Got 10 GbE service from a data center in Santa Clara to a campus in San
Mateo California from Comcast. Been pretty solid. Only blips have been
anounced maintenance. When I have contacted support, I really can't
complain.
It's L2. I see my BPDUs and LLDPDUs come through.
So, yeah, it exists.
Buzz me offline and I'll connect you to them. I used to work there.
Cheers,
Joshua
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 23, 2013, at 11:13 PM, Crist Clark cjc+na...@pumpky.net wrote:
Got 10 GbE service from a data center in Santa Clara to a campus in San
Mateo California from Comcast. Been pretty
Do they offer an SLA on that? I've got a couple of broadcast sites that
could use a 21st century studio to transmitter link... Bandwidth wouldn't
be that spicy (just FM stereo here) but reliability is a must!! An att t1
is even starting to drive us nuts by having seconds long dropouts in the
Message-
From: Tom Morris [mailto:bluen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 2:38 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: Point to Point Ethernet request
Do they offer an SLA on that? I've got a couple of broadcast sites that
could use a 21st century studio to transmitter link... Bandwidth
Related, maybe:
Has anyone actually seen Comcast's ethernet service? This is
advertised as a symmetrical, high-speed (100mb+?) business service not
consumer stuff.
I called several times out of curiosity. Using the phone number for
this service on their website got me switched around several
Prices of terrestrial SDH/SONET cards are very low for transport providers.
For customers I believe there is a greater divergenc between the Ethernet and
SONET/SDH costs.
A strong hunch based on what clients tell me Cisco charges for SONET/SDH
interfaces.
I doubt a lot of people would
Brian Raaen wrote:
Hate to say it, but also some of the cost on the circuits can be blamed
on uncle Sam. ATM circuits are currently tariffed that same way are
voice circuits. These tariffs are not charged to Ethernet because it is
a 'data circuit'. At least that was the case a little while back.
Brian Raaen wrote:
Hate to say it, but also some of the cost on the circuits can be blamed
on uncle Sam. ATM circuits are currently tariffed that same way are
voice circuits. These tariffs are not charged to Ethernet because it is
a 'data circuit'. At least that was the case a little while
Prices of terrestrial SDH/SONET cards are very low for transport providers. For
customers I believe there is a greater divergenc between the Ethernet and
SONET/SDH costs.
A strong hunch based on what clients tell me Cisco charges for SONET/SDH
interfaces.
Roderick S. Beck
Director of
Once upon a time, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com said:
Ethernet is cheap because it's everywhere, and built into almost
everything. (however, the likes of Cisco and Juniper still charge insane
amounts for line cards, be they ethernet, T1, or OC48.) Given the choice
of buying a $4k DS3 card
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com said:
Ethernet is cheap because it's everywhere, and built into almost
everything. (however, the likes of Cisco and Juniper still charge insane
amounts for line cards, be they ethernet, T1, or OC48.) Given the choice
of
. Some support policing, but shaping can be far
more efficient. There are some nortel switches that do this, but I
haven't seen many in the wild.
-Original Message-
From: Chris Adams [mailto:cmad...@hiwaay.net]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 10:39 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Point
Hate to say it, but also some of the cost on the circuits can be blamed
on uncle Sam. ATM circuits are currently tariffed that same way are
voice circuits. These tariffs are not charged to Ethernet because it is
a 'data circuit'. At least that was the case a little while back.
--
Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on fast-e/slow-e.
As far as I know Gig and 10 Gig (with LAN PHY) are exactly the same
as 10 and 100 Mbps in this respect, i.e. 8 bytes of preamble and 12
bytes of IFG. So you always have an overhead of 20 bytes, no matter
what.
10 Gig with
on the
old copper and SONET.
-Original Message-
From: sth...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:34 PM
To: tkap...@gmail.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Point to Point Ethernet
Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on
fast-e/slow-e
...@nethelp.no [mailto:sth...@nethelp.no]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:34 PM
To: tkap...@gmail.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Point to Point Ethernet
Best case, you blow 12 bytes on IFG in gig, 20 bytes on
fast-e/slow-e.
As far as I know Gig and 10 Gig (with LAN PHY) are exactly
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
There's plenty of fiber in the ground. Light dark stuff with the new
network, plug it into IEEE 802* compliant layer 2, and IETF compliant
layer 3 infrastructure; and leave the dying Bellcore/ITU network on the
old copper and SONET.
Have you built
I frequently run into scenarios where two devices (two routers, or a
router and a host) need a point-to-point connection to each other with
a capacity of (much) more than 10 Gbps.
For cost reasons, Ethernet is often used.
Since more than 10 Gbps is needed, we end up with multiple parallel
10GE
Cayle,
This may be partial hijack of the thread or even a trivial query but I ask
this since you mentioned For cost reasons, Ethernet is often used. We hear
this argument all the time. The standard unabridged reason I have learned is
the ubiquity of Ethernet devices, whatever that means. Can you
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Zartash Uzmi wrote:
Can you say why precisely the cost of Ethernet is low compared to other
viable alternatives?
