On (2010-07-19 23:45 -0500), Brad Fleming wrote:
Hey,
: for local rtbh
: for local + remote rtbh
I didn't have much reason for selecting other than it was easy
to identify visually. And obviously, I have safe-guards to not leak
those communities into other networks.
On (2010-07-24 03:50 -0400), valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
Firewall != NAT. The former is still needed in IPv6, the latter is not. And
I
suspect that most Joe Sixpacks think of that little box they bought as a
Maybe you are talking strictly in context of residential DSL, in which case
I
On (2010-07-24 02:13 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
This is non-technical problem, enterprises of non-trivial size can't
typically even tell without months of research all the devices and software
where they've written down the IP addresses.
Sounds like they haven't written them down very
On (2010-07-25 17:32 +1000), Karl Auer wrote:
The risk of a ULA prefix conflict is for *all practical purposes* zero.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1-((2^40)!)%2F((2^40)^100+((2^40)-100)!)+
It wouldn't puke nice graph with 'n', it did try, but never finished.
So if there are
On (2010-07-25 10:28 -0400), valdis.kletni...@vt.edu and Mark Smith wrote
similarly:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1-((2^40)!)%2F((2^40)^100+((2^40)-100)!)+
So if there are million assigned ULA's there is 36.5% chance of collision,
if
formula is right.
Bzzt! Wrong,
On (2010-08-28 09:22 +0100), Thomas Mangin wrote:
i suspect that these folk will test better next time. i sure hope so.
Not sure the researcher can afford to buy a ios xr and may not have access to
one !
Indeed.
Also testing is hard, especially so, when you essentially need to reinvent
On (2010-08-28 18:20 +0900), Randy Bush wrote:
a bgp regression suite would not have caught this as it was not a
repeat. but it sure would be useful to implementors.
Naturally 'proving' that non-trivial software works is practically
impossible. But stating what non-existing test-suite would
On (2010-08-28 13:23 +0200), Thomas Mangin wrote:
Those tools are not suitable for regression testing ( I know I wrote exabgp )
not saying they could not be adapted though.
Fizzing may return crashes or issues with the daemon but it is unlikely. You
need predictable input for regression
On (2010-09-14 14:27 +0200), Elmar K. Bins wrote:
I as a networking droid have not much quarrel with that, but I am interested
in how or whether at all others handle this.
About year ago I spent half and hour hacking together base36 and rfc2289
stateless DNS for IPv6. I'm not making any
On (2010-11-17 14:40 +0100), Fredy Kuenzler wrote:
We asked some customers what gear they are running, and here is a
short compilation - all these systems were affected by the BGP
flaps:
- Cisco 2821 - c2800nm-advipservicesk9-mz.124-20.T4
- Cisco 2821 -
On (2010-11-25 21:14 -0800), George Bonser wrote:
Hey George,
9000 MTU internally. We don't deploy any servers anymore with MTU 1500.
MTU 1500 is just plain stupid with any network 100mb ethernet.
I'm big proponent of high MTU, to facilitate user MTU of 1500 while adding
say GRE or IPSEC
On (2010-11-26 12:39 -0500), valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
That's only half the calculation. The *other* half is if you have gear that
has a packets-per-second issue - if you go to 9000 MTU, you can move 6 times
as
much data in the same packets-per-second. Anybody who's ever had to
trim a
On (2012-11-09 01:22 +0200), Kasper Adel wrote:
We've been hearing about ISSU for so many years and i didnt hear that any
vendor was able to achieve it yet.
What is the technical reason behind that?
I'd say generally code quality in routers is really really bad, I'm not
sure why this is.
I
On (2012-11-09 08:02 -0500), Pete Lumbis wrote:
I can't speak for JunOS, but none of the new IOS operating systems
are run to completion. This includes IOS-XE, XR and NX-OS.
Really? I thought IOS XE is Linux control-plane on top of where you have
monolithic IOSd process?
