As someone who used to work for a university's residential network, this
doesn't surprise me at all.
Even as of March 2007, I was seeing 30%+ of our total bandwidth being used
for flash video sites during peak hours (~6pm to midnight for our users).
P2P was easy to control with a worst-effort
There is a fallacy in focusing on inbound/outbound traffic here because it's
more about where the meter is than the direction. It would be better to talk
about local vs distant but the problem is that it's about an abstract
topology according to the accidental properties of the peering
--- Forwarded Message
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 14:28:13 -0400
From: Ed Jankiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Total Filtering
To: Lauren Weinstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As reported by our regional high school, name changed to protect the
innocent. By the way, this impedes students ability to
From: Ed Jankiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Total Filtering
As many news organizations are now reporting, Sprint-Nextel (Embarq) has
decided to sever its Internet connection with Cogent, another Internet
service provider. This action has caused a hole or rip in the
internet, meaning that
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Kriss Andsten
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On 31 okt 2008, at 05.27, nick hatch wrote:
I see Comcast's move to cap at 250GB as a sticking their toes in the
water, and perhaps trying to set a precident at the same time. I don't see a
techincal reason for the
There's no violation of any RFCs here, it's a peering dispute which is quite
common on the Internet.
It's a long running myth that routes are automatically rerouted on the
Internet. Unless one of the two end-points is dual-homed with 2 completely
separate ISPs configured for BGP (or DNS
On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Barry Gold wrote:
OK, so what has happened to the treats censorship as damage and
routes around it Internet? Even if Embarq and Cogent are no longer
talking to each other, the routers should be automatically finding
routes via other carriers and sending the
Here's a good article on the situation:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2008/10/wrestling-with-the-zombie-spri.shtml
Barry Gold wrote:
OK, so what has happened to the treats censorship as damage and routes
around it Internet?
It hasn't existed for a long time.
Even if Embarq and Cogent are no
Yes, ISPs are always multihomed, but multihomed does not mean multi-routed
for every single route path. That's why whenever you get one of these
disputes, certain routes are cut off until the dispute is resolved. When
you use application proxies (or DNS remapping) to re-route, you're simply
George,
In this case however, we're talking major carriers, which have many many
peers (massively multihomed). There are multiple routes around, as
evidenced by the fact that people are using proxying services to get
around the damage at the application layer.
As for BGP propagation, if its
Kevin,
As evident in the stories people have posted, we get at least one major
peering dispute per year between tier 1 providers and certain pockets are
cut off from other pockets. Mind you that it's not everything cut off for
those people; just certain destinations. This is the nature of
11 matches
Mail list logo
