Wow, civilian satellite images are getting very sharp.
http://www.hindu.com/2008/04/07/stories/2008040759181200.htm
Using satellite images of ship movements in the area, Reliance
Globalcom identified two ships in the area at the time which
may have damaged the cable.
Reliance also confirmed
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Martin Hannigan wrote:
You can purchase these things from sattelite image services these days
as well as get them from intelligence services.
Awesome, so could anyone buy a copy of the same images? Which satellite
do you think happened to be taking images of the area
I'd like to ask the same question of you that I just did to Chris.
How'd you implement that or has it been there since the network was new?
I would suggest a good resource is the MAAWG papers, and even though
you are stretched thin, consider attending a MAAWG meeting. MAAWG has
a lot of
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
To me there is no question of whether or not you filter traffic for
residential broadband customers.
SBC in my area (Dallas) went from wide open to outbound 25 blocked by
default/opened on request. I think doing the same thing with port 22 would
hardly
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
The hard part is I now always take over networks that have been in
operation a long time and enabling these policies can be very painful
after the fact. Establishing them when the network is new is a
different story.
Whatever you decide, whether you
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
The default policy is we allow eveything. It takes no explaining.
If you don't bother to explain to the same customers who you believe
couldn't figure out how to change the default settings, what the
risks and how to protect their computers on the
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
How about state-of-the-art routing security?
The problem is what is the actual trust model?
Are you trusting some authority to not be malicious or never make a
mistake?
There are several answers to the malicious problem.
There are fewer
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Justin Pauler - Lists wrote:
I realize this isn't the right forum for this, so, does anyone have a
Blackberry list that has discussions much like what we do here? Even
better, that might have information or alerts for when there are issues?
Blackberry currently has
Several telecommunication companies in the Mediterrian/Middle East
affected by the FLAG/FALCON/SAE-ME-WE-4 cable problems are reporting
the submarine cables have been repaired and are back in service.
Countries can now resume their normal, mandatory monitoring of traffic at
various cable
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Scott Francis wrote:
Ran across this at Wired today, and it seemed apropos to recent events:
http://www.wired.com/culture/art/multimedia/2008/01/gallery_simon?slide=10slideView=10
I particularly liked the photographer's observation: There's a humor
because the cables are so
The repair ship arrived on site between UAE and Oman, recovered
the an end of the cable for splicing. It also found a 5-6 tonnes
ship anchor abandoned near the cable cut.
http://www.flagtelecom.com/index.cfm?channel=4328NewsID=27493
While the conspiracy folks go crazy, cable outages are pretty much normal
and increasing around the world as the price of copper increases and
thieves get confused about what cables contain copper.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20080203-1044-wst-coppercrime.html
Thieves hacked
A fourth submarine cable in the middle east was damaged Sunday
between Haloul, Qatar and Das, United Arab Emirates.
This is in addition to the damage affecting FLAG, SAE-ME-WE4, FALCON
cables.
Afer reviewing surveillance video of the area, Egypt's ministry of
maritime transportation is
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean
Donelan
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 6:52 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)
A fourth submarine cable in the middle east was damaged Sunday
between Haloul, Qatar
Caution: upon further research it appears there may be some language
misscommunication in some of the reports; and some of the outages may
be multiple reports of the same incidents.
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Todd Underwood wrote:
there has has been a lot of speculation that this is all some US
prelude to war with iran. while i don't claim to know much about
whether that makes any sense, i do know that if they're trying to
disconnect iran from the internet, they're doing a lousy
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Roland Dobbins wrote:
There are always corner-cases like the Tamil Tiger incident, and people don't
always act rationally even in the context of their own perceived (as opposed
to actual) self-interest, but I just don't see any terrorist groups nor any
governments involved
The Submarine Cable Improvement Group
http://www.scig.net/
has plenty of details about trends in submarine cable damage and
improvements in submarine cable protection.
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Yah. I'm a security guy, and hence suspicious by nature -- our slogan
is Paranoia is our Profession -- and I'm getting very concerned. The
old saying comes to mind: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence,
but the third time is enemy action.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Martin Hannigan wrote:
From what I read about this cut, the way it happened seemed to have
figurative odds of 1:1,000,000. It looks like authorities moved the
anchorage area for some undefined reason. Cables are documented on
marine charts and, at least theoretically under
If its not one cable, its another cable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/30/asia.internet.outage
Huge swathes of the Middle East and Asia have been left without internet
access after a vital undersea cable was damaged.
