When staying at Homestead a few years back, they would close my Internet
connection, because I was downloading movies via peer to peer. It took me
a while and escalating to a relatively competent network engineer to
figure it out: Mate, I don't have any p2p software installed, may be my
computer
Jason Baugher wrote:
No, as I said, I'm not trying to educate someone who don't want
to be educated.
You're not trying to educate anyone at all. You're just stomping
your foot and insisting that you're right rather than have a
meaningful discussion.
So far, I have shown several figures
The only time real-time per se matters is if you're playing the same content
on multiple screens and *synchronization* matters.
And there's the HFT where real-time really does matter :)
adam
I don't see a need for multicast to work in Internet scale, ever.
adam
-Original Message-
From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 6:02 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: The 100 Gbit/s problem in your network
On (2013-02-08 14:15 +), Aled Morris
Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
The problem here is that somehow someone at Hyatt decided that a
regular low-end asymmetrical ~10Mbps/~1Mbps fibre-optic connection
from SureWest could be shared (together with a lousy 1.5Mbps T1 from
T) between 151 rooms, when almost every single person staying
On (2013-02-11 11:58 +0100), Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
The only time real-time per se matters is if you're playing the same content
on multiple screens and *synchronization* matters.
And there's the HFT where real-time really does matter :)
I think most of HFT crowd are buying into low-latency
I don't see why, as an ISP, I should carry multiple, identical, payload
packets for the same content. I'm more than happy to replicate them closer
to my subscribers on behalf of the content publishers. How we do this is
the question, i.e. what form the multi-casting takes.
It would be nice if
On (2013-02-11 12:16 +), Aled Morris wrote:
I don't see why, as an ISP, I should carry multiple, identical, payload
packets for the same content. I'm more than happy to replicate them closer
to my subscribers on behalf of the content publishers. How we do this is
the question, i.e. what
On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 07:55:59PM -0800, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Dear NANOG@,
In light of the recent discussion titled, The 100 Gbit/s problem in
your network, I'd like to point out that smaller operators and
end-sites are currently very busy having and ignoring the 10 Mbit/s
problem
On Feb 10, 2013 8:35 AM, Dan Luedtke m...@danrl.de wrote:
Are you using the Netgear device for wireless, or is there a wireless
adapter/card/whatever in your linux box?
Netgear was the wireless/wired/ADSL from the provider. Workaround was to
make that an ADSL-Ethernet bridge and run PPPoE on
On 11/02/2013 12:16, Aled Morris wrote:
I don't see why, as an ISP, I should carry multiple, identical, payload
packets for the same content. I'm more than happy to replicate them closer
to my subscribers on behalf of the content publishers. How we do this is
the question, i.e. what form the
- Original Message -
From: Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 08:43:28PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Unless I'm very much mistaken, I believe that last Received before
the date
(combined with absence of the static IP of my mailserver) is
evidence of an
We used AudioCodes at my last gig - the MP202B, specifically. They were decent,
from what I remember. It's been several years since I've worked on them, so
don't take this as an endorsement. I'm just adding another possible vendor
name/product to the pool.
-Original Message-
From: John
On Saturday, February 09, 2013 1:34 PM, Benny Amorsen
mailto:benny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
They are not perfect, but they are pretty good.
Have you played around with the T.38 support on the SPA-1XX line?
Historically, it has been difficult to find a reasonably-priced, bare-bones (1
FXS,
On 2/11/2013 7:23 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2013-02-11 12:16 +), Aled Morris wrote:
I don't see why, as an ISP, I should carry multiple, identical, payload
packets for the same content. I'm more than happy to replicate them closer
to my subscribers on behalf of the content publishers. How
As another reference point, I really liked the sipura atas, they were my
personal favorite as far as the gear we used. I don't know how well that
translates to after the linksys takeover though, as I haven't done voice
gear in a few years.
-Blake
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Nathan
Nathan Anderson nath...@fsr.com writes:
Have you played around with the T.38 support on the SPA-1XX line?
Historically, it has been difficult to find a reasonably-priced,
bare-bones (1 FXS, no built-in router) ATA that also happens to do
T.38 well. PAP2T had no T.38 support at all.
T.38
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 08:39:08AM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Well, FWIW, I never use anyone's on-platform forwarding service to send
article URLs to *anywhere*, much less a mailing list, though curiously
I think I *did* put a URL about a Google KC article in a posting last
week. Don't
http://advanced-television.com/2013/02/11/eu-shuns-future-proof-broadband-says-ftth-council/#.URkStcZ9e0I.email
---
This message was sent by j...@baylink.com via http://addthis.com. Please note
that AddThis does not
2013/2/11 j...@baylink.com
http://advanced-television.com/2013/02/11/eu-shuns-future-proof-broadband-says-ftth-council/#.URkStcZ9e0I.email
---
This message was sent by j...@baylink.com via http://addthis.com. Please
note that AddThis does not verify email addresses.
