Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers
Most households have no practical use for more than 25 megs. More is better, but let's not just throw money into a fire because of a marketing machine. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Aaron Wendel" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Monday, May 23, 2022 1:49:13 PM Subject: Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers The Fiber Broadband Association estimates that the average US household will need more than a gig within 5 years. Why not just jump it to a gig or more? On 5/23/2022 1:40 PM, Sean Donelan wrote: > > https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-higher-speed-goals-small-rural-broadband-providers-0 > > > > The Federal Communications Commission voted [May 19, 2022] to seek > comment on a proposal to provide additional universal service support > to certain rural carriers in exchange for increasing deployment to > more locations at higher speeds. The proposal would make changes to > the Alternative Connect America Cost Model (A-CAM) program, with the > goal of achieving widespread deployment of faster 100/20 Mbps > broadband service throughout the rural areas served by rural carriers > currently receiving A-CAM support. >
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
No, but most network operators also aren't NANOG members, attend NANOG shows, subscribe to NANOG lists. They're small outfits where there's between 1 - 5 total networking people. Circling back to earlier where I said there are almost 70k ASNs in use on the public Internet. Most of those operators don't have complex configurations. I'd be surprised if less than half of them had anything more than the most minimal default route configuration. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 8:13:32 AM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' On 9/Sep/20 15:06, Mike Hammett wrote: More operators don't use communities internally than the number of operators that do. Do you have some empirical data on that? I don't know if it's more, or less. But as Charlton Heston said in "True Lies": "So far this is not blowing my skirt up, gentlemen. Don't you have anything remotely substantial, Harry? Do you have any HARD DATA?" https://youtu.be/-KHkltl22V4?t=73 :-)... Mark.
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
If history has taught us anything, everything we do will be ignored by those that most need it. :-) - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:59:55 AM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' Well, the proposed de facto standard is only useful for what we need to signal outside of the AS. Since an operator will still need to design for communities used internal to the AS (which will have nothing to do with the outside world, and be of a higher number), they can accomplish both tasks in one sitting; in lieu of first designing for internal use, and then trying to design again for the external standard. At any rate, as Nick said yesterday, if it's taken us over 2 decades to agree on the well-known communities we have today, perhaps the industry should go ahead and standardize this proposal anyway, and then see what happens. If history has taught us anything, folk will do what they want for 23 or so years, and even then, it might not turn out the way we hoped. If it were me, I'd spend my time on other things. I can design internal operator-specific communities that also do the right thing externally, if needed. Heck, it's what I've done already. My customers are happy and I have little incentive to fix that. But that's just me :-). Mark. On 9/Sep/20 14:47, Mike Hammett wrote: Exactly. There are far more pressing things when launching a new network than coming up with a BGP community scheme from scratch, learning everyone else's BGP community scheme, etc. If networks used a standard, then there is a very minimal ramp-up. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 6:47:13 AM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' On 9/Sep/20 13:41, Mike Hammett wrote: How is that any different than any other network with minimal connectivity (say a non-ISP such as a school, medium business, local government, etc.)? Because the existing flexibility of dis-aggregated BGP community design can be done without any need to be in concert with the rest of the world, and your network won't blow up. There are far more pressing things to consider when launching a new network. Also, it would likely help that new ISP in Myanmar learn their limited upstream's communities if there were a standard. There used to be a very large global transit network that did not support BGP communities for their customers or peers. I'm not sure if that is still their position in 2020, but back then, it did not stop them from growing quite well. Mark.
