On 2/17/24 10:22 AM, Justin Streiner wrote:
Getting back to the recently revised topic of this thread - IPv6 uptake -
what have peoples' experiences been related to crafting sane v6 firewall
rulesets in recent products from the major firewall players (Palo Alto,
Cisco, Fortinet, etc)? On the
On 2/15/24 9:40 PM, Justin Streiner wrote:
The Internet edge and core portion of deploying IPv6 - dual-stack or
otherwise - is fairly easy. I led efforts to do this at a large .edu
starting in 2010/11. The biggest hurdles are/were/might still be:
1. Coming up with a good address plan that will
Several people in NANOG have opined that there are a number of mail
servers on the Internet operating with IPv6 addresses. OK. I have a
mail server, which has been on the Internet for decades. On IPv4.
For the last four years, every attempt to get a PTR record in ip6.arpa
from my ISP has
On 2/14/24 4:23 PM, Tom Samplonius wrote:
The best option is what is happening right now: you can’t get new IPv4
addresses, so you have to either buy them, or use IPv6. The free market
is solving the problem right now. Another solution isn’t needed.
Really? How many mail servers are up
On 2/14/24 9:30 AM, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
That experiment already failed with the original v6 adoption process.
It’s been more than 20 years and all we have proven is that as long as
people can have an excuse to avoid v6 deployment, they will continue to
do so.
Giving them another 20
On 2/12/24 11:07 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
if I could use the controversy to talk to why it has been so hard to
deploy ipv6 to the edge and how to fix that problem instead rather
than triggering people, it would be helpful.
1. My provider, AT, keeps saying "we don't support IPv6." I've
written
On 12/1/23 5:27 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
It would be better to keep the government out of it altogether, but that has
little chance of happening.
I agree. But I do have a question: is there a Best Practices RFC for
setting buffer sizes in the existing corpus? The Internet community has
On 9/18/21 11:20 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
> There is nothing at the protocol level stopping AT offering a
> similar level of service.
Setting up reverse DNS lookup for 16B address is annoying,
which may stop AT offering it.
How many mail servers are on the Internet
On 9/18/21 8:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I haven’t tried the PTR thing yet, but I do have a small business client that has
AT business internet and they were able to get a static /56 (For some reason,
AT refused to do a /48, but we did push them on it.)
When I checked, there were NO options
t IP address pointed to
>
Thanks
Michael AT Prov-DNS
-----Original Message-
From: Stephen Satchell
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 5:42 PM
To: DNSUpdates cB
Subject: Need IPv6 PTR record for my IPv6 mail server
Here is the record I need inserted into your ip6.arpa DNS zone:
In the data centers I've worked in over the decades, those Big Red
Buttons would activate a normally-closed contactor in a breaker panel.
When pushed, the contactor would open, and turn off all the circults in
said breaker panel. Not affected are lights, convenience outlets, door
locks, and
On 9/3/21 6:54 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Everyone that I know who spends most of their time writing code can't
get enough screens :-).
Size matters, too. For example, I have a 54" screen. My record is
twelve open (tiled) code windows. Usually, I have three or four code
windows and a
On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote:
What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack
and providing some combination of these services for years. They
already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should their business
customers want them. Some even provide at least a /56 so
First, I know this isn't the right place to propose this; need a pointer
to where to propose an outlandish idea.
PROBLEM: IPv6 support is still in its birthing pangs. I see a problem
that limits deployment of IPv6 fully: reverse PTR records in the
".in6.arpa." zones.
(Now that I think
On 6/8/21 2:38 PM, Fran via NANOG wrote:
Hey,
to my knowledge there is no IPv6 equivalent for
net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter.
Therefore I use netfilter to do the RP filtering for both address families.
ip(6)tables -t raw -I PREROUTING -m rpfilter --invert -j DROP
Using the raw tables less
Not every uplink service implements BCP38. When putting up servers
connected more-or-less directly to the Internet through these uplinks,
it would be nice if the servers themselves were able to implement
ingress and egress filtering according to BCP38. (Sorry about the typo
in the subject
Before I re-invent the wheel, has anyone come up with blackhole route
specifications for netplan in Ubuntu servers? Such a capability would
perform the egress blocking for an edge server.
