On 2010-12-16, at 20:31, Steve Feldman wrote:
Please read the proposal (it's short!) and comment.
I think this is great.
Joe
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
Nanog-futures@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
- Original Message
From: Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca
On 2010-12-16, at 20:31, Steve Feldman wrote:
Please read the proposal (it's short!) and comment.
I think this is great.
+1
David Barak
___
Nanog-futures mailing list
I must disagree to some degree - there are plenty of folks who participate
in the mailing list but can't attend every meeting. These folks deserve a
chance to fully participate.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote:
I think that 200 may be a bit optimistic.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Weeks [mailto:sur...@mauigateway.com]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 12:04 PM
To: nanog-futures@nanog.org
Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] an alternate proposal for
NewNOG'smembership structure
--- bjohn...@drtel.com wrote:
From: Brian Johnson
On 2010-12-17, at 15:09, Brian Johnson wrote:
So if this person is working full-time, why should he/she get a
discount? If you say it's because he/she will have less money due to his
attendance in a school, this then becomes an argument on whether there
needs to be a charity for people who
-Original Message-
From: Joe Abley [mailto:jab...@hopcount.ca]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 2:50 PM
To: Brian Johnson
Cc: sur...@mauigateway.com; nanog-futures@nanog.org
Subject: Re: [Nanog-futures] an alternate proposal for
NewNOG'smembership structure
On 2010-12-17, at 15:09, Brian
i see your point. not sure how you are suggesting to deal with it. i
think there is basic physics behind only expecting 200 paying
members. my model is that
0 there are a dozen or so people who actually DO a lot for the
organization. they'll keep working and attending as long as
Would it help to think of it this way?
If you're a member, you don't have to worry about making the
early registration deadline -- you always get it.
or, there is no early registration discount. there is a late
registration penalty.
[ which is what it usually is, as late regs are more
George Bonser wrote:
What would any provider think if a city said sure, you can have access
to our residents' eyeballs. It will cost you $5 per subscriber per month.
Would Comcast or anyone go for that?
Dave Temkin wrote:
These are exactly what Franchise Agreements are for. Yes, cities
I have been trying to get NASA TV in Uruguay for a long time,
obviously to no avail. Even though it's probably free / very cheap.
I do believe that video over the Internet is about to change the cable
business in a very deep and possibly traumatic way. Even I only have 4
megs DSL at home and have
I just contributed to the thread called Cable and Geeks, and (I now
realize) included the word crappy.
Then, just like that, my Friday Moment of Fun just happened, like a
brilliant ball of light in the sky. I received a bounce from something
called r...@bellaliant.ca who rejected my email due to
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 07:14:01PM -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
That's rich, given the enormous quantity of spam sourced from Comcast's
network over the last decade. (And yes, it's ongoing: 162 unique sources
in the last hour noted at one small
Hi all,
I have a network with a lot of FastEthernet WAN connections (some
metro-ethernet), and using the OSPF as IGP. Today, the OSPF timers are the
defaults (hello 10s, dead 40s, SPF initial timer 5s, etc). When a link comes
down, the convergence time takes ~45s (ok, it's right).
There are a lot
If your routers support Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD), then I would
suggest using that. It doesn't actually modify the hello timers or any other
timers of any protocol; it merely acts as a supplementary protocol running
under (or alongside, I guess) the main routing protocol, and its
Hello,
I have a misconfigured postfix installation, I inherited. Does
anybody know of anyone who would consider reconfiguring/fixing it.
It seems that all mail presented to it appears to be from
localhost, when i reject unautorized destinations, it rejects all
mail.
That's not postfix as such - you probably have a proxy of some sort
(or a non transparent hardware NAT / port forwarder) in front
The postfix faq should fix that for you.
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:16 PM, b...@kruchas.com wrote:
Hello,
I have a misconfigured postfix installation, I
On 17/12/10 4:54 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I do believe that video over the Internet is about to change the cable
business in a very deep and possibly traumatic way.
+1
It's clear that this is a major driving factor in the Comcast/L3/Netflix
peering/transit issue. Comcast is
On 12/17/2010 2:51 AM, Steve Schultze wrote:
Negotiating
these terms with each municipality was the price that companies had to
pay for monopoly access to local markets.
I've seen it apply to CLEC access into a market as well; running as a
true CLEC and not just borrowing LEC lines.
Deals
On 12/17/2010 7:11 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
Notwithstanding the laugh and the fun, these are the times when I lose
a bit of faith in mankind. Why there are always people out there
pretending to know what it's best for you ?
