Long shot, but if anyone from Twitch could poke me offlist for a few
questions regarding it's policy with multiple streamers per IP address
(if it's even something we need to consider)
We are running a large-ish LAN event and are slightly worried about that.
Thanks!
I love mine, i have them deployed at all my sites.
-Mike
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 20:19, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> have you reached out to support? I wish all vendors stood behind their
> products as much as Forest does.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> htt
have you reached out to support? I wish all vendors stood behind their products
as much as Forest does.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Mike"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent:
On 1/27/16, 12:42 PM, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:
Doesnt the packetflux sitemonitor generator controller do that?
I have packetflux deployed and find it buggy and of little actual value,
im sorry I spent the money.
Sadly, the law firms with big routers seem to prefer a regulatory environment
that they
can manipulate, so it’s a tough situation to achieve a good outcome.
They are the ones that are blocking the industry from arriving at a good
outcome without
regulation and they will likely be the ones drivin
Nothing says a better Internet than one the government pokes their nose around
in.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "William Herrin"
To: "Randy Bush"
Cc: "North America
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> folk can rant on nanog all they want if it
> makes them feel good or self-righteous.
Hi Randy,
It DOES make me feel good. And a little self-righteous.
> won't change a damned thing.
Some FCC employees read this forum. My impression is that
In message
, Chris
Knipe writes:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> > There's little reason to buy a newer TV more than every 5 - 10 years, so
> > many TVs will be stranded until (if) they have some unifying firmware.
>
> Well the TV is also meaningless if the CPE, and
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 14:46:33 +0100, Bacon Zombie said:
> Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box?
Specific data points: The PS/3 and PS/4 consoles do *not* do so. My Vizio TV
also apparently does not - it *does* dhcp for an ipv4, but does naught
that produces an en
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 09:45 , Chris Knipe wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
>> There's little reason to buy a newer TV more than every 5 - 10 years, so
>> many TVs will be stranded until (if) they have some unifying firmware.
>>
>>
> Well the TV is also meanin
If you feel that Google's IPV6 statistics are accurate, this provides a view:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption&tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption
Japan: 9.49%
South Korea: 1.96%
Both of which are significantly better than North Korea's adoption rate of
How is IPv6 adoption in Korean and Japan? Maybe that would push these vendors
to care more if it impacted them where they lived.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Scott Morizot
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 1:15 PM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
C
On Jan 28, 2016 12:27, "Mikael Abrahamsson" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Scott Morizot wrote:
>
>> Which brands are the ones that aren't supporting IPv6?
>
>
> I just checked a Samsung "smart TV", it's new enough to have 5GHz wifi, I
believe the model is 3 years old.
>
I must have just lucked
Howdy,
What are folks using for BCM SOC (7424 gen, or newer) based IPTV STBs?[1] I’m
looking for something pretty simple - HDMI, S/PDIF (optical and 1/8” digital
coax) and an Ethernet port is all I’m really interested in. No RCA audio,
component video or Wifi. Nice and simple. If GreenPeak
Um. You don't have an option for old copper plants. This stuff gives you
2.5gig or 5gig on cat5/cat5e (depending on distance).
If you can do 10g you really shouldn't be carrying about this stuff. In the
optical world just jump to using 10Gig (where you can)
alan
I wouldn't say that used or grey market really count as viable options. If we
count that, I can get 1GbE for free.
The reality is that for a unit that is supported (both software releases and
warranty) properly for deployment in mission critical situations, 10GbE costs
~10x 1GbE.
While the op
> > With 10G it's been the opposite, nobody was using copper so SFP+ is
> > cheap. Only recently has copper 10G started to become common, a bit too
> > late to be worth bothering with now and as there are no copper SFP+
> > Having new servers switch to copper instead of sfp is a nuisance
>
> SFP+
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Owen DeLong wrote:
I believe IPv6 support will be coming to Apple TV soon. I don’t know
what the plans (if any) are at TiVO. I’m overdue to hammer on them
again.
Apple TV has had support for IPv6, at least my ATV3 has that. Enough
support to confuse the hell out of Netfl
> On Jan 28, 2016, at 05:46 , Bacon Zombie wrote:
>
> Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box?
