h...@routeviews.org is known to work.
joel
On 10/9/10 9:16 PM, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
hello,
anyone from university of oregon or routeviews project ( routeviews.org )
here ? please contact me off-list please.
thanks
mehmet
On 10/10/10 12:38 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 10/9/10 5:08 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
LTE provides an opportunity to move the bottleneck.
LTE provides some latency benefits on the wireless interface, but the
actual packet
On 10/5/10 10:01 AM, Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi
Anyone can share the Network card experience
ls onborad PCI Expresscard better or Plug in slot PCI Express card good?
both are likely to be pci-e x1 interfaces if it's a single or dual port
chipset.
How are their performance in Gig transfer rate?
On 10/4/10 12:13 PM, Steve Feldman wrote:
On Oct 4, 2010, at 11:54 AM, Ren Provo wrote:
Hi Steve,
I appreciate your input here. It was clearly stated yesterday that
several folks do not want a fellows membership class but I do not
recall the reasoning other than Joel's comment that fee
I've stated it before I think, I have no problem with student's being
member's or having a discounted rate.
New blood in the community should be encouraged and celebrated, and if
they wish to participate in the the governance, so much the better. They
should however simply be members regardless
The longest part of our 2009 prefix assignment was getting our accounts payable
system to handle the additional supplier.
If you have all of you documentation in order you can easily run through the
process in two weeks.
Joel's widget number 2
On Oct 2, 2010, at 3:19, Bret Clark
On 10/1/10 9:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i started to read the bylaws draft, hit the 42 flavors of membership,
and decided to drop this note and do something more useful with my time.
it left out gold and platinum members, 100 meeting members, extra
legroom members, and dismembers. why the
On 10/1/10 10:19 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
you forgot honorary troll, distinguished troll and fellow troll.
my only excuse is tough night in the rack. and zita-san says redheads
should get a class by themselves (sorry, ren).
my comment from 9/22 that at most there should be two membership
If one has a cisco 7200, then you have a software based border router.
Considerations, for a given router platform are capacity, susceptability to
dos, features required etc. Depending on the capacity required a software
device could do fine. If it's in front of hosting environment you want to
On Sep 26, 2010, at 8:26, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com said:
On Sep 25, 2010, at 9:05, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
From the datacenter operator prospective, it would be nice if some of
these vendors would acknowledge
Joel's widget number 2
On Sep 26, 2010, at 10:47, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com said:
On Sep 26, 2010, at 8:26, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
There are servers and storage arrays that have a front that is nothing
but hot-swap
I didn't get the chance to cruise through this as quickly as I wanted
but I'll weigh in on at least part of it...
Despite my status as a sapphire-button mandarin in the current nanog
cabal I am not in general in favor of membership tiers or
classifications. If membership is required and I'm ok
On 9/21/10 2:10 PM, Michael Painter wrote:
David DiGiacomo wrote:
Instead of a rifle, how about a shotgun? It fires a nice wide spread
shot pattern. I think you would be much more likely to do
some damage (ie: knock fiber off a pole) with something like that.
Here in New Jersey it is illegal
On 9/20/10 11:38 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Devil's Advocate here,
What would you say to ISP A that provided similar speeds as ISP B,
but B took payments from content providers and then provided the
service for free?
Gives you the choice, ISP A, which costs, and ISP B, which is free,
Inline...
On Sep 4, 2010, at 15:24, William Allen Simpson
william.allen.simp...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/3/10 7:43 AM, Matthias Flittner wrote:
Since recently we noticed Neighbour table overflow warnings from
the kernel on a lot of Linux machines. As this was very annoying for
us and our
On 9/4/10 9:31 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 9/4/10 6:35 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
Anyone with a contact at Doster with the ability to make things happen?
Apparently they do not support v6 glue records and they have been
unresponsive to my ticket. This seems a kooky reason to change registrars.
