No matter what, Comcast is the loser. If subscribers can't access
content they will be calling Comcast customer service. Only a small
fraction of those subscribers will have any clue who L3 is or why
that's important and even fewer will be understanding of Comcast's
position. They're not in the
Ben Butler wrote:
Same hymn sheet, if they pay enough the cost averaging model works again and we don't have to worry about latency
critical or
transfer volume. The problem is that they wont pay for it.
I became interested in these guys: http://www.plus.net/?home=hometop in 2008
because
It's a popular concept that competition will resolve NN concerns. A couple
of weeks back I taped Barbara Van Schewick expounding on her theme that
blocking, discrimination, and/or access charges, ARE acceptable if at the
users - rather than provider's - discretion.
* Seth Mattinen:
On 11/29/2010 14:49, Aaron Wendel wrote:
A customer pays them for access to the Internet. If that access demands
more infrastructure then Comcast needs to build out the infrastructure and
pass on the costs to the customers demanding it.
But then Comcast might have to
On 30/11/2010, at 6:17 PM, Kevin Blackham wrote:
On Nov 29, 2010, at 15:57, William Warren
hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote:
I think Karl Denninger has this one called right:
http://market-ticker.org/post=173522
I don't think so. Let's do a little math exercise:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Joly MacFie wrote:
Afterwards, I asked her about the effect of competition. She remarked
that, according to her research, countries with competition, such as the
Euro unbundling regimes like the UK, actually had a much higher
likelihood of such network management
aka the Australian NBN model ?
Or taking the Allied Fiber 'real-estate' model to the edge. It's not beyond
possibility that some US muni's may go for it.
j
Recipe for success is to have a neutral entity whose business idea is to
rent out fiber to anyone who wants to rent it, and who goes all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp
I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy
It may have something to do with that Level3 is now hosting all the
streaming content for Netflixs.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Donnelly [mailto:tad1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:52 PM
To: Rettke, Brian; Patrick W. Gilmore; NANOG list; Guerra, Ruben
On the subject of marketing for years the wireless operators sold unlimited
data plans. Now they are coming back and saying well unlimited is really 5 GB.
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 11:17 PM
To: Ben Butler
Cc:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 21:34, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
If you're looking for serious feedback:
We are.
3. I've never had a problem calling it field, I think that 5952 is a
perfectly good normative ref for that, and I don't understand what the
fuss is about. :)
I seem to
Re,
meh...@akcin.net (Mehmet Akcin) wrote:
But all the traffic on every Equinix and PAIX switch combined, is still
lower than the traffic on any one of the three large exchanges in Europe.
It really is all about the PNIs.
I wonder how is NOTA like, do they ever make the traffic info
And before we get too much into HD vs Codecs vs 720P vs 1080p vs
true HD marketing BS, I capture out of my camera's HDMI port at
3Gbit/s and I am not running 4:4:4 color. So what is HD and what it
the allowable compression for it still to be considered as such.
Whatever marketing feel like,
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus Global Center to agree to
pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the rest is
history.
Patrick -
Your summary is incorrect. To be perfectly clear on the history: In
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote:
Okay's let's say L3 gives in to Comcast and pays them. L3 then turns around
and charges us (providers) more to cover the additional money they have to
pay Comcast now.
Why don't you, and other providers, demand L3 give you the same
settlement-free
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
I will be the first to advocate the government use minimal to no
regulation where there is active competition and consumer choice,
and thus folks can vote with their dollars.
Broadband in the US is not in that boat. Too
Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally
near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a
local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with
a 2:1 screw:nuts ratio.
-cjp
Any Greybar should have them, but they're not going to do you any favors on
price.
-wil
On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote:
Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally
near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a
local supply here,
On 11/30/2010 07:59 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Or why don't you build a network to places that Comcast peers at; and
bypass L3 completely and negotiate a peering relationship directly
with Comcast?
We tried Comcast wouldn't peer with us because they considered us a
compeititor.
Seriously
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote:
Or why don't you build a network to places that Comcast peers at; and
bypass L3 completely and negotiate a peering relationship directly with
Comcast?
We tried Comcast wouldn't peer with us because they considered us a
compeititor.
