On 12/27/12 9:04 AM, mike wrote:
I reloaded their app (yes, I know... sew me) and got this warning:
IP address: 2600:100f:b119:c6bc:bd6f:fabb:ff30:2a3d
Estimated location: Livingston, NJ, US
That's a rather good estimation of where many verizon wireless customers
appear to come from.
On 12/27/12 10:29 AM, mike wrote:
On 12/27/12 9:25 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 12/27/12 9:04 AM, mike wrote:
I reloaded their app (yes, I know... sew me) and got this warning:
IP address: 2600:100f:b119:c6bc:bd6f:fabb:ff30:2a3d
Estimated location: Livingston, NJ, US
That's a rather
On 12/19/12 7:02 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-12-19 09:53 -0500), Jason Lixfeld wrote:
Perhaps in simpler terms, a CRC error is a localized thing and would
never be forwarded from one device to another.
It would be forwarded in cut-through switching.
I have cut-through switches (arista)
On 12/17/12 9:01 AM, James Wininger wrote:
Hello all,
Looking for input from providers as well as consumers of data center space
and facilities. Specifically speaking to the types of available physical cross connects.
Are there data centers out there that are fiber only? That is to say that
On 12/5/12 9:09 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
This would be outgoing connections sourced from the IP of the proxy,
destined to whatever remote website (so 80 or 443) requested by the
user.
Essentially it's a modified Squid service that is used to filter HTTP
for CIPA compliance (required by the
On 11/29/12 23:18 , Joakim Aronius wrote:
I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that
we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies
like child pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass
just by using Tor. I dont think it should be
On 11/20/12 7:32 AM, Paul Rolland (ポール・ロラン) wrote:
Hello,
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 10:14:18 +0100
Tomas Podermanski tpo...@cis.vutbr.cz wrote:
It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first
time when native IPv6 on google statistics
On 11/24/12 8:29 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:09 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
from goeff huston's data they have more v6 at home.
And not purposely, either - because it's enabled by default on recent client
OSes. My guess is that a non-trivial fraction of observed IPv6
On 11/20/12 9:10 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:55 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/17/3655442/restoring-verizon-service-m
anhattan-hurricane-sandy
hey lookie!
On 11/20/12 10:20 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.net wrote:
On 11/20/2012 12:10 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
it's acutally kinda nice that at least from CO - building now
there maybe more highspeed links... and maybe lower long
On 11/19/12 5:59 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
What I'm trying to say, I can't see youtube generating anywhere nearly
enough revenue who shift 10% (or more) of Internet. And to explain
this conundrum to myself, I've speculated accounting magic (which I'd
frown upon) and leveraging market position to
On 11/14/12 2:40 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2012-11-12, at 14:43, Jim Mercer j...@reptiles.org wrote:
Is there a common practice of providers to vet / validate requests to advertise
blocks?
Yes, most providers whose customers request a particular route to be pointed
towards them will ask for
On 11/7/12 12:13 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Nov 07, 2012, at 00:07 , Jian Gu guxiaoj...@gmail.com wrote:
Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a google-owned
prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place?
according to the blog, all google's
On 11/1/12 2:01 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
There are better ways to avoid neighbor exhaustion attacks unless you have
attackers
inside your network.
All of the migrations are compromises of one sort or another. We thought
this one was important enough to include in an informational status
RFC
On 10/17/12 10:59 AM, Darren O'Connor wrote:
I've just set up a vpn tunnel to Amazon's AWS and as part of the config they
required me to configure to /30 tunnels using addressing from the
169.254.0.0/16 space.
RFC3927 basically says that this address should only be used as a temp measure
On 10/19/12 10:56 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Wait!
Are you suggesting to not use it as intended by RFC6598?
to
be used as Shared Address Space to accommodate the needs of Carrier-
Grade NAT (CGN) devices. It is anticipated that Service Providers
will use this Shared
On 10/5/12 5:05 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
I know that I should know better then comment on networks others then
my own, ( and I know to never comment on my own publicly :) )
But here goes, 210x the size of normal really? 210% I'd have a hard
time believing. Did anyone else anywhere see a route
On 10/5/12 5:08 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing
to accept this prefix from AS4847.
a private address space leak? and propagated. i am deeply shocked.
wtf did people think would happen?