>
Sadly, hardly any so far. A few models from Sony is all so far to the best
of my knowledge. However, there is effort continuing on that front and my
hat’s off to JJB f
On 1/28/16 10:29 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
>
> I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per
> 10GbE port and where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch
> is the EX4600, which lists at more like $850 per port. You can get
> higher-end ones with much larger port count
On 01/28/2016 10:29 AM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and
where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which
lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger
port counts
Used?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Randy Carpenter"
To: "Josh Reynolds"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 12:29:54 PM
Subject: Re: Equipment Su
I'd love to know what model Juniper you are getting for $102 per 10GbE port and
where you are getting it. The lowest-end 10GbE switch is the EX4600, which
lists at more like $850 per port. You can get higher-end ones with much larger
port counts and get the cost/port down to about half that, bu
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, Scott Morizot wrote:
Which brands are the ones that aren't supporting IPv6?
I just checked a Samsung "smart TV", it's new enough to have 5GHz wifi, I
believe the model is 3 years old.
http://specsen.com/televisions-samsung/samsung-ue55es6535/
There is no sight of any I
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Brandon Butterworth
wrote:
> With 10G it's been the opposite, nobody was using copper so SFP+ is
> cheap. Only recently has copper 10G started to become common, a bit too
> late to be worth bothering with now and as there are no copper SFP+
> Having new servers s
Well, I live in the US and this is a North American specific list (NANOG)
and IPv6 is the resolution of those issues for us. I'm not particularly
familiar with the state of networking in the rest of the world, so have no
idea how much of an issue it is for them.
And yes, TVs stick around for a lon
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 7:40 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> There's little reason to buy a newer TV more than every 5 - 10 years, so
> many TVs will be stranded until (if) they have some unifying firmware.
>
>
Well the TV is also meaningless if the CPE, and (at the very least) service
provider don't s
There's little reason to buy a newer TV more than every 5 - 10 years, so many
TVs will be stranded until (if) they have some unifying firmware.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
F
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:08 PM, James Downs wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 2016, at 09:40, Adam Loveless
> wrote:
> >
> > Any Google engineers that can contact me off list? Seems our address
> space
> > has been blacklisted by Google and we have to enter captchas for them
> now.
>
Blacklisting IP spa
On 29 Jan 2016, at 0:05, Crane, Todd wrote:
> Imagine the issues if EoL'ed and EoS'ed those iPads.
Um, I think they are . . .
---
Roland Dobbins
If we are still talking about Netflix issues, eventually many of the issues
will sort themselves out. As more and more "smart" devices are IPv6
enabled, IPv4 only devices will become rarer and rarer. Thus the CGNAT
pools will be shared by less and less accounts.
Then again... we may run into the i
On Jan 28, 2016 08:21, "Mark Tinka" wrote:
> On 28/Jan/16 15:46, Bacon Zombie wrote:
>
> > Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box?
>
> The number is not non-zero, but it's not worth talking about based on
> the small sample I did in 2015.
I'm curious how you conduc
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:52:59PM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
> The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the
> equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics.
>
> 2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that
> ether
On 28/Jan/16 17:27, Stephen Satchell wrote:
> It depends on whether the exact model is being sold after a couple of
> years, and not superseded by new models. This is the case in the
> wireless router world, where product churn leaves last year's model an
> orphan when it comes to updates.
Dis
> The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the
> equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics.
I never saw many cheap 48port 1U sfp switches as people bought copper
at that speed so the ones that were around were relatively expensive.
With 10G i
You're buying your switches and optics in the wrong places.
An SFP+ 10K w/ DOM is running me a little under $34. An SFP+ port runs
me slightly over $102. (Juniper)
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:52 AM, Baldur Norddahl
wrote:
> The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the
> equi
The standard 24 or 48 port SFP+ switch is 10 times the price of the
equivalent switch with 24 or 48 port SFP. The same is true for the optics.
