Hi Tony,
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 23:26:20 -0700
Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps
> this is yet another case where people misunderstand the principle
> itself and are invoking it to give a name to their (well placed)
> architectural distaste.
>
Doesn't NAT, or more specifically
Hi David,
>
> Well, if you NAT the destination identifier into a routing locator
> when a packet traverses the source edge/core boundary and NAT the
> locator back into the original destination identifier when you get to
> the core/destination edge boundary, it might be relevant. The
Hi David,
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
David Barak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I'd change the allocation approach: rather than give
> every customer a /64, which represents an IPv4
> universe full of IPv4 universes, I'd think that any
> customer can make do with a single IPv4
Hi Randy,
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:08:49 -1000
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If we're going to do that, we may as well also start reclaiming
> > those 48 bit MAC addresses that come with ethernet cards. After
> > all, nobody would need anymore than say 12 to 13 bits to address
> > t
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:57:52 -0700
David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 01:45:40AM -0700, Tony Li wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > This is probably the most common misunderstanding of the end-to-end
> > principle out there. Someone else can dig up the quote, but
> > ba
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:12:13 + (GMT)
"Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't believe there is a 'rfc1918' in v6 (yet), I agree that it doesn't
> seem relevant, damaging perhaps though :)
>
Sort of do, with a random component in them to help attempt to prevent
collis
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:36:00 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see some acknowledgement that there are legitimate uses of
> > number resources that don't include "the public Internet".
>
RFC1627, "Network 10 Considered Harmful (Some Practices Shouldn't be
Codified)" and RFC3879,
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:44:10 +0100
Daniel Karrenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15.11 07:38, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > RFC1627, "Network 10 Considered Harmful (Some Practices Shouldn't be
> > Codified)" and RFC3879, "Deprecating Site Local Add
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:18:52 -0700
"Sam Crooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This confidentiality notice almost DoS'd my MUA !
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
> This message, and any attachments, are intended only for the lawful and
> specified use of the individual or entity to which it is addres
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 04:16:17 + (GMT)
"Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > http://www.secsup.org/files/dmm-queuing.pdf
> >
>
> oh firstgrad spelling where ahve you gone?
>
> also at: http://www.secsup.org/files/
Hi Randy,
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 11:10:04 -1000
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You are using a crossover cable right?
> >> I'm having a right mare trying to get a Foundry BigIron to
> >> connect up to a cisco 2950T, via Gigabit copper.
>
> i was under the impression that gige spec h
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:50:07 + (GMT Standard Time)
Sam Stickland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The cabling arrangement is:
>
> Foundry -- Straight -- Patch -- Underfloor -- Patch -- Crossover -- Cisco
> GBIC Cable Panel Straight Panel Cable
>
> If I r
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:24:35 + (GMT Standard Time)
Sam Stickland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:50:07 + (GMT Standard Time)
> > Sam Stickland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
&
The purpose of terrorism is to create widespread _terror_ (the
hint is in the word).
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:00:28 -0700
A Satisfied Mind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 1/19/06, Jerry Pasker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You are oversimplifying things here Why was the World Trade Center
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:17:35 -0700
A Satisfied Mind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/19/06, Mark Smith
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The purpose of terrorism is to create widespread _terror_ (the
> > hint is in the word).
>
> And what is terror?
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:56:37 -0600
"Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thus spake "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Feb 24, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> There are a few advantages to going with PTP VLANs, such as eliminating
> DR/BDR elections needed o
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:41:45 +1030
Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To qualify this better, there are no DR/BDR on the segment at all,
rather than there being ones that just aren't used :
> Automatic nighbour discovery via multicast hellos still happens, the
> diffe
On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 23:33:44 +
"tony sarendal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 07/03/06, Gunther Stammwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well that's true but Iperf won't show you at which time a loss occured. It
> > will simply print out the results when the test has been finished. I
Hi Howard,
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 21:17:44 -0500
"Howard C. Berkowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Much of the enterprise market seems wedded to Visio as their network
> graphics tool, which locks them into Windows. Personally, I hate both
> little pictures of equipment and Cisco hockey-puck
n Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:32:13 -0500 (EST)
Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=463928&category=BUSINESS&newsdate=3/23/2006
> A fire Tuesday that tore through a popular bakery in Cohoes left 70,000
> Time Warner Cable subscribers with
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:16:34 -0500
Aaron Gagnier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This one?