I had chat with
On (2012-11-09 13:33 -0500), Pete Lumbis wrote:
I apologize, I realized I forgot a critical word in my reply.
The new Cisco OSes are /NOT/ run to completion.
I did not notice that :). I assumed not was there, and was arguing that I
thought IOS XE still is. I know XR and NX-OS aren't.
For
On (2012-11-09 16:58 -0500), Pete Lumbis wrote:
I do not believe that the linux scheduler is run to completion, but to
be honest I'm not 100% certain. I know a big reason for IOS-XE was to
It certainly is not, I'm not proposing it is. I'm saying it is bit of a
stretch to believe that IOSd
On (2012-11-09 20:24 -0500), Pete Lumbis wrote:
So each IOSd process 'show proc cpu' are separate threads to linux?
Yep. The show platform software... commands are used to look at things in
To be honest I'm very sceptical about this. I fully accept that IOSd is
multithreaded. But I'm having
On (2012-11-10 10:43 +0200), Saku Ytti wrote:
So each IOSd process 'show proc cpu' are separate threads to linux?
Yep. The show platform software... commands are used to look at things in
To be honest I'm very sceptical about this. I fully accept that IOSd is
multithreaded. But I'm
On (2012-11-11 00:14 +0900), Randy Bush wrote:
as to whether ios/xe is rtc, you may want to see my preso at the last
nanog.
NANOG56? I only found RPKI Propagation by you. Direct URL would be
appreciated.
But I really have 0 doubt that IOSd is run-to-completion, exactly like RPD
is. But IOSd
On (2012-11-11 08:50 +0900), Randy Bush wrote:
linux has become a fad in the vendor community. it seems to lend
legitimacy to their products in some way, witness this discussion.
but linux has the gpl poison. so, any code that they wish to keep
proprietary is in userland.
I've sometimes
On (2012-11-18 23:47 +0100), Daniel Suchy wrote:
Is anyone else seeing similar problems with Google/Youtube?
My advice is, host the content locally.
Certain Finnish domestic SPs had issues with youtube during peak hours for
years, when content came via Stockholm, if content came from mainland
On (2012-11-19 08:27 -0500), Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Second, I see no reason why that requires anything close - not even within a
couple orders of magnitude - of 10% of the Internet's revenue to be
profitable. Why would you assume such a thing?
Agreed, 10% of Internet's revenue would be
On (2012-11-19 06:30 -0800), Leo Bicknell wrote:
Consider a different model. Google checks out your gmail account, and
discovers you really like Red Bull and from your YouTube profile knows
you watch a lot of Ke$ha videos. It also discovers there are a lot more
Sure. I have no doubt the
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.
--
++ytti
... until the bad frame reached the first store-and-forward switch (or most
any router) which would log the FCS error, correct?
Log and drop yes. cut-through would log it also, but it would be too late
to drop it.
--
++ytti
On (2012-12-20 03:24 +), Blake Pfankuch wrote:
I actually was doing research on this today as well. Anyone have any
experience with the solutions that implement VLAN management as well like
Gestioip?
I'm not remotely interested in externally developed software for this
problem. But
On (2012-12-20 10:30 +0100), Thilo Bangert wrote:
I'm not remotely interested in externally developed software for this
problem.
what do you mean. i'd be fine with an opensource project providing this.
If exactly what I want exist, of course I'd love to have it. But evaluating
options,
On (2012-12-20 11:02 +0100), Phil Regnauld wrote:
I have same opinion for NMS also. Everything I see offered is terrible and
do not even solve easy-to-solve problems correctly.
Right, that's what's great about Open Source :D
The comment fully applies to system like HP OV or NNM or
On (2013-01-09 15:37 +0100), Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
equipment already have an mgmt ethernet port, but usually this can't
do everything, meaning today one has to have OOB ethernet *and*
OOB serial which just brings more pain than before.
