Hey!
New message, please read <http://actpd.org/spirit.php?p1d6>
Cameron Byrne
Hey!
New message, please read <http://in2itshop.com/send.php?jsi>
Cameron Byrne
Hey!
New message, please read <http://iamakeupartistry.com/soul.php?yu>
Cameron Byrne
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> On 3/5/2013 8:20 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2013, at 7:55 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/5/2013 7:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 5, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T.
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 201
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 12:34 AM, Mike. wrote:
>
>> I would lean towards
>>
>> f) Cost/benefit of deploying IPv6.
>>
>
> I certainly agree, which is why I propose understanding you organisation's
> business model and how specifically v4 exh
Hi,
In-line
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
> Dear experts,
>
> I've found myself thinking about what ground an engineer needs to cover in
> order to convince the executives to approve and commit to an IPv6
> Deployment project.
>
> I think such a presentation (15 slides ma
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Warren Bailey"
>
>> We as Americans have plenty of things we have done halfass.. I hope an
>> Internet kill switch doesn't end up being one of them. Build your own
>> private networks, you can't get root
Constantine,
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> On 16 January 2013 08:12, fredrik danerklint wrote:
>> From the article:
>>
>> "Faced with the shortage of IPv4 addresses and the failure of IPv6 to take
>> off, British ISP PlusNet is testing carrier-grade network add
> "Everything you need to know" except for how to actually accomplish this
> task in the real world.
>
> In order to accomplish this in the real world using present-day software
> development methodologies you would need to do a few more things:
> - Generate some user stories that explain why the I
Got some bad data here. Let me help.
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 29, 2012 8:22 AM, "Michael Thomas" wrote:
> Phone apps, by and large, are designed by people in homes or
> small companies. They do not have v6 connectivity. Full stop.
> They don't care about v6. Full stop. It's not their
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 27, 2012 10:57 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> Verizon in the USA does have iOS on ipv6. Afaik, the network must ask for
>> it the same way all Android Samsung devices on t-mo
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 27, 2012 8:39 PM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2012, mike wrote:
>
>> You're saying there are no cellular v6 deployments? I'm about 99%
certain that you're wrong. I see v6 addresses in my apache logs all the
time and they're almost definitely wh
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> On 11/27/2012 11:58 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this the app's fault? What are they doing wrong?
>>>
&
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:28 AM, mike wrote:
> On 11/26/12 8:59 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact,
>>> both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo "ready". Unlike ISP's by and large.
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message , Mikael
> Abrah
> amsson writes:
>> On Mon, 26 Nov 2012, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>> > I don't see either Apple or Microsoft as being the hindrance. In fact,
>> > both of them seem pretty ready, fsvo "ready". Unlike ISP's by and
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 10:36 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> Ipv6 is not important for users, it is important for network operators who
>> want to sustain their business.
>
> I agree with the first part; not sure I
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 26, 2012 5:54 AM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> > Why is that a significant question?
>
> It is significant because it provides some rough measure of the relative
*importance* of IPv6 connectivity to the
On Oct 24, 2012 12:40 AM, "Daniël W. Crompton"
wrote:
>
> On 24 October 2012 08:35, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
> > (2012/10/24 12:29), Rodrick Brown wrote:
> > > "With coded TCP, blocks of packets are clumped together and then
> > > transformed into algebraic equations that describe the packets. If
>
On Oct 7, 2012 1:48 PM, "Tom Limoncelli" wrote:
>
> Have there been studies on how much latency CGN adds to a typical
> internet user? I'd also be interested in anecdotes.
>
Anecdote. Sub-millasecond, with full load. (gigs and gigs) . CGN does not
meaningfully add latency. CGN is not enough of
t;
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sep 20, 2012, at 8:49 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Sep 20, 2012 5:45 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Oh... It works...
On Sep 20, 2012 5:45 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>
> Oh... It works...
>
>
> Your IPv4 address on the public Internet appears to be 70.194.10.15
>
> Your IPv6 address on the public Internet appears to be
2600:1007:b010:a057:d91a:7d40:9871:f1a3
>
> 10/11 tests run
>
Cool!
