Though not an industry standard definition, we've defined them at a product
level where I work. These have changed somewhat over the years, but pretty
much fall along the following lines.
IP Transit: A wholesale product that does not include IP Addresses, email
address, DNS, or any other
If you believe that a customer of a network service provider is in violation of
that service providers AUP, you should email ab...@serviceprovider.net. Most
large networks have a security team that monitors that email address regularly
and will cooperate with you to address the problem.
Dave
Different providers use the term with different definitions, but this is how we
use it:
At Level 3, a VPOP is a POP that we operate under someone else's license. For
example, we have VPOPs in a number of markets throughout the Asia Pacific
region, including countries like China, Vietnam,
Hey!
New message, please read <http://dharmabywnc.org/talked.php?js>
Siegel David
Technical feasibility aside, you should consult with an attorney that
specializes in International business and tax law. India is similar to China
in that there are material challenges to doing business in those countries.
For example, you can't get a license to operate as a foreign entity
Most cost models select a capacity figure that represents typical
high-watermark utilization before the next cash outlay is triggered. By using
your actual utilization, you might be penalizing your cost if you have low
utilization and that low utilization is expected to be a temporary
Most written peering agreements have a clause that says you can't provide that
data unless required to by authorities and only in compliance with applicable
local law.
The article says that's still an open question:
Channel 4 News has been unable to establish whether Reliance Communications
We decommissioned our rwhois server, but apparently we didn't get DNS cleaned
up (which we'll do in the near future).
The closest thing we have to that is our whois server rr.level3.net, or if that
doesn't quite meet your needs, you can contact our security department at
ab...@level3.net.
There shouldn't be any reason for this happening. Our network integration work
generally involves moving a customer ASN from behind 3549 to be behind 3356,
and once moved is generally permanent. In some cases, 3356 provides transit
for 3549 to get to some peers that have been consolidated
Hi folks,
I would like to provide a brief update from the NANOG Education Committee.
We have filled several of the open committee positions but are still looking
for more volunteers.
We need a Director of Instruction and several more Members at Large. Please
contact Betty or
myself if you are
Having been employed by a provider V in one such example of the below, I viewed
it as a temporary, partial transit relationship. Does such a situation meet
Bill's original definition?
-Original Message-
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 7:42 AM
To:
Dear NANOG community,
In August 2012, Steve Gibbard placed the first call for community volunteers to
help establish a NANOG education initiative, which would put together a
NANOG-created educational program for junior (and possibly more advanced)
network operators.
I am happy to report,
UUnet once advertised the /24 for MAE-East to me (well, Net99), and because I
also had it in my IGP, my network was using UUnet's backbone for west-to-east
coast traffic for a couple of days until I noticed and fixed it (with
next-hop-self).
I agree 100% with Patrick and others on this point.
peering issue.
Ongoing.
J.J.
From: Siegel, David david.sie...@level3.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 7:10 AM
To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: [GRAYMAIL] RE: Level3 and ATT Latency
As a matter of pure competitive intelligence
As a matter of pure competitive intelligence gathering (i.e. I do not mean this
as a rhetorical question), which providers list peering issues on their portal?
Particularly when they might be a bit more of an ongoing nature vs. a concrete
outage?
Dave
-Original Message-
From:
This should now be fixed.
As a general matter of policy, we do filter out 10/8, but somehow the filter
list for a customer was empty which then defaults to an implicit accept. We're
in the process of improving our config audits to catch this in the future.
Dave
-Original Message-
of peers that share this information
with each other.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Benson Schliesser [mailto:bens...@queuefull.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:45 AM
To: Siegel, David
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: net neutrality and peering wars continue
Hi Wayne,
Another important point not to be missed is that these days, thanks to CDN
technology, a heavy inbound ratio does not necessarily indicate a high cost
burden like it did pre-CDN tech. Even more ironically, the unwillingness of a
peer to upgrade connections due to the ratio excuse
Well, with net flow Analytics, it's not really the case that we don't have a
way of evaluating the relative burdens. Every major net flow Analytics vendor
is implementing some type of distance measurement capability so that each party
can calculate not only how much traffic they carry for each
Off the shelf stuff? There are lots of options, but it seems like the general
opinion of the IT groups I've worked with is that it's just as much work to
customize and integrate them as it is to write from scratch so we tend to get
further way from COTS all the time.
