Re: RPKI implementation

On 18/Jun/16 13:10, Randy Bush wrote: > i remembered wrongly > > RFC6810 > >A client SHOULD delete the data from a cache when it has been unable >to refresh from that cache for a configurable timer value. The >default for that value is twice the polling period for that cache. I

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 17/Jun/16 19:31, Seth Mattinen wrote: > > > I would expect some kind of MRC if it has any SLA, service, or support > attached. Or someone manages it and protects the infrastructure and > enforces the rules of the facility. Or the facility uses that money to > maintain the MMR. If it's a

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" > Colo providers are absolutely worried about drops in xconn revenue. > Look at some large colo providers who are public and split out their > numbers. Youll see that the percentage of their profit from xconns is > usually more than double the

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

You assume things like "nobody's business" has something to do with "extracting money". -- TTFN, patrick Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos. > On Jun 19, 2016, at 13:02, David Barak wrote: > > Gotta watch out for specifying T1 when you want

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

Gotta watch out for specifying T1 when you want Ethernet- they could just give you 4 wires on pins 1,2,4,5 :) I see the problem as misunderstanding what "physical" actually means: 4-wire twisted pair is different from 8-wire, is different from coax, is different from SMF etc. what gets run

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

If you look at companies that have foundered due to failure to innovate, most of the time it's because they were too focused on what made them money then, not what was going to make them money 5 years from then. And networks don't track very well to Moore's law...

Re: NANOG67 - Tipping point of community and sponsor bashing?

On 17/Jun/16 01:06, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > 3) Remote peering -- This is mostly a question about distance for value. > There is a clear benefit in providing multi-datacenter exchanges within a > metro, and both FL-IX and SIX are doing this with a very good value > proposition. Having the

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

Actually, back in the T1/T3 days, colos frequently asked what you ran on the cable and then charged you based on the capacity of the circuit - even when it was the same exact cable. Of course, none of us would ever ask for T1 xconn then run ethernet over it. Colo providers are absolutely

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

I don't buy this. They sold you one cable before, they sell you cable now. Little difference then we moved customers from a T1 to T3 back in the 90's. If Colo's can't understand more then 20+ yrs of evolution its hardly right to blame it on the market. -jim Mimir Networks

Re: IP and Optical domains?

Glen, Here's a list of technical issues for whatever it is worth: Transport networks assume a service to be a circuit with two end-points which optionally can be protected by some transport mechanisms. Each of such services is unrelated to others. In a routed network a transport service

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

Before 100G, you'd need ten cross connects to move 100G. Now you'd need only one. That's a big drop in revenue. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Brandon

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

Dave Temkin wrote: > And as colo operators get freaked out over margin compression on the > impending 10->100G conversion (which is happening exponentially faster than > 100->1G & 1G->10G) they'll need to move those levers of spend around > regardless. If they've based their model

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

I think that's where the value in a distributed IX comes into play. The more nimble networks can move to different facilities while still maintaining the connectivity. Enough of that happens and pricing pressure comes into play in other parts of the market (space and cross connects). For

Re: cross connects and their pound of flesh

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:54 PM, Brandon Ross wrote: > > > Value based pricing is all the rage these days, which is why they charge > you so much for cross connects. Exactly. Not that I don't like free cross connects (they're the bees knees, in fact), but at the end of the

Re: 1GE L3 aggregation

On 18 June 2016 at 18:37, James Jun wrote: Hey, > One issue with pushing IP transit (L3-wise) with small boxes down to the > metro is that if a particular customer comes under attack, any DDoS in > excess of 10-30 Gbps is going to totally destroy the remote site down to