A fault in the pipeline, which runs between Sicily and
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Florian Weimer wrote:
If IP addresses don't identify anything, why do they collect and keep
them?
In the US, folks are fighting the RIAA claiming that an IP address isn't
enough to identify a person.
In Europe, folks are fighting the Google claiming that an IP address is
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I know of places in my nick of the world where all those are flat-rate. When
the usage difference is small enough, metering is not effective.
Ahh, the key phrase is usage difference is small enough.
Typical dorm here includes power, water, (gas
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Your analogy is halting, but that's to be expected. I certainly wouldn't want
to pay more for the landlord to install metering everywhere. There is much
overhead in metering and billing on that.
I suspect you have never been a landlord or needed
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Tom Vest wrote:
Okay I concede that point; competition within markets with only metered
service options can be just as or even more vigorous then competition within
unmetered markets. But competition between metered and unmetered markets
tends to reward the latter, and
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008, Tom Vest wrote:
Let's hear it for some of them. Let's give it to some of the others.
Yep, I was just commenting on the tendency of folks to personalize heroes
and villians.
There were probably lots of different factors and people involved in
both the Australian and
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
You're right, the major cost isn't the bandwidth (at least the in the U.S.),
but the current technologies (cable modem, DSL, and wireless) are thoroughly
asymmetric, and high upstreams kill the performance of the first and third.
There are symmetric
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Mark Newton wrote:
That means unlimited ISPs almost exclusively attract the
most voracious, least profitable, noisiest, most difficult
to support, loudest complaining customers. And the metered
ISPs cater for normal folks who aren't like that.
Ah, you've discovered our
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Randy Bush wrote:
and pricing in australia had nothing to do with a monopilist telco with a
rapacious plan highly well articulated and sold to the govt by an
arch-capitalist with a silver tongue?
And Japan had the arch-capitalist with a silver tongue, Masayoshi Son,
to
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If the cheap flatrate broadband were to go away and be replaced by a metered
one, we as an industry need to figure out how to do billing in a
customer-friendly manner. We do not have much experience with this in many
markets.
Caps/fair use
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Gadi Evron wrote:
Props to Jeff Chan who I saw it from.
Yes, I still believe these ISP distributed machines called broadband routers
are a network operators issue. But not all may agree on that.
I doubt many ISP security or customer care folks are fans of UPnP.
The
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22869272-15306,00.html
Southern Cross Cable operations vice president, Dean Veverka, has
confirmed that hurricane-strength storms and flooding have wiped out the
carrier's Oregon cable route and halved its bandwidth between Australian
and
http://www.atis.org/PRESS/pressreleases2007/120307.htm
In accordance with the Standard Outage Classification, telecommunication
companies can now use common terminology and reporting structures to
collect and report data used for identifying causes of outages.
If you are not an ATIS
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, David Newman wrote:
I'd heard about a kiddie porn case getting tossed because the defense
successfully argued law enforcement's tap may have dropped frames. I
didn't believe it until I measured this myself with a packet blaster.
I would like to see a citation for this
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
In my view, it's the responsibility of everyone on the net to do
whatever they can to squelch the first. But they have no obligations
at all when it comes to the second -- that way lies the slippery
slope of content policing and censorship.
The
Some people have compared unwanted Internet traffic to water pollution,
and proposed that ISPs should be required to be like water utilities and
be responsible for keeping the Internet water crystal clear and pure.
Several new projects have started around the world to achieve those goals.
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(reason: 552 5.2.0 F77u1Y00B2ccxfT000 Message Refused. A URL in
the content of your message was found on...uribl.com. For resolution do
not contact Cox Communications, contact the block list administrators.)
An
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Rodney Joffe wrote:
I have too many services to just want to use a T1 or two as sacrificial
pipes. and I don't want to be messing around manually.
I need to be able to have the transit providers effectively provide isolation
for each subnet, so my idea is to advertise
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Drew Weaver wrote:
Is it to be expected to see rfc1918 src'd packets coming from transit carriers?
