As for LinkedIN, I have nothing against, it, but I don't use it. I don't
have an account on it
and not sure I ever want to. I'm already slightly on facebook, and very
active on twitter,
so nothing against linkedin, but there's just too many social media websites
to keep track of
There
On 11 feb 2011, at 17:51, William Herrin wrote:
We can't backport ULA into IPv4 private
addressing; there aren't enough addresses for the math to work. So we
either make such folks jump through all kinds of hoops to get their
networks to function, or we assign addresses that could otherwise
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a few
more months, but:
Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses, of which
about half are not publically routed? Non-publically routed
On 02/17/2011 01:02 AM, George Bonser wrote:
From: Mikeal Clark
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Jim Gettys
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ATT MPLS / BIB Routers
I'm building up to 3000-4000ms latency with these BIB routers. We
never had
this issue on the old point to points
In message 54cc2b0d-eae0-4b79-af19-20bbd233a...@istaff.org, John Curran
writes:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give =
us a few more months, but:
=20
Does the US government really need more than 150
What type of hardware are they using for this BIB router?
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Mikeal Clark [mailto:mikeal.cl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 6:16 PM
To: Jim Gettys
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: ATT MPLS / BIB Routers
I'm building up to 3000-4000ms
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 11 feb 2011, at 17:51, William Herrin wrote:
We can't backport ULA into IPv4 private
addressing; there aren't enough addresses for the math to work. So we
either make such folks jump through all kinds of hoops to get their
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
made usable
In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to Windows 8
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:32 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 08:08:50 EST, John Curran said:
Rather than saying 240/4 is unusable for another three years, perhaps the
service provider community could make plain that this space needs to be
made usable
In other words,
- Original Message -
From: Michael Dillon wavetos...@googlemail.com
There are no perfect solutions. It seems to me that Twitter is not
conducive to technical QA and given the choice between Facebook and
LinkedIn, it seems that the professional social network is more likely
to gain
The routers are Edgemarc. P/N EM-4608T4
http://www.edgewaternetworks.com/edgemarc_overview_page.htm
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Ryan Finnesey
ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com wrote:
What type of hardware are they using for this BIB router?
Cheers
Ryan
-Original
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Relevant to another post today, I've noticed that neither the
*.ip6-servers.arpa
nor the *.in-addr-servers.arpa allow axfr. Which leads to the following
questions:
1. Was that a conscious decision, and if so why?
Speaking for the
Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
look at the design of a DS1 and have them if possible design the ISDN
BRI lineon a devurse path or at lest different equipment within the
CO?
- Original Message -
From: Santino Codispoti santino.codisp...@gmail.com
Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
look at the design of a DS1 and have them if possible design the ISDN
BRI line on a diverse path or at lest different equipment within the
CO?
Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
look at the design of a DS1 and have them if possible design the ISDN
BRI lineon a devurse path or at lest different equipment within the
CO?
Effectively: No. You might find a salescritter willing to *sell* you
such a thing,
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011, Santino Codispoti wrote:
Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
look at the design of a DS1 and have them if possible design the ISDN
BRI lineon a devurse path or at lest different equipment within the
CO?
I suspect that, particularly for
What you can do is (if you are important enough) apply for TSP (tsp.ncs.gov) in
conjunction with provisioning of a circuit to actually have this type of
engineering happen and persist, including emergency restoration. If your local
carrier doesn't offer the redundancy you want, your only other
Unfortunate but very true seen that many of times where a special
engineering fee has been charged specifically to carry a circuit in a diverse
manner (or even reasonably diverse). Then it breaks and the excuses start as
to why it was never done as promised - then a couple of years later
These coronal mass ejections will slam into the Earth's magnetic shield.
The biggest flares can disrupt technology, including power grids,
communications systems and satellites.
Our current view is that the effect of the solar flare is likely to
reach Earth later today (Thursday GMT), possibly
On 2011-02-16, at 21:15, David Conrad wrote:
Congrats to all on getting this done! It's been a long time in coming. Good
to see it finally finished.
