On 3-okt-2007, at 14:14, John Curran wrote:
I'd rather have IPv4 with massive NAT and IPv6 without NAT than
both IPv4 and IPv6 with moderate levels of NAT.
That's great, guys, if IPv4 with massive levels of NAT actually
resembles today's Internet and is actually a viable choice.
It
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a NAT-PT
box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet regardless of
whatever the rest of the community thinks.
And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP
sessions, etc fail.
On 4-okt-2007, at 13:36, Eliot Lear wrote:
That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a NAT-PT
box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet regardless of
whatever the rest of the community thinks.
And then you'll see your active FTP sessions, SIP calls, RTSP
sessions,
We've been having trouble sending to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Getting the infamous
421 Message from (x.x.x.x) temporarily deferred - 4.16.50.
Please refer to http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/mail/defer/defer-06.html.
When I follow the referred link I get to
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones
while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some
kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to
cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be made by
monopolies) than well connected areas such as the US.
Also there may be more tax costs, staff costs, equipment costs with
import duty etc which obviously means
Hex Star wrote:
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high
ones while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is
there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
There are more than a few US ISPs that have bandwidth quotas, mostly in
the
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 03:50:11PM +0100, Leigh Porter wrote:
Also there may be more tax costs, staff costs, equipment costs with
import duty etc which obviously means buying more equipment to support
more throughput costs more money.
The biggest issues are the transmission costs to get
Caribbean has the same problem, though... .smaller countries, less
ability to negotiate bandwidth usage/cost...
bananas for bandwidth program.
Leigh Porter wrote:
Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to
cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be
Thus spake Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2-okt-2007, at 15:56, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Second, the ALGs will have to be (re)written anyways to deal
with IPv6 stateful firewalls, whether or not NAT-PT happens.
That's one solution. I like the hole punching better because it's more
You're right, they've shuffled things around.
Try this form:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/postmaster/defer.html
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Justin Wilson
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:55 AM
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hex Star wrote:
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones
while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some
kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
Depending upon the country you're in, that is a possibility.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasicarticleId=9036482intsrc=hm_list
regards,
/virendra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
On Oct 4, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hex Star wrote:
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely
high ones
while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is
there some
kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Hex Star wrote:
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones
while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas? Is there some
kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
Depending upon the country you're in, that is a
On 4-Oct-2007, at 1416, Joe Greco wrote:
It'd be interesting to know what the average utilization of an
unlimited
US broadband customer was, compared to the average utilization of an
unlimited AU broadband customer. It would be interesting, then, to
look
at where the quotas lie on the
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:50:11 +0100
Leigh Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to
cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be made by
monopolies) than well connected areas such as the US.
I don't necessarily
On 4-Oct-2007, at 1416, Joe Greco wrote:
It'd be interesting to know what the average utilization of an
unlimited
US broadband customer was, compared to the average utilization of an
unlimited AU broadband customer. It would be interesting, then, to
look
at where the quotas lie
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
That isn't actually true. I could move to IPv6 and deploy a NAT-PT
box to give my customers access to the v4 Internet regardless of
whatever the rest of the community thinks.
And then you'll see your active FTP sessions,
Happy bday!
On 10/4/07, Hex Star [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones
while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas?
Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
One early US cable modem company started propagating
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
It seems like the pertinent question here is: what is stopping DSL
(or cable) providers in Australia and New Zealand from selling N x
meg DSL service at low enough prices to avoid the need for a data
cap? Is it the cost of crossing an ocean which
22 matches
Mail list logo
