On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> the 80s when that practice got started -- having to account for each
> individual subscriber pushed the complexity up, in much the same way
> that flat rate telecom services are popular equally because customers
> prefer them, and because the
Thanks Jay
To add to this
Sleepy here but a quick script ((linux for you windows guys)
[r...@sumless3 jgb]# cat send_text.sh
#!/bin/sh
echo "go"
# Server's IP address
#
IP_ADDRESS='some_smtp_relay.com'
mf="mail from:"
rp="rcpt to:"
echo $mf
(sleep 2 ;\
echo "HELO guess.net";\
slee
Sorry to alll, Yes that in a nutshell woud be my question along with
tracking it,,
Thanks jay
- Joe
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Andrew Haninger"
> > To: "Joe Blanchard"
> > Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> > Sent: Friday, December 17, 20
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Haninger"
> To: "Joe Blanchard"
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 1:28:47 AM
> Subject: Re: OT - NO (Non-Operational) Question
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Joe Blanchard
> wrote:
>
> > It appears there's really no easy wa
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Joe Blanchard wrote:
> It appears there's really no easy way to determine the origin of a text
> sent to a cell...
>
For shortcodes, Neustar provided a list:
https://www.usshortcodes.com/csc/directory/directoryList.do?method=showDirectory&group=all
For regular
- Original Message -
> From: "George Bonser"
> Turn the question around. What would any provider think if a city said
> "sure, you can have access to our residents' eyeballs. It will cost
> you $5 per subscriber per month". Would Comcast or anyone go for that?
> That is a real question, b
The primary reason for the lack of a la carte is that the content providers tie
groups of channels together, sometimes for prices less than one of those
channels on a stand-a-lone basis.
The secondary reason is the one you list as your first, and that's keeping
track of what customer has what
- Original Message -
> From: "JC Dill"
> What customers *really* want, and what they gladly accept as long as
> it saves them a few pennies, are miles apart. (Which is why so many
> people blindly give their data to Facebook etc.) This is why I think the
> direction Comcast is going is ul
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Rettke"
> Interesting point. I'd also like to point out that putting the cost on
> the content providers rather than the network may raise the cost of
> the content service, but only to those that want that service. In
> effect, if the transport provide
Happy holidays to all.
Quick question with regard "Text/SMS" messaging. I know this is not really
the place to ask, so forgive me for bending your eyes. It appears there's
really no easy way to determine the origin of a text sent to a cell, at
least as far as I can see without involving the provid
On 12/16/2010 10:41 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Unknown BGP attribute 92 (flags: 234)
>>> Hexdump start---
>>> DD 78 FF 71
>>> Hexdump end
>> This appeared to bite my Level3-connected bandwidth as well.
>
> sigh. is this an attack by a black hat, or by an rir and researchers
> who do not know
>> Unknown BGP attribute 92 (flags: 234)
>> Hexdump start---
>> DD 78 FF 71
>> Hexdump end
> This appeared to bite my Level3-connected bandwidth as well.
sigh. is this an attack by a black hat, or by an rir and researchers
who do not know how to say "oops, sorreee!?"
randy
On 12/16/2010 5:57 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Someone seems to have leaked this out, with the following data within the bgp
> update:
>
> Unknown BGP attribute 92 (flags: 234)
> Hexdump start---
> DD 78 FF 71
> Hexdump end
>
This appeared to bite my Level3-connected bandwidth as well. Time
George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:22 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
I do. And yes, they
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Wheeler [mailto:j...@inconcepts.biz]
> Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 1:22 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> > I do. And yes, they are happy t
Getting back to networks...
Saw our two BGP listening ports drop (Verizon and Qwest) at 2150UTC.
Nortel SR1004. Isn't that nice.
