On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 23:59 -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
(...) For fun, project this
http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
(...)
Hi,
If someone from google is listening it would be really nice to
spend a few minutes t oavoid flash for displaying this graph, it doesn't
work on my
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:06 -0500, Brandon Applegate wrote:
Just saw this in a message tonight. No idea if this is a transient error
or not.
Got one too for AS197422 at Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:59:01 +0100, resent
the mail at Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:03:12 +0100 and it worked so probably
transient.
to not pre split our IPv4 space in a fixed scheme,
we manage only /32 so no waste at all.
Of course you still have work to do on PPS tuning.
Sincerely,
Laurent GUERBY
AS197422 http://tetaneutral.net peering http://as197422.net
PS: minimum settings on a Linux router
echo 1 /proc/sys/net/ipv4
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 11:23 +1200, Ben wrote:
With regards to security of OpenBSD versus Linux, you shouldn't be exposing
any
services to the world with either. And it's more stability/configuration
that would
push me to OpenBSD rather than performance.
And with regards to crashing I'd
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 10:35 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 11:23 +1200, Ben wrote:
With regards to security of OpenBSD versus Linux, you shouldn't be exposing
any
services to the world with either. And it's more stability/configuration
that would
push me
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 10:50 -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 2/8/13 9:46 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
About 40 - 50 Mbit/s. Not bad at all.
Downloading software does not have to be in real-time, like watching
a movie, does.
In both cases it's actually rather convenient if it's as fast as
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 16:39 +0100, Edward J. Dore wrote:
MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled
their own MPLS stack.
Hi,
Does Mikrotik publish their modified Linux kernel source? Might be
interesting to look at it.
Laurent
Last time I looked, the
Hi,
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 17:02 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Hi,
We use LLA to virtualize interconnection to our users:
their network configuration is always static default via fe80::
and we route their /56 prefix to fe80::: where : is
unique per user - if our user
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 09:18 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
Le 13/07/12 16:38, -Hammer- a écrit :
In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or non-routable
I guess non-routable IPv4 translates well to non-routable IPv6, thus
putting
On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 10:52 -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
In any given 24 hour period, the probability of at least
one single bit error exceeds 98%.Assuming the memory is good and
functioning correctly;
It's expected to see on average approximately 3 to 4 1-bit errors
per day. More
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 18:46 +0200, Ido Szargel wrote:
Hi All,
We are currently looking to connect to one of the IX's available in Paris,
It seems that there are 2 major players - FranceIX and Equinix FR, can
anyone share their opinions about those?
Hi,
We're connected to both (and
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 09:37 -0800, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Mikael and I both have 3G networks with demonstrated IPv6
capabilities, perhaps people should request Google drive Android IPv6
support. Please point your IPv6 interest here
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3389 and
On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 17:39 +0100, Leen Besselink wrote:
On 01/25/2011 11:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If IPv4 is like 640k, then, IPv6 is like having
47,223,664,828,696,452,136,959
terabytes of RAM. I'd argue that while 640k was short sighted, I think it is
unlikely we will see machines
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 09:47 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
(...) All we're ending up with is what is mostly hearsay being treated as
facts.
One consumer organization in France during the ongoing debate with
regulators on network neutrality called for network operator to publish
some verifiable
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 16:20 -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:24:45 -0500, Craig L Uebringer
cluebrin...@gmail.com wrote:
Same crap I've seen on loads of provider networks.
No ISP I've ever worked for or with has ever willingly ran their transit
(or peering) links at
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 05:31 -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
Laurent,
If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
to properly desaturate this particular link.
Did I compute something wrong?
Laurent
Yes, now
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 19:36 -0800, George Bonser wrote:
(...) The financial derivatives market isn't, in my opinion, a good analogy of
the peering market. A data packet is perishable and must be moved
quickly. The destination network wants the packet in order to keep
their customer happy and
17 matches
Mail list logo
