On 24-aug-2005, at 5:50, Susan Hares wrote:
This is the first of many steps. And to be fair to the authors, the
process got held up due to the base draft being re-written.
So, the key discussion points are (as Yakov has indicated as well):
a) Are there any technical problems with the sp
Apologies for this possibly off topic post, but it does touch on the
future speeds and feeds of networks. What follows is my opinion, not
employer's, etc, etc, etc.
On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:42 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
does not take much convincing in dc that what is good for big business
is go
This is the first of many steps. And to be fair to the authors, the
process got held up due to the base draft being re-written.
So, the key discussion points are (as Yakov has indicated as well):
a) Are there any technical problems with the specification
b) Does the specificati
On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:36 AM, Abhishek Verma wrote:
I was looking at route-views.routeviews.org for the BGP routes and i
dont see any AS-Sets whatsoever. Are BGP routes with AS-SETs not
generally leaked into the wild?
Is this the case?
Not quite, see below..
I am under the impression that
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Iljitsch van Beijn
um writes:
>On 23-aug-2005, at 23:55, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
>>> This is exactly why people shouldn't implement drafts except possibly
>>> as a private in-house feasibility study.
>
>> In general, you're right; however, BGP documents have a s
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 17:52, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> And just to make life more fun, it looks like there's an effort
> afoot to get VoIP consumers to pay (read: tax) into the USF:
>
> New taxes could slam Net phone users
> http://news.com.com/New+taxes+could+slam+Net+phone+users/2100-7
On 24-aug-2005, at 1:04, Michael Painter wrote:
US is trailing other industrial countries in broadband penetration
I'm not sure that's the case, AFAIK the US holds its own.
Graph at the bottom of the article.
http://www.mbc-thebridge.com/viewbridge.cfm?instance_id=304
No, the one you
US is trailing other industrial countries in broadband penetration
I'm not sure that's the case, AFAIK the US holds its own.
Graph at the bottom of the article.
http://www.mbc-thebridge.com/viewbridge.cfm?instance_id=304
..and life is probably going to get a lot more interesting
for service providers.
All today, we have leaders in the field with completely opposite
views of the word:
U.S. Broadband Policy Exists -- And Works, Claims NTIA's Gallagher
http://www.advancedippipeline.com/169600336
[and]
Nortel chie
At 05:45 PM 8/23/2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 23-aug-2005, at 23:24, Richard Z wrote:
US is trailing other industrial countries in broadband penetration
I'm not sure that's the case, AFAIK the US holds its own.
because no carrier is interested in investing and building
an infrastr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Yo Iljitsch!
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> So I guess the choice is between lots of broadband against monopoly prices or
> less broadband at lower prices?
You forget the third choice the AT&T taught us so well before the big
br
On 23-aug-2005, at 23:55, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
This is exactly why people shouldn't implement drafts except possibly
as a private in-house feasibility study.
In general, you're right; however, BGP documents have a special
status.
Because of how crucial BGP is to the Internet's function
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Iljitsch van Beijn
um writes:
>
>On 23-aug-2005, at 15:16, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
>>> then i would prefer going ahead with the new solution and picking
>>> it up if it works!
>
>> Well, in order to justify the hassle of invalidating existing
>> implementations of t
On 23-aug-2005, at 23:24, Richard Z wrote:
US is trailing other industrial countries in broadband penetration
I'm not sure that's the case, AFAIK the US holds its own.
because no carrier is interested in investing and building
an infrastructure to be shared by their competitors. The only wa
Richard Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think that big carriers have successfully convinced regulators that
> the telecom deregulation in late nineties was bad for the industry.
does not take much convincing in dc that what is good for big business
is good for america these days.
> It certainly destro
I think that big carriers have successfully convinced regulators that
the telecom deregulation in late nineties was bad for the industry. It
certainly destroyed quite a few big companies, e.g. MCI and AT&T. Also
it dragged down a few big companies, e.g. Verizon has $40B debt. In
the meantime, US i
Dan Neel writes in CRN.com:
[snip]
The California ISP Association (CISPA) claims the merger of Verizon
Communications and MCI will threaten ISP business models.
CISPA represents more than 180 ISPs. Mike Jackman, executive director of the
Sacramento, Calif.-based organization, said the multibi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can anyone suggest, other than using Cisco's a brand of UK-compliant boxes
that effectively will perform a PSTN dial up function, so that when the
two boxes are connected, the LAN's are effectively bridged together
Basically what we want to be able to do is connect a PC
Chris Ranch wrote:
In case no one else has suggested it: the source MAC address will
identify the source.
You can also can play with the routing tag within each RIP routing
entry if your implementation is flexible enough.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
On 23-aug-2005, at 16:16, Yakov Rekhter wrote:
The IDR draft is awaiting implementation report.
