On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
We've never been asked to POP that location.
what location? i gobbled and found the rocky mtn ix, but it seems to be
in coresite and defunct. there is some any2 exchange claiming to be
the second largest on the left coast,
In message alpine.deb.2.02.1407140734410.7...@uplift.swm.pp.se, Mikael Abraha
msson writes:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014, Brett Glass wrote:
My customers do not want me to creatively find ways to extract
additional money from them so as to cover expenses that Netflix should
be covering. Nor do
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote:
[...]
If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear
us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing Verizon, ISPs have
no choice but to react. One way we could do this -- and I'm strongly
Hi,
Here is a different tale from another small ISP. We quite like Netflix (and
HBO Nordic and all the other streaming services). We are a FTTH provider
and services like Netflix is why people are buying our service instead of
going with 4G LTE or ADSL. Without content we have nothing.
Yes we
Software is... herrr configurable.
Maybe Netflix could be convinced so their box had a switch from
complete catalog hosting / caching most used data. I get from this
discussion thread that small ISP feel having these box download the
whole catalog is more than what their customers (1000)
On Monday, July 14, 2014, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com
javascript:; wrote:
[...]
If Netflix tries to use its market power to harm ISPs, or to smear
us via nasty on-screen messages as it has been smearing
The box doesn't even download 10% of the whole catalog and churns less than
1% a day.
Obviously our demand curve is proprietary information, but I can assure you
that a lot of people - engineers, mathematicians, etc. have looked at and
improved the algorithm - but we are still constantly working
On 14 July 2014 13:44, Dave Temkin d...@temk.in wrote:
With multiple different encodes (driven by
differing DRM and device types) the odds of two people watching the exact
same thing are relatively low. The law of large numbers rules the game.
-Dave
What are the chances of performing
On Jul 14, 2014, at 8:58 AM, Daniel Ankers md1...@md1clv.com wrote:
On 14 July 2014 13:44, Dave Temkin d...@temk.in wrote:
With multiple different encodes (driven by
differing DRM and device types) the odds of two people watching the exact
same thing are relatively low. The law of large
On Jul 13, 2014, at 5:10 PM, Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.net wrote:
Hi
I can't be the only one watching world cup final on my roku espn app and
wonder how many TBps is ESPN pushing right now. It would be interesting to
see people who can share some network stats on their ISPs / IXPs. This
I have a chunk of code for a multi-vendor configuration push tool under the
Apache 2.0
license. Some of you may be interested.
https://code.google.com/p/ldpush/
This is an easily extensible framework on top of paramiko and pexpect in
Python for distributing configuration to (or running commands
Jay Ashworth wrote:
[ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's
behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert
post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper to unregulated FiOS
service leave a pretty bad taste in my mouth about VZN. ]
On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:46 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
7. In the absence of some reasonably balanced formal policies and regulations
about settlements - we're going to keep seeing this kind of stuff.
I think here is where many of us may disagree.
While the current
- Original Message -
From: Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net
(Yes, yes, I know, feeding the troll, etc.)
I'd like to note for the record, Bill, that I don't think this conversation
is in fact troll-feeding; I think that the accumulated weight of various
reasoned explanations as to why the
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
It's now called Any2 Denver:
Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street
address for it anywhere among their literature. :(
It's in a closet in the basement of a parking garage.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
And in some parts of the world bandwidth caps are the norm even for
terrestial lines. My DOCIS home line has a 120G (down + up on this
plan) limit then it is rate limited for the rest of the month. I
don't hit the 120G limit
- Original Message -
From: Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
Jay Ashworth wrote:
[ As you might imagine, this is a bit of a hobby horse for me; Verizon's
behavior about municipally owned fiber, and it's attempts to convert
post- Sandy customers in NYS from regulated copper
On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix
shell != internet.
You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a
machine attached to the
- Original Message -
From: Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net
You mean when you sat at a unix shell using a dumb terminal on a
machine attached to the internet in, say, 1986 you didn't think you
were on the internet?
An question with more nuance than most folk tend to realize:
We inquired about space power in the location that Brett mentions
(Level3) as well as the Coresite location. We were told there was no power
to be had in either building, hence we went for the third option. We have
transport options available back to both should we need it.
That said, that shows
Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I
also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just
about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may
be that small ISPs just can't compete (at least in the broader market) as
On Jul 12, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Sean Lazar kn...@toaster.net wrote:
I think we should paint the garden shed blue...
I will say I'm starting to see a larger number of devices in the marketplace
and locations where cellular data are making sense to replace POTS as OOB. The
problem I always have
On Jul 14, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
In my experience the bandwidth is typically the lowest part of the cost
equation.
Why transcode on 1k nodes when you can do it once and distribute it at lower
cost,
including in electricity to run the host CPU.
On 07/14/2014 09:42 AM, George Herbert wrote:
On Jul 14, 2014, at 6:03 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
In my experience the bandwidth is typically the lowest part of the cost
equation.
Why transcode on 1k nodes when you can do it once and distribute it at lower
cost,
including
On July 14, 2014 at 08:17 d...@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote:
On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be novel. unix
shell != internet.
