On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:25 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
In article 20150301124846.ga16...@gsp.org you write:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US
currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from
Frank was the most vocal…
the biggest cidr deployment issue was hardware vendors with “baked-in”
assumptions about addressing. IPv6 is doing the same thing with its /64
nonsense.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 1March2015Sunday, at 13:37, David Conrad
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
Dave,
I appreciate all your work on buffer bloat. It looks like you have done quite
a lot of selfless contribution. However, I don't think you're effectively
communicating with the people who can change things.
After I
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Jack Bates jba...@paradoxnetworks.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 5:28 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
My IP address is apparently now banned from accessing your site at
all, for advertising, on this thread:
On 3/1/2015 6:14 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
It is 100% possible to fix excessive downstream buffering from some
misconfigured device with a shaper on the download *on the CPE or
home router*.
From OP: However I've recently noticed periods of 500-800ms latency to
the CMTS gateway when only using
As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and
generaly no blocking.
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
I'm in a T-W area, haven't checked Comcast's prices lately. But if you
don't have a static IP, it's a poor idea to try
On 3/1/15 1:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and
bandwidth caps.
let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing
since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created?
CIDR had nothing to do
In article 20150301124846.ga16...@gsp.org you write:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US
currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very)
Well, with luck probably it will just bounce off their corporate hull and drift
into the Kuiper belt.
Say hi to Sugar ;)
-mel
On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Dave Taht dave.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:
Dave,
I appreciate all
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Mar 1, 2015, at 14:01 , John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US
currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not
On Mar 1, 2015, at 17:58 , John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
As I said above, retail customers. Business customers get static IPs and
generaly no blocking.
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
I'm in a T-W area, haven't checked Comcast's prices
In article 54f32f1a.9090...@meetinghouse.net you write:
Scott,
Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between
servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running
locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment?
There's always a lot more
It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and
bandwidth caps.
let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing
since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created?
CIDR had nothing to do with address scarcity. CIDR was invented
On 3/1/2015 5:28 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
My IP address is apparently now banned from accessing your site at
all, for advertising, on this thread:
http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Up-to-152Mb/Bufferbloat-High-Latency-amp-packet-loss-when-connection/td-p/2773495
I don't see how codel is
I have put this on a blog post, and my g+ also, here, and submitted
the story to slashdot and reddit. How I spend my sunday afternoons
these days!
The linky version:
http://the-edge.blogspot.com/2015/03/virgin-media-fixing-epidemic-of.html
or g+:
On 02/28/2015 07:55 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
And given lousy upload speeds the opportunities to develop for example
backup services in a world of terabyte disks is limited. At 1mb/s it
takes approx 100,000 seconds to upload 1TB, that's roughly one week,
blue sky.
If that terabyte drive holds
On 02/28/2015 07:55 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
And given lousy upload speeds the opportunities to develop for example
backup services in a world of terabyte disks is limited. At 1mb/s it
takes approx 100,000 seconds to upload 1TB, that's roughly one week,
blue sky.
If that terabyte drive
On 1 March 2015 at 03:41, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
Previously all residential service (e.g., dial-up, ISDN) was
symmetrical.
The rot set in with V.90 56k modems - they were asymmetric - only the
downstream was 56k. The only way to achieve this in the analogue realm was
by
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US
currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam
from Comcast customers:
Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality Date: Fri, Feb 27, 2015
at 05:25:41PM -0600 Quoting Jack Bates (jba...@paradoxnetworks.net):
On 2/27/2015 5:09 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
What people want, at least once thay have tasted it, is optical
last mile. And not that PON shit. The
Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be
designed to work on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to deliver
cable TV. It's not some conspiracy to differentiate higher priced business
services - it was a fact of RF technology and the architecture of the
Aled Morris wrote:
Sadly we don't have many killer applications for symmetric residential
bandwidth, but that's likely because we don't have the infrastructure to
incubate these applications.
Come to think of it, if USENET software wasn't so cumbersome, I kind of
wonder if today's social
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US
currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam
from Comcast customers:
Well, it's supposed to be blocked, according to people I've talked
On 3/1/15, 4:44 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX
spam
from Comcast customers:
fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business
customer links.
Bingo! Yes, commercial customers do run
http://burntchrome.blogspot.com/2014/05/disabling-shaping-in-one-direction-with.html
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Jack Bates jba...@paradoxnetworks.net wrote:
On 3/1/2015 6:14 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
It is 100% possible to fix excessive downstream buffering from some
misconfigured device with
On Mar 1, 2015, at 14:01 , John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US
currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely true. (Very) recent direct-to-MX spam
from Comcast
In article 54f3d78a.5080...@satchell.net you write:
On 03/01/2015 05:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
That's also true for Charter. I know of one ISP offering DSL that gives
its customers static addresses. Only one. That
The Charter engineers are all working on their IPV6 migration and have
been for at least three years now :-(
.On 3/1/2015 6:25 PM, Lewis,Mitchell T. wrote:
Any Charter or Comcast Network Folks out there? I would appreciate a contact
off-list. I am in the charter new england territory to
On 03/01/2015 01:44 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
fairly certain that none of these folk block port 25 on their business
customer links.
