On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Peter Lothberg wrote:
Even _I_ have a route to you! (With truly awful latency)
b4 at meaghan:~ traceroute 192.108.198.254
traceroute to 192.108.198.254 (192.108.198.254), 64 hops max, 52 byte
packets
snip
18 r29a-ge-2-0-gw.stupi.net (192.108.195.149) 583.803 ms * 213.912 ms
So you are looking at CPU speed of the router, that processes ping
packets at the lowest priority.. Ping a computer, kniv.stupi.se for
example..
Ahhhh right. kniv has much better latency. ;)
18 dist2-te2-1.wotnoh.sbcglobal.net (151.164.55.64) 115.333 ms 115.430 ms 115.239 ms
19 adsl-75-49-19-254.dsl.wotnoh.sbcglobal.net (75.49.19.254) 117.827 ms 117.474 ms 116.824 ms
In Croatia we put 1GE simple fiber SFP in to the houses. Could be
upgraded to 10G when prices come down. No pon, no nothing strange...
I'd love that here.
-P
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 02/16/2014 10:11 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Brian Hechinger wrote:
That's why I want a non-residential ISP to provide me with service.
I don't think I'll get that here, though. :(
Not at a price you can afford , no. :)
Unless I convince OAR.net I am doing legitimate educational research
in the field of computer history/aracheology, correct. ;)
3/3 symmetric T1 w/ 5 static IPs is $549/mo. Hmmmm.
If by 3/3 you mean 3Mbps up and 3Mbps down, it's not a T1.
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Dave McGuire wrote:
On 02/16/2014 10:11 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Brian Hechinger wrote:
That's why I want a non-residential ISP to provide me with service.
I don't think I'll get that here, though. :(
Not at a price you can afford , no. :)
Unless I convince OAR.net I am doing legitimate educational research
in the field of computer history/aracheology, correct. ;)
3/3 symmetric T1 w/ 5 static IPs is $549/mo. Hmmmm.
If by 3/3 you mean 3Mbps up and 3Mbps down, it's not a T1.
I know. They were just billing it as a T1...despite the fact it'd be two bonded T1s.
-Dave
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Cory Smelosky wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Brian Hechinger wrote:
That's why I want a non-residential ISP to provide me with service. I don't think I'll get that here, though. :(
Not at a price you can afford , no. :)
Unless I convince OAR.net I am doing legitimate educational research in the field of computer history/aracheology, correct. ;)
3/3 symmetric T1 w/ 5 static IPs is $549/mo. Hmmmm.
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On 02/16/2014 10:02 PM, Cory Smelosky wrote:
Comcast:: "You don't qualify to peer with us".
What did you do to make Comcast mad at you?
Their view of the future is that they talk to themself, facebook,
google and apple.
I do not understand, but they are trying to reduce inbound capacty to
themself as much as possible, thay have all the content you need
on-net...
That's why I want a non-residential ISP to provide me with service. I
don't think I'll get that here, though. :(
I have a non-residential ISP. I am on Comcast *business*.
Non-throttled, unmetered bandwidth, excellent performance, excellent
stability, static IP addresses (statically-allocated IP addresses...not
just "my IP address hardly ever changes!" crap that a lot of people
think means "static" these days), and the FIRST person that answers the
phone can log into a DNS server and update PTR records for me.
And Peter's network cannot reach my network. WTF?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
On Feb 16, 2014, at 22:02, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Peter Lothberg wrote:
Comcast:: "You don't qualify to peer with us".
What did you do to make Comcast mad at you?
Their view of the future is that they talk to themself, facebook,
google and apple.
I do not understand, but they are trying to reduce inbound capacty to
themself as much as possible, thay have all the content you need
on-net...
That's why I want a non-residential ISP to provide me with service. I don't think I'll get that here, though. :(
Not at a price you can afford , no. :)
On 02/17/2014 04:06 AM, Peter Lothberg wrote:
Comcast:: "You don't qualify to peer with us".
What did you do to make Comcast mad at you?
Their view of the future is that they talk to themself, facebook,
google and apple.
I access machines all over the world, all day, every day. I honestly
have yet to have problems elsewhere.
US has a problem (self created..)
We have MANY self-created problems. :-(
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire, AK4HZ
New Kensington, PA
Comcast:: "You don't qualify to peer with us".
What did you do to make Comcast mad at you?
Their view of the future is that they talk to themself, facebook,
google and apple.
I do not understand, but they are trying to reduce inbound capacty to
themself as much as possible, thay have all the content you need
on-net...
US has a problem (self created..)
-P
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014, Brian Hechinger wrote:
That's why I want a non-residential ISP to provide me with service. I don't think I'll get that here, though. :(
Not at a price you can afford , no. :)
Unless I convince OAR.net I am doing legitimate educational research in the field of computer history/aracheology, correct. ;)
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Peter Lothberg wrote:
Comcast:: "You don't qualify to peer with us".
What did you do to make Comcast mad at you?
Their view of the future is that they talk to themself, facebook,
google and apple.
I do not understand, but they are trying to reduce inbound capacty to
themself as much as possible, thay have all the content you need
on-net...
That's why I want a non-residential ISP to provide me with service. I don't think I'll get that here, though. :(
US has a problem (self created..)
-P
--
Cory Smelosky
http://gewt.net Personal stuff
http://gimme-sympathy.org Projects