The key difference is, that those are not OOB at all,
On (2013-01-09 11:18 -0500), William Herrin wrote:
(a) This is a P2 not a P1. Asking the OOB to be critically dependent
on an external network element is dubious to begin with but even if
desired it's usable without.
Agreed that P2 suffices. Usage scenario is installing fresh router. You
On (2013-01-09 09:12 -0800), Leo Bicknell wrote:
So while I agree with the list of features in large part, I'm not sure I
agree with the concept of having some sort of ethernet interface that
allows all of this out of band. I think it will add cost, complexity,
and a lot of new failure
On (2013-01-09 10:18 -0800), Leo Bicknell wrote:
I also still think there's a lot of potential here to take gigantic
steps backwards. Replacing a serial console with a Java applet in
a browser (a la most IPMI devices) would be a huge step backwards.
Today it's trival to script console
On (2013-01-09 23:17 +), Dobbins, Roland wrote:
Flow telemetry export - many of these so-called 'management' ports can't be
used to export flow, oddly enough.
That is task for on-band interfaces, which attach to your forwarding-logic.
OOB is separate component, really only relying on same
On (2013-01-09 22:05 -0500), Randy Carpenter wrote:
1. Something that is *not* network (ethernet or otherwise) (isn't that the
point of OOB?)
No. This is not what OOB means. Out-of-band means not fate-sharing your
production network. OOB networks are networks, running ethernet,
frame-relay,
I completely disagree. The ability for serial to go over POTS makes it
ridiculously cheap compared to building a reliable ethernet connection over
hundreds or thousands of miles.
This is identical to ethernet. You need external device then, dial-up
modem or CPE, no difference.
The
On (2013-01-10 10:48 +), Dobbins, Roland wrote:
No it isn't, any more than SNMP is a task for those interfaces.
Sending flowrecords to your slow ppc CPU just to allow export in non-HW
interface is silly, when HW can export it directly, without ever hitting
your control-plane.
Polling SNMP
On (2013-01-10 08:57 -0500), Jared Mauch wrote:
I am very much against USB consoles. there can be a whole plethora of issues
involved from OS-level to the device-level. When I'm on the console, things
have already gone bad. I don't need to find out if the vendor has the right
On (2013-01-10 09:35 -0500), Christopher Morrow wrote:
I don't think you can get ethernet and transport out-of-the-area in
some places at a reasonable cost, so having serial-console I think is
still a requirement.
I don't understand this point.
Where does your RS232 port go? It goes to
On (2013-01-10 09:54 -0500), Jared Mauch wrote:
I don't think you can get ethernet and transport out-of-the-area in
some places at a reasonable cost, so having serial-console I think is
still a requirement.
Some of the POTS carriers are trying to jettison their equipment before the
end
On (2013-01-10 11:41 -0500), Randy Whitney wrote:
Nothing beats POTS in a broad power outage scenario. Numerous power
outages have taken down mobile service completely while the POTS
lines stayed up as it carries its own power by design.
Is your RS232 Modem POTS powered?
If POP is
On (2013-01-10 12:08 -0500), Jared Mauch wrote:
Not sure about you, but I've used the ability for a POTS line to either ring
or give me a modem tone to determine the power status at the site.
So the modem is not PSTN powered, so if it responds, pop must be powered?
Wouldn't any old CPE on any
On (2013-01-10 11:52 -0600), Charles N Wyble wrote:
I have every device hooked to this. Pdus, routers, switches, vm, storage
servers. That allows me to get console and power cycle every device.
What more would I want? Dialup means I need to be in a place I can hook up a
modem. Not too
On (2013-01-30 21:06 -0500), David Miller wrote:
According to Juniper, the MX uses separate memory for v4 and v6.
Where do they state this? MX is ambiguous, what matters is linecard HW.
The numbers that I have seen for MX80 are:
I.e. trio. No. Trio uses flat RLDRAM, and any IPv6 route
On (2013-02-08 14:15 +), Aled Morris wrote:
Multicast
I don't see multicast working in Internet scale.