Yes. Any ISP which uses RFC1918 on internal links may generate
various ICMP error packets (e.g. traceroute/TTL expire, PMTU
discovery/Fragmentation required, etc) from
Proposed new FCC rules for backup power sources for central offices, cell
sites, remote switches, digital loops, etc. For the first time, the FCC
is considering specific backup power time requirements of 24 hours for
central offices and 8 hours for outside plant and cell sites. Although
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 03:07:03PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
Can you find the FCC proposed 24-hours of backup power at this CO after
Hurricane Katrina?
http://www.thecentraloffice.com/Katrina/lkctla.jpg
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, J. Oquendo wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/06/icann_rolls_out_new_root_name_server_address/
Here is what I posted the last time.
To: 'nanog@merit.edu' nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Don't Panic II (Re: updated root hints file)
From: Sean Donelan [EMAIL
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Christopher Morrow wrote:
http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0607/0139.html
oops, I was right (kinda).
I don't think we're going to put the genie back in the bottle, despite
the best efforts of some IETFers.
I just wish the IETF would acknowledge this and go ahead and
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Eliot Lear wrote:
Sean Donelan wrote:
I just wish the IETF would acknowledge this and go ahead and define a
DNS bit for artificial DNS answers for all these address correction
and domain parking and domain tasting people to use for their keen
Web 2.0 ideas.
Yes, it sounds
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, John Kristoff wrote:
How much has really changed? Do you (or if someone on these big nets
wants to own up offlist) have pointers to indicate that deployment is
significantly different now than they were a couple years ago? Even
better, perhaps someone can do a preso at a
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Fred Reimer wrote:
That and the fact that an ISP would be aiding and abetting
illegal activities, in the eyes of the RIAA and MPAA. That's not
to say that technically it would not be better, but that it will
never happen due to political and legal issues, IMO.
As always
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Why artificially keep access link speeds low just to prevent upstream
network congestion? Why can't you have big access links?
You're the one that says that statistical overbooking doesn't work, not
anyone else.
If you performed a simple
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If you performed a simple Google search, you would have discovered many
universities around the world having similar problems.
The university network engineers are saying adding capacity alone isn't
solving their problems.
You're welcome to
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
Agreed. Measures, like NAT, spoofing based accelerators, quarantining
computers are developed for fairly small networks. No for 1Gbps and above and
20+ sites/customers.
small is a relative term. Hong Kong is already selling 1Gbps access
links to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
As a consumer/customer, I say Don't sell it it if you can't
deliver it. And not just sometimes or only during foo time.
All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it.
I think you have confused a circuit switch network with a packet
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
So, what happens when you add sufficient capacity to the packet switch
network that it is able to deliver committed bandwidth to all users?
Answer: by adding capacity, you've created a packet switched network where
you actually get dedicated capacity for
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
No, I'm talking about deceptive marketing practices, consumer
expectations, and customer retention.
From the Comcast order page:
Actual speeds may vary and are not guaranteed. Many factors affect
download speed.
From the Trend Micro order
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
And generating packets with false address information is more acceptable? I
don't buy it.
When a network is congested, someone is going to be upset about any
possible response.
Within the limitations the network operator has, using a TCP RST
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If Comcast had used Sandvine's other capabilities to inspect and drop
particular packets, would that have been more acceptable?
Yes, definately.
So another in-line device is better than an out-of-band device.
... but terminating the
On Fri, 26 Oct 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
The part of this discussion that really infuriates me (and Joe
Greco has hit most of the salient points) is the deceptiveness
in how ISPs underwrite the service their customers subscribe to.
For instance, in our data centers, we have 1Gb uplinks to our
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The result is network engineering by politician, and many reasonable things
can no longer be done.
I don't see that.
Here come the Congresspeople. After ICANN, next legistlative IETF
standards for what is acceptable network management.
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where has it been proven that adding capacity won't solve the P2P
bandwidth problem? I'm aware that some studies have shown that P2P
demand increases when capacity is added, but I am not aware that anyone
has attempted to see if there is an upper
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I have raised this issue with P2P promoters, and they all feel that the
limit will be about at the limit of what people can watch (i.e., full
rate video for whatever duration they want to watch such, at somewhere
between 1
and 10 Mbps). From that
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I don't follow this, on a statistical average. This is P2P, right ? So if I
send you a piece
of a file this will go out my door once, and in your door once, after a
certain ( finite !) number of hops
(i.e., transmissions to and from other peers).
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
There are many reasonable things providers could do.
So then why to you stick up for Comcast when they do something unreasonable?