On 10/5/12 8:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Oct 5, 2012, at 11:07 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
by all accounts this has been advertised since 8/24.
space allocated: 2012-03-13
that's 5 months and 11 days too long.
I
On 10/4/12 7:36 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:26 PM, Sander Steffann wrote:
The closer you get to the edge the more common it might become...
iACLs should be implemented at the network edge to drop all IPv4 and IPv6
traffic - including non-initial fragments - directed
On 10/4/12 1:31 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IEEE 802 was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers ever built.
Internet was expected to provide unique numbers for all computers actively on
the network.
Obviously, over time, the
On 10/4/12 8:15 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Oct 4, 2012, at 9:58 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Likewise with the acl I have the property that the initial packet has
all the info in it while the fragment does not.
For iACLs, just filter non-initial fragments directed to infrastructure IPs. Cisco
http://bgp.he.net/net/100.100.0.0/24#_bogon
A surprising number of large transit ASes appear to be more than willing
to accept this prefix from AS4847.
I'd be a lot happier if there were fewer.
thanks
joel
On 9/30/12 12:05 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On 9/29/12, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Jared Mauch wrote:
...
The problem is that physical layer of 100GE (with 10*10G) and
10*10GE are identical (if same plug and cable are used both for
100GE and 10*10GE).
Interesting.
On 9/27/12 5:58 AM, Darius Jahandarie wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
http://slashdot.org/topic/datacenter/terabit-ethernet-is-dead-for-now/
Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
I recall 40Gbit/s Ethernet being promoted heavily for similar reasons
as
On 9/21/12 6:40 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote:
The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much
documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to
point me in the right direction?
Can we assign IPv6 only to end users?
On 9/20/12 12:09 AM, George Herbert wrote:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 9:58 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
There is still no technical reason that 240/4 cannot be
rehabilitated, other than continued immaterial objections to doing
anything at all with 240/4, and given the rate of IPv6
On 9/20/12 9:52 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm quite certain I have a good idea of the magnitude of what you'd
charge for professional services for such work, and I would expect it
to be 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than what a Worldcon Concom could
afford to pay. :-) I would also be very
On 9/19/12 10:42 AM, Jo Rhett wrote:
And second, have you ever worked on a private intranet that wasn't
connected to the internet through a firewall? Skipping oob networks
for equipment management, neither have I.
Plenty of people on this list have worked on private internet(s) with
real AS
On 9/16/12 9:22 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Randy Bush wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once
though 32 bits was humongous.
Giving out a /48 to every person on earth uses approximately 2^33
networks, meaning we could cram it into a
On 9/17/12 8:23 AM, Adrian Bool wrote:
Hi Mike,
On 17 Sep 2012, at 16:04, Mike Simkins mike.simk...@sungard.com wrote:
RIPE 552 (I think), allows you to request up to a /29 without additional
justification if needed.
Sure, but you're just tinkering at the edges here.
32-bits would be a more
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2012/08/how-low-power-can-you-go.html
On 9/17/12 8:16 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
True, but at a price that means this won't occur on very many of earth's many
CM and even if it did, when you subtract the space required for cooling them
and the space
On 9/16/12 9:24 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Gaurab Raj Upadhaya gau...@lahai.com
So you're *REALLY* motivated on this reduce the coverage thing,
then.
you could say yes :), reduce the coverage per-AP. Most APs I have seen
will start failing with about ~100
On 8/24/12 3:07 PM, Lori Jakab wrote:
On 8/24/2012 11:33 AM, Routing Analysis Role Account wrote:
[...]
Analysis Summary
BGP routing table entries examined: 264582
Isn't this supposed to be 400K? What happened this week?
yes it disagrees with
On 8/22/12 10:50 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
So I would say they've come into posession of a rather undesirable
piece of IP address real-estate, as it were.
