Re: Comparison of freeware open source switch software?

On Tue, 09 Jan 2018 02:17:59 -0500, Hank Nussbacher wrote: so to clarify I am interested only in bare-metal or whitebox swicthes and freeware, open source software. It's my understanding that there simply is no such thing. Because none of the HARDWARE has open source

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:05:33 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and we should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would multiply it by roughly 4 billion. I'm saying I should be able to use whatever

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 21:15:45 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks wrote: If that's the case, it will be because there were few restrictions placed upon that address space. And if some genius comes up with

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:50:54 -0500, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote: IPv6 prefixes are not databases. Coding this sort of thing into your address space is silly. And a 2^64 LAN, or ptp link, isn't? People have been doing this for decades. They did it before NAT! NAT just made

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:35:08 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: Wasting 2^64 addresses was intentional because the original plan was for a 64-bit total address and the additional 64 bits was added to make universal 64-bit subnets a no-brainer. Incorrect. The original 128 address

Re: Moving fibre trunks: interruptions?

On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 15:52:40 -0400, Rod Beck wrote: I don't think there is virtually any aerial in Europe. So given the cost difference why is virtually all fiber buried on this side of the Atlantic? Aerial is simple and fast... pull the cable through a

Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:21:19 -0500, wrote: We negotiate a contract with terms favorable to you. You sign it (or more correctly, sign the SHA-1 hash of the document). ... When you can do that in the timespan of weeks or days, get back to me. Today, it takes years

Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:03:34 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: More seriously: The attack (or at least as much as we can glean from the blog post) cannot find a collision (file with same hash) from an arbitrary file. The attack creates two files which have the same hash,

Re: Arista unqualified SFP

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:05:30 -0400, Tim Jackson wrote: "As I'm sure you know, Arista is not the only manufacturer that has made this choice. Unlike our competition, we work to make our optics pricing competitive, but we'll never be as low as the "Taiwan specials" that

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:47:18 -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: NAT may not be security, yet it's the only thing securing billions of people. Nope… NAT Can’t be done without stateful inspection. Negative. - 1:1 NAT (inside address A == outside address B) requires no state of any

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 23:57:08 -0400, Randy Bush wrote: zero interoperability, and no viable migration paths, it's a Forklift Upgrade(tm). You say that with such confidence! Doesn't make it true. https://archive.psg.com/120206.nanog-v4-life-extension.pdf randy, who works for

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 21:41:05 -0400, Baldur Norddahl wrote: Then he reads on NANOG that since he has IPv6 he can just connect to the camera with that. ... Only to find the built-in stateful firewall blocks unsolicited inbound connections. Now he has to figure

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 19:17:37 -0400, Mark Andrews wrote: The average consumer wants a "internet connection". And sadly, they haven't a clue what that means. They plug the thing into the other thing, and they can click on things in their web browser. They're why we have boxes

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On Thu, 09 Jun 2016 13:32:24 -0400, Adam Rothschild wrote: How can we, as a community, help move the needle on v6 deployment on broadband networks, in cases where competitive forces and market pressure don't exist? You left out "consumer demand". And I would add consumer

Re: Netflix banning HE tunnels

On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 17:24:48 -0400, Matthew Huff wrote: What does https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip-demo show for your IPv6 prefix? If it is incorrect, try https://support.maxmind.com/geoip-data-correction-request/ HAH. Funny... 39.76,-98.5 for every HE address I enter. And

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 19:41:14 -0400, Mark Andrews wrote: What lie? Truly who is lying here. Not the end user. Not HE. There is no requirement to report physical location. The general lie that is IP Geolocation. HE only has what I tell them (100% unverified), and what

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 15:44:14 -0400, wrote: And if Netflix can't be bothered to consult rwhois for the ownership (which could be used for other use cases as well), they certainly aren't going to do *new* code as a one-off. Said by someone who's never written (r)whois

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 11:08:13 -0400, John Peach wrote: The whois information on the HE IPv6 address, does give the location. At least, it does on mine. It lists the location of the user's registration -- which could very well be a lie as they do nothing at all to

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 19:35:27 -0400, Mark Andrews wrote: It is a attack on HE. HE also provides stable user -> address mappings so you can do fine grained geo location based on HE IPv6 addresses. They may be "fine grained", but they are still lies. One's tunnel can be

Re: craigslist.com admin

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 17:11:57 -0400, Todd Crane wrote: ... Curious as to what they use it for if not Web, MX, or DNS. Same thing as Earthlink, apparently. (answer: nothing. at. all.)

