On Sunday, 20 October, 2019 06:08, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>Hank Nussbacher writes:
>> Centralized Internet routing - sounds like DoH for BGP.
>Great idea! Why don't we just run BGP over HTTPS? Everyone already has
>a browser, so we can get rid of all these expensive routers.
>The future is BoH
>On 21/10/19 6:30 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Yes, and I really like Julien's proposal. It even looks pretty
>> complete. There are just a few details missing around how to make the
>> MD5 => TLS transition smooth.
>At least for those systems that run on Linux (which is most all of the
>major's
On Monday, 21 October, 2019 09:44, Robert McKay wrote:
>On 2019-10-21 16:30, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> Why do you need to do anything? TLS is Transport Layer Security and
>> it's sole purpose is to protect communications from eavesdropping or
>> modification by
>TLS in the traditional sense 'requires' that there be an X.509
>certificate to use in authenticating (and to some extent authorizing -
>can you be a CA? sign email? etc...) endpoints, ideally you do 'tls
>mutual authentication'...
That is incorrect.
I believe that an endpoint (lets call it Alice
On Tuesday, 22 October, 2019 13:26, Jared Mauch
wrote:
>No,
>> On Oct 22, 2019, at 2:08 PM, Keith Medcalf
wrote:
>> At this point further communications are encrypted and secure against
>>eavesdropping.
>The problem isn't the protocol being eavesdropped on. T
On Wednesday, 23 October, 2019 18:36, Brandon Applegate
wrote:
>Bigger picture, I think that (unfortunately) we will see more and more
>problems like this. With the large providers running so much (as you
>mentioned - “monoculture”), and their services tending toward the “black
>box” ... I do
Bwahahahaha!
It is internally inconsistent. Perhaps this is just shoddy reporting,
or perhaps the whole thing is just someone's idea of a wet dream.
"The line will begin in North Pole, Alaska and will travel through
Canada, connecting with Canadian carriers, where it will finally connect
with
>"Internet penetration and complexity has vastly grown in Iran
>over the past decade, but the country’s users still connect
>to the global network through just two gateways. Both are
>controlled by the regime, and can be blocked when it chooses."
>
>"Access to the internet is gradually being rest
On Friday, 29 November, 2019 05:43, Brandon Butterworth
wrote:
>I'm not conviced music really learned either, once CDs are gone
>there will be little access to reasonable quality uncompressed
>downloads as everyone chases quite compressed streams.
There are quite a lot of places where you can
On Wednesday, 4 December, 2019 23:24, b...@theworld.com wrote:
>But that's ok, the new masters of this universe will just charge both
>ends for each and every email (perhaps a few included free with your
>Hulu or Netflix subscription) and old timers will talk about how great
>it was back in the
"CallerID" is a misnomer. It is actually the "Advertized ID". However, the
telco's realized you would not pay to receive advertizing so they renamed it to
something they thought you would pay for.
Pretty canny business model eh? And apparently y'all fell for it, thinking it
was related to
sting) available for extra
charge.
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
>>
>> "CallerID" is a misnomer. It is actually the "Advertized ID".
>However, the telco's realized you would not pay to receive advertizing
so
>they renamed it to something
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 13:57, Michael Thomas wrote:
>Plus if it didn't work well/too cumbersome/etc with email, it probably
>won't be any better with voice. We have lots of experience with what
>doesn't work for email.
I really do not care. It is my e-mail server. It is my telephone.
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 14:02, Michael Homas wrote:
>There are robocalls that you want to get. Here in california, our
>wonderful electric company sends out robocalls when they are going to
>cut our electricity so they don't get blamed for burning down cities
>(and then still manage to an
As long as that tactical air strike uses MIRV nuclear warheads so none of the
little f*ckers get away ...
--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG On Behalf Of
>Jeff Shultz
>
This, of course, will do no good. These so called "Robocalls" are exactly
that. They generate a random number to call and play the silly canned message.
If you press whatever the code is to talk to the idiots, they then hand off
the call to a call center.
You should ALWAYS talk to the call
On Thursday, 19 December, 2019 19:07, Valdis Kletnieks
wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:02:42 -0700, "Keith Medcalf" said:
>> That stupid people do stupid things has no bearing on me. If there
is
>> a legal requirement for these people to be "notifying"
On Friday, 20 December, 2019 10:57, Mark Milhollan wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Dec 2019, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>>You should ALWAYS talk to the call center behind the robocaller. The
>>robocaller (the one playing the message) is relatively local and the
>>cost of that call is mini
>I just looked up Telsa's battery packs and they seem to be between
>60-100kwh. Our daily use is about 30kwh in the fall, so it's only 2-3
>days. Admittedly we can turn off the hot tub, water heater, etc to
>stretch it out. And of course, that means that you can't drive it... The
>one thing that
Why would anyone with anything important to say use somethingmail.com
Somethingmail.com is not e-mail. It is a Giggle Gaggle Google thing.