You're very welcome :-) however, the work is not quiet yet done. Next steps are:
week of 2011-02-21: IN-ADDR.ARPA zone dropped from B, C,
This may be a great options because the network will be going into air ports.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
What you can do is (if you are important enough) apply for TSP (tsp.ncs.gov)
in conjunction with provisioning of a circuit to actually have
On 2/17/2011 2:30 AM, Michael Dillon wrote:
Never heard of Quora and that seems to be tied to Facebook, so not
ideal.
Did you just dis Facebook while plugging linked-in?
Jack (continuing to ask stupid and redundant questions on NANOG)
On 2/17/2011 9:56 AM, andrew.wallace wrote:
These coronal mass ejections will slam into the Earth's magnetic shield.
The biggest flares can disrupt technology, including power grids,
communications systems and satellites.
Our current view is that the effect of the solar flare is likely to
On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel endpoints.
For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.
I think several people's point is that it may be useful for the CGN/LSN
numbering and other
Huh, interesting how the media didn't panic.
Leon Kaiser - Head of GNAA Public Relations -
litera...@gnaa.eu || litera...@goatse.fr
http://gnaa.eu || http://security.goatse.fr
7BEECD8D FCBED526 F7960173 459111CE
On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:56:19 PST, andrew.wallace said:
The biggest flares can disrupt technology, including power grids,
communications systems and satellites.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12493980
Better references: http://www.spaceweather.com/
and
In other words, you're going to tell Granny she needs to upgrade to
Windows 8 and/or replace her CPE because you couldn't get your act
together and deploy
IPv6 - even though her friends at the bridge club who are customers of
your clued competitor didn't have to do a thing.
Or tell her to
On Feb 17, 2011, at 8:03 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
At the end of this process every subdomain of ARPA will be fully
DNSSEC-signed.
Cool.
Query rates on the new servers (those operated by the RIRs and ICANN) are
currently low, but are expected to increase as the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone is
dropped
On Feb 17, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/17/2011 10:24 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
It might be worth doing for ISP backbones, and for things like tunnel
endpoints.
For anything else, it's not worth the effort -- and I suspect never was.
I think several people's point is that it
Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be moderate
with
a chance for an isolated major flare for the next three days (17-19
February).
Region 1158 is expected to produce more M-class flares and still has
the potential for producing an M5 or greater x-ray event. There is a
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only give us a
few more months, but:
Does the US government really need more than 150 million addresses,
Hi,
It'll be interesting to see what the corresponding drop in traffic in the
root servers will be...
We expect it to be around 2000qps (or ~8% of the total traffic) for
k.root-servers.net. PTR query rates are very steady and do not follow the
general diurnal cycle.
Regards,
Wolfgang
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org writes:
It's not usable as general purpose unicast. Both those drafts
attempt to do that.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-00 does not.
Recommend you re-read.
It would be possible to use it as restricted purpose unicast, i.e.
to connect from a
If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
you might make some progress.
As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
private network numbering that i really earnestly took on IPv6-only as
a strategy. Seeing 240/4 actually work would be
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
The DoD does not seem particularly anxious to announce or explain
their usage of those blocks to the rest of the community.
They have much larger quantities of significantly more sophisticated
armaments than ARIN.
I agree it would be nice if they would
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:46 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
If you want to go on a wild goose chase, start chasing down 240/4 and
you might make some progress.
As i have mentioned before, it was only after i gave up on 240/4 for
private network numbering that i really earnestly
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
packet like this.
So, it won't work for you.
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
packet like this.
Cameron
Considering how small of a change it is, simply removing that
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:51 AM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
...
I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
is appropriate to the community, but,
You mean like they already did with 49/8, 50/8 (both formerly Joint
Technical Command),
I am 100% pro making Class E defined as private unicast space.
