On May 31, 2013, at 22:36, Tuc wrote:
> Thanks to everyone. I didn't pay enough attention the last time this was
> discussed, sorry about that. I have my cables, though I need to start
> working on my sob story when I put in my expense report for 30 cables that
> should have been 1.44 each, not 6
On Jan 8, 2014, at 17:03, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> I have a tunnel through HE and it is solid.
I'm on Verizon FIOS (70/30 Mbit/s), and set up my ActionTec router
to allow tunneling traffic through, but am using my Apple TimeCapsule
base station (3 years old) for the actual IPv6 tunneling. I'
On Jan 9, 2014, at 14:32, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Sure, entirely possible, but I'd be investigating into why because
> clearly there's a better ipv4 route than that being used, if ipv6
> tunneled over ipv4 is faster. A bit of difference is fine, but it
> sounded like more than 'a bit'.
Of cours
On Feb 15, 2009, at 04:24, Chris wrote:
Any last ideas appreciated before causing headaches removing
switches would
be appreciated.
The TCP offloading should be suspect. Any current PC hardware should
be able to deal with huge amounts of traffic without any offloading.
Start with turning that
On Feb 11, 2011, at 15:43, Fred Baker wrote:
> Anyone that uses a residential router (Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc) is
> likely to need to upgrade that, most likely by buying a new one. Set-top
> boxes are generally IPv4; anyone with a TV is likely to need to upgrade at
> least the software.
On Feb 12, 2011, at 21:03, Lee Howard wrote:
>> Honestly, I can't quite see the big deal for home users. I'm using
>> an Apple Airport Extreme, and setting it up with a IPv6 tunnel from
>
> $150? That's a high-powered device compared to most home gateways.
Sure, but the same thing is possible wi
6 matches
Mail list logo
