So I decided to respond to a message earlier - was the first time in
quite a while on the NANOG list. Like, we're talking maybe 3-6 months
since my last post?
This afternoon I get an e-mail from Brad Lovelace
asking me if I have cisco, juniper, etc to
sell to his company, claimed I have
On 10/17/2018 12:43 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Laszlo Hanyecz:
On 2018-10-17 02:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong
on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others.
Postel's maxim also allowed extensibility. If
I'm probably going to regret posting this but I think most of this
dispute regarding Jon Postel's advice revolves around how the words
"liberal" and "conservative" have changed over 20 years.
Liberal used to mean adaptable, open-minded, and conservative used to
mean cautious and hewing close to
* Laszlo Hanyecz:
> On 2018-10-17 02:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong
>> on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others.
>
> Postel's maxim also allowed extensibility. If our network code rejects
> (or
On 10/17/18 12:31 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
hi there,
I am trying to help a good friend of mine to connect his office to a
pop (in bay area most likely) so I am in the need of identifying some
network providers in Reno who can provide this service. Currently
charter and AT are onnet in the
* Scott Brim:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 22:37 Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong
>> on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>
> I saw just a small swing of the pendulum toward the center, a
hi there,
I am trying to help a good friend of mine to connect his office to a
pop (in bay area most likely) so I am in the need of identifying some
network providers in Reno who can provide this service. Currently
charter and AT are onnet in the facility but the prices they are
quoting is "out
Hello,
Is anyone from verizon wireless on here. clients across our network
started complaining 2 weeks ago that wifi calling stopped working. below
are some pings at traceroutes to wo.vzwwo.com which fail. the first set is
with our normal DNS servers and the second set is using 8.8.8.8
We pay it too and I’ve asked to have it waived
-Ben
> On Oct 17, 2018, at 9:36 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> They gave me a free /29 and then when I reminded them about BGP they popped
> up another agreement for $50/mo. This was today.
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct:
They gave me a free /29 and then when I reminded them about BGP they popped
up another agreement for $50/mo. This was today.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 12:25 PM Anderson, Charles R wrote:
> I was told
I was told they only charge it if you have bigger than a /29 from them.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 04:12:01PM +, David Hubbard wrote:
> They charge it even if you’re using your own address space. It’s a fee
> simply for establishing BGP with them on a given circuit. I believe if you
> used
They charge it even if you’re using your own address space. It’s a fee simply
for establishing BGP with them on a given circuit. I believe if you used
static routes and their space, you would not have to pay it.
From: NANOG on behalf of Josh Luthman
Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at
I view Cogent IP space as a way to lock customers to their service, ie make
them sticky.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 12:03 PM Brielle Bruns wrote:
> On 10/17/2018 9:47 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> > Has
Yes - we just renewed/ upgraded and they hit us with it - pushed back at
the lower the bandwidth cost a little bit to compensate for it
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:55 AM David Hubbard <
dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com> wrote:
> Yep we pay it on our circuits, begrudgingly. Wouldn’t mind it as much
On 10/17/2018 9:47 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Has anyone else dealt with this mess? Even my Cogent rep admits it's
unique to their business.
That sounds like the BS the first company I worked for tried to pull.
One would think they'd welcome customers bringing their own IP space
since it saves
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:53:47 -, David Hubbard said:
> Yep we pay it on our circuits, begrudgingly. Wouldnât mind it as much if
> it
> actually delivered me every BGP prefix in the global routing tableâ¦
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 11:49:10 -0400, Jason Canady said:
> I believe IPv6 BGP is
Yep we pay it on our circuits, begrudgingly. Wouldn’t mind it as much if it
actually delivered me every BGP prefix in the global routing table…
From: NANOG on behalf of Josh Luthman
Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 11:49 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Cogent charging 50/mo for BGP (not IPs,
Yes. Our service didn't start out this way, but a few years ago they
added that. At least my rep at the time quoted me out with the fee
added into it. I believe IPv6 BGP is free.
On 10/17/18 11:47 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
Has anyone else dealt with this mess? Even my Cogent rep admits it's
Has anyone else dealt with this mess? Even my Cogent rep admits it's
unique to their business.
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On 2018-10-17 02:35, Michael Thomas wrote:
I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong
on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others.
Postel's maxim also allowed extensibility. If our network code rejects
(or crashes) on things we don't
20 matches
Mail list logo
