Re: internet - sparkle

[Mike Hammett]

IXes are generally a far better use of eyeball resources than additional 
transit networks. 

Obviously, there are some edge exceptions. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Jared Geiger" <ja...@compuwizz.net> 
To: "Aaron Gould" <aar...@gvtc.com>, Nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 2:31:35 PM 
Subject: Re: internet - sparkle 

If most of your traffic is for US based destinations, you might see worse 
performance since Sparkle doesn't seem to have many US POPs/Peering 
locations compared to Centurylink/Level3 or HE. You'd probably benefit more 
by pulling in some peering from Dallas than adding or replacing a transit 
provider as your current mix is decent for an eyeball network. Pick up 
peering with Cloudflare, Netflix, Amazon, EdgeCast, Facebook, Apple, 
Akamai, and Microsoft in Dallas and you might even be able to get rid of 
one of your transit providers. 

Sparkle would "shine" if you were a US hosting provider with many eyeballs 
in Europe/Africa/Middle East. 

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: 

> 
> 
> On 16/May/18 16:54, Aaron Gould wrote: 
> > .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is 
> it 
> > still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle, 
> since 
> > they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet 
> presence) 
> 
> I don't know about "owning" the Internet, but I would agree with the 
> article re: the 7 key global transit providers as things stand in 2018. 
> 
> It matches up with our own compliment of transit providers in our 
> network (AS37100). 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering Sparkle 
> as 
> > an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio, 
> TX . 
> > we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow. He 
> > mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly, in 
> the 
> > future be in Austin or San Antonio 
> 
> My initial experience with TI Sparkle was in South East Asia back in 
> '08. They were decent. 
> 
> We have them in our stable, and like them for their South American 
> coverage. 
> 
> Mark. 
> 

Re: internet - sparkle

[Jared Geiger]

I assumed your AS number is 16527 and looked up who you currently are
peering with.

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Aaron Gould  wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> What's an eyeball network ?
>
> How do you know my "current mix is decent" ?
>
> Btw, I have onsite the cdn's aanp, ggc, oca, fna, so only about ~60% of my
> customer traffic is from Internet uplinks...  ~40% is served from local
> cdn's
>
>
> Aaron
>
> > On May 16, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Jared Geiger  wrote:
> >
> > If most of your traffic is for US based destinations, you might see
> worse performance since Sparkle doesn't seem to have many US POPs/Peering
> locations compared to Centurylink/Level3 or HE. You'd probably benefit more
> by pulling in some peering from Dallas than adding or replacing a transit
> provider as your current mix is decent for an eyeball network. Pick up
> peering with Cloudflare, Netflix, Amazon, EdgeCast, Facebook, Apple,
> Akamai, and Microsoft in Dallas and you might even be able to get rid of
> one of your transit providers.
> >
> > Sparkle would "shine" if you were a US hosting provider with many
> eyeballs in Europe/Africa/Middle East.
> >
> >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16/May/18 16:54, Aaron Gould wrote:
> >> > .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018,
> is it
> >> > still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to
> Sparkle, since
> >> > they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet
> presence)
> >>
> >> I don't know about "owning" the Internet, but I would agree with the
> >> article re: the 7 key global transit providers as things stand in 2018.
> >>
> >> It matches up with our own compliment of transit providers in our
> >> network (AS37100).
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering
> Sparkle as
> >> > an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San
> Antonio, TX .
> >> > we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area
> somehow.  He
> >> > mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly,
> in the
> >> > future be in Austin or San Antonio
> >>
> >> My initial experience with TI Sparkle was in South East Asia back in
> >> '08. They were decent.
> >>
> >> We have them in our stable, and like them for their South American
> coverage.
> >>
> >> Mark.
> >
>

Re: internet - sparkle

[craig washington]

Agree with this  
Traffic engineering is non existent making it a pain to move your traffic 
besides not advertising the prefix to them

