On 26/04/14 16:02, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Apr 2014, Julien Goodwin wrote:
>
>> But you'd never send it all the waves anyway, that's far too much loss
>> across the band.
>
> Please elaborate.
At 3dB loss per split you'd very quickly need additional amplification,
at which point t
On Sat, 26 Apr 2014, Julien Goodwin wrote:
But you'd never send it all the waves anyway, that's far too much loss
across the band.
Please elaborate.
ROADMs already solve this problem, and are available at the module level
(how practically available and usable I've no idea, never needed to tr
On 26/04/14 14:00, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Phil Bedard wrote:
>
>> What are you trying to do? Why do you need the receive side to be tuned
>> to a specific narrowband wavelength?
>
> Because he doesn't want to use filters. A coherent receiver s like a FM
> radio, you can
As a reminder, this work will begin in approximately 6 hours.
-e
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
>
> Greetings,
> The NANOG Mail server will be transitioning to a
> new system next Saturday, April 26th. The maintenance
> window for this transition will be from
> 10:0
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Phil Bedard wrote:
What are you trying to do? Why do you need the receive side to be tuned
to a specific narrowband wavelength?
Because he doesn't want to use filters. A coherent receiver s like a FM
radio, you can tune what it listens so. So if you send it all waves the
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like "patent
enforcement" == "government protected monopoly", we are at an impasse.
Well, leaving aside what one thinks of patents and copyrights - a
"government protected monopoly" is EXACTLY what a pa
>25-04-14500177 282878
Half a million prefixes. 'Wow .. just wow.' There was a time when even I would
have laughed at the thought of 500K.
Just a "round number", but a milestone nonetheless.
I checked, back in 2004, a little under 10 years ago, I posted this to NANOG:
I'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. If you think things like "patent
enforcement" == "government protected monopoly", we are at an impasse.
I guess having the police keep people from breaking into their offices and
stealing their computers is another form of government medaling we woul
> Net neutrality is an intervention of the government to protect the
> monopoly tactics on the part of major players.
I'm confused. Can you elaborate on how net neutrality would protect major
players? Do you mean major content providers? Major broadband providers?
--
Hugo
> On Apr 25, 2014, a
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>> Just a heads up to interested parties... Google seems to now be
>> bouncing where From: is another gmail account. But it seems to be
>> inconsistent. If you are reading this on a g
On 4/25/2014 9:13 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
DeBeers Diamond cartel, which operated internationally and held an
effective monopoly on the diamond market for *decades* was apparently
beyond the reach of regulation to either assist or hinder them, and has
only recently faded somewhat in the face of
On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon
wrote:
I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG
does not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to
NAN
I'm trying to build "colorless" "directionless" with passive power
couplers/splitters plus EDFA. DTAG are doing it with 100G. I think it's
doable with 10G. Will see. Interesting experiment either way, right?
(I'm betting DTAG would use integrated pluggables if they could. They don't
appear to be f
Hello everyone,
As a Washington State resident, I look forward to seeing all of you in
beautiful Bellevue, WA for NANOG 61.
I am trying to organize the DNS Track and as usual we would like to
make this very attractive. If you are interested in presenting in DNS
Track please contact me directly (
What are you trying to do? Why do you need the receive side to be tuned
to a specific narrowband wavelength? Coherent doesn't really make sense
in 10G becaue 10G long-haul is still on/off keyed and doesn't care about
phase. Coherent detectors are needed where phase of the signal is
important like
BGP Update Report
Interval: 17-Apr-14 -to- 24-Apr-14 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS7029 155458 6.5% 953.7 -- WINDSTREAM - Windstream
Communications Inc,US
2 - AS9829
This report has been generated at Fri Apr 25 21:13:54 2014 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/2.0 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
> Anyone know if pluggable coherent DWDM 10Gig optics exist? (I'm finding no
> such thing.)
>
> How about narrow-band/filtered receive 10Gig optics? (Inline FBG filter
> receive side might be doable?)