The days when undesirability of a given ipv4 unicast prefix would play a
significant role in assignment policy are pretty much coming to a
On 8/23/12 10:57 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I would really hope that wireless providers are planning for IPv6
instead, although a recent thread about Sprint LTE indicates maybe this
is wishful thinking. I know Verizon is but the single LTE MiFi I have
doesn't do IPv6, but I've seen customers with
On 8/23/12 2:11 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Owen DeLong wrote:
ATT should just be glad there was a /12 for them to get.
That isn't going to be true for much longer.
If you are counting on an IPv4 free pool to run your business next
year, you are making a bad bet.
The 16777214 IP addresses
On 8/15/12 6:55 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
While I understand that in the face of IPv4 exhaustion long quarantine
periods are probably no longer a good idea, I think 6 weeks is
shockingly short. I also think to blanket apply the quarantine is
a little short sighted, there are cases that need a
On 8/15/12 10:24 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 08:01:15AM -0700, joel jaeggli
wrote:
Remediation of whatever wrong with a given prefix is an active activity,
it's not likely to go away unless the prefix is advertised.
Actually, that's not true on two
On 8/15/12 10:28 AM, Robert Glover wrote:
On 08/15/2012 10:16 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
Seems like BGP Play - http://bgplay.routeviews.org/ does not works anymore?
It is not accepting prefixes and gives error to check if prefix is
announced globally or not.
I sent an email to the contacts
On 8/8/12 6:52 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
It seems to me that all the markets have been doing this the wrong way.
Would it now be more fair to use some kind of signed timestamp and
process all transactions in the order that they originated?
Given an uneven distribution of sizes it's kind of hard
On 8/6/12 7:08 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:07 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
As much as I'd love for
Verizon to offer BGP directly over FIOS there are fewer than 40,000
I'm curious as to your number... where is that from?
sent to your mailbox every week
On 8/5/12 9:19 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
Would I like to have the same uptime
at my home as we have in the CO? or data center? Sure, but collectively we
aren't willing, nay, able, to pay that price.
We paid the price for
On 8/4/12 8:44 AM, Mike Jones wrote:
On 4 August 2012 04:07, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
As someone else posted, many FTTH installations are centralized as much as
possible to avoid having non-passive equipment in the plant, allowing for
the practicality of onsite generators. That's
On 7/30/12 10:57 AM, Steven Noble wrote:
The fix for this issue is trivial. Every new signup should require a sponsor or
a deposit of funds into a new member fund. Once a member has made a relevant
post regarding a NANOG related item their funds are returned.
If someone spams they forfeit the
On 7/18/12 6:24 PM, Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
So some comments on the intertubes claim that DoD ok'd use of it's
unadvertized space on private networks. Is there any official reference
that may support this statement that anyone of you have seen out there?
The arpanet prefix(10/8) was returned to
On 7/25/12 13:15 , Tina TSOU wrote:
Dear all,
If you know there is any testing or commercial IPv6 only streaming video we
can access, let me know.
Thank you.
speaking as a content provider, ipv6-only service requests are misguided.
Tina
-Original Message-
From: Arturo Servin
youtube.com has IPv6 address 2001:4860:b007::5d
Tina
On Jul 25, 2012, at 9:48 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
mailto:joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 7/25/12 21:43 , Tina TSOU wrote:
Dear Joel,
Who requests IPv6 only service?
you did... check the title of this thread.
Tina
On Jul 25, 2012
On 7/20/12 13:40 , Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Ron Broersma wrote:
On Jul 20, 2012, at 1:04 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 05:10:41 +1000, Routing Analysis Role Account said:
BGP routing table entries examined:
On 7/9/12 00:09 , Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
As per IPv6 prefixes announced by AS9583 via bgp.he.net -
http://bgp.he.net/AS9583#_prefixes6 we can see multiple /64s.
you likely won't see them in your table though.
The question is why their upstreams are accepting /64? It shouldn't be at
all
On 7/4/12 8:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST,
I doubt that either of those proposals is likely to fly. Owen
Before we had timezones your clock offset was forward or backward 4
minutes every-time you crossed a meridian.