The keep for 5 days often means that they have a
Since it is Friday, maybe some of peering experts have some time to
speculate what this new approach proposed by Comcast might be, as they
assert it would represent a significant shift of Internet infrastructure.
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=202121
What I think George's
comment
does not completely appreciate is that (ideally) cities are imposing
such requirements at the behest of and for the benefit of the (local)
public, whereas private constraints on local access are (by design)
motivated by profit.
I wasn't really talking about
George Bonser wrote:
What I think George's
comment
does not completely appreciate is that (ideally) cities are imposing
such requirements at the behest of and for the benefit of the (local)
public, whereas private constraints on local access are (by design)
motivated by profit.
I wasn't
They do already. It's called HBO, Showtime, HDNet Sports, etc. -
they
get charged per eyeball for those networks, and so they pass the
charge
on per eyeball to the customer.
Nothing is new here.
The municipality charges the cable company per HBO subscriber?
On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:46 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
George Bonser wrote:
What I think George's
comment
does not completely appreciate is that (ideally) cities are imposing
such requirements at the behest of and for the benefit of the (local)
public, whereas private constraints on local access
George Bonser wrote:
They do already. It's called HBO, Showtime, HDNet Sports, etc. -
they
get charged per eyeball for those networks, and so they pass the
charge
on per eyeball to the customer.
Nothing is new here.
The municipality charges the cable company per HBO
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016064625
On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Loránd Jakab wrote:
Since it is Friday, maybe some of peering experts have some time to
speculate what this new approach proposed by Comcast might be, as they
assert it would represent a significant shift of Internet infrastructure.
On Dec 17, 2010, at 9:57 AM, Lor=E1nd Jakab wrote:
Since it is Friday, maybe some of peering experts have some time to
speculate what this new approach proposed by Comcast might be, as they
assert it would represent a significant shift of Internet =
infrastructure.
=20
On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:23 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
How effective have variations on hot potato routing been, historically?
I seem to recall Cogent made lots of noises early on about how they
could do hot potato routing to encourage peering, but over the years
that didn't seem to pan out that
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Benson Schliesser
bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but my guess: I suspect the
proposal was along the lines of longest-path / best-exit routing by Level(3).
In other words, if L(3) carries the traffic (most of the
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 11:15:14AM -0600, Benson Schliesser wrote:
I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but my guess: I suspect
the proposal was along the lines of longest-path / best-exit routing
by Level(3). In other words, if L(3) carries the traffic (most of the
way) to the
Level3 must think that their business
would be better off with regulatory oversight of peering, or they
would not have taken this action. Comcast should realize that, of the
three potential motives for their recent actions I have previously
outlined, #1 and #3 are not just highly unlikely,
On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
... Level3 must think that their business
would be better off with regulatory oversight of peering, or they
would not have taken this action.
And they might be correct in thinking that, if we assume the peering ecosystem
is changing i.e.
Original Message -
From: JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com
On 17/12/10 4:54 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I do believe that video over the Internet is about to change the
cable business in a very deep and possibly traumatic way.
+1
It's clear that this is a major driving
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Jay Ashworth wrote:
The more I look at this, the more it looks like pharmaceuticals bought
from Canada are cheaper than ones purchased in America -- and they will be
*just as long* as only a minority of Americans buy them there. As soon as
*everyone* in America is buying
On Friday, December 17, 2010 12:51:02 pm George Bonser wrote:
What if instead of the end users paying for Internet service, the content
providers did.
I've been following these threads with some interest, and even replying in a
couple of places, but now it hits me that a sea change has
On Friday, December 17, 2010 01:27:44 pm Jon Lewis wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, Jay Ashworth wrote:
and the cable
networks themselves will have *no* way to collect revenue;
The people I see this being a problem for are
HBO/Showtime/Stars etc.
HBO, et al == the cable networks themselves.
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, George Bonser wrote:
What if instead of the end users paying for Internet service, the
content providers did. Sort of like broadcast TV where the broadcasters
Um.
I'm a content provider.
I pay a -lot- for internet service already. That's how my bits and bytes
arrive
Jay Ashworth wrote:
individual subscriber pushed the complexity up, in much the same way
that flat rate telecom services are popular equally because customers
prefer them, and because the *cost of keeping track* becomes delta.
Can someone then please explain me why the hell in many other
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Richard A Steenbergen
r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
advertising MEDs, or by sending inconsistent routes. The fact that the
existing Level3/Comcast routing DOESN'T make Level 3 haul all of the
bits to the best exit mean it's highly likely that Comcast agreeing to
On Dec 17, 2010, at 1:59 PM, david raistrick wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010, George Bonser wrote:
What if instead of the end users paying for Internet service, the content
providers did. Sort of like broadcast TV where the broadcasters
Um.