The table of blackhole routes I would set up:
IPv4
Address block Scope Description
When I lived in Oklahoma, the mantra of the locals was "if you don't
like the weather, wait five minutes." As a member of a Boy Scout troop
in the northern part of the Sooner State, we were told, repeatedly, to
expect anything from broiling to deep freeze on our campouts.
One such outing was
On 6/22/20 12:59 AM, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
William Herrin
Howdy,
Why is latency between the east and west coasts so bad? Speed of light
accounts for about 15ms each direction for a 30ms round trip. Where does
the other 30ms come from and why haven't we gotten rid of it?
On 6/17/20 8:29 AM, Clinton Work wrote:
I'm struggling to determine which CDN owns the servers in CenturyLink prefix
8.240.0.0/12. During the Call of Duty Season 4 update on June 11th from 06:00
UTC until 08:30 UTC, we had 240 Gbps of traffic steaming into our network from
CenturyLink
On 4/29/20 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
My routers have ACLs, but my servers for the most part do not.
I'm not trying to argue, but...what servers do you have that don't have
sysadmin-definable firewalls and tun-able knobs? My edge routers are
Linux boxes (CentOS 8 for the one I'm now
On 4/29/20 9:24 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
If there's a lock on my door, and someone tries to pick it, you can call
me at fault for having a lock on my door facing outside all you
want. But the thief picking it has no business doing so, and will be
guilty of a crime if caught.
This is a good
On 4/29/20 8:41 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Is there any reason to have a root-enabled (or any) ssh server
exposed to the bare Internet? Any at all? Can you name one? I can’t.
That’s basically pilot error.
Remember HeartBleed? That didn't require a rout-enabled SSH server. It
didn't require SSH
On 3/8/20 4:00 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
As I've said before what would likely work is if every time one of us
(in the US anyhow) got a junk call we immediately called our
congressional and/or senate office(s) and simply said "just got
another junk call! (optionally add description.)"
On 3/8/20 9:59 AM, Damian Menscher via NANOG wrote:
In the robocall case, there*is* something the end user can do to fight the
abuse: answer every call, and keep them on the line as long as possible.
They are paying for connected calls, for the connection duration, and for
the humans to scam
There is power backup and then there is power backup.
The former is a small power pack (batteries, supercapacitors, whatever)
that will allow the microcell to weather a short blackout or brownout.
We are talking seconds, to bridge switching transits. To be useful in a
deployment, such a
On 12/26/19 10:55 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Here in California, you're going to need a lot more than 8 hours. We had
one that lasted 3 days, followed by about 8 hours of power, followed by
2 days of no power. If this is the new normal, and I'm afraid that it
is, that's probably going to
On 12/25/19 6:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Yes, this is exactly right. My point here isn't to assign blame, but to
ask what the hell we're going to do about it. Trying to score political
points is disgusting.
Do you live in California? Do you have your business in California?
Take a look at
I (and another programmer, now at Amazon) migrated our automation from
TCL/Expect to Python/pexpect. I've had to write code for those portions
of Expect that didn't carry over into pexpect.
I also had to build a framework that allowed me to do rule-based
programming in the same flavor as
On 12/5/19 6:02 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
(I also admit having no idea what percentage of the intermediate routers in the
ISP's networks have gotten de-bloating code.
For SP-grade routers, there isn't "code" that needs to be added to
combat buffer bloat. All an admin has to do is cut back
CAVAET: I don't have a dog in this hunt.
