Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs’ refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
L3 escalates on Peering/CDN/Neutrality. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/level-3-blames-interne... -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On Mar 19, 2014, at 15:00, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote:
L3 escalates on Peering/CDN/Neutrality.
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/level-3-blames-interne...
The devil on my left shoulder wants to laugh at L3 for their hypocrisy. The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a "tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer, what the rest of us have known for decades. In the middle is me being afraid of the gov't actually regulating something that _is_ a problem, but because they are the gov't, doing it in a way that will cause more issues than it solves. :-( -- TTFN, patrick
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a "tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer, what the rest of us have known for decades.
Every time the market has troubled the status quo, networks have failed to find ways that adapt to that market. The market ends up working around the network. Napster and all the goodness that followed it, is one such example; until iTunes adapted. And yes, iTunes is NOT the network. Now the OTT's are driving the network hard, and the network des not want to adapt (perhaps calling in the FCC is adapting... not). So expect the market to work around this as well. The network keeps getting left behind... Mark.
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 7:39 AM:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a "tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer, what the rest of us have known for decades. Every time the market has troubled the status quo, networks have failed to find ways that adapt to that market. The market ends up working around the network.
Napster and all the goodness that followed it, is one such example; until iTunes adapted. And yes, iTunes is NOT the network.
Now the OTT's are driving the network hard, and the network des not want to adapt (perhaps calling in the FCC is adapting... not).
So expect the market to work around this as well. The network keeps getting left behind...
Mark.
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me. One can reasonably make the argument that not all of ISP X's customers are using the service simultaneously, so the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer is unnecessary and unjustified. However, if past experience proves that 25% of business X's customers are consistently using the service simultaneously and business X has NOT put in the infrastructure to support this common level of usage, then this appears to be a simple financial decision to advertise/sell something that the business knows it cannot deliver. Would the same business practices fly in other fields? Perhaps. Airlines overbook, knowing that some customers won't show up. However, they don't sell 200 tickets (knowing that 90% if customers will show) but have only 100 seats to serve the 180 customers they expect. Fast food restaurants don't sell you a fry and drink when they know they're out of fries. I can speculate that customers would not patronize companies in the travel or food industry if they operated the same way that some ISP's operate. The difference, to me, seems to be that ISPs often enjoy a monopoly while there are usually several food and travel options in most places. --Blake
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:16:26 PM Blake Hudson wrote:
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me.
One can reasonably make the argument that not all of ISP X's customers are using the service simultaneously, so the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer is unnecessary and unjustified. However, if past experience proves that 25% of business X's customers are consistently using the service simultaneously and business X has NOT put in the infrastructure to support this common level of usage, then this appears to be a simple financial decision to advertise/sell something that the business knows it cannot deliver. Would the same business practices fly in other fields? Perhaps. Airlines overbook, knowing that some customers won't show up. However, they don't sell 200 tickets (knowing that 90% if customers will show) but have only 100 seats to serve the 180 customers they expect. Fast food restaurants don't sell you a fry and drink when they know they're out of fries. I can speculate that customers would not patronize companies in the travel or food industry if they operated the same way that some ISP's operate. The difference, to me, seems to be that ISPs often enjoy a monopoly while there are usually several food and travel options in most places.
Completely agree. What I'm saying is the market is now suggesting that the idea that I won't be using my 8Mbps all the time does not hold as true now as it did ten years ago. A lot of the content is being driven from the homes (symmetric bandwidth being driven by FTTH). And while customers are not online 100% of the time, they are more online now than they were ten years ago. So building the network just enough for what you over-advertise isn't a workable strategy. Will it stop? Unlikely... Now the market is saying, "I want Netflix and all its cousins" on a consistent basis, or at least, during prime viewing. And the network is failing to deliver this because the network is set in its ways. I'm not yet sure what the solution will be (looking at a global scale, not just North America), but I hazard that it might not involve the network, in the way it does today, unless the network can figure out how to make this work with happiness all around. Mark.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes
Hey, what part of "up to 8Mbps" is an assurance, that the system supports 8Mbps from all customers 24x7 simultaneously? Only the former can be delivered inexpensively; the latter from large service providers is a business service that doesn't seem to be in the compass of ordinary mortals. Because this is the well-known industry standard; it can't accurately be described as one of deception. Then there is this whole matter of end-to-end connectivity. Just because your WAN device links up at 8 Megabits, does not mean you have been guaranteed 8 Mbits end-to-end. Intentionally failing to upgrade selected links and establish peerings to carry traffic to high-demand destinations when necessary, is just constructive rate-limiting. It's just a very clumsy imprecise alternative to rate-limiting a destination, that can be claimed to have been done without specific intent. As far as network neutrality regulation is concerned... that should be regarded with (essentially) no difference, from other traffic management practices, such as using shaping or policing rules to limit connectivity to the destination IP addresses.
