Florian Weimer wrote:
* Seth Mattinen:
4. Multihome.
Or get upstream from someone who does, and who is small enough to be
able to get additional upstream upon short notice. I know that this
solution isn't always cost-effective. 8-/
(Multihoming alone isn't a solution because it's hard to
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Ah yes, I suspect we can get all the network operators here to agree that any
customer of another ISP should buy a second connection just in case. Maybe
this breakage will turn out to be the best way for everyone to double their
customer base
No, but the providers who provide those connections should be multihomed.
If they're not, I'd consider switching providers. Simple as that.
jms
multihomed to whichever parties decide to generate split ups on purpose
in the intarrwebbz.. meaning: all of them.. (you can never tell which ones
On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:41 AM, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-
Kamphuis MP wrote:
No, but the providers who provide those connections should be
multihomed.
If they're not, I'd consider switching providers. Simple as that.
multihomed to whichever parties decide to generate split ups on
On Sunday 02 November 2008 10:28:31 Joe Greco wrote:
previous poster wrote:
so perhaps look at
your own setup and decide that you need that 2nd connection to back you
up when first one fails. This is a simple business logic.
Is it just me, or is this awful logic?
Awful or not, this is
Patrick wrote:
On Nov 3, 2008, at 9:41 AM, HRH Sven Olaf Prinz von CyberBunker-
Kamphuis MP wrote:
No, but the providers who provide those connections should be
multihomed.
If they're not, I'd consider switching providers. Simple as that.
multihomed to whichever parties decide to
Adam Rothschild wrote:
On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
work [...]
This is less than clear, and largely dependent on a specific
organization's [in]ability to function if their internets go
if anyone is actually saying anything new here, please point it out.
otherwise this seems like a lot of folk rehashing things from 1992 and
every year since, trying to demonstrate how smart they are, which
demonstrates how smart they are not.
randy
Justin M. Streiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Ah yes, I suspect we can get all the network operators here to agree that
any
customer of another ISP should buy a second connection just in case. Maybe
this breakage will turn out to be the best way for
Randy Bush wrote:
if anyone is actually saying anything new here, please point it out.
otherwise this seems like a lot of folk rehashing things from 1992 and
every year since, trying to demonstrate how smart they are, which
demonstrates how smart they are not.
Not all of us have been on the
Not all of us have been on the list since 92 or other years. Not all
of us are as informed about these things as you might be.
that's why we have it every year. only this year the volume has been
radically increased with no increase in content, just pontification.
randy
On 11/3/08, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if anyone is actually saying anything new here, please point it out.
otherwise this seems like a lot of folk rehashing things from 1992 and
every year since, trying to demonstrate how smart they are, which
demonstrates how smart they are not.
Dave Blaine wrote:
There are at least three ways to address this Sprint / Cogent partition:
1. Send Vint Cerf back up to Capitol Hill with a doomsday
scenario of what would happen to the economy if anyone else
gets as stupid as Sprint has been, begging for laws that any
tier-1 or tier-2 who
Marc Farnum Rendino wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More regs and more laws is certainly not in the running.
Why?
That is the way government works, too much, too late, in the wrong place.
How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Larry Sheldon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More regs and more laws is certainly not in the running.
Why?
How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable price?
If no body steps up, we don't need it.
There seems to be ample evidence, in many
Folks -
At some point, a society decides that X is important enough to the
society as a whole, that something official is in the overall
interest. Roads, immigration, whatever. That it's necessary to require
that some things be done (or not be done).
Peering may very well not be in that
Marc Farnum Rendino wrote:
Folks -
At some point, a society decides that X is important enough to the
society as a whole, that something official is in the overall
interest. Roads, immigration, whatever. That it's necessary to require
that some things be done (or not be done).
Peering
I'll make one comment before 'Alex the Hammer' closes this discussion for
straying into politics.
Clearly regulating the incumbents to unbundle local loops has worked very well
in some European countries (France and possibly others). Clearly US financial
deregulation has cost the world
How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable
price?
If no body steps up, we don't need it.
There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked
capitalism can have disastrous results.
And there are lot of examples and ample evidence in history, in many
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote:
It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government
intervention
The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive would
be to mandate what the Internet is, and if someone is selling access to
it, mandate that customers can
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive would
be to mandate what the Internet is, and if someone is selling access
to it, mandate that customers can demand a refund in case the Internet
Access doesn't provide access to enough a big part of
At 09:33 AM 11/2/2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote:
It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government intervention
The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive
would be to mandate what the Internet is, and if someone is
James Jun wrote:
As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have
no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either
networks. If you are complaining about Sprint-Cogent depeering and have
customers demanding for your mission-critical services,
James Jun wrote:
How about: If there is a need, somebody will provide at a suitable
price?