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 16, 2018, at 12:33 PM, Ca By  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:14 AM Michael Crapse  wrote:
>> 
>> Additionally, whilst not "technically" a tier 1 provider, Hurricane
>> electric should be high on that list. Especially as one of the best
>> providers of and proponents for IPv6. We'll see into the future, HE may
>> have one of the most critical infrastructures, and should be a "part-owner"
>> of the internet.
>> 
> 
> Fully disagree.
> 
> 1). HE cant reach cogent on v6. Forget whos fault it is, it is a liability
> for anyone that relies on HE
> 
> 2). They dont support common bgp communities like no-export, so trying to
> do TE is a mess.
> 
> 3). They are at the center of nearly every bgp hijacking fiasco because
> they dont have reasonable route controls.
> 
> HE is a liability to us all until they fix their bgp filters
> 
> https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2018/04/amazons-route-53-bgp-hijack/
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018, 8:08 AM Eric Dugas  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Replace Level3 with CenturyLink as they're basically taking over AS33566.
>>> Would add Zayo (AS6461) to the list.
>>> 
>>> I'm not familiar with Sparkle/Seabone to be honest as we're operating an
>>> eyeball network exclusively in the NA.
 On May 16 2018, at 10:54 am, Aaron Gould  wrote:
 
 http://icaruswept.com/2016/06/28/who-owns-the-internet/
 
 
 .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is
>>> it
 still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle,
>>> since
 they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet
>>> presence)
 
 
 
 Also, please tell me your feelings/experiences of Sparkle as an
>> Internet
 uplink provider. like for 10/100 gig.
 
 
 
 My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering
>> Sparkle
>>> as
 an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio,
>>> TX .
 we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow.
>> He
 mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly,
>> in
>>> the
 future be in Austin or San Antonio
 
 
 
 
 
 - Aaron
>>> 
>> 

Re: internet - sparkle

[Scott Weeks]

--- aar...@gvtc.com wrote:
From: Aaron Gould 

What's an eyeball network ? 
---


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyeball_network

scott

Re: internet - sparkle

[Aaron Gould]

Thanks.  

What's an eyeball network ? 

How do you know my "current mix is decent" ?

Btw, I have onsite the cdn's aanp, ggc, oca, fna, so only about ~60% of my 
customer traffic is from Internet uplinks...  ~40% is served from local cdn's


Aaron

> On May 16, 2018, at 2:31 PM, Jared Geiger  wrote:
> 
> If most of your traffic is for US based destinations, you might see worse 
> performance since Sparkle doesn't seem to have many US POPs/Peering locations 
> compared to Centurylink/Level3 or HE. You'd probably benefit more by pulling 
> in some peering from Dallas than adding or replacing a transit provider as 
> your current mix is decent for an eyeball network. Pick up peering with 
> Cloudflare, Netflix, Amazon, EdgeCast, Facebook, Apple, Akamai, and Microsoft 
> in Dallas and you might even be able to get rid of one of your transit 
> providers.
> 
> Sparkle would "shine" if you were a US hosting provider with many eyeballs in 
> Europe/Africa/Middle East.
> 
>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 16/May/18 16:54, Aaron Gould wrote:
>> > .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is it
>> > still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle, 
>> > since
>> > they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet 
>> > presence)
>> 
>> I don't know about "owning" the Internet, but I would agree with the
>> article re: the 7 key global transit providers as things stand in 2018.
>> 
>> It matches up with our own compliment of transit providers in our
>> network (AS37100).
>> 
>> 
>> >  
>> >
>> > My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering Sparkle as
>> > an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio, TX .
>> > we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow.  He
>> > mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly, in 
>> > the
>> > future be in Austin or San Antonio
>> 
>> My initial experience with TI Sparkle was in South East Asia back in
>> '08. They were decent.
>> 
>> We have them in our stable, and like them for their South American coverage.
>> 
>> Mark.
> 

Re: internet - sparkle

[Kurt Kraut]

Hello,


Also Sparkle (AS6762) has a significant footprint in South America, I'd say
even bigger than Level 3 because they have mobile telco and broadband ISP
in Brazil.

I wouldn't worry much with latency in NA because at least in South America
they do hot potato (as everyone does) and all their PoPs exchange traffic
with at least Level 3. So I suspect traffic hardly ever exits their PoP
within their network.


