Hi,
Patrick wrote:
25-04-14500177 282878
I think congratulations are still in order, but frankly,
I am less impressed with getting to 500 than 150.
[...]
Anyway, congratulations everyone.
now aggregate it back down again, please. :-)
(If only)
Andy
On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 9:57 PM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a quote I made in the other thread around the same time you were
sending this:
I also think the practice of paying an intermediary ISP a per Mbps rate in
order to get to a last mile ISP over a settlement free
On 14-04-25 00:57, Larry Sheldon wrote:
In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that
existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
Egg of Chicken question. Did regulation arise because of marker failure
(monopoly, duopoly), did did regulation create
On 14-04-27 02:23, Rick Astley wrote:
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade subscriber lines but if that
point of congestion is the links between Netflix and Comcast then Netflix
would be on the hook to ensure they have enough capacity to Comcast to get
the data at least gets TO the
On 14-04-27 02:58, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
Which I don't believe was a problem? Again, outside looking in, but the
appearances seemed to indicate that Comcast was refusing to upgrade
capacity/ports, whereas I didn't see anything indicating that Netflix was
doing the same. So:
Funny how
So L3 and earlier, cogent peer settlement free with Comcast and Netflix
maxes out these peerings while they're there. What then?
On 28-Apr-2014 3:02 pm, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
wrote:
On 14-04-27 02:23, Rick Astley wrote:
Sort of yes, it's Comcasts problem to upgrade
$ContentProvider pays for transit sufficient to handle the traffic
that their customers request. $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for
internet access, i.e. to deliver the content that they request, e.g.
from $ContentProvider. That covers both directions here
But isn't the whole picture,
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:
Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're
deliberately
billing two customers for the same byte
Where your statement is short sighted I already explained partly in saying
its too difficult to decide who gets a free ride and
I can has test fore able two post too this list ??
Haha ymmd really ;-)
On 27 April 2014 18:37, jamie rishaw j...@arpa.com wrote:
I can has test fore able two post too this list ??
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Bryan Socha br...@digitalocean.com
wrote:
Whats the big
Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers.
They're not - but that can (and IMHO should) be
For large ISPs, Netflix provides caching appliances that can be inside
their network, so it is not a question of transit costs. It has
everything to do with a company that is heavily involved in TV, and
which controls the ISP market is such a large areas of USA wanting to
replace lost TV
Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers
continue with their crappy last mile
* jna...@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you
passed a law that says all content providers big and small must
On Apr 28, 2014 7:37 AM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org
wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Rick Astley wrote:
Double-billing Rick. It's just that simple. Paid peering means you're
deliberately
billing two customers for the same byte
Where your statement is short sighted I already
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
* jna...@gmail.com (Rick Astley) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 05:08 CEST]:
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
I hate to ask via this route...
Could someone from altdb.net please contact me off list?
Thanks,
-Mike
--
Michael T. Voity
Network Engineer
University of Vermont
MSOs run expansive IP networks today, including national dark fiber DWDM
networks. They all have way more people with IP expertise than they do RF
expertise. Even modern STBs use IP for many functions since they require
2-way communication, the last hold-out is your traditional TV delivery.
Even
On 4/27/2014 9:57 AM, Rick Astley wrote:
I wish you would expand on that to help me understand where you are coming
from but what I pay my ISP for is simply a pipe, I don't know how it would
make sense logically to assume that every entity I communicate with on the
Internet must be able to
On 4/28/14, 9:23 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com wrote:
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
http://www.comcast.com/peering
Applicant must maintain a traffic scale between its network and
Comcast that
* ops.li...@gmail.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian) [Mon 28 Apr 2014, 15:27 CEST]:
Comcast sells wholesale transit -
http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
How is
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 07:08:55 -0700, TGLASSEY said:
1) The pipe issue is that of the last mile providers and not
Netflix. The issue is the failure of the IETF to put controls in place
which address this.
It's totally unclear to me that the IETF is the one who failed to put
controls in
On 4/28/2014 9:18 AM, Phil Bedard wrote:
People seem to forget what Comcast is doing is nothing new. People have
been paying for unbalanced peering for as long as peering has been around.