On 7/3/12 01:54 , Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu writes:
See
http://landslidecoding.blogspot.com/2012/07/linuxs-leap-second-deadlocks.html
Maybe we should stop wrenching the poor system time back and forth. We
no longer add or subtract daylight savings
On 7/3/12 07:51 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 07:02:33 -0700, Joel jaeggli said:
Apps are buggy sounds like a really poor excuse for doing so.
When the published API has been the system clock is in UTC for some 3
decades, I hardly think it's acceptable to call apps
On 6/30/12 12:11 AM, Tyler Haske wrote:
I am not a computer science guy but been around a long time. Data centers
and clouds are like software. Once they reach a certain size, its
impossible to keep the bugs out. You can test and test your heart out and
something will slip by. You can say
On 6/17/12 10:24 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:10:59 -0400, Arturo Servin said:
Wouldn't BCP38 help?
The mail I'm replying to has as the first Received: line:
Received: from ?IPv6:2800:af:ba30:e8cf:d06f:4881:973a:c68?
On 6/17/12 13:22 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:53:52 -0700, Joel jaeggli said:
On 6/17/12 10:24 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So - who owns 2800:af:ba30:e8cf:4881:973a:c68? And how does an LEO
find that info quickly if they need to figure out who to hand
On 6/17/12 16:29 , Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 17, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 6/17/12 10:24 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:10:59 -0400, Arturo Servin said:
Wouldn't BCP38 help?
The mail I'm replying to has as the first Received: line:
Received
On 6/8/12 16:05 , Alec Muffett wrote:
Does anybody have a good URL explaining that idea? It's been
kicking around for many years. I've never seen a convincing
writeup.
I've tried to do that in another mail - it's in the realms of
philosophy more than strategy; like if you're a really
On 6/10/12 00:25 , John Souvestre wrote:
On 6/10/12, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
How good does a password/phrase have to be in order to protect
against brute-force or dictionary attacks against the password
itself? ? Entropy in language. A typical english sentence has 1.2
bits
On 6/10/12 12:23 , Stephen Sprunk wrote:
On 10-Jun-12 14:01, Robert Bonomi wrote:
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
All of the above is completely irrelevant to the merchant.
Given that the thread now spans nine conversations threads and at least
122 messages and is buried in the finer
On 6/7/12 20:53 , Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
It is like that supreme court judge who defined porn as i know it
when I see it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobellis_v._Ohio
a case which is notable in this context for having four differing
majority opinions.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 5:00 AM,
On 6/5/12 07:52 , Green, Timothy wrote:
Howdy all,
I'm a Security Manager of a large network, we are conducting a
Pentest next month and the testers are demanding a complete network
diagram of the entire network. We don't have a complete network
diagram that shows everything and everywhere
On 5/25/12 15:12 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 5/25/12 3:08 PM, Adam wrote:
You also have to implement additional filters to protect yourself from what
your client can advertise. I'm lucky enough to work for a major ISP with
pretty sophisticated filters built off the public route registry, but
On 5/25/12 07:35 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:25:35 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
The proper way to have a static IP address is not to pay mobile
operators but to run mobile IP or something like that on your
terminal.
You can run your home agent at your home or
On 5/7/12 21:17 , Jo Rhett wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 3/27/12 23:21 , Roberts, Brent wrote:
Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with
multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of
traffic. BGP
Doesn't support URPF
On 5/3/12 10:29 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Adam Atkinson gh...@mistral.co.uk
Well, just the above seems like enough that you'd think there'd be more
(justified) grumbling that thanks to a choice made many many decades ago
it's harder to distinguish young or
we use cacti weathermap plugin, though obviously realtime has a
dependency on your sample interval. I'm presuming your definition
thereof isn't instantaneous monitoring of queue depth.
On 5/1/12 10:49 , Hank Disuko wrote:
Thanks, I'll see if I can pull the correct OID and try it with the Dude
On 4/17/12 01:37 , Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I don't understand why a problem with a tunnel 'leaves a bad taste with
IPv6'. Since when a badly configured DNS zone left people with a 'bad
taste for DNS', or a badly configured switch left people with 'a bad
taste for spanning tree' or 'a
Depends on the duration and goals of your capture...
