On 8/13/11 4:01 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Anyone got experience with XBMC and similar linux media centre tools running on
tablet or netbook class hardware? I like the idea of using a couple of el
cheapo Android tablets with decent external speakers as music/video/TV/phone
terminals, getti
- Original Message -
> From: "Kenneth Brody"
> Okay, so I guess I have to concede to George that it might not be so obvious
> that it doesn't need explaining. (Unless, of course, the original silence
> was due to the fact that everyone thought it was so obvious that it didn't
> need expla
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Charles N Wyble
wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm curious what other NANOGers have in their home compute centers? On
> the extreme end of course we have mr morris :)
> with his uber lab: http://smorris.uber-geek.net/lab.htm
>
>
I try to maximize cost-effectiveness whereve
> I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered
> via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe
> I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that.
more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond me.
randy
In a message written on Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:12:21AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond me.
http://longurl.org/
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
pgpEKbzQacqye.
On Aug 15, 2011, at 10:12 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered
>> via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe
>> I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that.
>
> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can
>> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond
>> me.
> I'm curious what your objection is.
i have no assurance that a shortened url does not lead to a malicious
site. also your privacy issue, but that is secondary.
> you really have no idea what you're going to receive
On 08/15/2011 10:31 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Aug 15, 2011, at 10:12 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered
via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe
I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that.
more likel
On 8/15/2011 8:37 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
i have no assurance that a shortened url does not lead to a malicious
site.
From a practical standpoint, a long URL provides no greater assurance.
you really have no idea what you're going to receive when you click on
any link.
life is nasty. but
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
wrote:
> I hope someone will explain the operational relevance
> of this ...
>
> Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway
> Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed
> Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box
> Int
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?
>
> I really don't see a significant difference in that regard.
I will admit to not having run the numbers and trying to compare IPv4
protocol-specific d
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:37:37AM -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click those is beyond
> >> me.
> > I'm curious what your objection is.
>
> i have no assurance that a shortened url does not lead to a malicious
> site. also your privacy issue, but tha
On Aug 15, 2011, at 2:14 PM, Tim Wilde wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?
>>
>> I really don't see a significant difference in that regard.
>
> I will admit to not having
On Aug 15, 2011 2:15 PM, "Tim Wilde" wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/15/2011 2:24 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > What does it say that the same thing happens in IPv4?
> >
> > I really don't see a significant difference in that regard.
>
> I will admit to not having
--- ra...@psg.com wrote:
From: Randy Bush
> I've always wondered if the next cisco/juniper 0 day will be delivered
> via a set of exploits delivered via a link posted to NANOG. :) Maybe
> I'll do a talk at DEFCON next year about that.
: more likely a 'shortened' url. how anyone can click thos
Everyone,
A registration fee reminder:
- Early Bird Registration through August 15, 2011 (non-member $450,
member $425, student $100)
- Standard Registration starting August 16, 2011 (non-member $525, member
$500, student $100)
Also, please get those presentation submissions in!
NA
I've apparently hit some kind of magic bw limit. My 4G LTE is now magically
fixed at max 1.5mbps
Last month's usage was about 200gb.
cmon verizon seriously :(
chris
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Charles N Wyble
wrote:
> On 08/13/2011 01:09 PM, chris wrote:
>
>> I'm in princeton, nj and I r
I posted this request in another forum, but didn't get as much info as I'd
hoped:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.internet-access/5568/match=nameserver+registration
To reprise in _this_ forum:
I apologize for the noise; I hope this is an appropriate forum.
I've been hosting DNS
Folks,
Is it possible/common for a non-facilities-based CLEC (we call them paper
based) to start getting loops pulled for themselves, and to start physically
handling the circuits without becoming a full fledged facilities based CLEC?
To clarify ... We have a new customer who is just that ... A n
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Graham Wooden wrote:
To clarify ... We have a new customer who is just that ... A non-facilities
based CLEC. They don't want to resell AT&T's network anymore as they want to
start building their own network, little bit at a time.
I was thinking .. Well, shoot .. If all they
- Original Message -
> From: "Brian Reichert"
> I posted this request in another forum, but didn't get as much info as
> I'd hoped:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.internet-access/5568/match=nameserver+registration
>
> To reprise in _this_ forum:
>
> I apologize for th
On 8/15/11 10:14 PM, "Jon Lewis" wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Graham Wooden wrote:
>
>> To clarify ... We have a new customer who is just that ... A non-facilities
>> based CLEC. They don't want to resell AT&T's network anymore as they want to
>> start building their own network, little bit at
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:28 PM, chris wrote:
> I've apparently hit some kind of magic bw limit. My 4G LTE is now magically
> fixed at max 1.5mbps
>
> Last month's usage was about 200gb.
>
> cmon verizon seriously :(
they've been fairly public about 'unlimited' != "unlimited"
cause basically yo
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Brian Reichert wrote:
> One of these registrars (NetSol) introduces a topic I've never been
> aware of before, this concept of 'name server registration'.
>
> Web searching shows me several hits along the lines of 'how to
> register namesevers with registrar X', bu
On 08/15/2011 10:14 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2011, Graham Wooden wrote:
> If I understand your question, yes. We did this some time ago. Colo
> in various ILEC and CLEC central offices,
Um. Doesn't colo in various ILEC/CLEC CO == facilities based CLEC?
> order T1 loops (but it's o
25 matches
Mail list logo
