On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 14:02, Mark Tinka wrote:
> But that only accounts for about 15% of our overall traffic. The rest
> comes from peering.
I'd really like to hear more datapoints from different eyeballs on this, like
60% local caches, of remaining traffic, 70% peered
so transit = 0.4*0.3 =
On 10/Feb/20 14:37, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> The “cattle” case:
>
> Or would you instead rely on small-ish non-redundant HW at your
> internet edge rather than trying to enhance MTBF with big chassis full
> of redundant HW?
>
> Is this cause eventually the MTBF figure for a
On 25/Jan/20 02:49, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
>
>
> The solution is to stay clear of tier 1 networks. Find a good local
> tier 3. Whatever you are going to do, they will do better.
So all our transit comes from the top 7 "global" carriers. Yes,
including Cogent :-).
But that only accounts for
On 24/Jan/20 16:55, Aaron Gould wrote:
> Thanks Jared, When I reminisce with my boss he reminds me that this telco/ISP
> here initially started with a 56kbps internet uplink , lol
In Uganda, the Internet first showed up in 1995.
Those days, 2 ISP's had 64Kbps each, via satellite, for all
On 16/Feb/20 16:51, Saku Ytti wrote:
> I'd really like to hear more datapoints from different eyeballs on this, like
>
> 60% local caches, of remaining traffic, 70% peered
>
> so transit = 0.4*0.3 = 12%
>
> I think this might be reasonable, but perhaps it's even less transit
> for eyeballs
On 14/Feb/20 20:24, Andy Ringsmuth wrote:
> U, it is 2020, not 2010. 100M, 200M, 400M or 1G is increasingly common
> for home broadband. I’ve got 400M at home, could get 1G fiber for less than
> $100 if I wanted it, and I’m in your average, run-of-the-mill Midwest city.
Gaming does
On 26/Jan/20 06:29, Aaron Gould wrote:
>
> I love the symmetric ~10 gig speed test to put it into perspective for
> how far we’ve come….also the 3 ms ping result. Ain’t it great
>
You laugh, but it's true :-).
We stopped entertaining this kind of nonesense from customers that don't
understand
IPv4 looks like I would expect traversing Charlottesville, VA then to
Ashburn, VA. This is what I am used to seeing.
Tracing route to 73.214.xxx.xxx
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 7 ms11 ms 9 ms 96.120.80.37
3 7 ms 9 ms 7 ms
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:45 PM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 25/Jan/20 02:49, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > The solution is to stay clear of tier 1 networks. Find a good local
> > tier 3. Whatever you are going to do, they will do better.
>
> So all our transit comes from the top 7
We are seeing about 79% currently that is with one of our new Akamai PNIs
in CHI and we peer at most major IXs across the US.
Top 5 peers Netflix, Google, Akamai, Amazon and EdgeCast. (In order)
Erich Kaiser
The Fusion Network
er...@gotfusion.net
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Mike Hammett
On 24/Jan/20 12:43, Simon Leinen wrote:
>
> At 64kbps (ISDN/Antarctica) you could do it in 69 days, maybe even
> finishing before the next - undoubtedly bigger - release comes out.
In 1996, in Entebbe, it took me a week to download and copy mIRC.
Connection was a 14.4Kbps dial-up service
On 26/Jan/20 06:59, Karl Auer wrote:
>
> You tell that to young folk these days and they don't believe you...
No use. They couldn't describe a cassette if it came with the manual;
nor a Nokia 5110 phone for that matter:-).
Mark.
Reading all the arguments one could generalize that choosing default/partial
routes (instead of full feed) one is basically outsourcing all the control,
convergence speed, security, etc.. to upstream providers.
adam
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Amir Herzberg
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2020
It sounds like my only option within that facility is BITS.
I've asked Metaswitch what their requirements are for the TDM clock.
I will shortly. I could put something up at a friendly customer and pipe it
back into the CO.
My current thought is maybe there's a box that can take an
"you are not going to be able to peer 85% of the traffic"
It depends. If you are an eyeball ISP and you join one of the major IXes,
you'll be near 85%.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From:
On 24/Jan/20 01:35, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Apple did this with the original iPhone. Turned out even in their
> ecosystem they didn't get it right. The full restore images have
> always been there and diffs didn't reappear until you could "OTA" the
> device (WiFi)
Still the case today.
Diffs are
On 24/Jan/20 00:32, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>
> If I may...which also reminds me of a project in Africa which used
> some sort of wireless link (probably packet-radio) on top of buses.
Where, in Africa?
Mark.
