On 1/15/24 10:14, sro...@ronan-online.com wrote:
I’m more interested in how you lose six chillers all at once.
According to a post on a support forum for one of the clients in that
space: "We understand the issue is due to snow on the roof affecting the
cooling equipment."
Never overlook
On 1/17/24 20:06, Tom Beecher wrote:
If these chillers are connected to BACnet or similar network, then
I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an attack.
Don't insinuate something like this without evidence. Completely
unreasonable and inappropriate.
I wasn't meaning to insinuate
>This sort of mass failure seems to point
>towards either design issues (like equipment >selection/configuration vs
>temperature range for the location), systemic maintenance issues, or
>some sort of single failure point that could take all the chillers out,
>none of which I'd be happy to see
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 7:14 AM wrote:
>> I’m more interested in how you lose six chillers all at once.
>Extreme cold. If the transfer temperature is too low, they can reach a
>state where the refrigerant liquifies too soon, damaging the
compressor.
>Regards,
>Bill Herrin
Our 70-ton Tranes here
On 8/25/21 11:26 AM, Dave wrote:
Back feed is a significant problem but bringing a generator that is
not synchronized to the grid can have dramatic results, typically only
once
This, IMO, is a great thread, lots of good reading here.
My $dayjob is at a site where the previous occupants did
On 05/28/2018 06:13 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
Your 200mbit/sec link that costs you $300 in hardware
is going to cost you $4960/month to actually get IP traffic
across, in Nairobi. Yes, that's about $60,000/year.
I live in the US of A, and this is what 200Mb/s roughly would cost me as
well
On 07/18/2016 12:12 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
I'm looking for a document or set of photos/presentation on best practices
for telcoflex/-48VDC power cabling installation. Labeling, routing,
organization and termination, etc. Or a recommendation on a printed book
that covers this topic.
I apologize
On 05/15/2016 03:16 PM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
...If you think the IP implementations in IoT devices are naîve, wait
until you've seen what passes for broadcast quality network
engineering. Shoving digital audio samples in raw Ethernet frames is
at least 20 years old, but the last perhaps 5 years
On 05/15/2016 01:05 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
I'm not used to thinking of IT as a relatively low-challenge environment!
I actually changed careers from broadcast engineering to IT to lower my
stress level and 'personal bandwidth challenge.' And, yes, it worked.
In my case, I'm doing IT
On 05/13/2016 03:39 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
Traditionally dedicated time-source hardware like rubidium-oscillator
GPSDOs is sold on accuracy, but for WAN time service their real draw
is long holdover time with lower frequency drift that you get from the
cheap, non-temperature-compensated
On 05/13/2016 04:38 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
But another key consideration beyond accuracy is the reliability of a server's
GPS constellation view. If you can lose GPS sync for an hour or more (not
uncommon in terrain-locked locations), the NTP time will go free-running and
could drift quite a
On 05/13/2016 10:38 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
You make it sound like TXCOs are rare, but they're actually quite common in
most single board computers. True, you're probably not gonna find them in the
$35 cellular-based SBCs, but since these temperature compensated oscillators
cost less than a
On 05/11/2016 09:46 PM, Josh Reynolds wrote:
maybe try [setting up an NTP server] with an odroid?
...
I have several ODroid C2's, and the first thing to note about them is
that there is no RTC at all. Also, the oscillator is just a
garden-variety non-temperature-compensated quartz crystal,
On 05/11/2016 07:46 AM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
But would you not need to actually spend three times $300 to get a
good redundant solution?
While we are there, why not go all the way and get a rubidium standard
with GPS sync? Anyone know of a (relatively) cheap solution with NTP
output?
On 05/11/2016 12:05 AM, Joe Klein wrote:
Is this group aware of the incident with tock.usno.navy.mil &
tick.usno.navy.mil on November 19. 2012 2107 UTC, when the systems lost 12
years for the period of one hour, then return?
...
I remember it like it was only four years ago oh, wait
On 10/26/2015 03:17 PM, Larry Blunk wrote:
As Job Snijders (a fellow Communications Committee member) noted
in an earlier post, we will be implementing some additional protection
mechanisms to prevent this style of incident from happening again. We
will be more aggressively moderating posts
On 09/23/2015 10:09 AM, Keith Stokes wrote:
Since I’m in our colo facility this morning, I decided to put some numbers on
it in my little isolated corner with lots of blowers running.
