Isn't it because the receiver is more likely to backhaul the traffic
further, due to hot-potato routing - at least in the case of large
networks with multiple points of interconnect?
-jasper
On 5/11/2008, at 10:15 PM, Mark Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm sure someone else must've see
ergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
fergdawgster(at)gmail.com
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Network Engineer, Unleash
ddi: +64 3 978 1222
mob: +64 21 129 9458
side of the world.
E-mail to the 'noc@' addresses seem to have > /dev/null'ed.
Cheers,
Mark.
--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Network Engineer, Unleash
ddi: +64 3 978 1222
mob: +64 21 129 9458
;t be choosers.
Replies off-list.
Thanks in advance,
--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Managing Director
Seektrack (NZ) Limited
+64 21 129 9458
#x27;re seeing any weirdness. The
worst damage I'd heard from anyone after that event was their clock
being significantly off for several hours.
-- Kevin
--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Network Engineer, Unleash
ddi: +64 3 978 1222
mob: +64 21 129 9458
browsers pop up dialog boxes which
everyone will click OK on...
--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Network Engineer, Unleash
ddi: +64 3 978 1222
mob: +64 21 129 9458
, for example, {78.41.184.0/21,
91.103.239.0/24, 91.103.232.0/22, 82.138.64.0/23, 91.103.232.0/21,
77.95.71.0/24} are all prefixes I observed from a BGP speaking router,
I am just asking is this router using a default routing for all the
other destinations?
Thanks a lot
--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
FWIW, anyone using iptables for NAT can use --random, e.g.:
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ethX -j SNAT --to x.x.x.x --random
Useful for Linux NAT/load-balancer boxes, or for Linux-powered embedded
devices where the vendor has not been forthcoming with a firmware patch
to alter the rules they
On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 21:17 -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> Luckily we have the SSL/CA architecture in place to protect any web
> page served over SSL. It's a good job users are not conditioned to
> click "OK" when told "the certificate for this site is invalid".
'course, as well as relying on users
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 09:51 +0200, Robert Kisteleki wrote:
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > Anyone have a foolproof way to get grandma to always put "https://"; in
> > front of "www"?
>
> I understand this is a huge can of worms, but maybe it's time to change the
> default behavior of browsers fr
10 matches
Mail list logo