If no body steps up, we don't need it.
There seems to be ample evidence, in many arenas, that naked
capitalism can have disastrous results.
And there are lot of examples and
As much as we blame Cogent and Sprint for breaking the internet, I also have
no sympathy for individual single-homed downstream customers on either
networks. If you are complaining about Sprint-Cogent depeering and have
customers demanding for your mission-critical services, then you are just
Well, selling you an unlimited account and them terminating that
contract if you use to much is one thing, that is a stated lack of
a limit in your contract.
There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract,
adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no delivery
But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
work, two connections at home, two connections for each mobile device,
just to ensure that when large providers stop working together you can
still reach what you need to reach.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm
Well, selling you an unlimited account and them terminating that
contract if you use to much is one thing, that is a stated lack of
a limit in your contract.
There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract,
adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no
* Seth Mattinen:
4. Multihome.
Or get upstream from someone who does, and who is small enough to be
able to get additional upstream upon short notice. I know that this
solution isn't always cost-effective. 8-/
(Multihoming alone isn't a solution because it's hard to figure out
how independent
But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
work, two connections at home, two connections for each mobile device,
just to ensure that when large providers stop working together you can
still reach what you need to reach.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm
William Warren wrote:
If things were truly operating as designed the internet would be able to
automatically route around this depeering..the problem is not only do
these two depeer but they also totally block any other traffic coming in
from the other side. This is not how things should be
Nice interpretation of my statement..
A reasonable effort and a contractual guarantee are two different
things, a reasonable effort could be defined as economicly feasable
for instance.
My point was that in Cogents case this is really a force majeure
situation and in Sprints case unless
Nice interpretation of my statement..
A reasonable effort and a contractual guarantee are two different
things, a reasonable effort could be defined as economicly feasable
for instance.
Economically feasible?
If it isn't economically feasible, then repair your pricing model so that
it
On Nov 2, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Anders Lindbäck wrote:
Well, selling you an unlimited account and them terminating that
contract if you use to much is one thing, that is a stated lack of
a limit in your contract.
There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract,
adding
I am well aware how retarded this sounds to an average end-user, and
for that I am glad I am not in a buisness where I need to explain it
to them. But experience gained working for a party involved in a
previus Cogent spat I am well aware of what the SLAs and service sold
is.
You can
On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
work [...]
This is less than clear, and largely dependent on a specific
organization's [in]ability to function if their internets go down.
End-site multihoming
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 14:09:43 -0500
From: Adam Rothschild [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
work [...]
...
If anything, these recent de-peerings underscore the lack of wisdom
On 11/2/08, Matthew Petach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/2/08, Adam Rothschild [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008-11-02-10:14:14, Matthew Kaufman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But seriously, it shouldn't be necessary to have two connections at
This is less than clear, and largely
Repent repent, for the end is near.
People like to say that the Internet interprets (censorship,
monopolies, clue deficits, et al.) as congestion, and routes around --
but they got the causality exactly backwards. The Internet is an
epiphenomenon of the possibility of bypass, which enables
; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
I'll make one comment before 'Alex the Hammer' closes this discussion for
straying into politics.
Clearly regulating the incumbents to unbundle local loops has worked very
well in some European countries (France and possibly
It would be better to regulate some type of communication to customers
*before* depeering occurs, much in the same way that the SEC requires
publicly traded companies to communicate certain things a certain times to
its shareholders.
Wait. Cogent's known about this risk factor for some time.
, it appears that Sprint
didn't communicate anything to its customers, either.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Randy Epstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 10:50 PM
To: 'Frank Bulk'; 'Rod Beck'; 'Patrick Giagnocavo'; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: routing around Sprint's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
Dave Blaine wrote:
There are at least three ways to address this Sprint / Cogent partition
I'd be fairly reluctant to allow the government to get involved in
peering relationships too deeply. Australia has some very
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rod Beck wrote:
I'll make one comment before 'Alex the Hammer' closes this discussion
for straying into politics.
Clearly regulating the incumbents to unbundle local loops has worked
very well in some European countries (France and possibly
Dave Blaine wrote:
There are at least three ways to address this Sprint / Cogent partition
I'd be fairly reluctant to allow the government to get involved in
peering relationships too deeply. Australia has some very wierd
consquences of our government doing so almost ten years on. One of
45 matches
Mail list logo
