> tendency to sometimes hack around a problem and then leave it in
> place. I know I am susceptible to this and have to be on guard against
> this mentality at all times. And I've seen plenty of this in
> various orgs.
> The
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, vijay gill wrote:
> Temporary fixes aren't.
so true.. hands up anyone who doesnt have something in their network/systems
labelled as 'legacy' ;)
Steve
--On Tuesday, July 06, 2004 08:46 -0400 Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Everyone running their cable wherever they want with no controls,
and abandoning it all in place makes a huge mess, and is one way
to think about it.
[snipped]
I believe the problem Vijay is referencing isn't "throw
In a message written on Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 04:32:14AM +, vijay gill wrote:
> Paul, I think you took a left at the pass and went down the wrong road
> here. I am not saying ethernet doesn't scale or even vni/pni doesn't
> scale, but the mentality embodied in the approach "throw it over the
>
> In any case, I am going to pull a randy here and strongly encourage my
> competitors to deploy this "ethernet over ceiling tile" engineering
> methodology.
Funny thing is, that there are lots of competitors doing
what randy "strongly encourages" them to do and they
stay in business.
I think i
> I'm wondering why you think that the fiber over the ceiling tile is
> somehow less tracked, maintained, monitored, documented, etc., than any
> other fiber in the network?
If someone was really concerned about trackability, etc., then
I suspect they would invent a number for that cable, put a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-07-03, at 18.10, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> It's when the exchange is being run by a separate entity that needs a
> marketing department, a well-paid staff of managers, technicians etc
> that
> price really goes up. All this to basically m
> > i've been told that if i ran a tier-1 i would lose my love for the
> > vni/pni approach, which i think scales quite nicely even when it
> > involves an ethernet cable through the occasional ceiling. perhaps
> > i'll eat these words when and if that promotion comes through.
> > meanwhile, disi
risign.com/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Mon Jul 05 21:32:14 2004
Subject: Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point speed
publicly available?]
O
On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 01:43:14AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (vijay gill) writes:
> > Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
>
> i think it's important to distinguish between "things aol and uunet don't
> think are good for aol and uunet" and "things that
On Jul 5, 2004, at 8:35 PM, Tony Li wrote:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 2:02 PM, vijay gill wrote:
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
Sure it does. The question is: "How far does it scale?" Nothing
scales to infinity, and very, ve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (vijay gill) writes:
> Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
i think it's important to distinguish between "things aol and uunet don't
think are good for aol and uunet" and "things that aren't good for anybody."
what i found through my PAIX experience is tha
On Jul 5, 2004, at 5:00 PM, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
On Jul 5, 2004, at 2:02 PM, vijay gill wrote:
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
Sure it does. The question is: "How far does it scale?" Nothing
scales to infinity, and very, very few things do not scale past the
degen
On Jul 5, 2004, at 2:02 PM, vijay gill wrote:
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 10:55:42AM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote:
$5000 for an ethernet switch port? It makes me long for the days of
throwing
ethernet cables over the ceiling to informally peer with other
networks in a
Throwing ethernet cables over the
On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 10:55:42AM -0700, joe mcguckin wrote:
>
> $5000 for an ethernet switch port? It makes me long for the days of throwing
> ethernet cables over the ceiling to informally peer with other networks in a
Throwing ethernet cables over the ceiling does not scale.
/vijay
On 7/5/04 1:18 AM, "Steve Gibbard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The performance arguments are probably more controversial. The arguments
> are that shortening the path between two networks increases performance,
> and that removing an extra network in the middle increases reliability.
> The
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 09:24:17PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
[snip]
> IXes are not for "top carriers"
^^^
Like the economy, perhaps this is different in .se. But this is
NAnog to which you are sending the message
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Go back and think about the purpose of an exchange: it's an economic
> optimization over transit. It's the value-add that lets someone who buys
> transit sell a service that's of greater value yet lesser cost than what
> they buy. Now, what's an excha
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> SIX's costs would be completely covered by charging each
> member with a GigE port $1k/mo.
Yes, but the SIX's costs are also completely covered _without_ charging
anybody $1K/month.
Go back and think about the purpose of an exchang
let's just say that my experience is not all that reliable. i
i suspect it varies greatly between colo/sub-switch providers.
but considering the cost, i ain't got no complaints. qed.
randy
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:39:03PM -0700, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> building owners. so, though the six does have a core, it is
> also kinda splattered into switches all over the building; with
> ease of connection and low cost being achieved at the expense
> of reliability.
Thoug
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> but you seem to think they are served in exchange points, and not
> just to those that run them, but to all comers. very cool.
>
> sad to say, we're past 1999 now. out here in the free world (and
> those countries we bomb and/or invade[0]) folk seem to w
beware. six is funny. it's in seattle's carrier hotel, the
westin, 32 floors of racks, more colo providers than fleas on a
dawg, and very very low inter-suite fiber rates from the
building owners. so, though the six does have a core, it is
also kinda splattered into switches all over the buildi
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 10:57:20AM -0700, Michael Smith wrote:
>
> At the Seattle Internet Exchange a, granted, smaller peering exchange,
> you have to account for the following costs (and, mind you, this list is
> not exhaustive).