Correct as far as Charter goes. Particularly for people with dedicated
IP addresses, as I do. I can't speak for DHCP address space.
On 3/1/15 7:24 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott,
Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between
servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running
locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment?
The most densly connected relays by
Any Charter or Comcast Network Folks out there, I would appreciate a contact
off-list. I am in the charter new england territory to be transferred to
comcast am seeing unusual network issues.
Thanks,
Mitchell T. Lewis
mle...@techcompute.net
LinkedIn Profile:
On 03/01/2015 05:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Business customers only get static from Comcast if they pay extra for it.
That's also true for Charter. I know of one ISP offering DSL that gives
its customers static addresses. Only one. That doesn't mean there
aren't more that do.
Any Charter or Comcast Network Folks out there? I would appreciate a contact
off-list. I am in the charter new england territory to be transferred to
comcast am seeing unusual network issues.
Thanks,
Mitchell T. Lewis
mle...@techcompute.net
LinkedIn Profile:
Hey Barry - you ran some rather huge NNTP servers, back in the day, you
have any comments on this?
Scott Helms wrote:
Miles,
Usenet was normally asymmetrical between servers, even when server
operators try to seed equally as being fed. It's a function of how a
few servers are the source
On 02/28/2015 06:15 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
Michael,
You should really learn how DOCSIS systems work. What you're trying to
claim it's not only untrue it is that way for very real technical
reasons.
I'm well aware. I was there.
Mike
On Feb 28, 2015 6:27 PM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
On 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
You mean CableLabs?
Yes.
Mike
On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com
mailto:m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Michael,
Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the
On 03/01/2015 08:19 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Michael,
Then you understand that having the upstreams and downstreams use the
same frequencies, especially in a flexible manner, would require
completely redesigning every diplex filter, amplifier, fiber node, and
tap filters in the plant. At
Anything based on NNTP would be extremely asymmetric without significant
changes to the protocol or human behavior.
We ran significant Usenet servers with binaries for nearly 20 years and
without for another 5 and the servers' traffic was heavily asymmetric.
On Mar 1, 2015 9:11 AM, Miles Fidelman
Scott,
Asymmetric measured where? Between client and server or between
servers? I'm thinking the case where we each have a server running
locally - how do you get a high level of asymmetry in a P2P environment?
Miles Fidelman
Scott Helms wrote:
Anything based on NNTP would be
On 01/03/2015 03:41, Barry Shein wrote:
On February 28, 2015 at 23:20 n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) wrote:
there were several reasons for asymmetric services, one of which was
commercial. Another was that most users' bandwidth profiles were massively
asymmetric to start with so it
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:03:28PM -0500, John R. Levine wrote:
Well, actually, it does. Every broadband network in the US
currently blocks outgoing port 25 connections from retail customers.
Unfortunately, that's not entirely
Miles,
Usenet was normally asymmetrical between servers, even when server
operators try to seed equally as being fed. It's a function of how a few
servers are the source original content and how long individual servers
choose (and have the disk) to keep specific content.
It was never designed
On 02/28/2015 06:38 PM, Scott Helms wrote:
You're off on this. When PacketCable 1.0 was in development and it's
early deployment there were no OTT VOIP providers of note. Vonage at
that time was trying sell their services to the MSOs and only when
that didn't work or did they start going
Michael,
Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the MSOs or
vendors involved in the protocol development had any concerns about OTT.
The reason the built QoS was because the networks weren't good enough for
OTT
On Mar 1, 2015 10:51 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On
On 03/01/2015 05:08 AM, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be designed to work
on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to deliver cable TV. It's not some
conspiracy to differentiate higher priced business services - it was a
On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Michael,
Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the MSOs or
vendors involved in the protocol development had any concerns about
OTT. The reason the built QoS was because the networks weren't good
enough for OTT
Being at
Michael,
Then you understand that having the upstreams and downstreams use the same
frequencies, especially in a flexible manner, would require completely
redesigning every diplex filter, amplifier, fiber node, and tap filters in
the plant. At the same time we'd have to replace all of the
You mean CableLabs?
On Mar 1, 2015 11:11 AM, Michael Thomas m...@mtcc.com wrote:
On 03/01/2015 07:55 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
Michael,
Exactly what are you basing that on? Like I said, none of the MSOs or
vendors involved in the protocol development had any concerns about OTT.
The reason
On 3/1/2015 10:01 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
They didn't want to give channels for internet bandwidth either. Life
would have been
*far* more simple had the MSO's not *forced* the hardware designer to
use their crappy
noisy back channel, such as it was. The move from analog -- which was
I am not normally, willingly, on nanog. My emailbox is full enough. I
am responding, mostly, to a post I saw last night, where the author
complained about the horrid performance he got when attempting a
simultaneous up and download on a X/512k upload DSL link.
That is so totally fixable now, at
50 matches
Mail list logo