>
> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,2471255~root=cable,opt~mode=flat
>
Could be. Keith Woodworth sent me this version of it off list :
http://please.rutgers.edu/show/broadband/fibercable.jpg
I seem
On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 06:05:49 -0600
neal rauhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> The fiber cable hit by bullet was in New Jersey if I'm recalling
> correctly ... this was maybe four or five years ago. If memory serves
> (and forty *is* uncomfortably close) this was part of a cable modem p
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:46:13 +0530
"Glen Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There is a provider who is running ISIS in its core and they are using
> RIP for the management interface. Is it valid to redistribute all the
> ISIS routes into RIP and all the RIP routes into ISIS?
>
Depen
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:37:48 -0500
Joe Maimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > One better
> > solution is to take advantage of route tags or labels. When a route is
> > redistributed you tag it, and then when mutual redistribution oc
On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:33:08 -0500
Joe Maimon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:37:48 -0500
> >
> >
> > Did it happen to be RIPv1 ? Only RIPv2 supports route tags.
> >
> Of course it was rip2
>
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:59:51 -0700
Warren Kumari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 2:18 AM, John van Oppen wrote:
> >
> > That being said, I know at least one of our transit customers does
> > hosting exactly how you are describing. Coincidentally, this
> > customer is
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
Henry Linneweh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Every where I go that uses MySql is hozed and I can not access the pages
>
> -Henry
There seems to have been a big fault over there that is effecting us
here in .AU. According to our local upstream it's a G
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:13:50 -0400
Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 08:04:01AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 12:48:39 -0700 (PDT)
> > Henry Linneweh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 15:11:52 -0400
"William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/27/07, Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > an MSFC2 can
> > hold 256,000 entries in its FIB of which 12,000 are reserved for
> > Multicast. I do not know if the 12,000 can be set to serve the general
>
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 04:19:32 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 09:37:46PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
> >
> > At 9:21 PM -0400 9/3/07, Joe Abley wrote:
> > >
> > >Is there a groundswell of *operators* who think TCP should be replaced,
> > >and believe it can be replaced?
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 06:02:32 -1000
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://isen.com/blog/uploaded_images/5z6vt4n-720249.jpg
IMS?
--
"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly
alert."
- Bruce Schneier, "Beyond F
On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:50:11 +0100
Leigh Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, try buying bandwidth in Australia! The have a lot more water to
> cover ( and so potentially more cost and more profit to be made by
> monopolies) than well connected areas such as the US.
>
I don't necessaril
Hi Andrew,
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 08:36:12 -0500 (CDT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Odlyzko) wrote:
>
> As a point of information, Australia is one of the few places where
> the government collects Internet traffic statistics (which are hopefully
> trustworthy). Pointer is at
>
>http://www.dtc.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:31:09 -0700
Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> > This result is unsurprising and not controversial. TCP achieves
> > fairness *among flows* because virtually all clients back off in
> > response to packet drops. BitTorrent, though,
On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:49:18 GMT
"Paul Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - -- "Christopher Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 17, 2007 9:59 PM, Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> And in fact, "threat propagat
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:26:43 +0900
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I work on a network with 100K+ DSL folks and 200+ leased line
> > customers, plus some other stuff. The leased line customers are
> > increasing dramatically. I should plan for a /64 for every DSL
> > customer and a
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:31:07 -0800
Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The primary reasons I see for separate networks on v6 would include
> > firewall policy (DMZ, separate departmental networks, etc)...
> >
> This is certainly one reason for such things.
