At 01:05 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
>I guess the best thing you can do is not take peering matters personally,
>and to remember that peering decisions are business decisions, and they by
>personalizing them, it creates unnecessary animosity.
>
>- Daniel Golding
Oh come now Dan, t
On 8/21/05, Peter Dambier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have had a look into one of my microwave books. I have seen in coaxcables the speed of lite drop to 90% or 80% depending on the insulator,the dielectric.
I believe this is referred to as "velocity factor".
-Steve
-- -Steve
No, I think we all need the comic relief, I say leave it :)
-SteveOn 9/27/05, John Neiberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We , a small group of researchers , have started a Project called Prix [> http://prix.uprr.pr ] which has the intentions of creating a large table for> those who would like to
On 11/16/05, Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:42:41PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673Hrmmm... The future of the net? You mean, will crazy people continue to
post crazy rants about things they clearly don't fully understa
>
> Not that I know of, but I've never attempted what you
> describe. Putting the baluns in the loop will destroy the
> framing i.e. it's going to try and convert b8zs/ami to 802.x.
A Balun (BALanced to UNbalanced) is simply an impledence matching mechanism.
Crossover is still required.
--
On 4/13/05, John Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for that information. I can leave 41/8 in my router bogon list
> and hopefully eliminate the Nigerian 419 problem somewhat.
Personally, I believe we should give them the chance to fail before we
cut them off from the rest of the w
On 4/13/05, Richard Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The largest part (>90%) does originate in Nigeria. The remainder comes
> from countries adjacent to Nigeria such as Togo, Senegal, etc (~6%) or
> from the Netherlands (~4%)
So we should spank the rest of the *continent* for one countries i
On 4/15/05, Philip Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am trying to get a handle on how common this practice is.
> No one that I have asked seems to know any provider that does this,
> and a search of a few FAQs plus about an hour of Googling hasn't
> turned up anything definite (but maybe
At 04:10 PM 8/19/2002 -0400, Andy Dills wrote:
>Interesting. So then, how did that happen?
>
>as-block:AS1 - AS1876
>descr: ARIN ASN block
>remarks: These AS numbers are further assigned by ARIN
>remarks: to ARIN members and end-users in the ARIN region
>admin-c: ARIN1-RIP
On 3/8/06, Daniel Senie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 08:57 AM 3/8/2006, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:>On Mar 8, 2006, at 1:56 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:>>It's not just cities, it's entire countries. Try being on a DSL line
>in France and getting to a Cogent web server in France.How is this differen
It's not uncommon at all to have a single interconnect between providers in a geographical area. Multiple interconnects within a region tended to be more for load balancing, not redundancy. There have been certain providers that, historically, could or would not support anything larger than an OC48
On 1/28/07, Danny McPherson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
o If you're going to use redistribution - or not - ensure that all
external advertisement policies require explicit match of advertise
communities and default is to deny
I'll second that recommendation. I learned early in life that this
It's about revenue recovery. If you provide your own free wifi, they are
losing potential business. It's usually part of the negotiation with the
Hotel.
-Steve
On 2/28/07, Carl Karsten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
me again.
So wifi at pycon 07 was 'better than 06' witch I hear was a complete
On 2/28/07, Jared Mauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-157A1.pdf
I do suggest reading this. They can not legally bar you from
using the devices. They can charge you outrageous fees to get to/from
the MMR or telco demarc and
On 3/27/07, Lincoln Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
even on "default settings" on a modern TCP stack, getting close to
path-line-rate on a 80msec RTT WAN @ DS3 speeds with a single TCP stream
should
not be that difficult.
the Windows TCP stack as of Windows XP SP2 has some fairly decent
defaul
On 4/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For that matter, what releases of Windows support setting a 9K
MTU? That's
probably the *real* uptake limiter.
Most, if not all. I have an XP box that has a GigE with 9k MTU.
--
-Steve
16 matches
Mail list logo
