First, let me say that I think peering regulation is a terrible idea.
No matter how cleverly you plan it, the result will be that fewer
small companies can participate. That's the character of regulation:
compliance creates more barriers to entry than it removes.
That having been said,
On 06/11/2008 02:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who owns the DNS root?
The US Government claims to. However, asserting authority over the DNS
root is a different matter to a mere claim to ownership, and if the US
Government were to unilaterally decide on an action which directly acted
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this list) to
limit the events:
1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a government run and regulated
backbone);
Right. But what do we want this to look like?
Well, since
Lamar Owen wrote:
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
government run and regulated backbone);
Which government?
Right. But what do we want
Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran
[snip]
But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's too
simple to be real regulation. :-)
One World Government at last!
Just one of the many loopholes in my simplistic outline, and the
Lamar Owen wrote:
Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How will that work in, say, China? Or Iran
[snip]
But I'm sure there are loopholes in my rough outline above; it's
too simple to be real regulation. :-)
One World Government at last!
Just one of the many loopholes in my simplistic
Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wote:
Do you see that as more than a minor nuisance?
I see it as a deal breaker.
Yet another reason I vastly prefer no such regulation.
Yet endusers with clout (such as NASA, who was on both sides of this latest
partitioning) may try to get some form of
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:59:09AM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
You're very welcome. My previous career was as a broadcast chief operator.
Knowing 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 73, 74, and 101 was part of that job (and a part I
do not miss). Radio (both amateur and professional) used to be, prior to the
. Rhetorical question...
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Lamar Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs
requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:59:09 -0500
Government at last!
bzzzt! wrong answer. :-)
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
CC: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Internet partitioning event regulations (was: RE: Sending vs
requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
Date
speaking about regulation, as a party providing an important piece of
infrastructure to the muggles in the matrix, we would expect some
gratitude from the various highly incompetent governators around the
world, instead of pissing off isps with more regulations, primarily pushed
by the various
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lamar Owen wrote:
There are three ways that I know of (feel free to add to this
list) to limit the events: 1.) As you mentioned, regulation (or a
government run and regulated backbone);
Which government?
First, let me
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United
States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
foreseeable future. That's all the hook the Feds need.
regulations (was: RE: Sending
vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent)
From: Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05/11/2008 10:47 pm
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
transit-free provider does at least some of its business
Are you saying that if any part of a network touches US soil
it can be regulated by the US govt over the entirety of the
network? For my part, this is not an attempt to change the
subject or divert the argument (red herring). It is a valid
question with operational impact.
That's not
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 02:46:27PM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That having been said, jurisdiction is a red herring. Every
transit-free provider does at least some of its business in the United
States. Economic reality compels them to continue to do so for the
To add to Michael's point, I will say that while US Laws cannot apply
to a company globally, it is perfectly reasonable for the US govt to
say If you wish to do business in this country, your operations
within the USA will follow these rules. This is how every other
industry is regulated. Just
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not how companies work. What you see as a single
company operating a single worldwide network, is actually
a web of companies with interlocking directorships and
share structures. In each country they will probably have
3 or 4 corporate entities.
Ok, I
Scott Weeks wrote:
Ok, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of one company in a
non-US country with some assets in the US (but most not) and being
held to US regulations network-wide. How would you stop the traffic
that was not following US regulations from hitting the US?
Ask ISPs
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scott Weeks wrote:
Ok, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of one company in a
non-US country with some assets in the US (but most not) and being
held to US regulations network-wide. How would you stop the traffic
that
Hi everyone,
The Mailing List Committee would like to remind everyone that postings
of a political nature are not considered operational. From the
acceptable use policy [1]:
6. Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are
prohibited.
Please refrain from follow up posts on
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:46:27 PST, Scott Weeks said:
Are you saying that if any part of a network touches US soil it can be
regulated by the US govt over the entirety of the network? For my part, this
is not an attempt to change the subject or divert the argument (red herring).