I'm a content provider.
I pay a -lot- for
I apologize in advance if this information is uninteresting. Since
there was talk about Comcast I thought I might share what I have been
looking at for the last couple weeks with how I see Comcast route
announcements from my network.
On November 22nd (early morning US/Pacific time) we noticed a
This is part of normal cleaning up of more-specifics (lessening our routing
table footprint).
Apologies for any downstream effects.
Please feel free to contact me if there’s a problem you’re seeing and need
help with.
Thanks,
Tony
(speaking on behalf of AS7922)
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:07
On Dec 17, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Benson Schliesser
bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
I have no direct knowledge of the situation, but my guess: I suspect the
proposal was along the lines of longest-path / best-exit routing by
Level(3). In
With the holiday freezes approaching, it might be worth making sure that the
recently allocated /8s are not in your bogon list
23/8
100/8
5/8
37/8
Just sayin'
BGP Update Report
Interval: 09-Dec-10 -to- 16-Dec-10 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS17974 48255 2.9% 54.5 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT
Telekomunikasi Indonesia
2 - AS8452
This report has been generated at Fri Dec 17 21:11:44 2010 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
A little off topic but anyone have any recommendations for vendors selling
used voip handsets, especially Polycom? Looking for some IP335 or better.
There are only a couple used gear resellers I trust and none seem to carry
Polycom, only Cisco and even those only seem to have low end handsets.
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:40:56 -0500
Tony Tauber ttau...@1-4-5.net wrote:
This is part of normal cleaning up of more-specifics (lessening our routing
table footprint).
Apologies for any downstream effects.
Please feel free to contact me if there’s a problem you’re seeing and need
help
Also the 105/8 which was recently allocated to AfriNIC.
-manish
On Dec 17, 2010, at 5:01 PM, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 16:06:45 -0500
From: John Payne j...@sackheads.org
Subject: Bogons
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Message-ID:
On 17/12/2010 22:51, mkarir wrote:
Also the 105/8 which was recently allocated to AfriNIC.
all things considered, it's almost time to declare the bogons list dead.
Unless there are active updates installed, any new filtering should take
place on the basis of the smaller martians list.
Nick
This is entirely off topic, except that this is the audience who will know
off hand.
Now that 2TB costs $100, has anyone solicited Google for a copy of the
Historical Usenet Archives that were assembled by they and Dejanews,
such that this history lives in someplace... less commercial? Like
the
On 12/17/2010 12:45 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
But content providers already pay more for their 'service' than the typical
asymmetric-towards-the-customer bandwidth user does.
Agreed, though I think they pay less than most eyeball networks pay (the
ISP, not the user), depending on where they
A simplified explanation of the situation between Level 3 and Comcast,
from the perspective of a Comcast customer who is asking for the same
thing Comcast is asking for. :)
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8124137/
--
Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
On 12/17/2010 6:38 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
A simplified explanation of the situation between Level 3 and Comcast,
from the perspective of a Comcast customer who is asking for the same
thing Comcast is asking for. :)
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8124137/
lol, now that's the way to
http://fcc.gov/
NOTICE: The FCC website and related electronic filing systems and documents
(except for NORS) will be unavailable beginning 6:00 p.m. (EST) Friday,
December 17 through 6:00 a.m. (EST) Monday, December 20 for scheduled
maintenance.
:(
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Steve
On 17/12/2010, at 1:17 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Original Message -
From: JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com
On 17/12/10 4:54 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I do believe that video over the Internet is about to change the
cable business in a very deep and
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/comcasts-responds-to-level-3s-fcc-filing.html
On Dec 17, 2010, at 10:25 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
http://fcc.gov/
NOTICE: The FCC website and related electronic filing systems and documents
(except for NORS) will be unavailable beginning 6:00 p.m. (EST) Friday,
On 12/18/2010 12:38 AM, Steve Schultze wrote:
http://blog.comcast.com/2010/12/comcasts-responds-to-level-3s-fcc-filing.html
I very much doubt whether my comment on the blog will survive their
moderation process, so here it is:
===
I am a Comcast residential HSI customer, and have many clients
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 01:07:15AM -0500, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Note that Comcast has never said that the Level3/Netflix issue is
about users exceeding their allotted bandwidth (currently at about
250GB/month for residential); presumably, were a Comcast user to use
249GB of bandwidth
61 matches
Mail list logo