According to my iPhone SPL meter, average SPL is 81 - 82 dB with peaks 88 - 89
dB.
With SPL that close to
On 05/11/2015 06:50 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
8kW/rack is something it seems many a typical computing oriented
datacenter would be used to dealing with, no? Formfactor within the
rack is just a little different which may complicate how you can
deliver the cooling - might need unusually
On 05/08/2015 02:53 PM, John Levine wrote:
...
Most of the traffic will be from one node to another, with
considerably less to the outside. Physical distance shouldn't be a
problem since everything's in the same room, maybe the same rack.
What's the rule of thumb for number of hosts per
On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
I read through the introduction. This document seems like a good thing
for everyone.
I'm about 50 pages in, reading a little bit at a time. Paragraph 31 is
one that anyone who does peering or exchanges should read and
understand. I take it to mean
On 03/12/2015 04:58 PM, Donald Kasper wrote:
More then website blocking I've been wondering what this means for
spam prevention?
That's a pretty interesting thought, and it is pretty well addressed by
paragraphs 376, 377, and 378. Basically, the FCC found that spam
blocking is a separate
On 03/12/2015 02:02 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
Nevertheless, in such a circumstance, 47 USC 230(c)(2) should prevail
and trump any such interpretation of this!
(If anyone thinks that 47 USC 230(c)(2) might not prevail over such an
interpretation, please let me know... and let me know why?)
Found
On 03/12/2015 10:58 AM, Ca By wrote:
For the first time to the public
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
The actual final rules are in Appendix A, pages 283 through 290 (8
pages), although that's a bit misleading, as the existing Part 8 is not
On 02/27/2015 02:14 PM, Jim Richardson wrote:
What's a lawful web site?
Paragraphs 304 and 305 in today's released RO address some of this.
The wording 'Unlawful transfers of content and transfers of unlawful
content' is pretty good, and covers what the Commission wanted to cover.
On 03/12/2015 01:28 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 03/12/2015 12:13 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
I read through the introduction. This document seems like a good
thing for everyone.
I'm about 50 pages in, reading a little bit at a time. Paragraph 31
is one that anyone who does peering or exchanges
On 03/12/2015 02:02 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 3/12/2015 1:30 PM, William Kenny wrote:
NO BLOCKING:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service,
insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content,
applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject
On 03/03/2015 08:07 AM, Scott Helms wrote:
For consumers to care about symmetrical upload speeds as much as you're
saying why have they been choosing to use technologies that don't deliver
that in WiFi and LTE?
For consumers to have choice, there must be an available alternative
that is
On 03/02/2015 03:31 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 2, 2015, at 08:28 , Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
...it would be really nice to have 7Mb/s up for just a minute or ten
so I can shut the machine down and go to bed.
How much of your downstream bandwidth are you willing to give up in order
On 02/28/2015 05:46 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Home users should be able to upload a content in the same amount
of time it takes to download content.
This.
Once a week I upload a 100MB+ MP3 (that I produced myself, and for which
I own the copyright) to a cloud server. I have a reasonable ADSL
On 02/28/2015 07:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:34 AM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
[...]
Until yesterday, there were no network neutrality rules, not for spam or for
anything else.
There still aren't any network neutrality rules, until the FCC makes
the documents
On 02/27/2015 04:49 PM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
So did I. Also, do you recall that the FCC changed the definition of
broadband to require 25 Mbps downstream? Does this mean that all
these rules on broadband don't apply to people providing Internet
access service on classic ADSL?
The FCC
On 02/27/2015 03:12 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Two pages? Read the news, man.
I'd rather read the actual regulations, from the source, in 47CFR§8.
They're public. The enforcement won't come from what the news said.
You say you haven't read the actual RO. Nobody in the public sector,
or even
On 02/27/2015 02:14 PM, Jim Richardson wrote:
From 47CFR§8.5b
(b) A person engaged in the provision of mobile broadband Internet
access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block
consumers from accessing lawful Web sites, subject to reasonable
network management; nor shall
On 02/28/2015 02:29 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
For roughly two decades of having a widely-publicly-used Internet,
nobody realized that they already had this authority... until suddenly
just now... we were just too stupid to see the obvious all those
years, right?
Having authority and choosing to
On 02/27/2015 02:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 2/27/2015 1:28 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
You really should read 47CFR§8. It won't take you more than an hour
or so, as it's only about 8 pages.
