For ISP, I don't care what applications customers are running.
As long as they are legitimate, it's o.k. with me.
Only concern will be whether they are running malicious code such as
Virus, Spam, DDoS client, or not, which means abusing network resources
and other people's resource.
For that
Did you check with hotel whether they have available fiber or coax from
local CO ?
In that case, installation cost may be reduced since it is matter of
cross-connection with local ISP.
Hotel may have special arrangement with local ISP just in case of
conference or something like that.
Hyun
Wireless connection may be depends on clear sight between their presence
and the hotel.
Or contact local cable modem provider for short term arrangement if they
have coverage for the hotel using existing coax cable. ^.^
Hyun
Matt Liotta wrote:
If you are looking for wireless in Chicago I
If I remember correctly from M5/M10, they uses FEB (built-into-Chassis
FPC version), and each FEB (row) has restriction up to 3.6Gbps rate.
So total aggregated bandwidth can not go over this limit.
If you install 4GE (4 of 1-port GigE PIC) in same FEB row, you can use
0.9Gbps in average per
My question is whether the number resource including IP address is
trading item or not.
In my understanding, IP address is allocated from ARIN based on use
right, not as an asset.
If one network is acquired by somebody else, IP address is transfer to
new guy based on network engineering
In reality, from what I see, most large ISP doesn't care about RFC1918.
I've been dealing with this issue for a while.
Not all of them, because I didn't deal with all of them.
But some of them has strange policy for ACL, because it has large impact
on router platform CPU utilization.
Strictly
7600 platform, you can not change MTU size
for MLPPP/MPLS
because of bug CSCdj40945. That problem said it is fixed, but you still
need to check your IOS whether it has a fix for this or not.
Hyun
Hyunseog Ryu wrote:
Maybe next monday I can ask for detailed info, but I wasn't on the
meeting
Overall, MLPPP may work fine with MPLS as long as you have single
virtual circuit from each physical circuit.
Such as T1 channel from Channelized DS3...
But you have to use sub-interface (logical interface) other than
sub-channel from channeliezed circuit,
you may have some problem.
If you
What I heard from Cisco is that there may be some issue with MLPPP and
MPLS - maybe QoS? -.
The issue is for general IOS support issue for MLPPP/MPLS combination.
For that reason, Cisco recommended Multi-link Frame Relay(MLFR) to
overcome that issue.
Hyun
Jon R. Kibler wrote:
Greetings all,
Maybe next monday I can ask for detailed info, but I wasn't on the
meeting to discuss this in detail.
Based on outcome of discussion with Cisco, we decided to go with MLFR
instead of MLPPP.
Hyun
Jon R. Kibler wrote:
Hyunseog Ryu wrote:
What I heard from Cisco is that there may be some
I guess the question is how to read legitimate word. ^.^
I guess the bill was written in mind of privacy concern.
But also there is some requirement for security/law-enforcement viewpoint.
I received the request from some law-enforcement about actual user of IP
address 3 year ago or older.
PhD? Permanent head Damage?
just kidding. ^.^
Hyun
Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 12:32 -0700, Steve Sobol wrote:
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
That kind of goes hand-in-hand with Vint's Galactic
Internet theme.
Uhhh... why does a dotcom need an Internet
Last night I had a maintenance so I use www.cisco.com for testing the
network connectivity.
But it seems that I'm seeing about 20% packet loss from www.cisco.com.
I did same test from various points including my home cable modem
connection, which is not my company's network,
but I'm getting same
Who's going to judge whether it is good or bad?
There is a lot of different point of view, and we couldn't know whether
it is good or bad until the website is launching.
I don't think this will resolve anything for anti-terrorism.
Terrorism is judged by government viewpoint, and they have the
Hi Chris,
It seems all 800 numbers I have is busy.
I heard that there was fire around home depot in Down Grove area,
and it did hit the power grid, so UUNET/MCI POP lost the power.
UUNET/MCI tech - Fortunately, our Network management center tech has the
number for him - said he is waiting
for
That's why we have Juniper Router in the market.
I guess somebody who wants to use *BSD kernel for baseline of Router
Operating system moves to setup new company, and it became Juniper.
Juniper JuNOS uses FreeBSD as kernel.
Hyun
C. Jon Larsen wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Jim McBurnett
I'm wondering whether Cisco released security advisory for this fix or not.
According to several articles, Cisco implemented the fix around April.
But I don't recall to see any security advisory for Cisco Users to
recommend IOS upgrade.
Between April and July, Cisco may have enough time for
17 matches
Mail list logo
