> > just a small comment: As far as I understand "AP isolation" doesn't work
> > if you don't have a WLAN controller but do have more than one APs. E.g. in
> > the following setup
> >
> > ap1--sw1--sw2--ap2
> >
> > with "AP isolation" turned on, clients associated to ap1 cannot
> > communicate dire
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 3:50 PM, JÁKÓ András wrote:
>> Second, in the hotspot scenarios where this is likely to be a problem
>> (in IPv4 -or- IPv6) it's addressed by the "AP isolation" feature
>> that's getting close to omnipresent even in the low end APs. With this
>> feature enabled, stations ar
> Second, in the hotspot scenarios where this is likely to be a problem
> (in IPv4 -or- IPv6) it's addressed by the "AP isolation" feature
> that's getting close to omnipresent even in the low end APs. With this
> feature enabled, stations are not allowed to talk to each other over
> the wlan; they
William Herrin wrote:
>> You are saying to disable DAD, which is a violation of SLAAC.
>
> We do that on some wired ethernets too.
You are calling such a link Ethernet. OK. Fine.
> The Cisco configuration
> command is "switchport protected." It helps control virus outbreaks if
> machines design
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>> that's getting close to omnipresent even in the low end APs. With this
>> feature enabled, stations are not allowed to talk to each other over
>> the wlan; they can only talk to hosts on the wired side of the lan.
>>
William Herrin wrote:
>> You miss multicast storm caused by DAD.
> Second, in the hotspot scenarios where this is likely to be a problem
> (in IPv4 -or- IPv6) it's addressed by the "AP isolation" feature
As you stated
: I think Masataka meant to say (and said previously) that the DHCP
: request
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> Tony Hain wrote:
>> where an IPv6 multicast RA allows all the devices to
>> configure based on reception of a single packet.
>
> You miss multicast storm caused by DAD.
This is a long solved issue.
First, it already occurs with ARP broadca
Tony Hain wrote:
>>> So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
>>> enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
>>
>> For example?
>
> Your own example ---
>> ... that a very crowded train arrives at a station and all the smart
> phones of passengers try to connect to APs
TJ wrote:
>>> So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
>>> enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
>>
>> For example?
> "Heavy reliance on broadcast for a wide range of instances where the
> traffic is really only destined for a single node" would seem to be rather
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 11:21 PM
> To: David Miller
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
>
> David Miller wrote:
>
> > So, a sin
On 9/20/12 9:52 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I'm quite certain I have a good idea of the magnitude of what you'd
charge for professional services for such work, and I would expect it
to be 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than what a Worldcon Concom could
afford to pay. :-) I would also be very surpri
- Original Message -
> From: "Rick Alfvin"
> Verilan is the exclusive network services provider for NANOG, IEEE
> 802, IETF, ICANN, ZigBee Alliance, MAAWG, OIF, GENIVI, Tizen and many
> other technical organizations. We deploy large temporary networks to
> provide high density WI-Fi for m
- Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin"
> My point is that blaming union contracts or union anything for being
> unable to find a place to hold a convention where you can implement
> the network you want to implement is nonsense. NANOG, ARIN and IETF
> conferences have all somehow m
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> David Miller wrote:
>
> > So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
> > enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
>
> For example?
>
"Heavy reliance on broadcast for a wide range
David Miller wrote:
> So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
> enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
For example?
Masataka Ohta
On 9/19/2012 11:33 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> TJ wrote:
>
>>> >> A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
>> > Really?
> With the Internet wide scope, yes, of course.
So, a single example of IPv4 behaving in a suboptimal manner would be
enough to declare IPv4 not operational?
TJ wrote:
>> A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
> Really?
With the Internet wide scope, yes, of course.
In general, as IPv6 was designed to make "ND uber Alles",
not "IP uber Alles", and ND was designed by a committee with
only ATM, Ethernet and PPP in mind, ND can not
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> A single counter example is enough to deny IPv6 operational.
>
>
Really?
If that is really your opinion, the entire conversation is a rather moot
point as I believe you and "pretty much the rest of the w
William Herrin wrote:
> I think Masataka meant to say (and said previously) that the DHCP
> request from the wifi station is, like all packets from the wifi
> station to the AP, subject to wifi's layer 2 error recovery. It's not
> unicast but its subject to error recovery anyway.
Mostly correct.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Sean Harlow wrote:
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 04:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:
>
>> As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
>> unicast.
