On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Most places have no fiber last-mile. Some do. Of those
that do, I know that many were installed by cable companies
and that there are in many of those places utility taxes
that are being collected and passed along to at least
partially fund said
--On November 15, 2005 11:02:18 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True
Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
I can't reach http://www.espanix.net/ for a while now. And I guess
that the espanix.net range accidentally has been removed from
advertising ...
show ip bgp 193.149.1.201
% Network not in table
No one seems to transit AS6895 volounterly anymore. Maybe someone can
point
J
On Nov 16, 2005, at 12:15 AM, Alain Hebert wrote:
Thanks.
( There is more interesting details but I will reserve myself. (; )
We're already working on making contact with the upstreams, but
you're right I forgot about making more specific announcement.
Thanks again.
In any case, the bottom line is that whether through subsidy, deal,
or other mechanism, the last-mile infrastructure tends to end up being
a monopoly or duopoly for most terrestrial forms of infrastructure.
As such, I think we should accept that monopoly and limit the monopoly
zone to that
Title: Re: a record?
In Iptables you can keep port 22 closed until needed, opening it first by telneting to a higher port say 5500 and Iptables just giving access to this ip. If you want to close it again you can telnet back in on another assigned port say 5501, thus closing ssh port to
Right, and this is appropriate. Large investments in infrastructure
should *not* be made if there's already adequate service. Better to
invest in places where there isn't.
Is that still true if the adequate service is being provided at a price
which is two to three times what it
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Elvey) [Wed 16 Nov 2005, 01:56 CET]:
Still no word from google, or indication that there's anything wrong
with the robots.txt. Google's estimated hit count is going slightly up,
instead of way down.
robots.txt is about explicitly spidering your site; Google will
This separation model may turn out to be a very good one or a very
bad one.
But if we choose it and stick with it, what will happen in 50 or 100
years
when it's either broken or irrelevent? Remember, we got to where we are
now
by choosing models that made sense in the voice telco time
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew Elvey) [Wed 16 Nov 2005, 01:56 CET]:
Still no word from google, or indication that there's anything wrong
with the robots.txt. Google's estimated hit count is going slightly up,
instead of way down.
Way back in the early '90's someone came up with an
elegant
Apache/1.3.33 Server at www.paypal.com Port 80
Paypal is an SSL-only service, and port 443 is working just fine. It appears
that it's only the port 80 - port 443 redirector that's down...
--
Harald
On 11/16/05, Patrick Lynchehaun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Iptables you can keep port 22 closed until needed, opening it first by
telneting to a higher port say 5500 and Iptables just giving access to this
ip. If you want to close it again you can telnet back in on another assigned
port say
Hi,
A. Yeap we got the ok
B. I used /21 instead
C. Once that TelCo stop being a child we'll be back to /20, I'll
like to keep it clean.
FYI:
We had excellent support from the peers of that TelCo, so the
matters should be resolved today and the subnet back to be announced in
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that still true if the adequate service is
being provided at a price which is two to three
times what it should be costing and the provider is
enjoying the ability to do this because nobody
else is in the market space?
I'm confused. Earlier in
Hello;
On Nov 16, 2005, at 1:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 8:14:38 PM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On November 15, 2005 6:28:21 AM -0800 David Barak
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK... Let me try this again... True competition requires
that it be
Maybe they should?
Or at least provide a database that is signed so that people can check
what is getting announced vs what was really allocated at least off
line.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Charles Gucker
Sent: Tuesday, November
--On November 16, 2005 4:23:20 AM -0800 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any case, the bottom line is that whether through subsidy, deal,
or other mechanism, the last-mile infrastructure tends to end up being
a monopoly or duopoly for most terrestrial forms of infrastructure.
Hi,
1. Get the peers involved.
We got help from bigger players than them.
2. Get more specific announcement of the subnets in question.
Be a good netadmin, don't leave them for too long...
3. Get your management involved. They can call upon legal means of
making it
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
Hrmmm... The future of the net? You mean, will crazy people continue to
post crazy rants about things they clearly don't fully understand? All
signs point to yes.
You can just call me
David Barak wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that still true if the adequate service is
being provided at a price which is two to three
times what it should be costing and the provider is
enjoying the ability to do this because nobody
else is in the market space?
I'm
On 11/16/05, Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673Hrmmm... The future of the net? You mean, will crazy people continue to
post crazy rants about things they clearly don't fully understand?
Oh, the irony - all I get is:
Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.
I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it
it now...
Warren
On Nov 16, 2005, at 5:09 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Randy Bush
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Warren Kumari wri
tes:
Oh, the irony - all I get is:
Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.
Same here.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Oh, the irony - all I get is:
Access denied
You are not authorized to access this page.
I guess in the future the net is going to be exactly the same is it
it now...
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
same here not half an hour after i read it at that url
i guess the sbc ceo did
Thanks
Evaldo Gardenali
I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very
good very rich ...filled with links and yeah
now its gone and the text seems not to be retrievable from my cache.
Doc Searles will surely say what the heck happened??? spooky
and i agree with the kevin werbach quote - be
Here's a copy of the article:
http://209.218.71.2/lj/savingthenet.htm
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:08:26PM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very
good very rich ...filled with links and yeah
now its gone and the text seems not to be
and it still is in mine the print edition doesn't have
clickable links, but is also a fine resource.
--bill
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:08:26PM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very
good very rich ...filled with links and
Seems to be back up now.
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 03:17:45AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and it still is in mine the print edition doesn't have
clickable links, but is also a fine resource.
--bill
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:08:26PM -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
I hit it
--- JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Barak wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is that still true if the adequate service is
being provided at a price which is two to three
times what it should be costing and the provider
is
enjoying the ability to do this
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209
Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689
Windows XP price (now) - $199.
Office 2003 (now) - $399.
Want to try that again?
Yes... Here's some more accurate data:
Windows 3.1 price $49
Windows 3.1.1 price $99
Windows 95 (Personal) price $59
Windows 98
To : David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc : nanog@merit.edu
Attchmnt:
Subject : Re: What do we mean when we say competition?
- Message Text -
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, David Barak wrote:
Windows * prices - $???
Slackware in 98 - A few hours downloading.
The problems most people
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209
Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689
Windows XP price (now) - $199.
Office 2003 (now) - $399.
Want to try that again?
Yes... Here's some more accurate data:
Windows 3.1 price $49
Windows 3.1.1
Thanks
Evaldo Gardenali
You know, if people are going to post here as a paging service, it would
be nice to put some indication as to why - perhaps the rest of us can
assist more quickly? 9 times out of 10 we can since it's usually
operator/user error and not necessarily the providers
--On November 16, 2005 9:25:29 PM -0800 David Barak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Windows 98 price (in 1997) - $209
Office 97 Standard (in 1997) - $689
Windows XP price (now) - $199.
Office 2003 (now) - $399.
Want to try that again?
Yes...
Ok, the bug is still there. Received replies from helpful folks who
missed various parts of my posts. I'll stop posting about this now; it
is indeed a bit OT. As I said in my initial post: I'm looking for a
fix, not a workaround, and again: See
http://www.google.com/webmasters/remove.html
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Gordon Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: the future of the net
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 21:08:26 -0500
To: Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I hit it right after randy posted it and read the whole thing...very
good very rich ...filled with links and yeah
now
38 matches
Mail list logo