To stop receiving
As another reference point, I really liked the sipura atas, they were my
personal favorite as far as the gear we used. I don't know how well that
translates to after the linksys takeover though, as I haven't done voice
gear in a few years.
Got a Sipura SPA-1001, can't get it to work, similar
Clearly, someone has decided to shoot at me specifically, since this
latest spam supposedly from me:
=
Received: from lpb01.clearspring.com ([206.165.250.240]
helo=lpb01-a.clearspring.local)
by sc1.nanog.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80 (FreeBSD))
(envelope-from em...@addthis.com) id
I'm looking for a KVM guest swap on the US eastern coast for a tertiary
DNS server. Must have a minimum of 1GB RAM, 4 CPUs, and be IPv6
capable. I am willing to swap the same here in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Thanks in advance!
On 2/11/13 9:32 AM, ML wrote:
On 2/11/2013 7:23 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2013-02-11 12:16 +), Aled Morris wrote:
I don't see why, as an ISP, I should carry multiple, identical, payload
packets for the same content. I'm more than happy to replicate them
closer
to my subscribers on behalf
Does anyone have experience in running fiber optic cable with
micro-trenching techniques in areas where there is no existing asphalt or
concrete roadway, just packed earth and rock? Environmental limitations do
not allow for constructing an aerial power pole alignment, or underground
ductbank. The
I would think that in such a deployment scenario, microtrenching might
not be the best bet.
Part of the appeal (IMO) of microtrenching in existing pavement is
that once filled, the pavement slab provides for some protection and
rigidity.
If making a small trench into packed dirt, you're much more
Seems like AS 58400
is announcing 118.0.0.0/8.
Seems like HE's bgp.he.net is getting it in their collected data
http://bgp.he.net/net/118.0.0.0/8#_bogon
Overall it's just being ignored everywhere but for some strange reason my
ISP in India picked less specific announcement for sometime and
On 05-Feb-13 11:37, Scott Helms wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com
Yes it does... It locks you into whatever is supported on the ring.
I don't know how I can explain this more plainly, I
On Monday 11 February 2013 11:34, david peahi wrote:
Does anyone have experience in running fiber optic cable with
micro-trenching techniques in areas where there is no existing asphalt or
concrete roadway, just packed earth and rock? Environmental limitations do
not allow for constructing an
On 11-Feb-13 12:25, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
On 2/11/13 9:32 AM, ML wrote:
Any eyeball network that wants to support multicast should peer with
the content players(s) that support it. Simple!
Just another reason to make the transit only networks even more
irrelevant.
The big issue is that the
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Sure, almost nobody asks for dark fiber today because they know it costs
several orders of magnitude more than a T1 or whatever. However, if the
price for dark fiber were the same (or lower), latent demand would
Hi.
You are thinking to small, you need to have space for the future:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10BKCsVxuIM
Seriously, go with a vibrator plow or a chain trencher:
Maybe a little small for a 10 km run:
http://ditchwitch.com/trenchers-plows/walk-behind-vibratory-plow/410sx-vibratory-plow/
... but now you are dictating what technology is used, via the active
aggregation equipment (i.e. ADMs) you installed at your nodes on the
ring. Also, the fiber provider now has to maintain and upgrade that
active aggregation equipment, as opposed to just patching fiber from one
port to
Multicast _is_ useful for filling the millions of DVRs out there with
broadcast programs and for live events (eg. sports). A smart VOD system
would have my DVR download the entire program from a local cache--and
then play it locally as with anything else I watch. Those caches could
be
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Multicast _is_ useful for filling the millions of DVRs out there with
broadcast programs and for live events (eg. sports). A smart VOD system
would have my DVR download the entire program from a local cache--and
then play
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
If you're a large MSO (say top 15)
then I can see it with today's technology, but even those guys seem to be
moving in other directions to get out of the provider controlled set top
box model.
really? verizon still wants to
These technologies are being unified by DASH in the MPEG/ISO standards bodies.
Then we have to hope that we will see this implemented in
Traffic Server, Squid, Varnish, so that everybody can benefit
from this.
--
//fredan
The Last Mile Cache - http://tlmc.fredan.se
Lol, I didn't say all of them were doing that yet.
