POP3, Web Space and US Connectivity - Progress?
John Webster
>Sometime in the dim and distant past, I seem to recall someone writing
>that Demon were considering the provision of POP3 mailboxes at
>realistic prices, possibly as an option in addition to SMTP. Can
>anyone recall or confirm this?
I agree that this is the one thing I find lacking on Demon.
--
John Webster
jo...@corinium.demon.co.uk
Cliff Stanford
<nch...@dircon.co.uk> writes
>
>1. If my POP3 memory was correct, when is it likely to be made
>available and at what cost?
It *is* available at an additional UKP 5 per month. Though why anyone
would want to buy it is beyond me!
>2. Are there any dates at all (however approximate) for the
>introduction of free web space?
No. Sorry, we have yet to find/invent a scalable web solution serving
60,000 users. But it *will* happen.
>3. What is the current state of affairs concerning US connectivity?
Watch this space.
>Before finishing, I'd like to make my position clear. I have a wide
>experience with other providers but not as a Demon defector - I came
>to Demon from them. Demon performance does, on the whole, appear to be
>atrocious with one exception - their Usenet service is second to none.
Thank you, I think. :-) What do you find "atrocious"?
>Unfortunately, the rest of the service is dreadful at present but, for
>the above reasons, I must stay with Demon. I also believe that they're
>big enough to get it right eventually. It would make economic sense
>for me to have Demon as my only provider - hence my initial questions.
>I would defend anyone's right to use SMTP but, for my own purposes, I
>find it totally inappropriate.
Why? It's *far* more efficient as an MTA than POP3. POP3 was designed
(and works well) as an MUA but that's not what demon users need.
>I object to waiting online for the
>punts to release an eagerly-awaited Email,
Much quicker, if you're correctly configured than POP3.
>I have no need for multiple
>mailbox addresses as I prefer to file from a central inbox and, most
>importantly, I _must_ have _easy_ access to my mailbox from other
>accounts (by easy I mean that wierd Unix fixes are not appropriate
>when I've just popped in to use a company or university account for 5
>mins).
Now you're talking. If you have access to other shells, you *need*
POP3. As I said, it's available at a fiver a month extra.
> I really can't understand the reason for not providing POP3 as
>a reasonably-priced option - Demon are normally so responsive to the
>needs of their clients ;-).
Please define "reasonably-priced". :-)
>Although this may appear like whinging, it is not intended to be so -
>particularly as congratulations are in order for the now excellent
>(and at last full-speed) Usenet service. In addition, since joining I
>have never got an engaged tone on the Portsmouth VPOP (although I have
>had one or to useless connections). I would appreciate comments from
>Demon staff or other interested parties but would not find 'real men
>use SMTP' or other snurrd-like comments of any help.
Not at all... real men use a shell account and Elm. :-) Seriously, if
it's a choice between POP3 and SMTP, the latter wins every time for 99%
of our customers.
Regards,
Cliff.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cliff Stanford Demon Internet Limited |
| The Internet for a Tenner a Month +44 181 371 1000 (Switchboard) |
| 101% Local Call Coverage of the UK +44 181 371 1234 (Sales) |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lawson
>experience with other providers but not as a Demon defector - I came
>to Demon from them. Demon performance does, on the whole, appear to be
>atrocious with one exception - their Usenet service is second to none.
So how come you're posting to this Usenet group via Direct Connection?
--
David Lawson - London
Richard Dickins
<c...@home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>1. If my POP3 memory was correct, when is it likely to be made
>>available and at what cost?
>It *is* available at an additional UKP 5 per month. Though why anyone
>would want to buy it is beyond me!
This could be taken two ways-
A) Why does anyone want POP3 - for which the answer is simple - if you
ever go outside the UK, then how do you pickup your mail without it
costing the earth ?
or:
B) Why would anybody pay UKP 5 when things like mail rewriting comes
in at UKP 4.17 a month!
Now - don't get me wrong - I *love* the SMTP facilities I get with my
Demon account - I couldn't operate without it....but whenever I go
abroad, I have a little fiddling about to do to get my mail.
--
Richard Dickins
Pat Chaney
>No. Sorry, we have yet to find/invent a scalable web solution serving
>60,000 users. But it *will* happen.
Does it need to be scalable then? Would a number of independent web
servers not suffice?
--
Pat <p...@pchaney.demon.co.uk>
PGP key available
Anthony R. Gold
da...@artful.demon.co.uk "David Lawson" writes:
He wasn't. But I am. Get the difference?
Regards,
--
Tony - G3SKR / AA2PM email: tg...@panix.com
tg...@microvst.demon.co.uk
packet: g3skr@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na
jck
> You will find that Demon offer static IP, SMTP and POP3 for a reasonable
> sum under the guise of a Cityscape account. Well, it's a Cityscape
> account with POP3 that happens to throw in a Demon account for free.
and web space too.......
> Last I heard, you couldn't choose your nodename though.
good,keeps the address shorter
jck
Paul L. Allen
jo...@corinium.demon.co.uk (John Webster) writes:
> nch...@dircon.co.uk (Neil Charlton) wrote:
>
> >Sometime in the dim and distant past, I seem to recall someone writing
> >that Demon were considering the provision of POP3 mailboxes at
> >realistic prices, possibly as an option in addition to SMTP. Can
> >anyone recall or confirm this?
>
> I agree that this is the one thing I find lacking on Demon.
You will find that Demon offer static IP, SMTP and POP3 for a reasonable
sum under the guise of a Cityscape account. Well, it's a Cityscape
account with POP3 that happens to throw in a Demon account for free.
Last I heard, you couldn't choose your nodename though.
--Paul
Farthing W. Fox
David> In article <3160d65...@news.demon.co.uk>, Neil Charlton
David> <nch...@dircon.co.uk> writes
>> I have a wide experience with other providers but not as a Demon
>> defector - I came to Demon from them. Demon performance does, on the
>> whole, appear to be atrocious with one exception - their Usenet
>> service is second to none.
David> So how come you're posting to this Usenet group via Direct
David> Connection?
And how come you didn't look at the Path header on his post before
saying what you did ?
thus,
Path: vulpes.dircon.co.uk!dircon!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!p
ipex!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!hcampus.demon.co.uk
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <3160d65...@news.demon.co.uk>
--
F W Fox
f...@vulpes.dircon.co.uk
David Lawson
<tg...@microvst.demon.co.uk> writes
>> So how come you're posting to this Usenet group via Direct Connection?
>
>He wasn't. But I am. Get the difference?
No. Please explain to a non-tekkie. Should I not assume that dircon in
one's address means it is being posted from that source?
David Lawson
<f...@vulpes.dircon.co.uk> writes
>And how come you didn't look at the Path header on his post before
>saying what you did ?
Headers are not included in my reader unless activated. So I learn
something new. Having a particular address (in this case dircon) does
not mean you post from there. Interesting.