Best regards,


Kurt Kraut

Em qua, 16 de mai de 2018 às 16:32, Jared Geiger 
escreveu:

> If most of your traffic is for US based destinations, you might see worse
> performance since Sparkle doesn't seem to have many US POPs/Peering
> locations compared to Centurylink/Level3 or HE. You'd probably benefit more
> by pulling in some peering from Dallas than adding or replacing a transit
> provider as your current mix is decent for an eyeball network. Pick up
> peering with Cloudflare, Netflix, Amazon, EdgeCast, Facebook, Apple,
> Akamai, and Microsoft in Dallas and you might even be able to get rid of
> one of your transit providers.
>
> Sparkle would "shine" if you were a US hosting provider with many eyeballs
> in Europe/Africa/Middle East.
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 16/May/18 16:54, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > > .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is
> > it
> > > still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle,
> > since
> > > they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet
> > presence)
> >
> > I don't know about "owning" the Internet, but I would agree with the
> > article re: the 7 key global transit providers as things stand in 2018.
> >
> > It matches up with our own compliment of transit providers in our
> > network (AS37100).
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering
> Sparkle
> > as
> > > an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio,
> > TX .
> > > we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow.
> He
> > > mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly,
> in
> > the
> > > future be in Austin or San Antonio
> >
> > My initial experience with TI Sparkle was in South East Asia back in
> > '08. They were decent.
> >
> > We have them in our stable, and like them for their South American
> > coverage.
> >
> > Mark.
> >
>

Re: internet - sparkle

[Jared Geiger]

If most of your traffic is for US based destinations, you might see worse
performance since Sparkle doesn't seem to have many US POPs/Peering
locations compared to Centurylink/Level3 or HE. You'd probably benefit more
by pulling in some peering from Dallas than adding or replacing a transit
provider as your current mix is decent for an eyeball network. Pick up
peering with Cloudflare, Netflix, Amazon, EdgeCast, Facebook, Apple,
Akamai, and Microsoft in Dallas and you might even be able to get rid of
one of your transit providers.

Sparkle would "shine" if you were a US hosting provider with many eyeballs
in Europe/Africa/Middle East.

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:

>
>
> On 16/May/18 16:54, Aaron Gould wrote:
> > .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is
> it
> > still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle,
> since
> > they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet
> presence)
>
> I don't know about "owning" the Internet, but I would agree with the
> article re: the 7 key global transit providers as things stand in 2018.
>
> It matches up with our own compliment of transit providers in our
> network (AS37100).
>
>
> >
> >
> > My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering Sparkle
> as
> > an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio,
> TX .
> > we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow.  He
> > mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly, in
> the
> > future be in Austin or San Antonio
>
> My initial experience with TI Sparkle was in South East Asia back in
> '08. They were decent.
>
> We have them in our stable, and like them for their South American
> coverage.
>
> Mark.
>

Re: internet - sparkle

[Mark Tinka]

On 16/May/18 16:54, Aaron Gould wrote:
> .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is it
> still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle, since
> they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet presence)

I don't know about "owning" the Internet, but I would agree with the
article re: the 7 key global transit providers as things stand in 2018.

It matches up with our own compliment of transit providers in our
network (AS37100).


>  
>
> My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering Sparkle as
> an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio, TX .
> we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow.  He
> mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly, in the
> future be in Austin or San Antonio

My initial experience with TI Sparkle was in South East Asia back in
'08. They were decent.

We have them in our stable, and like them for their South American coverage.

Mark.

Re: internet - sparkle

[Hank Nussbacher]

On 16/05/2018 19:12, Michael Crapse wrote:

HE listed currently in 7th place:
http://as-rank.caida.org/

-Hank

> Additionally, whilst not "technically" a tier 1 provider, Hurricane
> electric should be high on that list. Especially as one of the best
> providers of and proponents for IPv6. We'll see into the future, HE may
> have one of the most critical infrastructures, and should be a "part-owner"
> of the internet.
>

Re: internet - sparkle

[Ca By]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 9:14 AM Michael Crapse  wrote:

> Additionally, whilst not "technically" a tier 1 provider, Hurricane
> electric should be high on that list. Especially as one of the best
> providers of and proponents for IPv6. We'll see into the future, HE may
> have one of the most critical infrastructures, and should be a "part-owner"
> of the internet.
>

Fully disagree.