he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me.
-- -JH
On 3/20/2014 7:32 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Then there is this whole matter of end-to-end connectivity. Just because your WAN device links up at 8 Megabits, does not mean you have been guaranteed 8 Mbits end-to-end.
Have run into this one more times that I care to count. We're running very marginally loaded links all around, and have setup "speedtest" site locally to prove the issue is not local. Our upstream Commodity provider also has "speedtest" peer, and we can also point people there. You can point people to them to prove it's not between us and the next hop. Of course some folks just don't get it :) You chase down the squeaky wheel complainers, and find them running IE with a dozen toolbars, a few P2P clients, adware out the wazoo, and other things I can barely bring myself to think about, let alone admit in a public forum :) And doing it over wireless, while they're microwaving their dinner, and ignoring their wireless printer they never bothered to disable since they plugged it in wired. While playing XBox with their wireless controllers, listening to Pandora over their BlueTooth headset, while their roommate is watching Netflix (wirelessly) on their smart TV, with the wireless subwoofer and back speakers. Yeah, end-to-end guarantee? It's difficult enough to prove you have the first hop covered. Plug the damned thing in the wall, download Malwarebytes / Spybot / something, and deal with the real problem here, dude :) "Your internet sucks!". Or as a recent Tweet from a student mentioned, "Fix the Mother Effing wireless in the dorms". (The dorm with the 802.11n / gig ports on the APs / etherchannels back to the data center, nonetheless). Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jimmy Hess" <mysidia@gmail.com>
Hey, what part of "up to 8Mbps" is an assurance, that the system supports 8Mbps from all customers 24x7 simultaneously? Only the former can be delivered inexpensively; the latter from large service providers is a business service that doesn't seem to be in the compass of ordinary mortals. Because this is the well-known industry standard; it can't accurately be described as one of deception.
[ started this, and then got tied up with community theatre. Oops. ] No part of it is, legally; all of it is, to the paying customer who isn't versed in oversubscription. Oversubscription (what I used to call bandwidth-surfing when I had to do it -- 1995, 60 33k6 modems on a 256k FR link :-), will be around for a long time to come. How far you can *push* it without losing customers is the question, and the feedback loop is slow, and the response to a new provider who doesn't push it as hard is usually sharper than you can survive... Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://www.bcp38.info 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA BCP38: Ask For It By Name! +1 727 647 1274
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me.
The problem is that the consumer is too stupid to own a computer and use a network. The consumer purchased a product advertized as "up to 8Mbps" but really wanted "not less than 8Mbps". It is not false advertizing. What was delivered is exactly what was advertized and exactly what was purchased.
I see this argument, and then I remember working for a company that happily sold 6 and 12 meg dsl from a dslam that was backhauled by a 3mb pair of t1s. There needs to be some oversight that it is at least possible / likely to reach a reasonable expectation of normal destinations with the service limits you were sold. -Blake On Mar 22, 2014 12:17 PM, "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me.
The problem is that the consumer is too stupid to own a computer and use a network.
The consumer purchased a product advertized as "up to 8Mbps" but really wanted "not less than 8Mbps".
It is not false advertizing. What was delivered is exactly what was advertized and exactly what was purchased.
