We've had one presentation on the unfairness of p2p traffic, which
(the presenter says) will eventually swamp us.
Then just now, we had the presentation subsequent discussion re: ipv6
adoption.
Just wondering: what if we gave ipv6 traffic mucho priority over ipv4
traffic, then tell our user
First, the good news: so far, the NANOG conference has been very
valuable and
content-rich, covering a lot of issues that need to be discussed. For
that, I am grateful.
But now, the bad news(?): Maybe it's just me my paranoia, but do I detect
an inkling of murk spam going on with some
I do seem to have put my foot in my mouth. I apologize for any offense
my comments made, as well as any misunderstanding on my part.
I see the note to take this discussion to nanog-futures, so I'll reply
further there.
And the Security BOF was very good, I was thankful to have been there
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008, Alan Hannan wrote:
Is truth an actual defense to your assertions?
Yes. Everything in this message is true, and can be proved to a
certainty.
Please, sir: I suggest that your messages might contain more that a bit of
quixotism...
Right
David Edwards wrote:
At 12:55 PM 4/9/2009, you wrote:
From the news coverage it appears to be in the general area of
http://cow.org/r/?545c
-r
Interesting. The report I got from a vendor was that it is Above.net
with a fiber cut in Redwood City which is affecting a circuit of mine
between
George William Herbert wrote:
Scott Doty wrote:
(Personally, I can think of a MAE-Clueless episode that was worse than
this, but that was in the 90's...)
The gas main strike out front of the building in Santa Clara?
Or something else?
-george william herbert
gherb...@retro.com
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:25:10AM -0400, Shadow wrote:
Robert D. Scott wrote:
The harder way:
Decimal: 1089055123
Hex (dashes inserted at octals): 40-E9-A9-93
Decimal (of each octet): 64-233-169-147
IP Address: 64.233.169.147
The this could take all day way :
(in bc with
7 matches
Mail list logo