On 11/13/19 6:46 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
This is silly off-topic. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t
stay here, according to NANOG guidelines.
https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ >
https://www.nanog.org/bylaws/
"The NANOG mailing
Routing loop
> 11.|-- 129.250.24.196 0.0% 1 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 0.0
> 12.|-- 129.250.130.2540.0% 1 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 0.0
> 13.|-- 129.250.130.2530.0% 1 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 0.0
> 14.|-- 129.250.130.2540.0% 1
On 10/23/19 8:18 AM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
> I suspect things like NetworkManager are somewhat at a disadvantage in
> that they are inherently machine local and don't have visibility beyond
> the directly attached network segments. As such, they can't /safely/
> filter something that may
On 10/22/19 10:11 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
> The explicit nature of RFC 6598 is on purpose so that there is no chance
> that it will conflict with RFC 1918. This is important because it means
> that RFC 6598 can /safely/ be used for Carrier Grade NAT by ISPs without
> any fear of
After reviewing the comments from people on NANOG and some other
locations, I have updated my list of routes to blackhole. The
information at the end of this contribution is taken from the
RHEL/CentOS NetworkManager dispatcher.d source file, which I use to
install and remove the blackhole routes
On 10/13/19 9:08 AM, Florian Brandstetter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry - but why would you want to block Teredo?
I know nothing about Terendo tunneling.
> In computer networking, Teredo is a transition technology that gives
> full IPv6 connectivity for IPv6-capable hosts that are on the IPv4
>
The following list is what I'm thinking of using for blocking traffic
between an edge router acting as a firewall and an ISP/upstream. This
table is limited to address blocks only; TCP/UDP port filtering, and IP
protocol filtering, is a separate discussion. This is for an
implementation of
On 10/11/19 8:01 AM, Ethan O'Toole wrote:
>> request went all the way to the Court. The reason for access? They ran
>> the electronics on bottled propane (NOT mains power AC) and they needed
>> to swap full tanks for the empties. This was several months into my
>> stint on that site.
>> Not all
On 10/10/19 8:46 PM, Javier J wrote:
> I have an alternative view. the more generators are running, the more
> trucks semt to refuel the tanks, the more moving parts, the more likely an
> accident is prone to happen somewhere. It's thr same reason you turn your
> vehicles engine off when you fill
On 10/7/19 9:08 AM, Mike wrote:
> I am wondering if perhaps this is due to some kind of (known?)
> bug in the embedded dns cache/client in the client satellite modem, or
> if there is another plausible explanation I am not seeing. It compounds
> my problem slightly since I have to continue
On 10/7/19 4:37 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 03:03:45 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
>> Likewise for spam filtering - spam filtering would be knocked back to
>> the stone ages if IPv4 disappeared overnight. IPv6 is a spam sender's
>> dream come true, since IPv6 DNSBLs are practically
On 10/3/19 10:13 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> There is one thing in 1122/1123 and 1812 that is not in those kinds
> of documents that I miss; that is essentially "why". Going through
> 1122/1123 and 1812, you'll ind several sections that say "we require
> X", and follow that with a "discussion" section
On 10/3/19 2:07 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Now IPv6 examples are nice but getting several 1000’s people to read draft
> that
> just add addresses in the range 2001:DB8::/32 instead of 11.0.0.0/8,
> 12.0.0.0/8
> and 204.69.207.0/24, then to get the RFC editor to publish it is quite frankly
> is a
On 10/3/19 8:22 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> Speaking as v6ops chair and the editor of record for 1812.
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs kind of fell apart; it was intended to be
> an 1812-like document and adopted as such, but many of the
> "requirements" that came out of it were specific to the
On 10/3/19 8:42 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 3, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>>
>> Someone else mentioned that "IPv6 has been around for 25 years, and why
>> is it taking so long for everyone to adopt it?" I present as evi
On 10/2/19 9:51 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> What part of BCP-38 do you think needs to be updated to support IPv6?
>
> Changing the examples to use IPv6 documentation prefixes instead of IPv4
> documentation prefixes?
For a start, *add* IPv6 examples in parallel with the IPv4 examples. As
RFCs are
Is anyone working on an update to include IPv6?
On 10/2/19 9:33 AM, Antonios Chariton wrote:
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the
> list. To my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but
> may be in a gray area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the following thought
On 9/19/19 2:47 AM, Elad Cohen wrote:
> It is not related to nefarious activity as you wrote, FDCServers
> policy is to stop routing any ranges which is in Spamhaus SBL (no
> matter what), due to the phear from Spamhaus to list all of
> FDCServers ranges in SBL, which was told to us in a
On 9/19/19 2:47 AM, Elad Cohen wrote:
> It is not related to nefarious activity as you wrote, FDCServers
> policy is to stop routing any ranges which is in Spamhaus SBL (no
> matter what), due to the phear from Spamhaus to list all of
> FDCServers ranges in SBL, which was told to us in a
On 9/2/19 4:40 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> May the world come to an end if someone dares to have an independent
> thought or shares original information that can't be backed up by at
> least 50 crosschecked references.