Essentially multicast means core is flow-routing. So we'd need some way to
decide who gets to send their content as multicast and who are forced to
send unicast.
It could create de-facto
On (2013-02-11 11:58 +0100), Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
The only time real-time per se matters is if you're playing the same content
on multiple screens and *synchronization* matters.
And there's the HFT where real-time really does matter :)
I think most of HFT crowd are buying into low-latency
On (2013-02-11 12:16 +), Aled Morris wrote:
I don't see why, as an ISP, I should carry multiple, identical, payload
packets for the same content. I'm more than happy to replicate them closer
to my subscribers on behalf of the content publishers. How we do this is
the question, i.e. what
On (2013-02-25 13:53 +0530), Glen Kent wrote:
I understand that this is just some bit of what we can do with SDN. The
amount of what all can be done is limitless. So, a question to all out
there - Is my understanding of what can be achieved with SDN, is correct?
Frankly I don't think there is
On (2013-03-03 12:46 -0800), Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Definitely smart to be delegating your DNS to the web-accelerator
company and a single point of failure, especially if you are not just
running a web-site, but have some other independent infrastructure,
too.
To be fair, most of us
On (2013-03-04 06:51 -0800), Leo Bicknell wrote:
From what I have heard so far there is something else they could
have done, hire higher quality people.
Your solution to mistakes seem to be not to make them. I can understand the
train of thought, but I suspect the practicality of such advice.
On (2013-03-04 13:23 -0500), Jeff Wheeler wrote:
We have lots of stupid people in our industry because so few
understand The Way Things Work.
We have tendency to view mistakes we do as unavoidable human errors and
mistakes other people do as avoidable stupidity.
We should actively plan for
On (2013-03-04 12:33 -0800), Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
to use http-acceleration services without DNS tie-ins. Last I
checked, CloudFlare didn't even let you setup just a subdomain for
their service, e.g. they do require complete DNS control from the
registrar-zone level, all the time,
On (2013-03-26 09:28 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
Let me rephrase the question… How do you find an open IPv6 recursive name
server
that isn't listed in an NS entry and hasn't been publicized someplace that
Google can
find it?
Pwn authorative server catering moderately popular domain and
On (2013-03-27 11:05 -0500), Jack Bates wrote:
I'm not arguing that the process can't be done. The problem is,
there are a number of networks that don't know it needs to be done
and why, or they don't know how to do it. There are a number of
networks that have no concept of scripting changes
On (2013-03-27 22:27 -1000), David Conrad wrote:
One of the largest DDoS attacks I've witnessed was SNMP-based, walking entire
OID sub-trees (with spoofed source addresses) across thousands of CPEs that
defaulted to allowing SNMP queries over the WAN interface. Oops. Topped out
around 70
On (2013-03-28 13:07 -0400), Jay Ashworth wrote:
The edge carrier's *upstream* is not going to know that it's reasonable
for their customer -- the end-site's carrier -- to be originating traffic
with those source addresses, and if they ingress filter based on the
prefixes they route down to
On (2013-03-28 15:47 -0400), Jay Ashworth wrote:
You can't do it at top-level nor it's not practical to hope that some
day BCP38 is done in reasonably many last-mile port.
I don't know that that's true, actually; unicast-rpf does, as I understand
it, most of the work, and is in most of
On (2013-03-28 23:45 +), Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
In fact, what makes it easier is that uRPF can be part of the template that
can be universally applied to every edge port.
There is incredible amount of L3 interfaces in the last mile, old ghetto
stuff, latest gen Cisco, which does not
On (2013-03-29 13:31 +0100), Tore Anderson wrote:
I've had some problems with my upstream providers' ingress filtering,
for example:
That sounds like uRPF, which you should not run towards your transit
customers.
I'm talking only about using ACL. And I stand-by that I've never had to fix
On (2013-03-30 11:39 -0400), Jay Ashworth wrote:
But there's no way for an upstream transit carrier to know that *at the
present
time*.
