July 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: OT - Importance of Content
by Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL) 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

I agree, but as a regional player most large players won't peer with us anyway from my discussions with them. Maybe I'm just talking to the wrong people...:-) -----Original Message----- From: Joseph T. Klein [mailto:jtk@titania.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 2:00 PM To: Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL); nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: OT - Importance of Content Careful. Unbalanced traffic can cause difficulties with peering. The eyeball heavy networks will tend to peer with you but a long list of large (route table) players will not. --On Wednesday, 10 July 2002 13:49 -0400 "Owens, Shane (EPIK.ORL)" <sowens(a)epik.net> wrote: > > I was wondering the importance of content to IP providers. Is it > feasible to go after a lot of hosting companies and such as a business > model and greatly skew your traffic ratios to hopefully reach a > critical mass. I would think at some point you would have so much > content that people would start to come to you for peering or to > purchase access to get to that content which would cause a reduction > in overall transit costs, but what would that critical mass be and how > valid is that thought? > > Opinions? > > Shane Owens > > > -- Joseph T. Klein jtk(a)titania.net "Why do you continue to use that old Usenet style signature?" -- anon

1 0

transit
by Scott Granados 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

I'm not sure if there is a better list for this but I know this reaches some of the key audience members:). Could anyone interested who can offer transit at the E-xchange facility at 200 Paul in SF contact me privately. I'm looking for some transit for a new project. Thanks Scott

1 0

Re: XO
by Pawlukiewicz Jane 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

lol! Maybe I should've tried their website. who'dathought! thanks for making me laugh. "Hoffman, Sandra" wrote: > > One could also just go to http://www.xo.com... ;) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Cooper [mailto:ian@the-coopers.org] > Sent: 10 July 2002 16:13 > To: Pawlukiewicz Jane > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: XO > > One assumes 888.699.6398 (customer care line for data services) isn't what > you're looking for? > > --On 10 July 2002 11:00 -0400 Pawlukiewicz Jane <pawlukiewicz_jane(a)bah.com> > wrote: > > > > > Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys? > > > > I can't seem to find anything on them publicly, except the usual hype. > > > > Thanks for any help. > > > > Jane > > This e-mail (and any attachments) contains information, which is > confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named > addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, > distribute or use it for any purpose or disclose the contents to any person. > If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at > it(a)ntt.co.uk. The information contained in this e-mail (and any attachments) > is supplied in good faith, but the sender shall not be under any liability > in damages or otherwise for any reliance that may be placed upon it by the > recipient. Any comments or opinions expressed are those of the originator > not of NTT Europe Ltd unless otherwise expressly stated.

1 0

Re: XO
by Rizzo Frank 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

"Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote: > Anybody have a noc phone number for these guys? Admin Name........... LEFRANC ANTOINE Admin Email.......... antoine.lefranc(a)remy-cointreau.com Admin Phone.......... 33 5 45 35 76 30 Admin Fax............ 33 5 45 35 76 97 Tech Name............ Etienne Bernard Tech Email........... eb(a)gifrance.com Tech Phone........... 01 41 22 14 93 Tech Fax............. 01 46 84 00 18 Frank Rizzo

1 0

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Itsannoying and no one can see your message. Dang, this subject is long.
by Rizzo Frank 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

"Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote: > Good ol Frank, we can always count on you! Get a job, man. I'm employed, but looking. I sent a resume to Booz Allen Hamilton last week for the Senior Consultant position in NoVA. Do me a favor and talk to HR and put in a good word for me. Frank

1 0

Re: Stop it with putting your e-mail body in ATT attachments. Its annoying and no one can see your message
by Rizzo Frank 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

"Pawlukiewicz Jane" wrote: > I remember pegasus! That was ages ago. How did you install it, did it come on 8mm tape? Or did you download it from the local WaReZ BBS? > enough ot Jane, have you EVER posted anything on-topic? Frank Rizzo

2 1

Re: Windows Media/RealPlayer monitoring?
by cw 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 08:50:13 -0400, Matt Rowley wrote: >>Is there anyone out there who is using, or has implemented a >>successful monitoring system for Windows Media Server and/or Real >>Server? If so, then how did you go about it? > >Have a tool like big brother point to the rtsp and mms ports on the >server and make sure it can connect? >Open up the real server admin page in your java-capable browser of >choice and click on monitor? >PCanywhere/vnc into the windows box and click on Windows Media >Performance from the Admin Tools section of the start menu? Out of those options I think Big Brother probably comes closest and it was on the checklist to see if it is useable. I should probably have been more specific. What we are looking for is an automated checking system that can send a text message if a problem is found. It doesn't have to be all in one as I believe we currently have an email-sms gateway available to us.

