Re: /27 the new /24

[Todd Underwood <toddunder () gmail com>]

In general, most of NANOG recipients live in the populated metros and know
very little about what it's like to try to provide internet access in the
hinterlands.  do not pay attention to there magical claims of 'just connect
to some IX and everything will be fine'.

you already know that that's not how the internet in the rural west works.
 it's fine.  smile and nod and pretend that they are making sensible claims
and move back to trying to figure out how to make things work on your own
network.

cheers,


t
On Oct 10, 2015 2:43 PM, "Eric Kuhnke" <eric.kuhnke () gmail com> wrote:

> As Jeremy has described in detail, the problem is at OSI layer 1. Not a
> lack of peering exchanges such as the VANIX. There is no dark fiber route
> from Alaska via the Yukon to Vancouver.
>
> I know where most of the Telus (ILEC) and Northwestel (Bell) fiber is in
> northern BC and none of interconnects with Alaska.
>
> Network topologically all locations in Alaska which are fiber fed via the
> existing submarine cable routes (not on geostationary C/Ku-band satellite)
> are a suburb of Seattle. Imagine an island with a population of about
> 600,000 people located somewhere in Puget Sound with various DWDM circuits
> that have their other ends in the Westin Building. Various IP transit,
> peering, transport and IX connections at that location.
>
> Other satellite fed singlehomed locations in Alaska can be logically just
> about anywhere thanks to the way bent-pipe relay via geostationary
> transponders work. There's at least a couple of dozen large teleports in
> the US 48 states with 7.3m and larger C-band dishes that support two way
> TDMA and SCPC services into Alaska. In such case the sites are
> indistinguishable from very low bandwidth singlehomed FDD microwave sites
> which happen to have at minimum 495ms latency.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 8, 2015, at 11:24 PM, Jeremy Austin <jhaustin () gmail com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Jun <james () towardex com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you want choices in your transit providers, you should get a
> > transport
> > > > circuit (dark, wave or EPL) to a nearby carrier hotel/data center.
> Once
> > > > you do that, you will suddenly find that virtually almost everyone in
> > the
> > > > competitive IP transit market will provide you with dual-stacked
> > IPv4/IPv6
> > > > service.
> > >
> > > The future is here, but it isn't evenly distributed yet. I'm in North
> > > America, but there are no IXPs in my *state*, let alone in my
> *continent*
> > > -- from an undersea fiber perspective. There is no truly competitive IP
> > > transit market within Alaska that I am aware of. Would love to be
> proved
> > > wrong. Heck, GCI and ACS (the two providers with such fiber) only
> > directly
> > > peered a handful of years ago.
> >
> > Alaska is in the same continent as Canda and the Contiguous US.
> >
> > VANIX (Vancouver), CIX (Calgary), Manitoba-IX (Winnipeg), WPGIX
> > (WInnipeg), TORIX (Toronto),
> > and an exchange in Montreal (I forget the name) exist as well as a few
> > others in Canada (I think
> > there’s even one out in the maritimes).
> >
> > There are tons of exchanges all over the contiguous US.
> >
> > I’m surprised that there isn’t yet an exchange point in Juneau or
> > Anchorage, but that
> > does, indeed, appear to be the case. Perhaps you should work with some
> > other ISPs
> > in your state to form one.
> >
> > According to this:
> > http://www.alaskaunited.com <http://www.alaskaunited.com/>
> >
> > There is subsea fiber to several points in AK from Seattle and beyond.
> >
> > And on a continental basis, quite a bit of undersea fiber in other
> landing
> > stations
> > around the coastal areas of the contiguous 48.
> >
> > > > If you are buying DIA circuit from some $isp to your rural location
> that
> > > > you call "head-end" and are expecting to receive a competitive
> service,
> > > > and support for IPv6, well, then your expectations are either
> > unreasonable,
> > > > ignorant or both.
> > >
> > > Interestingly both statewide providers *do* provide both IPv4 and IPv6
> > > peering. The trick is to find a spot where there's true price
> > competition.
> > > The 3 largest statewide ISPs have fiber that meets a mere three city
> > blocks
> > > from one of my POPs, but there's no allowable IX. I'm looking at you,
> > AT&T.
> >
> > I’m not sure what you mean by “allowable IX”, to the best of my
> knowledge,
> > anyone
> > can build an IX anywhere.
> >
> > Owen