That is from an ipad on vzw
On Sep 20, 2012 5:27 PM, "Seth Mattinen" wrote:
>
> Does Verizon have IPv6 on their LTE network everywhere or is it limited
> to specific regions? I ask because I have a Verizon LTE iPad just
> upgraded to iOS6 (which supposedly added this capability), but it's not
> getting an IPv6 address on the
On Sep 17, 2012 5:04 AM, "Tom Limoncelli" wrote:
>
> My biggest fear is that statements like this will take on a life of their
own:
>
> " I can dual stack, then I am not out of IPv4 addresses, and thus I
> have no need for IPv6. If I'm out of IPv4 then I need IPv6 and I can't
> dual stack." http:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Sep 5, 2012, at 21:08 , Masataka Ohta
> wrote:
>
>> Jimmy Hess wrote:
>>
>>> NAT would fall under design flaw, because it breaks end-to-end
>>> connectivity, such that there is no longer an administrative choice
>>> that can be made to re
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> And, in the other camp, unlimited offerings from T-Mobile, Sprint, and Metro
>>
>
> Well...sort of. To be fair, the T-Mo version of unlimited is unlimited up to
> a certain amount
> (that you paid for) and then all-you-can-sip at incredibl
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Sean Harlow wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2012, at 17:06, Bacon Zombie wrote:
>
>> An ISP with a 5GB cap that is charging the end user more then 5$ total
>> {including line rental} a month should not be allow to operate.
>
> I agree entirely. The US is not exactly known for
On Aug 10, 2012 12:19 PM, "shawn wilson" wrote:
>
> i'm curious if there is any spec in the voip protocol suite that
> allows one to maintain a call while changing networks?
>
> what i want to do is setup a softphone on an android phone. however,
> this won't work very well if i can't switch from
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>
> 1. How are you making up loss of revenue on IPv4 assignmen
If i may summarize this thread as a method to conclude it.
1. Some people like GUA the most.
2. Smart network operators understand the facts and make decisions based on
facts (ULA exist, and it meets a need in some scenarios. NAT and lack of
addresses are not reasons to use ULA).
3. Most FUD aro
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next generation technology ...
CB
On Jul 15, 2012 9:30 AM, "Scott Morris" wrote:
>
> On 7/15/12 5:38 AM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> > On 2012-07-15 00:45, Tony Hain wrote:
> >> There is no difference in the local filtering function, but *IF* all
transit
> >> providers put FC00::/7 in bogon space and filter it at every border,
ther
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 5:43 AM, Brandon Applegate wrote:
> So I sent an email over a week ago to ipv6...@networksolutions.com - and
> since I've only recieved the auto reply.
>
> A year or so ago I did this and got very quick turnaround, but now just dead
> air (sent another email yesterday).
>
>
On the other thread i read that some ISP are running their own proxies
for infected host.
That sounded interesting, so i googled around to find out how to do
that and i could not find a HOWTO, so imagined up a solution myself,
tested it in VirtualBox, and wrote it down in case anyone finds it
usef
So insteading of turning the servers off, would it not have been helpful to
have the servers return a "captive portal" type of reponse saying "hey,
since you use this server, you are broken, go here to get fixed"
Seems that would have been a more graceful ramp down.
CB
In Cisco's defense, perhaps the legalese did not fully communicate the
intent of the service.
