- Test - lists.nanog.org

The i-root china reroute finally makes fox news. And congress.
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/16/internet-traffic-reportedly-rout… -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

12 20

starwars.com subdomain hijacked?
by Matt Disuko 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

It seems the subdomain "shop.starwars.com" is being redirected. Anybody else seeing this?

8 9

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement ConcerningComcast'sActions
by Brandon Butterworth 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

> And before we get too much into HD vs Codecs vs 720P vs 1080p vs > "true HD" marketing BS, I capture out of my camera's HDMI port at > 3Gbit/s and I am not running 4:4:4 color. So what is HD and what it > the allowable compression for it still to be considered as such. Whatever marketing feel like, there is no absolute High Definition, it's really Higher Definition where the reference is undefined. When access speeds get to 1Gbit/s they'll no doubt be unhappy that we may stream something like this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11436939 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/researchanddevelopment/2010/10/super-hi-vision-t… If you make it they will fill it. brandon

2 1

experience with equinix exchange
by Shacolby Jackson 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

Has anyone had any experience (good or bad) with their exchange at any of their major datacenters, especially Great Oaks? We're wondering if people really love or hate it. -shac

16 21

Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
by Richard Hartmann 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

Hi all, as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term. Being highly pedantic Germans, this annoyed quite a few people within the DENOG community. This, in turn, lead to an I-D[1]. If any of you have any additional suggestions, you are more than welcome to share them. Additionally, I want to invite everyone to participate in an informal poll which we created[2]. We're fully aware that it's trivial to cheat on this poll; that's life. As of right now, Quibble leads with Hextet being a close second. All other options got significantly less votes. Thanks, Richard [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming [2] http://doodle.com/5q9gfvk4qe6zmzc6

21 60

Brocade FCX 624/648 experiences?
by Ulf Zimmermann 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

Anyone with Brocade FCX 624/648 experience, please give me a shout off the list. Looking any feedback, bad or good. I am looking at a number of switches right now, the Brocade is one which looks interesting and isn't too badly priced. Thanks! -- Regards, Ulf.

1 0

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
by Ben Butler 30 Nov '10

30 Nov '10

And what happens when the content providers have multicast to the BGP edge and the access provider has to carry it from there on in their network. This is solely about money and the brokenness of the current ISP / access / carrier / content provider commercial model. This has been coming for years once access speed (long since) got upto a sufficient speed to sustain 1 to 2 Mbit and they sorted out their copyright issues on the content. Now all the access providers who spoke big in marketing and delivered little in service are being exposed and trying to fudge the issue. This has been coming for at least five years with video, and the next one is SIP with call revenues. Show me the money! -----Original Message----- From: Steven Fischer [mailto:sfischer1967@gmail.com] Sent: 30 November 2010 02:03 To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions Trying to follow this - so, if I have followed it correctly, L3 hosts high-bandwitdh services (namely NetFlix) to which an abundance of Comcast users subscribe? And Comcast is crying foul, and claiming a portion of L3's revenue is rightfully theirs, for being "last mile" to a significant portion of the CDN/NetFlix customer base? Does L3 even service a home user market, in the same vein as Comcast or Verizon? On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM, Marshall Eubanks <tme(a)americafree.tv>wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Phil Bedard wrote: > > > Is L3 hosting content for Netflix? > > You bet. > > > http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/11/11/level-3-signs-deal-to-b… > > * NOVEMBER 11, 2010, 9:13 AM ET > > Level 3 Signs Deal To Be A Primary Netflix CDN; Shares Rally > > Regards > Marshall > > > Netflix has become a large source of > > traffic going to end users. L3 likely could have held out on this one if > > the content they were hosting is valuable enough to Comcast's customers, > > but maybe what Comcast was asking for wasn't much in the grand scheme of > > things. > > > > Obviously someone has to pay for the access infrastructure and Comcast > > would much rather get the content provider to pay for it versus passing > it > > along to their customers. I think they probably just took a stab and L3 > > complied. > > > > Phil > > > > > > > > On 11/29/10 5:28 PM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> wrote: > > > >> < > http://www.marketwatch.com/story/level-3-communications-issues-statement- > >> concerning-comcasts-actions-2010-11-29?reflink=MW_news_stmp> > >> > >> I understand that politics is off-topic, but this policy affects > >> operational aspects of the 'Net. > >> > >> Just to be clear, L3 is saying content providers should not have to pay > >> to deliver content to broadband providers who have their own product > >> which has content as well. I am certain all the content providers on > >> this list are happy to hear L3's change of heart and will be applying > for > >> settlement free peering tomorrow. (L3 wouldn't want other providers to > >> claim the Vyvx or CDN or other content services provided by L3 are > >> competing and L3 is putting up a "toll booth" on the Internet, would > >> they?) > >> > >> -- > >> TTFN, > >> patrick > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -- To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BODY { MARGIN: 0px}.footerdark { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #001a35; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.blackcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.bluecopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #29aae2; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.address { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10px; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.footerlight { LINE-HEIGHT: 13px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #667891; FONT-SIZE: 9px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none}.pinkcopy { LINE-HEIGHT: 12px; FONT-FAMILY: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; COLOR: #ed174d; FONT-SIZE: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; TEXT-DECORATION: none} Ben Butler Director Tel: 0333 666 3332 Fax: 0333 666 3331 C2 Business Networking Ltd The Paddock, London Road, Nantwich, Cheshire, CW5 7JL http://www.c2internet.net/ Part of the Atlas Business Group of Companies plc Registered in England: 07102986 Registered Address: Datum House, Electra Way, Crewe CW1 6ZF Vat Registration No: 712 9503 48 This message is confidential and intended for the use only of the person to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient you are strictly prohibited from reading, disseminating, copying, printing, re-transmitting or using this message or its contents in any way. Opinions, conclusions and other information expressed in this message are not given or authorised by the Company unless otherwise indicated by an authorised representative independent of this message. The Company does not accept liability for any data corruption, interception or amendment to any e-mail or the consequences thereof.Emails addressed to individuals may not necessarily be read by that person unless they are in the office.Calls to and from any of the Atlas Business Group of Companies may be recorded for the purposes of training, monitoring of quality and customer services.