Re: Turning Off IPv6 for Good (was Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed)

On Wed, 01 Jun 2016 23:47:59 -0400, Paul Ferguson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 There is an epic lesson here. I'm just not sure what it is. :-) - - ferg https://youtu.be/SlA9hmrC8DU?t=2m25s

Re: CALEA

On Tue, 10 May 2016 17:00:54 -0400, Brian Mengel wrote: AFAIK being able to do a lawful intercept on a specific, named, individual's service has been a requirement for providers since 2007. It's been required for longer than that. The telco I worked for over a decade ago

Re: GeoIP database issues and the real world consequences

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:55:11 -0400, Chris Boyd wrote: Interesting article. http://fusion.net/story/287592/internet-mapping-glitch-kansas-farm/ ... "Until you reached out to us, we were unaware that there were issues..." Bull! I can dig up dozens (if not hundreds)

Re: Stop IPv6 Google traffic

On Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:03:02 -0400, Rubens Kuhl wrote: If that were the case, they'd be seeing the same via IPv4. And apparently, they aren't. Nope. If you have both A and IP addresses in DNS responses and have both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, IPv6 will be

Re: Stop IPv6 Google traffic

On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 20:09:04 -0400, Rubens Kuhl wrote: If your users are seeing captchas, one or a few or them are likely to be infected to the point of generating too much requests to Google. If that were the case, they'd be seeing the same via IPv4. And apparently, they

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:48:22 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: And Ricky is wrong, the vast majority of prefixes Cogent routes have zero dollars behind them. Cogent gets paid by customers, not peers. (At least not the big ones.) Show me a single connection to Cogent for

Re: Cogent & Google IPv6

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:56 -0500, Matt Hoppes wrote: Isn't that how the Internet is suppose to work? Perhaps. But that's not how *Cogent* works. They have a very idiotic view of "Tier 1". They have no transit connections with anyone; someone is paying them

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:42:45 -0500, Owen DeLong wrote: If you come from IPv4, in the first week that new content is posted, instead of the new content, you get a video explaining the need to get a better internet connection and that the content you want will be available

Re: Another Big day for IPv6 - 10% native penetration

On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:21:14 -0500, Jon Lewis wrote: Just a reminder, that 10% is a global number. And it's not "native". A great many (myself included) have IPv6 *by choice* through various tunnels. And AT (Uverse) isn't "native" either -- it's a 6rd tunnel their

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://floridadentalanesthesia.com/steps.php?l> Ricky Beam

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://bio-oil-reviews.com/other.php?j> Ricky Beam

Fw: new message

Hey! New message, please read <http://safelysurfing.com/but.php?443> Ricky Beam

Re: /27 the new /24

On Thu, 08 Oct 2015 18:45:38 -0400, Mike wrote: WE DO NOT HAVE realistic choices. Or, apparently, realistic expectations. You, do, indeed, deserve public shaming for your complete lack of willingness to support IPv6. Your customers have no "realistic

Re: Synful Knock questions...

