This would be my humble suggestion:
- lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By default the lines
provider installs a simple consumer terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs
and POTS.
- lines provider provides a reasonably oversubscribed service to soft hand
over to ISPs (think 96
On Friday, August 01, 2014 08:54:07 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote:
This would be my humble suggestion:
- lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By
default the lines provider installs a simple consumer
terminal, with gigabit Ethernet outputs and POTS.
- lines provider provides a
Govt controlled, please.
We have tried both in NZ.
Before telecom provided internet and ran lines. They were equally shit at
both and apparently there were many issues for other ISPs using the lines.
Now Chorus owns the and they insist that $40+/mo for wholesale DSL is fair.
I think this is a
On Friday, August 01, 2014 09:30:57 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote:
I think this is a sector the
government would do well in. Unlike being an actual ISP
there's no ambiguity (oversubscription, customer
service, etc). Just provide a gigabit line with no
congestion and solid uptime, or a fibre pair
Anyone know how to summarize this end game well enough for state/federal
legislators?
Or raise enough money and direction to provide sufficient
lobbying?
Wasn't KC asking for a dept of the Internet at the NANOG 20 in DC?
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 09:44:28AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
On Friday,
On 7/31/2014 12:07 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
1. The article mentioned DHCP doesn't do the other part of what PPPoE or
PPPoA does, which is generate RADIUS accounting records that give us the
bandwidth information. So that’s one of the main challenges in switching to
a DHCP based system. So, how
On Aug 1, 2014, at 12:08 AM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Friday, August 01, 2014 08:54:07 AM mcfbbqroast . wrote:
This would be my humble suggestion:
- lines provider runs fibre pair from each home to co. By
default the lines provider installs a simple consumer
terminal,
Not really, the law can say must provide standards compliant access for
interconnections with a agreed upon base set of features it must support.
Any provider that wants something extra can negotiate the reasonable costs
of implementation.
On 8/1/14, 8:44 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
As I said, for an example of just how well such an environment works, one need
look no further than what happened when MCI attempted to use Pacific
Bell/SBC/ATT unbundled copper pairs to provide local telephone service.
In reality, this turns out to be horrible for the customer, unpleasant at
On 7/30/14 3:45 PM, joshua rayburn jbrayb...@gmail.com wrote:
Starting in 3.10 code you can utilize Bulk Port Allocation to carve out
small consecutive port bundles for end users as to not mess up SIP
functionsand High Speed Logging to log individual customers ports for law
enforcement needs
What is the MRC of a 10GE port?
On August 1, 2014 1:40:50 AM EDT, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 02:01:28 PM Måns Nilsson wrote:
It is better, both for the customer and the provider.
If the provider is able to deliver 1Gbps to every home
(either on copper or
Today, somewhere around $6,000 or more depending on provider, location, etc.
That’s with IP transit included.
Owen
On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:09 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
What is the MRC of a 10GE port?
On August 1, 2014 1:40:50 AM EDT, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On
So we'll assume we could get 4 for 22k to make the arithmetic easy, and that
means if we can put 44 people on that, that the MRC cost is 500 dollars a month
for a gigabit. That is clearly not consumer pricing. Was consumer pricing the
assertion?
On August 1, 2014 12:34:00 PM EDT, Owen DeLong
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
Slightly off-topic but what are people using as a cpe device in a
dual-stack scenario like this?
On Friday, August 1, 2014, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote:
On 7/30/14 3:45 PM, joshua rayburn jbrayb...@gmail.com javascript:;
wrote:
Starting in 3.10 code you can utilize Bulk Port
On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
If you want examples of how well the model you propose tends to
work, look no further than the incredible problematic nature of MCI’s
attempt to offer local phone service over Pacific Bell/SBC/ATT
circuits.
[snip]
IMHO,
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
MHO, experience has taught us that the lines provider (or as I
prefer to call them, the Layer 1 infrastructure provider) must be
prohibited from playing at the higher layers
A few years back Fred Goldstein proposed defining
I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
That’s bad news, stay away. But I think some well crafted L2 services
could actually _expand_ consumer choice. I mean running a dark fiber
GigE to supply voice only makes no sense, but a 10M channel on a GPON
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 1 21:13:59 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
BGP Update Report
Interval: 12-Jul-14 -to- 19-Jul-14 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS12858 93683 3.5%5510.8 -- MYNET A.S.,TR
2 - AS982975620 2.8% 53.7
Hi There!
I'm currently working on writing some automation around the ASR9K platform
and I've been looking at both the netconf and xml interfaces. Anyone have
experience with either?
It looks like the XML interface is much more feature rich, supporting both
config and operational state objects
On Aug 1, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Even in those cases where there isn't a layer 3 operator nor a chance for a
viable resale of layer 1/2 services.
I have a very hard time believing that if a city (no matter what size) had a
FTTH deployment, sold on a
22 matches
Mail list logo
