For the IoT/M2M stuff that doesn’t require huge amounts of data, there is a
Silicon Valley startup that is deploying cube sats for just that.
Swarm Technologies
https://www.swarm.space/
-Mike
> On Jul 8, 2020, at 19:49, Denys Fedoryshchenko
> wrote:
>
> On 2020-07-08 10:05, Mark Tinka
On 2020-07-08 10:05, Mark Tinka wrote:
On 7/Jul/20 21:58, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Watching the growth of terrestrial fiber (and PTP microwave) networks
going inland from the west and east African coasts has been
interesting. There's a big old C-band earth station on the hill above
Freetown, Sierra
(re-adding Adam's text that didn't get quoted, but matters)
On Wed, 08 Jul 2020 13:49:56 +0300, Saku Ytti said:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 13:46, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020, at 00:09, Adam Thompson wrote:
> > > Good luck with tunnelling LACP, no matter what boxes you have -
In response to feedback from operational security communities,
CAIDA's source address validation measurement project
(https://spoofer.caida.org) is automatically generating monthly
reports of ASes originating prefixes in BGP for systems from which
we received packets with a spoofed source address.
*Share your insights!*
The health and safety of the NANOG community is our top priority, and your
feedback is extremely valuable in our efforts to continue providing the
safest conference experiences possible. Planning to attend NANOG 80? We'd
love to hear your thoughts!
Take Survey
*Share your insights!*
The health and safety of the NANOG community is our top priority, and your
feedback is extremely valuable in our efforts to continue providing the
safest conference experiences possible. Planning to attend NANOG 80? We'd
love to hear your thoughts!
Take Survey
On 8/Jul/20 15:21, Paul Nash wrote:
> When we started TICSA (Internet Africa/Verizon/whatever), we went with a 9600
> bps satellite link to New Jersey specifically because the SAT-2 fibre had
> just been installed and traffic was being moved off satellite. The satellite
> folk were getting
When we started TICSA (Internet Africa/Verizon/whatever), we went with a 9600
bps satellite link to New Jersey specifically because the SAT-2 fibre had just
been installed and traffic was being moved off satellite. The satellite folk
were getting *very* nervous, and gave us a heavily
I do run the 7280SR2-48YC6, but I don't do VPLS or pseudowires on them right
now so I can't help directly with that.
Based on my experience with Arista so far, it'll be perfectly-well documented,
just for a different platform, and in a blog post instead of in the user
manual. :-(
(Note to
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 14:56, Adam Thompson wrote:
> If jitter were defined anywhere vis-à-vis LACP, it would be _de jure_, not
> _de facto_ as I said.
I suspect the de-facto domain you think of has modest population. As
jitter would only matter in case where protocol measures delay and
If jitter were defined anywhere vis-à-vis LACP, it would be _de jure_, not _de
facto_ as I said.
Yes, if you have *guaranteed* that TCP sessions hash uniquely to a single link
in your network, you might be able to successfully tunnel LACP (or
EtherChannel, or any other L1 link-bonding
On 8/Jul/20 12:42, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
> Errr sorry, but at the latest news, TCP was supposed to handle out of
> order packets and reorder them before sending them to upper layer.
> Not to mention hashing that almost systematically makes that all packets of
> the same TCP stream
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 13:46, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
wrote:
> Errr sorry, but at the latest news, TCP was supposed to handle out of
> order packets and reorder them before sending them to upper layer.
> Not to mention hashing that almost systematically makes that all packets of
> the same TCP
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020, at 00:09, Adam Thompson wrote:
> Good luck with tunnelling LACP, no matter what boxes you have - LACP
> has (de facto) hard jitter requirements of under 1msec, or you'll be
> getting TCP resets coming out your ears due to mis-ordered packets.
Errr sorry, but at the
On 7/Jul/20 19:23, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
>
>
> There was, long time ago, something developed by ISC, but I think
> never completed and not updated …
>
>
>
> 464XLAT is always a solution and becomes much cheaper, than CGN from
> vendors, even if you need to replace the CPEs.
On 7/Jul/20 23:09, Adam Thompson wrote:
> Good luck with tunnelling LACP, no matter what boxes you have - LACP has (de
> facto) hard jitter requirements of under 1msec, or you'll be getting TCP
> resets coming out your ears due to mis-ordered packets.
Hmmh - this is odd.
We once provided a
On 7/Jul/20 21:58, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> Watching the growth of terrestrial fiber (and PTP microwave) networks
> going inland from the west and east African coasts has been
> interesting. There's a big old C-band earth station on the hill above
> Freetown, Sierra Leone that was previously the
17 matches
Mail list logo