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 14:35:44 -0400, Michael Douglas wrote: Does anyone have a sample of a backdoored IOS image? The IOS image isn't what gets modified. ROMMON is altered to patch IOS after decompression before passing control to it. I don't know WTF they're

Re: Working with Spamhaus

On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 17:28:34 -0400, Jaren Angerbauer jarenangerba...@gmail.com wrote: I work for Proofpoint -- we acquired SORBS back in 2011. Hint: The Internet has a LONG memory. The liberal and numerous dropping of for free makes me laugh. You knew the tainted nature of what you were

Re: ATT U-Verse Data Setup Convention

On Thu, 30 Jul 2015 12:02:06 -0400, Keith Stokes kei...@neilltech.com wrote: 1. Is it really accurate that the customer’s address is tied to the modem/router? To the 802.1x identity of the device, yes. That's the unit serial number, which (partial) contains the MAC. 2. For my curiosity,

Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 08:13:48 -0400, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: At least in Maine where I am, TWC does allow you to bring your own modem as long as it's DOCSIS 3 compliant and there's lots of those from motorola, netgear and others. You're not stuck with the Ubee. You are

Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill

On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 06:45:43 -0400, Seth Mos seth@dds.nl wrote: For now, all the customers with the Ubee in bridge mode are SOL. It's not clear what the reason is, but Ubee in bridge mode with IPv6 is listed on the road map. If that's intentional policy or that the firmware isn't ready

Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 06:25:26 -0400, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote: mean that your UBee has to do dhcpv6? (or the downstream thingy from the UBee has to do dhcpv6?) The Ubee router is in bridge mode. Customers have ZERO access to the thing, even when it is running in

Re: Remember Internet-In-A-Box?

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 22:32:19 -0400, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: You can blame the religious zealots that insisted that everything DHCP does has to also be done via RA's. I blame the anti-DHCP crowd for a lot of things. RAs are just dumb. There's a reason IPv4 can do *everything*

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:20:08 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: That's the big difference - IPv6 has been designed to provide abundant address space. There is no amount of fixed address space that can't be consumed with stupid allocation policies. True. However, are you making the

Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:20:11 -0400, Lee Howard l...@asgard.org wrote: Business Class DOCSIS customers get a prefix automatically (unless you provide your own gateway and DHCPv6 isn¹t enabled). I looked last night at the office in Cary, NC. NO RAs are seen on the link coming from the Ubee

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 19:35:07 -0400, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote: So your point is that those who claimed it would not help managed to make it so? Would it have really hurt to remove experimental status and replace it with use at your own risk status? Even now? No. The point is it's

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:23:52 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I will point out that nobody has said “what the F*** were they thinking” when they made it possible to use 4GB of RAM instead of just 640k, but lots of people have said “what the F*** were they thinking when they limited

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:34:13 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: That covers multicast and RFC-1918. Are there any other IPv4 segmentations that you can think of? ... Given that we came up with 3 total segmentations in IPv4 over the course #1-3,#4 RFC-1918 is 3 segments and we

Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 17:32:33 -0400, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, move your business to TWC. TWC has a proven v6 deployment and is actively engaged in the community, as where vz Fios is not. Yes, because TWC-BC's IPv6 support is stellar. Sorry, I misspelled non-existent. Their DIA

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:15:57 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote: Actually I was mentioning thousands. Dozens, millions, whatever. Pick something and get on with it already. What you personally don't foresee is pretty much irrelevant to what will actually happen... And planning for

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 16:06:03 -0400, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote: It's like going to a Starbucks as a homeless person with just pocket change, and ordering the cheapest coffee on the menu, and being told Oh, that's for off-planet visitors only. It says so on our website under Terms

Re: Also Facebook (was: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion)

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 06:14:16 -0400, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: If there are “holes” in the methodology, then they are quite consistent holes... They are mere statistics. They say only what they say without any measured margin of error. For Google, their numbers are collected via

Re: Also Facebook (was: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion)

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:48:06 -0400, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: Both techniques indicate more than 20% of the US Internet users are connecting via IPv6. Interesting method that's full of holes (and they know it), but it's data nonetheless. Globally, it's still ~4.5%. Within my own

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:05:00 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Look again… IPv6 is already more than 20% of Google traffic in the US. 20% of *1* site's traffic does not equal 20% DEPLOYMENT. (read: 20% of internet DEVICES (CPE) connected by IPv6)

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 18:23:29 -0400, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: That would be Tivo's fault wouldn't it. Partially, even mostly... it's based on Bonjour. That's why the shit doesn't work over the internet. (It's just http/https, so it will, in fact, work, but their apps

Re: Possible Sudden Uptick in ASA DOS?