My only point is that people need to be realistic about the near term
benefit. Yes, some linux may work. But, Microsoft and Cisco don't
work today. Let's move it to not-reserved, but don't bet the farm on
240/4 solving
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great. Let me know when a Cisco 7600 will route a
packet like this.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's
I asked 2 years ago, and i was told it was not feasible. I escalated,
still no-go, it was a deep problem. And they pointed to the IETF
saying no on the above drafts as reason to not dig into the microcode
or whatever to fix it.
Ok, so that implies that it is burned into hardware and as it
On 2/17/2011 1:31 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
As in, large, dedicated, and nigh unstoppable, but fraught with peril
and with a lot of mess and destruction to get through before it is
done, or as in mainly opposed by aging crazy Nazis
On Feb 17, 2011, at 9:57 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Owen DeLong o...@delong.com writes:
...
I agree it would be nice if they would voluntarily return whatever
is appropriate to the community, but,
You mean like they already did with
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
Yes, and also with mass fear and confusion at the beginning.
--
Jeffrey
On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without heavy losses in the process?
Owen
Yes, and also with mass fear and
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
On 2/17/2011 1:25 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Owen DeLongo...@delong.com wrote:
IPv6's momentum is a lot like a beach landing at Normandy.
??
Inevitably going to succeed, but, not without
In message AANLkTi=uzeqb2dykxhvrxakfasphgfdmxjp1p-gj0...@mail.gmail.com, Came
ron Byrne writes:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:08 AM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:39 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Not that it matters because it's too late now and it would only
In message 32ecc9cd-d927-4407-914c-751316c59...@istaff.org, John Curran write
s:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:48 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
240/4 has been enabled in Linux since 2.6.25 (applied on January 21,
2008 by David Miller) so that's like three years already.
Yep, and that's great.
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it? In many cases
it is a minimal change. I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
They are in the business of selling new gear, not enabling features on EOL
equipment :)
-Steve
You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
box to enable (default) / disable setting it.
Reflashing most CPE amounts to forklifting.
On Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:30:12 am Jay Ashworth wrote:
Off hand, I wouldn't expect a carrier to do any special engineering on
a BRI -- can you even *order* a BRI these days? :-)
Seems to still be in NECA Tariff5, at least the last copy I looked at. So the
rurals still are tariffed
Dear nanog@nanog.org subscriber:
This message is to let you know about an upcoming change in the
ownership of this mailing list.
As you may know, the ownership and management of NANOG has been been
transferred from Merit Network to NewNOG, Inc., a non-profit led by
members of the NANOG
Dear nanog-annou...@nanog.org subscriber:
This message is to let you know about an upcoming change in the
ownership of this mailing list.
As you may know, the ownership and management of NANOG has been been
transferred from Merit Network to NewNOG, Inc., a non-profit led by
members of the NANOG
I was asked today what the difference between SFP and SFP+ is. I did really
know, so I looked it up and it seems that the SFP spec provides capabilities
for data rates up to 4.25Gb/s, whereas SFP+ supports up to 10Gb/s. Naturally,
this made me wonder whether or not an optic that supported
I'm curious also. Could you use a SFP in a ten gig port if you only need 4gb of
throughput?
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:25 PM, Sam Chesluk s...@networkhardware.com wrote:
Jason - there are no SFP-10G parts based off of the original SFP; they
all are based on the SFP+ standard,
Depends on the switch. Some, like the 2960S and 4948E, have 1G/10G
ports. They will, however, not operate at 4Gbps (that particular speed
was chosen to allow the core components to work for gigabit Ethernet,
OC48, 2G FC, and 4G FC).