http://blogs.cisco.com/home/update-answering-our-customers-questions-about-cisco-connect-cloud-2/
CB
On Jul 5, 2012 8:52 AM, "Mario Eirea" wrote:
>
> Has anyone seen this yet? Looks like Cisco was forc
On Jul 2, 2012 10:53 AM, "Leo Bicknell" wrote:
>
> In a message written on Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 12:23:57PM -0400, david
raistrick wrote:
> > When the hardware is outsourced how would you propose testing the
> > non-software components? They do simulate availability zone issues (and
> > AZ is as c
On Jun 30, 2012 12:25 AM, "joel jaeggli" wrote:
>
> On 6/30/12 12:11 AM, Tyler Haske wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not a computer science guy but been around a long time. Data
centers
>>> and clouds are like software. Once they reach a certain size, its
>>> impossible to keep the bugs out. You can test a
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM, PC wrote:
>
>> While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
>> RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
>> datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of pr
On Jun 25, 2012 6:38 PM, "William Herrin" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 8:03 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > Does SCTP operate on a list of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses received from
> > the application when it asks for a connect, parallelizing its attempt
> > to reach a live address? Or a DNS name
On Jun 17, 2012 7:46 PM, "Vinny Abello" wrote:
>
> On 6/17/2012 10:22 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> > On 6/17/12, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> resources were delegated to them. future prefix assignments will
> >> clearly require that the demonstrate utilization much as they are
> >> required to
But whois info is really the linchpin for LEAs trying to find criminals?
I find that very hard to believe.
CB
On Jun 13, 2012 8:29 PM, "Grant Ridder" wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a Hurricane Electric v6 tunnel setup on an AWS (amazon web
services)
> instance so that i can have ipv6 connectivity. I can ping and traceroute
> out of the tunnel fine, but am unable to access the tunnel from outside.
> For examp
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 6/3/12, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> If one is so stupid to just block ICMP then one should also accept that one
>> loses functionality.
> ICMP tends to get blocked by firewalls by default; There are
> legitimate reasons to block ICMP, esp w V6.
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Well, IPv6 day isnt here yet, and my first casualty is the browser on the
> wife's machine, firefox now configured to not query .
>
> Now www.facebook.com loads again.
>
> Looks like a tunnel mtu issue. I have not as of yet traced the definit
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Likely transfers made in this way may not be recordable with the applicable
> RIRs and may violate the RIR policies.
>
> If you care about your addresses being properly registered in whois to avoid
> unnecessary hassles around being able to r
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
> Looks like some devices have it enabled, and some do not.
>
> Does anyone have hotspot enabled? I am curious as to if IPv6 is being done
> via the hotspot, and how they are handling the prefix delegation.
>
>
On T-Mobile, this code work
On May 22, 2012 7:14 PM, "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <
wolfgang.ruppre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Cameron Byrne writes:
> >From what you wrote, guess is you are using a phone that does not
> >have IPv6 support (only Nexus phones have support today..
On May 22, 2012 6:50 PM, "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" <
wolfgang.ruppre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Paul Graydon writes:
> > That's interesting. I have a Galaxy Nexus on T-Mobile USA and it
> > doesn't get an IPv6 address, only IPv4. Works fine with IPv6 over my
> > wireless network at home. Doesn't
On May 22, 2012 4:00 PM, "Paul Porter" wrote:
>
> Hi NANOG,
>
> I'm looking for some information on the four largest US mobile phone
> carriers and the current state of their IPv6 infrastructure. Specifically,
> we are trying to figure out:
>
> 1. How much of the carrier core and edge for AT&T, V
On Apr 27, 2012 3:05 PM, "Paul Vixie" wrote:
>
>
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/04/27/2039237/engineers-ponder-easier-fix-to-internet-problem
>
> > "The problem: Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) enables routers to
> > communicate about the best path to other networks, but routers don't
> > verify
On Mar 30, 2012 3:13 PM, "Christopher Morrow"
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Henry Yen wrote:
> > uunet/vzb "will terminate its United States Newsreader and Newsfeed
> > services on March 31, 2012, with no plans to offer a replacement, and
> > any content/data remaining after that da
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:21 AM, james jones wrote:
> Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
> some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
> that is not practical?
>
If your goal is , i assume you care about native IPv6 as ma
On Mar 28, 2012 2:25 PM, "Arturo Servin"
@ gmail.com > wrote:
>
>
>Another reason to not use them.
>
>Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because
it shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that
code, deploying it, training customer
Not sure on the usefulness of these threads, but i have been getting
testy about lightreading.com not working
wget -6 www.lightreading.com
--2012-03-20 04:48:25-- http://www.lightreading.com/
Resolving www.lightreading.com (www.lightreading.com)... 2001:470:1f06:1274::2
Connecting to www.lightrea
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote:
> So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and
> carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of course.
