Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (Score 1) 466

by hhw (#46573663) Attached to: AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality
The issue is not about ISP's being forced to peer with content providers like Netflix whether they like it or not. It's the major eyeball networks like Comcast and AT&T deliberately avoiding upgrading peering capacity, so that they can strong-arm Netflix into paid peering agreements instead. Let's not forget that Comcast is also trying to pressure Tier 1 transit providers like Level3 to pay for access to their eyeballs now, even though the miles of fiber in the ground that they operate, and thus their share of transport costs, pale in comparison. As a smaller provider, you should most certainly want to peer with any content network with a significant amount of traffic to your network, as you would have to pay for transit otherwise. There is no way you'd be paying more for cross-connects than you would for transit, and the equipment costs are irrelevant because you're doing that same traffic regardless, whether it comes through a transit or a peer. Your traffic levels aren't going to magically increase when you start peering, unless your existing transit is congested, which is something you should most definitely want to avoid.

Comment: Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (Score 2) 466

by hhw (#46572247) Attached to: AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality
Netflix does most of its heavy lifting through its own CDN boxes running FreeBSD + nginx, which it will place on ISPs' networks for free, although the ISP would be responsible for the space and power. They most certainly do have their own data centres though, with infrastructure that goes well beyond Amazon.

Comment: Re:It's not arrogant, it's correct. (Score 2) 466

by hhw (#46572225) Attached to: AT&T Exec Calls Netflix "Arrogant" For Expecting Net Neutrality

I call BS. We're at the Westin as well, and x-connects in the 19th floor meet-me room are free, while x-connects between floors are a one-time build cost. even if you don't have your own space and are leasing lines from a data centre, they're only $50-$200/mo. Powered equipment may not be permitted in the meet-me room, but there is nothing that would stop you from putting some passive DWDM muxes in there so you could even run 40-80x 10Gb-100Gb links over the same fiber. The only way I see x-connects being expensive is you're using Equinix, but that would be your own business decision, and not inherent costs to peering.

Also, 10Gb optics sourced directly from China where they're manufactured can be purchased for less than $100 for LR optics, or less than $1000 for DWDM optics, which is peanuts for a one-time cost. Sure, line cards and therefore physical interfaces are expensive, but that's why public peering exchanges like the SIX (Seattle Internet Exchange) exist so you can peer with many different networks over the same interface. If you are doing enough traffic over a link to justify private peering however, your equipment costs should be built-in to your business model, and whether it's peering or other traffic shouldn't matter.

Although I do agree with your assessment that this isn't a net neutrality issue, it most certainly is a case of large eyeball networks trying to double-dip on charging for bandwidth, and criticism of them is well deserved.

Comment: Re:I'm male but... (Score 3, Insightful) 545

by hhw (#46156863) Attached to: Getting Young Women Interested In Open Source
This. Instead of pushing young people towards a certain path, and converting highschools and earlier into trade schools, why not just give them the best, all-rounded education possible and allow them to decide for themselves what they want to do? That's not to say we shouldn't teach them the value of more practical, stable professions vs less marketable ones, but they should ultimately still make that decisions for themselves rather than be goaded into a particular direction.

Comment: Re:Cloud (Score 1) 90

by hhw (#46093829) Attached to: Microsoft Joins Open Compute Project, Will Share Server Designs
This may very well backfire on Microsoft in two ways:
1) Cloud environments are much less dependent on Windows than desktops, and favour open source like Linux or BSD
2) If all applications become server side, then application compatibility on the desktop is no longer relevant, making the OS that desktop runs irrelevant

Failure in Cloud is not an option for Microsoft, and the days of their lock-in are numbered.

Comment: Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score 2) 519

Note that I qualified my statement to both include China's perception, and "proper".

In 1972, 1995, and in 2001, various Japanese prime ministers have issued what they considered to be a valid apology. Each time, China rejected the statement as a valid apology for one or more of three reasons: 1) the lack of the explicit mention of the word “apology,” 2) the lack of the explicit mention of China as the victim of Japanese aggression, and 3) the apology was only stated in a speech, but not written down in an official document. - See more at: http://www.tealeafnation.com/2012/12/has-japan-ever-apologized-to-china-for-its-wartime-aggression/#sthash.bIg5DWBO.dpuf

Comment: Re:Most of this will be about internal politics (Score 2) 519

they believe their civilization has been unfairly held down for too long by hostile foreign powers and that it is finally time for their superior race/culture to take its rightful place of leadership on the world stage.

In China's case, there were the opium wars and the invasion by Japan. It doesn't help that China feels they have still never received a proper apology, and that there are Nanking deniers among Japan's right wing conservatives, including current prime minister Shinzo Abe. China has also been in place of leadership throughout most of its history (so far as Asia is concerned at least), with the last few hundred years being the exception.

Comment: Re: Who cares what it is (Score 2) 301

by hhw (#44561857) Attached to: EFF Slams Google Fiber For Banning Servers On Its Network
Absolutely false. Ingress traffic is much cheaper than egress traffic. Try negotiating bandwidth pricing as an eyeball network (consumer ISP), vs as a hosting provider, and the difference in cost can be an order of magnitude. Peering is often based on equal ratios, and that applies for both egress and ingress traffic. When the traffic is balanced, the network that has more egress traffic may have to pay the other network for the difference. Therefore, ingress traffic not only costs these providers nothing, but can actually reduce their paid peering costs. As such, they will sell transit connections to eyeball networks for pennies on the Mb.

Comment: SPLA (Score 1) 274

by hhw (#44530259) Attached to: Microsoft Will Squeeze Datacenters On Price of Windows Server
On the hosting side of things, data centers never purchase Microsoft Server licenses outright, as the actual instances of Windows Server are run by clients. Therefore, the only way to be compliant with Microsoft's terms is to offer licensing under the SPLA program, which offers licensing Microsoft Software for a monthly cost. Also, with Windows Server 2012, they have gotten rid of Windows Server Enterprise, and there is now only really Windows Server Standard and Windows Server Data Center, which is functionally identical software. The only difference is that Standard allows for up to two instances on the same hardware, whereas Data Center Edition allows for unlimited instances on the same hardware. However, you need licenses for each physical processor. You can just add on additional Standard licenses until the Data Center Edition pricing makes sense. Perhaps one of the reason they're raising prices, is that with the increases in processing power per server, unlimited instances result in far many more virtuals now than before.

Comment: Re:AMD Shooting themselves in the foot (Score 1) 74

by hhw (#44446601) Attached to: FreeBSD, Ubuntu Offer Same NVIDIA OpenGL Support As Windows
Nvidia has been making a FreeBSD binary driver for at least a decade. http://www.nvidia.ca/object/freebsd_archive.html

FreeBSD Graphics Driver Download Version: 1.0-3203 File Size: 3 MB Release Date: November 7, 2002

And pretty close to a decade already with OpenOffice: http://www.freshports.org/editors/openoffice-1.1/

11 Mar 2004 12:36:03

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Working...