2 1

RE: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by David Sinn 10 Jul '02

10 Jul '02

There is also a "cart and horse" issue here: Where is the pervasive content? Most content providers don't want multicast because it breaks their billing model. They can't tell how many viewers they have at a given moment, what the average viewing time is, or any of the other things that unicast allows them to determine and more importantly bill their advertisers for. There is no Nielsen's Ratings for multicast so that advertisers could get a feel for how many eyeballs they are going to hit. Then add in the latest from Congress with regard to streaming audio over the net, and you have a source payment issue making you not want to go down the multicast path. (Leaving Congress living up to their name as being opposite of progress.) Multicast is a great technology. It just is stuck looking for a problem to solve that doesn't create even more problems. David -----Original Message----- From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell@ufp.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 7:52 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6) In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 10:39:35AM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > They aren't aware of the savings they can see, consider the > savings too small, don't know how to configure, can't configure, > break the config, etc.. the list goes on and on. Speaking from a provider who used to run multicast, and now doesn't: Customers don't want it. I can count our customer requests for multicast on both hands for the last two years. Of those, only one thought it was important, the rest were just playing with it. In fact, pretty much the only place we see it anymore is on RFP's from educational groups. My own view is that customers don't want it, because end users don't have it. Dial up users will probably never get multicast. So that leaves Cable Companies (good luck for them to do something intelligent) or DSL providers (perhaps they might) to make it happen. If a few million end users could just 'get it', then people running streaming services would be beating on backbone providers to carry it around. There is also a payment problem. If a unicast bit enters your network, you can be assured it takes one path to the destination. When a multicast bit enters your network, it could take one path, or it could take 50 paths through your network. The latter does cost the ISP more. This also makes peering an issue, as many people use ratio. If there was a significant amount of multicast traffic, hosting ISP's would send end-user ISP's one small stream that they would then replicate. That would pretty much make the ratio completely opposite of what it is today, due to unicast streaming. I'll be the first to jump on the multicast bandwagon, but I don't work for an eyeball provider. The first adopters need to be DSL and cable modem providers, to the end user, on by default. Then we can go somewhere. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

10 10

Re: Just an FYI - Apache Worm on the loose
by Rizzo Frank 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

Jason Legate wrote: > Grow up troy. Who's this Troy guy you're telling to grow up? I've seen a couple different ones post here over the years. Is it possible you've lost your glasses again? www.lenscrafters.com tells me there's a store on 254-A Sunvalley Mall in Concord. If you want a discount, tell them you know Sol Rosenberg. Or send me a DHL, UPS, or FedEx account number and I'll send you the cupon I saw in this week's circulars. Frank

1 0

Re: multicast (was Re: Readiness for IPV6)
by Leo Bicknell 09 Jul '02

09 Jul '02

In a message written on Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 09:33:51PM -0400, John Fraizer wrote: > One of your clients is a mcast sender. You bill him/her for the traffic > on their port. > > Five of your clients are mcast receivers. You bill them for the traffic > on their respective ports. > > Worst(best?) case scenerio: The sender and the 5 receivers are all on > your network. You get to bill all six of them. Works fine. > If the sender is outside of your network and you have to deliver the mcast > to 5 different points on your network to your 5 mcast receiver clients, > you only see the mcast enter your network ONE TIME. You STILL get to bill > your 5 mcast receiver clients for the traffic on their ports and you only > have to INGRESS one copy of it to distribute to your 5 clients. Works fine. > So, what is the problem? You have a multicast sender on your network, and the 5 clients are on 5 different peer networks. You just carried 5 times the traffic on your network, and billed your client once. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

2 1