On Aug 4, 2014, at 9:29 AM, Song Li refresh.ls...@gmail.com wrote:
According to this principle, if an AS suddenly announced a lot of updates (as
below), can it be regarded as an anomaly such as BGP session reset?
Yes. It's wise to monitor BGP announcements received from peers, and to
- Original Message -
On Aug 2, 2014, at 0:43, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:
On Friday, August 01, 2014 07:17:24 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
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
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
On Aug 1, 2014, at 9:44 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
IMHO, 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
Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
service you can come up with today does.
Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when
that claim could have been made about
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a
line.
Rather draw the line between providing a local interconnect versus
Correct me if I'm wrong but the solid optics power meter is just rebranded PPI?
Also what about a decent but reasonably priced OSA?
Suggestions?
Tim Kaufman
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Walter
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 8:02 PM
To:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
service you can come up with today does.
Well, not in the foreseeable future, anyway. I'm sure there was a time when
that claim could have
Has anyone seen/touched Huawei's Atom Router? It was announced at the Mobile
World Congress 2014.. haven't seen anything on the Interweb since. I'd be
interested in getting one or two units to play in my lab!
http://www.huawei.com/mwc2014/en/articles/hw-328011.htm
Eric
Well,
Wasn't the Huawei CEO that stated that they where not interested
into the US market.
( And by proxy ... the Canadian one )
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/23/huawei_not_interested_in_us/
And a bunch of ban's around Oct 2013 from a wide variety of countries...
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1
facilities
back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to large
numbers of customers), then access providers have to compete to
Hi,
I can think of two reasons for such behavior:
- one of the attributes of these routes changed suddenly, so they have
been reannounced by your peer,
- you sent a 'route refresh' request to this peer, asking him to
reannounce all his table.
Other than that, I don't see why a peer would
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:21:05PM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
Previously, Netflix signed similar agreements with Comcast and
Verizon.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/29/netflix-and-att-sign-peering-agreement/
Am I
Huawei has sales personal in the US and does sell here. See
http://huawei.com/us/about-huawei/contact-us/index.htm
And for a more recent Huawei management statement, see
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2014-04/28/content_17470474.htm
Huawei executive says it still seeks US sales
Thanks,
- Original Message -
From: Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.net
In my neck of the woods, the city hall decided that no more fiber cables
running all over the poles in the city and somehow combined with some EU
regulations that communication links need to be buried, they created a
- Original Message -
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
I can think of issues that arise when the municipality provides layer
2 services.
1. Enthusiasm (hence funding) for public works projects waxes and
wanes. Generally it waxes long enough to get some portion of the
original
On Aug 4, 2014, at 10:27 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I can never see a case where letting them play at Layer 3 or above helps.
Layers 2 and 3 are fuzzy these days. I think that's a bad place to draw a
line.
On Aug 4, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
Single mode fiber's usefulness doesn't expire within any funding
horizon applicable to a municipality. Gige service and any other lit
service you can come up with today does.
Well, not in the
On Aug 4, 2014, at 3:01 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu eu...@imacandi.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
OTOH, if the municipality provides only L1 concentration (dragging L1
facilities
back to centralized locations where access providers can connect to
I agree with this, a monopoly is ok if the government regulates it properly
and effectively.
I'm a fan of either:
Dark fibre to every house.
Fiber to every house with a soft handover to the ISP.
All ran by an entity forbidden from retail.
Ideally a mix of both, soft handover for no thrills
Gah,
While I'd agree that Netflix shouldn't get free transit, ATT shouldn't be
charging for better access than Netflix can get over other tier 1s.
Likewise, for local delivery there's nothing wrong with peering. Besides,
when a small ISP starts up they have to buy transit/lay fibre to a major
20 matches
Mail list logo