>
> 1) 1 Rack
> 2) Space for the rack in a secure facility
> 3)
>> i look forward to my next trip to sweden, where i expect many
>> nice free lunches
> If you start working in a resturant, you can probably expect that.
but you seem to think they are served in exchange points, and not
just to those that run them, but to all comers. very cool.
sad to say, we'
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> i look forward to my next trip to sweden, where i expect many
> nice free lunches
If you start working in a resturant, you can probably expect that.
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
i look forward to my next trip to sweden, where i expect many
nice free lunches
randy
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Michael Smith wrote:
> 1) 1 Rack
> 2) Space for the rack in a secure facility
> 3) AC for the equipment
> 4) Power for the equipment (including line and UPS)
This can be had for approx $300-1000 a month in my market.
> 5) Fiber and Copper runs to the facility for cross-conne
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> This is simply untrue.
>
> Whilst it is possible to establish an exchange with minimal cost if it is
> successful your costs will soon escalate.
>
> To provide carrier class service for the worlds top carriers you need to invest
> in the latest
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Mikael Abrahamsson
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 10:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: concern over public peering points [WAS: Peering point
speed
> publicly avail
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > no. in the first case, you're just hiding the incremental costs.
> > eventually, some bean counter is gonna want to recover them, and
> > then folk get quite unhappy.
>
> What costs are you referring
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 08:47:11AM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> The price being charged for the public exchange ports is
> >> non-trivial
> > Only at the (very few) commercial exchanges. The vast majority
> > are free or of trivial expense.
>
> by count of small 10/100 switches or by traffic
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
> Does the person that sweeps the floor do so for free? And supply the
> broom?
The marginal cost of half a rack being occupied by an IX switch in a
multi-hundred-rack facility is negiglabe. Yes, it should carry a cost of a
few hundred dollars
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
no. in the first case, you're just hiding the incremental costs.
eventually, some bean counter is gonna want to recover them, and
then folk get quite unhappy.
What costs are you referring to? You basically need a few hours time per
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> no. in the first case, you're just hiding the incremental costs.
> eventually, some bean counter is gonna want to recover them, and
> then folk get quite unhappy.
What costs are you referring to? You basically need a few hours time per
month from enginee
> What is significant traffic? What is the cost? If you have an exchange
> with let's say 20 people connected to it and they all connect using GE.
> Running this exchange in an existing facility with existing people, you
> can easily run it for under $10k per year per connected operator or less
>
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
> it costs to build, maintain, and manage an exchange which carries
> significant traffic. costs get recovered. life is simple.
What is significant traffic? What is the cost? If you have an exchange
with let's say 20 people connected to it and they all con
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, ren wrote:
> 5. Costs. Private peering is expensive, don't let anyone fool you. There
> is a resource investment in human terms that is rarely calculated properly,
I agree with you 100%. Working at a nordic european operator being present
at LINX, AMSIX and all the northe
>> The price being charged for the public exchange ports is
>> non-trivial
> Only at the (very few) commercial exchanges. The vast majority
> are free or of trivial expense.
by count of small 10/100 switches or by traffic volume?
it costs to build, maintain, and manage an exchange which carries
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 08:28:50AM -0400, ren wrote:
> At 02:07 AM 7/3/2004 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> >b) The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
> > (especially compared to the cost of transit these days!), and is billed
> > on a port basis instead of
Bill Woodcock writes on 7/3/2004 7:02 PM:
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
Only at the (very few) commercial exchanges. The vast majority are free
or of trivial expense. But some people really like t
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
Only at the (very few) commercial exchanges. The vast majority are free
or of trivial expense. But some people really like to lose money, since
then they get to hang
At 02:07 AM 7/3/2004 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
b) The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
(especially compared to the cost of transit these days!), and is billed
on a port basis instead of a usage basis (at least in the US). Since
public peering is tr
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> b) The price being charged for the public exchange ports is non-trivial
>(especially compared to the cost of transit these days!), and is billed
>on a port basis instead of a usage basis (at least in the US). Since
>public peering i
RAS> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 02:07:06 -0400
RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen
RAS> What is with people in this industry, who latch onto an idea
RAS> and won't let go? If someone was talking about 80286 based
RAS> machines in 2004 we would all be in utter disbelief, but you
RAS> can still routinely f
PWG> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:00:35 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W Gilmore
PWG> Any particular reason you would worry about public peering
PWG> points these days?
ANES, perhaps? Those who finally found old NANOG-L and i-a
archives have decided public peering is bad.
H let's see cheap,
On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 01:00:35AM -0400, Patrick W Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
> >Also, if you're dealing with ISPs that use public peering points,
> >those may be a performance concern, but in the US that's mostly not
> >Tier1-Tier1.
>
On Jul 2, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTSLS wrote:
Also, if you're dealing with ISPs that use public peering points,
those may be a performance concern, but in the US that's mostly not
Tier1-Tier1.
(Linx is a different case entirely, assuming you want your traffic to
be in London
58 matches
Mail list logo