Thomas D.G. Sandford
: In article <3160d65...@news.demon.co.uk>, Neil Charlton
: <nch...@dircon.co.uk> writes
<snip>
: >2. Are there any dates at all (however approximate) for the
: >introduction of free web space?
: No. Sorry, we have yet to find/invent a scalable web solution serving
: 60,000 users. But it *will* happen.
Huh? Something intrinsically more scalable than the WWW is hard to
imagine.
Anyway, I thought it was the nightmare of (product) support for free
web pages that was holdong you back.
--
Thomas Sandford | t.d.g.s...@prds-grn.demon.co.uk
Graham G Hawker
<c...@home.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Watch this space.
>
business is badly affected by Demon's poor US connectivity. Before
expanding my activities requiring US access I took the trouble to visit
Demon and discuss it with Giles last September. He re-assured me that
two new T1s would be available by the end of November. No reason has
been given by you for a delay already amounting to 5 months; you blame
Aegis for not getting one T1 to work but you have had enough time by now
to replace it.
I believe Malcolm has confirmed that new US connectivity will be in
place and useable by Easter 1996. Is this correct or did I imagine it?
As I am sure you know, Computing reporters have been contacting some of
your users about your service and I have made my views known to them
also. I would not have done so if Demon had been more forthcoming.
Unfortunately, my repeated questions about this subject in this
newsgroup have received consistently evasive and unhelpful replies. Your
reply above is more of the same.
--
This message was from Graham Hawker. | We tend to remember the messenger
grey...@greyhawk.demon.co.uk | And forget the message
Metrotel Multi-Media Ltd. Premier House, 2 Gayton Road, Harrow, HA1 2XU
Tel: +44-181-863-9001 Fax: +44-181-863-5601 URL: http://metrotel.co.uk/
Jason Crouch
<spec...@easynet.co.uk> writes
>On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:26:19 +0100, Cliff Stanford
><c...@home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>or:
>B) Why would anybody pay UKP 5 when things like mail rewriting comes
>in at UKP 4.17 a month!
Where do you get your mail re-writing at 50ukp/yr?
(is the question this particular statistic prompts me to ask!)
>--
>Richard Dickins
What? The Dickins.
<bet you never heard that before :-) >
jason
--
heaven - mFifteen
http://www.gabriel.co.uk/heaven/
I feel a really sharp knife solves most problems - D.S.
Richard Clayton
<ja...@heaven.demon.co.uk> writes
>Where do you get your mail re-writing at 50ukp/yr?
from Demon...
perhaps you should also check out http://www.vanitymail.com/
--
richard Richard Clayton T U R N P I K E Ltd
tel: +44 1306 747747
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM
Clive Feather
Neil Charlton <nch...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> You will find that Demon offer static IP, SMTP and POP3 for a reasonable
>> sum under the guise of a Cityscape account. Well, it's a Cityscape
>> account with POP3 that happens to throw in a Demon account for free.
> Thanks for the info - this could be just what I'm after. Can you
> confirmn that I would have access to the Demon news server?
Even better, you can choose between the Demon server or our own (not so
advanced, but less busy and with a full feed).
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Email: <cd...@cityscape.co.uk>
Managing Director | Tel: +44 1223 566950
CityScape Internet Services | Fax: +44 1223 566951
Neil Charlton
>In article <31638165...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Neil Charlton <nch...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> You will find that Demon offer static IP, SMTP and POP3 for a reasonable
>>> sum under the guise of a Cityscape account. Well, it's a Cityscape
>>> account with POP3 that happens to throw in a Demon account for free.
>
>> Thanks for the info - this could be just what I'm after. Can you
>> confirmn that I would have access to the Demon news server?
>
>Even better, you can choose between the Demon server or our own (not so
>advanced, but less busy and with a full feed).
>
Thanks Clive, sounds just what I'm after. I'll dig out your web site
and check prices.
Regards
-------------------------------------------------
Neil A. Charlton
nch...@dircon.co.uk
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~ncharlt/
-------------------------------------------------
Brian Greenfield
<da...@artful.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Headers are not included in my reader unless activated. So I learn
>something new. Having a particular address (in this case dircon) does
>not mean you post from there. Interesting.
This may well be full of mistakes, any corrections are most welcome.
Here goes...
Here's the relevant header lines
>Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!hcampus.demon.co.uk
>From: nch...@dircon.co.uk (Neil Charlton)
>Message-ID: <3160d65...@news.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: nch...@dircon.co.uk
>NNTP-Posting-Host: hcampus.demon.co.uk
>X-NNTP-Posting-Host: hcampus.demon.co.uk
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
1 Any line that starts with X- are non standard (ie RFC822) and added
by (for example) Agent.
2 The From and Reply-To lines are added by the posting program, in
this case Agent. You can alter these to anything you wish.
3 The Path, Message-ID & NNTP-Posting-Host are added to the message by
Demon and so are out of reach of the poster.
So you see, all the references to dircon have been added by Neil and
all the references to Demon have been added by them.
Apologies for any inaccuracies.
--
Brian Greenfield <b...@dtseven.demon.co.uk>
Newcastle upon Tyne - England
"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so"
Paul L. Allen
p...@pchaney.demon.co.uk (Pat Chaney) writes:
> Cliff Stanford <c...@home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >No. Sorry, we have yet to find/invent a scalable web solution serving
> >60,000 users. But it *will* happen.
>
> Does it need to be scalable then? Would a number of independent web
> servers not suffice?
Well, any scaleable solution will involve a number of separate (but not
necessarily independent) web servers anyway. However, for free customer
space, where the maximum size allowed is fixed (and disk space relatively
cheap) the simplest solution would be to allocate each user's space
permanently to a particular machine - you might be on
www.customer1.demon.co.uk and me on www.customer5.demon.co.uk. This
would mean that the servers were acting independantly rather than a user's
pages being scattered over several machines or migrating from one to another
as they add data and come near to the storage limit on a particular machine.
Then, the only difference scaleability makes is whether you can
refer to http://www.customer.demon.co.uk/sktb/ and have it automatically
shunted to the right machine or if you have to give the specific machine
name. With the scaleable solution you would need one or more machines
acting as either gateways or tunnels. The g solution might be
an extension of Demon's router technology (it has to interpret the request,
look up which machine to access then pass on the request and route
subsequent traffic pertaining to that request). The tunnel solution could
be similar but offers the option of local cacheing (although this would
cut response times for popular pages it would put a burden on the tunnel
machine that would not be easily dealt with in a scaleable way).
Of course, it would be possible (although not necessarily desirable)
to start out with the independent non-scaleable solution and add a gateway
front-end later. Of course, this assumes that once you're allocated your
fixed bit of space on one machine it never gets moved to another machine.