On 12/16/2010 04:57 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Someone seems to have leaked this out, with the following data within the bgp
update:
Unknown BGP attribute 92 (flags:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:13:21PM -0800, Matthew Petach wrote:
> You may find that simply fewer content providers decide it's worth it to play
> in that space, under those conditions, which results in fewer choices for the
> consumer, and something closer to a monopoly on the available content
>
On 12/16/2010 06:07 PM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:34:38 -0800 (PST)
"andrew.wallace" wrote:
Anyone having issue with Facebook?
Always have but that's just me.
Comcast must have planned this so that we would flood the list with
useless Facebook messages rath
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 13:34:38 -0800 (PST)
"andrew.wallace" wrote:
> Anyone having issue with Facebook?
Always have but that's just me.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/| and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082)(
Someone seems to have leaked this out, with the following data within the bgp
update:
Unknown BGP attribute 92 (flags: 234)
Hexdump start---
DD 78 FF 71
Hexdump end
Not sure what prefix this was related to yet, but if you saw your BGP drop, it
could be related to improper handling of this
It must be to busy now running face recognition software all the faces on
all the pictures they have. :)
--
Andrey Khomyakov
[khomyakov.and...@gmail.com]
http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/
http://www.internettrafficreport.com/
These will solve your issue quickly
Our NOC just got off the phone with L3 and they report a "IP issue" out of
Philadelphia. No other details though.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Ken Stox wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 13:38 -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > On 12/16/2010 01:34 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
> > > Anyone having issu
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 13:38 -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 01:34 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
> > Anyone having issue with Facebook?
In related news, employers around the country enjoyed a peak of
productivity this afternoon.
We detected it about 3:40 eastern, and they just announced it on the
status page.
"We are currently investigating sitewide issues that will affect Facebook
Platform. We apologize for any inconvenience and will post here with
updates."
this should maybe be moved to outages@ though (depend
Somebody obviously backed out the change because it's
back up again. Mashable has a blurb on it.
Mike
On 12/16/2010 01:39 PM, John van Oppen wrote:
Yep...Seeing serious issues from our office here at AS11404, we are peered
directly and all looks good at the IP layer but all of us who wante
On Dec 16, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Andre Gironda wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM, andrew.wallace
> wrote:
>> Anyone having issue with Facebook?
>
> It's returning an empty set of html tags
>
>
Working fine in Northern Virginia on Cox and Cogent.
Regards
Marshall
On 2010.12.16 16:34, andrew.wallace wrote:
> Anyone having issue with Facebook?
Back up now from Toronto.
Steve
This is what I was seeing too.
- Original Message -
From:Andre Gironda
To:"nanog@nanog.org"
Cc:andrew.wallace
Sent:Thursday, 16 December 2010, 21:39:24
Subject:Re: Facebook issue
It's returning an empty set of html tags
I am seeing the same thing here. Empty HTML tags... (sorry for the top
quote)
Regards
Ben
From: "Andre Gironda"
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:39 PM
To: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: Facebook issue
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM, andrew.wallac
Can we just stop this till it comes back up or move to outages?
--Original Message--
From: Andre Gironda
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Facebook issue
Sent: Dec 16, 2010 13:39
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM, andrew.wallace
wrote:
> Anyone having issue with Facebook?
It's returning an
Ditto
On Dec 16, 2010 2:39 PM, "Michael Thomas" wrote:
On 12/16/2010 01:34 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
>
> Anyone having issue with Facebook?
>
> Andrew
> ...
Yep.
Mike
up for me ...
On 12/16/10 4:38 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 12/16/2010 01:34 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
Anyone having issue with Facebook?
Andrew
Yep.
Mike
+1 from the uk
On Thursday, 16 December 2010, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 12/16/2010 01:34 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
>
> Anyone having issue with Facebook?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> Yep.
>
> Mike
>
>
--
--
Martin Hepworth
Oxford, UK
stop
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:34 PM, andrew.wallace <
andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone having issue with Facebook?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yup. Productivity just shot up I can feel it
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 4:34 PM, andrew.wallace
wrote:
> Anyone having issue with Facebook?
