On 2013-02-05 20:39 , Fabian Wenk wrote:
> Hello Jeroen
>
> On 05.02.2013 19:56, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> You are missing the important point about peering:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYdi43qXHc
>
> And this shows just an other problem of this world, which also matches
> the title of the
hi stephan
you have always a possibility to fix this -
you can buy transit in form of a paid peering with those
networks who are customer-critical and be badly peered
on your existing upstreams. (be careful: no full transit -
just peering only - with full transit you import a lot of
this proble
Hi Bernd,
uh, I started a big discussion here ;)
2013/2/5 Bernd SPIESS :
> hi stephan
> this is the reason why it is important to really really pick carefully your
> ip-access or ip-transit provider. ip is not a matter of price/mbit as you can
> see here
from that point you are completely righ
Just some thoughts...
> study peering connect, peering policy and peering reality,
> for the ip carrier of your choice,
> carefully in all markets, which are important for you.
Yes, but this changes daily. If you are single-homed, brace
and hope everything keeps "as is" when things work. Good exa
Hello Jeroen
On 05.02.2013 19:56, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You are missing the important point about peering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUYdi43qXHc
And this shows just an other problem of this world, which also
matches the title of the Video "Meja - A'll Bout The Money":
"This video cont
On 2013-02-05 19:31 , Andreas Fink wrote:
> side note: I was testing LTE in Basel. Speed is lower than 3G (like
> 3-5M/sec) I wondered why as my friends in Finland get like 40M/s
LTE is not deployed yet for real in Switzerland...
Note also that for instance
> What spring to my mind however is th
side note: I was testing LTE in Basel. Speed is lower than 3G (like 3-5M/sec)
I wondered why as my friends in Finland get like 40M/s
What spring to my mind however is that the speed test tools do in fact measure
speed with local providers around the corner. And as far as I know, swisscom
doesn't
> 358 ms58 ms43 ms
> 217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch[217.168.58.101]
> 4 139 ms 140 ms 145 ms 84.116.211.22
> I'd say here's where the problem begins and it still UPC network I think.
sorry - no - as the handover takes part in washington you have twice
the atlantic in bet
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Stephan Wolf wrote:
> hello,
>
> since longer I have seen, that UPC is routing Cablecom Home connetions via
> US to London:
>
>
> Tracing route to 82.129.64.250 over a maximum of 30 hops
>
> 358 ms58 ms43 ms
> 217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch[217.168.58.101]
hi stephan
this is the reason why it is important to really really pick carefully your
ip-access or
ip-transit provider. ip is not a matter of price/mbit as you can see here -
study peering connect, peering policy and peering reality, for the ip carrier
of your choice,
carefully in all markets,
hi stephan
this is the reason why it is important to really really pick carefully your
ip-access or
ip-transit provider. ip is not a matter of price/mbit as you can see here -
study peering connect, peering policy and peering reality, for the ip carrier
of your choice,
carefully in all markets,
Do you mean UPC is routing Cogent through USA?
Basically, UPC doesn't peer with Cogent and have it delivered by their
upstreams.
This is called hair pinning and it is probably one of the very few major
network that has such issue with UPC.
Gregory
On 5 February 2013 17:11, Stephan Wolf wrote:
hello,
since longer I have seen, that UPC is routing Cablecom Home connetions via
US to London:
Tracing route to 82.129.64.250 over a maximum of 30 hops
246 ms68 ms52 ms 77-56-176-1.dclient.hispeed.ch [77.56.176.1]
358 ms58 ms43 ms
217-168-58-101.static.cablecom.ch[
13 matches
Mail list logo