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 07:27:16 -0400, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote: Really just people not patching their software after warnings more than six months ago: A lot goes into updates. Not the least of which is *knowing* about the issue. Then getting the patched code, then lab

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 11:08:53 -0400, Marco Teixeira ad...@marcoteixeira.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Harald Koch c...@pobox.com wrote: The common man is becoming much more sophisticated in their networking requirements, and they need this stuff to just work. Please don't place

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 16:00:35 -0400, Naslund, Steve snasl...@medline.com wrote: Now, if we assume that VLAN based security is weak and that most homes do not generate enough broadcast traffic to be an issue, what exactly is the reason that a residential customer needs a lot of VLANs? Answer,

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 19:08:56 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: the reality I’m trying to point out is that application developers make assumptions based on the commonly deployed environment that they expect in the world. Partially. It's also a matter of the software guys not having

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 21:19:52 -0400, Mike Hammett na...@ics-il.net wrote: /56 even seems a bit excessive for a residential user, but *shrugs* That's why some hand out a /60, but only if you ask for it. Otherwise, you get only a single /64. Of course, HE will give you a /48 at the click of

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:13:24 -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 20:19:52 -0500, Mike Hammett said: /56 even seems a bit excessive for a residential user, but *shrugs* It goes pretty quick when each WNDR3800 running CeroWRT will chew through 4 bits worth of subnets just

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:32:35 -0400, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote: You have to draw the limbs somewhere. Why not 512 bits? 1024? The IETF engineers that thought about this long and hard and discussed the topic we've just had, and a thousands of other topics, decided on 128. I'm

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:49:17 -0400, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote: You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future. What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE. What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to them what they CAN HAVE in

Re: Debian RWHOIS

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 18:12:47 -0400, Jeff Walter jwal...@weebly.com wrote: he basically told me RWHOIS was dead It is most certainly NOT dead. It is, and always has been, a very small userbase. SWIP has always been a pain in the ass. Modern web-ized methods are more acceptable, but still an

Re: ARIN just subdivided their last /17, /18, /19, /20, /21 and /22. Down to only /23s and /24s now. : ipv6

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:28:13 -0400, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: There are still isolated pockets of devices out there speaking IPX, DECnet, Appletalk, etc Indeed. I'm one of them. (rarely) ... IPX managed print server. It speaks IP, but cannot be managed by IP. I'd

Re: ARIN just subdivided their last /17, /18, /19, /20, /21 and /22. Down to only /23s and /24s now. : ipv6

On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 23:58:27 -0400, William Astle l...@l-w.ca wrote: Like certain data centers attached to AS701 in Canada. Or their end customers all over the world. Of course, they're no different than most other carriers. At the time we moved into this office, TWC wasn't available

Re: ARIN just subdivided their last /17, /18, /19, /20, /21 and /22. Down to only /23s and /24s now. : ipv6

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 08:35:34 -0400, Rafael Possamai raf...@gav.ufsc.br wrote: How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4? Or is it even going to happen at all? Things like IPX and token-ring are still around. IPv4 isn't going anywhere for decades. (if ever) Mostly

Re: ARIN just subdivided their last /17, /18, /19, /20, /21 and /22. Down to only /23s and /24s now. : ipv6

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:23:27 -0400, Lyndon Nerenberg lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote: IPX ruled the roost, very popularly, for a little while. How long did it take to die? It isn't dead yet, but it's certainly on the endangered list. Why did it die? The death of Novell NetWare (and their

Re: How long will it take to completely get rid of IPv4 or will it happen at all?