You might think it more economic to shove as much as possible on one
machine, and then move things around to other machines as people use up
more of their allocation. However, the costs of shunting things around
and updating the tables saying whose pages are on which machine may exceed
the rather cheap cost of mass storage these days.
Then again, if somebody writes a wildly-popular page you might want to
shuffle customer space around to even the load on the machines - something
which may be a more important consideration than storage space.
It's not easy to do right. OTOH, a lot of people would probably be happy
if they did it wrong for now and worried about getting it right later.
Until later comes, and demon.service is filled with complaints...
--Paul
Graham Murray
b...@dtseven.demon.co.uk (Brian Greenfield) writes:
> 3 The Path, Message-ID & NNTP-Posting-Host are added to the message by
> Demon and so are out of reach of the poster.
Normally, the Message-ID will be created by the poster as part of the
headers submitted. It will only be created by Demon if the poster
does not include it.
--
Graham Murray
Cliff Stanford
<ja...@heaven.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Where do you get your mail re-writing at 50ukp/yr?
That's *always* been our price for mail re-writing. It includes up to
twelve changes in a year.
Cliff Stanford
<grey...@greyhawk.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Cliff, these evasive replies are infuriating when, like me, your
>business is badly affected by Demon's poor US connectivity.
Sorry. But we had a press launch today and the only way we can get the
press to turn up is to tell them something they don't already know. :-)
We got the launch organised and, er, launched in four working days so as
not to hold up the announcement here.
>I believe Malcolm has confirmed that new US connectivity will be in
>place and useable by Easter 1996. Is this correct or did I imagine it?
In fact, BT have said they will try to have the new 140Mb link in by the
end of April and the 45Mb link to the US by the end of May. We need
around a month to test various equipment so expect the new bandwidth to
come online around the end of June.
>As I am sure you know, Computing reporters have been contacting some of
>your users about your service and I have made my views known to them
>also. I would not have done so if Demon had been more forthcoming.
>Unfortunately, my repeated questions about this subject in this
>newsgroup have received consistently evasive and unhelpful replies. Your
>reply above is more of the same.
Agreed. I had no facts, I announced no facts. And for a week, when I
had facts, I didn't post them. I apologise as I know it's frustrating
but it was necessary.
Simon Oke
[...]
> been given by you for a delay already amounting to 5 months; you blame
> Aegis for not getting one T1 to work but you have had enough time by now
Unfortunately, we can't blame Stephen Tonkin for this one. I think you
mean Agis.
Simon.
Dylan O'Donnell
>In article <316250ba...@news.demon.co.uk>, Richard Dickins
><spec...@easynet.co.uk> writes
>>On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:26:19 +0100, Cliff Stanford
>><c...@home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[No he didn't - be careful of attributions]
>>or:
>>B) Why would anybody pay UKP 5 when things like mail rewriting comes
>>in at UKP 4.17 a month!
>Where do you get your mail re-writing at 50ukp/yr?
>(is the question this particular statistic prompts me to ask!)
From services.txt :
8. Other Demon Internet Services
================================
[...]
Mail Rewriting - mail that comes to one account can be sent to
another mail account. This could be any mail address. Useful
for companies with multiple accounts wanting to have only one
domain and also for those people who want their mail
temporarily redirected. GBP50 per annum per Demon account.
Unlimited number of mail rewrites allowed but on average only
one change to the details per month allowed.
[...]
--
Dylan O'Donnell (dyl...@demon.net)
Demon Internet Ltd, slave deck.
A.k.a. Psmith (elsewhere). Badger? *urf*.
http://www.vy.com/psmith.html
Jason Crouch
<dyl...@demon.net> writes
>Jason Crouch <ja...@heaven.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <316250ba...@news.demon.co.uk>, Richard Dickins
>><spec...@easynet.co.uk> writes
>>>On Wed, 3 Apr 1996 01:26:19 +0100, Cliff Stanford
>>><c...@home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[No he didn't - be careful of attributions]
Many a slip betwix'd cup and lip. Although all I could be accused of
here is implying Cliff wrote nothing at all - shome mistake shurley.
>>>or:
>>>B) Why would anybody pay UKP 5 when things like mail rewriting comes
>>>in at UKP 4.17 a month!
>
>>Where do you get your mail re-writing at 50ukp/yr?
[snip answer of "from demon"]
Cheers for that.
Having failed to re-read services.txt (alledgedly refered to in
demon.service as the lamentably out-of-date services.txt) I'd not
twigged you sold not only mail forwarding (at ukp200p.a.), but also
mail-rewriting (at considerably less).
I may be badgering one of your sales staff in the near future!
jason.
Peter Gradwell
>: In article <3160d65...@news.demon.co.uk>, Neil Charlton
>: <nch...@dircon.co.uk> writes
><snip>
>: >2. Are there any dates at all (however approximate) for the
>: >introduction of free web space?
>
>: 60,000 users. But it *will* happen.
>
We all know how much demon love scalable solutions !
Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------
From Peter Gradwell (Pe...@Gradwell.com)
Tel : 01276 22603, Fax : 01276 676670
Snail : 16 Tekels Ave. Camberley, Surrey. Gu15 2LB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dickins
<ja...@heaven.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Where do you get your mail re-writing at 50ukp/yr?
Er....Demon of course ! (wouldn't be much use anywhere else really)
--
Richard Dickins
Neil Charlton
>In article <3161b1f...@news.demon.co.uk>
> jo...@corinium.demon.co.uk (John Webster) writes:
>
>> nch...@dircon.co.uk (Neil Charlton) wrote:
>>
>> >Sometime in the dim and distant past, I seem to recall someone writing
>> >that Demon were considering the provision of POP3 mailboxes at
>> >realistic prices, possibly as an option in addition to SMTP. Can
>> >anyone recall or confirm this?
>>
>> I agree that this is the one thing I find lacking on Demon.
>
>You will find that Demon offer static IP, SMTP and POP3 for a reasonable
>sum under the guise of a Cityscape account. Well, it's a Cityscape
>account with POP3 that happens to throw in a Demon account for free.
>
>Last I heard, you couldn't choose your nodename though.
>
Paul,
Thanks for the info - this could be just what I'm after. Can you
confirmn that I would have access to the Demon news server? If so, I'm
off! If not, I'll stick with it a while.
Thomas Lee
>>introduction of free web space?
>
>No. Sorry, we have yet to find/invent a scalable web solution serving
>60,000 users. But it *will* happen.
Last time this question was answered, the excuse was lack of staff to
support it.
Now you're stating that it's not scaleable. Last time I looked, the way
you scaled up a www service was to put in more servers - and since
'money is not an issue' this should must be straightforward. Perhaps
you were confusing your excuses.
So what's the real reason you will not honour your users free web space?
