On 4/5/2010 5:26 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:08 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:36:26 EDT, Jon Lewis said:
Since they only really need to be unique per broadcast domain, it
doesn't really matter. You can I could use the same MAC
addresses on al
On 4/5/2010 15:36, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, A.B. Jr. wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
>>
>> What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be. Or it
>> is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused th
On 2010.04.05 09:20, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.04.02 19:29, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>> Was looking for the "allocated" file on the ARIN website, but can't
>> remember
>> where it is. They used to have a file with one line per allocation that
>> started
>> like this "arin|US|ipv4". I
Hi Mike,
Sorry for the misunderstanding, allow me to paraphrase: the link does not
drop, actual throughput is now faster than our internet connection, and
transfers have not been interrupted, so we are happy. As I mentioned, our
previous setup could only work reliably when locked at 6 Mbps, and ev
- "Valdis Kletnieks" wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:26:53 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> > I'm 3COM, I made ISA 10Base2 / 10Base5 cards in the 90s. I run out
> of
> > MAC addresses. Instead of going to get more - if I even can! - I
> > recycle those MAC addresses
>
> There were severa
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:26:53 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> I'm 3COM, I made ISA 10Base2 / 10Base5 cards in the 90s. I run out of
> MAC addresses. Instead of going to get more - if I even can! - I
> recycle those MAC addresses
There were several cases of production run errors from multiple ve
On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:08 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:36:26 EDT, Jon Lewis said:
>
>> Since they only really need to be unique per broadcast domain, it doesn't
>> really matter. You can I could use the same MAC addresses on all our home
>> gear, and never know it.
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2010, at 1:43 52PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> Steve is talking mid-80s pricing, not mid-90s. By '93 or so, the fact
>> that Ethernet was becoming ubiquitous had already forced the price down.
>
> Yup. 10 years earlier, a
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:36:26 EDT, Jon Lewis said:
> Since they only really need to be unique per broadcast domain, it doesn't
> really matter. You can I could use the same MAC addresses on all our home
> gear, and never know it. For manufacturers, it's probably reasonably safe
> to reuse MAC
On Apr 5, 2010, at 4:58 59PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> On April 5, 2010 at 13:51 s...@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Bellovin) wrote:
>>
>> Yup. 10 years earlier, a 3Com Ethernet card for a Vax cost about $1500, if
>> memory serves.
>
> Early-mid 80s? I'd say at least twice that, I don't think there
On April 5, 2010 at 13:51 s...@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Bellovin) wrote:
>
> Yup. 10 years earlier, a 3Com Ethernet card for a Vax cost about $1500, if
> memory serves.
Early-mid 80s? I'd say at least twice that, I don't think there were
too many cards for Vaxes and similar for less than $5K
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, A.B. Jr. wrote:
Hi,
Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
What about mac addresses? Aren't they close to exhaustion? Should be. Or it
is assumed that mac addresses are being widely reused throughout the world?
All those low cost switches and wi
No, you are not pushing a stable '54mbps over the link without issue'.
More likely, if you cared to look, you are getting somewhere around
30-35mbps, HALF DUPLEX. The '54mbps' advertised on the shiny sales
brochure, is a signaling rate and not a measure of thruput.
Mike-
Bret Clark wrote:
Hello,
I want to collect experience from the Gurus on this mailer on how they make
use of the data they can get from NOC. what i mean by data, trouble tickets
opened internally or with vendors.
I wonder what would be common or even uncommon type of statistics that a
network operator would like to
On 05/04/2010 18:51, Steven Bellovin wrote:
Yup. 10 years earlier, a 3Com Ethernet card for a Vax cost about $1500, if
memory serves.
To be fair, everything for a vax was somewhat pricey. And slow.
On an even more unrelated note, does anyone remember the day that
CMU-TEK tcp/ip stopped wor
On 5 Apr 2010, at 9:13, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Christopher Morrow wrote:
[...]
> If we could recover them all, how many more years of IPv4 allocations
> would that buy us?
We allocate RIRs approximately one /8 per month. So you'd have to reclaim 12
/8s to extend the allocation
Peter Boone wrote:
I purchased 2x Ubiquity Bullet2's (2.4 GHz) and utilized our existing
antennas. It has been working extremely well, pushing a stable 54 Mbps over
the link without issue. Signal strength is consistently -40 dBm +/- 2 dBm,
from about -80 dBm before! Total cost included 2x Bull
On Apr 5, 2010, at 1:43 52PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:29:20 EDT, Jay Nakamura said:
I would have attributed the success of Ethernet to price!
>>> You've got the causality wrong -- it wasn't cheap, way back when.
>>
>> I remember back in '93~94ish
On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:29:20 EDT, Jay Nakamura said:
> >> I would have attributed the success of Ethernet to price!
> >>
> >>
> > You've got the causality wrong -- it wasn't cheap, way back when.
>
> I remember back in '93~94ish (I think) you could get a off brand 10BT
> card for less than $100, a
>> I would have attributed the success of Ethernet to price!
>>
>>
> You've got the causality wrong -- it wasn't cheap, way back when.
I remember back in '93~94ish (I think) you could get a off brand 10BT
card for less than $100, as oppose to Token Ring which was $300~400.