The bigger picture is (a) HOW they got this authority--self-defining
it in, and (b) the potential abuse
On 02/28/2015 09:53 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
...Spam, the slang term for unsolicited bulk email (UBE), is a form of
denial-of-service attack and may/should be treated in the same way as
other DoS attacks. ---rsk
47CFR§8.11(d) Reasonable network management. A network management
practice is
On 02/27/2015 09:05 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
http://publicpolicy.verizon.com/blog/entry/fccs-throwback-thursday-move-imposes-1930s-rules-on-the-internet
Cute. Obviously they never watched the Leno segment where a pair of
amateur radio ops using Morse code outperformed a couple of teens
On 02/27/2015 09:50 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
btw - does anyone know if that thick book of regulations, you know...
those hundreds of pages we weren't allowed to see before the vote...
anyone know if that is available to the public now? If so, where?
You were allowed to see the proposed rules in
On 02/27/2015 01:06 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Section 255 of Title II applies to Internet providers now, as does section 225
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
These regulations are found in 47CFR§6, not 47CFR§8, which is the
subject of docket 14-28.
Not having read the actual RO in
On 02/27/2015 01:19 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
We're solving an almost non-existing problem.. by over-empowering an
already out of control US government, with powers that we can't even
begin to understand the extend of how they could be abused... to fix
an industry that has done amazingly good
On 10/25/2014 04:55 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
Completely agree on this point--but I fail to see why it has to be one
or the other? Why can't systemd have a --text flag to tell it to
output in ascii text mode for those of us who prefer it that way?
It still logs to syslog, and syslog can still
On 10/27/2014 11:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I will counter with you wouldn't be running a real distro in that
case anyway; you'd be running something super trimmed down, and
possibly custom built, or based on something like CoreOS, that only
does one job. Well.
Hmm, now this one I wasn't
On 10/24/2014 03:35 AM, Tei wrote:
I pled the Linux people to stay inside the unix philosophy to use text files.
You do realize that the systemd config files are still text, right? As
to the binary journal, well, by default RHEL 7 (and rebuilds) do at
least mirror the journal output to
On 10/22/2014 03:51 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
I wish I had a nickel for every time I started to implement something
in bash/sh, used it a while, and quickly realized I needed something
like perl and had to rewrite the whole thing.
Barry, you've been around a long time, and these words are pearls
On 10/23/2014 02:22 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2014 13:43:03 -0400, Lamar Owen said:
Now, I've read the arguments, and I am squarely in the 'do one thing and
do it well' camp. But, let's turn that on its head, shall we? Why oh
why do we want every single package
On 04/27/2014 06:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Hugo Slabbert hslabb...@stargate.ca
I guess that's the question here: If additional transport directly
been POPs of the two parties was needed, somebody has to pay for the
links.
And the answer is: at whose instance
On 04/28/2014 02:23 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 4/28/2014 12:05 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Now, I can either think of it as double dipping, or I can think of it
as getting a piece of the action
However, as a cable company, comcast must pay content providers for
video. In addition, they may
On 04/11/2014 07:16 AM, Glen Kent wrote:
VPN, on the other hand, is a totally different world of pain for this
issue.
What about VPNs?
SSL VPN's could possibly be vulnerable.
On 03/26/2014 08:12 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
As far as i'm concerned if you can force the spammer to use their own
IP range, that they can setup RDNS for, then you have practically won,
for all intents and purposes, as it makes blacklisting feasible, once
again!
Spammers can jump
On 03/25/2014 10:51 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
[snip]
I would suggest the formation of an IPv6 SMTP Server operator's club,
with a system for enrolling certain IP address source ranges as Active
mail servers, active IP addresses and SMTP domain names under the
authority of a member.
...
As has
On 03/26/2014 12:59 PM, John Levine wrote:
That way? Make e-mail cost; have e-postage.
Gee, I wondered how long it would take for this famous bad idea to
reappear.
I wrote a white paper ten years ago explaining why e-postage is a
bad idea, and there is no way to make it work. Nothing of any
On 03/26/2014 01:09 PM, John Levine wrote:
Quite right. If I were a spammer or an ESP who wanted to listwash, I
could easily use a different IP addres for every single message I
sent. R's, John
Week before last I saw this in great detail, with nearly 100,000
messages sent to our users per day
On 03/26/2014 01:38 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
Who do I send the bill to for mail traffic from 41.0.0.0/8 ? Tony.