>
> This didn't sound right, so I decided to test. With the three clients
>available to me (laptop running OS X 10.7
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 06:54:35 +0900, Masataka Ohta said:
> Sean Harlow wrote:
>
> >> As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
> >> unicast.
> >
> > This didn't sound right, so I decided to test.
>
> Your test is invalid.
You forgot to include a .jpg of Darth Vader playing bagpip
TJ wrote:
>> The only thing operators have to know about IPv6 is that IPv6, as is
>> currently specified, is not operational.
> I think it is safe to say that this is provably false.
You failed to do so.
> Are there opportunities for increased efficiency, perhaps ... however:
Congestion collap
Sean Harlow wrote:
>> As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
>> unicast.
>
> This didn't sound right, so I decided to test.
Your test is invalid.
> With the three
> clients available to me (laptop running OS X 10.7.4, phone
> running Android 4.0, and iPod running iOS 4.1.2
On Sep 19, 2012, at 04:25, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> As I already stated, DHCP discover/request from STA to AP is
> unicast.
This didn't sound right, so I decided to test. With the three clients
available to me (laptop running OS X 10.7.4, phone running Android 4.0, and
iPod running iOS 4.1.2) al
> The only thing operators have to know about IPv6 is that IPv6, as is
> currently specified, is not operational.
>
I think it is safe to say that this is provably false.
Are there opportunities for increased efficiency, perhaps ... however:
I get native IPv6 at home via my standard residentia
Seth Mos wrote:
> Yes, radvd has a configuration option to send unicast packets. But I
> think the effects are slightly overstated.
A senario considered by IEEE11ai is that a very crowded train
arrives at a station and all the smart phones of passengers
try to connect to APs.
Then, it is essent
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 01:03:00PM -0700
Quoting Jo Rhett (jrh...@netconsonance.com):
> On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > I'm talking to the people who will probably be, in 2015, running the first
> > Worldcon I can
William Herrin wrote:
>> Unicast since its responding to a solicitation?
>>
>> RFC4861 states:
>>
>> A router MAY choose to unicast the
>> response directly to the soliciting host's address (if the
>> solicitation's source address is not the unspecified address), but
>> the usual c
Op 18-9-2012 22:50, William Herrin schreef:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote:
IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a
router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router
advertisement.
> So I just want to point out that this is an utterly irrelevant
> topic. Worldcon is full to the brim with really smart people who can
> build good networks, but in every place large enough to host a
> Worldcon the owners of the building make money selling Internet access
> and don't want competit
t; Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:04:22 -0400
>> Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi
>> wrote:
>> > 'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act,
>> > only prevents a union
> From: William Herrin
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:04:22 -0400
> Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi
> wrote:
> > 'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act,
> > only preven
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in
>>> 2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in
>>> union labor instead of the normal workers becaus
> There were enough fans among the 600,000 folks in the Baltimore area
> but not enough an hour away among the 5,600,000 in the National
> Capital Region to justify hosting a Worldcon a couple miles inside the
> Virginia border where no unions would get in your way? Really?
Having grown up and sta
Anyone from nanog currently at the wheel of the conference network at
Dreamforce in San Francisco (nearly 7 attendees)?
It appears that all of the suggestions posted to this nanog thread so far
were thoroughly ignored. Conference WiFi is effectively unusable, despite
the very visible, expensiv
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in
>> 2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in
>> union labor instead of the normal workers because they
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:22 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
> 'Right to work', as defined by section 14 B of the Taft-Hartley Act, only
> prevents a union contract that requiures union membership as a PRE-REQUISITE
> for being hired. What is called 'closed shop' -- where employment is
> closed to thos
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> Not being aware of which states have this law, it's entirely possible that
> the intersection between states that have this law and states which have
> enough scifi fans willing to get together to host a worldcon is negligible.
There were enough
On Sep 18, 2012, at 2:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> IIRC when the Democatic National Convention was held in Denver in
> 2008, they had to strike a special deal with the venue to bring in
> union labor instead of the normal workers because they couldn't find a
> suitable place that was already unio
> From: William Herrin
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:47:34 -0400
> Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
>
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> >>> Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCo
NOTE: None of the following content can be typed into your router. It holds
information only slightly relevant to networking.
On Sep 18, 2012, at 1:47 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> That has been true everywhere that Worldcon has been for a
>> number of years, excluding Japan. Hotel union contract
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> The trick is that there is no "right to work" if you are a guest at the
> hotel. You have no right to work on their property without their
> consent. In reality, the hotels do not want union headaches so that is
> the way it goes.