We expect our customers to mark any customers they have in their AS-SET.
And we filter BGP announcements and we ACL traffic based on that.
I know mandating
Can someone point me to IPFIX analysers that do automatic learning of
traffic patterns, raise events as suspected dos, and when operator marked
as false positive, won't trigger that pattern anymore?
This should be without configuring any explicit network ranges anywhere. So
when I do get new
On (2009-07-18 15:58 +0700), Roland Dobbins wrote:
uRPF for 7600/6500 can only be in one mode for the whole box, all
interfaces. This is a major problem in many cases.
I referred to this as 'chassis wide uRPF'. I'm not sure if that is big
issue in many networks. You run uRPF/strict to single
On (2011-09-30 01:55 -0400), Christopher Morrow wrote:
when will vendors learn that punting to the RE/RP/smarts for packets
in the fastpath is ... not just 'unwise' but wholesale stupid? :(
What to do with IP options or IPv6 hop-by-hop options? What to do with IPv6
packets which contain
On (2011-09-30 10:09 -0400), Christopher Morrow wrote:
a switch to be used that stops processing this sort of thing, in an
internet core (and honestly most enterprise core) routers, all I want
is packet-in/packet-out. there's no need for anything else, stop
trying to send line-rate packets to
On (2011-09-30 10:45 -0400), Christopher Morrow wrote:
after this long, yes... this is just dumb, there's no reason that the
default should be punt. There are cases (you've brought up a few)
where it's required today because of design limitations, there really
shouldn't be cases like this
On (2011-10-22 20:38 -0500), Jack Bates wrote:
the route. This seems strange to me. Any idea why a route would be
rejected unless multihop was enabled?
RFC4271 states:
--
- By default (if none of the above conditions apply), the BGP
speaker SHOULD use the IP address of the interface that
On (2011-11-23 09:41 -0500), Mark Radabaugh wrote:
The question is: How does a router break in this manner?It
appears to unintentionally be doing something different with traffic
based on the source address, not the destination address.I
realize this can be done intentionally - but
On (2011-11-23 11:45 -0500), Mark Radabaugh wrote:
I was told the router was reloaded to resolve a CEF issue. Not sure
what was wrong with 'clear cef linecard'.
Or just fixing the broken prefixes/adjacencies and opening CTAC case about
what was wrong with them.
On (2011-12-29 16:56 +0800), Mark Tinka wrote:
On Thursday, December 29, 2011 03:46:48 AM sth...@nethelp.no
wrote:
And there are other platforms, e.g. Juniper M/MX/T, where
there is no concept of punt a packet to software to
forwarded in hardware, or dropped. IPv6 prefixes 64
IOS
On (2012-01-11 17:45 -0500), Justin M. Streiner wrote:
If multicast is used it shouldn't take 150pbps, it should be much lower.
That could be one of the things that helps spur v6 adoption -
multicast being somewhat less of an afterthought :)
While v4 multicast works, and delivering video
On (2012-01-15 09:47 -1000), Antonio Querubin wrote:
This is misguided, IPV6 does no magic to help scale multicast to Internet
scale compared to IPV4.
Actually, IPv6 embedded RP improves scalability over IPv4 MSDP
peering and ASM.
Unfortunately that does exactly nothing to help with
On (2012-01-19 12:10 -0800), jon Heise wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with these two routers, we're looking to
buy one of them but i have little experience dealing with cisco routers
and zero experience with juniper.
It might be because of your schedule/timetable, but you are
On (2012-01-27 11:35 +0100), Tei wrote:
Theres also a rumour that these new consoles will require internet to
download games. These games can weigth 9 to 20 GB. That may be 30
million users in USA, maybe 50 worldwide.
Source to these rumours?
