nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP prefix filter list
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 09:05:50 +0200
On 15/May/19 19:20, Mike wrote:
This is very true. I picked up a nicely equipped juniper mx240 - waayyyy overkill for my current operation - for far, far cheaper than anything I could have otherwise afforded new. Absolutely killer could not be happier, and J has won a convert. But, I find this seems to be the thing - needing capacity/feature sets/etc just to be able to stand still, but not having the revenue stream to actually pay new for what these vendors want to charge for their gear/licenses/etc.
It is a quagmire, isn't it? The revenue from capacity (Ethernet, IP, DWDM, SDH) is falling every year, to a point where it stops becoming a primary revenue source for any telecoms provider. However, the cost of equipment is not following suit, be it on the IP, Transport or Mobile side, terrestrial, marine or wireless. Work that is going on in the open space around all of this for hardware and software needs to pick its pace up, otherwise this disconnect between the loss of revenue and the cost of capex will remain. Mark.
Current thread:
- Re: BGP prefix filter list, (continued)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Robert Blayzor (May 30)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list William Herrin (May 30)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Robert Blayzor (May 30)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Robert Blayzor (May 30)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Brielle (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Antonios Chariton (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Jon Lewis (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Dovid Bender (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Mike (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Mark Tinka (May 16)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list mike . lyon (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Baldur Norddahl (May 15)
- Re: BGP prefix filter list Mike Hammett (May 15)