IIRC w
d I do not
want to join the union.
Steven Naslund
-Original Message-
From: William Herrin [mailto:b...@herrin.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:48 PM
To: Jo Rhett
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett
wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2012, at
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote:
>> IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a
>> router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router
>> advertisement.
>
> You mean it has one extra potentia
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from the dedicated
>>> room w/ the polycomm video conference system, for panels, in addition
>>> to the actual union operator of the camera & suc
On 18/09/2012 21:24, William Herrin wrote:
> IPv6 falls down compared to IPv4 on wifi networks when it responds to a
> router solicitation with a multicast (instead of unicast) router
> advertisement.
You mean it has one extra potential failure mode in situations where radio
retransmission doesn't
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>> In IPv6, the station sends an ICMPv6 router solicitation instead of an
>> ARP for the default gateway. This is a multicast message but since
>> it's from the station to the AP it's subject to layer 2 error recovery
>>
On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> That's an interesting question indeed. The optimal solution here, of
> course, would be for Worldcons -- which are planned 3-4 years in advance --
> to get the right technical people in the loop with the property to see
> when in the next 2 years
On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:53 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> Tech had a person managing the feed to DragonCon from the dedicated
>> room w/ the polycomm video conference system, for panels, in addition
>> to the actual union operator of the camera & such.
>
> The camera ops had to be union? Hmmm. Ah, Chi
On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> I'm talking to the people who will probably be, in 2015, running the first
> Worldcon I can practically drive to, in Orlando, at -- I think -- the Disney
> World Resort. I've told them how critical the issue is for this market; they,
> predictabl
William Herrin wrote:
>> OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS
>> for DAD, for example.
>>
>> Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large,
>> which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost.
>
> Hi Masataka,
>
> Where do things go wrong?
>> OTO
On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Masataka Ohta
wrote:
> ARP and DHCP usually work.
>
> For an unusual case of ARP for other STAs, collisions do
> increase initial latencies, but as refreshes are attempted
> several times, there will be no latter latencies.
>
> OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast re
* joe...@bogus.com (joel jaeggli) [Sun 16 Sep 2012, 18:42 CEST]:
We tend to engineer for a maximum of around 50 associations per radio
(not AP). beyond that performance really starts to suck which can be
measured along a multitude of dimensions. The most visible one to the
client(s) being latency
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS
>> for DAD, for example.
>>
>> Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large,
>> which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost.
>
> So, what you're saying here is that a wifi network w
On 17/09/2012 00:42, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> OTOH, IPv6 requires many multicast received by STAs: RA and NS
> for DAD, for example.
>
> Worse, minimum intervals of ND messages are often very large,
> which means a lot of delay occurs when a message is lost.
So, what you're saying here is that a wi
Masataka Ohta :
>Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
>>> Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
>>> as ND, will suffer.
>>
>> ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
>> network - in your humble opinion?
>
>Because, with IPv4:
>
> 1) broadcast/
Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
>> as ND, will suffer.
>
> ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
> network - in your humble opinion?
Because, with IPv4:
1) broadcast/multicast from a STA attacked
On 16/09/2012 19:30, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Thus, protocols heavily depending on broadcast/multicast, such
> as ND, will suffer.
ok, you've trolled me enough to ask why ND is worse than ARP on a wavelan
network - in your humble opinion?
Nick
Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Well, yes, but that wasn't what Bill was talking about. He was talking about
> AP's being "nice" to associated clients who are in powersave mode, at the
> expensive of all the other connected clients, by buffering multicast packets
> until one or more DTIM frames are sent.
On 14/09/2012 12:38, Paul Thornton wrote:
> Veering slightly off-topic for NANOG, but is this worth taking onto the
> address policy mailing list ahead of RIPE65 to ensure people who aren't in
> the WG session are aware of the issue - and can therefore support (or
> question) any proposed changes?
On 9/16/12 9:24 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya"
So you're *REALLY* motivated on this "reduce the coverage" thing,
then.
you could say yes :), reduce the coverage per-AP. Most APs I have seen
will start failing with about ~100 associations and n
- Original Message -
> From: "Gaurab Raj Upadhaya"
> > So you're *REALLY* motivated on this "reduce the coverage" thing,
> > then.
>
> you could say yes :), reduce the coverage per-AP. Most APs I have seen
> will start failing with about ~100 associations and not to forget
> about the ma
- Original Message -
> From: "Masataka Ohta"
> Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > You're saying that *receiving* multicast streams over WLAN works
> > poorly?
