On Jan 10, 2013, at 9:35 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> I don't think roland was really saying that normal netflow from a device in
> production pushing a few hundred gbps of traffic would be
> appropriate to ship out the OOB network... or I hope that wasn't his point. I
> don't think oob netw
On 1/10/13, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 13:51, Jared Mauch wrote:
> - rs232: please no. it's 2013. I don't want or need a protocol which
> was designed for access speeds appropriate to the 1980s.
[snip]
Maybe stop with rs232 versus Ethernet, and implement _both_ as
separate OOB,
On 12/01/2013 18:54, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> The year on the calendar has little to do with the usefulness of
> rs232, there has been no thorough replacement for every situation.
Tell that to Juniper who appear to think that running an RE console at 9600
baud is actually OK in a emergency situation in
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> I want OOB with ethernet, MDIX, 100base-TX or 1000base-TX, with DHCP client
> support. With a cherry.
and auto configuration that works? :) reliably? with your
switch/router upstream? :)
On Jan 12, 2013, at 2:10 AM, Nikolay Shopik wrote:
>> I had reverse tunnel from one of our DC's over a 3/4g usb dongle that
>> had a measured availability of less than 50% which oddly I didn't
>> consider acceptable.
>
> How is that possible?
Nothing stops you from having the device auto-VPN b
Please consider signing this petition:
http://DeFundTheITU.org
…so we can stop paying for both sides of this idiotic fight. Note that if the
U.S. pulls its funding from the ITU, that's 10%, and if all of the countries
that stood with us at the WCIT do so, that would be 74% of the ITU's member
On Friday, January 11, 2013 8:29:23 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
Many thanks. In particular, you need "cable-source-verify dhcp" to
prevent self assigned IPs that are unused by neighbours.
Is this something that is now basically a default for all cable
operators ? Or does this command add su
On Saturday, January 12, 2013, james jones wrote:
> And done!
>
> On Saturday, January 12, 2013, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>>
>> Please consider signing this petition:
>>
>> http://DeFundTheITU.org
>>
>> …so we can stop paying for both sides of this idiotic fight. Note that
>> if the U.S. pulls its
> RIPE needs to fix on their web site:
>
> "Please turn on the cookies on your browser to view this site."
>
> It doesn't have to be this way...
it should not be this way
randy
>>> Please consider signing this petition:
>>>
>>> http://DeFundTheITU.org
Please learn a little more about the ITU before doing so. There is
more to the ITU than the dysfunctional ITU-T, and the political
fallout from the US being seen as a big rich bully taking its wallet
and going home is like
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> RIPE needs to fix on their web site:
>>
>> "Please turn on the cookies on your browser to view this site."
>>
>> It doesn't have to be this way...
>
> it should not be this way
>
> randy
>
Local law in EU which I assumed that most knew about
> Local law in EU which I assumed that most knew about
> http://www.cookielaw.org/about-this-message.aspx
this says what you must do if you want to feed the client a cookie.
it does not mandate feeding them a cookie. in fact, it would seem to
suggest that you might do so only if you really must.
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Please learn a little more about the ITU before doing so. There is
> more to the ITU than the dysfunctional ITU-T, and the political
> fallout from the US being seen as a big rich bully taking its wallet
> and going home is likely not worth the
Don't most browsers accept all cookies by default without asking the user?
-Grant
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 12, 2013, at 11:03 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Local law in EU which I assumed that most knew about
>> http://www.cookielaw.org/about-this-message.aspx
>
> this says what you must do if y
> Don't most browsers accept all cookies by default without asking the
> user?
no idea, but i think most browsers today block at least third party
cookies by default.
randy
> > Don't most browsers accept all cookies by default without asking the
> > user?
> no idea, but i think most browsers today block at least third party
> cookies by default.
Most browsers accept any and all cookies by default.
Many browsers can be configured into three states (1) accept anythi
its not that black/white. The ITU-R is actually -very- useful and does a
really good job of coordinating spectrum
use and has for many years. The ITU-T, however is questionable. It is
possible to fund by sector, so a blanket
defunding for the entire ITU, as outlined in this petition, is a hu
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:59 PM, wrote:
> its not that black/white. The ITU-R is actually -very- useful
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that, but we can't withdraw from it, which
is why it's called out as an exception in the petition.
-Bill
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, "Fred Baker (fred)" wrote:
> ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work.
Care to try to cite an example? R we can't pull out of because NRO needs its
slots. I'm not sure that constitutes "good work." It's minor ledger-keeping,
and that's why it's excluded from the pe
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, "John Levine" wrote:
> The political fallout from the US being seen as a big rich bully taking its
> wallet
> and going home is likely not worth the trivial amount of money involved.
Trivial to whom? Is $11M/year trivial relative to the $181M/year ITU budget?
Rel
Many browsers can be configured into three states (1) accept
anything (2) reject third-party cookies (3) reject all cookies.
---
Or "ask me every time". Sites should not require cookies
just to look around. I get it if there's a transaction
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> I want OOB with ethernet, MDIX, 100base-TX or 1000base-TX, with DHCP client
>> support. With a cherry.
>
> and auto configuration that works? :) reliably? with your
> switch/rout
22 matches
Mail list logo