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
More operators don't use communities internally than the number of operators that do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 7:59:55 AM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' Well, the proposed de facto standard is only useful for what we need to signal outside of the AS. Since an operator will still need to design for communities used internal to the AS (which will have nothing to do with the outside world, and be of a higher number), they can accomplish both tasks in one sitting; in lieu of first designing for internal use, and then trying to design again for the external standard. At any rate, as Nick said yesterday, if it's taken us over 2 decades to agree on the well-known communities we have today, perhaps the industry should go ahead and standardize this proposal anyway, and then see what happens. If history has taught us anything, folk will do what they want for 23 or so years, and even then, it might not turn out the way we hoped. If it were me, I'd spend my time on other things. I can design internal operator-specific communities that also do the right thing externally, if needed. Heck, it's what I've done already. My customers are happy and I have little incentive to fix that. But that's just me :-). Mark. On 9/Sep/20 14:47, Mike Hammett wrote: Exactly. There are far more pressing things when launching a new network than coming up with a BGP community scheme from scratch, learning everyone else's BGP community scheme, etc. If networks used a standard, then there is a very minimal ramp-up. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 6:47:13 AM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' On 9/Sep/20 13:41, Mike Hammett wrote: How is that any different than any other network with minimal connectivity (say a non-ISP such as a school, medium business, local government, etc.)? Because the existing flexibility of dis-aggregated BGP community design can be done without any need to be in concert with the rest of the world, and your network won't blow up. There are far more pressing things to consider when launching a new network. Also, it would likely help that new ISP in Myanmar learn their limited upstream's communities if there were a standard. There used to be a very large global transit network that did not support BGP communities for their customers or peers. I'm not sure if that is still their position in 2020, but back then, it did not stop them from growing quite well. Mark.
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
Exactly. There are far more pressing things when launching a new network than coming up with a BGP community scheme from scratch, learning everyone else's BGP community scheme, etc. If networks used a standard, then there is a very minimal ramp-up. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, September 9, 2020 6:47:13 AM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' On 9/Sep/20 13:41, Mike Hammett wrote: How is that any different than any other network with minimal connectivity (say a non-ISP such as a school, medium business, local government, etc.)? Because the existing flexibility of dis-aggregated BGP community design can be done without any need to be in concert with the rest of the world, and your network won't blow up. There are far more pressing things to consider when launching a new network. Also, it would likely help that new ISP in Myanmar learn their limited upstream's communities if there were a standard. There used to be a very large global transit network that did not support BGP communities for their customers or peers. I'm not sure if that is still their position in 2020, but back then, it did not stop them from growing quite well. Mark.
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
How is that any different than any other network with minimal connectivity (say a non-ISP such as a school, medium business, local government, etc.)? Also, it would likely help that new ISP in Myanmar learn their limited upstream's communities if there were a standard. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka via NANOG" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 11:28:48 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' On 8/Sep/20 22:02, Tom Beecher via NANOG wrote: > I also get that intent from the OP. However I disagree that there > should be a 'de facto' standard created for such things. All flavors > of BGP community specifications are designed to be flexible so that > different networks can design a system that is tailored to their needs. > > Having 'de facto' standards does not simplify in my opinion. I > believe it just creates more work for operators trying to navigate > around different opinions of what 'de facto' means. Indeed. Consider a new ISP starting operations in Myanmar, with little or no global peering, having to wade through tons of information to design their BGP community structure based on a "de facto" standard defined by a group of ISP's half-way around the world. What's the real value? Mark.
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
I don't think the OP cares about what you do internally. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka via NANOG" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 11:26:43 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' On 8/Sep/20 20:35, Mike Hammett via NANOG wrote: How I see the OP's intent is to create a BCP of what defined communities have what effect instead of everyone just making up whatever they draw out of a hat, simplifying this process for everyone. Which only matters if you are extending a community outside of your own network to someone else's. If the communities are to be used internally, then it doesn't matter what definition an operator uses. Mark.