Sam Chesluk
Network Hardware Resale
-Original
On 02/17/2011 07:11, Wolfgang Nagele wrote:
Hi,
Relevant to another post today, I've noticed that neither the *.ip6-servers.arpa
nor the *.in-addr-servers.arpa allow axfr. Which leads to the following
questions:
1. Was that a conscious decision, and if so why?
Speaking for the operator of
In message 5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
some progress has been made... but choose your scope wisely and pick
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 03:41:28PM -0800, Sam Chesluk wrote:
Depends on the switch. Some, like the 2960S and 4948E, have 1G/10G
ports. They will, however, not operate at 4Gbps (that particular speed
was chosen to allow the core components to work for gigabit Ethernet,
OC48, 2G FC, and 4G
In message 20110217203922.gb3...@mara.org, Steve Meuse writes:
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
Or to ask CISCO to fix the box so it can route it? In many cases
it is a minimal change. I don't know whether it is in Cisco 7600
They are in the business of selling new gear, not
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 20110217203639.ga3...@mara.org, Steve Meuse writes:
George Bonser expunged (gbon...@seven.com):
Considering the amount of linux-based CPE and other network hardware out
there (including some Cisco gear), the extent to which it
In message 1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
code. This should be minimal. A extra PPP/DHCP option and a check
box to
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't reflash
to support IPv6 as there is no space in the flash for the extra
code. This should be
On Feb 17, 2011, at 4:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 5f90644c-5457-460f-9bc3-70802b13a...@delong.com, Owen DeLong
write
s:
Cisco is just one example. The fact is it will likely not work in
cell phones, home gateways, windows PCs, Mac's, I understand
some progress has
But way way way more time to deploy the patched kernel than to
forklift
the
devices with IPv6 capable ones which don't require patching the
kernel,
either.
The kernel patch is, at best, an expensive stop gap. At worst, it is a
counter
productive waste of time. At best it's slightly
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 14:17, Benson Schliesser bens...@queuefull.net wrote:
If you have more experience (not including rumors) that suggests otherwise,
I'd very much like to hear about it. I'm open to the possibility that NAT444
breaks stuff - that feels right in my gut - but I haven't
In message c02476ce-0544-430e-bb70-b752406ad...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
On Feb 17, 2011, at 5:18 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message 1dbdca5f-16ec-428d-bc46-3bd59a6f4...@delong.com, Owen =
DeLong write
s:
=20
You can reflash CPE devices to support this that you can't
It has been a privilege for Merit to serve the NANOG community since
the formation of the group in 1994.
the merit folk have done a great job since nanog happened out of techs.
you held the community together and helped move the internet forward.
deep thanks. and you're still family.
randy
I'm doing some research on multiple origin AS problems of IXPs. As I know,
generally there are two types of IXPs
type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3
type 2: use switches and Ethernet topology, which works in layer 2.
So I have a couple of qustions:
1. For type 1, the exchange
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Just
lo
ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your only
o
ption.
And the work to patch that kernel is minimal if it doesn't already
support it.
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
Remember a lot of this problem is the direct result of vendors not
acting soon enough and that includes CISCO. Asking those vendors
to do a bit of work to fixup the results of their bad decisions is
not unreasonable. They can't fix hardware limitations
-Original Message-
From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:03 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
I'm doing some research on multiple origin AS problems of IXPs. As I know,
generally there are two
In message 20110218020622.ga10...@mara.org, Steve Meuse writes:
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
An how many of those embedded linux devices are running a 2.4 kernel? Jus
t lo
ok at xx-wrt as an example. If you have a certain chipset, 2.4 is your on
ly o
ption.
And the
Mark Andrews expunged (ma...@isc.org):
I think grandma is quite capable of doing it. She just needs to
be informed that it needs to be done.
On my planet (Earth), this isn't likely ever happen.
-Steve
In a message written on Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 02:17:48AM +, Michael K. Smith
- Adhost wrote:
On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned addresses that
we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above). Hopefully the addresses
aren't being announced at all, although we
On the Seattle Internet Exchange (SIX) we have ARIN-assigned
addresses that we use on the Layer 2 fabric (your type 2 above).