Seriously this has
On Nov 30, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
And before we get too much into HD vs Codecs vs 720P vs 1080p vs
true HD marketing BS, I capture out of my camera's HDMI port at
3Gbit/s and I am not running 4:4:4 color. So what is HD and what it
the allowable compression for it still
replies inline
On 11/30/2010 12:09 AM, Andrew Koch wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrinb...@herrin.us wrote:
So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp
electrical service at my house. But I don't pay for a 200 amp service,
I pay for kilowatt-hours of
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:28 PM, David Hiers hie...@gmail.com wrote:
This little border skirmish is a good reminder that we build and
operate one of the key battlegrounds on which all current and future
wars are, and will be, fought.
Too much SciFi, nothing better and more effective than a
On 11/30/2010 6:33 AM, Jeff Young wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 30/11/2010, at 9:28 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement-concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp
I understand
On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote:
Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally
near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a
local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with
a 2:1 screw:nuts ratio.
-cjp
Graybar is not
On Nov 30, 2010, at 4:46 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Nov 29, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
BTW: The attempt failed. Dave @ Above got Exodus Global Center to agree
to pull a Cogent if GTEi pulled a Level 3. GTEi blinked, and the rest is
history.
Patrick -
Your summary
Not if it's traffic is re-routed/compromised. ;)
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
Too much SciFi, nothing better and more effective than a fully loaded
also if it can fly remotely operated.
-J
--
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
William,
Why be concerned? Operators have pulled this trick several times over
the course of history and each time the good guys prevail. It proves
that the system works.
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:06 AM, William Warren
hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote:
On 11/30/2010 6:33
://www.ibtimes.com/articles/86782/20101130/telstra-nbn-deal-set-to-reshape-australia-s-telecommunication-industry.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/national/parliament-approves-telstra-split-20101129-18dy0.html
The summary is that Australian Parliament just voted to break up
Telstra (which is partially state owned
On 11/30/2010 9:06 AM, William Warren wrote:
This whole mess concerns me about the future of the internet. If the
traffic can't get to the clients by routing around a depeering..is the
internet really working as designed? I don't think so. Peering has
become the gateway to the ultimate in
Novator (Canadian web-shopping company, used to be FTD's big partner) is
responsible for shop.starwars.com so I think all that's happened here is
Novator forgot to renew a domain.
domainsatcost.ca is rebel.com is Momentous.ca and they own
yourdomainhasexpired.com.
-Rich
On 22 Nov 10, at
In a message written on Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:47:10PM -0500, Patrick W.
Gilmore wrote:
Ratios were an excuse used by GTEi to try and force Exodus, Above.Net, and
Global Center to pay for peering back in 1998. It had a valid, technical
reason behind it - the cost of bit-miles.[*]
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 11/29/10 3:59 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
But this isn't a technology problem, or a ratio problem.
Comcast's blog specifically mentions unbalanced ratios as an issue.
They're an eyes network. What do they expect? Look at typical traffic
profiles
On Nov 28, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
anyone know why https://www.wikileaks.org/ is not reachable? nations
state level censors trying to close the barn door after the horse has
left?
randy
That was two days ago - as of this morning, there is apparently another
From
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:47 AM, William Warren
hescomins...@emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com wrote:
On 11/30/2010 12:09 AM, Andrew Koch wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrinb...@herrin.us wrote:
So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp
electrical
On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote:
My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether.
Its 5GB, trust me on that one. Former roommate worked for Verizon
Wireless as a high level blackberry tech in the local call center - they
quietly added the cap to all plans
I just wanted to stop and say I'm glad we can have this kind of debate :)
I think we need to start with education at every level. Watching 1-2 movies a
day, some additional streaming content, using the VoIP phone whenever, and
surfing the web is normal behavior. Running occasional P2P is normal
On Nov 30, 2010, at 6:54 AM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
On the subject of marketing for years the wireless operators sold unlimited
data plans. Now they are coming back and saying well unlimited is really 5
GB.
the biggest problem I have with these is the fact that a single software update
MetroPCS also offers unlimited EVDO.
Owen
On Nov 30, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote:
My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether.