Thomas
--
Thomas Lee (t...@psp.co.uk)
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer and Certified Trainer
PS Partnership - A Microsoft Solution Provider
Ph: +44 1628 850 077 Fax: +44 1628 850 143
Stephen Tonkin
<sim...@office.demon.net> writes
>In article <EVdlVCAo...@greyhawk.demon.co.uk> Graham G Hawker <greyhawk@gre
>yhawk.demon.co.uk> writes:
>[...]
>> been given by you for a delay already amounting to 5 months; you blame
>> Aegis for not getting one T1 to work but you have had enough time by now
> ^^^^^
>Unfortunately, we can't blame Stephen Tonkin for this one. I think you
>mean Agis.
Why is it unfortunate that you can't blame me? Are demon _really_ that
short of scapegoats nowadays?
I can just picture it: "Oh shit, guys! We've fucked up again! Who can
we blame this time? I know -- that Tonkin chap has rubbed a few up the
wrong way -- blame him, the snu{R}{R}d is certain jump on the bandwagon,
and we're in the clear. Whew!"
BTW, :) (in case it wasn't obvious)
--
Stephen Tonkin <s...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
Pat Chaney
>Well, any scaleable solution will involve a number of separate (but not
>necessarily independent) web servers anyway. However, for free customer
>space, where the maximum size allowed is fixed (and disk space relatively
>cheap) the simplest solution would be to allocate each user's space
>permanently to a particular machine - you might be on
>www.customer1.demon.co.uk and me on www.customer5.demon.co.uk. This
>would mean that the servers were acting independantly rather than a user's
>pages being scattered over several machines or migrating from one to another
>as they add data and come near to the storage limit on a particular machine.
Yes, that was the basis of my (possibly over simplistic) thinking. I'd
welcome a totally unsupported and less-than-ideal-design solution as an
interim measure, and from comments here I'm not alone.
It sounds to me like the full, supported implementation will be a long
time coming. In the meantime Demon are at a competitive disadvantage as
far as free web space is concerned.
--
Pat <p...@pchaney.demon.co.uk>
PGP key available
Malcolm Muir
> Cliff, these evasive replies are infuriating when, like me, your
> business is badly affected by Demon's poor US connectivity. Before
> expanding my activities requiring US access I took the trouble to visit
> Demon and discuss it with Giles last September. He re-assured me that
> two new T1s would be available by the end of November. No reason has
> been given by you for a delay already amounting to 5 months; you blame
> Aegis for not getting one T1 to work but you have had enough time by now
> to replace it.
> I believe Malcolm has confirmed that new US connectivity will be in
> place and useable by Easter 1996. Is this correct or did I imagine it?
For the record, we have both been saying that our plans for future
conenctivity would be revealed by Easter. Neither of us have promised
that such improved connectivity would be in place by Easter.
As Cliff has stated, none of us could be more precise at the time we
replied.
--
Malcolm S. Muir Demon Internet Ltd.
Sunderland 322 Regents Park Road
England London N3 2QQ
Cliff Stanford
writes
>Last time this question was answered, the excuse was lack of staff to
>support it.
That too.
>Now you're stating that it's not scaleable. Last time I looked, the way
>you scaled up a www service was to put in more servers - and since
>'money is not an issue' this should must be straightforward. Perhaps
>you were confusing your excuses.
Can we please knock this "money is not an issue" misquote on the head
once and for all. What I said, in response to a specific question was
that "money is not THE issue". In other words, throwing money at a
particular problem will not solve it any faster.
>So what's the real reason you will not honour your users free web space?
What do you mean by "honour"? We would like to offer this FREE service
and have said we will do so in the future.
Thomas Lee
<c...@home.demon.co.uk> writes
>We would like to offer this FREE service
>and have said we will do so in the future.
Cliff,
Could you please be a bit more definitive on when 'in the future' might
be? Are we talking week, months or years? I'm not asking for a detailed
date (eg week next Thurdsay at 12:34), but a general timeframe. And the
definitive list of the milestones on the way there (eg you must have the
BT lines in and working, or whatever), would be a bonus.
Frank Erskine
<Du...@deeper.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Oh.. that makes it very clear. So we have to wait until end of June before we
>can have a decent service in terms of response on the WWW ?. Taking into
>account the usual delays and problems... so end of July at the earliest ?. No
>wonder you did not want to tell everyone this in January that it could be 6
>months before a new link is in place.
>
People were complaining only a short time ago that Demon didn't announce
*anything* - now they're complaining when they announce things in good
time!
Some people are *never* satisfied....
--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland
Peter Ceresole
Cliff Stanford <c...@home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In fact, BT have said they will try to have the new 140Mb link in by the
>end of April and the 45Mb link to the US by the end of May. We need
>around a month to test various equipment so expect the new bandwidth to
>come online around the end of June.
This is good news, in that you can never have too wide a pipe.
But it seems to me that the real problem isn't getting to the States- right
now, there are already a number of US sites which are extremely fast. The
trouble is the collapse once you're over there. One site is downloading at
a rate of knots, every time, others consistently start happily (once you
have raised them) and then freeze after the initial burst. This is the sign
of troubles within the US. Meaning peering. And from reports, other ISPs
with different peering arrangements don't suffer from these problems.
I have seen messages from the USA, in other newsgroups, which say that the
moment your connection touches MCI you've had it. The Sprint/MCI
combination has frequently been reported to be fatal. I don't know how
accurate this is, but the reports are consistent. And they seem to tally
with reports from people here.
So it won't matter if you have a transatlantic pipe the width of Greenland;
if you are going to use the same network partners within the USA, we are
still going to be screwed. Is that changing too? Please say yes...
--
Peter
Malcolm Muir
> In article <2GqJ2aAD...@home.demon.co.uk>,
> Cliff Stanford <c...@home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >In fact, BT have said they will try to have the new 140Mb link in by the
> >end of April and the 45Mb link to the US by the end of May. We need
> >around a month to test various equipment so expect the new bandwidth to
> >come online around the end of June.
> This is good news, in that you can never have too wide a pipe.
> But it seems to me that the real problem isn't getting to the States- right
> now, there are already a number of US sites which are extremely fast. The
> trouble is the collapse once you're over there. One site is downloading at
> a rate of knots, every time, others consistently start happily (once you
> have raised them) and then freeze after the initial burst. This is the sign
> of troubles within the US. Meaning peering. And from reports, other ISPs
> with different peering arrangements don't suffer from these problems.
The new circuit will terminate on what is effectively Demon equipment
in the US, unlike the current arrangements where it terminates on a
service provided by a single peer.
This means we, Demon, will have an interconection point physically
inthe US at which we can connect to any organisation willing to enter
into a peering or transit agreement. If we need capacity to a point
in the states that suffers a bottleneck, we can intall a continental
US circuit between our US equipment and that point.
It is not just bandwith we have bought, but flexability and (dare I
say it) scalablility.
> I have seen messages from the USA, in other newsgroups, which say that the
> moment your connection touches MCI you've had it. The Sprint/MCI
> combination has frequently been reported to be fatal. I don't know how
> accurate this is, but the reports are consistent. And they seem to tally
> with reports from people here.