The
On 9/3/10 11:25 AM, Bill Bogstad wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
However, scanning in IPv6 is not at all like the convenience of
comprehensive scanning of the IPv4 address space.
Concur, but I
On 8/29/10 6:25 AM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
Franck,
As you know 6to4 is enabled by default in many cases and is used perhaps
more than folks realize. Because of this and other observations we decided
to deploy our own relays.
Right prior to this the nearest 6to4 relay router from the
On 8/29/10 9:31 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net writes:
Just out of curiosity, at what point will we as operators rise up
against the ivory tower protocol designers at the IETF and demand that
they add a mechanism to not bring down the entire BGP session
On 8/27/10 1:07 PM, Mike Gatti wrote:
where's the change management process in all of this.
basically now we are going to starting changing things that can
potentially have an adverse affect on users without letting anyone know
before hand Interesting concept.
BGP is transitive, change
On 8/23/10 2:31 AM, Leigh Porter wrote:
I very often see 1918 space in ICMP responses. It's quite dumb.
you wouldn't if you filtered rfc 1918 source addresses on your border.
-Original Message-
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu [mailto:valdis.kletni...@vt.edu]
Sent: 16 August 2010 14:27
On 8/23/10 2:59 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 22:23:19 -1000, Michael Painter said:
Researchers in South Korea have built a networking router that
transmits data at record speeds from components found in most
high-end desktop computers
On 8/23/10 12:25 PM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
On 8/23/2010 1:17 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
What it really comes down to is packets per watt or packets per dollar,
if it's cheaper to do it this way then people will, if not BFD.
I disagree here. Core routing isn't purchased based on cost, it's
On 8/21/10 11:52 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I can remember early network printers using bootp and the assuming that
they could use that one ip address forever. today the printer will dhcp
and advertise it's availability in the same broadcast domain and may
well reregister it's name in dynamic dns
On 8/18/10 4:20 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
In IPv4-land I have the possibility to
reconnect and get a new unrelated ip-address every time.
They're issued by the same ISP, to they're related.
Ups. Unrelated in the sense of random ip
On 8/19/10 10:58 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
* Joel Jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote:
manual configuration of ip address name mappings seems like a
rather low priority for the average home user...
I don't expect that will be a big activity in the future either,
more devices means less
On 8/19/10 5:30 AM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
* Hannes Frederic Sowa (han...@mailcolloid.de) wrote:
But most people just don't care. My proposal is to have some kind of
sane defaults for them e.g. changing their prefix every week or in the
case of a reconnect. This would mitigate some of the many
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:05, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 8:01 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
The lack of end-site multihoming (more specifically the lack of PI for
end-sites) was created by the IETF and resolved by the RIRs.
The beginning of resolving this was ARIN proposal
On Aug 14, 2010, at 10:27, Jimi Thompson jimi.thomp...@gmail.com wrote:
It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI
No 40 acres was 1/4 of 1/4 of a section. That's 's Sherman's field order (1865)
not the homestead act (which was 160). Or the circa 1790 activity referred to
in this thread.
Joel's
On 8/11/10 2:03 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
On 11 Aug 10, at 2:53 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
I think the question is more like why am I being quoted $100 A
megabit in India for transit in India? Not why am I being charged
for for the transport cost across the pacific.
Obviously I can't
important to balance these
things. (I should also note, if anyone had any doubts, that I'm also
one of those mom-and-pop ISPs, not Time-Warner or Verizon, so my concept
of alerting is a bit different from someone who is trying to keep tabs
on 1300 POPs in 40 countries...)
jms
--
Joel M Snyder
On 7/16/10 6:02 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 20:57:15 PDT, Henry Linneweh said:
Can we get a consensus definition on these definition's and what hardware
vender's make edge routers and what hardware vender's make core routers.
I got a router, it's got 5-6 10GE
On 7/16/10 11:07 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
A simple XSLT will transform it into any needed format.