This is exactly my point. If a subscriber can use the service for 30 consecutive days and never achieve the "8Mbps" because the network is incapable by design, or by virtue of its over subscription is statistically impossible of delivering it, then I believe this is false advertising. I, and most others, accept that when a service is marketed as "up to", the service may not always deliver the "up to" number. But if the service is marketed as "up to" any number, then the service should at least be capable of delivering that advertised number some reasonable fraction of the time; Never is not a reasonable fraction of the time. --Blake Blake Dunlap wrote the following on 3/22/2014 2:59 PM:
I see this argument, and then I remember working for a company that happily sold 6 and 12 meg dsl from a dslam that was backhauled by a 3mb pair of t1s.
There needs to be some oversight that it is at least possible / likely to reach a reasonable expectation of normal destinations with the service limits you were sold.
-Blake On Mar 22, 2014 12:17 PM, "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me. The problem is that the consumer is too stupid to own a computer and use a network.
The consumer purchased a product advertized as "up to 8Mbps" but really wanted "not less than 8Mbps".
It is not false advertizing. What was delivered is exactly what was advertized and exactly what was purchased.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 8:06 AM, Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:
This is exactly my point. If a subscriber can use the service for 30 consecutive days and never achieve the "8Mbps" because the network is incapable by design, or by virtue of its over subscription is statistically impossible of delivering it, then I believe this is false advertising. I, and most others, accept that when a service is marketed as "up to", the service may not always deliver the "up to" number. But if the service is marketed as "up to" any number, then the service should at least be capable of delivering that advertised number some reasonable fraction of the time; Never is not a reasonable fraction of the time.
--Blake
So, you want something like EPA MPG ratings, where empirical, standardized testing is done to validate manufacturer/vendor claims, rather than just taking their word for it that the claimed speeds might once in a blue moon be achievable. with updates to the claimed performance if subsequent testing fails to validate the initial claims, such as with the ford c-max hybrid: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/8a... http://epa.gov/otaq/documents/fueleconomy/420f13044.pdf Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure it would raise costs, as that testing and validation wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to pay an additional $10/month on our service to be sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least to ensure that what was promised was scaled down to match what could actually be delivered. Thanks! Matt
* mpetach@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]:
Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure it would raise costs, as that testing and validation wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to pay an additional $10/month on our service to be sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least to ensure that what was promised was scaled down to match what could actually be delivered.
Nice strawman you erected there.
Thanks!
Yeah, thanks for standing up for industries holding their customers hostage to extract rents from companies trying to serve those customers. -- Niels.
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net>wrote:
* mpetach@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]:
Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure
it would raise costs, as that testing and validation wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to pay an additional $10/month on our service to be sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least to ensure that what was promised was scaled down to match what could actually be delivered.
Nice strawman you erected there.
Thanks! I thought it looked quite nice up on its pole. :) Now it's time for people to take turns poking holes in it. ^_^ Thanks!
Yeah, thanks for standing up for industries holding their customers hostage to extract rents from companies trying to serve those customers.
I'm not so much standing up for them as pointing out that simply calling for additional oversight and regulation often brings increased costs into the picture. Oddly enough, I'm having a hard time identifying exactly *where* the money comes from to pay for government verification of industry performance claims; I'm sure it's just my weak search-fu, however, and some person with more knowledge on the subject will be able to shed light on how such validation and compliance testing is typically paid for.
-- Niels.
Thanks! Matt
I thought the 40% I paid in taxes covered prosecution of fraudulent advertising. Nick On Mar 23, 2014 4:02 PM, "Matthew Petach" <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net
wrote:
* mpetach@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]:
Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure
it would raise costs, as that testing and validation wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to pay an additional $10/month on our service to be sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least to ensure that what was promised was scaled down to match what could actually be delivered.
Nice strawman you erected there.
Thanks! I thought it looked quite nice up on its pole. :)
Now it's time for people to take turns poking holes in it. ^_^
Thanks!
Yeah, thanks for standing up for industries holding their customers hostage to extract rents from companies trying to serve those customers.
I'm not so much standing up for them as pointing out that simply calling for additional oversight and regulation often brings increased costs into the picture. Oddly enough, I'm having a hard time identifying exactly *where* the money comes from to pay for government verification of industry performance claims; I'm sure it's just my weak search-fu, however, and some person with more knowledge on the subject will be able to shed light on how such validation and compliance testing is typically paid for.