Actually, independent thought or original information is welcome to
anyone
This is for any Google admin on this list:
When you receive a SERVFAIL from a name server listed as authoritative
for a given domain, how long is that negative look-up cached?
When you receive a SERVFAIL from the root servers, how long is that
negative lookup cached?
Does Google follow RFC
On 8/13/19 3:10 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> With a global company, there's no such thing
> as a local natural monopoly in play; how would
> you assign oversight to a global entity? Which
> "public" would be the ones being protected?
> The city of Seattle, WA, where Amazon is
> headquartered? The
On 8/9/19 4:03 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> ...apparently Amazon has become a public utility
> now?
>
> I look forward with bemusement to the PUC
> tariff filings for AWS pricing. ^_^;;
Don't scoff too hard. How do you think that telephone service became a
utility? Utilities didn't grow on
On 8/3/19 9:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability
> of the ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so
> please carefully consider proposed policy both from the overall
> community benefit being sought, and from the
On 7/31/19 1:28 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 23:13 +0300, Scott Christopher wrote:
>>
>> Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS.
>
> I will take that at *least* as ironic as you meant it.
I don't know about your network, but I have five role mail accounts,
On 7/31/19 12:04 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said:
>
>> To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is
>> ab...@amazonaws.com
>
> You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at AWS whose job it
On 7/27/19 2:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> something is broken on the nanog list. usually we have this discussion
> twice a year. this time it may have been a couple of years gap. what
> broke?
44/8. Sucked up all the oxygen.
On 7/22/19 12:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> 1. A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those
> addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle
> them.
Not to mention all the legacy devices that barely do IPv4 at all, and
know nothing about IPv6. Legacy
Are we having another BGP problem this morning?
On 6/26/19 2:17 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> --- s...@donelan.com wrote:
> From: Sean Donelan
>
> If they come up with a better idea, that's great. I'll
> take good ideas from anywere.
In my experience, "design by committee" is most successful when one or
two people take the bull by the horns
On 6/25/19 2:25 AM, Katie Holly wrote:
> Disclaimer: As much as I dislike Cloudflare (I used to complain about
> them a lot on Twitter), this is something I am absolutely agreeing with
> them. Verizon failed to do the most basic of network security, and it
> will happen again, and again, and
On 5/13/19 12:11 PM, dan...@pyranah.com wrote:
> Does anyone have contacts at Charter (Spectrum) and Cox? For some reason,
> our IP has been blocked by them and our customers are unable to send email
> via their charter/cox accounts. Thanks
Would you be talking about port 25/tcp outbound? Lots
One word of caution when using a low-priced NTP appliance: your network
activity could overwhelm the TCP/IP stack of the poor thing, especially
if you want to sync your entire shop to it. In the case of the networks
I set up, I set up a VLAN specific to the NTP appliance and to the two
servers
On 4/24/19 9:32 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
>>
>> "than the relatively low risk of a database compromise leading to a
>> miscreant getting ahold of their wireless password and using their access
>> point as free wifi."
>>
>
> And this is the thing, not only does someone have to 'hack' the database,
>
On 4/24/19 7:24 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> This is why, in my opinion, people should avoid modem/router combo units
> whenever possible. Any information/configuration entered into such a device
> could be accessible to the MSO (intentionally or otherwise) , as is
> happening here. I'm sure they
On 4/3/19 3:32 PM, brutal8z via NANOG wrote:
> I've not seen any mention of this here, so it might be off-topic, if so,
> sorry in advance. If you use GPS for time synchronization, this might be
> important.The Juniper ACX500 series and the Cisco 819 both have an
> embedded GPS receivers, for
On 3/18/19 11:17 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> I am not sure that there is any other way that a lone outsider can or
> could engage either OVH or DigitalOcean in a way that would actually
> cause either company to take action on the issues I've reported on.
