how-to block ads
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Re: No Well, aside from the quadruple play of Internet, TV, VOIP and Cellular -- Sprint still has a domestic backhaul network that Comcast could use to improve their own with.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~ | |
|  iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: No Actually, I'm pretty sure that at this point Comcast's backhaul network is higher-capacity than Sprint's, or at the very least is heavyduty enough to handle subscriber load and then some. Comcast isn't a Tier 1 but they're closer to being one than, say, Hurricane Electric. | |
| | | | Re: No said by iansltx:Actually, I'm pretty sure that at this point Comcast's backhaul network is higher-capacity than Sprint's, or at the very least is heavyduty enough to handle subscriber load and then some. Comcast isn't a Tier 1 but they're closer to being one than, say, Hurricane Electric. Indeed, all those far flung cable systems around the country are connected to their network.
Comcast is one of the biggest networks that isn't a Tier 1. Interestingly, they don't peer particularly aggressively like other networks do.
There's still quite a bit of value in SprintLink. It's Tier 1 network with a who's who list of big corporate and government customers. Sprint doesn't really break out its numbers separately, but it seems to one of the few consistently profitable parts of Sprint, and they've been harvesting it for cash. | |
| | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by iansltx:Comcast isn't a Tier 1 but they're closer to being one than, say, Hurricane Electric. Comcast is probably no closer to being a "Tier 1" network than Hurricane electric. There is more to being a "Tier 1" network than size.
SBC became a "Tier 1" network by buying a "Tier 1" network.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: No I wouldn't call SBCIS a Tier 1. They're no more a Tier 1 than Comcast. Though of course AT&T WorldNet is. | |
| | | |
1 edit | Re: No edit: question answered by reading previous posts. | |
| | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by iansltx:I wouldn't call SBCIS a Tier 1. They're no more a Tier 1 than Comcast. Though of course AT&T WorldNet is. There is no more "SBCIS", only "ATTIS". My point is, SBC owns AT&T. All of it. It is, now calling itself AT&T.
The other side of that coin is that, even if Comcast bought a Tier 1 network, it would probably not change much in the way Comcast operates. AT&T hasn't commingled their ATTIS transit network with their ATTW transit network. Nor, I imagine, would Comcast be any different with their 'ibone', and any Tier 1 transit network that they might acquire.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | Re: No If Comcast bought a tier 1, it would move the ibone's transit links onto that network. ibone would logically appear a sub network of it, and could be separated if needed by simply moving transit links back to Level 3 or elsewhere.
I suspect that's what AT&T does with its Internet Services network and WorldNet network. | |
| | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
2 edits | Re: Nosaid by Samsonian:If Comcast bought a tier 1, it would move the ibone's transit links onto that network. ibone would logically appear a sub network of it, and could be separated if needed by simply moving transit links back to Level 3 or elsewhere. I suspect that's what AT&T does with its Internet Services network and WorldNet network. You think?
09/16/09 00:17:46 Slow traceroute www.google.com
Trace www.google.com (74.125.19.103) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
76.246.22.130 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.93.231 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (bb1-g15-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.38.206 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
72.14.197.101 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
216.239.49.168 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
209.85.251.94 RTT: 18ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
74.125.19.103 RTT: 11ms TTL: 56 (nuq04s01-in-f103.google.com ok)
No ATTW transit to Google.
09/16/09 00:17:55 Slow traceroute www.msn.com
Trace www.msn.com (65.55.17.27) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
64.164.107.130 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.93.231 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (bb1-g15-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net ok)
69.220.8.41 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.251.26 RTT: 17ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
207.46.47.249 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (ge-7-3-0-57.sjc-64cb-1b.ntwk.msn.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
207.46.47.51 RTT: 29ms TTL:170 (ge-1-0-0-0.wst-64cb-1b.ntwk.msn.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
207.46.43.184 RTT: 32ms TTL:170 (ge-6-1-0-0.co1-64c-1b.ntwk.msn.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
10.22.8.10 RTT: 33ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
* * * failed
* * * failed
No ATTW transit to MSN.
