Hi,
Early bird registrations provide cash flow to make hotel deposit commitments.
If all members get early birds rate and register at the last possible minute,
that dings the cash flow and increase liabilities for the organizers. One
month before the conference, we typically need to have
On 12/28/10 10:13 AM, laperriere.syl...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Early bird registrations provide cash flow to make hotel deposit commitments.
If all members get early birds rate and register at the last possible
minute, that dings the cash flow and increase liabilities for the organizers.
SNIP
If the membership dues are greater than the sum of early bird
differentials for meetings attended in a year, then it makes financial
sense NOT to join if you lose the early bird benefit.
SNIP
Jay-
I see your point here, but I would just also like to point out that I
would think
Is there a contact on the list for Intelsat Corporation? If so, please contact
me off-line.
Thanks,
Richard
rgra...@vysystems.net
-Original Message-
From: Robert E. Seastrom [mailto:r...@seastrom.com]
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 11:51 PM
To: Bill Lewis
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Public Wireless access (ticket / token / schedule based)
Is there some reason you can't run it wide open without even so
On 12/28/2010 11:18 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
Leave things wide open on a sandboxed subnet with the usual protections
(rate limits, blocked ports), IMO is the easiest approach...
One concern in higher ed that was amplified by CALEA was the notion that
an open network precluded you from the
We've had some good success with the Cisco wireless LAN controllers in our
office. The reception staff are given Lobby Admin access that let's them
create users with a default expiry of a day (but can go up to 90 days I think).
The wireless is technically open, but they can't do anything until
-Original Message-
From: ja...@jamesstewartsmith.com [mailto:ja...@jamesstewartsmith.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 11:55 AM
To: Bill Lewis; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Public Wireless access (ticket / token / schedule based)
We've had some good success with the Cisco
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Folks,
I googled around and could not find anything on this. Can anyone
share their experience with IPv6 on the Verizon's LTE network? It is
I had thought the capable devices weren't hitting the market for ~2-3
weeks
On 12/28/2010 09:58 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
I googled around and could not find anything on this. Can anyone
share their experience with IPv6 on the Verizon's LTE network? It is
my understanding that it would be a dual-stack service, but i have not
seen any screenshots or reviews that
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:49:37 EST, Christopher Morrow said:
on this, I HOPE vzw does the right thing and launches with v4/v6
dualstack on the devices in all regions where deployment happens. I
don't have much hope that this will actually happen though :(
Personally, I hope they roll it out a
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:49:37 EST, Christopher Morrow said:
on this, I HOPE vzw does the right thing and launches with v4/v6
dualstack on the devices in all regions where deployment happens. I
don't have much hope that this will
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Rolling a totally new thing out to 100% of the user base on the same day
will rarely end well.
If this is LTE only the it's a totally new thing anyway and I doubt some
extra IPv6 troubles will hurt that much more :P
--
Mikael Abrahamsson
FWIW, the same does not appear to be true of the Verizon 3G network. (Not
that anyone expected it to be.) My VZW device has a NATted v4 address and
only link-local v6.
On Dec 28, 2010 1:26 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:15 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:49:37 EST, Christopher Morrow said:
on this, I HOPE vzw does the right thing and launches with v4/v6
dualstack on the devices in all regions where deployment happens. I
^^
(note
-Original Message-
From: Bill Lewis ble...@hottopic.com
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:15:55
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Public Wireless access (ticket / token / schedule based)
What is everyone using for enterprise grade wireless authentication for
simple public access (i.e. users
On 12/28/10 10:35 AM, Richard Barnes wrote:
FWIW, the same does not appear to be true of the Verizon 3G network. (Not
that anyone expected it to be.) My VZW device has a NATted v4 address and
only link-local v6.
lack of a chipset support is a notable problem there
joel
On Dec 28, 2010
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 12/26/2010 09:07, Matt Larson wrote:
| On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Jay Ashworth wrote:
| From: Matt Larsonmlar...@verisign.com
|
| The new KSK will not be published in an authenticated manner outside
| DNS (e.g., on an SSL-protected web page). Rather,
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:54:38 EST, Christopher Morrow said:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:49:37 EST, Christopher Morrow said:
on this, I HOPE vzw does the right thing and launches with v4/v6
dualstack on the devices in all regions
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:20 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:54:38 EST, Christopher Morrow said:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:15 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 12:49:37 EST, Christopher Morrow said:
on this, I HOPE vzw does the right thing
I believe Verizon's specs for 4G devices required v6 support from the start:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/dvm105/blogs/ipv6/2009/06/verizon-mandates-ipv6-support.html
I seem to recall IPv6 support being a requirement for smartphones on their 3G
network as well, but I can't find a reference for
Would anyone know were I could purchase a Cisco GLC-LH-SM Gbic in the ashburn,
sterling, VA area ?