XSLT can't turn root-anchors.xml into the DNSKEY RR that BIND requires.
Tony.
anchors2keys will.
Yeah oops.
Just noticed that
Joel's iPad
On Jul 16, 2010, at 5:34 PM, Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote:
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 7/16/10 11:07 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
A simple XSLT will transform
On 7/13/10 11:11 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Jul 14, 2010, at 1:02 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Dangerous in places where forwarding table exceeds hardware cache
limits. (See Code Red worm stories)
During the Code Red/Nimda period (2001), and on into the
Slammer/Blaster/Nachi period
Specifying the prefix in question is likely to produce more rapid and
cogent response.
joel
On 7/12/10 2:20 AM, Popov Max wrote:
Hello!
I am an owner of the small telecom business in Eastern Europe. We have the
provider independent network and own autonomous system number.
Due
On 2010-07-07 19:14, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
andrew.wallace wrote:
Article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704545004575352983850463108.html
Why does it cost $100 million to install and configure OpenBSD on a
bunch of old systems?
On 2010-07-03 12:45, Alan Bryant wrote:
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Mikemike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com wrote:
Mikrotik is great at lower end stuff where you have ethernet interfaces.
Real POS OC-3 however, ain't in it's repertory and would not be what I would
choose to route at those
If the data you need to preload is sufficiently large (e.g. 10s or
hundreds of terabytes then yeah it should come as no surprise that it
might be more convenient to move by shifting around disks. 100TB of raw
disk is around $8000.
On 2010-06-28 21:50, JC Dill wrote:
Jonathan Feldman
just fyi,
identifying the prefix in question and the origin AS will likely result
in a lot more potentially useful eyeballs looking at including those
that can take action.
joel
On 2010-06-24 12:37, Eric Williams wrote:
ATT is currently advertising my address space to the internet
not sure how they propose to enforce that, instrumentation approaches
that look inside the home gateway have a non-trivial falsh positive rate
and you've got a lot more hosts than ip addresses.
On 06/22/2010 11:30 AM, Gadi Evron wrote:
There was a lightning talk on Netdot at Nanog 48 I'd take a look at the
presentation and the the website. It's quite useful from the documentation and
discovery standpoint
After the initial whit board I generally sit down and document what we're going
to build then we build a transition plan
On 06/21/2010 08:46 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
There was a lightning talk on Netdot at Nanog 48 I'd take a look at the
presentation and the the website. It's quite useful from the documentation
and discovery standpoint
meh, it was nanog 49, and the link is:
http://www.nanog.org/meetings
On 2010-06-18 10:49, Akyol, Bora A wrote:
This is not exactly true.
With the 3G networks (GSM) you can get.
7.2-Mbps HSDPA (downstream)
5.8-Mbps HSUPA (upstream)
3gpp rel7 hsdpa/hsupa goes about 4 fold faster than that down and twice
as fast up without having to resort to mimo.
whether
On 06/13/2010 06:13 PM, Bruce Williams wrote:
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
Generally speaking, it will be treated as damage and routed around.
That fable only really stands a chance when the damage is accidental; in
the case where such damage is being
On 2010-06-08 13:03, J. Oquendo wrote:
Jorge Amodio wrote:
All humor aside, I'm curious to know what can anyone truly do at the end
of the day if say a botnet was used to instigate a situation. Surely
someone would have to say something to the tune of better now than
never to implement BCP
wouldn't do that becuase the alternatives are better and not exactly a
lot of work, but will it work? yes.
joel
On 2010-06-07 13:50, Dale Cornman wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of a multi-homed enterprise not running bgp with
either of 2 providers, but instead, each provider statically routes a block
balance (i.e., treats it as active/passive not true
active/active), then it's not a bad solution. Ugly, but given the vast
chalice of despair that is the global BGP table, hardly a drop in the
bucket.