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Andrew Euell
andyzweb [at] gmail [dot] com
Yep...Seeing serious issues from our office here at AS11404, we are peered
directly and all looks good at the IP layer but all of us who wanted to
procrastinate here at the office are having trouble getting page loads to
complete. Oddly, no noc tickets yet.
John
-Original Message
Facebook Goes Down Amid Rollout of New Brand Pages -
http://on.mash.to/f36qqA
Sincerely,
Bobby Glover
Director of Information Services
South Valley Internet
On 12/16/2010 1:34 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
Anyone having issue with Facebook?
Andrew
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 2:34 PM, andrew.wallace
wrote:
> Anyone having issue with Facebook?
It's returning an empty set of html tags
On 12/16/2010 01:34 PM, andrew.wallace wrote:
Anyone having issue with Facebook?
Andrew
Yep.
Mike
Anyone having issue with Facebook?
Andrew
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> I do. And yes, they are happy to "fuck with a billion dollar a month
> revenue stream" (that happens to be low margin) in order to set a precedent
> so that when traffic is 60Tbit instead of 6Tbit, across the *same* customer
We disagree on th
On 12/16/2010 2:13 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:48:56PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
I was in the IRC channel at the time and saw it. It's real.
I don't support the posting of IRC logs, but can't control that either.
I saw it too. I don't support posting of IRC
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:13:47PM -0600, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> Seriously guys, this is an operator forum and you're running a congested
> network, to expect that people are not going to comment on those facts
> just because you've put money into NANOG sponsorship is absurd.
Forgot to a
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 09:47 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
> (...) All we're ending up with is what is mostly hearsay being treated as
> facts.
One consumer organization in France during the ongoing debate with
regulators on network neutrality called for network operator to publish
some verifiable in
On 2010.12.13 16:28, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> Yeah, well, sorta. sorta not so much :)
LOL. Mark-to-market... facilitating the booking of revenue to make it
*appear* as though a business unit has a successful product.
Steve
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 02:48:56PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
>
> I was in the IRC channel at the time and saw it. It's real.
>
> I don't support the posting of IRC logs, but can't control that either.
I saw it too. I don't support posting of IRC logs trying to get people
"in trouble" (though
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:40 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> From: JC Dill
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:20 PM
>> To: NANOG list
>> Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
>>
>>
>> On 15/12/10 10:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>> >
>> > If the customer pays the cost of the t
On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
> The idea of buying colocation from a last-mile ISP to reduce that last-mile
> ISP's costs seems (at first glance) to be a hysterically unfair proposition -
> though it seems that incumbent ISPs may have great enough leverage to extract
> t
>> Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things
to say about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many
witnesses:
(snip)
>With all due respect, logs or GTFO. I can find no mention of this outside
of your email.
>I would expect there to be quite a few men
On 12/16/2010 09:38 AM, Daniel Seagraves wrote:
On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Backdoor Parrot wrote:
Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to say
about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many witnesses:
(snip)
With all due respect, logs or
On 16-Dec-2010, Paul Stewart sent:
> Pardon my ignorance here but what does Comcast do for the NANOG
> community? I know they attend many conferences and share their
> experiences with a lot of us which is very much appreciated...
>
> Just asking ;)
http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog46/
--
Chip M
On Dec 16, 2010, at 10:53 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
>>
>>> I disagree. Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's
>>> still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before. Given that
>>> th
On Dec 16, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Backdoor Parrot wrote:
> Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to
> say about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many
> witnesses:
(snip)
With all due respect, logs or GTFO. I can find no mention of this outside
That seems to be "Off Topic".
The operational implications for most of us is, most likely, much more
technical bookkeeping and data storage.
On Dec 16, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>
> What is in the best interests of the customer?
>
> Nathan
James R. Cutler
james.cut...@consult
> All that said, the whole issue of 'local content' is going to continue to
> rage on
> for years to come. Getting the content closer to the end user is going to be
> a
> key to reducing costs for the long-tail providers to homes and businesses.