Hopefully the addresses aren't being announced at all, although we
sometimes have to chase down people that announce it.
I've had to deal with exchanges like this in
We pick up v6 from HE currently (like the rest of the world). L3 offered us
dual stack also, but they wanted money to set it up plus MRC. None of our
Bits That Matter (tm) go over v6 anyhow. (I guess the right phrase would be
revenue producing bits).
-Jack Carrozzo
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 9:51
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
mksm...@adhost.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Yaoqing(Joey) Liu [mailto:joey.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 6:03 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Internet Exchange Point(IXP) questions
I'm
Are there are any optics that plug into 10G ports but have a copper or
optical 1G interface? There's some equipment that I'm specing where it is
$10K for a multi-port 1G card, even while I really may only *occasionally*
need a single 1G port and there's a free 10G port for me to use.
Frank
ATT has told us that they will have IPv6 on their MIS circuits Q2 2011.
Deltacom has told us the same.
We will be testing native IPv6 with both these carriers on GE Internet
circuits sometime around Q3.
-Hammer-
I was a normal American nerd.
-Jack Herer
-Original Message-
You're invited to work my helpdesk for a week. I'd even pay you.
It's not just flashing, it's reconfiguring every wireless device in the home
(printer, Wii, Kindle, laptop (that's not home right, will be when Sally
visits for the weekend), etc).
If you can come up with an online tool that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 17, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Yaoqing(Joey) Liu wrote:
As I know, generally there are two types of IXPs
This is incorrect.
type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3
This is not an IXP. This is a router. That router would be owned by
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 09:04:29PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
Are there are any optics that plug into 10G ports but have a copper or
optical 1G interface? There's some equipment that I'm specing where
it is $10K for a multi-port 1G card, even while I really may only
*occasionally* need a
type 1: use exchange routers, which works in layer 3
This is not an IXP. This is a router. That router would be owned by
someone, who would have some sort of policy in the router, which would
make it an Internet service provider, not an Internet exchange point.
this from the guy who pushed
In message 00bc01cbcf19$8b3f13d0$a1bd3b70$@iname.com, Frank Bulk writes:
You're invited to work my helpdesk for a week. I'd even pay you.
It's not just flashing, it's reconfiguring every wireless device in the home
(printer, Wii, Kindle, laptop (that's not home right, will be when Sally
i am getting nanog list mail repeats from last may
randy
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
i am getting nanog list mail repeats from last may
I'm down with Shirley Bassey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE_1tCasi_Q
randy
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i am getting nanog list mail repeats from last may
ME2
-J
Yes that is my goal. I guess I will be dealing with Verizon and ATT
mostly as the LEC
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On Thursday, February 17, 2011 10:21:18 am Santino Codispoti wrote:
Is it possible to order a ISDN BRI line from the LEC and have them
look
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
this from the guy who pushed layer three exchange points for years?
rofl!
I was one of the people who built one in 1994, and used it quite happily for a
few years, until it had outlasted its need.
Most sincere thanks to Merit for their long time support to the
network community,
Cheers
Jorge
You can plug SFP module (copper or fiber) into any SFP+ port.
So, on 10G port you can run either 1GE or 10GE.
Peter Nowak
_
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
To: 'Richard A Steenbergen' [mailto:r...@e-gerbil.net]
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 22:04:29 -0500
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 12:55:45AM -0500, Peter Nowak wrote:
You can plug SFP module (copper or fiber) into any SFP+ port.
So, on 10G port you can run either 1GE or 10GE.
Not true. Some devices support this, since SFP and SFP+ are physically
and electrically compatible, but not all. The
Dear nanog-futures@nanog.org subscriber:
This message is to let you know about an upcoming change in the
ownership of this mailing list.
As you may know, the ownership and management of NANOG has been been
transferred from Merit Network to NewNOG, Inc., a non-profit led by
members of the NANOG
98 matches
Mail list logo