> Complaints from ordinary Internet
So far as I can tell with NTP, there was no issue with time sources
becoming false-tickers, including my local GPS appliance. FWIW.
On 3/7/19 8:10 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> So why not disable ICMP Echo and UDP traceroute, those kids using
> network diagnostics don't need them.
>
> For clue constrained audience fear will always be the most compelling
> argument.
OK, OK, so I will continue to rate-limit both, to reasonably high
On 3/5/19 2:54 AM, Thomas Bellman wrote:
> Out of curiosity, which operating systems put anything useful (for use
> in ECMP) into the flow label of IPv6 packets? At the moment, I only
> have access to CentOS 6 and CentOS 7 machines, and both of them set the
> flow label to zero for all traffic.
On 3/3/19 1:04 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> There are lots of IDIOTS out there that BLOCK ALL ICMP. That blocks PTB
> getting
> back to the TCP servers.
For those of us who are in the dark, "PTB" appears to refer to "Packet
Too Big" responses in ICMPv6.
Yes, some admins don't have fine-enough
On 2/22/19 11:27 AM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> I don't know the high-water mark for the number of IMPs or more
> specifically how many existed on the NCP->TCP flag day but I'm pretty
> sure the theoretical maximum was 256 tho no doubt someone had a way to
> extend that. But, w/o extensive
On 2/18/19 9:37 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Not me. No way. Never. ;)
Then why is Mr. Murphy tapping you on the shoulder? Didn't your Mom and
Dad ever tell you to never say "never"?
On 2/1/19 1:23 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Google has started their rollout.
So has Red Hat (RHEL and Centos). I woke up to a rather large update
this morning.
After reading through the thread, this reminds me of the Y2K flap, that
turned into a non-event. My checks of authoritative DNS servers for my
domains show no issues now.
On 1/24/19 11:46 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>On 25 Jan 2019, at 2:14 am, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>> My edge routers block *all* inbound DNS requests -- I was being hit by a
>> ton of them at one point. Cavaet: I don't run a DNS server that is a
>> domain zone master -
On 1/23/19 8:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> and they your firewalls don’t block well formed DNS queries (lots of
> them do by default).
My edge routers block *all* inbound DNS requests -- I was being hit by a
ton of them at one point. Cavaet: I don't run a DNS server that is a
domain zone master
On 1/15/19 8:03 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> No disrespect intended to anyone at all, but the pissing and moaning about
> it is a massive waste of time and energy.
But, but, but...most water-cooler conversation is about sports, the
opposite sex, and pissing and moaning about what you don't like.
On 1/15/19 12:19 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> And everyone has a gmail account anyway, so why bother with outside
> email?
Two words: "search warrants." I'm a US citizen, and I do NOT like the
idea of power-hungry people being able to paw through my mail. Having
my own mail server, residing in my
On 1/14/19 9:40 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I'm not away of any languages or writing systems that work from
> bottom to top, so that's pretty much everybody.
Typography for at least one pictograph-based language allows for, um,
interesting stunts one can pull to spice up gray matter.
On 1/14/19 7:14 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> Please experience the wonders of the top-quote. See your local psychedelic
> distributor if you are somehow not "experiencing" anything ...
I experience a savings in time with non-edited top quoting. If I don't
see meaningful new content within the
On 1/13/19 8:01 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
> Clearly, editing inclusions is a lost art.
No, it isn't a lost art. As you can see, there are some of us who know
perfectly well how to edit, and have e-mail tools that make this easy.
(Using Thunderbird here.) Smartphone mail programs make excerpting a
On 1/8/19 9:31 AM, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> 8 Jan. 2019 г., 20:19 :
>> In the real world, doing the correct thing
>
> — such as writing RFC compliant code —
>
>> is often harder than doing
>> an incorrect thing, yes.
>
> Evidently, yes.