You don't. Their upstream(s) in South Africa would bill them for
outgoing e-mail.
Postage, at least for physical mail, is paid by the sender at the point
of ingress to the postal
On 03/26/2014 01:42 PM, John Levine wrote:
And I also remember thinking at the time that you missed one very
important angle, and that is that the typical ISP has the technical
capability to bill based on volume of traffic already, and could easily
bill per-byte for any traffic with 'e-mail
On 03/26/2014 02:59 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
You *do* realize that the OS vendor can't really do much about users
who click on stuff they shouldn't, or reply to phishing emails, or
most of the other ways people *actually* get pwned these days? Hint:
Microsoft *tried* to fix this with
On 03/26/2014 03:56 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
Most of the phishing e-mails I've sent don't have a valid reply-to,
from, or return-path; replying to them is effectively impossible, and
the linked/attached/inlined payload is the attack vector.
Blasted spellcheck Now that everybody has had
On 03/24/2014 09:39 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
I'll leave it as an exercise for the remainder of... everywhere to
figure out why there is resistance to v6 migration, and it isn't just
because people can't be bothered.
I'm sure there are numerous enterprises in the same shape I am in, with
On 03/23/2014 11:08 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:
Not sure which rural LECs are exempt from competition.
This is a quagmire;but it boils down to if the FCC says they're exempt,
then they're exempt and have a 'rural monopoly' (there's a lot of
caselaw and a number of FCC Report and Orders (and further
On 03/19/2014 06:33 PM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
It's not the conductor that you're derating; it's the breaker. Per NEC
Table 310.16, ampacity of #12 copper THHN/THWN2 (which is almost
certainly what you're pulling) with 3 conductors in a conduit is 30
amps. Refer to Table 310.15(B)(2)(a) for
On 03/20/2014 12:27 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
Think of the children! I hear the 2017 edition of NFPA 70 (aka NEC)
may require one to turn off the power to the entire household in order
to plug in a coffee maker to minimize potential arc flash hazard
(just kidding). Gary
ROTFL.
No,
On 03/18/2014 09:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Meh. It depends. Plug that 30 amp power strip into a 20 amp circuit.
Try to use more than 20 amps and the main breaker trips. No problem.
Plug that 20 amp power strip into a 30 amp circuit. Try to use more
than 20 amps and the strip's breaker
On 03/19/2014 09:51 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Nobody is talking about putting an L6-20R on a 30 amp circuit. OP was
talking about putting an L6-30P on a 20 amp appliance: a PDU that has
its own 20 amp breaker. Big difference.
If the PDU isn't listed for 30A then it's the essentially the same
On 03/19/2014 09:20 AM, Eric Dugas wrote:
We have the 70S, it's pretty awesome. We paid around $15K CAD new. You might
want to look for the 12S or 19S if the price is an issue. I believe you can
also find them refurbished.
We have a 17S, and are very happy with it. We paid a little more
[Whee. This discussion is good for me, as I need to refresh my memory
on the relevant code sections for some new data center
clients.thanks, Bill, you're a great help!]
On 03/19/2014 12:24 PM, William Herrin wrote:
Yet an 18 awg PC power cable is perfectly safe when plugged in to a
5-20R
On 03/19/2014 02:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
50 watts DC. It won't electrocute you (that's AC) but it's the same
power that makes a 40 watt bulb burning hot.
802.3af is limited to 15.4W, and 802.3at to 25.5W. The limits for Class
2 and 3 circuits are found in Chapter 9, Table 11 (A and B), of
On 01/16/2013 08:06 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Do you use GPS to provide any mission critical services (like time of day)
in your network?
Have you already see this? (I hadn't)
http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/12/how-to-bring-down-mission-critical-gps-networks-with-2500/
Hi, Jay,
Yes,
On Monday, March 05, 2012 09:36:41 PM Jimmy Hess wrote:
Other common, but misguided assumptions (even in 2012):
1. You will be using IPv4. We have no idea what this IPv6 nonsense is.
Looks complicated and scary.
2. 255.255.255.0 is the only valid netmask.
...
(16) The default
On Monday, February 27, 2012 07:53:07 PM William Herrin wrote:
.../SCI clearance.