So we now have the ability to route round such problems within the
US, as opposed to having to route round them from the UK.
> So it won't matter if you have a transatlantic pipe the width of Greenland;
> if you are going to use the same network partners within the USA, we are
> still going to be screwed. Is that changing too? Please say yes...
Yes.
Malcolm Muir
> In article <8287011...@thokk.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm Muir
> <mal...@demon.net> writes
> >For the record, we have both been saying that our plans for future
> >conenctivity would be revealed by Easter. Neither of us have promised
> >that such improved connectivity would be in place by Easter.
> Oh.. that makes it very clear. So we have to wait until end of June before we
> can have a decent service in terms of response on the WWW ?. Taking into
> account the usual delays and problems... so end of July at the earliest ?. No
> wonder you did not want to tell everyone this in January that it could be 6
> months before a new link is in place.
In January the picture was very different.
A link we ordered last year for October delivery (as I recall) failed
to be usable when installed. To this day it is still unusable. When
it became obvious that it was not going to be quickly fixed
(November) a replacement link on our existing route was ordered. This
was due in February, delayed to mid March, then April...
We are as fed up as our users of the constant delays in obtaining
bandwith this way, so have taken the plunge and cured the problem once
and for all. Unfortunately, it is going to take a few weeks to
arrive.
> I am pleased that Demon are moving forward and trying to setup a service
> that is second to none, but at the moment it is only your news base which is
> any good.
All I can comment is that we are not doing it deliberately. It is in
no ones interest for us to do so.
Cliff Stanford
<pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>So it won't matter if you have a transatlantic pipe the width of Greenland;
>if you are going to use the same network partners within the USA, we are
>still going to be screwed. Is that changing too? Please say yes...
Yes.
Cliff.
Cliff Stanford
>No
>wonder you did not want to tell everyone this in January that it could be 6
>months before a new link is in place.
You don't think I *knew* in January that this link would be purchased in
April, do you?
Regards,
Steven Clarke
: We are as fed up as our users of the constant delays in obtaining
: bandwith this way, so have taken the plunge and cured the problem once
: and for all. Unfortunately, it is going to take a few weeks to
: arrive.
BT will be treating this as a flagship project. Unlike agis and other
suppliers, it will be very much in BT's interest to make this link work
and work soon. BT completed previous international projects such as
replacing the European Academic backbone network within months and
this should be a much simpler project.
Steve Clarke
Nick Leverton
mal...@demon.net (Malcolm Muir) writes:
>We are as fed up as our users of the constant delays in obtaining
>bandwith this way, so have taken the plunge and cured the problem once
>and for all.
YM"until about a year's time". HTH.
N. [seriously, though, thank you!]
Malcolm Muir
> In article <nM8AfJAT...@g3wte.demon.co.uk>, Frank Erskine
> <fr...@g3wte.demon.co.uk> writes
> >>Oh.. that makes it very clear. So we have to wait until end of June before we
> >>can have a decent service in terms of response on the WWW ?. Taking into
> >>account the usual delays and problems... so end of July at the earliest ?. No
> >>wonder you did not want to tell everyone this in January that it could be 6
> >>months before a new link is in place.
> >>
> >People were complaining only a short time ago that Demon didn't announce
> >*anything* - now they're complaining when they announce things in good
> >time!
> Yes but I got the impression from all Malcolm replies in January about the
> new link that it was only a matter of a couple of months. I did not think at the
> time that it would be 6 months before we would get what many others take
> for granted...ie a decent reponse on the www.
Correct. In January we anticipated improved bandwith in February. We
are still waiting for our supplier to perform.
Ordering a massive increase in bandwith is an attempt to get beyond
this sort of problem for the forseeable future.
David Lawson
>Sorry. But we had a press launch today and the only way we can get the
>press to turn up is to tell them something they don't already know. :-)
You might get a lot more if you scanned your user base and invited the
journalists who are members. An alternative is the UK.MEDIA usenet
group.
I am not a computer journalist but one of my tasks is writing for
property professionals about new technology and online services. I have
never seen a sniff of any announcements.
It's the same story with CIS, Pipex, MSN, etc., who seem to think
consumers of their services read computer magazines (or the computer
pages in newspapers). Most don't. They *do*, however, have an armoury of
journals covering various professions - doctors, surveyors, accountants,
engineers, teachers, etc, most of which seem to be ignored.
--
David Lawson - London
Nick Leverton
mal...@demon.net (Malcolm Muir) writes:
>This means we, Demon, will have an interconection point physically
>inthe US at which we can connect to any organisation willing to enter
>into a peering or transit agreement. If we need capacity to a point
>in the states that suffers a bottleneck, we can intall a continental
>US circuit between our US equipment and that point.
>
>It is not just bandwith we have bought, but flexability and (dare I
>say it) scalablility.
Yay!! Three rousing cheers ! :-) I move the *entire* net be renamed
"The Demon Internet" - duplicating it en masse may indeed be the only
way to control your connectivity problems :-)
N.
Steven Clarke
: But it seems to me that the real problem isn't getting to the States- right
: now, there are already a number of US sites which are extremely fast. The
: trouble is the collapse once you're over there. One site is downloading at
: a rate of knots, every time, others consistently start happily (once you
: have raised them) and then freeze after the initial burst. This is the sign
: of troubles within the US. Meaning peering. And from reports, other ISPs
: with different peering arrangements don't suffer from these problems.
Routing flaps still seem to upset some parts of the US networks. I've
seem this sort of behaviour from JANET<->US links too. I'd expect that
with a DS3 into mae-east, they'd be in a far better position to negotiate
multiple peering arrangements and buy relatively cheap cross land
bandwidth to by-pass any problem areas.
: I have seen messages from the USA, in other newsgroups, which say that the
: moment your connection touches MCI you've had it.
I've seen new routes between Sprintlink and MCI but if your connection
goes interstate accross MCI links at peak time, you might as well not
bother. Demon should be in position to buy US land based routes and
by-pass these problems. The congestion of most of the US networks has been
very noticable over the last 12 months - the Internet seems to be growing
too quickly.
: So it won't matter if you have a transatlantic pipe the width of Greenland;
: if you are going to use the same network partners within the USA, we are
: still going to be screwed. Is that changing too? Please say yes...
I hope Demon won't suffer by putting all its eggs in one basket. We've
seen what happens before when a major backbone cable suffers a fault under
flood water. Many will also remember the problems that regular occur to
the cables under the Atlantic and the classic ticket:
: The repair work on the PTAT-1 fibre is now partially complete;
: provided weather conditions remain good, and no further problems
: are encountered, Sprint hope that service will be restored onto
: fibre between 01:00 and 06:00 UTC on the 18th of November.
