Re: interconnection costs

​If you haven't already, you should read this ​http://drpeering.net/core/bookOutline.html ​ On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Reza Motamedi wrote: > Hi NANOG > > We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of > interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the

MACsec to edge hosts

Are any of you pushing MACsec (802.1AE) out from your switches to the edge hosts? Vs. just running it on the network cross-connect fabric? We have a scenario where, if we could MACsec encrypt those (switch <-> host) links, we could eliminate a lot of application level TLS. But searching for a

Re: How to update IPv6 geolocation data? Google sites blocked.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, David Sotnick wrote: Hello, and Season's Greetings! We recently lit up a new IPv6-connected location and expanded our ARIN-allocated /48 network to a /44 network to accommodate the additional location (and future locations). However, since moving our small satellite office

How to update IPv6 geolocation data? Google sites blocked.

Hello, and Season's Greetings! We recently lit up a new IPv6-connected location and expanded our ARIN-allocated /48 network to a /44 network to accommodate the additional location (and future locations). However, since moving our small satellite office off our primary /48 and onto their own /48 a

Re: interconnection costs

There is only a xconnect expense if the peering happens at a third party datacenter. If it is a first party datacenter any xconnect fees can be considered part of the peering price. There is also the case where one party leases or builds a fiber to the other party. The xconnect always goes to th

Re: Atlantic City

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Daniel Corbe wrote: > Can someone quote me a price off-list for 300Mbit (preferably on a GigE) in > Atlantic City somewhere? > that smells like FiOS territory...

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

or More like getting too old to remember completing the edit of mail to: field ! LOL! Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Mi

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

Faisal is new to the Internet. ;-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Faisal Imtiaz" To: "Reza Motamedi" Cc: "nanog list" Sent: Tuesday, December 22,

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

On list :)

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

Ouch... so much for off list .. :( Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: supp...@snappytelecom.net - Original Message - > From: "Faisal Imtiaz" > To: "Reza Motamedi" > Cc: "nanog lis

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

Not offlist. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote: > Salam Reza, > > You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to > answer the over a phone call conversation

Re: interconnection costs (off list)

Salam Reza, You are asking an interesting set of questions, it might be easier to answer the over a phone call conversation (at least fro our perspective, being a small ISP/NSP ). I can write to you a lengthy reply, but am not sure if I will be able to convey to you the information properly. T

Re: interconnection costs

Thanks guys for the replies. I wanted to clarify two things in my questions. First by peering I did not necessarily mean "settlement free" interconnection. I meant any inter-AS connection. My understanding is that in addition to the cost of transit that should be paid to the transit provider, ther

Re: interconnection costs

there is also the increasingly common pattern of "remote peering" where you lease a circuit to an exchange point but do not establish a presence in the facility. this can either be done with the last leg on a dedicated cross-connect (so it looks to the exchange operator just like any other connecti

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

I wonder if Tmobile realizes that when you sign up for a contract with them using one of their phones as a wifi hotspot, the address of their enterprise NAT is what's recorded by their form. They even make you check a button to accept their lack of security. Not that that could result in massive

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

On 12/22/15, 1:13 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Owen DeLong" wrote: >Yet until Apple gets to that IPv6-only stage, you¹re refusing to support >IPv6 for those of us >that need it today even while we still need IPv4, too. > >Owen Owen, you¹re out of line. Lee > >> On Dec 22, 2015, at 10:08 , Ca B

Atlantic City

Can someone quote me a price off-list for 300Mbit (preferably on a GigE) in Atlantic City somewhere?

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

Yet until Apple gets to that IPv6-only stage, you’re refusing to support IPv6 for those of us that need it today even while we still need IPv4, too. Owen > On Dec 22, 2015, at 10:08 , Ca By wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Owen DeLong > wrote: > Does thi

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

On Tuesday, December 22, 2015, Owen DeLong wrote: > Does this mean you are negligent for not supporting IPv6 on my phone on > your network? > > My phone is perfectly capable of IPv6, yet because it doesn’t support your > particular religion > about IPv4 translation, you refuse to support IPv6 on

Re: Nat

Comments inline > On Dec 22, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> On Dec 22, 2015, at 01:21 , Bjørn Mork wrote: >> >> Owen DeLong writes: On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett wrote: >>> The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of subnets

Re: IPv4 shutdown in mobile

Does this mean you are negligent for not supporting IPv6 on my phone on your network? My phone is perfectly capable of IPv6, yet because it doesn’t support your particular religion about IPv4 translation, you refuse to support IPv6 on it. When is T-Mobile going to fix their IPv6 implementation

Re: Nat

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 01:21 , Bjørn Mork wrote: > > Owen DeLong writes: >>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett wrote: >> >>> The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of >>> subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating >>> 16 bits worth of s

Re: interconnection costs

On 22 December 2015 at 16:44, Reza Motamedi wrote: > I think there is no single answer as different businesses may have > different pricing models. I hope the discussion can help me understand the > whole ecosystem a little bit better. Hi Reza, I have a list of example items that need to be cos

interconnection costs

Hi NANOG We are a group of researchers and our focus is on the economy of interconnection in the Internet. My question is mainly about the various costs of an AS establishing a connection with another AS, including the costs charged by the colocation providers. I am familiar with most of the conne

IPv4 shutdown in mobile

TL;DR version: the data shows you are negligent if your eyeball content (cdn, cloud, ...) does not support native ipv6. With the NAT and IPv4 leasing threads lingering on, i figured it was time for an update on how the other half live More than 1/3 of North America mobile traffic to the top webs

Re: Looking for VPS providers with BGP session

On Dec 7, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Philippe Bonvin via NANOG wrote: > Hello, > > I'm looking for providers around the world who are able to provide VPS with a > BGP session but it seems to be rather difficult to find. I have already found > a few with WHT/bgp.he.net/google but a little help would be a

Re: [NANOG] IPv4 subnets for lease?

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015, Nick Ellermann wrote: Hi. We lease /24's or more to customers since many years, but as someone later in the thread commented, spammers will use this opportunity if they can, so we limit our customers to Sweden nowadays, and always check their earlier reputation before lea

Re: Nat

Owen DeLong writes: >> On Dec 20, 2015, at 08:57 , Mike Hammett wrote: > >> The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of >> subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating >> 16 bits worth of subnets. How does that compare to the entire IPv4 >> Internet?