On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 06:48, wrote:
> How do you propose to fairly distribute market data feeds to the market if
> not multicast?
I expected your aggressive support for small packets was for fintech.
An anecdote:
one of the largest exchanges in the world used MX for multicast
replication,
Recommended reading …
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/iot-value-set-to-accelerate-through-2030-where-and-how-to-capture-it
-Jorge
nice one.
"There is no prophet in his own motherland"
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 6:21 AM Fred Baker wrote:
>
>
> > On Aug 9, 2022, at 8:06 PM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> >
> > Robert Metcalfe, InfoWorld columnist and the inventor of Ethernet, also
> in 1995:
> > “I predict the Internet will soon go
Hi Nanog
We have tried to get peering with Google but only get answers that they are
making their peering system better. I have received this answer for over 1 year.
The reason why we needed peering to Google is that they do not send out exact
prefixes over IXP RS, which means that our traffic
For Microsoft Peering you might need to create an Azure account. You can
find the how-to document below:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/internet-peering/howto-exchange-portal
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 1:39 PM Oskar Borgqvist wrote:
> Hi Nanog
>
> We have tried to get peering with Google
Hello,
I am interested in getting involved with an open source project in my spare
time.
I thought that it may be useful to contribute to an open source project that
uses flow data to check for lateral movement inside of networks and also to
check for known bads in remote connections.
This
Hello Saku
I do not share that view:
1) Thread uses 6LoWPAN so nodes are effectively IPv6 even though it doesn’t
show in the air.
2) Wi-Sun is not Thread and it is already deployed by millions.
3) even LoRa (1.1.1) is going IPv6, using SCHC.
Regards,
Pascal
> -Original Message-
>
Hi Oskar,
for Google https://peering.google.com/#/options/peering
Regards,
-
Marco Paesani
Skype: mpaesani
Mobile: +39 348 6019349
Success depends on the right choice !
Email: ma...@paesani.it
Il giorno mer 10 ago 2022 alle ore 13:47 Siyuan Miao ha
scritto:
> For Microsoft Peering
Yes; There was absolutely some outright fraud here. Fraud, that even
when pointed out exactly to the FCC staffers handling this, was simply
ignored. This fraud claims in the rural parts of mendocino county, where
I have operated for 20 years, claims there is 'competitive fiber' within
500' of
It always amazes me how an industry that has , since its inception, been
constantly solving new problems to make things work, always finds a way to
assume the next problem will be unsolvable.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 10:23 PM Christopher Wolff
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022 at 12:48, Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
wrote:
Hey,
> I do not share that view:
I'm not sure how you read my view. I was not attempting to communicate
anything negative of IPv6. What I attempted to communicate
- near future looks to improve IOT security posture significantly,
>
> because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending exponential
> growth
>
Don't forget how we pontificate on how well we understand infinity.
Cheers,
Etienne
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 6:09 PM Chris Wright <
chris.wri...@commnetbroadband.com> wrote:
> That’s just humans in general, and
Sharada’s answers:
a) Yes, the run-to-completion model of Trio is superior to FP5/Nokia model when
it comes to flexible processing engines. In Trio, the same engines can do
either ingress or egress processing. Traditionally, there is more processing on
ingress than on egress. When that
Sounds like an interesting project. You might want to take a look at
sflowtool to get started. The following article shows how to use sflowtool
to decode sFlow datagrams and includes a simple Python script matching IP
addresses against a known threat database.
new at eleven
That’s just humans in general, and it certainly isn’t limited to our outlook on
the future of the internet. Big advancements will always take us by surprise
because our lizard brains have a hard time comprehending exponential growth.
Someone please stop me here before I get on my Battery-EV
It's not devices. It's software and what's worse protocol specifications
that are implemented in this software.
And we still didn't get the memo in 2022. Some colleagues think that having
builtin 5x Amplification in protocols freshly out just this year "is OK".
Cyberhippies
On Wed,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 15:53 Forrest Christian (List Account) <
li...@packetflux.com> wrote:
> Having at least a part of one foot in the global time and frequency
> community I'd say that it seems that the consensus is building toward
> eliminating leap seconds.
>
> There was a vote planned in 2012
Argus and the Argus Clients have quite a bit to offer in this line and they are
open source. Check qosient.com for the GitHub information.
Dave
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 7:37 AM, Peter Phaal wrote:
>
> Sounds like an interesting project. You might want to take a look at
> sflowtool to get
On Wed, 10 Aug 2022, Billy Croan wrote:
I think a much better answer to the nuisance of leap seconds (their
uncertainty), instead of dropping them all together, MIGHT be let them
build up for a century and deal with it every hundred years or every
thousand. Maybe every decade?
Sheesh. In
Hi NANOG;
I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting when
I should be sleeping.
Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the
conversation.
Use Case 1: Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality. It is stated that round trip
latency must
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 3:30 PM Christopher Wolff
wrote:
> Hi NANOG;
>
> I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting
> when I should be sleeping.
>
> Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the
> conversation.
>
> Use Case 1:
On 8/9/22 10:40 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
Possibly interesting:
This kind of idea came up w/in ICANN when they were first considering
the idea of adding 1000+ new generic and internationalized TLDs. Will
it cause a melt down?
Money was allocated, studies and simulations were done, reports
Christopher,
What you’re really observing here is that today's technology does not yet
enable these your chosen use cases. It may someday, but not today, not for any
amount of money. 1990s modem technology didn’t enable streaming video either,
but add 20 years of advancement, and today you can
> On Aug 9, 2022, at 20:06 , Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> LOL! You’re not the first person to underestimate the resilience of the
> Internet:
>
> “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” – Ken Olsen,
> CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation (now defunct), 1977
Technically
Break, probably not… Require IPv6 eventually? Probably.
Owen
> On Aug 9, 2022, at 19:22 , Christopher Wolff wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Has anyone proposed that the adoption of billions of IoT devices will
> ultimately ‘break’ the Internet?
>
> It’s not a rhetorical question I promise, just
Unless you are running in a very slow and resource constrained piece of
hardware, most of the latency comes from the link layer, not from the protocol
stack.
If your concern is delay and disruption, check out DTN (Delay/Disruption
Tolerant Networking,) and Bundle Protocol, we have a WG in
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 15:51 , Mel Beckman wrote:
>
> Christopher,
>
> What you’re really observing here is that today's technology does not yet
> enable these your chosen use cases. It may someday, but not today, not for
> any amount of money. 1990s modem technology didn’t enable streaming
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 3:29 PM Christopher Wolff
wrote:
> Use Case 1: Augmented Reality/Virtual Reality. It is stated that round trip
> latency must be <4ms with 100mbit full duplex at the cell edge to prevent
> nausea and dizziness while wearing goggles for a long term.
Hi Christopher,
> On Aug 10, 2022, at 15:29 , Christopher Wolff wrote:
>
> Hi NANOG;
>
> I appreciate all the thoughtful replies and I apologize for vague posting
> when I should be sleeping.
>
> Let me paint a little more context and hopefully this will help inform the
> conversation.
>
> Use Case 1:
30 matches
Mail list logo