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
Per cidr-report.org, there are almost 70k ASes in the public routing table. I can't imagine there would be more than 20 different ways those networks should use BGP communities to interface with the outside world. The 95th (maybe even 99th) percentile would probably fit in 1 or 2 ways. Also, no one's going to jail for not adopting whatever standard may or may not emerge. Hell, we can't even get people to police their own traffic (BCP 38). - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett via NANOG" To: "Tom Beecher" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 5:56:22 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' The operators are snowflakes. Are the networks really snowflakes? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Tom Beecher" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "NANOG" , "Douglas Fischer" Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:36:22 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' Every network is a snowflake already. Everyone has different needs and operational considerations, which will also change over time. My community structure would not fit your needs, and yours would not fit mine. The current structure of regular and extended allows us to come up with something that works well for each of us, which is good. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:06 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: Is there more desire to be flexible because people are snowflakes and their idea is the only way it should be or real, document-able reasons? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Tom Beecher" To: "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org >, "Douglas Fischer" < fischerdoug...@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:02:37 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' I also get that intent from the OP. However I disagree that there should be a 'de facto' standard created for such things. All flavors of BGP community specifications are designed to be flexible so that different networks can design a system that is tailored to their needs. Having 'de facto' standards does not simplify in my opinion. I believe it just creates more work for operators trying to navigate around different opinions of what 'de facto' means. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:35 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: How I see the OP's intent is to create a BCP of what defined communities have what effect instead of everyone just making up whatever they draw out of a hat, simplifying this process for everyone. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Tom Beecher via NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > To: "Douglas Fischer" < fischerdoug...@gmail.com > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:30:19 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' BGP Large Communities ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 ) already provides for anyone to define the exact handling you wish. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Douglas Fischer via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote: Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some routes to some where. On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very common community tell to route-servers and routers "Please do no-export these routes to that ASN" is: -> 0: So we could say that this is a de-facto standard. But the Policy equivalent to "Please, export these routes only to that ASN" is very varied on all the IXPs or Transit Providers. With that said, now comes some questions: 1 - Beyond being a de-facto standard, there is any RFC, Public Policy, or something like that, that would define 0: as "no-export-to" standard? 2 - What about reserving some 16-bits ASN to use : as "export-only-to" standard? 2.1 - Is important to be 16 bits, because with (RT) extended communities, any ASN on the planet could be the target of that policy. 2.2 - Would be interesting some mnemonic number like 1000 / 1 or so. -- Douglas Fernando Fischer Engº de Controle e Automação
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
The operators are snowflakes. Are the networks really snowflakes? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Tom Beecher" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "NANOG" , "Douglas Fischer" Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:36:22 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' Every network is a snowflake already. Everyone has different needs and operational considerations, which will also change over time. My community structure would not fit your needs, and yours would not fit mine. The current structure of regular and extended allows us to come up with something that works well for each of us, which is good. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:06 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: Is there more desire to be flexible because people are snowflakes and their idea is the only way it should be or real, document-able reasons? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Tom Beecher" To: "Mike Hammett" < na...@ics-il.net > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org >, "Douglas Fischer" < fischerdoug...@gmail.com > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:02:37 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' I also get that intent from the OP. However I disagree that there should be a 'de facto' standard created for such things. All flavors of BGP community specifications are designed to be flexible so that different networks can design a system that is tailored to their needs. Having 'de facto' standards does not simplify in my opinion. I believe it just creates more work for operators trying to navigate around different opinions of what 'de facto' means. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:35 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: How I see the OP's intent is to create a BCP of what defined communities have what effect instead of everyone just making up whatever they draw out of a hat, simplifying this process for everyone. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Tom Beecher via NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > To: "Douglas Fischer" < fischerdoug...@gmail.com > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:30:19 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' BGP Large Communities ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 ) already provides for anyone to define the exact handling you wish. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Douglas Fischer via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote: Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some routes to some where. On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very common community tell to route-servers and routers "Please do no-export these routes to that ASN" is: -> 0: So we could say that this is a de-facto standard. But the Policy equivalent to "Please, export these routes only to that ASN" is very varied on all the IXPs or Transit Providers. With that said, now comes some questions: 1 - Beyond being a de-facto standard, there is any RFC, Public Policy, or something like that, that would define 0: as "no-export-to" standard? 2 - What about reserving some 16-bits ASN to use : as "export-only-to" standard? 2.1 - Is important to be 16 bits, because with (RT) extended communities, any ASN on the planet could be the target of that policy. 2.2 - Would be interesting some mnemonic number like 1000 / 1 or so. -- Douglas Fernando Fischer Engº de Controle e Automação
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
Is there more desire to be flexible because people are snowflakes and their idea is the only way it should be or real, document-able reasons? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Tom Beecher" To: "Mike Hammett" Cc: "NANOG" , "Douglas Fischer" Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 3:02:37 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' I also get that intent from the OP. However I disagree that there should be a 'de facto' standard created for such things. All flavors of BGP community specifications are designed to be flexible so that different networks can design a system that is tailored to their needs. Having 'de facto' standards does not simplify in my opinion. I believe it just creates more work for operators trying to navigate around different opinions of what 'de facto' means. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 2:35 PM Mike Hammett < na...@ics-il.net > wrote: How I see the OP's intent is to create a BCP of what defined communities have what effect instead of everyone just making up whatever they draw out of a hat, simplifying this process for everyone. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com From: "Tom Beecher via NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > To: "Douglas Fischer" < fischerdoug...@gmail.com > Cc: "NANOG" < nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:30:19 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' BGP Large Communities ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 ) already provides for anyone to define the exact handling you wish. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Douglas Fischer via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote: Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some routes to some where. On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very common community tell to route-servers and routers "Please do no-export these routes to that ASN" is: -> 0: So we could say that this is a de-facto standard. But the Policy equivalent to "Please, export these routes only to that ASN" is very varied on all the IXPs or Transit Providers. With that said, now comes some questions: 1 - Beyond being a de-facto standard, there is any RFC, Public Policy, or something like that, that would define 0: as "no-export-to" standard? 2 - What about reserving some 16-bits ASN to use : as "export-only-to" standard? 2.1 - Is important to be 16 bits, because with (RT) extended communities, any ASN on the planet could be the target of that policy. 2.2 - Would be interesting some mnemonic number like 1000 / 1 or so. -- Douglas Fernando Fischer Engº de Controle e Automação
Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?'