>
> Multicast/broadcast over congested WLAN works poorly, because
> there can be no ACK.
>
> That is, multicast/broadcast packets lost by c
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 10:15:26PM -0400
Quoting Eric Adler (eapt...@gmail.com):
> Are you working with locally originated video or video that originates as
> DVB-T?
>
> I'm looking at a similar project to replace NTSC distribution arou
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 01:11:54PM -0500
Quoting Jimmy Hess (mysi...@gmail.com):
> On 9/15/12, Masataka Ohta wrote: >
> Mans Nilsson wrote:
>
> >> I am not suggesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there
> >> m
Jay Ashworth wrote:
> You're saying that *receiving* multicast streams over WLAN works poorly?
Multicast/broadcast over congested WLAN works poorly, because
there can be no ACK.
That is, multicast/broadcast packets lost by collisions are
never sent again.
- Original Message -
> From: "William Herrin"
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > You're saying that *receiving* multicast streams over WLAN works
> > poorly?
>
> I don't have any experience with it, but here's what Google told me:
>
> http://www.wireless-nets.co
On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 9:18 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> You're saying that *receiving* multicast streams over WLAN works poorly?
I don't have any experience with it, but here's what Google told me:
http://www.wireless-nets.com/resources/tutorials/802.11_multicasting.html
"When any single wireles
- Original Message -
> From: "Måns Nilsson"
> > It would still be nice to multicast them inside our network (and out
> > to whomever wants to watch), but what the heck's the consumer-level
> > client side of multicast video streaming look like these days?
>
> IIRC a number of IETF meetin
On 9/15/12, Masataka Ohta wrote: >
Mans Nilsson wrote:
>> I am not suggesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there
>> might be a bunch of assumptions that aren't as true anymore when a
>> lot of client connections share both source and destination address,
>> and perhaps also destinatio
Mans Nilsson wrote:
>>> Do not NAT. When all those people want to do social networking to the same
>>> furry BBS while also frequenting three social app sites simultaneously
>>> you are going to get Issues if you NAT. So don't.
> I am not suggesting that. I'm just trying to point out that there
>
On 13 Sep 2012, at 17:32, Tim Franklin wrote:
>> You'll need a beefy NAT box. Linux with Xeon CPU and 4GB RAM minimum.
> Or not. The CCC presentation is showing *real* Internet for everyone, unless
> I'm very much mistaken…
Absolutely. NAT is too fragile/expensive/non-performant for these set
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:40:02AM -0400
Quoting Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com):
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Måns Nilsson"
>
> > 12:20:33AM -0700 Quoting Octavio Alvarez (alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org):
> >
- Original Message -
> From: "Leo Bicknell"
> I find more and more hotel networks are essentially unusable for
> parts of the day, conference or no. Of course, bring in any geek
> contingent with multiple devices and heavy usage patterns and the
> problems get worse.
>
> What I find most
In a message written on Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:53:01AM -0400, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
> Yes, and I'm told by my best friend who did attend (I didn't make it
> this year) that the hotel wired/wifi was essentially unusable, every
> time he tried. Hence my interest in the issue.
I find more and more h
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
> Noted. How big is that crew for Dragon; you were, what, 30k attendees?
The estimate I heard was 52,000-55,000 paid attendees this year (plus
another 3,000+ for volunteers, guests+spouse/agent/etc., press, etc.).
Our Techops staff was around 240-250 this yea
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Barr"
> and as I was working the Hugo's:
>
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 10:14 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Chris Adams"
> >
> > I know some of that went on, yes, and certainly if I'm more formally
> > involved, I'll
- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Adams"
> Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks
> Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
> > My understanding was that Dragon *took its main feed* for the Hugos
> > via Ustream, and the entire room got left standing; no?
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
> My understanding was that Dragon *took its main feed* for the Hugos via
> Ustream, and the entire room got left standing; no?
I don't know; I wasn't in there, and I didn't find out about the Ustream
cut until I was home. I would think I would have heard if
- Original Message -
> From: "Chris Adams"
> Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
> > Well, we'll be on the *sending* end of the Hugo's, but... ;-)
>
> You might want to talk to whoever did this year's WorldCon networking.
> I'm a Dragon*Con volunteer, and I know there was a some type o
Once upon a time, Jay Ashworth said:
> Well, we'll be on the *sending* end of the Hugo's, but... ;-)
You might want to talk to whoever did this year's WorldCon networking.