> Circuits and hardware are a few months away. I'm doing the initial designs
> and having some
On Jan 26, 2012 8:49 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 7:35 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2012 5:49 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:00 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
On Jan 26, 2012 8:44 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Jima wrote:
>
> > On 2012-01-26, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> If you can't point to some specific advantage of ULA over secondary
> >> non-routed GUA prefixes, then, ULA doesn't have a reason to live.
> >
> > My biggest co
On Jan 26, 2012 5:49 AM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:00 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
> >> Use different GUA ranges for internal and external. It's easy enough to
> >> get an additional prefix.
> >>
> >>> As others have mentioned, things like management interfaces on access
> >>
On Jan 25, 2012 7:52 AM, "Justin M. Streiner"
wrote:
>
> Is anyone using ULA (RFC 4193) address space for v6 infrastructure that
does not need to be exposed to the outside world? I understand the concept
of having fc00::/8 being doled out by the RIRs never went anywhere, and
using space out of fd
On Jan 18, 2012 8:43 AM, "Christopher Morrow"
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Steven Bellovin
wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 18, 2012, at 10:41 30AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Nick Hilliard
wrote:
> >>> On 18/01/2012 14:18, Leigh Porter wrote:
> >>>
On Jan 15, 2012 1:40 PM, "Jared Mauch" wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 15, 2012, at 2:56 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately that does exactly nothing to help with Internet scale.
> >
> > Now scaling for your local environment embedded RP might be beneficial,
but
> > actual practical applications where y
On Jan 10, 2012 5:11 PM, "Peter Kristolaitis" wrote:
>
> Wow! Congrats to the Comcast crew, that's absolutely awesome!
>
+1
Between dnssec and ipv6 Comcast has shown true internet evolution
leadership in their *actions*, which really stands out in an industry full
of talk.
Cb
> Definitely int
On Jan 4, 2012 4:52 AM, "Måns Nilsson" wrote:
>
> Subject: anycast load balancing issue Date: Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at
01:02:55PM +0100 Quoting Måns Nilsson (mansa...@besserwisser.org):
>
> > Trouble is, we find that (untweaked) cost and metric are such that all
> > nodes are equal.
>
> s/all nodes/al
On Dec 30, 2011 9:16 AM, "Alexander Harrowell"
wrote:
>
> In the DHCP v6 thread, there was some discussion of
> mobility and its IP layer consequences. As various people
> pointed out, cellular networks basically handle this in the
> RAN (Radio Access Network) and therefore at layer 2,
> transpare
On Dec 29, 2011 6:38 AM, "Ray Soucy" wrote:
>
> Sounds like we have one group saying that IPv6 is too complicated and
> that all the "overhead" of IPv6 had resulted in slow adoption.
>
> Meanwhile we have others saying it doesn't have enough functionality,
> and should also include IGP.
>
> Seems
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:28 AM, TJ wrote:
> 2011/12/28 Masataka Ohta
>
>> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>>
>
>
>>
>>
>> >> In this case, the following statement in RFC1883:
>> >>> If the minimum time for rebooting the node is known (often more than
>> >>> 6 seconds),
>> >> is the wrong a
On Dec 15, 2011 10:35 PM, "Brielle Bruns" wrote:
>
> On 12/15/11 3:31 PM, Ricky Beam wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:36:32 -0500, David Conrad
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ... I had thought new allocations are based on demonstrated need. The
>>> fact that addresses are in use would seem to suggest they'
On Dec 15, 2011 6:43 PM, "Stephen Sprunk" wrote:
>
> On 15-Dec-11 16:31, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:36:32 -0500, David Conrad
> > wrote:
> >> ... I had thought new allocations are based on demonstrated need. The
> >> fact that addresses are in use would seem to suggest they're n
Fyi, I just was rejected from arin for an ipv4 allocation. I demonstrated I
own ~100k ipv4 addresses today.