It is a valid
On Saturday 01 November 2008 20:00:46 Matthew Petach wrote:
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you're all too aware, for public companies, it's
very hard to get away with saying I was doing what was right for the
Internet, not what would make my business the most money at a
shareholder meeting, or
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Saturday 01 November 2008 20:00:46 Matthew Petach wrote:
Unfortunately, as I'm sure you're all too aware, for public companies, it's
very hard to get away with saying I was doing what was right for the
Internet, not what would make my business the most money at a
Lamar Owen wrote:
Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We know they can partition at any time.
We know that certain players have a history of causing this to happen
more then others.
What I haven't seen discussed in any great detail, is how to limit those
events.
There
At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Reading this accounting of Sprint's side of the story reveals
something that's not too surprising about Sprint. They've got serious
Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
...
Also in this document is a complaint that Cogent failed to disconnect.
Excuse me? This was a trial PEERING agreement. That implies one or a
series of point-to-point
-Original Message-
From: Paul Vixie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:49 AM
To: Daniel Senie
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint / Cogent dispute over?
Sprint's
document's wording is careful even if their TITLE is not.
FWIW, that's the TITLE
* Paul Vixie:
if cogent signed a trial peering contract which required payment if sprint
determined after three months that cogent did not qualify, then the court's
open questions are was the contract valid (and thus, does cogent owe sprint
money) and why isn't there some kind of common
At 06:54 PM 11/2/2008, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Since there is active litigation going on over this, it's also possible an
attorney said, hmmm... maybe you should wait until the
Real time look at the situation:
*i4.23.112.0/2466.216.0.20 0100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.216.0.1 0100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i 66.186.193.160100 0 1239 174 21889
i
* i
Randy Epstein wrote:
snip
Problem resolved?
From a single-homed Cogent site, I can get to sprint.net and fcc.gov, both
of which were unavailable after the de-peering.
Joe Johnson
Senior Systems Engineer
InnerWorkings, Inc.
Managed Print Promotional Solutions
600 West Chicago Avenue, Suite
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Check out the TITLE of the document. Me thinks it was a
rush job to post up the page and a bit of cut/paste was done. ;)
Tuc
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
no nda, eh?
randy
On 11/2/08, Daniel Roesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Best regards,
Daniel
Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier
1 status (and not pay
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Yes, I've read it. They need to fix their TITLE.
So while Cogent was depeered by Sprint, we contacted the CEO of Cogent on
Friday to try and arrange at least a temporary peering arrangement so that
bits flowed between our networks while they battled this
On Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 06:05:52PM -0600, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier
1 status (and not pay anyone for transit), I would think this would bode
worse for Sprint, since most of their transit customers could migrate to
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 6:05 PM, Brandon Galbraith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier
1 status (and not pay anyone for transit), I would think this would bode
worse for Sprint, since most of their transit customers could migrate
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On 11/2/08, Daniel Roesen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 04:40:20PM -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Problem resolved?
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Best regards,
Daniel
Seeing as Cogent is going to try tooth and nail to keep their new found Tier
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Seth Mattinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
[ snip ]
I guess, if you like being affected by Cogent's peering spats on a recurring
basis. Are you forgetting this is not the first time?
But according to Sprint, this isn't a peering spat.
Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Seth Mattinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
[ snip ]
I guess, if you like being affected by Cogent's peering spats on a recurring
basis. Are you forgetting this is not the first time?
But according to Sprint,
It just amazes me how some people seem to think this is the first time
Cogent has done this. It's like they want the horrid operational impact
it will have, cry that big bad provider X disconnected them, and people
will come to their defense.
Everyone loves an underdog story.
-Justin
On Nov 2, 2008, at 7:06 PM, Randy Epstein wrote:
https://www.sprint.net/cogent.php
Yes, I've read it. They need to fix their TITLE.
So while Cogent was depeered by Sprint, we contacted the CEO of
Cogent on
Friday to try and arrange at least a temporary peering arrangement
so that
bits
Patrick,
Aren't you in one of the 1300 on-net locations with Cogent? Doesn't
that give you a free FE?
:-)
Clearly you are joking here, but no, wasn't even offered the free FastE! :)
Randy
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But according to Sprint, this isn't a peering spat. This is a customer
who didn't pay their bill.
Probably useful to keep that in perspective.