On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 13:58:24 -0400, Alexander Maassen outsi...@scarynet.org wrote: Before that will happen. Isp's will first try cgnat and the alikes. They already are. And, depending on the network, have for eons. Have you checked the IP used by your cellphone? (the last few times I

Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 18:38:32 -0400, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: You may be confused. ARIN never possessed class E; it's held in reserve by IETF. As much as I enjoy a good ARIN bashing, they and John Curran are quite faultless here. Quote-unquote, as in they didn't even bother *even

Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:07:25 -0400, Luan Nguyen lngu...@opsource.net wrote: Is that safe to use internally? Anyone using it? Just for NATTING on Cisco gears... As you've already figured out, Class E space is still restricted on Cisco gear. I'll wait for Curran to pop up with various links

Re: Is it safe to use 240.0.0.0/4

On Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:17:53 -0400, Ca By cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 Proposed and denied. Please stop this line and spend your efforts on ipv6 By APNIC. Cisco did, too, btw. And they weren't first, either. Nor is this going to be the last

Re: 2.4Ghz 40Mhz 802.11n wifi and Apple Macbook

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:17:52 -0400, Colton Conor colton.co...@gmail.com wrote: So assuming you live in a decent sized house/lot, should you really care about squatting all over the entire band? I mean sure I can see my neighbors wifi signals... *DING* There's your problem. It doesn't matter

Re: 2.4Ghz 40Mhz 802.11n wifi and Apple Macbook

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:09:16 -0400, Steve Mikulasik steve.mikula...@civeo.com wrote: Is this one of those requirements that gets ignored? I have seen plenty of 40Mhz SSIDs polluting spectrum in areas with lots of overlapping APs. It's not supposed to be. But what is (originally) submitted

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 19:42:07 -0400, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net wrote: It looks to me like Lorenzo wants the same thing as most everyone here, It doesn't look like that from my chair. He doesn't want to implement DHCPv6 (and has REFUSED to do so for YEARS now) because he cannot find

Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 00:58:06 -0400, Lorenzo Colitti lore...@colitti.com wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Jon Bane j...@nnbfn.net wrote: DHCPv6 - RFC3315 - Category: Standards Track 464XLAT - RFC6877 - Category: Informational Ooo, that's fun, can I play too? We aren't asking you to

Re: optical gear cooling requirements

On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:52:44 -0500, Martin Hannigan hanni...@gmail.com wrote: Remember the Ascend MAX TNT and the sideways left-right airflow? ... Indeed I do. I see you've heard the story of PSINet melting components as well. We used USR(3Com) TotalControl hardware: vertical venting. The

Re: Charter ARP Leak

On Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:41:45 -0500, Corey Touchet corey.touc...@corp.totalserversolutions.com wrote: We'll I would for one be very interested if the 8 ARP packets a second count against the caps. Depends on where and what counters they probe. I would assume they look at unicast fields,

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 16:41:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote: ...But 2.4GHz was a bit of a mess before we came along with this service. So, knowing the house is on fire, you bring a can of gas to put it out. You aren't f'ing helping. Of course, since

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:26:37 -0500, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: Not correct. If it's on one radio it's using the same RF space it was before, just with a virtual SSID. Just like the atheros or Ruckus stuff it's the same RF space with an additional BSSID bridged to a

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:08:51 -0500, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote: ... Behavioral economics would suggest that opt-in rates are almost always lower than opt-out. There's two ways to look at it: a) Everyone knows about it. Few would bother to opt-in, many would

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:32:06 -0500, Spencer Gaw spenc...@frii.net wrote: Your reading comprehension could use some work: That was post *AFTER* my comment. And it doesn't say the xfinity service is running on its own dedicated radio, just that it has more than one radio in it -- which it

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 17:46:24 -0500, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote: By this logic they are all dumping gas on the fire as well. I'm not denying it's a big fire. But adding additional 2.4Ghz radios Is. Not. Helping. Because everything else is is not a reason for one

Re: Comcast thinks it ok to install public wifi in your house

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 19:33:03 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: In short, the only thing really truly wrong with this scenario is that Comcast is using equipment that the subscriber should have exclusive control over (they are renting it, so while Comcast retains ownership, they

Re: Kind of sad

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:43:09 -0500, Joe jbfixu...@gmail.com wrote: Generally speaking its best you do what your good at and this is not it. Exposing there is a window open to a gov agency is not hacking, trust me. I would say go back to fathering children and once you have a few more years