>
> --
> Tim:>
>
> p.s. Before you ask, DTAG
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 01:35:53PM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> >Once upon a time, Steven Saner said:
> >>We run several mailing lists for customers. We frequently get feedback
> >>reports from AOL saying that the AOL user has flagged the message as
> >>spam. So, we remove s
Allen McKinley Kitchen (gmail) wrote:
...
I don't know what got me to thinking about it earlier today but I recalled when
I started at the telephone company in Los Angeles there was a pitch made early
on that in earlier days a business in Los Angeles had to have several
telephones on desks to
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Steven Saner said:
We run several mailing lists for customers. We frequently get feedback
reports from AOL saying that the AOL user has flagged the message as
spam. So, we remove said user from the list. They then complain that
they have been removed and swe
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Steven Saner wrote:
> We run several mailing lists for customers. We frequently get feedback
> reports from AOL saying that the AOL user has flagged the message as
> spam. So, we remove said user from the list. They then complain that
> they have been removed and
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
> Just a heads up to interested parties... Google seems to now be
> bouncing where From: is another gmail account. But it seems to be
> inconsistent. If you are reading this on a gmail account please let
> me know.
>
> -Jim P.
A few people
On 4/25/14, 9:04 AM, Steven Saner wrote:
> On 04/25/2014 10:59 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Shrdlu wrote:
>>> On 4/25/2014 8:00 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder
wrote:
> Thought i would throw this out t
Once upon a time, Steven Saner said:
> We run several mailing lists for customers. We frequently get feedback
> reports from AOL saying that the AOL user has flagged the message as
> spam. So, we remove said user from the list. They then complain that
> they have been removed and swear that they d
I beg your indulgence..
On Apr 25, 2014, at 0:29, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> ...On 4/24/2014 11:01 PM, Everton Marques wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 24, 2014, at 23:38 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
Regulating monopolies protects monopo
On 04/25/2014 10:59 AM, Royce Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Shrdlu wrote:
>> On 4/25/2014 8:00 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder
>>> wrote:
>>>
Thought i would throw this out there.
>>
>>> Curious I unleashed grep on a couple o
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Shrdlu wrote:
> On 4/25/2014 8:00 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thought i would throw this out there.
>
>> Curious I unleashed grep on a couple of mailing lists I operate.
>
>> I turned up one AOL addre
On 4/25/2014 8:00 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
On Apr 23, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder
wrote:
Thought i would throw this out there.
Curious I unleashed grep on a couple of mailing lists I operate.
I turned up one AOL address.
I'm not saying my data is representative of the Internet, but
Aol doesn't have a lot of mail users for me anymore either, but I don't have a
lot of retail users on my lists.
Jared Mauch
> On Apr 25, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 23, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder wrote:
>>
>> Thought i would throw this out there.
>> http://pos
On Apr 23, 2014, at 12:45 AM, Grant Ridder wrote:
> Thought i would throw this out there.
> http://postmaster-blog.aol.com/2014/04/22/aol-mail-updates-dmarc-policy-to-reject/
Curious I unleashed grep on a couple of mailing lists I operate.
I turned up one AOL address.
I'm not saying my data i
On 4/25/2014 8:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
gulation to protect its monopoly power.
I answered in a private message: Microsoft.
Kinda obvious if you think about it for, oh, say, 12 microseconds.
The government actually had to step in to hinder them, as I recall,
though I believe it was poin
On 04/25/2014 08:23 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed
without regulation to protect its monopoly power.
I answered in a private message: Microsoft.
Kinda obvious if you
On 2014-04-25 15:23 , Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[..]
> While it is probably true that the gov't had a hand in the fact I
> have exactly one BB provider at my home, I am not even closed to
> convinced that a purely open market would not have resulted in the
> same problem. But thanx for pointing out
On Apr 25, 2014, at 00:57 , Larry Sheldon wrote:
> I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize.
>
>> Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does
>> not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG
>> doesn't prove I'm right either. Wors
36 matches
Mail list logo