On Feb 11, 2013 3:50 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
If you're a large MSO (say top 15)
then I can see it with today's technology, but even those
On 11-Feb-13 13:13, Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Sure, almost nobody asks for dark fiber today because they know it costs
several orders of magnitude more than a T1 or whatever. However, if the
price for dark fiber were the same (or lower), latent demand would
John Levine wrote:
As another reference point, I really liked the sipura atas, they were my
personal favorite as far as the gear we used. I don't know how well that
translates to after the linksys takeover though, as I haven't done voice
gear in a few years.
Got a Sipura SPA-1001, can't get
Can't seem to get to 92.43.96.0/21 (specifically 92.43.96.130 ... in
Salzburg Austria) from Comcast Business in the Bay Area (traceroute
stops close to provider edge).
Works from Verizon FiOS down in LA, and a HE.net host in Fremont.
Comcast folks may want to look at this. :-)
- Jim
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that;
unlike L3, I don't believe it actually needs to be a separate
company; I expect most ISP business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an
accomodation to potential
Jay, you need to have SPF records for your domain. This will prevent the
spoofing you are seeing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sender_Policy_Framework
$ dig @8.8.8.8 baylink.com TXT
; DiG 9.8.3-P1 @8.8.8.8 baylink.com TXT
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER-
- Original Message -
From: Sean Lazar kn...@toaster.net
Jay, you need to have SPF records for your domain. This will prevent
the spoofing you are seeing.
I should in fact.
But am I incorrect in thinking that since the envelope address *was not
actually forged*, they wouldn't help
On 2/11/2013 4:39 PM, Sean Lazar wrote:
Jay, you need to have SPF records for your domain. This will prevent the
spoofing you are seeing.
yep, while the purpose and effectiveness of SPF records are generally
VERY overrated... yet for a situation like this, an SPF record is VERY
valuable and it
Can you provide a traceroute showing the failure? I just traced to it from
my desktop inside Comcast and the trace died eleven hops after leaving our
network. If your trace dies inside our network, I'll get that info to the
right group to deal with it.
Thanks,
John
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:24
On Feb 11, 2013, at 4:52 PM, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote:
--
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:24:21 -0800
From: Jim Burwell j...@jsbc.cc
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Problems for route to 92.43.96.0/21 for Comcast?
Message-ID: 51196185.3050...@jsbc.cc
I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of fiber,
which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads him to invite
all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for a purely L1
provider, simply would not apply.
Not at all, I've obsessing about all of the costs.
An SPF record will probably only add value if the receiving mail server for
the nanog list uses them to restrict allowed senders for the domain.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com wrote:
On 2/11/2013 4:39 PM, Sean Lazar wrote:
Jay, you need to have SPF records
I meant to add in more info, but my mobile Gmail client betrayed me.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Scott Helms khe...@zcorum.com wrote:
Lol, I didn't say all of them were doing that yet.
On Feb 11, 2013 3:50 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:39:18PM -0800, Sean Lazar wrote:
Jay, you need to have SPF records for your domain. This will prevent the
spoofing you are seeing.
(a) SPF is just about entirely worthless and (b) if someone really has
it in for Jay and has at least minimal competence, it won't stop
concrete roadway, just packed earth and rock? Environmental limitations do
My best guess is that you would want to use directional boring in that case. A
small hole every couple hundred meters, horizontal bore and duct pullback
You'll struggle to get a directional drill through material that
On Feb 11, 2013, at 14:11 , Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org wrote:
On 11-Feb-13 12:25, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
On 2/11/13 9:32 AM, ML wrote:
Any eyeball network that wants to support multicast should peer with
the content players(s) that support it. Simple!
Just another reason to make the
On Feb 11, 2013, at 18:52 , Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
On Feb 11, 2013, at 14:11 , Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org wrote:
Multicast _is_ useful for filling the millions of DVRs out there with
broadcast programs and for live events (eg. sports). A smart VOD system
would
I think the ILECs got this part right: provide a passive NIU on the
outside wall, which forms a natural demarc that the fiber owner can test
to. If an L2 operator has active equipment, put it inside--and it would
be part of the customer-purchased (or -leased) equipment when they turn
up
On 11-Feb-13 16:37, Scott Helms wrote:
I disagree; he is obsessing over how to reduce the amount of
fiber, which is a tiny fraction of the total cost, and that leads
him to invite all sorts of L2 problems into the picture that, for
a purely L1 provider, simply would not apply.
Scott Helms wrote:
IMO if you can't pay
for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently then your chances of
long term success are very low.