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Michael Gatti
cell.703.347.4412
ekim.it...@gmail.com
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:41:18AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Now OTOH if someone wants to demonstrate the value in having a
publication channel for TLD DNSKEYs outside of the root zone, I'm
certainly willing to listen. Just be forewarned that you will have an
uphill battle in trying to prove
On 12/28/2010 14:46, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:41:18AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Now OTOH if someone wants to demonstrate the value in having a
publication channel for TLD DNSKEYs outside of the root zone, I'm
certainly willing to listen. Just be
I'm looking for a DNS contact for medicare.gov (and cms.gov). They are
failing DNSSEC validation.
Emails to hostmaster, webmaster, and postmaster bounce, as does
dnsad...@rdcms.eds.com (from their SOA) and dnsad...@eds.com (from
eds.com's WHOIS). WHOIS for .gov is essentially empty.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 06:39:21PM -0600, Richard Laager wrote:
I'm looking for a DNS contact for medicare.gov (and cms.gov). They are
failing DNSSEC validation.
Ditto. Similar to uspto.gov not too long ago.
Try posting to dns-operations.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Larson mlar...@verisign.com
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010, Jay Ashworth wrote:
From: Matt Larson mlar...@verisign.com
The new KSK will not be published in an authenticated manner
outside DNS (e.g., on an SSL-protected web page). Rather, the intended
- Original Message -
From: Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de
That sounds like a policy decision... and I'm not sure I think it sounds
like a *good* policy decision, but since no reasons were provided, it's
difficult to tell.
I don't know if it influenced the policy decision, but
- Original Message -
From: Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net
During the northeast power outage the biggest local problem was
inability to pump gas out of underground tanks. The margin at the
stations is low enough it's not worth it to have generators. Best off
having the pipeline
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 21:17:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
- Original Message -
From: Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de
That sounds like a policy decision... and I'm not sure I think it sounds
like a *good* policy decision, but since no reasons were
- Original Message -
From: Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
Now OTOH if someone wants to demonstrate the value in having a
publication channel for TLD DNSKEYs outside of the root zone, I'm
certainly willing to listen. Just be forewarned that you will have an
uphill battle in trying to
Original Message -
From: Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net
There is no reason that you could not do OOB transfers of keys, but it
would be so cumbersome with the need to maintain keys for every TLD
(and, for that matter, every zone under them) and deal with key rolls
at random intervals
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 22:34:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
Original Message -
From: Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net
There is no reason that you could not do OOB transfers of keys, but it
would be so cumbersome with the need to maintain keys for every TLD
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 08:07:22PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Yes, having a verifiable source of keys OOB might have a small bit of
value, but, assuming we get general adoption of RFC 5011, I think it's
pretty limited value. Of course, this begs the question, how do we do a
better job of
On 12/28/2010 8:43 PM, Nate Itkin wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 06:39:21PM -0600, Richard Laager wrote:
I'm looking for a DNS contact for medicare.gov (and cms.gov). They are
failing DNSSEC validation.
Ditto. Similar to uspto.gov not too long ago.
Try posting to dns-operations.
For architectural and building management reasons we cannot mount our
antennas in a rooftop or outdoor location at either end. The distance
between two buildings is 1.5 km, and the fresnel zone is clear. Antennas
need to be located indoors at both ends and will be placed on small speaker
stand
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010, Anonymous List User wrote:
For architectural and building management reasons we cannot mount our
antennas in a rooftop or outdoor location at either end. The distance
between two buildings is 1.5 km, and the fresnel zone is clear. Antennas
need to be located indoors at
Anonymous List User wrote:
For architectural and building management reasons we cannot mount our
antennas in a rooftop or outdoor location at either end. The distance
between two buildings is 1.5 km, and the fresnel zone is clear. Antennas
need to be located indoors at both ends and will be
On 12/28/10 8:48 PM, Anonymous List User wrote:
For architectural and building management reasons we cannot mount our
antennas in a rooftop or outdoor location at either end. The distance
between two buildings is 1.5 km, and the fresnel zone is clear. Antennas
need to be located indoors at
Codes are usually defined in one of two ways... Either cannot be
above the building parapet or cannot be visible from the street
below (which allows you to position a stant at the center of the roof
so you can clear the parapet) but when talking to building management,
it can very easily be, can't
40 matches
Mail list logo