09/16/09 00:18:04 Slow traceroute www.yahoo.com
Trace www.yahoo.com (209.131.36.158) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
76.246.22.1 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
69.220.8.95 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
70.245.63.230 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (ex1-p3-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.248.58 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (asn10310-yahoo-10g.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
216.115.107.87 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (ae1-p171.msr2.sp1.yahoo.com ok)
209.131.32.17 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (te-8-1.bas-a1.sp1.yahoo.com ok)
209.131.36.158 RTT: 11ms TTL: 56 (f1.www.vip.sp1.yahoo.com ok)
No ATTW transit to Yahoo!
09/16/09 00:18:26 Slow traceroute www.comcast.net
Trace www.comcast.net (128.241.218.82) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
64.164.107.130 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.93.231 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (bb1-g15-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.191.66 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (ex1-p10-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
129.250.9.121 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (xe-3-4.r02.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net ok)
129.250.2.193 RTT: 32ms TTL:170 (po-5.r03.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net ok)
128.241.218.82 RTT: 10ms TTL: 57 (No rDNS)
No ATTW transit to Comcast.
09/16/09 00:19:44 Slow traceroute www.microsoft.com
Trace www.microsoft.com (207.46.193.254) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
64.164.107.130 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.93.229 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
69.220.8.41 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.251.26 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
209.240.199.35 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
207.46.47.40 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (ge-7-2-0-0.pao-64cb-1b.ntwk.msn.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
207.46.47.39 RTT: 28ms TTL:170 (ge-1-2-0-0.tuk-64cb-1b.ntwk.msn.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
207.46.46.21 RTT: 28ms TTL:170 (ten1-1.tuk-76c-1b.ntwk.msn.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
207.46.35.142 RTT: 28ms TTL:170 (po16.tuk-65ns-mcs-1b.ntwk.msn.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
* * * failed
* * * failed
No ATTW transit to Microsoft.
09/16/09 00:18:16 Slow traceroute www.dslreports.com
Trace www.dslreports.com (209.123.109.175) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
76.246.22.1 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
69.220.8.95 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
70.245.63.233 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (ex3-p6-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.46.14 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (ex3-g1-1-2.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
213.248.80.0 RTT: 78ms TTL:170 (nyk-bb1-link.telia.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
80.91.250.9 RTT: 79ms TTL:170 (nyk-b3-link.telia.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
213.248.99.90 RTT: 79ms TTL:170 (netaccess-tic-133837-nyk-b3.c.telia.net ok)
209.123.10.101 RTT: 80ms TTL:170 (0.e1-4.tbr1.mmu.nac.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
209.123.10.26 RTT: 79ms TTL:170 (0.e1-3.tbr2.mmu.nac.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
209.123.10.21 RTT: 80ms TTL:170 (0.e1-1.tbr2.oct.nac.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
209.123.10.42 RTT: 79ms TTL:170 (vlan808.esd1.oct.nac.net probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
209.123.109.175 RTT: 80ms TTL: 55 (www.dslreports.com ok
No ATTW transit to DSL Reports.
09/16/09 00:24:42 Slow traceroute www.excite.com
Trace www.excite.com (66.235.126.95) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
64.164.107.130 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.42.100 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (bb1-10g2-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.191.66 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (ex1-p10-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
208.172.112.9 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
204.70.200.198 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (cr1-tenge-0-3-5-0.sanfrancisco.savvis.net ok)
204.70.200.90 RTT: 90ms TTL:170 (cr1-bundle-pos2.Washington.savvis.net ok)
204.70.196.174 RTT: 91ms TTL:170 (acr2-so-5-0-0.washington.savvis.net ok)
67.220.159.74 RTT: 92ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
66.235.125.46 RTT: 92ms TTL:170 (46.df.ask.com bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative])
66.235.126.95 RTT: 92ms TTL:241 (df-95.iaccap.com probable bogus rDNS: No DNS)
No ATTW transit to Excite.
