AS23456 is currently announcing a good few netblocks (which don't have a
very good smtp reputation, by the way).
Funny thing is, that's a special use ASN as per rfc4893, something about
two octet ASNs that don't have a four octet representation.
Only one upstream (airtelbroadband-as-ap, as24560)
At least the 103.x which are announced by airtel. The other netblocks (one
Indian and two brazilian) appear unrelated though also showing as23456
--srs (htc one x)
On 03-Feb-2013 6:12 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.li...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'ops.li...@gmail.com');
wrote:
AS23456
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org writes:
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:55:34PM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
There is no reason whatsoever that one can't have centralized
splitters in one's PON plant. The additional costs to do so
Frank,
I don't know off hand, but it ought to be easy even though Ethernet uses a
wider channel than most PON set ups. I'll do some asking tomorrow.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
Scott:
Is there a vendor that supports RFoG on the same strand as
- Original Message -
From: Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
On 13-02-02 23:17, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Home run from each prem to an MDF. City employes do all M-A-C patch cable
moves on the MDF, to horizontals into the colo, where the provider's gear
aggregates it from
- Original Message -
From: Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com
Data point, which makes the rest of this discussion moot:
Since telcos are historically myopic and don't build (much) extra
fiber into their plant to support future technologies, the only use
for existing fiber in the
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 06:12:32PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
AS23456 is currently announcing a good few netblocks (which don't have a
very good smtp reputation, by the way).
To say the least. A quick rDNS scan reveals that those netblocks include:
8448 addresses
On 2/3/13 9:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 06:12:32PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
AS23456 is currently announcing a good few netblocks (which don't have a
very good smtp reputation, by the way).
To say the least. A quick rDNS scan reveals that those
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a
necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been about
Internet and network design, but not much about the other two plays.
I don't know if that's true or not, but so
I do believe, as has been pointed out to me elsewhere that this is what
shows up when there's a 64 bit ASN and router software that doesn't grok 64
bit ASNs
So, completely by chance that one such as belongs to what looks like a bulk
mailer
--srs (htc one x)
On 03-Feb-2013 9:02 PM, Dave Pooser
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, but IP TV is not profitable on stand-alone basis -- it's just a
necessary part of the triple play. A lot of the discussion has been
about Internet and network design, but not much
I strongly recommend that you read about and fully understand how 4-byte
ASNs work, and their use of AS23456 before you continue this thread.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I do believe, as has been pointed out to me elsewhere that this is what
shows up when there's a 64
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:07:34AM -0500, Jean-Francois
Mezei wrote:
When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it
actually connect every home ?
I would argue, in a pure dark muni-network, the muni would run the
fiber into the prem to a patch
In a message written on Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 10:53:04PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
tightly defined area that is densely populated today. I'd also say that
this is not the normal muni network in the US today, since generally
speaking muni networks spring up where the local area is poorly served
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 09:04:43AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
[...]
People are doing this, and it does work, it's just being done in
locations the big telcos and cablecos have written off...
To re-iterate this point, and get a note into the archives -- Muni
networks *can* work.
Idaho Falls, ID
Some links:
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog45/presentations/Tuesday/Hankins_4byteASN_N45.pdf
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6793
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Brandon Ross br...@pobox.com wrote:
I strongly recommend that you read about and fully understand how 4-byte
ASNs work, and
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:07:34AM -0500,
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it
actually connect every home ?
I would argue, in a pure
AS23456 is what you get if your system doesn't properly support 32-bit ASNs
and an AS-PATH (or peer) uses a 32-bit ASN.
There should be an extended attribute on the route that contains the full
32-bit AS-PATH called AS4_PATH associated with any such routes.
Arguably any route containing AS23456
Absolutely muni networks can work. I'm supporting ~14 right now with an
aggregate number of connections of around 40k (most are small). Having
said that from my view (I work with telco's, cable MSOs, muni, and other
network providers) muni networks fail more often than private networks.
This is
On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions for
problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective method
of sharing a network at layer 1 since DWDM is expensive and
Keep in place, but I've worked with virtually all of the nationwide guys
and most of the regional ones and they don't as a rule want anything to do
with your fiber plant. Even in major metro areas selling dark fiber
doesn't have a huge uptake because if you the network owner didn't light it
On 2013-02-03, at 14:39, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Dry pairs are impossible to order these days for a reason.
Dry pairs are trivial to order round these parts. Generalisations are always
wrong, no doubt including this one.
Joe (putting the N back in NANOG)
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but
not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would
OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the
prem. They would be
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
for problems that have already been solved. There is no cost effective
I answered (I think) your other points in the last email I wrote, but I
wanted to address these specifically.
I believe that Sweden operates largely on this model and that the Australia
NBN project does as well.
I would say that the Swedish model is a definite success.
Australia's NBN is
Joe,
I'm assuming from your domain that you're in Canada where yes dry pairs are
still generally available. I apologize for not making it clear that my
comment was specifically about the US where dry pairs are nearly impossible
to order today and the CLEC market has almost entirely abandoned the
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 02:39:39PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but
not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would
OTDR shoot it from the handoff point to the service provider to the
prem.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but
not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would
OTDR shoot it from
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 02:39:39PM -0500, Scott Helms
wrote:
Basically when the customer (typically the service provider, but
not always) orders a loop to a customer the muni provider would
OTDR
Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
You're asserting that it is not practical to offer L1 optical
per-sub handoffs to L2/3 ISPs, because
I'm saying you can't build a working business model off of layer 1
connections as your primary offering in almost all cases
Scott -- you've brought up *great* info for this thread. We all know
that city/county/state/federal governments sometimes throw money away on
boondoggles (as fiber could become). You've been able to pull from your
direct experience to show how this is true.