Let's hope we won't need to rely on good weather if the DS3 has
problems :-)
Steve Clarke
Duncan Taylor
>For the record, we have both been saying that our plans for future
>conenctivity would be revealed by Easter. Neither of us have promised
>that such improved connectivity would be in place by Easter.
Oh.. that makes it very clear. So we have to wait until end of June before we
can have a decent service in terms of response on the WWW ?. Taking into
account the usual delays and problems... so end of July at the earliest ?. No
wonder you did not want to tell everyone this in January that it could be 6
months before a new link is in place.
I am pleased that Demon are moving forward and trying to setup a service
that is second to none, but at the moment it is only your news base which is
any good.
Duncan.
http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/deeper
----
Don't put off for tomorrow what you can do today, because if
you enjoy it today you can do it again tomorrow.
Duncan Taylor
>>Oh.. that makes it very clear. So we have to wait until end of June before we
>>can have a decent service in terms of response on the WWW ?. Taking into
>>account the usual delays and problems... so end of July at the earliest ?. No
>>wonder you did not want to tell everyone this in January that it could be 6
>>months before a new link is in place.
>>
>People were complaining only a short time ago that Demon didn't announce
>*anything* - now they're complaining when they announce things in good
>time!
Yes but I got the impression from all Malcolm replies in January about the
new link that it was only a matter of a couple of months. I did not think at the
time that it would be 6 months before we would get what many others take
for granted...ie a decent reponse on the www.
Duncan.
Stephen Tonkin
><c...@home.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>>2. Are there any dates at all (however approximate) for the
>>>introduction of free web space?
>>
>>No. Sorry, we have yet to find/invent a scalable web solution serving
>>60,000 users. But it *will* happen.
>
>support it.
>
And next time it'll be because they don't know how to do it for 100 000
users.
IMHO one of demon's biggest problems is that they try to deal with
things as they stood last week, not as they will be next year. Yes,
there are many unknowns in the future, but I don't think it is
unreasonable to expect the number of users to continue to grow. (I
presume the press releases and the like are intended to accellerate this
growth)
--
Stephen Tonkin <s...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
Paul L. Allen
Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
> > Correct. In January we anticipated improved bandwith in February. We
> > are still waiting for our supplier to perform.
>
> Malcom, I appreciate the difference between you and us: but we are
> "a supplier" to the Ministry of Defence. Bluntly put, if we don't
> provide what we contract for (torpedoes ready to go up the brow),
> not only do we not get paid, we get slammed with massive liquidated
> damages.
Are you *sure*? Marconi's contract to develop the Stingray torpedo had
a 20+ year over-run. Ah, they don't make cost-plus contracts like
they used to...
--Paul
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Correct. In January we anticipated improved bandwith in February. We
> are still waiting for our supplier to perform.
Malcom, I appreciate the difference between you and us: but we are
"a supplier" to the Ministry of Defence. Bluntly put, if we don't
provide what we contract for (torpedoes ready to go up the brow),
not only do we not get paid, we get slammed with massive liquidated
damages.
If *any* of our suppliers tried to handle us the way Agis appear (from
info in d.s only, admittedly) to treat Demon, we could damn near (or in
some cases actually) bankrupt them. Getting buggered by incompetent
subcontractors has been a problem for us from a long time ago, and we tend to
win this sort of fight because we write it into the Ts and Cs of any contract.
Hence, this is one issue where you have very little sympathy from me. We
have to deal with sickeningly mercenary suppliers who understand that they
are in a seller's market, and still satisfy our contract with the MoD: or
go out of business.
> Ordering a massive increase in bandwith is an attempt to get beyond
> this sort of problem for the forseeable future.
Depends who you're peering with: Demon do have a regrettable history in
this regard, witness the Sprint T1 problems and the Agis fiasco. One
sincerely hopes that lessons have been learned...
--
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have defined your attitude towards
him. You have offered a definite answer to a definite problem. For better
or for worse, you have acted decisively.
In fact, the next move is up to him." <R.A. Lafferty>
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Cliff Stanford
writes
>
>Does this new announcement mean that Demon have given up on trying to
>get the 2nd Agis to the West Coast working?
Yes.
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Are you *sure*? Marconi's contract to develop the Stingray torpedo had
> a 20+ year over-run. Ah, they don't make cost-plus contracts like
> they used to...
> --Paul
Sting Ray, not Stingray, unless you want to write cheques to Gerry Anderson's
estate :) And we're on cost and to time for every part of Sting Ray, and
exceeding reliability targets handily. Given that development started in
1972, 1MPO in 1986, and we haven't got the Life Extension contract yet,
there isn't any contract we could be "20+" overrunning on.
And cost-plus? Please. The last UWGW cost-plus contract was internal within
the Ministry for Mark 24 development, and we had to rescue them from that
back in 1982.
Glad to clarify by e-mail if necessary since we're right off-topic for
demon.service. If you want to carry on by news, I'd suggest sci.military.naval
:)
Paul Jonathan Adam
> Paul Jonathan Adam (Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > If *any* of our suppliers tried to handle us the way Agis appear (from
> > info in d.s only, admittedly) to treat Demon, we could damn near (or in
> > some cases actually) bankrupt them. Getting buggered by incompetent
> > subcontractors has been a problem for us from a long time ago, and we tend
> > to win this sort of fight because we write it into the Ts and Cs of any
> > contract.
> If your supplier is large enough to buy you, damages mean little.
Too true, and a situation that we've never had to worry about.
> > Hence, this is one issue where you have very little sympathy from me. We
> > have to deal with sickeningly mercenary suppliers who understand that they
> > are in a seller's market, and still satisfy our contract with the MoD: or
> > go out of business.
>
> Dealings with the goverment, directly or indirectly are far different
> to normal commercial contracts.
Rather less true today than it was, say, ten years ago. And we still have
to deal with monopoly suppliers within fixed-price contracts and very short
timescales. Luckily, I only have to deal with the results of the process,
not the process itself.
> > Depends who you're peering with: Demon do have a regrettable history in
> > this regard, witness the Sprint T1 problems and the Agis fiasco. One
> > sincerely hopes that lessons have been learned...
>
> The T3 gives us freedom to choose our peers independantly of the
> supplier of bandwith. This is a possition we have not previously
> enjoyed.
And is very good news. Don't let my somewhat critical tone worry you overmuch,
I'm glad to see the problems being addressed and past difficulties learned
from. I'm also very appreciative of the increase in the information flow from
Demon recently, and would very much like it to continue.
Malcolm Muir
> > Correct. In January we anticipated improved bandwith in February. We
> > are still waiting for our supplier to perform.
> Malcom, I appreciate the difference between you and us: but we are
> "a supplier" to the Ministry of Defence. Bluntly put, if we don't
> provide what we contract for (torpedoes ready to go up the brow),
> not only do we not get paid, we get slammed with massive liquidated
> damages.