The components going into ethernet devices are cheaper because of high
volume, but it's also that the SONET/SDH stuff is grossly overpriced
because we can by
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:33:10 -0400, Zartash Uzmi zart...@gmail.com wrote:
... Can you say why
precisely the cost of Ethernet is low compared to other viable
alternatives?
Volume. Economies of scale. Etc.
Ethernet is cheap because it's everywhere, and built into almost
everything.
Zartash Uzmi wrote:
Can you say why precisely the cost of Ethernet is low compared to other
viable alternatives?
Becuase there's a lot of it?
Gigabit ethernet ports cost less than 9600bps terminal server ports.
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will
hear me/us.
--
Andre
We also need functional remote loop testing, of the remote hands guy plugs in
a loopback plug or I send remote-triggered loop type.
David Barak
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Andre Oppermannnanog-l...@nrg4u.com wrote:
Do you think this is useful?
Andre,
Some thoughts on this:
1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we
want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
2. Why do we need to
...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 9:47 AM
To: 'Andre Oppermann'; nanog@nanog.org; Ivan Pepelnjak
Subject: RE: Point to Point Ethernet
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will
hear me/us.
--
Andre
We also need functional remote loop testing, of the remote hands guy
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote:
1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we
want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
To me the only reason for this would be to lessen overhead on small
packets. Also, afaik standard payload MTU is
; Ivan Pepelnjak
Subject: RE: Point to Point Ethernet
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will
hear me/us.
--
Andre
We also need functional remote loop testing, of the remote hands guy plugs
in a loopback plug or I send remote-triggered loop type.
David Barak
Need Geek Rock
On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote:
1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If
we want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
From what I have been told, IEEE 802 refuses to make
1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we
want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in the next standard?
To me the only reason for this would be to lessen overhead on small
packets. Also, afaik standard payload MTU is 1500 for ethernet, anything
else is
My first thought was that there's really no use ripping the guts out of a
protocol whose core mechanisms are aimed at dealing with the complexities of
operating on a shared medium only to use it in an environment in which none
of those complexities exist.
But, if interfaces would be made to
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Marshall Eubankst...@americafree.tv wrote:
On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote:
1. What's the point of increasing the max MTU from 9000 to 9012? If we
want a higher MTU, why not just ask for one in
My understanding is that 9000 is a standard for GigE and up but for
compatibility with earlier ethernets it's not the default.
Your understanding is wrong. The only IEEE standard is 1500 bytes.
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
My understanding is that 9000 is a standard for GigE and up but for
compatibility with earlier ethernets it's not the default.
Your understanding is wrong. The only IEEE standard is 1500 bytes.
Steinar,
I 'spose I could have consulted
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, William Herrin wrote:
At the cost of low-volume production run hardware which is A. much more
expensive (because of the low volume), B. restricted to a few supported
routers and C. less thoroughly tested. I don't see how you come out
ahead in that calculation.
The only
Speaking from a personal interest, has the Point-to-Point Protocol
stopped being useful?
After all, PPP over Sonet/SDH was specifically designed for just this case.
Once upon a time, it worked well for intra-site connections, as originally
specified in RFC1619:
PPP encapsulation over high
Speaking from a personal interest, has the Point-to-Point Protocol
stopped being useful?
After all, PPP over Sonet/SDH was specifically designed for just this case.
Absolutely, and it still works great for that purpose.
However, given a provider backbone with Ethernet being the underlying
More importantly one can specify the just the outgoing interface
again instead of the next hop:
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 g0/1
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
No. What makes Ethernet useful and successful is that, unlike most
other network/interconnection
The reality is that is an SDH/SONET backbone underlying most of these
Ethernet networks.
That may be so (however, numbers for the national provider I work for do
not tend to bear this out). But does it matter? People presumably use
Ethernet because it is inexpensive, easily available, well
On 08.07.2009 18:04, Joe Greco wrote:
More importantly one can specify the just the outgoing interface
again instead of the next hop:
ip route 10.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 g0/1
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
No. What makes Ethernet useful and successful is that,
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:01:20 -0400, Andre Oppermann nanog-l...@nrg4u.com
wrote:
... completely do away with ARP, MAC addresses and all
that stuff.
Removing all that stuff means it's no longer ethernet.
Do you think this is useful? Maybe vendors will hear me/us.
No. I do not.
Ethernet is
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
Ethernet is not a point-to-point technology. It is a multi-point
(broadcast, bus, etc.) technology with DECADES of optimization and
adoption. No one has gotten IEEE to adopt a larger frame size, and you
want to drop *fundamental* elements of ethernet?!?
in no way affiliated or compensated for sales.)
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:33 AM
To: Ricky Beam
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Point to Point Ethernet
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Ricky Beam wrote:
Ethernet is not a point
History shows us that Layer 2 winds up being IEEE, and Layer 3 IETF.
mpls
43 matches
Mail list logo
