You can't get their IP space revoked just because you got a stupid
response from a confused/uneducated/overworked abuse handler. If you
could, Yahoo and Hotmail would have been shut down ages ago. :)
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 goe...@anime.net wrote:
i reported abuse to them that was originating
Hi,
As you all know, transit costs in the wholesale market today a few percent of
what it did in 2000. I assume that most of that decline is due to a modified
version of Moore's Law (I don't believe optics costs decline 50% every 18
months) and the advent of maverick players like Cogent that
Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com writes:
goe...@anime.net writes:
Note ARIN has attempted to validate the data for this POC, but has received
no response from the POC since 2013-11-06
So if the owner does not care to respond to ARIN, what now?
POC validation has an extraordinarily low
goe...@anime.net writes:
Note ARIN has attempted to validate the data for this POC, but has received
no response from the POC since 2013-11-06
So if the owner does not care to respond to ARIN, what now?
POC validation has an extraordinarily low success rate (under 50% if
memory serves).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Cisco IOS XR Software BVI Routed Packet Denial of Service Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20150415-iosxr
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2015 April 15 16:00 UTC (GMT)
Summary
===
A vulnerability in the packet-processing code of Cisco IOS
Hi Roderick,
transit cost is lowering close to peering cost, so it is doubghtful
economy on small channels. If you don't live in
Amsterdam/Frankfurt/London - add the DWDM cost from you to one of major
IX. That's the magic.
In large scale peering is still efficient. It is efficient on local
It also depends on traffic makeup. Huge amounts of eyeball traffic go to (well,
come from) NetFlix (a third) and Google, FaceBook, Hulu, Amazon, etc. (another
third). It's comparable price to peer off those few huge sources of traffic and
buy better transit than you would have than to just buy
(Reply to thread, not necessarily myself.)
If you can pull a third of your traffic off at the cost of a cross connect and
another third at the cost of an IX port, now you can spend a buck or two a meg
on what's left. Yes, I understand the cost of a cross connect or IX port is the
$/megabit
Not actually Facebook net, but Akamai CDN. Not a Google (peer), but GCC
node ;)
It is varying from location to location. For example here in Ukraine we
(still) have 1st place for traffic amount from Vkontakte (mostly music
streams), second from EX.ua (movie store), but almost none NetFlix, Hulu
Very true. I left it as I did given that I expect a similar profile from others
in North America... on NANOG.
Basically, wherever your region's streaming video or application updates come
from. ;-)
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
-
On 4/15/15 07:28, Rod Beck wrote:
Hi,
As you all know, transit costs in the wholesale market today a few
percent of what it did in 2000. I assume that most of that decline is
due to a modified version of Moore's Law (I don't believe optics
costs decline 50% every 18 months) and the advent of
Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
cost effective for a small ISP.
As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many major transit providers,
including Hurricane Electric and Cogent.
Netnod
On 2015-04-15 19:50, Max Tulyev wrote:
transit cost is lowering close to peering cost, so it is doubghtful
economy on small channels. If you don't live in
Amsterdam/Frankfurt/London - add the DWDM cost from you to one of major
IX. That's the magic.
In large scale peering is still efficient. It
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y43Fy4oU2XE
There are reasons to peer other than cost reduction.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent:
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
* Baldur Norddahl baldur.nordd...@gmail.com
Transit cost is down but IX cost remains the same. Therefore IX is longer
cost effective for a small ISP.
As an (non US) example, here in Copenhagen, Denmark we have two internet
exchanges DIX and Netnod. We also have many major transit providers,
16 matches
Mail list logo