--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From:
On Monday, 30 December, 2019 13:24, Matthew Petach
wrote:
>Unfortunately, Wi-Fi handoffs suck donkey balls compared to
>cell tower handoffs when moving. It's fine when you're
>stationary, but walking down the street, and shifting from
>one wifi hotspot to the next, you're going to be dropping
>> Also, keep in mind that 10 years ago, you didn't know you would want
>> or need 25mbits to your phone,
>Who needs 25mbits to their phone?
I can only talk to one party at a time, so there is no need for more than a
single bearer channel worth of bandwidth.
--
The fact that there's a Highway
>> It'd be nice to see what benefits 5g really has for carriers and
>> consumers/users... It looks, to me, like a bunch of the 5g hype is
>> really: "uhm, we need to sell these carriers on the G++ ... spin up
>> the hype machine about speed!" never mind the cost to deploy, range of
>> deployment,
On Tuesday, 31 December, 2019 02:48, Antonios Chariton
wrote:
>Ignoring the obvious reasons why TLS is needed and HTTP should not be
>used,
I am curious -- what exactly are those "obvious reasons"? (And for the record
HTTP *IS* being used, it is just being tunneled inside a TLS connection).
On Tuesday, 31 December, 2019 04:44, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
>Just to make it clear: are you suggesting that it should be a requirement
>to always verify the site where anonymous people make anonymous edits?
>Let that sink in.
TLS 1.2 as deployed in Web Browsers does not authenticate th
On Friday, 3 January, 2020 10:53, Radu-Adrian Feurdean
wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, at 16:38, Paul Nash wrote:
>>> And more interestingly, if that city's residents and visitors had the
>>> option of connecting to active 5G or wi-fi, what do we think they'd
>>> choose?
>> They’d probably choo
High Touch / Low Touch
Is this a measure of the amount of fiddle diddling required to get the chip to
work as documented, or is it some other kind of code?
For example a "High Touch" chip needs lots of fiddle farting because it was
designed by a moron and every possible thing that can be progr
Got it, thanks for the explanation!
> -Original Message-
> From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi]
> Sent: Sunday, 24 April, 2016 11:03
> To: Keith Medcalf
> Cc: nanog list
> Subject: Re: Arista Routing Solutions
>
> On 24 April 2016 at 05:14, Keith Medcalf wrote
How do you show proof of self-insurance?
Or is this an extortion racket?
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Chris McDonald
> Sent: Thursday, 23 June, 2016 09:23
> To: nanog list
> Subject: 60 hudson - insurance?
>
> are others being told that
> There is no difference between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to
> firewalls and reachability. It is worth noting that hosts which
> support IPv6 are typically a lot more secure than older IPv4-only
> hosts. As an example every version of Windows that ships with IPv6
> support also ships with the f
now because I
never ran it.
> -Original Message-
> From: Spencer Ryan [mailto:sr...@arbor.net]
> Sent: Saturday, 2 July, 2016 10:08
> To: Keith Medcalf
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: RE: IPv6 deployment excuses
>
> Windows 8 and 10 with t
s
>
> Security that is too strict will be disabled and be far less effective
> than proper security measures. Security zealots are often blind to that.
>
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> Midwest
POSIX (Unix) (normal) time does not have leap seconds.
Every POSIX (Unix) (normal) minute has exactly 60 seconds.
Every POSIX (Unix) (normal) hour has exactly 60 minutes.
Every POSIX (Unix) (normal) day has exactly 24 hours.
Every POSIX (Unix) (normal) year has 365 days, unless it is a leap year,
> It's also generally counter to them being available outside of that
> network.
This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the little
buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet (or you private networks).
Even if you lock you pet mouse in a cage, you can still fee
On: Saturday, 22 October, 2016 17:41, Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> On 2016-10-22 19:03, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> > This does not follow and is not a natural consequence of sealing the
> little buggers up so that they cannot affect the Internet
> Problem is that many of these gad
Why would the provider want to do anything? They suuport (make money from)
their cudtomers. And the more traffic the send/receive, the more money the
providers make.
Wouldn't surprise me if the providers were selling access to their customers
networks to the botherders so they could make mone
> > The problem is in allowing inbound connections and going as far as doing
> > UPnP to tell the CPE router to open a inbound door to let hackers loging
> > to that IoT pet feeder to turn it into an agressive DNS destroyer.