> Should it be incumbent on the CDNs to pay for co
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
>
>> Pardon my ignorance here but what does Comcast do for the NANOG community?
>> I know they attend many conferences and share their experiences with a lot
>> of us which is very much apprecia
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance here but what does Comcast do for the NANOG community?
> I know they attend many conferences and share their experiences with a lot
> of us which is very much appreciated...
I'm sure the concern is that Comcast signed up to r
Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
I disagree. Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's
still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before. Given that
that traffic was actually *costing* them money to absorb before, turn
Pardon my ignorance here but what does Comcast do for the NANOG community?
I know they attend many conferences and share their experiences with a lot
of us which is very much appreciated...
Just asking ;)
-Original Message-
From: Backdoor Parrot [mailto:backdoorpar...@hotmail.com]
Sent:
> the demands to disclose confidential data on the blog aren't helping either
It's always interesting how things like bandwidth displays are considered
"confidential data" particularly when they show something bad.
The best service providers will actually provide the statistics without
being ask
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Backdoor Parrot
wrote:
>
>
> Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to
> say about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many
> witnesses:
>
> my management is pretty disgusted with the badmouthing and accusation
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> I disagree. Even at $1/Mbit and 6Tbit of traffic (they do more), that's
> still $72M/year in revenue that they weren't recognizing before. Given that
> that traffic was actually *costing* them money to absorb before, turning the
> balance an
Earlier this morning a Comcast peering manager had the following things to say
about the recent NANOG thread, in a public IRC channel with many witnesses:
my management is pretty disgusted with the badmouthing and accusation slinging
on nanog.org btw
the demands to disclose confidential data o
If Comcast is charging providers to carry bits, how long until Verizon does
the same? it becomes an "everyone else is getting paid" situation.
I think it is better for the the content providers to be financially
responsible for efficiency of transmission, which only happens when they
(not the cons
On 16/12/10 8:52 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 12/16/2010 9:17 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
Comcast can now charge its customers only for upkeep of its network
and use
the income they get as an "end point delivery network" to offset
customer
cost. Comcast's cost, which are upkeep and expansion of its p
Jeff Wheeler wrote:
1) Comcast believes they can exact a great deal of revenue from
content networks. For this to be comparable to their captive
customers, per-megabit rates must be reminiscent of pre-Level3 days,
when $30/Mb was a bargain. This would spell bad news for Netflix. Of
course, si
On 12/16/2010 7:47 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:05:26 CST, Jack Bates said:
request financing? ie, Comcast could run lower rates and offer better
service by charging the content provider, while competitive eyeball
networks won't get the option to receive compensatio
It would certainly serve to make customers angry.
They have a choice of video provider netflix vs hulu, but only one isp.
In this case the customer drops netflix in an angry huff and goes to hulu. That
customer is gone forever.
--Original Message--
From: Patrick Giagnocavo
To: nanog@na
On 12/16/2010 9:17 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
Comcast can now charge its customers only for upkeep of its network and use
the income they get as an "end point delivery network" to offset customer
cost. Comcast's cost, which are upkeep and expansion of its physical
network, now scale proportionally w
On Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:20:23 am Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> Personally, I'd like to see any provider (content or otherwise) tell
> Comcast (as things stand today) to pound sand when asked to enter into
> such a 'paid peering' arrangement with them.
It comes down to the business deci
On 16/12/10 8:17 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
On 12/16/10 9:51 AM, Craig L Uebringer wrote:
Funny thing about competition is that there are losers as well as
winners.
DSL competition
didn't lose by regulation, it lost (nationally) by cheaper, more elastic
bandwidth available
on other med
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, JC Dill wrote:
Sure, Comcast's customers are also paying Comcast. But Comcast wants to get
paid from the content provider. I think they are betting that in the long
run it's easier to make money from content providers (and have the content
providers charge customers or a
On 12/16/10 9:51 AM, Craig L Uebringer wrote:
Funny thing about competition is that there are losers as well as winners.
