On 4-Mar-2006, at 23:48, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 4, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
No support in big networks is required, beyond the presence of
shim6 in server stacks.
Why do you say this? Enterprises who multihome need their client
machines (tens and hundreds of thousands
On 5-mrt-2006, at 5:48, Roland Dobbins wrote:
This fundamental misconception of the requirements of large
enterprise customers should be an indicator to proponents of shim6,
among others, that they do not have a good grasp of the day-to-day
operational and business realities faced by
On 5-mrt-2006, at 12:09, Ian Dickinson wrote:
As an irrelevent aside, when someone comes up with a way to
firewall/acl
shim6, how much breaks?
The idea is that there will be a shim6 header that can do two things:
carry shim6 signalling and carry data packets with rewritten
addresses
Reuters and CNN/Money also reporting same:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/05/news/companies/att_bellsouth/index.htm
Mind-boggling.
- ferg
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is from Dave Farber's list ..
Subject: Everything old is new again
From: Kevin G. Barkes
(oh how I'm going to regret jumping into this conversation at point 'here'
not at the beginning :( )
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 5-mrt-2006, at 5:48, Roland Dobbins wrote:
This fundamental misconception of the requirements of large
enterprise customers should be an
Not that mind-boggling. The FCC under the Bush administration has been a
joke from the get-go. (This coming from a very right-leaning
independent).
This is the ultimate shell game, considering ATT's antics last year.
cheers,
brian
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Fergie wrote:
:
:Reuters and CNN/Money
You are absolutely right that having to upgrade not only all hosts in a
multihomed site, but also all the hosts they communicate with is an
important weakness of shim6. We looked very hard at ways to do this type
of multihoming that would work if only the hosts in the multihomed site
were
With Katrina and all the other hurricanes hitting Bell south's area, they
are just overwhelmed. The prize here is Cingular anyway; the landline
business is declining. Since neither SBC nor Bell South have too much
interest in FiOS, the harm the consumers near term is minimal. In fact,
some
With Katrina and all the other hurricanes hitting Bell south's area, they
are just overwhelmed. The prize here is Cingular anyway; the landline
business is declining. Since neither SBC nor Bell South have too much
interest in FiOS, the harm the consumers near term is minimal. In fact,
some of
You know what they say about opinions...
Well, anyways, the main thrust of the concern here is not a
technical one -- unless you consider the lack of susbcriber
options technical. It is, perhaps, a technicality, but I digress...
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.
At 07:37 AM 4/03/2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 3, 2006, at 5:55 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 2 mar 2006, at 06.16, Kevin Day wrote:
No, I'm just trying to be practical here... Estimates of IPv4 pool
exhaustion range from Mid 2008 (Tony Hain's ARIN presentation) to
roughly
At 07:43 AM 4/03/2006, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
I will bet anyone reading this $ 20 USD right now that what will actually
happen is the development of a spot market in IPv4 address space.
That's a sucker bet.
What's worse is that unless people start
Via MSNBC.
[snip]
ATT Inc. confirmed Sunday that it has reached a deal to buy Atlanta-based
BellSouth Corp. for $67 billion.
[snip]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11684785/
- ferg
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL
On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of
pushing
routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts. Source
Routing
is a technology that most of the internet figured out is problematic
years ago. Making source
Greetings:
We have a client site that is driving us nuts! We have had more equipment
failure issues at that one location than at all other locations we manage
combined. We have come to the conclusion that there is some type of RF
interference occurring that is causing these failures, but are
From: Jon R. Kibler
I should also add some other points:
-- We have observed failures when the building had zero
power, except for the UPS battery power in the server room,
so we don't think that we are getting power spikes from
anything within the building.
If you had failures
Greetings all,
The fuss over shim6, routing table size, and long-prefix PI space has
intrigued me. I've started analyzing some [simulated] FIBs and believe
I may have found something interesting. In the name of statistical
sampling, I'd like to analyze some other [simulated] FIBs from
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
In the name of statistical sampling, I'd like to analyze some other
[simulated] FIBs from different BGP views.
Would anyone be interested in donating show ip bgp output?
Current year and last year, prior back to 1997 by request:
Greetings:
We have a client site that is driving us nuts...
...
I should also add some other points:
-- We have observed failures when the building had zero power, except for
the UPS .
-- The building only operates 0600 to 1800, so many failures are occurring
after
On 5-Mar-2006, at 17:03, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
All this time, energy, and thought spent on shim6 would have been
better spent on a scalable IDR solution. Luckily, we still have
another decade or so to come up with something.