2.5 and 4 Gbit/s SFP modules are available and cheap. It is just that
ethernet ports will not take advantage of the extra speed. So it is only
useful on fi
It depends on whether the exact model is being sold after a couple of
years, and not superseded by new models. This is the case in the
wireless router world, where product churn leaves last year's model an
orphan when it comes to updates.
Not so much in the OS world, only because the OS doesn
The goals of these BASE-T projects are specifically to extend the life
of the large installed base of Cat 5e/6 cabling with higher speeds.
I wouldn't expect there to be a fiber interface, because we already have
much higher speeds that are supported on MMF/SMF at better costs (ie if
you had a fiber
On 28/Jan/16 15:46, Bacon Zombie wrote:
> Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box?
The number is not non-zero, but it's not worth talking about based on
the small sample I did in 2015.
Particularly for TV's, software update support goes from trickles to
non-exist
On 28/Jan/16 11:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Bottom line, I’ve never seen a case where any ISP has definitively benefited
> from a restrictive peering policy. At best, it’s a neutral factor that most
> people just sort of accept. Routinely, it drives business away from such
> ISPs towards Tier-2s wi
It is best start with any before moving to all.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Bacon Zombie"
To: "Chris Knipe"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 7
Highly unlikely...
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Bacon Zombie wrote:
> Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box?
> On 28 Jan 2016 10:17, "Chris Knipe" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Fortunately Netflix is running
Do all "smart" TVs and Game consoles fully support IPv6 out of the box?
On 28 Jan 2016 10:17, "Chris Knipe" wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >
> > Fortunately Netflix is running IPv6 for most things already. If you’re an
> > ISP and you’re not
> > allowing them t
almost all top tier providers have closed peering policies, many
outright draconian. folk can rant on nanog all they want if it
makes them feel good or self-righteous. won't change a damned
thing. bunch of whiners, whining about something that has been
a reality for over 20 years and is not abou
On 28/01/16 09:44, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
>
> Le 28/01/2016 01:51, Baldur Norddahl a écrit :
>> > Will we also get 2.5 Gbps fiber optics? SFP modules should support it?
> Why wouldn't you go straight to 10G ?
The 2.5/5G standards were born *entirely* on the rationale that someone
wanted to get mor
Hey,
> So I'm looking at the policies, recommended configurations, etc. of other
> IXes. We try to model a lot of ourselves on what the Europeans do (even if we
> come up short in some areas). I was reading through the AMS-IX guide.
>
> https://ams-ix.net/technical/specifications-descriptions/co
Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogent's refusal to peer Hurricane
Electric - and how to solve it Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:36:13PM -0800
Quoting Owen DeLong (o...@delong.com):
>
> > On Jan 27, 2016, at 14:43 , Måns Nilsson wrote:
> >
> > Subject: Re: The IPv6 Travesty that is Cogen
Le 28/01/2016 01:51, Baldur Norddahl a écrit :
> Will we also get 2.5 Gbps fiber optics? SFP modules should support it?
Why wouldn't you go straight to 10G ?
--
Jérôme Nicolle
Unless your IX has an unusual amount of churn, a four hour timeout really
shouldn’t be a problem.
Stale records really shouldn’t be a problem as they should get overwritten with
gratuitous ARPs when needed.
OTOH, having the ARP be somewhat sticky can not only reduce broadcast traffic,
but also
> While I do not disagree that larger providers looking to protect their
> revenues is an economically-sound objective, I think the typical peering
> policies of old do not entirely hold up in 2016.
I’m pretty convinced that they never really did. I realize they’ve been popular
conventional wisdom
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Fortunately Netflix is running IPv6 for most things already. If you’re an
> ISP and you’re not
> allowing them to reach Netflix via IPv6, then you’re part of the problem
> rather than the solution.
>
>
Sure. Easy to say when you have acces
How often does your peering router change IP address?
For the majority of people I would expect the answer to be almost
nevery/very rarely.
James.
IPv4 will become a progressively deeper version of hell until we finally turn
it off.
Fortunately Netflix is running IPv6 for most things already. If you’re an ISP
and you’re not
allowing them to reach Netflix via IPv6, then you’re part of the problem rather
than the solution.
Owen
> On Jan 2
54 matches
Mail list logo