My customers use over 10 million bogon / squat space ip addresses today,
and I have good attested data on that.
But all I can qualify for is a /18, and then in 3 months maybe a /17. This
is
On Dec 7, 2011 7:49 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2011, at 1:36 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
> > I don't think you're looking at defense in depth in the right way,
>
> Actually, it sometimes seems as if nobody in the industry understands
what 'defense in depth' really means, heh.
>
On
On Nov 15, 2011 7:09 AM, "-Hammer-" wrote:
>
> Guys,
>Everyone is complaining about whether a FW serves its purpose or not.
Take a step back. Security is about layers. Router ACLs to filter
whitenoise. FW ACLs to filter more. L7 (application) FWs to inspect HTTP
payload. Patch management at th
On Nov 14, 2011 9:22 PM, wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:06:13 EST, William Herrin said:
>
> > Using two firewalls in serial from two different vendors doubles the
> > complexity. Yet it almost always improves security: fat fingers on one
> > firewall rarely repeat the same way on the second and
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 12:13 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Robert Bonomi
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2011 10:36:43 -0500, Jason Lewis
>> wrote;
>>> http://www.redtigersecurity.com/security-briefings/2011/9/16/scada-vendors-use-public-routable-ip-addresses-by-defa
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2011-11-09 17:32 , Brzozowski, John wrote:
>> Update from http://www.comcast6.net
>> IPv6 Pilot Market Deployment Begins
>> Wednesday, November 9, 2011
>>
>> Comcast has started our first pilot market deployment of IPv6...
>
> Congrats! One
On Nov 6, 2011 10:15 PM, "David Hubbard"
wrote:
>
> Hi all, I am looking at cellular-based devices as a higher
> speed alternative to dial-up backup access methods for
> out of band management during emergencies. I was
> wondering if anyone had experiences with such devices
> they could share?
>
On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Tom Hill wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 15:04 -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> FYI.
>>
>> T-Mobile USA now has opt-in beta support for an Android phone on IPv6,
>> more info here https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch
>
> Ve
FYI.
T-Mobile USA now has opt-in beta support for an Android phone on IPv6,
more info here https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch
As far as i know, this is the first Android phone that support IPv6 on
the GSM/UMTS mobile interface. Previous version of Android phones
supported IPv6 on W
On Oct 31, 2011 9:13 PM, "Jack Bates" wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2011 11:00 PM, Scott Whyte wrote:
>>
>> But seriously, if you can help her ascertain real middlebox use cases
she wants to help improve that segment of networking via useful research,
nothing more or less.
>
>
> Would love to see the result
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Oct 13, 2011, at 7:26 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>> On 10/13/11 3:30 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> In fact, Skype, just as a for instance, is worse on hotel wifi as launching
>>> the app on a laptop makes you a middle node for s
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 9/26/11 8:36 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
>> Has anyone been able to pull any magic off that allows PPTP connectivity
>> over sprint's 3G/4G wireless network?
>>
>> I assume they're just filtering it flat out, but before I contact them I
>> w
On Sep 26, 2011 1:29 AM, "Florian Weimer" wrote:
>
> * Cameron Byrne:
>
> > It is very important to ask the redirect partners about yields...
meaning,
> > you may find that less than 5% of nxdomain redirects can be actually
served
> > an ad page because 95%
Just an fyi for anyone who has a marketing person dreaming up a big nxdomain
redirect business cases, the stats are actually very very poor... it does
not make much money at all.
It is very important to ask the redirect partners about yields... meaning,
you may find that less than 5% of nxdomain r
On Sep 21, 2011 4:43 PM, "Patrick W. Gilmore" wrote:
>
> On Sep 20, 2011, at 11:17 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 2011 7:54 PM, "Joseph Gersch"
wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if Akamai edgesuite servers rate limits or blacklists
On Sep 20, 2011 7:54 PM, "Joseph Gersch" wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if Akamai edgesuite servers rate limits or blacklists
caching servers that query it too often? It appears that queries are timing
out if we exceed a query load to edgesuite.