I can't remember anythin
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Michael Sokolov
wrote:
> Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>> Juniper. If you want to run OSPFv3 on their layer 3 switches, you need
>> a quite expensive "advanced" licence. OSPFv2, on the other hand, is
>> included in the base licence.
>
> Really? My level of respect for
On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:07 PM, James Hess wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Michael Sokolov
> wrote:
>> feature blocking seems to negate that. I mean, how could their
>> disabled-until-you-pay blocking of "premium features" be effective if a
>> user can get to the underlying Unix OS, shell,
On Apr 4, 2010, at 12:18 PM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 3:08 16PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
>>> File transfer wasn't multihop
>>
>> It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate
>> site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the bra
Hi NANOG,
I promised to post an update down the line on what happened with my wireless
situation. Here it is.
I purchased 2x Ubiquity Bullet2's (2.4 GHz) and utilized our existing
antennas. It has been working extremely well, pushing a stable 54 Mbps over
the link without issue. Signal strength i
On Apr 5, 2010, at 12:09 02PM, Jay Nakamura wrote:
>> negotiation and backward compatibility. I think that one of the
>> reasons for the continuing success of "Ethernet" technologies has been
>> implementation simplicity and 100% compatibility above the level of
>> the NIC.
>
> I would have att
>The ability to build dirt-cheap networks over crappy phone lines
>and using some no-name PCs as message and packet routers was
>noticed, see for example: "Developing Networks in Less
>Industrialized Nations" by Larry Press
Heck, I even wrote my PhD dissertation
(http://www.opus1.com/www/jms/dis
I think its generally agreed that FTP is used for file transfers,
but unfortunately the option exists to attach files within an email thanks
in part to MS/AOL/Compuserve and numerous others long ago. I believe its due
in part to ease of use for those that aren't technically inclined to kno
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> If we could recover them all, how many more years of IPv4 allocations would
> that buy us?
>
>
Not enough.
> --
> Jon Lewis | I route
> Senior Network
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Christopher Morrow wrote:
also, see previous 12 episodes of this conversation.. 1 /8 == ~3months
in ARIN allocation timeframes.
Does a trade show really need 16M IPv4 addresses though? How many other
/8's were assigned way back when IPv4 was being given out so freely that
On 4/5/2010 10:21, Michael Sokolov wrote:
> Jim Mercer wrote:
>
>> if the script determined an email was > X bytes (100k?), the message body
>> was rewritten with:
>>
>> "Contents removed at LSUC, email is not a file transport protocol."
>> and the mail was left to continue on its path.
>>
>> i k
> negotiation and backward compatibility. I think that one of the
> reasons for the continuing success of "Ethernet" technologies has been
> implementation simplicity and 100% compatibility above the level of
> the NIC.
I would have attributed the success of Ethernet to price!
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 12:05 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/4/2010 7:57 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:57:46AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> Has anybody considered lobbying the IEEE to do a point to point version
>>> of Ethernet to gets rid of addressing field
On Saturday 03 April 2010 09:38:46 pm IPv3.com wrote:
> What is "The Internet" TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?
'The Internet' is a collective internetworking of several thousand autonomous
systems, using a common protocol, that masquerades as a unified whole. Whether
this protocol is 1822, NCP, or IPvX
Jim Mercer wrote:
> if the script determined an email was > X bytes (100k?), the message body
> was rewritten with:
>
> "Contents removed at LSUC, email is not a file transport protocol."
> and the mail was left to continue on its path.
>
> i kinda feel like adding the same script back into my se
Although also being a small SOHO switch, may be Netgear GS-108T can
suit your needs.
> I want remove the initial staging step by allowing the installer to just
> plug the switch in and have the switch grab a config from a TFTP server
> noted by a DHCP option.
Not quite, it can download config fr
"nanog-requ...@nanog.org" wrote:
Send NANOG mailing list submissions to
nanog@nanog.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
nanog-requ...
On 2010.04.02 19:29, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Majdi S. Abbas"
> To: "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)"
> Cc: "NANOG list"
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 5:52 PM
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
>> On Fri, Apr 02, 2010 at 05:48:44PM -0500, John Palmer (NANOG
On Mar 26, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Mark Foster wrote:
or reboot is problematic in many cases. Many systems drop link-
state during reboot for a long-enough period that the bridge-port
restarts its spanning tree process, making results across reboots
consistently bad.
Interesting; Windows ten
It wasn't Moscow State U. It was privately-owned network (called RELCOM)
from the day one (which was in 1990, not 1987... in 1987 connecting a
dial-up modem to phone network was still illegal in the USSR), built by
DEMOS co-op (that company is still alive, by the way). Moscow State U was
one of
Do like the Chinese if you want a feature put out a billion dollar
tender with the feature mandatory and they will rush to do it
Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question
On 5/04/2010, at 14:48, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:41 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 4/
i remember implementing quasi-QoS on uucp.
after having our modem pool hogged too many times by a select few users,
i put a script into our mail system.
if the script determined an email was > X bytes (100k?), the message body
was rewritten with:
"Contents removed at LSUC, email is not a file t
On Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:04:25 -0400
ML wrote:
> Lately I've been delivering triple play services over a single CAT5 drop
> from a IDF to customers. We have been using small SOHO switches but
> they've been turning into a bit of a hassle since we have to stage each
> switch before deployment.
>
>
42 matches
Mail list logo
