On Thu, 10/8/15, Mark Andrews wrote:
> This is today's reality and ISP's are not meeting
> today's needs.
> It's not just about
> having enough IPv4 addresses. It's about
> providing the infrastructure to allow your
> customers to
Gotta watch out for specifying T1 when you want Ethernet- they could just give
you 4 wires on pins 1,2,4,5 :)
I see the problem as misunderstanding what "physical" actually means: 4-wire
twisted pair is different from 8-wire, is different from coax, is different
from SMF etc. what gets run
> On Apr 15, 2016, at 3:09 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Australia is about the area as the US and has always had caller
> pays and seperate area codes for mobiles.
Australia has fewer people than Texas, and is more than an order of magnitude
smaller than the US by population.
Simpler > complex *sometimes*. It turns out that sometimes the complexity is
worth it (eg https://youtu.be/-iiXsbrEv3U ). Perhaps "as simple as possible,
by no simpler" would be reasonable?
David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts
> On Aug 2, 2016, at 7:08
> On Nov 9, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> vi users prefer ospf
> emacs users prefer is-is
>
So that leaves EIGRP for the nano users?
David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts
On Dec 28, 2016, at 5:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> An alternative multi-vendor approach is to use 1 vendor per stack layer,
>> but alternate layer to layer. That is; Vendor A edge router, Vendor B
>> firewall, Vendor A/C switches, Vendor D anti-SPAM software, etc. This
>> doesn't
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_(Pearl_Jam_album)
Pearl Jam are from Seattle...
David Barak
Sent from mobile device, please excuse autocorrection artifacts
> On Jun 4, 2017, at 4:55 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> So, I've been staring at the NANOG70 tee shirt for
> a
7 matches
Mail list logo