1). HE cant reach cogent on v6. Forget whos fault it is, it is a liability
for anyone that relies on HE

2). They dont support common bgp communities like no-export, so trying to
do TE is a mess.

3). They are at the center of nearly every bgp hijacking fiasco because
they dont have reasonable route controls.

HE is a liability to us all until they fix their bgp filters

https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2018/04/amazons-route-53-bgp-hijack/




> On Wed, May 16, 2018, 8:08 AM Eric Dugas  wrote:
>
> > Replace Level3 with CenturyLink as they're basically taking over AS33566.
> > Would add Zayo (AS6461) to the list.
> >
> > I'm not familiar with Sparkle/Seabone to be honest as we're operating an
> > eyeball network exclusively in the NA.
> > On May 16 2018, at 10:54 am, Aaron Gould  wrote:
> > >
> > > http://icaruswept.com/2016/06/28/who-owns-the-internet/
> > >
> > >
> > > .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is
> > it
> > > still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle,
> > since
> > > they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet
> > presence)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Also, please tell me your feelings/experiences of Sparkle as an
> Internet
> > > uplink provider. like for 10/100 gig.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering
> Sparkle
> > as
> > > an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio,
> > TX .
> > > we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow.
> He
> > > mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly,
> in
> > the
> > > future be in Austin or San Antonio
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Aaron
> >
>

Re: internet - sparkle

[Michael Crapse]

Additionally, whilst not "technically" a tier 1 provider, Hurricane
electric should be high on that list. Especially as one of the best
providers of and proponents for IPv6. We'll see into the future, HE may
have one of the most critical infrastructures, and should be a "part-owner"
of the internet.

On Wed, May 16, 2018, 8:08 AM Eric Dugas  wrote:

> Replace Level3 with CenturyLink as they're basically taking over AS33566.
> Would add Zayo (AS6461) to the list.
>
> I'm not familiar with Sparkle/Seabone to be honest as we're operating an
> eyeball network exclusively in the NA.
> On May 16 2018, at 10:54 am, Aaron Gould  wrote:
> >
> > http://icaruswept.com/2016/06/28/who-owns-the-internet/
> >
> >
> > .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is
> it
> > still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle,
> since
> > they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet
> presence)
> >
> >
> >
> > Also, please tell me your feelings/experiences of Sparkle as an Internet
> > uplink provider. like for 10/100 gig.
> >
> >
> >
> > My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering Sparkle
> as
> > an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio,
> TX .
> > we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow. He
> > mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly, in
> the
> > future be in Austin or San Antonio
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > - Aaron
>

Re: internet - sparkle

[Eric Dugas]

Replace Level3 with CenturyLink as they're basically taking over AS33566. Would 
add Zayo (AS6461) to the list.

I'm not familiar with Sparkle/Seabone to be honest as we're operating an 
eyeball network exclusively in the NA.
On May 16 2018, at 10:54 am, Aaron Gould  wrote:
>
> http://icaruswept.com/2016/06/28/who-owns-the-internet/
>
>
> .written in 12/2015 - do y'all think this is accurate, and, in 2018, is it
> still accurate ? (asking since my next question is related to Sparkle, since
> they are listed in that previous article as a significant Internet presence)
>
>
>
> Also, please tell me your feelings/experiences of Sparkle as an Internet
> uplink provider. like for 10/100 gig.
>
>
>
> My coworker just got back from ITW/Chicago and he is considering Sparkle as
> an additional Internet provider for the ISP I work for in San Antonio, TX .
> we would need to uplink to Sparkle in the central Texas area somehow. He
> mentioned that Sparkle may be in McAllen / Dallas and could possibly, in the
> future be in Austin or San Antonio
>
>
>
>
>
> - Aaron