> Well yes. uPnP is a problem precisely because it is some random devic
On Thursday, 27 October, 2016 22:09, Eliot Lear said:
> On 10/28/16 1:55 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> >>> The problem is in allowing inbound connections and going as far as
> doing
> >>> UPnP to tell the CPE router to open a inbound door to let hackers
> loging
On Friday, 28 October, 2016 19:37, Steve Atkins wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> >> 1b) anti spam filters believe in the magic of checking
> >> forward/reverse match.
> > Someone in this thread said that only malware-infested end-users are
> > behind IP addresses wi
On Tuesday, 7 February, 2017 06:59, Ray Soucy said:
> I think the fundamental problem here is that these devices aren't good
> network citizens in the first place. The odds of getting them to add
> functionality to support a new protocol are even likely than getting them
> to not have open servi
>> "I don't see why there should not be a way to know who is
>> publishing data on the Internet. In almost all other forms
>> of communication, there is some accountability for the
>> origination of information."
>...in every other form of communication, the phrase "get a warrant"
>comes to mind.
eworld.com]
>Sent: Saturday, 21 April, 2018 14:35
>To: Aaron C. de Bruyn
>Cc: Keith Medcalf; nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
>
>
>On April 20, 2018 at 20:36 nanog@nanog.org (Aaron C. de Bruyn via
>NANOG) wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:
>host 23.227.197.10
10.197.227.23.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer horsezipsworld.com.
>host horsezipsworld.com
horsezipsworld.com has address 23.227.197.11
horsezipsworld.com mail is handled by 10 mail.horsezipsworld.com.
>host mail.horsezipsworld.com
mail.horsezipsworld.com has address 23.227.1
>I'm also not foolish enough to think this thread will affect the
>encrypt-everything crowd as it is more of a religion\ideology than a
>practical matter. However, maybe it'll shed some light on technical
>ways of dealing with this at the service-provider level or plant some
>doubt in someone's m
Neither seem to work without disabling security first.
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Bryan
>Holloway
>Sent: Monday, 1
People stream HD Video in the Water Closet? I don't think my 80" HDTV would
fit in there!
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus@
My VT52 does not do fonts ...
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Hamel
>Sent: Wednesday, 27 June, 2018 14:54
>To: ahe
Whats WiFi? Is that the "noise" that escapes from the copper cables? Switch
to optical fibre, it does not emit RF noise ...
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mail
>The point of the study in proposed bill is customers of Netflix and
>Spotify (just to pick on them because everyone seems too) watching videos
>on "Smart TVs" or listening on "Smart Speakers" may not realize those
>devices won't get emergency alerts like their old-fashion AM/FM radios
>and over-th
>For example just because they sent you a seemingly malformed HTTP
>request, and given that 4xx is for error codes, doesn't mean you
>should return "420 You must be high!" and expect to be understood.
Actually, you can, and the sender of the request MUST understand.
The relevant part of the appl
>> I'd argue that's just content (though admittedly a lot of it).
"just static content" would be more accurate ...
>I would further argue that you can't cache active Web content, like
>bank account statements, utility billing, help desk request/responses,
>equipment status, and other things that
To get back to the original question regarding the "diameter" of the Internet,
it would appear to me that we are easily looking at about 30 to 40 hops just
within North America -- and easily double that to reach the rest of the
Internet outside of North America. Of course, the "Top 5 Channels
> From what I'm aware of the US is currently experiencing issues
>with FB, Instagram and LastPass. The latter is impacting business for
>us. Coincidence? Maybe. The root cause will certainly be
>interesting.
Why don't you just write all your password on big sheets of construction paper
a
> They put IP of some government or critical (for example,
> VISA/Mastercard processing) sites in their blocked
> domain - and those victim sites will be blocked.
> This trolling is very popular in Russia, for example.
This should be very popular everywhere in the free world -- explaining why it
>> Agreed, and I do get unsolicited Linkedin requests quite often.
>> Sometimes, this is clearly the result of someone scraping a list
>> like NANOG in an effort to drum up new business/contacts. Those
>> end up in the bitbucket.
> When you turn down a connection there should be "I don't know thi
> It could have been worse:
> https://www.cio.com.au/article/65115/all_systems_down/
"Make network changes only between 2am and 5am on weekends."
Wow. Just wow. I suppose the IT types are considerably different than Process
Operations. Our rule is to only make changes scheduled at 09:00 (or
On Sunday, 13 January, 2019 12:51, Mike Hammet wrote:
>People use plain-text e-mail on purpose?