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One
Um insofar as I'm aware Andy Rosenzweig is still the Marit member on the
SC, I generally assume that we he states his opinion or merit's position
that he is doing so in his capacity as merit's representative on the SC.
joel
On 2010-06-02 15:20, Pete Templin wrote:
Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 6/2
On 2010-05-27 17:57, andrew.wallace wrote:
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 1:17 AM, joel jaegglijoe...@bogus.com
wrote:
On 2010-05-27 10:42, andrew.wallace wrote:
Look at it from an attackers point of view. If you're thinking
about carrying out an electronic jihad of some kind when is the
best time
On 2010-05-27 10:42, andrew.wallace wrote:
Look at it from an attackers point of view. If you're thinking about
carrying out an electronic jihad of some kind when is the best time?
A normal working day or during an engineers strike that only happens
once every 23 years?
Not to put to fine a
On 2010-05-27 17:38, Ken Gilmour wrote:
Wow, very fast responses, Thanks Larry Sheldon and Ricardo Tavares!
On 27 May 2010 18:07, Ricardo Tavarescuru...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure if I correctly undestand you but default route its the route
that the packet must follow if it do not have a
On 2010-05-23 18:55, Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
Dear Lorell,
We will implement OSPF.
so what arguments speak against 2 bgp upstreams?
It's not an either or proposition...
ospf carries your internal routes, ibgp carries you external routes
between internal routers. you can carry default
Tutorial: Introduction to BGP
http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/abstracts.php?pt=MTQ0MSZuYW5vZzQ3nm=nanog47
Tutorial: BGP 102
http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog48/abstracts.php?pt=MTUyMiZuYW5vZzQ4nm=nanog48
http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:BGP_Case_Studies
On 2010-05-21
On 2010-05-20 09:36, Owen DeLong wrote:
We're scraping the bottom of the barrel for IPv4 space these days.
It is what it is, and it's only going to get worse in IPv4. Time to go
to IPv6.
in ipv6 we're using our arin /32 in all regions where we appear...
joel
Owen
On 2010-05-20 11:25, Rafael Ganascim wrote:
Hi all,
I have a doubt about the bellow scenario, where the ISP1 use eBGP
sessions to its peers and is a BGP Transit AS.
NSP 1 -- ISP 1 Router2 --- NSP 2
| |
|
On 2010-05-19 14:18, Aaron D. Osgood wrote:
Probably because MO/MT (mobile originated/mobile terminated) SMS takes place on the cellular
control channel (somewhat like the D channel on a PRI span) and is not seen as
data by the carrier.
A GPRS station class A device can do this... they have
On 05/12/2010 02:41 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- da...@tcb.net wrote: From: Danny McPherson da...@tcb.net On May
12, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Jay Nakamura wrote:
I just tested this and, yes, with Cisco to Cisco, changing the
setting won't reset the connection but you have to reset the
On 2010-05-14 22:04, Alastair Johnson wrote:
Mark Foster wrote:
What about developing nations where Internet isn't yet as commonplace as
it is in the 'west' ?
They skip dialup.
dial modems are the end game for a 140 year old technology (300-3400hz
pots lines).
There is literally no
On 2010-05-13 19:43, Frank Bulk wrote:
Thirty percent? If no access includes financial means or developed
interest, that may be true, but 99% of all zip codes have at least person
with internet access. And the FCC has stated that 95 percent of Americans,
or 290 million people, have terrestrial
On 05/09/2010 09:30 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:54:46AM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
And when I drive someplace, I do indeed go by the signs I see, which are
not erected by a central authority, as I move along. (I don't have a
route from here to Fairbanks, Alaska, but
On 4/26/2010 8:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Stephen Sprunkstep...@sprunk.org wrote:
Don't forget the hotspot vendor that returns an address of 0.0.0.1 for
every A query if you have previously done an query for the same
name (and timed out). That's a
On 04/22/2010 08:25 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:04 AM, John Lightfoot wrote:
That's Hedley.