-- Niels.
Thanks!
Matt
On Sat, 22 Mar 2014, Keith Medcalf wrote:
I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics. ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per customer. Customer believes he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That feels like false advertising to me.
The problem is that the consumer is too stupid to own a computer and use a network.
The consumer purchased a product advertized as "up to 8Mbps" but really wanted "not less than 8Mbps".
It is not false advertizing. What was delivered is exactly what was advertized and exactly what was purchased.
Up to includes 0. How close to 0 are you delivering on average? -Dan
On Mar 20, 2014, at 08:39 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 09:06:47 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
The angle on my right shoulder wants to congratulate a "tier one" (whatever the F that means) provider for finally admitting, in writing, in public, from a lawyer, what the rest of us have known for decades.
Every time the market has troubled the status quo, networks have failed to find ways that adapt to that market. The market ends up working around the network.
Napster and all the goodness that followed it, is one such example; until iTunes adapted. And yes, iTunes is NOT the network.
Now the OTT's are driving the network hard, and the network des not want to adapt (perhaps calling in the FCC is adapting... not).
So expect the market to work around this as well. The network keeps getting left behind...
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market. There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. -- TTFN, patrick
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market.
When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in markets that are considered "liberalized" :-)? It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others.
There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal.
Aye. Mark.
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market. When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in markets that are considered "liberalized" :-)?
It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others.
There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal. Aye.
Mark. It sounds like we're all in agreement that the underlying issue is that some businesses enjoying a monopoly are allowed to design networks for
Mark Tinka wrote the following on 3/20/2014 11:05 AM: the use case of yesteryear and do not have the market pressure forcing them to provide the use case of today's (or the future's) subscribers. The solution seems to be competition or regulation. The current administration supplied over $7 billion in loans and grants (http://www.wired.com/business/2011/07/rural-fiber-internet/) for internet providers to provide high speed last mile services as part of a Federal stimulus package. This type of encouragement in infrastructure and competition seem much better, to me, than regulation formed to to nanny and punish folks that run their business unfairly. I understand that Comcast, as an example, has a fiduciary duty to its stock holders to make the best return possible. But I would think its recent actions would likely fall foul to basic consumer protection regulation (failing to provide the goods or services it sold). All of Comcast's customers could file a complaint with the BBB, but it probably wouldn't be productive because many of them have no other choice for high speed internet service. As consumers, we may also have to accept that cheap internet access prices were based on the usage case of yesteryear. If we use internet services twice as often today, we may need to pay twice as much as we did yesterday. If we, as consumers, have options, but are choosing to pay for the the bare minimum option, we may as well expect the bare minimum service (which apparently is not very much). As long as we have options, which today is not always true, I think the market will function. This why events like the Comcast/TWC merger are troubling to me. Because it means we are going in the wrong direction, back towards monopoly. Our efforts, at present, are probably best spent encouraging competition and fairness. As a consumer and professional, I sincerely hope that the FCC continues on its trend to support net neutrality because I believe it encourages both competition and fairness. --Blake
I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing. We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days. I don't care what their excuse is, they have been horrible this last 14 months and I'd rather get bw from cogent who isn't great but doesn't blame everyone else for their inability to peer better... A premium cost provider should have premium service and level3 is no longer that. Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean 646-450-0472 On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market.
When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in markets that are considered "liberalized" :-)?
It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others.
There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal.
Aye.
Mark.
+1 Is this what happens when a vendor gets too big? -Petter -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Socha [mailto:bryan@digitalocean.com] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:35 AM To: mark.tinka@seacom.mu Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing. We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days. I don't care what their excuse is, they have been horrible this last 14 months and I'd rather get bw from cogent who isn't great but doesn't blame everyone else for their inability to peer better... A premium cost provider should have premium service and level3 is no longer that. Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean 646-450-0472 On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market.
When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in markets that are considered "liberalized" :-)?
It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others.
There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal.
Aye.
