to be implemented by
old-line operators than by pure internet operations.
Tom Taylor
On 05/12/2012 4:34 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/05/0115214/itu-approves-deep-packet-inspection
ITU Approves Deep Packet Inspection
Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday December 04, @08:19PM
from
On 05/12/2012 2:11 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-12-05 14:01, Tom Taylor wrote:
I'm seriously not clear why Y.2770 is characterized as negotiated
behind closed doors. Any drafts were available to all participants in
the ITU-T, on exactly the same terms as drafts of other Recommendations
You can look at the final outcome yourself (no password needed), at
http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/final-acts-wcit-12.pdf
RESOLUTION PLEN/5 on page 27 (by PDF count, out of 30 pages) describes
work to be done by Study Group 3 and cooperating members. Note that the
resolution is not
At the standards level, ANCP was designed to allow partitioning like
that. however, work on applying ANCP (Access Network Control Protocol)
to PON is just going through the IESG now, so the probability that it's
implemented in the Calix devices is remote.
Tom T
On 06/02/2013 10:56 AM, Jay
In what sense do you mean that? The end-user IPv6 prefix certainly ties
IPv4 and IPv6 together, hence the interest in the Light-Weight IPv4 over
IPv6 alternative.
Tom
On 08/04/2013 3:13 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Chris,
UmmmŠ you mean the IPv6 and IPv4 inter-dependency when you say IP
to mean something for MAP. That's it. Attached is a
screenshot to illustrate this very point.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, April 8, 2013 3:48 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN
In what
I'd suggest the ietf-discussion list, since it's a matter for general
discussion.
On 06/08/2012 10:10 AM, Livio Zanol Puppim wrote:
Hello guys,
I've sent the e-mail below to IETF, but I couldn't find a contact e-mail to
address this kind of subject in IETF site. Does anybody knows which
-ps/
Thanks for your attention. Privacy will be respected if people want to
reply privately.
Tom Taylor
Consultant
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/081512-atampt-suffers-dns-261673.html?hpg1=bn
Continuing DDOS attack knocked out some DNS servers.
On 15/08/2012 10:46 PM, Phil Dyer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Mark Foster blak...@blakjak.net wrote:
Yep. 'no servers could be reached' for at
Has anyone run into a situation where the MTU at one end of a link was
configured differently from the MTU at the other end? How did you catch it?
In general, do you see any need for a debugging tool to be standardized
to find such mismatches?
Tom Taylor
convergence is there any service issues with
running mismatched MTU? Assuming the packet flow does not exceed the
smallest MTU value.
On 8/31/2012 10:28 AM, Dan White wrote:
On 08/31/12 09:30 -0400, Tom Taylor wrote:
Has anyone run into a situation where the MTU at one end of a link
was configured
Looks good.
On 31/08/2012 11:13 AM, Ben Bartsch wrote:
mturoute.exe works great
http://www.elifulkerson.com/projects/mturoute.php
...
Who drops IPv6 fragments in their network, under what circumstances?
Tom Taylor
On 04/10/2012 10:20 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2012-10-04 10:16 -0400), Tom Taylor wrote:
Who drops IPv6 fragments in their network, under what circumstances?
No one who offers working IP connections.
Dropping IPv6 fragments against your control-plane, that is another
discussion, but dropping
On 08/06/2013 8:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:12 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/13, Måns Nilsson mansa...@besserwisser.org wrote:
Subject: Re: PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project Date: Fri, Jun
07,
2013 at 12:25:35AM -0500 Quoting jamie rishaw
.
It's fun to speculate on how one might insert back doors in products,
but I'm not sure there's reason to tie such speculation to particular
vendors.
Tom Taylor
On 17/09/2013 2:15 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:11 , Martin T m4rtn...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for all the replies!
Nick,
counting traffic on inter-switch links is kind of cheating, isn't it?
I mean if input bytes and output bytes on all the ports facing the
IX
On 19/09/2013 9:29 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
On 9/19/2013 5:29 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
So you understand things aren't always metro e.. That's what I was trying to
say. I still have a coupler.. ;)
Original message
From: Fred Reimer frei...@freimer.org
Actually, I started out
a Sunset WG
milestone:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-sunset4-cgn-port-allocation/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-behave-natx4-log-reduction/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-donley-behave-deterministic-cgn/
Tom Taylor
to
publication as an RFC. It deprecates the use of any version of SSL in
favour of TLS 1.2 in the clientHello negotiations.
Tom Taylor
the traffic at the absolute peak,
but you set reasonable targets, assure yourself by simulation and
analysis that your design will meet the target, and build accordingly.
Tom Taylor
es off,
but Mailman makers this fairly easy.
Tom Taylor
22 matches
Mail list logo
