Talk:Internode Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Internode Systems is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Agile / Internode 2 Locked Article 3 Usenet feed 4 National tier-1? 5 ADSL2+

[edit] Agile / Internode

These are seperate companies, but stuff is being mixed up between them, such as the Coorong Network is an Agile thing, not an Internode thing, although Internode do use it for Retail. Internode and Agile are legally seperate, and I propose to clean up both the Agile article and this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianSkelly (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locked Article

I would like to see this article locked to Non-Registered Edits until such a time I have completed the cleanup of this article. What is the process for having this done? --BrianSkelly 12:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usenet feed

I would like to see some mention of Internode's usenet feed. Which I am led to believe is the only premium usenet feed in the country, and is provided free of charge to all users. It has a direct pipe to supernews in the US, and has 30 plus day retention on even the largest binary groups. eg. On my adsl2+ connection, I often get 10Mbit/sec download from the usenet feed, which is many, many times faster than I ever get on bittorrent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.168.129 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 July 2006.

Find a reference for it, to ensure it doesn't look like advertising. --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=481186
http://lists.internode.on.net/pipermail/internode-bulletins/2006-February/000029.html
http://www.internode.on.net/content/premium-news/

And use this to find retention rates: http://www.supernews.com/stats/retention.cgi
eg: the biggest group on usenet alt.binaries.boneless has 41.5 days of retention.
(last time I checked, about 3 weeks ago, it had 30 days retention, but supernews and internode have recently massively expanded retention).

[edit] National tier-1?

 5    80 ms    85 ms   120 ms  410.ge-0-0-0.GW3.MEL1.ALTER.NET [203.166.43.101]
 6   141 ms     *      114 ms  323.AT-3-0-1.XR1.MEL1.ALTER.NET [210.80.33.153]
 7   151 ms   110 ms   176 ms  so-5-0-0.XT1.SYD2.ALTER.NET [210.80.33.233]
 8    86 ms    98 ms    82 ms  so-3-3-0.GW5.SYD2.Alter.Net [210.80.38.222]
 9     *      127 ms   157 ms  internode-syd-au.aspac.customer.alter.net [203.166.93.162]
10    77 ms    91 ms   126 ms  pos2-0.bdr2.adl2.agile.on.net [203.16.212.34]
11   177 ms     *     ^C

While you can't always trust DNS, this would seem to indicate Internode pay Verizon Business for transit in Sydney, meaning they aren't a national tier-1 Thedangerouskitchen 03:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Tier_1_ISP#List_of_Tier_1_IPv4_ISPs agrees, btw. Thedangerouskitchen 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the claim that Agile's international links make them tier-1, since

• they appear to pay Verizon Business for transit as detailed above (and I was not the first to point this out),
• it's a non sequitur anyway - even if they truly are a tier-1, having international links doesn't make that true. Thedangerouskitchen 09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Teir-1 Definitions have different meanings in different countries, As the Australian Gang-Of-Four (Telstra, Optus, MCI/Verison and AAPT) peer with each other, but have their own connectivity to the United States they would be considered a Local Data Teir-1 Network.

However (in Australia at least) anyone who *directly* connects to the United States is considered a Teir-1 Network as it has no reliance on a 'shared' International Transit Link from a IP Provider.

Agile have purchased waves of light on the Southern Cross Cable Network, which carriers SDH data direct to the USA, from there, Agile/Internode purchase Transit and Peering data directly from the United States.

I Think a discussion should be taken on this issue, to either find a better term for Teir-1 in regards to accepted use of the term in Australia, or to possibly expand the Tier-1 article to be less United States centric. BrianSkelly 14:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this usage of the term in Australia? If I dial into my box in the US, establish PPP, and route IP over that, am I a national tier-1? I'd have my own international IP transit, after all.

Tier-1s don't pay anyone for transit. A national tier-1, then, is a provider who doesn't pay anyone for transit of national traffic. If Agile pay Verizon Business for transit in order to be able to reach Verizon's Australian customers, I don't see how they can possibly be a national tier-1. The Gang of Four are national tier-1s not because of international connectivity, but because they don't pay each other for transit inside Australia - they can reach any IP node in Australia via their customers or peers. Thedangerouskitchen 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agile/Internode have purchased spectrums of light on an optic fibre cable. The only dependent parts of that are the physical bits of cables and any related underwater equipment. Nothing that does any decision making. In comparison, you dialling to the US uses multiple pieces of outside routing hardware and is completely and utterly out of your control. You're not honestly comparing the two, are you? 203.34.175.61 05:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of usefulness, no, I'm not comparing them. However, the suggestion was that having an international IP network makes an ISP a national tier-1. I used a deliberately absurd example to demonstrate how meaningless this is in terms of an ISP's position in a national hierarchy. If there is any IP network in Australia that Agile/Internode cannot reach without paying someone else for IP transit, they cannot be at the top level of any Australian ISP hierarchy. That Agile/Internode are in this position is implied by reverse DNS, and confirmed by their own network map here, which indicates they pay Telstra, Optus, AAPT, Verizon Business and Soul/SPT for transit at POPs within Australia. Under any definition of the term "National Tier-1" that is consistent with the definition of a global tier-1, on a national scale, Agile/Internode cannot be one. Regardless of what they might have the chutzpah to claim on their website. Thedangerouskitchen 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ADSL2+

I removed the "cited" rant about slow rollout of ADSL2+. The part1 reference was to Simon Hackett announcing on Whirlpool that Internode DSLAMs were unleashed to run at full 2+ speeds (supported) from the day the standard was ratified. The Internode Whirlpool forum is in the External links section. If you don't like Internode, take your business to a competitor. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Again removed the following:

The current ADSL2+ DSLAM rollout is progressing. Some Internode customers are frustrated at the perceived slow rollout and lack of information released by Internode relating to the rollout. This has been displayed on a number of occasions throughout the Internode ADSL2+ rollout discussion threads on Whirlpool.

(see Internode ADSL2+ rollout discussion, pt. 3)

(see Internode ADSL2+ rollout discussion, pt. 2)

(see Internode ADSL2+ rollout discussion, pt. 1)

Perhaps Martin could tell us exactly what encyclopaedic information he is trying to add. This looks like the complaints of an impatient customer. The links are all to huge discussion forums spanning months each and covering much more than the claimed frustration. It includes Simon Hackett announcing that Internode enabled and supported ADSL2+ from the day the standard was ratified, and another Internode employee posting links to their DSLAM rollout status page and the "what it means" table. These are not Reliable sources, and appear to be showing that Internode is attempting to share as much information with customers and potential customers as it is commercially viable to provide. Newspaper articles or conference papers would be much more helpful than online discussion fora as reliable references. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked the anonymous user for 48 hours under the WP:3RR rule. Has reverted the page at least 6 times in 18 hours, and has had 3 other people revert his changes in this time. -- Chuq 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)