As I have said before, in commercial contracts of the nature we are
looking at with Demon, liquidated damages serve little purpose. They
certainly do not magically make a circuit appear, they certainly do a)
out up the price and b) take some suppliers out of the frame.
> If *any* of our suppliers tried to handle us the way Agis appear (from
> info in d.s only, admittedly) to treat Demon, we could damn near (or in
> some cases actually) bankrupt them. Getting buggered by incompetent
> subcontractors has been a problem for us from a long time ago, and we tend to
> win this sort of fight because we write it into the Ts and Cs of any contract.
If your supplier is large enough to buy you, damages mean little.
> Hence, this is one issue where you have very little sympathy from me. We
> have to deal with sickeningly mercenary suppliers who understand that they
> are in a seller's market, and still satisfy our contract with the MoD: or
> go out of business.
Dealings with the goverment, directly or indirectly are far different
to normal commercial contracts.
> > Ordering a massive increase in bandwith is an attempt to get beyond
> > this sort of problem for the forseeable future.
> Depends who you're peering with: Demon do have a regrettable history in
> this regard, witness the Sprint T1 problems and the Agis fiasco. One
> sincerely hopes that lessons have been learned...
The T3 gives us freedom to choose our peers independantly of the
supplier of bandwith. This is a possition we have not previously
enjoyed.
--
Dale Shuttleworth
Malcolm Muir (mal...@demon.net) wrote:
: Paul Jonathan Adam (Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
[...]
: > If *any* of our suppliers tried to handle us the way Agis appear (from
: > info in d.s only, admittedly) to treat Demon, we could damn near (or in
: > some cases actually) bankrupt them. Getting buggered by incompetent
: > subcontractors has been a problem for us from a long time ago, and we
: > tend to win this sort of fight because we write it into the Ts and Cs
: > of any contract.
: If your supplier is large enough to buy you, damages mean little.
Only if you're for sale. I had the impression that the management still
owned the majority of Demon shares.
[...]
: The T3 gives us freedom to choose our peers independantly of the
: supplier of bandwith. This is a possition we have not previously
: enjoyed.
This does appear to be the way to go. It does however place a lot
of eggs in a single basket - let's hope that the basket is nice and
robust.
Does the purchase of the T3 mean that there are going to be few
additional bandwidth purchases for a while? The Europe situation
really needs to be sorted out; I have the feeling that the T3 will
move the bottleneck to other overloaded transatlantic links going
from the States to European networks. The only way to route round
this kind of problem is links direct into Europe.
Dale.
--
******************************************************************************
* Dale Shuttleworth *
* Email: da...@giskard.demon.co.uk *
******************************************************************************
Paul L. Allen
Paul Jonathan Adam <Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> writes:
> p...@sktb.demon.co.uk "Paul L. Allen" writes:
> > Are you *sure*? Marconi's contract to develop the Stingray torpedo had
> > a 20+ year over-run. Ah, they don't make cost-plus contracts like
> > they used to...
> > --Paul
>
> Sting Ray, not Stingray, unless you want to write cheques to Gerry Anderson's
> estate :)
Pedant.
> And we're on cost and to time for every part of Sting Ray, and
> exceeding reliability targets handily. Given that development started in
> 1972, 1MPO in 1986, and we haven't got the Life Extension contract yet,
> there isn't any contract we could be "20+" overrunning on.
Funny that, as I read in one of the trade rags 5 or 6 years ago that
Sting Ray was already 25 years late. Not that they're known for accuracy,
but even starting development in 72 and still going in 96 means that
you've been going for 24 years - rather a long time. Have you actually
delivered any yet?
Followups set to demon.local.
--Paul
Malcolm Muir
> Hi,
> Malcolm Muir (mal...@demon.net) wrote:
> : Paul Jonathan Adam (Pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> [...]
> : > If *any* of our suppliers tried to handle us the way Agis appear (from
> : > info in d.s only, admittedly) to treat Demon, we could damn near (or in
> : > some cases actually) bankrupt them. Getting buggered by incompetent
> : > subcontractors has been a problem for us from a long time ago, and we
> : > tend to win this sort of fight because we write it into the Ts and Cs
> : > of any contract.
> : If your supplier is large enough to buy you, damages mean little.
> Only if you're for sale. I had the impression that the management still
> owned the majority of Demon shares.
They do, but everyone has a price...
> [...]
> : The T3 gives us freedom to choose our peers independantly of the
> : supplier of bandwith. This is a possition we have not previously
> : enjoyed.
> This does appear to be the way to go. It does however place a lot
> of eggs in a single basket - let's hope that the basket is nice and
> robust.
Resilience is part of the contract.
> Does the purchase of the T3 mean that there are going to be few
> additional bandwidth purchases for a while? The Europe situation
> really needs to be sorted out; I have the feeling that the T3 will
> move the bottleneck to other overloaded transatlantic links going
> from the States to European networks. The only way to route round
> this kind of problem is links direct into Europe.
Like it or not, the US is the centre of the world, internet
connectivity wise. The US is better connected to Europe than anywhere
else.
That said, Demon are actively pursuing and supporting mutual
interchanges in several European countires.
Anahata
> This does appear to be the way to go. It does however place a lot
> of eggs in a single basket - let's hope that the basket is nice and
> robust.
I seem to remember that part of the deal is (or may be) that BT will
maintain the link by other routes if the physical connection fails.
> The only way to route round
> this kind of problem is links direct into Europe.
You speak of "Europe" as a homogeneous and tightly interconnected mesh
of high-bandwitdh internet connections. The reality is that many
European sites route to each other via the USA.
First Europe needs a backbone itself: a wider-scale version of the
LINX where all the main networks can interconnect, or one of such in
each country with a thick pipe joining them all together. I guess the
question is: who's going to pay for it?
--
Anahata
Steven Clarke
: da...@giskard.demon.co.uk "Dale Shuttleworth" writes:
: > The only way to route round
: > this kind of problem is links direct into Europe.
: You speak of "Europe" as a homogeneous and tightly interconnected mesh
: of high-bandwitdh internet connections. The reality is that many
: European sites route to each other via the USA.
Europe already has a highspeed mesh of connections but, as usual, the
academics are keeping it all to themselves. 4Mbit/s and 8Mbit/s links
are standard now and will be 34Mbit/s before the year is out.
Who's paying for it? The EC, of course.
: First Europe needs a backbone itself: a wider-scale version of the
: LINX where all the main networks can interconnect, or one of such in
: each country with a thick pipe joining them all together. I guess the
: question is: who's going to pay for it?
As a half way house, there are already a number of Internet Exchanges
where ISPs can connect. For example, PIPEX connects already connects
to the Stockholm D-GIX. A more likely reason for not connecting to
these point is the high costs of arranging peering arrangements.
Steve Clarke
Cliff Stanford
<Ana...@freereed.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>First Europe needs a backbone itself: a wider-scale version of the
>LINX where all the main networks can interconnect, or one of such in
>each country with a thick pipe joining them all together. I guess the
>question is: who's going to pay for it?
