I have to agree with Dan in that even if you disagreed with the talk you
have to agree that it probably spawned relevant discussion and reflection
(both on and off list). I would hate to see a move to ideas and discussions
that are chosen simply for offending the fewest people. Another sort of
are handled all the time and
complaining is easy but proposing better solutions is harder.
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.comwrote:
On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
The reality is an increasingly directly peered
That was an interesting read but it's not the whole story. Skip to the
TL;DR if you'd like but I'll attempt to explain what happened. What he
isn't saying is the roles of the companies involved have changed over the
last 10 years. Mostly gone are the days that content providers and access
networks
Security is a layered approach though. I can't recall any server or service
that runs in listening state (and reachable from public address space) that
hasn't had some type of remotely exploitable vulnerability. It's hard to
lean on operating systems and software companies to default services to
Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the
specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering
of traffic (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't block access to a
specific website like alibaba and demand ransom from subscribers to access
How is this *not* Comcast's problem? If my users are requesting more
traffic than I banked on, how is it not my responsibility to ensure I have
capacity to handle that? I have gear; you have gear. I upgrade or add
ports on my side; you upgrade or add ports on your side. Am I missing
something?
From: Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 11:23 PM
To: Hugo Slabbert
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could
enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
How
double
dipping.
Nick
On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know
the
specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile
tinkering
of traffic (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't
Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
with their crappy last mile
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
access to the Internet paid for by residential
they are in dispute with. If nothing else it would result in having similar
traffic profiles and settlement free would start to make more sense so
everybody wins.
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
#3
of
Bill Norton's Internet Peering book as per Bob's suggestion, for some light
Sunday night reading.
Cheers,
--
Hugo
From: Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:45 AM
To: Hugo Slabbert
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The FCC
I think most the points made here are valid about why it isn't an easy
problem to solve with multicast.
Lets say for instance they had a multicast stream that sent the most popular
content (which to Randy's point may not cover much) and 48 hours of that
stream was cached locally on the CPE. What
12 matches
Mail list logo