The clearance is killing me. The two generalists didn't have a
clearance and the cleared applicants are programmers or admins but
never both.
I just about spewed my chai tea seeing 'SCI' and 'generalist' in
On Monday, February 27, 2012 05:14:00 PM Owen DeLong wrote:
Who is a strong network engineer
Who has been a professional software engineer (though many years ago and my
skills are rusty
and out of date)
Owen, you nailed it here. Even the ACM recognizes that a 'Software Engineer'
and
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 04:13:47 PM Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Any suggestions and ideas appreciated of course. :-)
www.aleutia.com
DC-powered everything, including a 12VDC LCD monitor. We're getting one of
their D2 Pro dual core Atoms (they have other options for more money) for a
solar
On Wednesday, February 22, 2012 03:37:57 PM Dan Golding wrote:
I disagree. The best model is - gasp - engineering, a profession which
many in networking claim to be a part of, but few actually are. In the
engineering world (not CS, not development - think ME and EE), there is
a strongly
On Thursday, February 23, 2012 04:53:06 PM Joe Greco wrote:
So, good group to ask, probably... anyone have suggestions for a low-
noise, low-power GigE switch in the 24-port range ... managed, with SFP?
That doesn't require constant rebooting?
I can't comment to the rebooting, but a couple of
On Monday, February 20, 2012 09:07:20 PM Jimmy Hess wrote:
RJ45 is really an example of what was originally a misconception
became so widespread, so universal, that reality has actually shifted
so the misconception became reality. When was the last time you ever
heard anyone say 8P8C
On Friday, February 17, 2012 01:44:57 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
2) Power cords: C19 to L6-15, C19 to C20, C13 to C20 (latter 2 for 208V PDUs)
(If you don't have your own C13 to L6-15 cords, you're in the wrong biz)
An interesting thread.
I'd say if you had, instead of a C13 on one end, a
On Friday, February 17, 2012 01:30:30 AM Carsten Bormann wrote:
Ah, one of the greatest misconceptions still around in 2012:
-- OSI Layer numbers mean something.
or
-- Somewhere in the sky, there is an exact definition of what is layer 2,
layer 3, layer 4, layer 5 (!), layer 7
On Friday, January 27, 2012 05:56:19 AM Randy Bush wrote:
Can internet in USA support that? Call of Duty 15 releases may 2014
and 30 million gamers start downloading a 20 GB files. Would the
internet collapse like a house of cards?.
not a problem. the vast majority of the states is
[Digging up an older post; I let a couple of thousand NANOG posts pile up in my
NANOG folder]
On Tuesday, January 03, 2012 02:40:39 PM Leigh Porter wrote:
Does anybody know where I can find standards for DC cabling for -48v systems?
Book Resource that anyone dealing with telecom DC power
On Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:29:03 AM Jay Ashworth wrote:
'DC Power System Design for Telecommunications by Whitham D. Reeve,
published by Wiley, ISBN (print) 97680471681618 and is available in
the Wiley online library.
Disappointingly, that book does *not* appear to be in Safari,
On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 04:00:44 PM Douglas Otis wrote:
On 10/6/11 7:26 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 10/6/2011 4:02 PM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
In some circles, he's being compared to Thomas Edison.
It's probably not a bad analogy, like Ford and many other champions of
industry he
On Friday, September 30, 2011 05:54:38 PM steve pirk [egrep] wrote:
I seem to recollect back the 1999 or 2000 times that I was unable to
register a domain name that was 24 characters long. Shortly after that, I
heard that the character limit had been increased to like 128 characters,
and we
On Tuesday, August 23, 2011 06:13:02 PM William Herrin wrote:
B. The crust on the east coast is much more solid than on the west
coast, so the seismic waves propagate much further. Los Angeles
doesn't feel an earthquake north of San Francisco unless it's huge.
New York City felt this
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:08:00 AM Robert Boyle wrote:
I know voltage varies
from town to town and prefecture to prefecture. It seems most is
90V-110V.
Also, part of the country is 50Hz and part is 60Hz.
On Monday, May 09, 2011 04:45:36 PM Kevin Oberman wrote:
Depends on what he is doing. BSDs tend to be far more mature than any
Linux. They are poor systems for desktops or anything like that. They
are heavily used as servers by many vary large providers and as the
basis for many products like
On Tuesday, May 03, 2011 01:54:00 PM Jay Ford wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011, vince anton wrote:
Anyone has experiemces to share or known v6 issues with SXF (or v4 issues
with v6 enabled for that matter), or should I be looking at SRC/SRD/SRE for
7600 ?