If this is true, it's very distressing.
The IDR draft awaits an implementation report in order to advance
the draft to Proposed Standard. What is so distressing about this ?
A draft is work i
At 12:41 PM 8/22/2005, Aaron Glenn wrote:
On 8/22/05, Simon Hamilton-Wilkes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> They support P/S2 / USB / Sun and serial - though are a very expensive
> way to do serial.
And (last time I looked, at least) they required an expensive,
proprietary, Windows-only authent
Folks,
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> > If this is true, it's very distressing. Drafts are deleted after
> > about six months. That means that any implementations will be based
> > on a no longer existing specification. That's wrong in so many
> > ways.
>
> Well, mayb
Bill,
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:53:45PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >
> > On 23-aug-2005, at 11:53, Paul Jakma wrote:
> >
> > >The IDR draft is awaiting implementation report.
> >
> > If this is true, it's very distressing. Drafts are deleted after
> > about six months. That mean
Hi,
> On 23-aug-2005, at 11:53, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> >The IDR draft is awaiting implementation report.
>
> If this is true, it's very distressing.
The IDR draft awaits an implementation report in order to advance
the draft to Proposed Standard. What is so distressing about this ?
> Drafts a
On 8/23/05, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 23-aug-2005, at 12:36, Abhishek Verma wrote:
>
> > I was looking at route-views.routeviews.org for the BGP routes and i
> > dont see any AS-Sets whatsoever. Are BGP routes with AS-SETs not
> > generally leaked into the wild?
>
>
On 23-aug-2005, at 15:16, Paul Jakma wrote:
then i would prefer going ahead with the new solution and picking
it up if it works!
Well, in order to justify the hassle of invalidating existing
implementations of the draft as it stands, I suspect there'd need
to be sufficient examples of re
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Glen Kent wrote:
Are you're talking about clearing the BGP session between the two
remote ends, for the *analyser* to work?
My understanding is:
For the analyser, IFF it supports the current 4-bytes draft, to be
able to *reliably* parse AS_PATH, it must either observe c
> Is it common or uncommon to fire up 'ethereal' or 'tcpdump' to debug
> a BGP problem?
I have done that a few times in my life (not that i have lived long
enough like others in this list)
>
> Would it be problematic to have to either a) clear sessions for your
> analyser to fully understand th
Can anyone suggest, other than using Cisco's a brand of UK-compliant boxes
that effectively will perform a PSTN dial up function, so that when the
two boxes are connected, the LAN's are effectively bridged together
Basically what we want to be able to do is connect a PC on a LAN, so that
at will,
On 22-aug-2005, at 17:14, David Hagel wrote:
This is interesting. This may sound like a naive question. But if
queuing delays are so insignificant in comparison to other fixed delay
components then what does it say about the usefulness of all the
extensive techniques for queue management and co
On 23-aug-2005, at 12:36, Abhishek Verma wrote:
I was looking at route-views.routeviews.org for the BGP routes and i
dont see any AS-Sets whatsoever. Are BGP routes with AS-SETs not
generally leaked into the wild?
Is this the case?
I guess they aren't.
I am under the impression that AS_S
Paul Jakma wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I think I only felt the need to do this a handful of times over the
last decade, but it's generally difficult to position tcpdump such
that it will intercept the eBGP traffic.
Ok. So that's a "not important" then.
I'm inter
On 23-aug-2005, at 11:53, Paul Jakma wrote:
The IDR draft is awaiting implementation report.
If this is true, it's very distressing. Drafts are deleted after
about six months. That means that any implementations will be based
on a no longer existing specification. That's wrong in so many
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If this is true, it's very distressing. Drafts are deleted after
about six months. That means that any implementations will be based
on a no longer existing specification. That's wrong in so many
ways.
Well, maybe that was a misunderstanding
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:53:45PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 23-aug-2005, at 11:53, Paul Jakma wrote:
>
> >The IDR draft is awaiting implementation report.
>
> If this is true, it's very distressing. Drafts are deleted after
> about six months. That means that any implementati
Hi,
I was looking at route-views.routeviews.org for the BGP routes and i
dont see any AS-Sets whatsoever. Are BGP routes with AS-SETs not
generally leaked into the wild?
Is this the case?
I am under the impression that AS_SETs are generated whenever there
are some routes that are aggregated. Is
Hi,
The IDR draft is awaiting implementation report. There are apparently
two implementations, one with field deployment, which suffices to
move the draft forward. I happen to have one concern about the draft,
and I'd like to ask on NANOG to find out whether or not my concern is
of actual op
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Kevin
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 10:27 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: KVM over IP suggestions?
>
> > We have a non-IP switch from Raritan and saw presentations on their
> > IP KVM product
38 matches
Mail list logo
