On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:26:04 -0500, Brandon Martin said:
> definitely the lagging factor, here. I suspect it's at least partially
> because high-ratio NAT44 has been the norm for enterprise deployments
> for some time, and, among those who might otherwise be willing to
> support first-class dual
On 29/Nov/19 19:54, Jared Mauch wrote:
> No, their new service is Peacock and will launch in 2020. 
> I’m sure they’ll have the same set of CDNs that service them as the other
> streaming services and that most of them will eventually go the Netflix (OCA)
> style route for their VOD
On 11/29/19 11:29 AM, Brian Knight wrote:
0% of my IPv4-only customers have opened tickets saying they cannot reach some
service that is only IPv6 accessible. So if they do care about IPv6
connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to us.
I help admin a very small (<1k subs, but growing)
"So if they do care about IPv6 connectivity, they haven’t communicated that to
Nor will they, but that doesn't mean IPv6 isn't important.
Frankly, I'm surprised anti-IPv6 people still have employment.
Intelligent Computing Solutions
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, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to
> On Nov 29, 2019, at 12:44 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Isn’t NBCUniversal’s streaming service called Xfinity? Isn’t it one of the
> older ones?
No, their new service is Peacock and will launch in 2020. 
I’m sure they’ll have the same set of CDNs that service them as the other
Isn’t NBCUniversal’s streaming service called Xfinity? Isn’t it one of the
> On Nov 28, 2019, at 14:23 , Robert Haylock wrote:
> I agree with Brian, this is not unbundling, it's just removing one layer of
> distribution; you no longer need the Cable company to play
This started under the Cable regime, People were complaining about having to
buy channel bundles instead of simply choosing the channels they wanted to
> On Nov 28, 2019, at 11:33 , Ross Tajvar wrote:
> Well, not exactly. Each service is still a bunch of shows and
On 29/Nov/19 14:42, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> Bringing this back on charter, how many different CDN appliances
> will we need to host for all these VoD providers? I'm just as
> guilty there having made our own CDN for the BBC (as well as using
> commercial ones).
This is one of the
On 29/Nov/19 15:13, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> There are quite a lot of places where you can buy DRM free lossless
> audio files ranging in quality from CD (44.1 kHz/16-bit/2 channel) all
> the way up to 192 kHz/32-bit/5.1 channel and beyond. These are
> basically CDs (or better) without the
> On Nov 27, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> On 28 Nov 2019, at 06:08, Brian Knight wrote:
>>> On 2019-11-26 17:11, Ca By wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 12:15 AM Sabri Berisha
- On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On Friday, 29 November, 2019 05:43, Brandon Butterworth
>I'm not conviced music really learned either, once CDs are gone
>there will be little access to reasonable quality uncompressed
>downloads as everyone chases quite compressed streams.
There are quite a lot of places where you can
On Fri Nov 29, 2019 at 01:34:41PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> The trajectory for all of this is that, ultimately, if the VoD providers
> do not come together and federate or make a solid plan, we'll end up
> right back where we started - content piracy.
Music learned to not make stealing a better
On 29/Nov/19 13:14, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> And try busting or buying each other as they fight to be the only
> Aggregators get away with it as there is some value in not having
> to mess around buying each item individually but they get greedy
> and there is easy profit in
On Fri Nov 29, 2019 at 12:41:50PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> It's either naive or presumptuous of any VoD provider to think that they
> can each have 100% of the market
Yes, rent seekers are going to seek rent so they will try and be the
tier 1 content provider and all the other content has to
On 29/Nov/19 10:44, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Sure. Like we all have been begging for an "Internet service" without
> any peering...
> The consumers have been begging for unbundling of content and transport.
> This does not imply fragmentation of either. That's a content provider
> straw man. It
On 29/Nov/19 01:08, Mike Bolitho wrote:
> Again, this has gone beyond off-topic for the NANOG list. Please take
> the discussion elsewhere.
I'm not entirely sure.
A good portion of our wholesale business is selling access into Africa
to content providers. We have developed a reasonably good
On 29/Nov/19 00:51, Michael Thomas wrote:
> The big problem is that I don't want to pay for a month of content to
> watch one or two shows. And I definitely don't want to pay a month's
> worth of content to three dozen providers of which i may only watch a
> few of their programs a couple of
On 28/Nov/19 21:44, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> This is not the "unbundling" that consumers have been begging for.
> Rather I would submit that it's actually quite the opposite and much
> more like the bundling that they have been railing against.
On 28/Nov/19 20:50, Owen DeLong wrote:
> While I agree about the likely outcome, I will point out that consumers have
> begging for unbundling for years.
> This fragmentation of streaming services _IS_ the direct result of that
> It’s unbundled service, exactly what they
Sure. Like we all have been begging for an "Internet service" without
The consumers have been begging for unbundling of content and transport.
This does not imply fragmentation of either. That's a content provider
straw man. It is only reasonable to assume that all content
Mail list logo