1 0

Jumbo frame Question
by Harris Hui 29 Nov '10

29 Nov '10

Hi Does anyone have experience on design / implementing the Jumbo frame enabled network? I am working on a project to better utilize a fiber link across east coast and west coast with the Juniper devices. Based on the default TCP windows in Linux / Windows and the latency between east coast and west coast (~80ms) and the default MTU size 1500, the maximum throughput of a single TCP session is around ~3Mbps but it is too slow for us to backing-up the huge amount of data across 2 sites. The following is the topology that we are using right now. Host A NIC (MTU 9000) <--- GigLAN ---> (MTU 9216) Juniper EX4200 (MTU 9216) <---GigLAN ---> (MTU 9018) J-6350 cluster A (MTU 9018) <--- fiber link across site ---> (MTU 9018) J-6350 cluster B (MTU 9018) <--- GigLAN ---> (MTU 9216) Juniper EX4200 (MTU 9216) <---GigLAN ---> (MTU 9000) NIC - Host B I was trying to test the connectivity from Host A to the J-6350 cluster A by using ICMP-Ping with size 8000 and DF bit set but it was failed to ping. Does anyone have experience on it? please advise. Thanks :-)

19 21

RE: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement Concerning Comcast'sActions
by David Hubbard 29 Nov '10

29 Nov '10

Wonder if comcast will try that with google's tv service; would like to see them explain to their users why they can't get to google. Level 3's unfortunately a much easier target. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Wall [mailto:ospfisisis@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2010 5:47 PM > To: Patrick W. Gilmore > Cc: NANOG list > Subject: Re: Level 3 Communications Issues Statement > Concerning Comcast'sActions > > Between the lines: Comcast wants to end mutual peering > agreements (due to: > ratios, politics , greed) but we are going to spin it due to > net neutrality > making it main stream media and hoping we can get comcast clients to > complain... > > Not the worse angle we've seen > > > > > > > >

1 0

Cacti Bandwidth Monitoring
by Peter Rudasingwa 29 Nov '10

29 Nov '10

Hi, I have a cacti server running and it has been working fine so far except for one interface which has an average of 150Mbps going through it now. Before when I had less than 120Mbps I got proper graphs but of late it gives me graphs of 20Mbps when it should be giving me the correct reading (150Mbps). Is there a maximum bandwidth it graphs or can this be edited so that I get proper graphs? -- Best Regards, Peter Rudasingwa *ALTECH STREAM RWANDA Ltd* ICT Park Boulevard de L'Umuganda P.O.Box 6098 Kigali, Rwanda Telephone: (+250) 580532/5 Mobile: (+250) 0788406685 ------------------------------------ *Affordable Broadband Solutions*

9 9