1TB is 2.276 hours at 1Gb/s
If you need to capture it all and store it forever well sorry. If you
just need the flows and not the packets sampled netflow can reduce
youre requirements by many orders of magnitude, ultimately it really
depends
On 3/29/12 21:53 , Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Oliver Garraux oli...@g.garraux.net wrote:
I was at Ubiquiti's conference. I don't disagree with what you're
saying. Ubiquiti's take on it seemed to be that 24 Ghz would likely
never be used to the extent that 2.4 /
On 3/27/12 23:21 , Roberts, Brent wrote:
Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with multiple
Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of traffic. BGP session
count would be between 2 and 4 Peers.
6k internal Prefix count as it stands right now. Alternative
On 3/24/12 01:32 , George Bonser wrote:
If they could armor the cable sufficiently perhaps they could drill the
straigh line path through the Earth's crust (mantle and outer core) and
do London-Tokyo in less than 10,000km.
Current record depth of a borehole is under 12,500 meters which is a
On 3/23/12 14:47 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 12:53:45 +0100, Eugen Leitl said:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122989-1-5-billion-the-cost-of-cutting-london-toyko-latency-by-60ms
Lower latency is good...
The massive drop in latency is expected to supercharge
On 3/23/12 19:45 , Jeroen van Aart wrote:
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
The massive drop in latency is expected to supercharge algorithmic stock
market trading, where a difference of a few milliseconds can gain (or
lose)
millions of dollars.
But it should be illegal to run a stock market
On 3/12/12 08:56 , Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 12 Mar 2012, at 16:21 , Leigh Porter wrote:
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process + Need for multihoming +
Got tired of waiting = IPv6 PI
A perfect summation.
Except that it didn't happen in that order. When ARIN approved PI the
shim6
On 3/13/12 23:22 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
OriginAS:
NetName:SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
Already updated my martians acl and deployed it internally...
On 3/13/12 23:29 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 3/13/12 23:22 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
OriginAS:
NetName:SHARED-ADDRESS-SPACE-RFCTBD-IANA-RESERVED
Already updated my martians acl and deployed it internally
On 3/14/12 00:06 , Frank Habicht wrote:
Hi,
On 3/14/2012 9:42 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 3/13/12 23:29 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 3/13/12 23:22 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
NetRange: 100.64.0.0 - 100.127.255.255
CIDR: 100.64.0.0/10
OriginAS:
NetName:SHARED-ADDRESS
On 3/11/12 08:48 , Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 9 Mar 2012, at 10:02 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
The way we are headed right now, it is likely that the IPv6
address space being issued today will look like the swamp in a
few short years, and we will regret repeating this obvious
mistake.
We
On 3/10/12 08:05 , Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the
traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for
huge racks of extremely powerful servers .. and are possibly also open to
cross subsidizing the costs
On 3/10/12 14:47 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
let's say, there is 6 billion people in the world.. if they all have 1
route table entry (average ;) i see no technical limitations on anything
produced AFTER 2008 actually.
Over in ipv4 land there are ~40k entities that appear in the dfz
On 3/9/12 20:42 , Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 9, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Hi,
Sander wrote:
Splitting the allocation can be done for many reasons. There are
known cases where one LIR operates multiple separate networks,
each with a separate routing policy. They cannot get
On 3/9/12 22:02 , George Bonser wrote:
An ISP that has been given a /32 or larger allocation from PA space
and might have 10,000 customers each assigned their own /48 could
instantly more than double the size of the IPv6 routing table if they
disaggregated that /32.
The problem here is
On 2/20/12 08:54 , Matthew Petach wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
Speaking of that sort of thing, I'd really LOVE if there were a device about
the size of a netbook that could be hooked up to otherwise headless machines
in colos that would give you
On 2/20/12 09:55 , Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 09:51:59AM -0800, Joel jaeggli
wrote:
Things with legacy ports on them are on the way out. given an ipmi
manager that doesn't suck there should be no reason to connect to the
machine at all, to console
On 2/20/12 09:57 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Tei oscar.vi...@gmail.com wrote:
I am a mere user, so I all this stuff sounds to me like giberish.