I threw in Idaho Falls because I'm
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 12:07:34AM -0500,
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
When municipality does the buildout, does it just pass homes, or does it
actually connect every home ?
I would argue, in a pure
In message camrdfrw6b3+spovj3w0xnvqkxgse6zb5hglicqx4kgzxpe7...@mail.gmail.com
, Scott Helms writes:
I answered (I think) your other points in the last email I wrote, but I
wanted to address these specifically.
I believe that Sweden operates largely on this model and that the Australia
And flooding doesn't affect pure glass, does it?
Not directly, so long as the cladding stays intact. The problem with
flooding (for your scenario since your electronics will be centralized) is
mainly that it causes things to move around inside the cable runs and
depending on water flow you
I've been searching for a few days on information about Google
Fiber's Kansas City deployment. While I wouldn't call Google
secretive in this particular case, they haven't been very outgoing
on some of the technologies. Based on the equipment they have deployed
there is speculation they are
With regards to the layer 1 vs layer 2 arguments:
At the regulatory level, it isn't about what layer is provided, it is
more a question to ensure that a neutral provider of last mile only
sells whoelsale and provides no retail services that compete against
other retailers who buy access to that
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, John Osmon jos...@rigozsaurus.com wrote:
Scott -- you've brought up *great* info for this thread. We all know
that city/county/state/federal governments sometimes throw money away on
boondoggles (as fiber could become). You've been able to pull from your
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
And flooding doesn't affect pure glass, does it?
Not directly, so long as the cladding stays intact. The problem with
flooding (for your scenario since your electronics will be centralized) is
mainly that it causes things to
- Original Message -
From: Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com
The SP of choice can charge the customer for the demarc extension on
installation, at which point the customer owns the extension just like
they do for DSL, T1, etc...
Except that that means you have to let them into your
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
I've been searching for a few days on information about Google
Fiber's Kansas City deployment. While I wouldn't call Google
secretive in this particular case, they haven't been very outgoing
on some of the technologies.
Mark,
That's true but none (AFAIK) of those connections are being built by muni's
and all of the hand offs are done to the ISPs at layer 2.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:45 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message
camrdfrw6b3+spovj3w0xnvqkxgse6zb5hglicqx4kgzxpe7...@mail.gmail.com
,
- Original Message -
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
Here's an article with some economics from several different
deployments:
http://fastnetnews.com/fiber-news/175-d/4835-fiber-economics-quick-and-dirty
Looks like $500-$700 in capex per residence is the current gold
standard.
Thanks Scott. Even if you can't name names, having those points stored
somewhere searchable is going to help someone build a useful case when
deciding to deploy or not.
On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 04:55:41PM -0500, Scott Helms wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:38 PM, John Osmon
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
And flooding doesn't affect pure glass, does it?
Not directly, so long as the cladding stays intact. The problem with
flooding (for your scenario
I'm pretty sure they do, although I can't point you to one without doing
some checking. I'm assuming you want something to keep them out of the
network side where the splice tray is, but let them access the customer
side?
Around here, the network side isn't so much locked as just secured with a
On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
I think the confusion I have is that you seem to want to create solutions
In a message written on Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 05:03:52PM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
From: Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org
Looks like $500-$700 in capex per residence is the current gold
standard. Note that the major factor is the take rate; if there are
two providers doing FTTH they are both
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 2, 2013, at 5:06 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Owen,
I think the
Eric,
Lol, yeah should have been Gig-E :)
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams
brun...@nic-naa.netwrote:
On 2/3/13 12:33 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
PON is worse
in every performance related way to PON
typo???
--
Scott Helms
Vice President of Technology
ZCorum
(678)
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Frank Bulk (iname.com) frnk...@iname.comwrote:
Fletcher:
Many rural LECs are homerunning their fiber back to the CO, such that the
optical splitters are only in the CO. It gives them one management point,
the highest possible efficiency (you can maximize any
In this particular post, your making stuff up. There are still
residential focused CLECs and ordering Unbundled Network Elements(UNEs)
is not more difficult than in the past. The rules haven't changed.
What is certainly true is that many CLECs have found that it is more
lucrative to sell to
Fletcher,
Your specific case may vary, but I am most certainly _not_ making stuff
up. In many territories, especially outside of major metro areas, you
cannot order dry pairs. This has been because of a combination of relaxed
rules (if you really want I can dig up the NTCA reports on this) and
What we've seen is that the RBOC typically has a lot of crap copper in the
ground, in a lot of cases air-core (pre gel-fill) that hasn't held up well.
With the popularity of DSL, they ran out of good pairs to use. As they ran
out of pairs, they eventually had to put in remote terminals to handle
Sure, Verizon has been able to get their cost per home passed down to $700
(http://www.isuppli.com/Home-and-Consumer-Electronics/MarketWatch/Pages/Veri
zons-FTTH-Expansion-Stoppage-Takes-Many-by-Surprise.aspx), but that does not
include the drop, ONT, nor any home wiring to get from the ONT to the
Scott:
While we less than ten thousand FTTH subs, our OSP operational costs are
much less with fiber than copper.
Our maintenance costs, in order of greatest to least, have been locating,
cable moves (i.e. bridge project), monitoring digs, and damage to fiber
(rodents and vehicles that hit
Brandon:
My apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that providers would be unable to
provide video services across the muni fiber infrastructure. I was just
pointing out that many customers want a triple play, so that should be a
factor that Jay considers when considering a GPON-only or ActiveE
When comparing costs of building (per home passed/connected), it is also
important to see if those quoted costs include the regulatory costs of
dealing with cities.
If a municipal project won't suffer costs of negotiating for
diggging/building permits, already has the land to build the CO, and
On Feb 3, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:33 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 2,
58 matches
Mail list logo