On 29/Jan/20 02:22, Paul Nash wrote:
> One of our early customers was a group of students who wanted to start a
> small dial ISP nearby. We gave them service, bootstrapping what became our
> biggest competitor, Internet Solutions (now part of DiData, who never did ask
> for their router
On 26/Jan/20 06:58, Joly MacFie wrote:
> IIRC that 64k was in fact 56k with 8k for overhead.
>
> I had one, and it would kick in a second channel if you pushed it, for
> a whopping 112k. Metered, came out to about $500/mo.
My first ISDN experience was in Swaziland, 2003. There weren't many
On 16/Feb/20 20:47, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> This is for volumen however. Almost everything breaks if we loose the
> transits. It is not like you are 80% ok.
And this is an important point, as even if many of your on-net caches
would origin via a peering session with its owner, some origins
I just looked at the stats again we are actually at about 82%.
Erich Kaiser
The Fusion Network
er...@gotfusion.net
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 11:18 AM Kaiser, Erich wrote:
> We are seeing about 79% currently that is with one of our new Akamai PNIs
> in CHI and we peer at most major IXs
Recently I did a dive into IPsec and the related RFCs describing the
techniques used to setup a site-to-site tunnel. The RFCs I've been
reading are quite clear. However, there's one thing I can't seem to put
my finger on. From what I know is that the phase 1 ISAKMP Security
Association (SA) is
Ok it's Sunday...
The first time I got on the internet was around 1977.
A friend dropped by the lab I worked in at Harvard and wondered if I
had an MIT ITS account and I said no wasn't even sure what it was
other than a time sharing system at MIT.
So we had a modem and dumb terminal and
I think there are a number of reasons. For example, anti-replay would be
harder to implement on a bi- directional SA. Encryption and authentication
algorithms may be asymmetric, so defining a bi-directional SA for those
would be more complicated. For multicast, bi-directional also doesn’t make
On 2/15/20 1:17 PM, Bart Hermans wrote:
Does someone know why these IPsec SAs are unidirectional?
My take on it:
* IP, on which IPSec is directly built, is not a bidirectional protocol.
It is unidirection and fire-and-forget. There's no assumption made
that the source address specified in
On 16/Feb/20 18:08, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> From the perspective of someone just starting out being dual homed,
> this will be very different. You are not going to get 7 transits and
> you are not going to be able to peer 85% of the traffic. That is why I
> advocate that it is better to buy
Hi. Yes, I will be sharing the results (anonymously, of course). I have
been working on a research publication and the survey results will be a
part of it.
On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 4:27 AM Etienne-Victor Depasquale
wrote:
> Will you share the results? It would be good to know them.
>
> On Fri,
Since people on here like to talk about the generatorn run time on cell towers,
I thought y’all might like to see an ATT microcell in downtown Austin, TX. No
apparent generator or battery on it.
https://imgur.com/a/RY9Tg7h
—Chris
Hello
My numbers for the last 7 days:
NL-IX 2107 22%
STHIX 412 4%
Cache (netflix+akamai) 3070 32%
Telia 1118 12%
Cogent 258 3%
HE 2490 26%
= 9455 100%
The numbers being average (not peak or 95 percentile) inbound. Outbound is
irrelevant for us.
I suppose that if you consider Hurricane Electric
On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 16:57:24 -0600, Chris Boyd said:
> Since people on here like to talk about the generatorn run time on cell
> towers, I thought yâall might like to see an ATT microcell in downtown
> Austin,
> TX. No apparent generator or battery on it.
> https://imgur.com/a/RY9Tg7h
Bart asked,
> Does someone know why these IPsec SAs are unidirectional? Usually the
> RFC describes some reasoning behind certain design decisions. However, I
> can't seem to find a justification other than "It's by design". On the
> Internet however, I read that the two SA requirement is chosen
This is a small cell. They are very common across all of the carriers.
It is NOT intended to provide primary coverage for the area.
It IS intended to provide additional capacity to the immediate area.
Think of the large cell towers as providing blanket coverage, while small
cells provide hot
Will you share the results? It would be good to know them.
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:07 PM Usama Naseer wrote:
> Hi NANOG,
>
> We have often read that CDNs/CSPs optimize their networking stack
> configurations (e.g., TCP, HTTP etc.) to meet their performance/service
> requirements.
> Please
On 23/Jan/20 21:52, Paul Nash wrote:
> A bit of perspective on bandwidth and feeling old. The first non-academic
> connection from Africa (Usenet and Email, pre-Internet) ran at about 9600 bps
> over a Telebit Trailblazer in my living room.
Where in Africa? It's a small place you know
On 10/Feb/20 17:06, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> Also transits are way more important than peers. Loosing a transit
> will cause massive route changes around the globe and it will take a
> few minutes to stabilize. Loosing a peer usually just means the peer
> switches to the transit route, that
35 matches
Mail list logo