>
> > And I'm having some tro
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 12:53:52 -0800
"Christopher Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 22, 2007 12:23 PM, Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 01:33:15PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
> > > For example... Within one's own network (or subnet if you will) w
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 12:54:34 -0500
Ross Vandegrift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 12:24:32AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > First of all, there's RFC 3513:
> >
> > For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
> > 000, Interface IDs are r
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:46:26 +0100
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Joe Greco:
>
> >> Right now, we might say "wow, 256 subnets for a single end-user...
> >> hogwash!" and in years to come, "wow, only 256 subnets... what were we
> >> thinking!?"
> >
> > Well, what's the likelih
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:26:12 -0600 (CST)
Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If operational simplicity of fixed length node addressing is a
> > technical reason, then I think it is a compelling one. If you've ever
> > done any reasonable amount of work with Novell's IPX (or other fixed
> > l
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:27:55 -0600 (CST)
Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think Ethernet is also another example of the benefits of
> > > > spending/"wasting" address space on operational convenience - who needs
> > > > 46/47 bits for unicast addressing on a single layer 2 network!?
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 09:58:44 +0900
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There's a tendency to move away from (simulated) shared media networks.
> > "One host per subnet" might become the norm.
>
> and, with multiple addresses per interface, the home user surely _might_
> need a /32.
>
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:27:13 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 26 dec 2007, at 22:40, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>
> > It would be very interesting to me if the answer was "it's moot
> > because we're going to move to CGA's as a step forward"; it would
> > be equally i
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:11:54 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27 dec 2007, at 11:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > "Configure this stuff manually" may work for a small number of
> > customers. It is highly undesirable (and probably won't be considered
> > at all) in
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:57:59 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27 dec 2007, at 20:26, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
>
> Taken to its extreme "feature parity" means a search and replace of
> all IPv4 specs to make every instance of "32 bits" "128 bits" but not
>
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 18:08:10 -0800
"Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> First, thanks everyone for the discussion. I learned more from this than a
> LOT of other discussions on IPv6. I now have a plan and I didn't before...
>
> It looks to me that one really has to know his
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:57:45 +0900
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ever calculated how many Ethernet nodes you can attach to a single LAN
> > with 2^46 unicast addresses?
>
> you mean operationally successfully, or just for marketing glossies?
>
Theoretically. What I find a bit hard
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:36:56 +0900
Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2007, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > Once I realised that IPv6's fixed sized node addressing model was
> > similar to Ethernet's, I then started wondering why Ethernet w
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:50:01 -0500
"Robert E. Seastrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Leo Bicknell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> I'd really, really, really like to have DHCP6 on the Mac. Autoconfig
> is not sufficient for this task unless there is some kind of trick you
> can do to m
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:14:25 -0500
Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:57:45 +0900
> > Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> Ev
On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:14:25 -0500
Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 27, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:57:45 +0900
> > Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
>
> Would
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:08:34 +0100
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott Weeks wrote:
> [..]
> > I have about 100K DSL customers at this time and most all are households.
> > 65K wouldn't cover that. At this point, I doubt that I'd require much
> > more than just asking and making sur
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:18:41 -0800
Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mark Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > Another idea would be to give each non-/48 customer the
> > first /56 out of each /48. If you started out with a /30 or /31 RIR block ,
> > by
&g
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 10:18:08 -0600 (CST)
Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I see there is a long thread on IPv6 address assignment going, and I
> > apologize that I did not read all of it, but I still have some unanswered
> > questions.
>
> Anyways, I suggest you run over and read
>
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 10:27:50 +1030
Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 13:18:41 -0800
> Joel Jaeggli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Mark Smith wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Another idea would be to give e
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 12:57:17 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 31 dec 2007, at 1:24, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > Another idea would be to give each non-/48 customer the
> > first /56 out of each /48.
>
> Right, so you combine the down
On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 12:53:24 -0500
"William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 11:25 AM, Tim Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Only assuming the nature of your mistake is 'turn it off'.