You mean when you
On 14July2014Monday, at 9:52, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
On July 14, 2014 at 08:17 d...@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote:
On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would
If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b)
pay them
equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher
costs
per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than
receiving
nothing); and (c) work with ISPs to develop
Let's just dispel this, internet bandwidth is not a very significant cost for
access networks when compared to moving the data internally and maintaining the
last mile access. That being said, incremental usage can drive huge capex,
almost always in the very expensive last mile.
Most of our
Benson,
The difference, and its a large one, is that the large operators have no
interest in building in the less dense rural (and sometimes suburban)
areas. The smaller operators are often the only provider in the area and
unlike a bookstore if someone wants broadband in an area they can't
From: Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net
Thanks for adding this perspective, Barry. I think it's realistic. But I
also think it might miss an orthogonally connected issue - this isn't just
about bandwidth, but about commoditization, consolidation, size etc. It may
be that small ISPs just
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
[...] I already have a hard-on for VZN. :-)
I think Jay just won the TMI award for this thread...
;P
Matt
Good Afternoon,
Could a member of the Comcast DNS team contact me off-list at
archi...@comcast.netmailto:archi...@comcast.net?
Thank you,
Aaron
[cid:image002.jpg@01CF9F67.2CC35380] Aaron Childs Associate Director
[cid:image003.png@01CF5889.646358F0]
Infrastructure Services
Information
Mark,
BGP to RIB filtering (in any vendor implementation) is targeting RR which
is not in the forwarding path, so there¹s no forwarding towards any
destination filtered out from RIB.
Using it selectively on a forwarding node is error prone and in case of
incorrect configuration would result in
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Benson,
The difference, and its a large one, is that the large operators have no
interest in building in the less dense rural (and sometimes suburban)
areas. The smaller operators are often the only provider in the area
On 7/14/2014 9:09 AM, David Farber wrote:
Three years
On Jul 12, 2014, at 9:28 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
...
Also, although CSNet started with NSF money, it was required to become
self-funded within 5 years.
Hmmm...
I believe the point of confusion is the difference
On 7/14/2014 8:31 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Oh, *sure* Dave; write your own RFC just so you can refer to it in an
argument, 19 years later...
Well, after all, one does need to /earn/ the title of visionary...
However, you've provided nice closure to some childhood trauma:
I've no math skills,
As far as the LARIATs of this world go, wouldn't the optimum CDN solution
be satellite multicast caching?
--
---
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
On 7/13/2014 4:00 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
At 10:25 AM 7/13/2014, Charles Gucker wrote:
ALL ISPs are in the business of providing access to
the Internet.If you feel the need to rebel, then I suggest you
look at creative ways to increase revenue from your customers,
My customers do not
On 7/14/14 10:06 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
If Netflix were a good citizen, it would (a) let ISPs cache content; (b)
pay them
equitably for direct connections (smaller and more remote ISPs have higher
costs
per customer and should get MORE per account than Comcast, rather than
receiving
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of your
customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are single
uplink count here, yes.
You're a transit network, if the preponderance of your customers
I do agree that Netflix could offer caching services for smaller ISPs. But
that's a fight for another day, right now were focusing on whether Netflix
should pay for caching content, let's look at the cost comparison.
NOT CACHING with Netflix
- up to 8gbps of transit - what's that, several grand a
The choice for ISPs at larger scale is peering or caching, peering is cheaper
than caching as power is not as cheap as you think as well as the requirement
to have two of everything for failover if you do caches (ie can't have my
transits or more likely my backhaul blow up if the caches go
On 2014-07-10 21:40, Randy Bush wrote:
Trying to play both sides of the issue like that in the same
paragraph is just...dizzying.
if we filtered or otherwise prevented conjecturbation, jumping to
conclusions based on misuse of tools, hyperbole, misinformation, fud,
and downright lying, how
- Original Message -
From: Valdis Kletnieks valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
On Sun, 13 Jul 2014 22:17:33 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
You're a terminating, or 'eyeball', network if the preponderance of
your
customers are end-users, resi or biz. Small-biz networks that are
single
uplink
On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 16:25:34 -0400, Jay Ashworth said:
everything cause he's at right angles to it; the majority of ASs, I would
venture to speculate, veer sharply in one direction or the other -- even
if that's because a transit operator acquired an eyeball operator, or
vice versa, and those
On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
Brett's concerns seem to center around his
ability to be cost-competitive with the big
guys in his area...which implies there *are*
big guys in his area to have to compete with.
He 's running wireless links, from
On Jul 13, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
ahhh. so
not government regulated == wild west
lawless, big guys fighting with little guys in the middle == wild west
at this point, maybe john curran, who you may remember from nearnet,
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 1:42 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
wrote:
Brett's concerns seem to center around his
ability to be cost-competitive with the big
guys in his area...which implies there
Net Neutrality is really something that has me worried. I know there have to
be some ground rules, but I believe that government regulation of internet
interconnection and peering is a sure way to stagnate things. I have been in
the business a long time and remember how peering kind of
Steve, the key piece you're missing here is that the major broadband
providers are both
- near-monopolies in their access areas
- content providers
Not a situation where market forces can work all that well.
