On May 14, 2009, at 8:37 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
[TLB:] I can think of an argument they might make: that it is/could
be
used by bots as a fallback. However, redirecting DNS/UDP fits the
model
of "providing a better service for the average user";
blocking/redirecting TCP is more likely to bre
Greetings!
There are just four weeks left until NANOG46, and if you are planning
to attend don't delay - register! While the Early-bird registration
period has ended, if you don't register before June 8 you will face
the on-site price of $600. The NANOG group hotel rate will expire
May 29,
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Leo Bicknell wrote:
PCIe, x8 or x16, which is serial point to point.
http://www.csc.kth.se/~olofh/10G_OSR/10Gbps.pdf
25 Gb/sec across 4x10G ports on higher end but far from topped out
hardware.
further illustrating the point - 10gige ~linerate load balancing on a
singl
> Check out something like the BayTech RPC3 or RPC41 family? I don't
> know if it's exactly what you're looking for, but that's what I just
> picked to have per-outlet monitoring and control for a research
> datacenter we're building.
>
>-Dave
>
We use Servertech's Sentry Switched CDU's for
I thought this may be of interest to anybody who uses the RIPE db for
automated purposes. Somebody seems to have done a friday slip-up and
entered this in the RIPE db:
inetnum:93.169.24.0 - 193.169.25.255
netname:CENTRSVYAZ-NET
descr: Centrsvyaz CJSC
country:RU
--
That would indeed be a very large allocation. :)
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Andreas Plesner Jacobsen wrote:
> I thought this may be of interest to anybody who uses the RIPE db for
> automated purposes. Somebody seems to have done a friday slip-up and
> entered this in the RIPE db:
>
> inetn
Yes, obviously it was meant to be 193.169.24.0 - 193.169.25.255
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Hayes [mailto:ryguill...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2009 9:22 PM
To: na...@merit.edu; n...@ripe.net
Subject: Re: Broken RIPE-entry
That would indeed be a very large allocation. :)
On Sa
7 matches
Mail list logo