-M
I would say it's a peering spat, because Cogent's press releases
stated
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 7:03 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Sprint is upset that Cogent is sending Sprint much more traffic than
Sprint is sending Cogent, how does Sprint sending Cogent even less traffic
(and making the ratio even worse) help Sprint? Why would Cogent care?
At 01:20 PM 10/31/2008, Randy Epstein wrote:
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys
published an article today on his blog regarding this subject:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.shtml
Just read through Todd's blog posting. Since
On Nov 1, 2008, at 11:37 AM, Daniel Senie wrote:
At 01:20 PM 10/31/2008, Randy Epstein wrote:
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys
published an article today on his blog regarding this subject:
Once upon a time, bas [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too..
You content hosters are sending us too much traffic, we want money to
upgrade ports and transport all that traffic Complete reverse logic
imho. It is always eyeball network
On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, bas [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too..
You content hosters are sending us too much traffic, we want money
to
upgrade ports and transport all that traffic Complete
Patrick,
To further your point about the dynamics of peering:
Not to sound overly altruistic, but nowhere in there did I see, it's
good for the Internet. If peering was less of a raw business
decision, the Internet would be a better place. In this case, if they
left it status quo and
True... however this depeering may have created more of a mess for
Sprint's marketing and their customers than they predicted, which has
a negative impact on business and would not be fun to explain at a
board meeting.
I guess it's hard for sweater vests to understand that until it smacks
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
I think it's a really odd reinterpretation of telephony concepts. In
telephony interconnects are typically settlement based, sender pays
receiver, in the settlement based world it seems to have gotten confused.
in the settlement FREE world it seems to have
: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent
bas wrote:
Why does everyone keep referring to traffic flows as sendng?
In this case it's not as if Cogent just randomly sends data to Sprint.
I think it's a really odd reinterpretation of telephony concepts. In
telephony interconnects
PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:46 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Sending vs requesting. Was: Re: Sprint / Cogent
On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, bas [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've heard eyeball networks refer to traffic flows as sending too..
You
them.
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying
tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint.
Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts:
The loudest has the final say,
The wanton win, the rash hold sway
Nick Hilliard wrote:
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a
bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if
you're Sprint.
Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts:
The loudest has the final say,
The wanton win, the rash
To: Nick Hilliard
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Sprint / Cogent
Nick Hilliard wrote:
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a
bullying tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if
you're Sprint.
Cogent reminds me of Ethan Coen's poem, which starts
This wasn't the first time Cogent offered something similar. They did the
same thing when Level3 depeered them.
And they'll do it to others in future peering spats. It's just a bullying
tactic - entertaining if you're on the sideline; irritating if you're Sprint.
It is certainly not
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On 10/30/08, Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
I wonder if judicious use of 6to4 and Teredo would allow an IPv6 (single
homed) user to access now missing parts of the Internet. Me thinks, yes.
On Oct 31, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
The most interesting part of the press release to me is:
In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent provides
service,
Cogent is offering every Sprint-Nextel wireline customer that is
unable to
connect to Cogent's customers a
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what
Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by
legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally
regulated peering or backbone network operating. I can see
Larry Sheldon wrote:
I think you are wrong to the extent that BOP will be under the
Department Of Fairness.
OOps.
My bad.
Ministry of Fairness.
if you're Sprint.
It seems to me, it's a rather empty offer though. How many Sprint
customers affected by the Sprint/Cogent depeering are actually in
facilities where they can get that free Cogent connection without paying
for expensive backhaul to reach Cogent and already have an ASN, BGP
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what
Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by
legislators, and the next thing we know we will have federally
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 9:52 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
Alex Rubenstein wrote:
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what
Sprint is doing, this will certainly lead to being noticed by
legislators, and
I would have to agree with Alex that if behavior like this doesn't stop that
the Fed would get involved(regardless of which party is in office). Is this
type of behavior called 'peer pressure', maybe there are care groups to help
these victims. Overall... it is one thing if Sprint and Cogent
On 31/10/2008 13:23, Joe Greco wrote:
It is certainly not just a bullying tactic. It may be A bullying
tactic, I won't even attempt to guess at the intent, but the tactic also
has the very real side effect of re-establishing full connectivity to
Sprint-connected sites that lose it.
you-re
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Alex Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do I say stupid?