Its 5GB, trust me on that one. Former roommate worked for Verizon Wireless
as a
On 11/30/2010 10:23 AM, Rettke, Brian wrote:
I think we need to start with education at every level. Watching 1-2
movies a day, some additional streaming content, using the VoIP phone
whenever, and surfing the web is normal behavior. Running occasional
P2P is normal behavior.
What are you
On Nov 30, 2010, at 11:47 AM, George Bonser wrote:
Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's
clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD
business and so they are strong arming other providers to affect
Netflix's business model. But as
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
On Nov 30, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote:
Anyone know where I can buy cage nuts and rack screws locally
near SAVVIS DC3 in Sterling, VA? They don't seem to have a
local supply here, and somehow the racks we bought came with
a 2:1
I used to have an unlimited EVDO service from Sprint, when they changed to
5GB I called to complain and was advised that my plan was grandfathered, my
new limit 5GB but with $0/GB overage.
Jeff
On Nov 30, 2010 11:24 AM, Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com wrote:
On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin
I am assist a small cable system that is using cogeco as their backbone
provider, and am running into some issues. I was wondering if anyone else has
had sucess working with them. My issues are the following.
1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24
2. I was told they
1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24 2. I was told
they do not do static routes when I asked if I could have my /24 circuit
converted to a /30 and have the remaining subnets routed to my end of /30.
Their suggested meathod is to put a router running proxy arp in
Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know
what is said publically rarely matches the reality behind the scenes.
In this particular case my spidy sense tells me there is absolutely
something interesting behind the scenes, but the question is what.
I'd never really paid
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:02:07PM +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
1. They absolutly refuse to delagate rDNS authority for a /24 2. I was
told
they do not do static routes when I asked if I could have my /24 circuit
converted to a /30 and have the remaining subnets routed to my end of
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com wrote:
On 11/30/10 9:07 AM, William Herrin wrote:
My Verizon Blackberry plan says unlimited data. Including the tether.
Its 5GB, trust me on that one.
I checked it out when I updated my credit card number online recently.
The
-- Original Message ---
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
Sent: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 13:17:45 -0500
I checked it out when I updated my credit card number online
recently. The billing page has a place to describe a cap and overage
charges. It's listed as unlimited. Not saying
Maybe I am oversimplifying this a bit, but the way I see this situation is this:
1. L3 is carrying traffic for a popular service
2. Comcast customers want that service.
3. Comcast and L3 peer with each other (i.e. very little cost for either)
(So, Comcast is paying very little to get that
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Sean Donelan s...@donelan.com wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, Bret Clark wrote:
...
Seriously this has nothing to do with L3 but more with Netflix...it's
clear that the Netflix business model is eating into Comcast VoD business
and so they are strong arming other
Register today to get the early bird rate.
Looking forward to seeing you in Miami.
Dave
(for the NANOG PC)
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
nanog-annou...@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 00:29:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org
Anyone else seeing this or know the cause?
5: ash1-pr2-xe-2-3-0-0.us.twtelecom.net (66.192.244.214) 29.758ms
6: pos-3-11-0-0-cr01.ashburn.va.ibone.comcast.net (68.86.86.145) asymm 11
846.582ms
7:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:34 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
My take on this is that settlement free peering only remains free as
long as it is beneficial to both sides, i.e. equal amounts of traffic
exchanged. If it becomes
Does build it, and they will come now become a business liability?
Yes, a business should stake out appropriate agreements
in order to ensure relevant product delivery, but they also shouldn't be
punished (for lack of a better word) for not foreseeing the success of
said product-
perhaps a share
A follow on to my post, because it's got me thinking about Network
Neutrality. What we have is old world scenarios not matching the
new world order. Let's do some diagrams.
The way things used to be, scenario #1:
Segment ASegment B Segment C Segment D
|
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:46:27AM -0800, Matthew Petach
wrote:
Clearly, to balance out the traffic ratios, content providers should set their
server MTUs to 64 bytes. That way, small HTTP request packets will be
nicely balanced out by small HTTP reply packets. If the
Great detective work and it feels very probable that you are largely
correct. The pieces together quite nicely. Love the L3 LG part.
