On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Michel Py wrote:
> 1. Support: sometimes you will need vendor support, and
> this is especially true of new products. Putting
> Kingston DRAM in a 2600 is one thing; a limited test on
> a few routers will quickly show if it works or not, and
> the odds of an IOS upgrade that
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Ryan Lackey wrote:
> The things which I think will help the most:
> Old enterprise gear is probably the least useful assistance
> available right now, at least in general, but there are probably
> exceptions. Shipping is pretty expensive, about USD 4/kg
Of course it can work. My point is that it is a fact of life,
nothing more.
Pointing out the obvious: Dependent upon who is/are your upstream
provider(s), and how specific the prefix announcements are made
to their peers (re: your reachability) determines just how symmetric
your traffic pattern
>> Tracy Smith wrote:
>> Specifically, to NAT or not to NAT?
This is not much of an issue anymore. If you receive IP addresses from
your ISP, not natting would be foolish. Even if you do own your own
public IP space, the NAT issues are fundamentally no different than the
firewall ones and since n
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>
>
> Asymmetric paths are a fact of life in the Internet.
>
engineer your network to deal with that (from the enterprise perspective,
not the ISP side) and it's not a problem... we have several customers in
this scenario today, all work well.
Asymmetric paths are a fact of life in the Internet.
- ferg
-- Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 30-aug-04, at 0:50, Tracy Smith wrote:
> Hello. I am tyring to gauge what the Best Practices are for
> Enterprise network connections to the Internet. Specifically, to NAT
> o
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Thornton wrote:
However Guantanamo isn't America.
Convenient that, isnt it..
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm.
-- Publius Syrus
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Ricardo "Rick" Gonzalez wrote:
You know, here in America, we have this concept called "innocent until
proven guilty". What country are you from?
Ah.. so that's what Guantanemo bay is about.
sorry, couldnt resist.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTE
On 30-aug-04, at 0:50, Tracy Smith wrote:
Hello. I am tyring to gauge what the Best Practices are for
Enterprise network connections to the Internet. Specifically, to NAT
or not to NAT? At what point should NAT-ting be performed ...
exclusively at the Egress point or at decentralized points?
Hello. I am tyring to gauge what the Best Practices are for Enterprise network
connections to the Internet. Specifically, to NAT or not to NAT? At what point
should NAT-ting be performed ... exclusively at the Egress point or at decentralized
points? What about firewalling - centralized/dec
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Stefan Mink wrote:
> But having a look at it doesn't hurt :] Any pointers to vendors of wan
> phy xenpaks?
http://www.optillion.com/show.php?list_item_id=50&id=19425
80km and DWDM variants are also available in samples:
http://www.optillion.com/show.php?id=19417
--
Mika
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 02:02:27PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Correct, Extreme doesn't sell WAN PHY Xenpaks. On the other hand they
> don't code their Xenpaks so WAN PHY xenpaks work in their equipment,
> although it's not supported.
mhm, I'm still reluctant to use such a combination in
I hate to really comment on this as wellbut this is old news...the
SecurityFocus report was released a few days ago and anyone who has
actually gotten info from the Southern District of Ohio on the
evidence could easily show that this is more than just a "innocent man
made to look guilty" sort
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Economics 101. Cisco (and many other vendors, BTW) are not
>> charities. Their purpose is to make investors and
>> shareholders (which includes me) happy. And yes, this
>> includes reselling OEM hardware at astronomical
>> prices when they can, because it never lasts long.
"Thirty-five years after computer scientists at UCLA linked
two bulky computers using a 15-foot gray cable, testing a new
way to exchange data over networks, what would ultimately become
the Internet remains a work in progress."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/08/29/internet.birthday.ap/
Title: RE: optics pricing (Re: Weird GigE Media Converter Behavior)
Aha. It appears I was correct in framing my knowledge as out-of-date. :-)
It looks like the technology *has* advanced, and that 10GE on MMF or SMF, single-channel, is what the current state of the art is, and at the $2k-3k u
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Dickson, Brian wrote:
> do, with current-generation chip-production technology. 10Ghz optics are
> old-school lasers, several orders of magnitude larger, much more
> power-hungry, delicate, and in all likelyhood, hand-crafted with low yields.
> They really are that expensive.
Title: Re: optics pricing (Re: Weird GigE Media Converter Behavior)
Actually, (and this is from memory from a couple of years ago), most of the reason for cost of optics on 10G interfaces is simply *physics* (and the technology of component production at the current state-of-the-art level).
(
Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there anyone who can justify this pricing with anything else than
> "because we can?"
To expand on what I said to you privately, let's follow the money:
Assume $200,000/board as the marginal cost of manufacturing one.
Assume a minimum of 65
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Stefan Mink wrote:
> almost all switch vendors sell xenpak solutions, but no wan phy xenpaks
> :] (or did I miss something on the Exterme references?)
Correct, Extreme doesn't sell WAN PHY Xenpaks. On the other hand they
don't code their Xenpaks so WAN PHY xenpaks work in t
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:28:02AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> Most of the current optical DWDM systems that operators use
> today [i.e. >2 years old] can't do it and its not just a
> connector issue.
definitely not, I guess the system basically must have an ethernet switch
included which does
Eric,
On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 10:18:03AM +0200, Erik Bais wrote:
> I know that Extreme Networks already is shipping XENPAK enabled switches. The max
> for a single fiberspan according to the specs = 40Km. ( depending on the quality of
> the fibers and the attenuation. )
> They have blade's f
- Original Message -
From: "Thornton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Ricardo "Rick" Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John Obi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: FBI bust DDoS 'Mafia'
Yes America d
Over here in Iraq, I've seen people use new SOHO gear ($30 NAT
router/switch, etc.), and I've been moving them up to used low-end
cisco gear and linux/freebsd PCs for some things. The big contractors
bring in expensive cutting-edge gear which doesn't work very well
(because it's still so new), es
Yes America defiantly isn't what it used to be or what it was meant to
be.
However Guantanamo isn't America. Some of them are starting to be tried
now too.
Sklyarov is on bail. Although I think its time he either be tried or
for them to drop it.
But as far America, things need to be changed
I shouldn't be feeding a troll but in case this was serious..
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Ricardo "Rick" Gonzalez wrote:
> > No comments, check the url
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/27/ddos_mafia_busted/
> >
> > I'm happy some of these criminals sent to jail!
>
> You know, here in Amer
> No comments, check the url
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/27/ddos_mafia_busted/
>
> I'm happy some of these criminals sent to jail!
You know, here in America, we have this concept called "innocent until
proven guilty". What country are you from?
No comments, check the url
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/27/ddos_mafia_busted/
I'm happy some of these criminals sent to jail!
___
Do you Yahoo!?
Express yourself with Y! Messenger! Free. Download now.
http://messenger.yahoo.com
28 matches
Mail list logo
