On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 06:32:31PM -0400, Steven King wrote:
Does anyone see any benefits to beginning a small deployment of IPv6 now
even if its just for internal usage?
It is almost lunacy to deploy IPv6 in a customer-facing sense (note
for
Joe Provo wrote:
A couple to add:
- failure scoping: issues on a remote network can be better isolated
from the rest of your traffic (or completely if it is the peer).
Related to this is ability to contact the right people more quickly.
If you've got a problem with/on someone's
Does anyone see any benefits to beginning a small deployment
of IPv6 now even if its just for internal usage?
According to http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/First_Steps_for_ISPs
you should deploy some IPv6 transition technology to make sure that
your network does not cause problems for the
On 30/10/08 07:10, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 06:32:31PM -0400, Steven King wrote:
Does anyone see any benefits to beginning a small deployment of IPv6 now
even if its just for internal usage?
It is almost lunacy to deploy
It is almost lunacy to deploy IPv6 in a customer-facing sense
(note for example Google's choice to put its on a
separate FQDN).
If you're going to use emotionally charged language then
don't shoot yourself in the foot by using such an
illogical and contrary example.
Google is a very
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Matthew Ford wrote:
Your stats (which are very interesting btw, thanks for doing the work)
suggest that the number of clients that would make use of the
record for a dual-stack service is about the same as the number of
clients that would fail in the event that both
Thanks - no I understand that...
We have multiple transit providers today and are already present on a
couple of smaller peering exchanges with an open peering policy... our
experience with them has been very positive.
The redundancy perspective is that you now have more paths to the same
AS -
HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP wrote:
as for peering agreements, just implement an open peering policy
(doesn't nessesarily have to take place over an ix, also applies to pieces
of ethernet running from your network to others).
those basically are contracts that force
On 30 Oct 2008, at 13:03, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis
MP wrote:
internet exchanges are not per-se redundant
Those networks who *choose* connect to peers via a single fabric, in a
single location, will suffer a similar fate to those networks who
single home to
Sure, but we're talking about settlement-free peering. He's only
expecting to be able to reach his peer's subnets and perhaps those of
his peer's customers. If he peers with ASx in two locations, he does
have redundant connections to ASx's tiny corner of the internet.
adam.
But if that AS
Paul Stewart wrote:
We have multiple transit providers today and are already present on a couple
of smaller peering exchanges with an open peering policy... our experience
with them has been very positive.
As an IX operator I'm glad to hear it :-)
The redundancy perspective is that you now
HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP wrote:
internet exchanges are not per-se redundant
they basically are a switch which actually, because of the many connected
parties, most of which do not have enough PAID transit to cover any
outages on it, causes more problems than they are good
:- HRH == HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP [EMAIL
PROTECTED] writes:
internet exchanges are not per-se redundant
depends on your concept of redundancy.
they basically are a switch which actually, because of the many
connected
parties, most of which do not
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 01:03:55PM +, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von
CyberBunker-Kamphuis MP wrote:
(the amsix with their many outages and connected parties that rely
primarliy on it's functionality is a prime example here)
internet exchanges usually are some sort of hobby computer club, you
On 30 Oct 2008, at 15:47, David W. Hankins wrote:
If someone can't reach the hypothetical A/ www.google.com RRset,
you've just increased your support costs. My network is slow.
Are you using IPv4 or IPv6? Netscape.
Do you think that industry should be working to some kind of well
In the same way that in the UK, appliance manufacturers have
been educating people about the analogue terrestrial TV
switchoff by 2012, do you think that we should be advocating
a 'internet PLUS day' some time in (date plucked from the air) 2014 ?
Actually, the Internet PLUS day should be
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:49 AM, Todd Underwood wrote:
so far there have been some good values articulated and there may be
more (reach, latency, diversity of path, diversity of capacity,
control, flexibility, options, price negotation) and some additional
costs have been mentioned (capex for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that technical people underestimate the impact that this
type of an event can provide. While we want to avoid being forced
into a flag-day switchover, that does not mean that a flag day is
all bad. We could have the Internet PLUS flag day in order to
raise
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, David W. Hankins wrote:
I don't know how to ask this question without sounding mean, but did the
graph spike out of zero, or did you start collecting two months ago?
It spiked out of zero as we put up our 6to4 and teredo relays approx two
months ago. I don't know where
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:55:01 -, Andy Davidson said:
In the same way that in the UK, appliance manufacturers have been
educating people about the analogue terrestrial TV switchoff by 2012,
Is your side of the pond any more ready than our side is for next Febuary's
drop-dead cutoff?
On Oct 30, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Paul Stewart wrote:
Thanks for playing devil's advocate... I am truly trying to cover
both
sides of the discussion - technically it's what we want for sure but
the
top of the food chain looks beyond just what a technical team wants to
do as I'm sure we're all
Absolutely... I can see us dropping at least one of the transit
providers over time - with current growth we might end up keeping all of
them to meet needs though. Just depends on how fast traffic moves from
transit to peering versus how quickly our overall requirements grow
(pretty dramatic
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
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit
for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not
peering. There are some small arguments to be made for latency and
'cheap/free' peering if
Brandon Galbraith wrote:
Not that I know of. We tried to get IPv6 transit from Cogent several months
ago (we already have IPv4 transit), and were told it's not available yet.
What a shame. It's extremely miserable, but Sprint has a 6to4 at least.
No clue what they have beyond that. It's been
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
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote:
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit
for cheaper than your COGS, you are better off buying transit and not
peering. There are some small arguments to
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote:
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you can get transit
for cheaper than your COGS, you
The point is if you are building out specifically to peer, the effort
is not worth it if you are not operating at scale,
^ probably
i can think of situations where there may be very low cost to build-out
to peer. but they are unusual.
and if you are operating at scale, you are not going
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:05 AM, vijay gill wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote:
This is probably going to be a somewhat unpopular opinion, mostly
because people cannot figure out their COGS. If you
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:05 AM, vijay gill wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 9:41 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 30, 2008, at 10:19 PM, vijay gill wrote:
This is probably going to be a somewhat
38 matches
Mail list logo