I believe that he is talking about Hedy Lamarr, the co-inventor of
frequency hopping spread spectrum.
The patent which bears her and George Antheil's name is by no means
On 04/22/2010 11:23 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Bill Bogstad bogs...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 10:48 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
So what happens when you change
On 04/22/2010 10:18 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin wrote:
On the other hand, I could
On 4/20/2010 10:29 AM, Roger Marquis wrote:
Interesting how the artificial roadblocks to NAT66 are both delaying the
transition to IPv6 and increasing the demand for NAT in both protocols.
Nicely illustrates the risk when customer demand (for NAT) is ignored.
This is really tiresome. IPv4 NAT
On 4/20/2010 6:34 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 12:59 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
NAT _always_ fails-closed
I love this statement particularly in the context of enterprise networks...
When you pop the label off an l3 vpn or
On 4/20/2010 6:34 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 12:59 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 12:31 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
NAT _always_ fails-closed
I love this statement particularly in the context of enterprise networks...
When you pop the label off an l3 vpn or
On 4/19/2010 10:40 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Bryan,
On Apr 19, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Bryan Fields wrote:
Here is some unverified calculations I did on the problem of scaling nat.
Right now I'm using 42 translation entries in my nat table. Each entry takes
up 312 bytes of FIB memory, which is
. But if you just want
capture, Endace might be a good solution.
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1.comhttp://www.opus1.com/jms
want flows, there's LOTS of great products for flow monitoring,
starting with Cisco and moving your way out through both open source and
commercial products. But if you are considering Niksun, then flows are
not what you're after. Packets are what you're after.
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East
On 4/18/2010 6:28 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
Franck Martin wrote:
Sure the internet will not die...
But by the time we run out of IPv4 to allocate, the IPv6 network will not have
completed to dual stack the current IPv4 network. So what will happen?
Reality is that as soon as SSL web
On 4/18/2010 9:56 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Franck Martin wrote:
Anybody has better projections? What's the plan?
My guess is that end user access will be more and more NAT444:ed (CGN)
while at the same time end users will get more and more IPv6 access (of
all
On 04/16/2010 08:35 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, William Jobs wrote:
Has anyone else undertaken a similar setup? What were the difficulties
you
encountered especially in terms of reduced throughput, packet loss
etc. Any
recommended media converters?
Why media
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1.comhttp://www.opus1.com/jms
On 4/12/2010 10:22 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
The man did say carrier class .. not small webhost for four
families and dog. You're talking multiple mailservers + filtering
gateways / appliances etc, clustered .. rather tough to do that with
one pizzabox 1U running a linux that's not
of sunglasses and some high-SPF sunblock would be good to
have, plus make you look less like a nerd. Unless you use that zinc
stuff on your nose, in which case you look more like a nerd. YMMV.
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone
On 04/09/2010 09:56 AM, Dave Israel wrote:
+Bonus Uncertainty: There is a lack of consensus on how IPv6 is to be
deployed. For example, look at the ongoing debates on point to point
network sizes and the /64 network boundary in general. There's also no
tangible benefit to deploying IPv6
On 04/09/2010 11:01 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it
through the civil courts.
If you were doing something extraordinary, like jamming emergency
communications, I expect they might well call the police for
assistance. But those
On 04/09/2010 07:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
some nut i procmail wrote
No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to
people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has
no such power.
I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making.
confusion
On 04/08/2010 06:00 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN; a legacy holder has
usable space that cannot be reclaimed by ARIN and who is not paying
anything to ARIN. The point here is that this situation does not
On 4/6/2010 10:39 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 05 Apr 2010 12:43, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:29:20 EDT, Jay Nakamura said:
I would have attributed the success of Ethernet to price!
You've got the causality wrong -- it wasn't cheap, way back when.
I remember back
/diss.html) on it. And among the 848
references, this Antonov character (a...@hq.demos.su) even gets quoted
three times (assuming you're not also V.S.Antonov who wrote Interfacing
Tasks of Systems SM and ES Computers and Ways of Their Solution in 1983).