It seems ridiculous thought, considering you can
On (2012-01-27 17:35 +0100), bas wrote:
Chassis:
Juniper EX8200-8XS512MB/10GE
Cisco WS-X6708-10GE 32MB/10GE (or 24MB)
Cisco N7K-M132XP-12 36MB/10GE
Arista DCS-7548S-LC 48MB/10GE
Brocade BR-MLX-10Gx8-X128MB/10GE (not sure)
1GE
On (2012-01-27 22:40 +0100), bas wrote:
But do you generally agree that the market has a requirement for a
deep-buffer TOR switch?
Or am I crazy for thinking that my customers need such a solution?
No, you're not crazy. If your core is higher rate than your customer, then
you need at
On (2012-01-28 21:06 +0900), Masataka Ohta wrote:
The required amount of memory is merely 150KB.
Assuming we don't support jumbo frames and switch cannot queue sub packet
sizes (normally they can't but VXR at least has 512B cell concept, so
tx-ring is packet size agnostic, but this is just
On (2012-01-28 21:53 +0900), Masataka Ohta wrote:
1.5MB @ 100Mbps is 120ms, which is prohibitively lengthy
even as BE.
The solution is to have less number of classes.
The solution is to per class define max queue size, so user with fewer
queues configured will not use all available buffer
On (2012-01-30 11:08 -0500), Ray Soucy wrote:
What are people using for console servers these days? We've
historically used retired routers with ASYNC ports, but it's time for
an upgrade.
This is very very common thread, replaying couple times a year in various
lists, with to my cursory look
On (2012-01-31 10:01 +), Nick Hilliard wrote:
I like feature list you posted, btw. If there were any console servers out
there with these features, I would buy a bunch of them.
I think OpenGear supports all of them (according to co-worker who tested
them recently), but not 100% sure
On (2012-01-31 11:09 -0800), Owen DeLong wrote:
- IP address mappable to a console port. So that accessing device normally
is 'ssh router' and via OOB 'ssh router.oob' no need to train people
How about normal is 'ssh device' and OOB is 'console device'?
Home-baked systems are certainly
On (2012-02-01 09:07 -0800), Owen DeLong wrote:
I would hardly call conserver software a home-baked solution unless you'd
also call anything based on OSS a home-baked solution.
Home-baked, i.e. it's not product you can get shipped and it'll work out of
the box and you have organization
On (2012-03-06 09:24 +), Leigh Porter wrote:
Has anybody had any experience of Huawei Mobile/Metro edge routers? I'm
looking for something that will handle various MPLS services (Layer 2/3),
QinQ with about 10x1Gb Ethernet interfaces (no need for 10G).
How are they compared to
On (2012-03-06 11:05 +0100), Bjørn Mork wrote:
do without docs. On paper they look fine, CLI is worse than IOS, but
honestly if CLI is critical to you, you're probably doing something wrong
anyhow (meaning, systems should be touching routers, not people)
Hmm, we have systems using CLI
On (2012-03-07 07:07 +), Leigh Porter wrote:
What's the nicest way of allowing the ops servers all talk to each VPN
instance? At the moment I just us pretty normal L3VPN techniques so that
every VPN sees routes tagged with the ops VPN target community and so that
the ops VPN sees all
On (2012-03-07 09:46 -), Tim Franklin wrote:
This does occasionally brighten up my day with gems like rip no work and
reset-recycle-bin, so it's not all bad :)
I liked how ssh is secure-telnet, took bit head scratching to enable ssh.
But again, I don't think crappy or good CLI is very
If you try
% sudo ip route add 194.100.7.227/32 dev eth0
% sudo arp -i eth0 -s 194.100.7.227 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
% ping 194.100.7.227
Chances are that you get ping replies (Cisco VXR, Cisco ISR, Juniper SRX,
Juniper M10i, Juniper M7i, Linksys e4200)
But you also might not be getting replies
On (2012-04-23 12:45 +), Leigh Porter wrote:
I have juniper SRX110s that use the magic new multi site IPSec thing.