How I see the OP's intent is to create a BCP of what defined communities have what effect instead of everyone just making up whatever they draw out of a hat, simplifying this process for everyone. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Tom Beecher via NANOG" To: "Douglas Fischer" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 1:30:19 PM Subject: Re: BGP Community - AS0 is de-facto "no-export-to" marker - Any ASN reserved to "export-only-to"?' BGP Large Communities ( https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8195 ) already provides for anyone to define the exact handling you wish. On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Douglas Fischer via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org > wrote: Most of us have already used some BGP community policy to no-export some routes to some where. On the majority of IXPs, and most of the Transit Providers, the very common community tell to route-servers and routers "Please do no-export these routes to that ASN" is: -> 0: So we could say that this is a de-facto standard. But the Policy equivalent to "Please, export these routes only to that ASN" is very varied on all the IXPs or Transit Providers. With that said, now comes some questions: 1 - Beyond being a de-facto standard, there is any RFC, Public Policy, or something like that, that would define 0: as "no-export-to" standard? 2 - What about reserving some 16-bits ASN to use : as "export-only-to" standard? 2.1 - Is important to be 16 bits, because with (RT) extended communities, any ASN on the planet could be the target of that policy. 2.2 - Would be interesting some mnemonic number like 1000 / 1 or so. -- Douglas Fernando Fischer Engº de Controle e Automação
Consolidation of Email Platforms Bad for Email?
I originally asked on mailops, but here is a much wider net and I suspect there's a lot of overlap in interest. I had read an article one time, somewhere about the ongoing consolidation of e-mail into a handful of providers was bad for the Internet as a whole. It was some time ago and thus, the details have escaped me, so I was looking to refresh my recollection. Have any of you read a similar article before? If so, can you link me to it? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
Re: Centurylink having a bad morning?
I find it most useful as a warning beacon. If anyone is talking about how they are or want "Tier 1", then I need to back away slowly. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka via NANOG" To: "Tomas Lynch" Cc: "NANOG" Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2020 5:26:21 AM Subject: Re: Centurylink having a bad morning? On 4/Sep/20 23:41, Tomas Lynch wrote: Oh, yes! Let's not start another "what's a tier one" war! Oh no, let's :-). We get over here in Africa as well. Local operators either calling themselves Tier 1, or being called a Tier 1. Nonsensical. Years back, our Marketing team asked me to comment on the use of "Tier" for our literature. You can probably imagine what I said :-). For me, it's simple - you are present in X cities or Y cities. Tier is useless because the Internet does not come from a single country or a single operator. And saying a network is "big" or "small" is subjective to everyone's perspective, so that doesn't help either. So you're present here, and present there. That's it. It's 2020 :-). Mark.
Re: Centurylink having a bad morning?
The more diversified your peering, the better you are. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Mark Tinka" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 1:35:46 PM Subject: Re: Centurylink having a bad morning? On 31/Aug/20 17:57, Bryan Holloway wrote: > Not everyone will peer with you, notably, AS3356 (unless you're big > enough, which few can say.) I think Tomas meant more diverse peering, not peering with CL. Mark.
[no subject]
---BeginMessage--- I've seen the same over here and also considered it weird. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Paul Ferguson via NANOG nanog@nanog.org To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 8:56:44 PM ---End Message---
