On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They see
no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more
profit without it.
There is the issue of control over the market. But also the pressure
from shareholders
On 5/12/2014 7:25 PM, Mr. Queue wrote:
Almost a week of this now.. OVH/lvl3 at dal-1-6k.
Thank you sir may I have another..
http://weathermap.ovh.net/usa
Sorry about that, it was my first mail to the list so it was held over
a bit for moderation. However, it's back at it and I've
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 09:04:11 AM Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
The problem with the internet is that while it had
promises of wild growth in the 90s and 00s, once
penetration reaches a certain level, growth stabilizes.
That depends on your point-of-view and/or interpretation of
growth.
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
The reality is an increasingly directly peered Internet doesn't sit well if
you are in the business of being the middle man. Now if you will, why do
transit companies themselves charge content companies to deliver
On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3 the
price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less than
1/10th of the overall traffic volume.
My guess is that from the
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:11:30 AM Matthew Petach wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at how access networks
think they can charge 2/3 the price of full transit
for just their routes when they represent less than
1/10th of the overall traffic volume. The math just
doesn't work out. It's
Usually your system and network admins receive those themselves as part of
either support contracts or simply by registering for the appropriate
notification/mailing list.
Perhaps these links will help you out as well:
http://cve.mitre.org/about/index.html
They already have all the information and did it for you.
You are just not aware of it.
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:27:57 AM Roland Dobbins wrote:
Are there any real-world models out there for
revenue-sharing between app/content providers and access
networks which would eliminate or reduce 'paid peering'
(an alternate way to think of it is as 'delimited
transit', another
On May 13, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Tony Wicks t...@wicks.co.nz wrote:
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: New Zealand Spy Agency To Vet Network Builds, Provider Staff
I didn't see the NSA telling us what we had to buy are demanding advance
approval rights on our maintenance procedures.
Owen
Try to
While I applaud NZ being open and honest about it, I do think that they have
gone quite a bit further than the NSA and that their proposal is far more
damaging.
Owen
On May 13, 2014, at 2:25 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
Exactly. They just broke in and left a trail of open
No, they just intercept whatever gear you do purchase before it gets to your
loading dock and then seal it back up with their modifications.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
On May 13, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I didn’t see the NSA telling us what we had to
On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote:
They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They
see
no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more
profit without it.
There is the issue of control over the
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 03:35:41 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
Last I looked, you were free to change out the kit on
your submarine cable to anything you wanted once the
cable was landed.
Things could have changed now, but if memory serves, you
would be asked to reconfirm your kit during
hey,
Subscriber Management/BRAS/BNG: Redback was the big player back in the day, but
I believe they are no longer. Juniper has their Subscriber Management feature
pack on their MX routers, and Cisco has their Broadband Network Gateway on
their ASR routers. Besides these two vendors I am not
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 05:52:58PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On May 13, 2014, at 17:47 , Tony Wicks t...@wicks.co.nz wrote:
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: New Zealand Spy Agency To Vet Network Builds, Provider Staff
I didn't see the NSA telling us what we had to buy are demanding
On 2014-05-13 16:37, Kyle Leissner wrote:
I would like recommendations on the following software/hardware
elements required to run an access network. Assume you are building a
greenfield network using a combination of access technologies such as
DSL, GPON, AE, and WiFi.
What a timely thread!
On 14 May 2014 16:14, char...@thefnf.org wrote:
On 2014-05-13 16:37, Kyle Leissner wrote:
RFC
1918,
ewww. v6 sir! Greenfield network and everything.
VRF, Overlapping Address Space,
ewww again. Those are horrible hacks, v6 all the things.
People use VRF's to provide Layer3 VPNs to
On Wed, 14 May 2014 17:09:02 +0100, Dave Bell said:
People use VRF's to provide Layer3 VPNs to customers. Customers
typically use overlapping address space in their networks.
That's the customer's problem inside their networks. If you have
overlapping address space in *your own greenfield*
It depends on the service you are providing. If its fully managed up to the
customer premises, I fail to see how you can get away without knowing what
addressing the customer is using.
On 14 May 2014 17:16, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2014 17:09:02 +0100, Dave Bell said:
On May 14, 2014, at 5:47 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:27:57 AM Roland Dobbins wrote:
Are there any real-world models out there for
revenue-sharing between app/content providers and access
networks which would eliminate or reduce 'paid peering'
Thanks for this,
Have you posted this to the VyOS project forums? It would make a nice
addition to the wiki (*cough* I've been trying to find some help to
complete the VyOS user guide).
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 5:10 AM, Naoto MATSUMOTO
n-matsum...@sakura.ad.jpwrote:
Hi all!
We wrote TIPS
On 13 May 2014, at 15:49, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
So is there just reluctant acceptance of this law, or is there
push-back and plans to repeal, or...?
This was news to me when I heard about it the other day (because apparently I
am a bad kiwi and do not keep myself
--As of May 14, 2014 9:23:21 AM -0500, char...@thefnf.org is alleged to
have said:
So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
competition any way they can.
No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of
revenue, they'd be massively expanding into
So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart
competition any way they can.
No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of
revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and
aggressively growing over the top services (which are
Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades
or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary.
Owen
On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote:
So they seek new
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge 2/3
the price of full transit for just their routes when they represent less
Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate sound bite
- Kevin
215-313-1083
On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new
ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades
or
Hi there,
Hope you networking experts can shed some light on a concern I have please. I
am multihoming using 2 ISPs to the internet, due to reasons outside my control,
my primary preferred link keeps dropping a number of times a day forcing
traffic to my backup and vice-versa when the primary
On 5/14/2014 4:27 AM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On May 14, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
wrote:
I'm constantly amazed at how access networks think they can charge
2/3 the price of full transit for just their routes when they
represent less than 1/10th of the overall
Owen,
I've seen a vast difference between Comcast and others in the marketplace.
Right now, if I had the choice between Comcast and a legacy telco, I would
pick Comcast hands-down for:
a) performance
b) IPv6 support
c) willingness to work on issues
- Jared
On May 14, 2014, at 5:14 PM,
On 5/14/2014 5:14 PM, Gus Crichton wrote:
The route calculations by the upstream tier 1s and 2s handle the route
calculations but if I do this too many times consuming their resources, is
there a penalty/blackmark on my AS? Is this monitored even by the tier1s and 2s?
Generally I don't
On Wed, 14 May 2014, Gus Crichton wrote:
Hope you networking experts can shed some light on a concern I have
please. I am multihoming using 2 ISPs to the internet, due to reasons
outside my control, my primary preferred link keeps dropping a number of
times a day forcing traffic to my backup
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 07:01:36PM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Maybe it is time to try a free market.
Can't do that, it would be UnAmerican!
- Matt
--
I can only guess that the designer of the things had a major Toilet Duck
habit and had managed to score a couple of industrial-sized bottles
So, at the end of the week, I *had* been paying $10/mb to
send traffic through transit to reach the whole rest of the
internet. Now, I'm paying $5+$4+$4+$5+$2, or $30, and
I don't have a full set of routes, so I've still got to keep
paying the transit provider as well at $10.
I would like to
35 matches
Mail list logo