No, that's not going to happen. There are already several companies
offering connectivity in between European centres, Ebone and Pipex come
to mind. So our job as ISPs is to provide Neutral Interconnect points
for other people to peer at.
Regards,
Anahata
> >First Europe needs a backbone itself: a wider-scale version of the
> >LINX where all the main networks can interconnect, or one of such in
> >each country with a thick pipe joining them all together.
[...]
> No, that's not going to happen. There are already several companies
> offering connectivity in between European centres, Ebone and Pipex come
> to mind.
I don't know enough about this business to understand the difference,
but you seem to be saying that what I suggested is already happening,
albeit on a more ad hoc basis and driven by commercial concerns
rather than a structured EC government driven plan.
> So our job as ISPs is to provide Neutral Interconnect points
> for other people to peer at.
In simple language, does this mean that ISP's including Demon are going to set
up LINX-like interconnection points in other European centres? Doesn't
this mean that Demon will be running some links to these centres?
--
Anahata
John Hall
<ste...@iona.keble.ox.ac.uk> writes
>Malcolm Muir (mal...@demon.net) wrote:
>
>: We are as fed up as our users of the constant delays in obtaining
>: bandwith this way, so have taken the plunge and cured the problem once
>: arrive.
>
>BT will be treating this as a flagship project. Unlike agis and other
>suppliers, it will be very much in BT's interest to make this link work
>and work soon.
Given that BT are at last themselves competing in the low-cost ISP
market, is this actually the case? Wouldn't it be in their interest to
delay things as much as possible, or am I being too cynical? I
appreciate that Demon had no choice but to use BT for this link, but
given the amount that Demon are paying (15 million over 3 years must
represent a very substantial slice of Demon's income) I hope there is a
swinging penalty clause for late delivery or unacceptable reliability.
--
One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is
the belief that one's work is terribly important.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
Giles Todd
Anahata <Ana...@freereed.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In simple language, does this mean that ISP's including Demon are going to set
> up LINX-like interconnection points in other European centres? Doesn't
> this mean that Demon will be running some links to these centres?
Yes and yes.
Giles.
--
Giles Todd Demon Internet
Continuum plenum est. Vade.
Simon Hewison
<da...@giskard.demon.co.uk> writes
>Does the purchase of the T3 mean that there are going to be few
>additional bandwidth purchases for a while? The Europe situation
>really needs to be sorted out; I have the feeling that the T3 will
>move the bottleneck to other overloaded transatlantic links going
>this kind of problem is links direct into Europe.
>
There already are some European peering agreements, with more being
agreed and set up rather quickly. Europe quite definately hasn't been
forgotten.
bash$ traceroute www.xs4all.nl
traceroute to www.xs4all.nl (193.78.33.80): 1-30 hops, 38 byte packets
1 demon-gw-gwhouse.demon.net (193.195.224.100) 2.20 ms 1.95 ms 1.93
ms
2 singel-1.router.demon.net (194.159.252.91) 14.5 ms 21.8 ms 19.8
ms
3 asd01-peer.NL.net (194.178.245.33) 18.6 ms 23.5 ms 17.5 ms
4 194.178.245.50 (194.178.245.50) 18.9 ms 209 ms 19.3 ms
5 asd02.NL.net (193.79.236.2) 26.0 ms 25.9 ms 24.1 ms
6 speed.xs4all.net (194.109.6.1) 30.5 ms 39.8 ms 47.3 ms
7 193.78.33.80 (193.78.33.80) 43.3 ms 94.9 ms 166 ms
bash$ traceroute www.esoc.esa.de
traceroute to cs47.esoc.esa.de (131.176.60.14): 1-30 hops, 38 byte
packets
1 demon-gw-gwhouse.demon.net (193.195.224.100) 2.94 ms 1.93 ms 1.68
ms
2 singel-1.router.demon.net (194.159.252.91) 13.8 ms 14.1 ms 20.0
ms
3 asd01-peer.NL.net (194.178.245.33) 40.3 ms 18.4 ms 17.9 ms
4 194.178.245.50 (194.178.245.50) 25.0 ms 18.3 ms 194 ms
5 194.178.244.81 (194.178.244.81) 18.6 ms 18.9 ms 190 ms
6 estec-g1.estec.esa.nl (131.176.26.250) 24.5 ms 38.0 ms 21.6 ms
7 131.176.235.1 (131.176.235.1) * 183 ms (ttl=246!) 187 ms
(ttl=246!)
8 cs47.esoc.esa.de (131.176.60.14) 182 ms (ttl=245!) * 172 ms
(ttl=245!)
--
Simon Hewison
Demon Internet
Peter Gradwell
Anahata <Ana...@freereed.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[SNIP]
>First Europe needs a backbone itself: a wider-scale version of the
>LINX where all the main networks can interconnect, or one of such in
>each country with a thick pipe joining them all together. I guess the
>question is: who's going to pay for it?
£10 a month x 70000 users bought us a DS45 to the States, and LINX in the
UK. I expect a similar thing will happen in europe.
Peter.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From Peter Gradwell (Pe...@Gradwell.com)
Tel : 01276 22603, Fax : 01276 676670
Snail : 16 Tekels Ave. Camberley, Surrey. Gu15 2LB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Gradwell
John Hall <jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>Given that BT are at last themselves competing in the low-cost ISP
>market, is this actually the case? Wouldn't it be in their interest to
>delay things as much as possible, or am I being too cynical? I
>appreciate that Demon had no choice but to use BT for this link, but
>given the amount that Demon are paying (15 million over 3 years must
>represent a very substantial slice of Demon's income) I hope there is a
>swinging penalty clause for late delivery or unacceptable reliability.
>--
The difference is that the part of BT who are laying the link, is very
different to BTnet, (who might even be a different company). The "link
building" BT have a very vested interest in this pipe, and the ISP BT have
nothing to do with it.
If BT delayed this project due to another company department's wish, as a
whole, they would loose a lot more than £15 million.
Michael Ashton
>Cliff Stanford <c...@home.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>No. Sorry, we have yet to find/invent a scalable web solution serving
>>60,000 users. But it *will* happen.
Ah. Anybody remember my article on this subject ? Funny, because I was
being sarcastic.
>Does it need to be scalable then? Would a number of independent web
>servers not suffice?
Wouldn't a number of independent news servers suffice ?
Here we go again.
--
mic...@unixsoft.demon.co.uk
"Oh, no, don't let me go because all I am, you hold in your hands"
"Hold me and I'll make it through the night; I'll be alright"
Michael Ashton
>: No. Sorry, we have yet to find/invent a scalable web solution serving
>: 60,000 users. But it *will* happen.
>Huh? Something intrinsically more scalable than the WWW is hard to
>imagine.
True. News is a close second, though.