Mark.
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :) You should too. On 3/20/14, 9:34 AM, "Bryan Socha" <bryan@digitalocean.com> wrote:
I don't know where everyones traffic goes but level3 and us, nothing. We've dropped all but 1 line which will be gone in 60 days. I don't care what their excuse is, they have been horrible this last 14 months and I'd rather get bw from cogent who isn't great but doesn't blame everyone else for their inability to peer better...
A premium cost provider should have premium service and level3 is no longer that.
Bryan Socha Network Engineer DigitalOcean 646-450-0472
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 04:18:59 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
"The market" can only "work around" things if there is a functioning market. Monopolies are not a functioning market.
When did we ever have a "functioning market", even in markets that are considered "liberalized" :-)?
It is what it is - it's just less bad in some places than others.
There will be a solution - in fact, there is today. Doesn't mean it is optimal. In fact, in the presence of a monopoly, it is pretty much guaranteed to be sub-optimal.
Aye.
Mark.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
You should too.
uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6. -Jim P.
Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of the requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big deal, but my traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So unless all of these carriers start magically migrating to v6, I don¹t know that a lot of ³hosting² providers need to support it. It¹s a cool feature, but it¹s not something where I head for the door when they say I can¹t receive v6 traffic. My .02. On 3/20/14, 2:52 PM, "Jim Popovitch" <jimpop@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
You should too.
uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6.
-Jim P.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic? Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks, enterprises, etc. are moving very fast. - - ferg On 3/20/2014 2:58 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of the requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big deal, but my traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So unless all of these carriers start magically migrating to v6, I don¹t know that a lot of ³hosting² providers need to support it. It¹s a cool feature, but it¹s not something where I head for the door when they say I can¹t receive v6 traffic.
My .02.
On 3/20/14, 2:52 PM, "Jim Popovitch" <jimpop@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
You should too.
uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6.
-Jim P.
- -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlMrZekACgkQKJasdVTchbIXxwD+NLe6LUPJCbpKXGfevbPzAGWy BJu93FYH2Lfl9lMjTToA/2uGkqbI/ibO1eHH412gw4A6yLT7LLUoVK8yXwJiGRm1 =mbB3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sounds like a lot of 6 to 4 links to me.. ;) On 3/20/14, 3:04 PM, "Paul Ferguson" <fergdawgster@mykolab.com> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Are carriers prepared to tunnel IPv4 traffic?
Carriers offering v6 is a novel idea, but the edge networks, enterprises, etc. are moving very fast.
- - ferg
On 3/20/2014 2:58 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
Meh.. Some providers need to/should comply with the majority of the requirements. I¹d support ipv6 if I could and it wasn¹t a big deal, but my traffic originates from (usually) the ipv4 sphere. So unless all of these carriers start magically migrating to v6, I don¹t know that a lot of ³hosting² providers need to support it. It¹s a cool feature, but it¹s not something where I head for the door when they say I can¹t receive v6 traffic.
My .02.
On 3/20/14, 2:52 PM, "Jim Popovitch" <jimpop@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Warren Bailey <wbailey@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
This email is the reason I spend money with digital ocean. :)
You should too.
uhh, no. It's the 21st century. I prefer to spend my money with those that, at a bare minimum, provide IPv6.
-Jim P.
- -- Paul Ferguson VP Threat Intelligence, IID PGP Public Key ID: 0x54DC85B2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iF4EAREIAAYFAlMrZekACgkQKJasdVTchbIXxwD+NLe6LUPJCbpKXGfevbPzAGWy BJu93FYH2Lfl9lMjTToA/2uGkqbI/ibO1eHH412gw4A6yLT7LLUoVK8yXwJiGRm1 =mbB3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (17)
-
Blake Dunlap -
Blake Hudson -
Bryan Socha -
goemon＠anime.net -
Jay Ashworth -
Jeff Kell -
Jim Popovitch -
Jimmy Hess -
Keith Medcalf -
Mark Tinka -
Matthew Petach -
Nick B -
Niels Bakker -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul Ferguson -
Petter Bruland -
Warren Bailey