ATT spun off ATT Wireless a couple of years ago, and the spinoff is
renting the brand name and the Death Star logo, and probably buys a
bunch of network and telco service from ATT but is otherwise
unconnected. As a stockholder of the spinoff company, I'm
disappointed though not surprised that
Michel Py wrote:
In other words: as of today a large part of the bandwidth is
allocated to building everyone's collection of files. This
might gradually change to become bandwidth being used only
for incremental updates as huge local file libraries become
common place.
Peter Galbavy
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rodney Joffe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
For those who care, based on responses and some analysis, it appears
that very few networks do follow the ripe-229 recommendations regarding
golden networks, including, oddly enough, parts of RIPE itself.
Did you mean parts of
--On söndag 29 augusti 2004 17.42 -0700 Michel Py
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tracy Smith wrote:
Specifically, to NAT or not to NAT?
This is not much of an issue anymore. If you receive IP addresses from
your ISP, not natting would be foolish.
No. Renumbering is easy and fun, not to
Roland Perry wrote:
Did you mean parts of RIPE-NCC?
Sorry to be so pedantic, but this thread started off with a mild
diversion caused by confusion between RIPE and RIPE-NCC.
You're right - it is a little confusing. According to their joined
about pages, RIPE-NCC provides the administrative
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
On Sep 3, 2004, at 10:46 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
Given Network A, which has golden network content behind it as described
by the RIPE paper (root and tld data), if the network has some combination
of events that result in all of their
--On 02 September 2004 16:09 -0700 John Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This would not be as problematic if dampening could be applied to a path
rather than a prefix, since an alternate could then be selected. But
since this would require modifications to core aspects of BGP (and
additional
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Alex Bligh wrote:
if in a heavily plural anycast domain prefix route changes are more
common than normal routes (albeit without - dampening aside -
affecting reachability), does this mean route dampening
disproportionately harms such routes?
This
Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
the logic seems rather irrefutable:
- as a rule, shorter prefixes are more important and/or more stable
than long ones
- so we dampen long prefixes more aggressively
- the root DNS servers tend to live in
--- Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Pay me to treat your prefixes more nicely? 1/2 :-)
Isn't that the difference between transit and peering?
Does anyone dampen people who are paying them?
=
David Barak
-fully RFC 1925 compliant-
10 matches
Mail list logo