So the answer to the lack of a routing solution to
On 5-mrt-2006, at 23:37, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
1) How could a bad ground cause DSL line noise that ia
inaudible? Also, the noise is on the telco side, not the LAN side.
2) Why would it be blowing DSL routers that are isolated from
the LAN by a switch and another router? And, all of
That is already half of a solution:
Go for fiber. That is imune to both ground and RF problems. Avoid
ground connections between the equipment.
Replace ethernet with fiber. Break serial lines with optical isolators.
Yes, fiber will solve ground loop problems. And this smells like
a
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 18:00:36 -0500 (EST)
David Lesher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cut the ground wire in your power cords but ground the equipment directly
to a metal frame.
I would NEVER tell a client to do this.
That could easily kill someone.
Correct.
The safety purpose of the ground
Jon R. Kibler wrote:
Greetings:
[snippage]
Given what I have described, would you think this is an RF interference problem?
No. Many of the devices mentioned are not particularly RF sensitive.
Those that are will recover when removed from the interference source
unless you're talking
Eric A. Hall wrote:
What are people worried about here exactly?
The same lack of competition in telecommunications that we had in the 1980s?
Granted, it won't ever be quite *that* bad again, but we're slowly moving
back towards one monolithic ILEC, and that does worry me.
--
Steve Sobol,
What are people worried about here exactly?
The same lack of competition in telecommunications that we had in the 1980s?
Granted, it won't ever be quite *that* bad again, but we're slowly moving
back towards one monolithic ILEC, and that does worry me.
To worry most is the fact that a
The isolated grounds are definitely a recommended idea for telco/server
rooms... Perhaps an array of them depending on the size power feed we're
talking about. I'm assuming it's a sizeable UPS that runs your telco and
data equipment (or small server room). The irritation, if you haven't done
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Who exactly has been trying to find scalable routing solutions?
Well, for the last decade or so, there's been a small group of us who
have been working towards a new routing architecture. Primary
influences in my mind are Chiappa, O'Dell, Hain, Hinden, Nordmark,
What Tony said, especially about what happened to 8+8. A lot of the
grounds for rejection were security, but there wasn't a single security
person on the committee. In my opinion, most of the arguments just
didn't hold up.
--Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Mar 5, 2006, at 2:51 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
Very little time has been spent on shim6 so far. Far more time
before that was spent on multi6, which considered many different
approaches to multi-homing.
Spending time in and of itself has no value, you're entirely
correct. Spending time
--On March 5, 2006 3:28:05 PM -0500 Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of
pushing
routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts. Source
Routing
is a technology
On 3/5/2006 7:10 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
Eric A. Hall wrote:
What are people worried about here exactly?
The same lack of competition in telecommunications that we had in the 1980s?
Well that's an overreach. And if the primary concern is consolidation then
we should have blocked NYNEX and
On Mar 5, 2006, at 6:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Far from it, but, there are lessons to be
learned that are applicable to the internet, and, separating the
end system identifier from the routing function is one we still seem
determined to avoid for reasons passing my understanding.
And this
At 05:32 PM 3/5/2006, Peter Dambier wrote:
David Lesher wrote:
Cut the ground wire in your power cords but ground the equipment directly
to a metal frame.
[ I am not a PE - IANAPE ]
I don't think that is good advice. You can't possibly have the
as-builts, existing condition, or line
At 06:20 PM 3/5/2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
What might be useful -- ask an EE, not me -- is a circuit with an
isolated ground. In that case, the ground wire from the power plug is
routed all the way back to the breaker panel, and isn't connected to,
say, the local electrical box that the
On Sun, 05 Mar 2006 23:30:13 -0500
Robert Boyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 06:20 PM 3/5/2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
What might be useful -- ask an EE, not me -- is a circuit with an
isolated ground. In that case, the ground wire from the power plug is
routed all the way back to the
On Mar 6, 2006, at 3:24 AM, Fergie wrote:
An overreach? Really?
I'd say that you're not paying attention.
Sorry, Fergie, but I gotta disagree with you here.
In the 1980s, cell phones were not even close to useable by most
people, but now there are lots of people who don't need anything
Nice rant. But since this isn't your blog you'll probably have to grace us
with some substance.
None of ATT exists anymore--SBC acquired that corpse last year, so the
company currently calling itself ATT isn't even really ATT. The new
deal is basically SBC buying up BellSouth and getting the
I disagree with your understanding of the limited deployment
There is much more commercial deployment and traffic that what you realize.
Because some ISPs didn't deployed yet IPv6 doesn't meant is a failure. The
deployment of any new protocol take time, and actually I will say that IPv6
has
39 matches
Mail list logo