I dont think they were out to get Comcast specifically but the whole
internet, L3 is a large global player and sell lots of transit bits.
More bits to sell and
96 days left Martin? Don't think we'll make it past January?
--bill
Begin forwarded message:
From: Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org
Date: November 30, 2010 12:27:11 PST
To: Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org
Subject: [janog:10168] Four additional /8s allocated in November 2010
Reply-To:
GigaOm has begin tracking this story:
http://gigaom.com/2010/11/30/a-play-by-play-on-the-comcast-and-level-3-spat
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
Having been involved with a few peering spats in the past I know
what is said publically rarely matches the
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 10:18:18PM -0500, Andrew Kirch said:
Lets be clear here, I'm not encouraging DDoS, I'm enjoying the
possibility that someone will hopefully put a jacketed hollowpoint in
Assange.
Not to promote equine defibrilation, but just so you all feel better -
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
We have seen the same thing with other carriers. As far as I can see,
Comcast is congested, at least at Equinix in San Jose. Since this is
all over private connections (at least in our case), the fabric is not
an issue.
Maybe
I would have said OK, and then we'll go ahead and renew your contract
with us at current price + $X/Mbps.
Jeff
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
wrote:
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:45:53AM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
We have seen the same thing with other
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 08:12:23PM -0600, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
The part that I find most interesting about this current debacle is how
Comcast has managed to convince people that this is a peering dispute,
when in reality Comcast and Level3 have never been peers
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 2:41 PM, bill manning bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
96 days left Martin? Don't think we'll make it past January?
--bill
I doubt whether or not there are more than 60 days left for the IANA pool.
The number of addresses that remain for normal allocation happens to
be identical
logmein/hamachi
Actually pretty useful for those who can't (won't) purchase gear to do it.
I use it..
Warren Bailey | RF Engineer
General Communication, Inc.
2550 Denali St. Suite 700
Anchorage, AK 99503
907.868.5911 desk
907.903.5410 mobile
907.947.7616 followme
http://www.gci.com
On
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 06:45:57PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Actually it appears to be Level 3 who fired the first PR salvo running
to the FCC, if the date stamps on the statements are right. So it's
really Level 3 framing as a net neutrality peering issue the fact that
Comcast balked at
While its pile on Comcast night, I'll add that that the Comcast peers with
Cablevision Lightpath are also a mess in New York, Ashburn and Chicago right
now. Have been for at least the last hour or two. According to Cablevision
we were not the first to report it and the feedback I have from them
In a message written on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 09:24:47PM -0600, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
I never said otherwise. The PR is pretty clear: Level 3 says that
Comcast, their TRANSIT CUSTOMER, demanded that Level 3 pay them because
of a ratio imbalance. Level 3, not wanting to cause massive
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010, David Meyer wrote:
Register today to get the early bird rate.
Looking forward to seeing you in Miami.
I just tried (to take advantage of the early-bird rate) and it looks like
the registration code is busted.
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Nov 29, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Andrew Koch wrote:
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 22:17, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
So you're saying: treat it like electrical service. I have a 200 amp
electrical service at my house. But I
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 07:53:25PM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I'm not privy to the deal, but I will point out as reported it makes no
sense, so there is something else going on here. This is where both
sids are hiding the real truth. I suspect it's one of two scenarios:
- Comcast
I'm seeing packetloss starting at
ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net(4.69.132.37) destined down to San
Jose (4.69.132.57).
10. ae-1-100.ebr1.Denver1.Level3.net 1.5%
11. ae-3-3.ebr2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.6%
12. ae-92-92.csw4.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9%
13. ae-4-99.edge2.SanJose1.Level3.net 3.9%
Is
On Nov 30, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I don't know about their connection to TWT, but Comcast has definitely
been running their transits congested. The most obvious one from recent
months is Tata, which appears to be massively congested for upwards of
12 hours a day
I'm seeing some packet loss out of one of my routers in San Diego, we peer
with L3.
ping 4.69.132.57 so gi3/8 repeat 1000 size 5000
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 1000, 5000-byte ICMP Echos to 4.69.132.57, timeout is 2 seconds:
Packet sent with a source address of x.y.d.z
75 matches
Mail list logo