Because, if companies like Sprint continue to do things like what Sprint is
doing, this will
certainly lead to being noticed by legislators, and the next thing we know we
will have federally
If you haven't already seen it, the great Todd Underwood of Renesys
published an article today on his blog regarding this subject:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.shtml
An aside, WV Fiber (AS19151) is currently partitioned from Cogent since
AS19151 only
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:20:23PM -0400, Randy Epstein wrote:
We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the mean time,
we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent.
Randy,
This brings up something I've always wondered. Why do we have
public
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:44 PM, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:20:23PM -0400, Randy Epstein wrote:
We hope Sprint and Cogent work out their differences, but in the
mean time,
we unfortunately will remain partitioned from Cogent.
Randy,
This brings up
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting :
[snip]
While I agree regulation is a possible outcome, I am always amazed at
the US gov't self-delusion that they can somehow regulate something
like the Internet.
Sent from my iPhone
On 31 okt 2008, at 19.05, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 10:33 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Maybe they can bring it up at the November 4th FCC open meeting :
[snip]
While I agree regulation is a possible outcome, I am always amazed
So why do SPs keep depeering Cogent?
Karma.
brandon
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include
a potential depeering.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include
a potential depeering.
Not a theory.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include
a potential depeering.
I am seeing issues Cogent - Sprint at Tyco Road, Tysons Corner VA.
arin_whois
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas. Theories include
a potential depeering.
I am seeing issues Cogent - Sprint at Tyco Road, Tysons Corner VA.
..
... ..
show ip bgp 206.159.101.241
% Network not in
I wonder if judicious use of 6to4 and Teredo would allow an IPv6 (single
homed) user to access now missing parts of the Internet. Me thinks, yes.
Deepak
Joe Greco wrote:
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent are experiencing communications
difficulties in the DC (and probably other) areas.
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
I wonder if judicious use of 6to4 and Teredo would allow an IPv6
(single homed) user to access now missing parts of the Internet. Me
thinks, yes.
So would some CGN (Carrier Grade Nat anyone) too.
Last I knew Cogent wasn't
On 10/30/08, Jared Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Deepak Jain wrote:
I wonder if judicious use of 6to4 and Teredo would allow an IPv6 (single
homed) user to access now missing parts of the Internet. Me thinks, yes.
So would some CGN (Carrier Grade Nat
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/sprint-nextel-severs-its-internet-connection-to-cogent-communications,603138.shtml
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
On 10/30/08, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Looks like maybe Sprint and Cogent
On 10/30/08, Paul Fleming [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/sprint-nextel-severs-its-internet-connection-to-cogent-communications,603138.shtml
The most interesting part of the press release to me is:
In the over 1300 on-net locations worldwide where Cogent
Hi,
We are seeing traffic getting dropped between our Cogent and Sprint
connect DC's. One of them is getting shutdown, so we just have a Cogent
link there :| Anyone seeing anything similar?
From: 91.102.40.18
traceroute to ops1.scc.rnmd.net (208.91.188.136), 30 hops max, 38 byte
packets
1
No apparent problems from Cogent in Northern Virginia :
tme$ traceroute ops1.scc.rnmd.net
traceroute to ops1.scc.rnmd.net (208.91.188.136), 64 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 dmz-mct2 (63.105.122.1) 0.754 ms 0.278 ms 0.485 ms
2 gi0-7.na21.b002176-1.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (38.99.206.153)
I'm seeing issues with traceroutes dying at Sprint in London, too.
From our site here in the UK (transit from NTL Telewest Business) I
can't reach cisco.com (but I know cisco.com is up - I can reach it
from elsewhere). Apparently customers of XS4ALL in the Netherlands
are seeing similar
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 06:02:37AM -0400, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
No apparent problems from Cogent in Northern Virginia :
Fine from Cogent in DC. Not so fine from Cogent in the Netherlands.
traceroute to ops1.scc.rnmd.net (208.91.188.136), 64 hops max, 40 byte
packets
1 38.105.91.2
FWIW, the Sprint routing issues we were seeing seem to have been
resolved now, AFAICS.
-roy
90 matches
Mail list logo
