On 5/26/12, Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 09:39:16PM -0400, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:06:03AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Whether $150/month or so just for BGP on a low-speed (sub-100M)
link is reasonable or not depends on the SP.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 12:34:22PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 09:39:16PM -0400, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:06:03AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
... Feel free to turn the process around -- decide what
the service is worth to you, tell the
On 5/25/12 15:12 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 5/25/12 3:08 PM, Adam wrote:
You also have to implement additional filters to protect yourself from what
your client can advertise. I'm lucky enough to work for a major ISP with
pretty sophisticated filters built off the public route registry, but
Hello,
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Anurag Bhatia m...@anuragbhatia.com wrote:
Hello everyone
I have been aggressively looking for deals in servers in Europe for
anycasting.
If you're looking for stuff in Europe (I'm assuming Western European
EU member states, rather than states
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:06:03AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
We pay what our providers think they can get away with. Like most pricing
decisions, they're not based on any technical logic, they're based on what
the market will bear. Feel free to turn the process around -- decide what
the
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 09:39:16PM -0400, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:06:03AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
We pay what our providers think they can get away with. Like most pricing
decisions, they're not based on any technical logic, they're based on what
the market
IMHO the only reason(s) would be to discourage people from asking for
it, or as a $$ grab.
-jim
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Anurag Bhatia m...@anuragbhatia.com wrote:
Hello everyone
I have been aggressively looking for deals in servers in Europe for
anycasting. One thing which
Price is probably for high availability and high SLA standards.
Ashish Rastogi
From: Anurag Bhatia [m...@anuragbhatia.com]
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 12:01 PM
To: NANOG Mailing List
Subject: Industry practice for BGP costs - one time or fixed/monthly?
There are starting to be a major difference in cost for supporting bgp. Taking
a look at routing table size, many people are going to see troubles around 512k
routes. Placing you on a device that doesn't need a full table or one at all
will result in lower capital costs and lower operational
Le vendredi 25 mai 2012 à 16:04 +, Ashish Rastogi a écrit :
Price is probably for high availability and high SLA standards.
Yes, hopefully not for simple BGP route exchange...! :)
mh
Ashish Rastogi
From: Anurag Bhatia [m...@anuragbhatia.com]
The only thing that I can really think of is that the BGP sessions do take up
extra CPU time and memory on the routing engine, so there is an additional cost
to the provider in terms of needing more routers and/or bigger routers if they
have lots of customers speaking BGP to them that they may
Edward's response nailed this one on the head. It has to do with the
additional support/hardware required to support a BGP session. Granted,
once a BGP session is established it rarely requires any tweaking, but I've
spent hours troubleshooting a downed BGP session because the client's IPS
On 5/25/12 3:08 PM, Adam wrote:
You also have to implement additional filters to protect yourself from what
your client can advertise. I'm lucky enough to work for a major ISP with
pretty sophisticated filters built off the public route registry, but not
all ISPs have this functionality.
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 09:31:11PM +0530, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
I have been aggressively looking for deals in servers in Europe for
anycasting. One thing which surprises me is the setup costs for BGP. Few
providers quoted additional $50-100 which looks OK but a few of them quoted
as high as
14 matches
Mail list logo