I'm a Dragon*Con volunteer, and I know there was a some type of direct
connection between Chicago (WorldCon) and Atlanta (Dra
- Original Message -
> From: "Måns Nilsson"
> 12:20:33AM -0700 Quoting Octavio Alvarez (alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org):
>
> > I'd have expected someone to have QoS mentioned already, mainly to put
> > FTP and P2P traffic on the least important queues and don't hog up the
> > net.
>
> As lon
- Original Message -
> From: "Måns Nilsson"
> 05:45:55PM -0400 Quoting Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com):
> > - Original Message -
> > > At all possible cost, avoid login or encryption for the wireless.
> >
> > Yes, and no.
>
>
>
> Just keep in mind that every action you make the
- Original Message -
> From: "Sean Lazar"
> WLAN in large conferences certainly is a challenge. You basically want
> to get as many people on 5GHz as possible due to more available
> channels. 2.4GHz becomes quite noisy.
And here you raise an interesting question: do dual band wifi clien
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 09:22:01PM +0900
Quoting Masataka Ohta (mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp):
> Måns Nilsson wrote:
>
> >And get v6.
> >
> >Do not NAT. When all those people want to do social networking to the same
> >fu
Måns Nilsson wrote:
And get v6.
Do not NAT. When all those people want to do social networking to the same
furry BBS while also frequenting three social app sites simultaneously
you are going to get Issues if you NAT. So don't.
Don't?
Considering that, ten years ago, some computers were stil
On 14/09/2012 12:19, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 14/09/2012 12:11, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I've used it a couple of times and then a week was sufficient (start
rigging on monday, everything done by thursday morning where 5000 people
show up with their computers (this was mainly 10/100 ports, peopl
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Also, 1 week is not suitable for debogonisation.
Could you please elaborate on this aspect? Who would be treating this
space as a bogon, and why?
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
On 14/09/2012 12:11, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> I've used it a couple of times and then a week was sufficient (start
> rigging on monday, everything done by thursday morning where 5000 people
> show up with their computers (this was mainly 10/100 ports, people brought
> their own cables), teardown
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
It's actually a /13 (151.216.0.0/13).
It used to be in another place (I don't remember exactly, this was 5-8
years ago). Nice that they have a /13 nowadays anyway, I'd imagine there
are more temporary events nowadays.
I've used it a couple of times
* Nick Hilliard
> They've allocated a /14 for this purpose, so this would be well more
> than enough to cope with most large conferences.
It's actually a /13 (151.216.0.0/13).
--
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
On 14 September 2012 11:54, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 14/09/2012 11:50, Nat Morris wrote:
>> The RIPE hostmaster would only allocate us address space 7 days before
>> the event started, needed longer than this to begin building out the
>> network which span multiple data centres. Especially with t
On 14/09/2012 11:50, Nat Morris wrote:
> The RIPE hostmaster would only allocate us address space 7 days before
> the event started, needed longer than this to begin building out the
> network which span multiple data centres. Especially with time, access
> and change freeze constraints due to the
On 14 September 2012 11:16, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 13/09/2012 21:32, Måns Nilsson wrote:
>> Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for this
>> kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of use
>> a couple years ago, at least.
>
> yes, you can get a
On 13/09/2012 21:32, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for this
> kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of use
> a couple years ago, at least.
yes, you can get a bunch of IP addresses from the ripe ncc if you only need
t
On Fri, 14 Sep 2012, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for
this kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of
use a couple years ago, at least.
Indeed? I did not see that coming.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Get lots of IP addresses. A /16 probably still can be borrowed for
this kind of event. I know RIPE had rules and addresses for this kind of
use a couple years ago, at least.
Indeed? I did not see that coming. Hell, perhaps Interop could be talked
into
To all folks running NOC's at events like CCC/Assembly/DEFCON/etc: hats
off, and enjoy the fun ;)
On 2012-09-14 09:34 , Måns Nilsson wrote:
[..]
> A couple hours will get the user over a lunch break if not overnight,
> which means that long TCP sessions survive on Proper Computers (that
> don't te
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 12:20:33AM -0700
Quoting Octavio Alvarez (alvar...@alvarezp.ods.org):
> I'd have expected someone to have QoS mentioned already, mainly to put
> FTP and P2P traffic on the least important queues and don't hog up the
Subject: Re: Big Temporary Networks Date: Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 05:45:55PM -0400
Quoting Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com):
> - Original Message -
> > At all possible cost, avoid login or encryption for the wireless.
>
> Yes, and no.
Just keep in mind that every acti
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