Although yesterday there was a little more info and it seems they only stop
the affected protocols temporarily,
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Adrian Chadd wrote:
You'd be surprised; users in the Australian market have had to get
used to knowing how much bandwidth they use.
People are adaptable. Get used to it. :)
Likewise, people seem to complain about anything. Even Australians seem
to like to complain.
The problem isn't a particular type of traffic in isolation, its usually
the impact of one network user's traffic on all the other network user's
traffic sharing the same network.
Network Quotas for Individuals - A better answer to the P2P bandwidth
problem?
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now if any of you guys have a lead on an affordable way to get 225 40GigE's
from here to someplace that can *take* 225 40Gig-E's... ;)
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EPO0611.pdf
It does not cost all that much, relatively, to upgrade a
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The problem here is that they seem to be using a sledge hammer: BitTorrent is
essentially left dead in the water. And they deny doing anything, to boot.
A reasonable approach would be to throttle the offending applications to make
them fit
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Bora Akyol wrote:
I think network operators that are using boxes like the Sandvine box are
doing this due to (2). This is because P2P traffic hits them where it hurts,
aka the pocketbook. I am sure there are some altruistic network operators
out there, but I would be
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
What hurt these access providers, particularly those in the
cable market, was a set of failed assumptions. The Internet became a
commodity, driven by this web thing. As a result, standards like DOCSIS
developed, and bandwidth was allocated,
Much of the same content is available through NNTP, HTTP and P2P.
The content part gets a lot of attention and outrage, but network
engineers seem to be responding to something else.
If its not the content, why are network engineers at many university
networks, enterprise networks, public
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
If its not the content, why are network engineers at many university
networks, enterprise networks, public networks concerned about the
impact particular P2P protocols have on network operations? If it was
just a single network, maybe they are evil.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
If your network cannot handle the traffic, don't offer the services.
So your recommendation is that universities, enterprises and ISPs simply
stop offering all Internet service because a few particular application
protocols are badly behaved?
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6332098.html
The short answer: Badly. Based on the research, conducted by Terry Shaw,
of CableLabs, and Jim Martin, a computer science professor at Clemson
University, it only takes about 10 BitTorrent users bartering files on a
node (of around
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
So your recommendation is that universities, enterprises and ISPs simply
stop offering all Internet service because a few particular application
protocols are badly behaved?
They should stop to offer flat-rate ones anyway.
Comcast's management
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
In my experience, a permanently congested network isn't fun to work
with, even if most of the flows are long-living and TCP-compatible. The
lack of proper congestion control is kind of a red herring, IMHO.
Why do you think so many network operators
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
If only a few protocol/applications are causing a problem, why do you need
an overly complex response? Why not target the few things that are
causing problems?
Well, because when you promise someone an Internet connection, they usually
expect it to work.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Simon Lyall wrote:
So stop whinging about how bitorrent broke your happy Internet, Stop
putting in traffic shaping boxes that break TCP and then complaining
that p2p programmes don't follow the specs and adjust your pricing and
service to match your costs.
Folks in New
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007, Paul Ferguson wrote:
No, not necessarily. Given that there are Tier 1 ISPs, Tier 2, etc.,
so you can certainly have some small-ish ISP colluding with criminal
activity, in effect, by ignoring it or claiming ignorance.
However, it's kind of hard to plead ignorance when,
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, J. Oquendo wrote:
Personally, if I were a business owner, I would attempt my
best to keep my networks in order and ensure that traffic being
sent *from* my network to the world wasn't tainted in any
shape form or fashion.
This is basically the clause for terminating
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
After researching the outsourced mail options, I found that the market
is not mature or flexible enough yet. For example, we need the hook
into automated systems, we need some level of control for front line
support,
ATT, Verizon, BT and so on have
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
They randomize the name on the subject line. Is this any particular
virus/malware/zombie signature
Nothing particularly new. The Bots have been pumping this one out
for at least a month, although the subject line has a few variations
besides just
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
http://isen.com/blog/uploaded_images/5z6vt4n-720249.jpg
I'm shocked that an ISP would allow its customer to put fake
information on a website or use other organizations' registered
trademarks without authorization. How can ISPs allow this misuse
and
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5148125.html
(AUSTIN) Telephone service was out for seven hours in rural Central Texas
after bees attacked a construction worker, causing him to jump off his
tractor and hit a lever that lowered an auger that sliced a fiber-optic
line.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007, W. Kevin Hunt wrote:
I'm in Louisiana and just lost my OC12 to Bwing/L3. Circuit didn't die,
actually received a BGP message to terminate the session.