You should take a look at
The information that I have is consistent with that...the cut appears to be
vandalism related.
Splicing has been under way for several hours and is expected to be completed
within the next 30 minutes.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Zaid Ali Kahn [mailto:z...@zaidali.com]
Sent:
The route-server is accessible again. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eduardo Schoedler [mailto:lis...@esds.com.br]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 12:07 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: GlobalCrossing looking glass problem
Hi all,
Someone is getting access to the
There is no such thing as a generic business case that can be applied across
all companies in an industry. Every business is unique in its product
definition and organization structure, but each question is also unique and
therefore the analysis must be done every time.
The way to begin is to
to hide what is being done unless it is
an Op Sec issue and I have never seen Level3 act with less than
responsibility so it had to be Op Sec.
When it is that, it is best if the remainder of us sit quietly on the
sidelines.
Ralph Brandt
-Original Message-
From: Siegel, David
Hi Ray,
This topic reminds me of yesterday's discussion in the conference around
getting some BCOP's drafted. it would be useful to confirm my own view of the
BCOP around communicating security issues. My understanding for the best
practice is to limit knowledge distribution of security
and I'll work with engineering to address them.
Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. Please resume enjoying the use of
this free tool! :)
Dave
From: Ben Bartsch [mailto:uwcable...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:14 AM
To: Siegel, David
Cc: N. Max Pierson; Cameron Daniel; nanog
Hi David,
I'm sorry you've had so many poor experiences with Level 3 recently, but I
assure you that we have acknowledged the problem and are actively working on it
at present.
Of general operations interest,
I just saw an event notification that matches the description of the problem
and
NANOG community,
As those of you who were able to attend one of the last couple of NANOG
membership meetings know, the education committee is exploring the idea of
adding a professional instructor-led class to the NANOG conference, not unlike
you might find with the tutorials available at
Hi Folks,
The site is offline as a result of some security issues that were discovered.
As soon as we've got it patched we'll put it back online.
Sorry for any inconvenience this may be causing.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: N. Max Pierson [mailto:nmaxpier...@gmail.com]
Sent:
That's a really good point, Patrick.
We've received an interesting analysis from our customers recently where they
reviewed the accounting on all the services they need in order to peer off
approximately 1/3rd of their total traffic.
They took their national wavelength cost, local access,
I'll identify myself as the person who asked you the question privately.
Unfortunately, Barry, I still don't see a problem statement in your response.
It sounds to me as though it really is nothing more than an interesting thought
experiment, and there's nothing wrong with that at all as long
Wouldn't that implicate the routing system to have, in essence, one routing
entry for every host on the network?
That would be the moral equivalent to just dropping down to a global ethernet
fabric to replace IP and using mac addresses for routing. I'll give you one
guess as to how well that
The only problem I've ever run into is with IP geo-location providers using the
country of origin of the original assignments to determine the locale of the
IP. Major CDN providers and content owners then use these geo-location
providers to provide geography specific content or for content
Thanks David, you hit the nail on the head on both points.
Level 3 made the routing policy change last November, roughly 6 weeks after the
acquisition of Global Crossing.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: David Reader [mailto:david.rea...@zeninternet.co.uk]
Sent: Thursday, August 02,
We deploy NIDs to the customer premise. You just can't get enough alarm data
be looking only at your router/switch on your side of an Ethernet NNI to give
you a proper indication of whether the service is functional, and it also
happens to be quite handy to have when a performance
35 matches
Mail list logo