Miles Fidelman
Naslund, Steve wrote:
Net Neutrality is really something that has me
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com
wrote:
I think what will really drive everything is the market forces. You
either provide what your end user wants or you go out of business.
There's the problem. In my neck of the woods, there is one and only one
Matt,
While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP
should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators
around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for
connectivity to the rest of the Internet. In that case having a ASN is
nice, but
On 2014-07-14 09:48, Dave Temkin wrote:
We inquired about space power in the location that Brett mentions
(Level3) as well as the Coresite location. We were told there was no power
to be had in either building, hence we went for the third option. We have
transport options available back to both
At 02:42 PM 7/14/2014, George Herbert wrote:
On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
Brett's concerns seem to center around his
ability to be cost-competitive with the big
guys in his area...which implies there *are*
big guys in his area to have to
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
It's now called Any2 Denver:
Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street
address for it anywhere among their literature. :(
It's in a closet in the
On Jul 14, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
I assume that there's a leopard involved there somewhere?
It's noodling around in the disused lavatory with Moaning Myrtle.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Matt,
While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP
should have an ASN. Having said that, I work with multiple operators
around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for
On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
Oh, yes; totally agreed. It's a one-way relationship
in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive
ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does
having an ASN make you an ISP.
I think here is where
Hi Brett,
Why don't you simply ask me?
I can only speak for myself, but I thought that's kind of what I and others
were doing in replying to your messages, stating either support or
counterpoints, and asking questions (?). With this being a list and your (as
of recently) being a member of
At 07:47 PM 7/14/2014, Matthew Petach wrote:
And as long as they're happy with their single upstream
connectivity picture, more power to them.
You're assuming that the only way to be multi-homed is to have an
ASN. That's not correct.
ARIN's fees are discriminatory; a small ISP must pay a
So if Netflix was at 1850 Pearl, you wouldn't be able to peer with them
anyways cuz u have no ASN?
On Monday, July 14, 2014, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote:
At 07:47 PM 7/14/2014, Matthew Petach wrote:
And as long as they're happy with their single upstream
connectivity picture,
On Jul 14, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote:
...
You're assuming that the only way to be multi-homed is to have an ASN. That's
not correct.
ARIN's fees are discriminatory; a small ISP must pay a much higher percentage
of its revenues than a large one for IPs, ASNs,
Netflix's arrangement isn't peeering. (They call it that,
misleadingly, as a way of attempting to characterize the connection
as one that doesn't require money to change hands.)
ISPs peer to connect their mutual Internet customers. Netflix is
not an ISP, so it cannot be said to be peering.
So we are splitting hairs with what peering means? And I am sure Netflix
(or any other content / network / CDN provider) would be more than happy to
statically route to you? Doubtful.
Dude, put your big boy pants on, get an ASN, get some IP space, I am a
smaller ISP than you I am sure and I have
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 03:54:52PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
[...]
And then the bandwidth catches up and it's no big deal anymore.
I think I want this on a T-shirt.
At 09:40 PM 7/14/2014, John Curran wrote:
Myself, I'd call such fees to be uniform,
Ah, but they are not. Smaller providers pay more per IP address than larger
ones. And a much
larger share of their revenues as the base fee for being in the club to start
with.
but do recognize that such
On 7/15/2014 午後 12:51, Brett Glass wrote:
But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection
doesn't require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a
registered IP address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or
a leased line of any kind, in fact; it could just as
But regardless of the financial arrangements, such a connection doesn't
require an ASN or BGP. In fact, it doesn't even require a registered IP
address at either end! A simple Ethernet connection (or a leased line of any
kind, in fact; it could just as well be a virtual circuit) and a static
Mike:
An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very
awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant
babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still
doesn't deliver the security or robustness it should. Obtaining
this token number (and a bunch of IP
Thanks, I am so happy I now understand what an ASN and BGP are. I had no
clue!
Fuck it, we don't need BGP anywhere. Everyone go static!
Back to the binge drinking now as I started when I first started reading
this thread...
-Mike
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Brett Glass
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Brett Glass na...@brettglass.com wrote:
Perhaps it's best to think of it this way: I'm outsourcing some backbone
routing functions to my upstreams, which (generously) aren't charging me
anything extra to do it. In my opinion, that's a good business move.
Last
In message 201407150421.waa26...@mail.lariat.net, Brett Glass writes:
Mike:
An ASN is, literally, just a number. One that's used by a very
awkward and primitive routing system that requires constant
babysitting and tweaking and, after lo these many years, still
doesn't deliver the
Charles:
Not trying to seize the last word here, but did want to make one final
point. Just because I let each of my upstreams route for me does NOT
mean I am single-homed; only that I handle multi-homing differently.
There are commercial appliances available that do this, though I
happen to
On 15/07/14 10:39, Matt Palmer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
It's now called Any2 Denver:
Annoyingly enough, I can't find a street
address for it anywhere among their literature.
74 matches
Mail list logo
