On Mar 27, 2014, at 12:16 PM, Blake Hudson wrote:
> It's entirely likely that a spammer would try to get a hold of a key due to
> its value or that someone you've done business with would share keys with a
> "business" partner . But ideally you'd authorize each sender with a unique
> key (or
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Actually, in multiple situations, the FCC has stated that you are responsible
> when deploying a new unlicensed transmitter to insure that it is deployed in
> such a way that it will not cause harmful interference to existing operations.
I rec
On Oct 6, 2014, at 12:07 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Clay Fiske wrote:
>> Suppose from Marriott’s perspective that your personal wifi
>> network is interfering with the throughput of their existing network.
>
> Then Marriott misunde
On Oct 6, 2014, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Hi Clay,
>
> It isn't that simple. Marriott offended against multiple laws and
> regulations in multiple jurisdictions.
>
> The FCC's concern is use of the spectrum. This they addressed --
> intentionally preventing others' use of the spec
Anyone played with/deployed any Mimosa gear? I’m not a “real” wireless guy so
I’ll spare folks any armchair speculation. Just looks interesting to me.
-c
On Jan 29, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Steven Miano wrote:
> Another hat that I haven't seen thrown in the ring yet is Aerohive.
>
> They're great t
On Apr 27, 2015, at 2:14 PM, Elizabeth Zwicky via NANOG wrote:
>
> http://postmaster.yahoo.com will allow you to contact the postmaster team for
> assistance.
> I've reported this error already, but fixing it won't help you any;
> basically, the web page without the link is all Yahoo's willing
> On May 8, 2015, at 10:24 PM, char...@thefnf.org wrote:
>
> Pi dimensions:
>
> 3.37 l (5 front to back)
> 2.21 w (6 wide)
> 0.83 h
> 25 per U (rounding down for Ethernet cable space etc) = 825 pi
>
> Cable management and heat would probably kill this before it ever reached
> completion, but l
On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:26 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Of course working, monitorable and testable are three different
> things. If my NMS can't reach the IXP's addresses, my view of the IXP
> is impaired. And "the Internet is broken" is not a trouble report that
> leads to a successful outcome
On Jan 15, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> * c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 20:34 CET]:
>> Semi-related tangent: Working in an IXP setting I have seen weird corner
>> cases cause issues in conjunction with the IXP subnet existing in BGP. Say
&
On Jan 15, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> * c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Thu 16 Jan 2014, 00:35 CET]:
> [...]
>> Seriously though, it’s not so simple. You only get replies if the IP you ARP
>> for is in the offender’s route table (or they have a default rou
On Jan 15, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Niels Bakker wrote:
> * c...@bloomcounty.org (Clay Fiske) [Thu 16 Jan 2014, 00:59 CET]:
>> This is where theory diverges nicely from practice. In some cases the
>> offender broadcast his reply, and guess what else? A lot of routers listen
>&g
On Aug 27, 2010, at 12:13 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, at what point will we as operators rise up
> against the ivory tower protocol designers at the IETF and demand that
> they add a mechanism to not bring down the entire BGP session because of
> a single malfo
On Aug 27, 2010, at 1:57 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:43:39 PDT, Clay Fiske said:
>
>> If -everyone- dropped the session on a bad attribute, it likely wouldn't
>> make it far enough into the wild to cause these problems in the first
>>
13 matches
Mail list logo