09/16/09 00:26:06 Slow traceroute www.lycos.com
Trace www.lycos.com (209.202.254.14) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
76.246.22.130 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.42.100 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (bb1-10g2-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.191.66 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (ex1-p10-0.eqsjca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.89.42 RTT: 77ms TTL:170 (bpr2-ge-6-0-0.SanJoseEquinix.savvis.net fraudulent rDNS)
204.70.200.198 RTT: 11ms TTL:170 (cr1-tenge-0-3-5-0.sanfrancisco.savvis.net ok)
204.70.197.34 RTT: 96ms TTL:170 (cr2-bundle-pos-1.newyork.savvis.net ok)
204.70.196.70 RTT: 96ms TTL:170 (er1-te-1-0-0.newyorknyd.savvis.net ok)
204.70.198.174 RTT: 104ms TTL:170 (cr2-tengig-0-3-0-0.boston.savvis.net ok)
204.70.202.14 RTT: 102ms TTL:170 (hr1-bo3-te-1-0-0.Waltham3bo3.savvis.net ok)
206.31.249.133 RTT: 102ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
206.31.249.118 RTT: 103ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
209.202.254.14 RTT: 102ms TTL:115 (search.bo3.lycos.com ok)
No ATTW transit to Lycos.
For as long as I have been an SBC, and now, AT&T subscriber, I have only ever seen ATTW transit to destinations either hosted on the ATTW network, or buying transit from ATTW.
All of my posted trace routes demonstrate a connection from ATTIS transit (roughly the same as Comcast's 'ibone') either direct to the destination transit network, or to transit (sometimes even Tier 1) serving the destination network.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: No I'll take your word on AT&T's IS and WN networks.
But, that's not really comparable with Comcast. SBC IS likely was extensively peered (if not a tier 1 network, I don't recall though) already, before they bought AT&T and its WN network. In that case, it makes sense for them to interconnect them, but run them separately.
Comcast has consolidated everything on their iBone as their national network. All their cable systems are ultimately connected to that, afaik. But, their iBone is not peered extensively.
'»www.robtex.com/as/as7922.html'
About 45-51% of their traffic goes through transit connections. Abnormally high, considering this is the biggest ISP in the country. Hell they don't even have a direct peering link to Google/YouTube, despite what must be massive amounts of traffic.
So if Comcast bought a Tier 1, it would simply move the transit links onto the tier 1. But they'd still be two different networks though, and can separated easily enough. | |
| | | | | | | |  koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | Re: No said by Samsonian:'» www.robtex.com/as/as7922.html' About 45-51% of their traffic goes through transit connections. Abnormally high, considering this is the biggest ISP in the country. Hell they don't even have a direct peering link to Google/YouTube, despite what must be massive amounts of traffic. Let's expand on this for a moment. What makes you think a BGP session or route exchange with someone guarantees you'll be getting better service? Why do you think it matters? It doesn't guarantee anything in this scenario.
Transport is what matters here, and Google doesn't provide transport connectivity between themselves and clients or ISPs. Meaning: you can't "hook in" to the (no-longer-dark) fibre that Google invested in. Google uses this for private transport -- how do I know? Because we do the same thing at my workplace.
Google gets their transport provided through major carriers, just like everyone else does. I haven't looked at their mesh, but that would likely be Qwest (who bough OnFiber), Level 3, Abovenet, Verizon/MCI, SAVVIS, Sprint, AT&T, LGN, and others (there are many, most of which I don't remember by choice).
So what you're talking about here is completely normal in the working world. Comcast gets their transport, more than likely, through Level 3. Meaning, Level 3 owns the physical fibre layer 2 or underlying protocols run across.
Are you aware that many of these transport providers also rent or lease fibre from one another? For example, it's quite common for aforementioned companies to rely on transports through other providers. There's been many times where I've spoken to one of the above providers only to be told "Yeah, that outage occurred due to maintenance happening on a Level 3 circuit" "Uhhh, but YOU provide layer 1 transport!" "To you we do, but between location X and location Y, we rent fibre from Level 3".
