Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

On May 23, 2022, at 6:39 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > > On 5/23/22 3:26 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Is it? >> >> What’s the bandwidth of a good quality 4K stream? What about 4 of them + >> various additional interactive technologies, software downloads, media >> downloads, etc.? >> >>

Re: FCC proposes higher speed goals (100/20 Mbps) for USF providers

On May 23, 2022, at 3:00 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > Really? What is the average household doing to use up a gig worth of > bandwidth? > > Mike Optimize their activities by remove a major delay factors from their activities. See The Human Use of Human Beings, a book by Norbert Wiener.

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 27, 2022, at 5:00 AM, Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > james.cut...@consultant.com wrote: > > > I have yet to find an economical way to manage a business merger > > involving two large rfc1918 networks where end to end peering is > > required and

Re: Let's Focus on Moving Forward Re: V6 still not supported

On Mar 26, 2022, at 8:30 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote: > > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> It still looks like NAT to me. > > Almost all the people, perhaps other than you, accept NAT > as is to keep IPv4 Internet or as part of transition > plan from IPv4 to IPv6. > >> NAT is a disgusting hack

Re: V6 still not supported

> On 23 Mar 2022, at 1:34 AM, Joe Maimon > wrote: > ... > Since IPv6 was born of the effort to fix the upcoming address shortage > visible at the time and to prevent and alleviate the resulting negative > effects, the fact that it did not and that globally v4 address

Re: V6 still not supported

> On Mar 16, 2022, at 12:20 PM, Owen DeLong via NANOG > wrote: > >> >> What struck me is how NONE of those challenges in doing IPv6 deployment >> in the field had anything to do with fending off attempts to make IPv4 >> better. >> >> Let me say that again. Among all

Re: "Permanent" DST

Folks, for most, this change removes the twice yearly disruption of their circadian rhythm and consequent surge of accidents and injuries. My timely recommendation, which also require change to a single file, is to stick to “standard” time year round making solar high noon closer to 12:00.

Re: "Permanent" DST

On Mar 15, 2022, at 3:11 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > > In a unanimous vote today, the US Senate approved a bill which would > > 1) Cancel DST permanently, and > 2) Move every square inch of US territory 15 degrees to the east. While I thoroughly agree with item 1, I suggest that the seismic

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

On Mar 12, 2022, at 5:47 AM, Patrick Bryant wrote: > > > The impact of any action would take time (days) to propagate. > I assert that ‘days’ is extremely optimistic.

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

On Mar 12, 2022, at 5:47 AM, Patrick Bryant wrote: > > I don't like the idea of disrupting any Internet service. I certainly agree with that. Removing .ru from the root name servers will most certainly be as effective as removing certain words from dictionaries to prevent their use. As to

Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging

On Feb 11, 2022, at 8:33 AM, Tom Beecher wrote: > > The prediciate assumption that "pinging one destination is a valid check that > my internet works' is INCORRECT. There is no magical unicorn that could be > built that could make that true, and 'they're gonna do it anyways' is a poor >

Re: Telia is now Arelion

As in any other company, the Marketing Department has to find some activity to prove their worth. > On Jan 19, 2022, at 1:05 PM, Phineas Walton wrote: > > Why are all high-tier ISPs always in the market for rebranding?

home router battery backup

> On Jan 12, 2022, at 5:11 PM, Scott T Anderson via NANOG > wrote: > > For those individuals with backup battery power for their modem/router, do > they maintain Internet access throughout a power outage (as long as their > backup power solution works)? I.e., does the

Re: Class D addresses? was: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

On Nov 20, 2021, at 3:50 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > In the early to mid 90's it was still a crap shoot of whether IP was going to > win (though it was really the only game in town for non-lan) but by when I > started at Cisco in 1998 it was the clear winner with broadband starting to >

Re: Network visibility

convinced us to wait. Clearly, private demand drove the subsequent transition as the TCP/IP stack became effectively free. I miss DECUS, but not DELNIs. - James R. Cutler - james.cut...@consultant.com GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net cell 734-673-5462 > On Oct 20, 2021, at 3:09

Re: A crazy idea

Apple keeps changing Mail and I am Lazy an engineer at heart. james.cut...@consultant.com <mailto:james.cut...@consultant.com> > On Jul 19, 2021, at 11:12 AM, t...@pelican.org wrote: > > On Monday, 19 July, 2021 14:04, "Stephen Satchell" said: > >> The allocation o

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On Jun 1, 2021, at 1:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > "Why is 100/100 seen as problematic to the industry players?" > > In rural settings, it's low density, so you're spending a bunch of money with > a low probability of getting any return. Also, a low probability that the > customer cares. Of

Re: Call for academic researchers (Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections)

> On May 31, 2021, at 2:00 PM, Josh Luthman > wrote: > > I think the latency and bps is going to be the best way to measure broadband > everyone can agree on. Is there a better way, sure, but how can you quantify > it? See

Re: New minimum speed for US broadband connections

On May 31, 2021, at 1:54 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > Was that the fault of the broadband provider or was that the fault of the > indoor WiFi? Is it possible the router has so much interference from all of > the neighbors and everyones using 2.4 GHz? What if that example had a cable >

Re: OT: Re: Younger generations preferring social media(esque) interactions.

> On Mar 24, 2021, at 11:43 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 3/24/21 17:31, Tom Beecher wrote: > >> Real time can be helpful when needed, but when it is not, it feels to me >> like it becomes significant noise, and often times impossible to track what >> conversations are when (and when

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

> make any changes until we are certain that there will be adverse effects for > our community. > It would be prudent to have a firm contractual obligation stronger than a shrink wrap ULA regarding data preservation and security. James R. Cutler - james.cut...@consultant.com GPG keys:

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

dor. What is the value of the NANOG list archive? If it is non-zero over time, do not make it dependent on the business practices of any but NANOG itself. James R. Cutler - james.cut...@consultant.com GPG keys: hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

Perhaps this discussion should return to topic (communicating between humans with common interests over extremely diverse languages and environments). Facilitating communication with hardware should be a discussed as a separate topic. Jim - Deliberately posted on top. > On Mar 21,

Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?

expression of my opinion, but it is important that you hear and consider this. - James R Cutler james.cut...@consultant.com On Mar 20, 2021, at 2:46 PM, David Siegel wrote: > > The board has been thinking about enhancements to the NANOG list for a couple > of years now, with

Re: DoD IP Space

It’s Dead, Jim — Speaking of V8. I’m glad Outlook had a Delete button. > On Feb 15, 2021, at 3:39 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 10:51:51 -0800, Sabri Berisha said: > >> Well, considering this RIPE article that talked about IPv7 already.. >> >>

Re: DoD IP Space

On Feb 11, 2021, at 9:01 PM, Kenneth J. Dupuis wrote: > > 1995? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 > > On Feb 11, 2021 8:51 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > > On 2/11/21 5:41 PM, Izaac wrote: > > > >> IPv6 restores that ability and RFC-1918 is a bandaid for an obsolete > >> protocol. > > So, in