>
> Does anyone at Akamai know if there are any chang
On Sep 18, 2011 1:08 PM, "Benson Schliesser" wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2011, at 15:51, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> I'm told of others that have bought legacy IPv4 prefixes with no
> >> intention of updating whois at this time - no desire to enter into a
> >> relationship with ARIN and be subjected to
On Sep 17, 2011 10:41 AM, "Randy Bush" wrote:
>
> As an ISP, ARIN will not give you any space if you are new. You
> have to already have an equivalent amount of space from another
> provider.
> >>> does arin *really* still have that amazing barrier to market
> >>> entry?
> >> Yes.
On Sep 10, 2011 11:38 PM, "Damian Menscher" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Marcus Reid
wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:17:10AM -0700, Network IP Dog wrote:
> > > I like this response; instant CA death penalty seems to p
On Sep 11, 2011 4:33 AM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2011, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
>
> > I'd agree that, usually, distributed is better but these are not
distributed networks, there is a single point (or a few large single points)
of contact.
>
> The point is that these aggrega
On Sep 9, 2011 10:54 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
> On Sep 10, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> > GPRS/3G/EDGE has made many a mobile provider especially notorious.
>
> All this problematic state should be broken up into smaller instantiations
and distributed as close to the access edge
On Sep 8, 2011 1:47 AM, "Leigh Porter" wrote:
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> > Sent: 08 September 2011 01:22
> > To: Leigh Porter
> > Cc: Seth Mos; NANOG
> > Subject: Re: NAT444 or ?
> >
> > > Considering that offices, schools etc regularly ha
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 9/7/11 09:02 , Michael Holstein wrote:
>>
>>> I would love a world where engineering was consulted by marketing :(
>>>
>>
>> Wouldn't be a problem is management invested based on engineering's
>> recommendations.
>>
>> There are few problems
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Serge Vautour wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Things I understand: IPv6 is the long term solution to IPv4 exhaustion. For
> IPv6 to work correctly, most of the IPv4 content has to be on IPv6. That's
> not there yet. IPv6 deployment to end users is not trivial (end user suppo
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 01:57:36PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>> as you can see, i am interested in
>> o loc/id separation
>> o rounting table scaling
>> o deployability on the internet
>> o current state of development
>>
>> what did i
On Aug 17, 2011 6:58 AM, "Justin M. Streiner"
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> What would you rather rely on at 3am in the morning when things are
>>> breaking? Someone who has just learned IS-IS or someone who already
>>> has good experience with OSPF?
>>
>>
>> what would
On Aug 16, 2011 9:41 AM, wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:53:24 EDT, Christopher Morrow said:
>
> > anyway, they do these donkey things because they can :( people have no
> > real option (except not to play the game, ala war games).
>
> My brother recently tried to get a smartphone without a data
On Aug 15, 2011 2:15 PM, "Tim Wilde" wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?
> >
> > I really don't see a significant difference in that regard.
>
> I will admit to not having
On Aug 12, 2011 8:40 PM, "Ryan Finnesey" wrote:
>
> Well they are two completely separate companies . I would think that the
> LTE network would be a good replacement for DS1 type services.
>
My guess is no.
Yes, I bet vzw buys from vzb, but not the other way round. Whatever you call
the vz LEC
On Aug 11, 2011 5:25 PM, "Owen DeLong" wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 11, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>
> >
> > On 11/08/2011, at 1:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Aug 10, 2011, at 7:45 PM, Mark Newton wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
On Aug 10, 2011 7:45 PM, "Mark Newton" wrote:
>
>
> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an allocation
> > will have that effect. I would rather we steer the internet deployment
> > towards liberal enough allocations to avoid
On Aug 8, 2011 4:24 PM, "Christopher Morrow"
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Scott Helms
wrote:
> > Not trying to be obtuse, but none of the technical docs you cite appear
to
> > talk about HTTP proxies nor does the newswire report have any technical
> > details. I have tested severa
1 - 100 of 222 matches
Mail list logo