DSL competition
didn't lose by regulation, it lost (nationally) by cheaper, more elastic
bandwidth available
on other media and JC's previously-noted fickle and lazy consumer
On Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:05:02 am Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
> Surely serving a "bumper" video at the beginning - "Comcast is trying to
> charge you more for Netflix - see http://www.netflix.com/comcastripoff/";
> - would be enough?
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I had in mind. Could be o
> How well did the lawsuits against Microsoft's monopoly work to reduce
> their ability to use their monopoly to manipulate the market?
>
> jc
Why don't you ask the folks over at The Technical Committee
(http://www.thetc.org), since they monitor Microsoft compliancy for the DOJ.
Randy
On 12/16/2010 10:54 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
> But in that scheme, Comcast looses in the long run, when the FCC gets around
> to them, but Netflix looses customers immediately.
>
> " I pay Netflix 10$ a month and they wont let me use their service cause I
> am on Comcast? I am taking my money to Hu
On 16/12/10 7:55 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
If ponies are being handed out, count me in.
Sure, market forces can do lots of strange things, for example, see
our current position.
Pretty much any scheme breaks terribly when there is a monopoly,
How well did the lawsuits against Microsoft's mon
If ponies are being handed out, count me in.
Sure, market forces can do lots of strange things, for example, see our
current position.
Pretty much any scheme breaks terribly when there is a monopoly, since the
only company involved gets to remove the relationship between cost and
profit.
On Thu,
But in that scheme, Comcast looses in the long run, when the FCC gets around
to them, but Netflix looses customers immediately.
" I pay Netflix 10$ a month and they wont let me use their service cause I
am on Comcast? I am taking my money to Hulu!"
Sure netflix is "right" but by the time it matte
On Wednesday, December 15, 2010 05:47:09 pm Adam Rothschild wrote:
> What we have here is Comcast holding its users captive, plain and
> simple. They have established an ecosystem where, to reach them, one
> must pay to play, otherwise there's a good chance that packets are
> discarded.
[snip]
>
On 16/12/10 7:17 AM, Mikel Waxler wrote:
I disagree with this theory.
If customers pay comcast for bytes then eventually the upstream (L3)
will want some of that revenue.
And I want a pony.
What the upstream "wants" and what market forces will decide could be
very different. And as custom
I disagree with this theory.
If customers pay comcast for bytes then eventually the upstream (L3) will
want some of that revenue. That revenue will be passed onto the provider as
a lower bill.
This encourages Netflix to send more bytes, because if they do Comcast and
L3 get paid more and Netflix'
On Dec 16, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Craig L Uebringer wrote:
>
> This is why I suggested it might take regulatory action, or changes in state
> laws.
>
> Also engage locality first, as Jared indicates. The problem in going to the
> fed is that power
> will be skewed to the larger entities. Competiti
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:16 AM, JC Dill wrote:
>
> > On 15/12/10 9:29 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >>
> >> The underlying problem, of course, is lack of usable last-mile
> competition;
> >
> > I agree.
>
>
It exists where there is an ROI on invest
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:05:26 CST, Jack Bates said:
> request financing? ie, Comcast could run lower rates and offer better
> service by charging the content provider, while competitive eyeball
> networks won't get the option to receive compensation from content
> providers and have to charge ap
On Dec 16, 2010, at 1:16 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> On 15/12/10 9:29 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>
>> The underlying problem, of course, is lack of usable last-mile competition;
>
> I agree.
>
>> see also my running rant about Verizon-inspired state laws *forbidding*
>> municipalities to charter monopo
On 15/12/10 10:40 PM, George Bonser wrote:
From: JC Dill
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 10:20 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
On 15/12/10 10:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
If the customer pays the cost of the transport, a provider with
better
tr
88 matches
Mail list logo