I have 9 6500+SUP720-3BXL boxes with a
On Friday, April 29, 2011 03:37:04 PM Jay Ashworth wrote:
You've conflated my two points. That would tell the *carriers* who's watching
what, but they probably don't care. I was talking about *the providers*
knowing (think DRM and 3096 viewers online).
And then if there's music, the
On Friday, April 29, 2011 05:16:51 PM George Bonser wrote:
But if broadcast events over the internet are treated the same as
broadcast events over RF, who cares?
They're not; that's the problem. For the US, at least, the Copyright Office of
the Library of Congress has statutory authority in
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:57:46 pm Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com
This sounds a lot like bellhead speak.
As a long time fan of David Isen, I almost fell off my chair laughing at
that, Michael: Bell *wanted* things -- specifically the network --
On Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:30:12 am Jay Ashworth wrote:
Off hand, I wouldn't expect a carrier to do any special engineering on
a BRI -- can you even *order* a BRI these days? :-)
Seems to still be in NECA Tariff5, at least the last copy I looked at. So the
rurals still are tariffed
On Friday, February 11, 2011 05:33:37 pm valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So riddle me this - what CPE stuff were they giving out in 2009 that was
already v6-able? (and actually *tested* as being v6-able, rather than It's
supposed to work but since we don't do v6 on the live net, nobody's ever
On Monday, February 07, 2011 04:33:23 am Owen DeLong wrote:
1.Scanning even an entire /64 at 1,000 pps will take
18,446,744,073,709,551 seconds
which is 213,503,982,334 days or 584,542,000 years.
I would posit that since most networks cannot absorb a 1,000 pps attack
even
On Saturday, February 05, 2011 11:29:44 pm Fred Baker wrote:
To survive an EMP, electronics needs some fancy circuitry. I've never worked
with a bit of equipment that had it. It would therefore have to have been
through path redundancy.
Surviving EMP is similar to surviving several (dozen)
On Friday, February 04, 2011 09:05:09 am Derek J. Balling wrote:
I think they'll eventually notice a difference. How will an IPv4-only
internal host know what to do with an IPv6 record it gets from a DNS
lookup?
If the CPE is doing DNS proxy (most do) then it can map the record to
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 10:39:28 am TJ wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but won't Classified networks will get their
addresses IAW the DoD IPv6 Addressing Plan (using globals)?
'Classified' networks are not all governmental. HIPPA requirements can be met
with SCIFs, and those need
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 01:35:46 pm Jack Bates wrote:
I understand and agree that CPEs should not use NAT66. It should even be
a MUST NOT in the cpe router draft.
Do you really think that this will stop the software developers of some CPE
routers' OS code from just making it work? Do
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 02:28:32 pm valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
The only reason FTP works through a NAT is because the NAT has already
been hacked up to further mangle the data stream to make up for the
mangling it does.
FTP is a in essence a peer-to-peer protocol, as both ends
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 03:59:56 pm Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 03:20:25PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
FTP is a in essence a peer-to-peer protocol, as both ends initiate TCP
streams. I know that's nitpicking, but it is true.
So is SMTP, by the same token. Aptly
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 05:30:15 pm Jay Ashworth wrote:
C'mon; this isn't *your* first rodeo, either. From the viewpoint of
The Internet, *my edge router* is The Node
Isn't that where this thing all started, with ARPAnet 'routers' on those leased
lines?
End-to-end is in reality,
On Thursday, February 03, 2011 05:47:44 pm valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
ETRN (RFC1985) FTW.
POP (RFC918), and the current version, POP3 (RFC1081) both predate the ETRN
RFC: by 12 and 8 years, respectively. By 1996, POP3 was so thoroughly
entrenched that ETRN really didn't have a chance to
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:52:46 am Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
No, the point is that DNS resolvers in different places all use the same
addresses. So at the cyber cafe 3003::3003 is the cyber cafe DNS but at the
airport 3003::3003 is the airport DNS. (Or in both cases, if they don't
On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 10:23:28 am Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Who ever puts NTP addresses in DHCP? That doesn't make any sense. I'd rather
use a known NTP server that keeps correct time.
We do, for multiple reasons. And we have some stringent timing requirements.
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