That is not a business model for infrastructure such as gas,
electricity, CATV, water and fiber network, all of which
need long term planning and
Nearly all of the industries you mentioned below receive some type of
local or federal/government funding. If I was going to build some kind of
access network, I would be banging on the .gov door asking for grants and
low interest loans to help roll out broadband to remote areas. My former
On 11-Feb-13 15:24, Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
By having the city run L2 over our L1, we can accomplish that; unlike L3, I
don't believe it actually needs to be a separate company; I expect most ISP
business to be at L2; L1 is mostly an accomodation to
On 11-Feb-13 18:23, Warren Bailey wrote:
On 2/11/13 4:16 PM, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Scott Helms wrote:
IMO if you can't pay for the initial build quickly and run it efficiently
then your chances of long term success are very low.
That is not a business model
Check out GCI's Terranet project.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Stephen Sprunk step...@sprunk.org
Date: 02/11/2013 4:37 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Muni fiber: L1 or L2?
On 11-Feb-13 18:23,
Though I should note that GCI was my former employer and a well respected MSO
and fiber infrastructure owner/operator. They are the smartest major player
I've come across, and an all around good bunch of people.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
On Monday 11 February 2013 16:36, John Lyons wrote:
concrete roadway, just packed earth and rock? Environmental limitations
do
My best guess is that you would want to use directional boring in that
case. A small hole every couple hundred meters, horizontal bore and duct
pullback
- Original Message -
From: Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp
In addition, as PON is even less efficient initially when
subscriber density is low and there are few subscribers to
share a field splitter (unless extremely lengthy drop cables
are used, which costs a lot),
Multicast _is_ useful for filling the millions of DVRs out there with
broadcast programs and for live events (eg. sports). A smart VOD =
system
would have my DVR download the entire program from a local cache--and
then play it locally as with anything else I watch. Those caches =
could
On Feb 12, 2013, at 8:11 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
The real question is: how will video evolve?
My guess is that most of it will become synthetic, generated programmatically
from local primitives via algorithmic instructions, much in the way that
multiplayer 3D FPS games handle such things today.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 8:11 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Multicast _is_ useful for filling the millions of DVRs out there with
broadcast programs and for live events (eg. sports). A smart VOD =
system
would have my DVR download the entire program from a local cache--and
Like so many things IPv6, many of the wifi vendors seem to lack decent
support for IPv6 clients. I'm not sure why I thought the situation was
better than it seems to be, I guess I'm just an optimist.
Anyway, what wifi vendors provide the best support for IPv6? I don't
really care too much
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
copper services brought into the home.
Who cares whether it's copper or fiber you push through
On 2/11/2013 11:05 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
Multicast is dead. Feel free to disagree. :-) Tim:
Multicast is a vendor selling point, as you essentially need a coherent
end-to-end solution to get it to work PROPERLY. Of course if it does
not work PROPERLY, it will still largely work, albeit
That's not the general case, however. That's a set of specialized videos where
you know you will have a large number of consumers at each site viewing the
same video content.
Owen
On Feb 11, 2013, at 20:46 , Ryan Malayter malay...@gmail.com wrote:
You're missing the entire point: all web
On Feb 11, 2013, at 20:33 , Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
On Feb 11, 2013, at 19:24 , Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
Not if the ONT is mounted on the outside of the home, and just
copper services brought into the
Man is this strange: when I set my DHCP server to assign the Sipura box a
fixed IP address, the VoIP box didn't work. When I let it assign an
address out of the pool, it did work. Same device, same LAN, same /24
subnet, same ISC DHCP server. The Sipura has a web server, so I could
confirm
On Monday, February 11, 2013 9:33 PM, John R. Levine mailto:jo...@iecc.com
wrote:
Man is this strange: when I set my DHCP server to assign the Sipura box a
fixed IP address, the VoIP box didn't work. When I let it assign an
address out of the pool, it did work.
So what happens if you now
On 02/11/2013 03:52 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
One of us has a different dictionary than everyone else.
I'm not sure it's different dictionaries, I think you're talking past
each other.
Video on demand and broadcast are 2 totally different animals. For VOD,
multicast is not a good fit,
Man is this strange: when I set my DHCP server to assign the Sipura box a
fixed IP address, the VoIP box didn't work. When I let it assign an
address out of the pool, it did work.
So what happens if you now configure the DHCP server so that the (working) IP
is removed from the pool, and have
On 11-Feb-13 22:33, Jay Ashworth wrote:
What I care about is not that it's optical -- it's that *it's a
patchcord*. If the ONT is per ISP, and the patchpoint is an *external*
jackbox, then that thru-wall cable has to be a patchcord, not drop
cable -- and the ISP field tech will have to work
77 matches
Mail list logo