The right solution is to capture the request to these DNS servers, and
send to a custom server with a static
On 2/17/12 06:18 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
actually most west european countries have laws against having your
employees lift up stuff heavier than 20 kilos :P
you generally don't have insurance on your network-dude to handle such
things *grin* if it drops on his foot, you're screwed. (or
On 2/17/12 11:47 , Kiriki Delany wrote:
Why not just simultaneously settle all trades at the same time? Once every
minute, or every 5 minutes, or per day?
There are many solutions to the problem. I'm sure those that can take
advantage of the latency don't want the solution.
Ask yourself
On 2/16/12 05:03 , Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Nanosecond Trading Could Make Markets Go Haywire
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/high-speed-trading/
Below the 950-millisecond level, where computerized trading occurs so
quickly that human traders can't even react, no fewer than 18,520
On 2/15/12 20:14 , Mario Eirea wrote:
This is my guess too, i guess there is some bleed over from their antenna
arrays.
Even the most directional sector antenna in the world has a back lobe...
and there there's the clients...
there's no magic bullet you simply can't do it all in one ap with
On 2/15/12 21:04 , Kenneth M. Chipps Ph.D. wrote:
How widespread would you say the use of IS-IS is?
Even more as to which routing protocols are used, not just in ISPs, what
percent would you give to the various ones. In other words X percent of
organizations use OSPS, Y percent use EIGRP, and
On 2/11/12 19:34 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
yes, domain names that cannot be typed in with any keyboard/charset on
any computer out there, excellent idea, devide and conquerer, i wonder
who came up with that idiotic plan again, probably the ITU or one of
their infiltrants in icann.
If it's
On 2/8/12 08:59 , keith tokash wrote:
Hi,
I've done it either way, I prefer to put the v6 peers in a different
group than the v4 peers so that I can group the policies at the group
rather than neighbor level.
I'm prepping an environment for v6 and I'm wondering what, if
any, benefit there
On 2/6/12 06:48 , Glen Kent wrote:
One example that comes to my mind is that a few existing routers
cant do line rate routing for IPv6 traffic as long as the netmask is
65.
I'm sorry that's bs. It's trivial to partition a cam in order to do
/128s in a single lookup. that's actually the
On 2/5/12 17:20 , Glen Kent wrote:
Hi,
Most routers today are basically IPv4 routers, with IPv6 thrown in.
They are however designed keeping IPv4 in mind.
With IPv6 growing, if we were to design a native IPv6 router, with
IPv4 functionality thrown in, then is it possible to design a more
On 2/2/12 21:59 , Randy Bush wrote:
The suits won, and many nerds either threw in with them or revealed
their affinity for the easy life and gave up. Being principled and
turning away dirty money or exercising the fire the customer clause
tends to be disliked by corporate officers.
bottom
On 1/30/12 12:46 , Jim Gonzalez wrote:
Hi,
I am looking for a Wireless bridge or Router that will
support 600 wireless clients concurrently (mostly cell phones). I need it
for a proof of concept.
an aruba controller and 8 dual radio aps.
Thanks in advance
On 1/27/12 06:13 , Eric Tykwinski wrote:
The PS Vita still uses a proprietary memory card format, so it's not just
download only.
The best example of download only would be OnLive, which basically is a game
system that only delivers on demand games.
Onlive isn't download at all. the games
On 1/27/12 02:35 , Tei wrote:
Can internet in USA support that? Call of Duty 15 releases may 2014
and 30 million gamers start downloading a 20 GB files. Would the
internet collapse like a house of cards?.
Given the way the these things are staged, the pre-order/pre-load model
works pretty
On 1/27/12 12:35 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Christopher Morrow wrote:
lots of folks still use it yes. is it helpful? maybe? maybe not? is
this peering over a shared media (like a 10base-T hub).
You
301 - 400 of 925 matches
Mail list logo