It's a little different because Netflix doesn't have an end network
customer to bill to recoup those
On 04/27/2014 03:15 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
But this isn't talking about transit; this is about Comcast as an edge
network in this context and Netflix as a content provider sending to
Comcast users the traffic that they
If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 you
would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the same
reasons. Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it... It
is such a large amount of bandwidth these days it's not made up
If it was Netflix connected to say Cogent and Comcast connected to Level3 you
would have the same unbalanced ratios between Cogent/Level3 for the same
reasons. Level3 would likely be wanting compensation from Cogent for it...
...and that would be fine as at that point we're talking about
On 04/27/2014 06:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
links.
And the answer is: at whose instance
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
Comcast is the destination network for the traffic; they're not providing
transit services to Netflix. Comcast needs to accept the Netflix traffic
that Comcast's customers are requesting *somehow*; I don't see why they get
to charge Netflix for a
On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet providers were common
Barry Shein wrote:
On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I didn't think the Internet
Does anyone have a network engineering contact at Bouygues Telecom? It
appears they are unable to route to SunGard EU space.
James Baldwin
I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of,
in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also
controlling last-mile services.
What exists is rife with conflict of interest and unfair market
power. Particularly in that wire-plants are generally protected
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it
as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS episodes,
by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the
businessman in me (hey, gotta make a living,
On 04/28/2014 02:23 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it
as getting a piece of the action
However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for
video. In addition, they may be
Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it
as getting a piece of the action. (One of my favorite ST:TOS
episodes, by the way). The network op in me thinks double-dipping;
the businessman in me (hey, gotta
Barry Shein wrote:
I think the problem is simply a lack of competition and the rise of,
in effect, vertical trusts. That is, content providers also
controlling last-mile services.
What exists is rife with conflict of interest and unfair market
power. Particularly in that wire-plants are
The network op in me thinks double-dipping; the businessman
in me (hey, gotta make a living, no?) thinks I need to get a piece of
that profit, since that profit cannot be made without my last-mile
network, and I'm willing to 'leverage' that if need be.
...which turns the eyeball network
On 14-04-28 09:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Comcast sells wholesale transit -
http://www.comcast.com/dedicatedinternet/?SCRedirect=true
And it has a settlement free peering policy - with a stated
requirement that traffic exchanged be symmetrical.
Analysing the effects of vertical
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Kristopher Doyen
kristopher.do...@gmail.com wrote:
When last mile ISPs no longer have pressure or over-sight to maintain a
business model that puts user's needs first, because a happy user is a
returning user, you now have an entity who will do anything for a
On Apr 28, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
now aggregate it back down again, please. :-)
I'm in the middle of a physical move. I promise I'll take the 3 deagg'd /24s
out as soon as I can.
--Chris
On 4/28/2014 12:32 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 larryshel...@cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote:
On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they
should lose common carrier protections.
I
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Apr 28, 2014, at 19:41, Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com wrote:
On Apr 28, 2014, at 2:27 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
now aggregate it back down again, please. :-)
I'm in the middle of a physical move. I promise I'll take
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:59:43 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
On Apr 28, 2014, at 19:41, Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com wrote:
I'm in the middle of a physical move. I promise I'll take the 3 deagg'd
/24s out as soon as I can.
Do not laugh. If everyone who had 3 de-agg'ed prefixes fixed
(accidentally sent this to nanog-request earlier, sorry if there is a double
post)
We are an enterprise and we do not yet have a sophisticated service-provider
model yet for billing, capacity-management, or infrastructure consumption. We
have a few vBlocks that we consume internally for
On Apr 28, 2014, at 3:18 PM, Cliff Bowles cliff.bow...@apollo.edu wrote:
Or do ISPs put some level of security between their tenants and the internet
to prevent this? I've been told that the majority do not have any intelligent
filtering beyond bogon-lists.
Flow telemetry
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:39 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2014 21:59:43 -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore said:
On Apr 28, 2014, at 19:41, Chris Boyd cb...@gizmopartners.com wrote:
I'm in the middle of a physical move. I promise I'll take the 3
deagg'd
/24s out as soon
44 matches
Mail list logo