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson
On 4/5/2010 5:26 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:08 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:36:26 EDT, Jon Lewis said:
Since they only really need to be unique per broadcast domain, it
doesn't really matter. You can I could use the same MAC
addresses on
into the phone line over a 2500
set with a frayed cord...
(you can go on this way for a long time... We now return you to your
regularly scheduled IPv3 NANOG troll...)
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1
On 4/4/2010 5:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM, joel jaegglijoe...@bogus.com wrote:
Last time I checked, some of the state of the art 2004 era silicon I had laying
around could forward v6 just fine in hardware. It's not so usefyl due to it's
fib being
On 4/3/2010 6:15 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Ever used IPX or Appletalk? If you haven't, then you don't know how
simple and capable networking can be. And those protocols were designed
more than 20 years ago, yet they're still more capable than IPv4.
Zing, and there you have it! The hourglass is
On 4/4/2010 7:57 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:57:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing fields? Assuming an average 1024
byte packet size, on a 10Gbps link
a juniper press author and as a result the
examples that aren't done on freebsd or linux systems are done on junos
which is either a benifit or a drawback depending on your environment.
disclaimer, I did review it for content/accuracy, but wasn't compensated
for doing so.
joel
On 04/02/2010 05
On 03/31/2010 12:00 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/prod_033110.html
Does anybody know what are the plans for IPv6 support ?
the current wrt610n supports ipv6 I failed to see why a slightly
updated and rebranded one would not as well.
Regards
Jorge
of IPv6.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:16 PM
To: Joel Jaeggli
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: New Linksys CPE, IPv6 ?
On 31/03/2010 21:07, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
the current wrt610n supports ipv6 I failed to see
On 03/31/2010 08:52 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
We have just (anecdotally, empirically) established earlier in this
thread, that anything smaller than a mid-sized business, can't even
*GET* IPv6 easily (at least in the USA); much less care about it.
fwiw, that last time I was at a company
On 03/26/2010 10:16 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday 24 March 2010 05:24:39 pm Michael Dillon wrote:
For comparison look at the z-80 CPU which powered the early desktop
computers. When the IBM PC came out, people thought that the Intel
It sounds like this range was just recently assigned -- is there any
document (RFC?) or source I could look through to learn more about
this, and/or provide evidence to my client
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
Thanks,
Jaren
--
like
delegated and partitioned management, which are SP-critical but often
ignored in the enterprise, weren't really part of my evaluation.
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1.comhttp
On 03/16/2010 07:38 AM, Rick Ernst wrote:
Regurgitating the original e-mail for context and follow-up.
General responses (some that didn't make it to the list):
- There really is that much space, don't worry about it.
- /48s for those that ask for it is fine, ARIN won't ask unless it's
confidence inspiring names here for our devices, shakey, broken,
jitter, crusty
G
--
Joel Esler
http://blog.joelesler.net
On 03/15/2010 04:30 PM, George Bonser wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Dave Temkin
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:51 PM
To: Kevin Oberman
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: 10GBase-t switch
Can you point to another 1U box that has more than 16MB per-port
buffer?
-Dave
On 03/12/2010 01:20 PM, Axel Morawietz wrote:
Am 12.03.2010 17:03, schrieb Nathan:
[...] Its
amazing how prolific 1.x traffic is.
one reason might also be, that at least T-Mobile Germany uses 1.2.3.*
for their proxies that deliver the content to mobile phones.
And I'm not sure what they
Please review the link at the very bottom of every email for
instructions on how to unsubscribe.
--
Joel Esler
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 12, 2010, at 10:27 AM, Ramsden, Colt ctr...@shsu.edu wrote:
unsubscribe
--
Colt Ramsden
Programmer Analyst II
Sam Houston State University
936.294.4488
801 - 900 of 1107 matches
Mail list logo