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:31:02 -0400, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Perhaps you don't remember the days when an fsck was basically mandatory and could take 15-20 minutes on a large disk. Journaling has all but done away with fsck. You'd have to go *way* back to have systems that ran a

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 01:44:57 -0400, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: systemd is insanity. one would have hoped that deb and others would know better. sigh. This is exactly the type of shit one gets by letting non-technical people make technical decisions. systemd should never have even

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:29:44 -0400, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: The thing that I don't understand about systemd is how it managed to get *EVERY SINGLE DISTRIBUTION'S RELEASE MANAGER* on board... It's spelled Red Hat. Add in GNOME and debian (et. al.) is backed into a corner. Red

Re: Marriott wifi blocking

On Fri, 03 Oct 2014 16:16:22 -0400, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote: Side question for those smarter than I. How does WPA encryption play into this? Would a client associated to a WPA2 AP take a non-encrypted deauth appearing from the same BSSID? It doesn't. The DEAUTH management frame is

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:17:29 -0400, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Let's figure each person needs an end site for their place of business, their two cars, their home, their vacation home, and just for good measure, let's double that to be ultra-conservative. That's 10 end-sites per

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 14:35:55 -0400, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: Any suggestions on how ARIN should reach those CIO's in the meantime? Refuse additional IPv4 assignments to those who have not deployed IPv6. And not just been assigned a v6 block, but actually running IPv6 to every

Re: Ars Technica on IPv4 exhaustion

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:21:12 -0400, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: How much IPv6 space would you propose an ISP provisions for each of its residential users? A single /64 would, currently, be sufficient for 99% of households. The link can be /128, /127, /64, whatever --

Re: why IPv6 isn't ready for prime time, SMTP edition

On Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:07:16 -0400, Laszlo Hanyecz las...@heliacal.net wrote: One would hope that with IPv6 this would change, but the attitude of looking down on end subscribers has been around forever. And for damn good reasons (read: foolish and easy to trick into becoming a spam

Re: question about AS relationship

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 03:14:59 -0500, Song Li refresh.ls...@gmail.com wrote: I have one simple question: as for AS relationship, should customer tell its provider the AS# of its own customers, or the provider have the right to require its customers to do that? (Having been on both ends of

Re: turning on comcast v6

On Sat, 04 Jan 2014 14:03:21 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: A router, yes. THE router, not unless the network is very stupidly put together. Like every win7 and win8 machine on the planet? (IPv6 is installed and enabled by default. Few places have IPv6 enabled on their LAN, so a

Re: turning on comcast v6

On Fri, 03 Jan 2014 20:52:25 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Not entirely true, actually… If you’re willing to work hard enough at it, most hosts can be “encouraged” to renew early. Short of commandline access, no there isn't. (crashing or otherwise triggering a reboot, isn't a

Re: turning on comcast v6

On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:16:57 -0500, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote: On 12/20/2013 05:25 AM, Lee Howard wrote: So there's an interesting question. You suggest there's a disagreement between enterprise network operators and protocol designers. Who should change? Rather obviously the

Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: So there really is no excuse on ATT's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd... Except for a) greed (we can *sell* larger slices) and b) demonstrable user want/need. How many residential, home networks, have you seen with

Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 13:31:08 -0500, Rob Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote: IPv4-thinking. In the fullness of time... I suspect it'll fall the other way. In a few decades, people will be wondering what we were smoking to have carved up this /8 (and maybe a few of them by then) in such an

Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi. Interesting... I've not looked at the current high end (i.e. things that cost more

Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote: If you even hint at a /64 as the standard for residential deployment, I never said that should be the standard. The way most systems do it today, you get a /64 without doing anything. If that's all you need, then

Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:54:50 -0500, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: I don't know why you think that the PC and Laptop can't talk to each other. It actually seems to work just fine. They both default to the upstream router and the router has more specifics to each of the two LAN segments.

Re: ATT UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:59:51 -0500, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote: ... A simple RA/DHCP option could do this. Great. Now I have to go upgrade every g** d*** device in the network to support yet another alteration to the standards. For the few residential ISP's that do this what is it?

  1   2   3   >