In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will delay
IPv6 adoption.
-Original Message-
From: Damien Burke [mailto:dam...@supremebytes.com]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:51 PM
To: Mark Tinka ; Owen DeLong ; Dennis
Burgess
Cc: North American Network Operator
On 3/13/16 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
> In the end, google has made a choice. I think these kinds of choices will
> delay IPv6 adoption.
Given that they publish records for a great deal of their services
I'm not sure how you would conclude that.
> -Original Message-
> From: Da
I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with
apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still
unnecessary.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
> On Mar 13, 2016, at 7:31 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
>
> In the end, google has made a choice. I
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On 13 Mar 2016, at 3:03, George Herbert wrote:
It's a symptom of trying to save a few cents at the risk of dollars.
Concur 100%.
Not to mention the related security issues.
Just remember, no exceptions, no waivers.
I understand why cloud vendors
s/IPv6/Cogent/ :)
No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no
one who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol.
Thus your conclusion seems to be more like wishful thinking. :)
Doug
On 03/13/2016 11:20 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
I come
I really don't care about AWS sales (customer, but not investor or employee).
But...
If it's not highly loaded, cloud is cheaper.
If it's not in a well run datacenter / machine room, cloud is FAR more reliable.
The cost of blowing up hardware in less than well run machine rooms /
datacenters
On 3/13/16, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>> On 13 Mar 2016, at 3:03, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>>> It's a symptom of trying to save a few cents at the risk of dollars.
>>
>> Concur 100%.
>>
>> Not to mention the related security issues.
>
> Just remember, no exce
I don’t know of any universal standards, but I’ve used the following in several
installatins I was responsible for to good avail:
Twisted Pair:
RED:Untrusted Network (Internet or possibly DMZ)
YELLOW: Optional for DMZ networks though I preferred to avoid documented in [1]
below
BLUE: Trust
> On Mar 11, 2016, at 11:50 , Damien Burke wrote:
>
> Just received an updated statement from cogent support:
>
> "We appreciate your concerns. This is a known issue that originates with
> Google as it is up to their discretion as to how they announce routes to us
> v4 or v6.
>
> Once again
On 13 March 2016 at 19:20, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> I come to the opposite conclusion - that this situation can persist with
> apparently no business impact to either party shows that IPv6 is still
> unnecessary.
>
It does in fact have business impact on Cogent (but not Google). It means
that so
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Yardiel Fuentes wrote:
> Have any of you had the option or; conversely, do you know of “best
> practices" or “common standards”, to color code physical cabling for your
> connections in DataCenters for Base-T and FX connections? If so, Could you
> share any ttype
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> No one who is serious about IPv6 is single-homed to Cogent. Arguably, no one
> who is serious about "The Internet" is single-homed on either protocol.
At the very least, no one who is clueful about "The Internet" is
single-homed to Cogent with
Hi,
What is the best solution for thin 2 mm or 0.9 mm fiber labelling? I like
the idea of wrap around labels but does that work on thin wires? Maybe use
something to pad the wire to more thickness where the label is to be?
Regards,
Baldur
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016, Lee wrote:
Where does it say test/dev has to be done solely in a cloud data
center? This bit
For the purposes of this memorandum, rooms with at least one
server, providing
services (whether in a production, test, stage, development, or any other
environment), are consi
Hi Baldur,
Equinix in Sydney use the below, for Cross Connects.
Goes around the fiber to pad it out, and the label keeps it on the fiber.
http://www.cableorganizer.com/panduit/labelcore-cable-id-sleeve/
Been meaning to order some for internal use, too.
Nick
> On Mar 13, 2016, at 18:14 , Baldur Norddahl wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> What is the best solution for thin 2 mm or 0.9 mm fiber labelling? I like
> the idea of wrap around labels but does that work on thin wires? Maybe use
> something to pad the wire to more thickness where the label is to be?
I doub
The only problem I’ve had with those is that they tend to slide down the fiber
and you can
end up having to trace the fiber to find the label which sort of defeats the
purpose.
Owen
> On Mar 13, 2016, at 18:33 , Nick Pratley
> wrote:
>
> Hi Baldur,
>
> Equinix in Sydney use the below, for C
Brad,
Did you ever get the numbers for the MX480?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Brad Fleming wrote:
> We haven’t received the MX480 gear yet (POs just went in about a week
> ago). But we tested MX960s with the same RE-S-1800x4 w/ 16GB RAM RIB+FIB
> convergence time was roughly 45sec. We never
Just place a piece of tape under the padding and it won't slide anymore. 5
seconds of extra work per end, though.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> The only problem I’ve had with those is that they tend to slide down the
> fiber and you can
> end up having to trace the fiber
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 22:21:48 -0400, "Oliver O'Boyle" said:
> Just place a piece of tape under the padding and it won't slide anymore. 5
> seconds of extra work per end, though.
I dunno. Your dexterity must be better than mine. I'd have trouble digging up
the roll of tape, removing a section, putt
On 14/Mar/16 04:02, Colton Conor wrote:
> Brad,
>
> Did you ever get the numbers for the MX480?
I would not expect a difference in performance for the MX480 vis a vis
the MX960 using the same RE's, MPC's and SCB's.
Mark.
21 matches
Mail list logo