Looks like a change management Oops. I'm sure they are putting things
back as fast as they can.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Operators always define the user as the person paying the bill. One
bill, one user.
It's easy to imagine a context where authentication at the application
layer determines user in a bill-paying context. Passing that
information into the OS, and
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
That depends on the expectations of the institutions. If our example
student is able to generate 95% of flows because the network in
question is otherwise relatively quiet (maybe it's the middle of the
night, or a holiday), then yes, our example student
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of
congestion than the efficiency part of congestion.
TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not
per-flow?
How would you define user in that context?
Operators
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Is there a groundswell of *operators* who think TCP should be
replaced, and believe it can be replaced?
Or is the motivation for replacing TCP mainly felt by those who spend
a lot of time trying to get maximum performance out of single flows
over
I'm used to the fingerpointing, but I was amazed when I met a lot of
security researchers which didn't seem to know about all the different
things ISPs are doing to help customers avoid having their computers
compromised by intrusions and repairing their computers afterwards.
So I started
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
So I started putting together a web page of paid and free ISP security
support links. If you are a national or large regional ISP in the US,
send me your link and I'll add it.
http://www.donelan.com/ispsupport.html
Ok, uncle. I've heard from many
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007, Andy Davidson wrote:
Is it not possible to require that each of your suppliers provide over a
specified path ? I'm planning a build-out that will require a diverse path
between two points, and one supplier has named two routes, and promised that
they wont change for the
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
nobody here is claiming that external policy should be fired and forgot.
in fact, cymru's BOGON list comes with lots of disclaimers about how much
pain your successors will be in if you import these things and forget them.
Unfortunately, Spamhaus doesn't
On Thu, 23 Aug 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
Does anyone use spamhaus drop list ?
http://www.spamhaus.org/drop/index.lasso
i do.
I'm glad to listen opinions or experience.
no false positives yet. mostly seems to drop inbound tcp/53.
Waving a dead chicken over your computer will have no false
On Thu, 24 Aug 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
Is it a placebo or does it actually have an effect?
the inbound tcp/53 i see blocked by SH-DROP isn't the result of truncation
or any other response of mine that could reasonably trigger TCP retry. so
on the basis that it's no longer reaching me and
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
did anyone else see an rv2 outage yesterday?
from Aug 18 04:17:30
to Aug 18 08:21:45
are these logged so longitudinal analysis can do a bit less 'heuristic'
guessing?
I'm guessing you mean route-views2.
Some folks found a command that crashed
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 15, 2007, at 8:39 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
So I would suggest that a third thing that can be done, after the other
two avenues have been exhausted, is to decide to not start new sessions
unless there is some
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
An Internet variable speed limit is a nice idea, but there are some
serious trust issues; applications have to trust the network implicitly not
to issue gratuitous slow down messages, and certainly not to use them for
Yeah, that's why I was
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
So that's why I keep returning to the need to pushback traffic a couple
of ASNs back. If its going to get dropped anyway, drop it sooner.
ECN
Oh goody, the whole RED, BLUE, WRED, AQM, etc menagerie.
Connections already in progress (i.e. the ones with
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Randy Bush wrote:
Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Yeah, that's why I was limiting the need (requirement) to only 1-few
ASN hops upstream. I view this as similar to some backbones offering
a special blackhole everything BGP community that usually is not
transitive. This is the
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
(Check slide 4) - the simple fact was that with something like 7 of 9
cables down the redundancy is useless .. even if operators maintained
N+1 redundancy which is unlikely for many operators that would imply
50% of capacity was actually used with
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 15, 2007, at 8:35 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Or should IP backbones have methods to predictably control which IP
applications receive the remaining IP bandwidth? Similar to the telephone
network special information tone -- All Circuits are Busy
[...Lots of good stuff deleted to get to this point...]
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
So I would suggest that a third thing that can be done, after the other two
avenues have been exhausted, is to decide to not start new sessions unless
there is some reasonable chance that they will
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
but today that provision is: If you buy a domain you have 5 days to
'return' it. The reason behind the return could be: oops, I typo'd or
hurray, please refund me for the 1M domains I bought 4.99 days ago!. The
'protect the consumer' problem is what's
1 - 100 of 982 matches
Mail list logo