+1. This is the way to roll OOB, CPE (Cisco ISR, Juniper SRX), RS232
console server (opengear, avocent) and switch if you happen to have modern
gear which support proper OOB
On (2012-04-27 22:05 +), Paul Vixie wrote:
this seems late, compared to the various commitments made to rpki in
recent years. is anybody taking it seriously?
(disclaimer I'm almost completely clueless on RPKI).
If two fails don't make win, then I think ROVER is better solution, doesn't
On 12 May 2012 04:29, Ben Bartsch uwcable...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone seen this behavior with BGP IPv6 between Juniper (owned by Level
3, advertising routes correctly, sending default ::/0) and Cisco (6509
running 12.2.58.SXI6 advipservices, receiving all routes fine except
default, hearing
On (2012-05-31 08:46 -0700), David Barak wrote:
On what precisely do you base the idea that a mandatory transitive attribute
of a BGP prefix is a purely advisory flag which has no real meaning? I
encourage you to reconsider that opinion - it's actually a useful attribute,
much the way
On (2012-06-01 10:19 +0200), Daniel Suchy wrote:
I think RFC 4271 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271) is very clear
here. Back to the standard, why condone it's violation? Yes, statement
It's extremely hard to find RFC which does not contain incorrect
information or practically undeployable
On (2012-06-04 11:36 -0700), jon Heise wrote:
I need to make one of our data centers internet accessible, i plan to
advertise a /24 out of our existing /22 network block at our new site. My
question is for our main datacenter, is it a better idea to continue to
advertise the full /22 or
On (2012-06-06 06:57 -0700), vijay gill wrote:
A non-cut off version is here: http://sdrv.ms/MeQl1L
For me provisioning automatically has always been quite trivial problem,
system just has object representation of service with references to other
objects and then those objects are used to fill
On (2012-06-19 17:07 -0700), ryanL wrote:
anyone have any opinions on the two subject vendors, with general
regard to 10GE transceivers? SR multi-mode data center stuff for my
application.
I'm not familiar with solid optics, but AFAIK smart optics today resells
finisar, so you probably don't
On (2012-06-26 15:05 -0500), Ryan Malayter wrote:
If you have to have something pre-integrated and soon, I'd look at Meinberg:
http://www.meinberg.de/english/products/index.htm#network_sync
We have several Meinbergs, quality hardware definitely. But I really wish
they'd have hardware
On (2012-07-03 01:54 -0700), Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
kernel time, why do we do it with leapseconds? We should really move
the leapseconds correction into the display routines like DST and
Yes. TAI time natively and presentation uses leap lookup tables to convert
to UTC.
Unixtime is not
On (2012-07-03 10:33 -0400), valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On the other hand, how many subtle bugs will we introduce when we break
code that currently assumes the system clock is UTC, not TAI?
Progress has non zero cost :)
--
++ytti
On (2012-07-03 10:11 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
Trading one known set of bugs for a (probably) larger set of unknown bugs is
not my definition of progress. Cost without progress is harmful and should be
avoided.
Leap bugs are NOT known. Most people have no idea unixtime is not
monotonically
On (2012-07-03 19:33 +0100), Nick Hilliard wrote:
Google's approach to this is interesting:
http://googleblog.blogspot.ie/2011/09/time-technology-and-leaping-seconds.html
Yes. I'm sure this is good enough for most people, most people don't need
precise time but virtually everyone needs
On (2012-07-03 12:46 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
If you don't know that time is not monotonically increasing, then that only
becomes a software bug when you codify your own ignorance into software you
write.
If only all software could be ordered from you Owen, but in practice this
is not
On (2012-07-03 16:53 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
Sure, but even with that, 99% of it has only a passing 'interesting' effect
and
then recovers.
Inclusive you no longer know order of events based on your logs, and
virtually none of your software are logging 60th second.
What are only
1 - 100 of 857 matches
Mail list logo