I "grew up" during the early days of PPP. As a member
On 12/29/18 6:51 AM, Matthew Huff wrote:
> We have two stratum-1 servers synced with GPS and a PTP feed from a provider
> that also provides PTP to market data systems, but we still have to monitor
> drift between system time and NIST time. Don't ask for the logic behind it,
> it's a
The telephone companies (I'm looking at YOU Verizon!) are bringing this
situation onto the community. I can see the FCC NPRM now:
"What percentage of E911 terminations is being serviced over VoIP with
carrier-based network switching, or third-party network switching,
interfaced to the PSTN?
On 12/28/18 3:23 PM, Yang Yu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:05 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer
> wrote:
>> Is this problem also responsible for the 911 outage? If so, the
>> post-mortem analysis is not useful only for CenturyLink customers but
>> for everyone on the west coast.
>
> Looks like most
On 12/16/18 12:07 AM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2018 at 00:48, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
>> The 1500 bits are for each ping. So 1000 hosts would be 1,500,000 bits
>
> Why? Why did you choose 1500b(it) ping, instead of minimum size or
> 1500B(ytes) IP packets?
On 12/15/18 12:03 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 18:52, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>
>> Short answer: about 1500 bits of bandwidth, and the CPU loading on the
>
> I can't parse this.
>
> 1000 hosts at 1 pps would be 672kbps on ethernetII encapulation wi
On 12/15/18 7:48 AM, Colton Conor wrote:
> How much compute and network resources does it take for a NMS to:
>
> 1. ICMP ping a device every second
> 2. Record these results.
> 3. Report an alarm after so many seconds of missed pings.
>
> We are looking for a system to in near real-time monitor
On 12/12/18 10:51 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> The AV lab gets screwed. You're running the coax they need through the
> noisy electrical riser because you didn't build dedicated comms risers
> and closets. Naturally nobody checked with them so you don't yet
> realize they can't do what they need to
On 11/21/2018 07:32 PM, Ross Tajvar wrote:
> I'd argue that's just content (though admittedly a lot of it). You can't
> cache, e.g., a SIP trunk, and offices which need to connect to each other
> can't cache one another in a CDN either.
I would further argue that you can't cache active Web
On 11/08/2018 07:50 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Signatures are no longer required for chip card transactions in the US,
> except I think for transactions where the auth is done on the amount
> before an added tip (restaurants).
Signatures are required for chip card transactions above a certain
On 07/26/2018 10:48 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Submarine cable is needed for deeper water (higher pressures) with
> more armor against damage since it's just laying on the seafloor
> exposed to everything that happens by.
Let's be specific: everything with teeth that happens by.
On 07/26/2018 10:31 AM, Chris Boyd wrote:
> 162.400
> 162.425
> 162.450
> 162.475
> 162.500
> 162.525
> 162.550
>
> That’s about 1.85 meter wavelength, so a quarter wave antenna would
> be pretty large. I’m sure the RF engineers can come up with a way to
> listen effectively without a huge
On 07/26/2018 09:48 AM, Rod Beck wrote:
> Unfortunately, the science community disagrees with Rob and you.
You mean the community that lives or dies on whether they get grant
money? And the way to get grant money is to justify why they could be
fed MORE money. Can you imagine how the "science
On 07/20/2018 11:22 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Oops, failure to communicate... They folks on the
> eyeball end have consumer grade satellite internet
> with VSATs in their yard. Thus my CDN in the
> satellite joke.
That idea would work better with a constellation of LEO satellites, as
opposed
On 06/24/2018 07:52 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
> Randy said "at business 1g fiber going into an Arris"
> As fiber, it'll be PON. If it were a traditional cable company, I'd
> guess DPOE (DOCSIS Provisioning Over Ethernet).
AT fiber goes into a PON, and then into an Arris BGW210.
(Yes, I have
On 06/12/2018 08:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> emacs!
> vim!
ed!
>>> TECO!
>> cat
> IBM 029.
Youngster. IBM 026.
On 06/01/2018 09:37 AM, McBride, Mack wrote:
> For routing whois information there aren't going to be many individuals and
> it would seem
> that the corporations who employee individuals should be the ones protecting
> those individuals
> work emails by providing a generic contact email
1 - 100 of 287 matches
Mail list logo