Using Abovenet as an example, do you think they own their own fibre? Probably, but in many cases (especially long haul circuits), nope -- the owner is the fibre carrier (such as Qwest/OnFiber or Level 3).
Hopefully this sheds some light on the situation. Basically, the backbone providers -- true layer 1 transport providers -- are who control all of this. Most of the time, companies similar to Comcast don't bother going with transport providers because of cost (significantly higher). Instead they find smaller providers who can provide the same kind of connectivity for less money -- with the added "bonus" (sarcasm) of an extra layer of support that doesn't get you anything other than headaches during outages.
Is it how I'd do it? Absolutely not, but the reality of the situation is that money is often the deciding factor. I wish management and so on could see the light in avoiding the above for cost savings (ultimately it ends up costing you more, since most of those companies have no idea how to manipulate the transport provider into actually solving things or getting RFO/RCAs, etc.). This is why Google getting their own dark fibre was a very smart choice.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
| | | | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| Re: Nosaid by koitsu:Transport is what matters here, and Google doesn't provide transport connectivity between themselves and clients or ISPs. What is this?
09/16/09 00:17:46 Slow traceroute www.google.com
Trace www.google.com (74.125.19.103) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
76.246.22.130 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.93.231 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (bb1-g15-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.38.206 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
72.14.197.101 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
216.239.49.168 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
209.85.251.94 RTT: 18ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
74.125.19.103 RTT: 11ms TTL: 56 (nuq04s01-in-f103.google.com ok)
Which transit provider sits between my ISP and Google?
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
| | | | | | | | | | koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:14 | Re: Nosaid by NormanS:said by koitsu:Transport is what matters here, and Google doesn't provide transport connectivity between themselves and clients or ISPs. What is this? 09/16/09 00:17:46 Slow traceroute www.google.com
Trace www.google.com (74.125.19.103) ...
192.168.0.1 RTT: 0ms TTL:170 (suzuka.aosake.net ok)
68.127.107.254 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (adsl-68-127-107-254.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net ok)
76.246.22.130 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
151.164.93.231 RTT: 8ms TTL:170 (bb1-g15-0.pltnca.sbcglobal.net ok)
151.164.38.206 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
72.14.197.101 RTT: 9ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
216.239.49.168 RTT: 10ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
209.85.251.94 RTT: 18ms TTL:170 (No rDNS)
74.125.19.103 RTT: 11ms TTL: 56 (nuq04s01-in-f103.google.com ok)
Which transit provider sits between my ISP and Google? That's just it -- we don't know. Have you asked AT&T who owns the fibre that runs between each one of those hops? I'm willing to bet money it's not AT&T the entire way.
What makes you think layer 1 connectivity will show up in a traceroute? :-)
--
Making life hard for others since 1977.
I speak for myself and not my employer/affiliates of my employer. | |
|
| | | | | | | |  lovswr
join:2001-09-15
Smyrna, GA
1 edit | Is it how I'd do it? Absolutely not, but the reality of the situation is that money is often the deciding factor. I wish management and so on could see the light in avoiding the above for cost savings (ultimately it ends up costing you more, since most of those companies have no idea how to manipulate the transport provider into actually solving things or getting RFO/RCAs, etc.). This is why Google getting their own dark fibre was a very smart choice.
--
Quote above from Koitsu
You Sir, are my layer 1 Hero! I have been stating, essentially the same thing since before I worked for Sprint (which was before PCS, so the name Sprint actually meant something).
Also, Level 3 has consumed most of the smaller players like Looking Glass, Wiltel , et al.
People who focus primarily on routers/routing seem to never wonder too much how those packets get from city to city or if they do, they think it is very easy & thus beneath them.
For all Layer 1 techs everywhere, I smite at thee, O, insignificant packet.
--
lovswr = good hivswr = bad | |
|
| |
|