> >
>
> Do you mean to tell me there's actually such a thing as a network
> engineer
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:43:12 -0500
"William Herrin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 5:25 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > So users who rarely use their connection are more profitable to the ISP.
> >
> > The fat man isn't a welcome sight to the owner of the AYCE buffe
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:56:30 +0900
Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > But the fat man isn't allowed to take up residence in the restaurant
> > and continously eat - he's only allowed to be there in b
Don't worry if the ISOC website times out, their firewall isn't TCP
ECN compatible. It was going to be fixed a couple of years ago when I
enquired about it, but obviously hasn't been. Being liberal in what
they'll accept seems to be a bit of a problem for them.
It's the last remaining non-ECN com
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 08:41:27 -0500
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 27-Feb-2008, at 15:09, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > Don't worry if the ISOC website times out, their firewall isn't TCP
> > ECN compatible.
>
> Isn't it the case i
On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 00:42:26 +0800 (CST)
Joe Shen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi,
>
>we plan to set up a web site with two web servers.
>
>The two servers should be under the same domain
> name. Normally, web surfing load should be
> distributed between the servers. when one serve
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 14:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
Mark Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If so, which of these two nets is unreasonable in their actions/policies?
>
The non-announcers, because they're also breaking PMTUD.
Regards,
Mark.
--
"Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must rem
Hi Mark,
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Mark Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
> >> The non-announcers, because they're also breaking PMTUD.
>
> Really? How? Remember, we're not talking about RFC1918 space,
> where there is a
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 09:22:34 -0400
"Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 25, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ian Mason wrote:
>
> > ICMP packets will, by design, originate from the incoming interface
> > used by the packet that triggers the ICMP packet. Thus giving an
> > interface a
> the internet is broken. anyone know why?
No.
On Sat, 4 Nov 2006 22:55:46 -0800
Michael Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> "Could you be any less descriptive of the problem you are seeing?"
> >>> the internet is broken. anyone know why?
> >> Did you ping it?
> >
> > is that what
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:25:54 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I am suggesting that ISP folks should be cooperating with
> P2P software developers. Typically, the developers have a very
> vague understanding of how the network is structured and are
> essentially trying to reverse engineer netwo
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:33:26 +0800
Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Charlie Allom wrote:
>
> > > This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front which can
> > > be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions than port
> > > blocki
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 17:38:06 -0600 (CST)
Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> > Those sorts of percentages are common in Pareto distributions (AKA
> >
> > > Zipf's law AKA "the 80-20 rule").
> > > With the Zipf's exponen
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 18:51:08 -0800
Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 6:14 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > It doesn't seem that the P2P
> > application developers are doing it, maybe because they don't care
> > bec
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:47:04 -0800
Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The advantage of providing caching services is that they both help
> preserve scare resources and result in a more pleasing user
> experience. As already pointed out, CAPEX/OPEX along with insertion
> into
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 04:15:44 -0600 (CST)
Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Michal Krsek wrote:
> >
>
> For broad-band ISPs, whose main goal is not to sell or re-sell transit
> though...
>
> >
> > a) caching systems are not easy to implement and maintain (another
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:07:06 -0800
Roland Dobbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course I understand this, but I also understand that if one can
> get away with RFC1918 addresses on a non-Internet-connected network,
> it's not a bad idea to do so in and of itself; quite the opposite, in
>
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 09:45:01 -0700
David Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 6, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > The thing is, with IPv6 there's no need to do NAT.
>
> Changing providers without renumbering your entire infrastructure.
>
> Multi-homing without having to know
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:38:20 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> IMHO, unless it's something blatantly illegal such as kiddie porn and the
> like I don't think content filtering is the responsibility of the ISP's.
> Besides all of the conspiracy theories that are bound to surface, I think
> forcin
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 13:02:55 +0100
Leigh Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> is there any work or research on measuring method for
> >> subscriber (customer)side feelings of network service?
> >>
> >
> We have been doing a lot of work on how to measure
78 matches
Mail list logo