There is another kind of e-mail? Or are you referring to Web-Pages-over-SMTP?
Whenever someone has a "experience" while reading an e-mail message or viewing
a web page, one has to wonder what sort of drugs they are on ... It is the LSD
that provides the "experience", not whether you are viewing an e-mail message
or a web-page-over-SMTP ...
Please experience the wonder
On Tuesday, 15 January, 2019 12:10, James Downs wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 06:46:07PM +0100, Tei wrote:
>> Is very hard to replace a open protocol, wrapping may work if the
>> protocol is mostly abandoned (IRC) but thats not the case for
>> email.
> IRC is far from abandonded. There are
However, like the Internet Off switch installed in the Pentagon after 911
(which shutdown the DNS Severs), you may find that you have to reboot the
Internet so you can upload your Save the World video to Twitter ...
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says
The best time is usually a Wednesday at Noon or 11:00 in the impacted timezone.
Of course, if the impact is worldwide then that would probably be UT1 :)
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Mess
>Unfortunately, you may have to wait several weeks or even a month for
>databases to update.
Don't be silly! It takes nanoseconds to update the database once "the proper
motivation" is present to encourage the pressing of the key.
It may take weeks of months for the update to entered into th
On Friday, 22 February, 2019 09:36, Miles Fidelman :
> But re. "one doesn't communicate with folks .. etc." --- when one has
> ongoing communication with a large group of people (e.g., an email
> list) --- and a large provider shuts a door, the impact is on more than
> just the customers of that
On Saturday, 23 February, 2019 10:03, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>Very good article, very detailed, with a lot of technical precisions,
>about the recent domain name hijackings (not using the DNS, just good
>old hijackings at registrar or hoster).
>https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/02/a-deep-dive-
cted.
>
>ICANN seems to think that is the case: ICANN Calls for Full DNSSEC
>Deployment
>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2019-02-22-en
>
>Of course, DNSSEC is often blamed for not protecting those who did
>not deploy/use it. Not sure what can be said about that line of
&
>https://twofactorauth.org/#domains gives a good view of the domain
>management landscape regarding 2FA.
Seems to require the unfettered execution of third-party code ...
Are you offering an indemnity in case that code is malicious? What are the
terms and the amount of the indemnity?
---
The
sday, 26 February, 2019 09:36
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re: 2FA, was A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS
>Hijacking
>
>On 2/25/19 9:59 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> Are you offering an indemnity in case that code is malicious? What
>are the terms and the amount
On Tuesday, 12 March, 2019 15:51, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>Would you be super pissed if you died for real because Overwatch
>suppressed a tornado or other severe weather alert relevant to
>your location? Serious question here.
Seeing as you are dead, I doubt that you could be super pis
On Sunday, 26 February, 2017 19:16 Matt Palmer said:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 05:41:47PM -0600, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 12:18:48PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > > I repeat something I've said a couple times in this thread: If I can
> > > somehow create two
The purpose of SPF is to REJECT messages before the data phase. This cannot be
done if you are checking the RFC-822 From: header since that requires accepting
the message and invalidates the entire purpose of SPF.
I have never seen an SPF implementation that uses the RFC-822 header From.
Doi
The SMBv1 issue was disclosed a year or two ago and never patched.
Anyone who was paying attention would already have disabled SMBv1.
Thus is the danger and utter stupidity of "overloading" the function of service
listeners with unassociated road-apples. Wait until the bad guys figure out
that
Nathan Brookfield [mailto:nathan.brookfi...@simtronic.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, 12 May, 2017 22:48
> To: Keith Medcalf
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Please run windows update now
>
> Well it was patched by Microsoft of March 14th, just clearly people
> running large amounts
oɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe [mailto:jbfixu...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, 12 May, 2017 23:08
> To: Keith Medcalf
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Please run windows update now
>
> One word. Linux.
>
> After this w
I do not see any links to actually download the actual patches. Just a bunch
of text drivel.
--
˙uʍop-ǝpısdn sı ɹoʇıuoɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of
> timrutherf...@c4.net
> Sent: Monday, 15 May, 2017 09:23
> What would be more of an interesting discussion, to me, would be why
> doesn't Microsoft know about these hoarding of vulnerabilities by State
> actors and plug them up?
Some state actors they do know. They custom write the security flaws on the
state actors request.
> Are they really that c
On Tuesday, 16 May, 2017 18:13, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2017 16:41:36 -0600, "Keith Medcalf" said:
>> Of course Microsoft knew, since they wrote in the backdoor in the first
>> place. That is why when informed by their employers that the backdoor
>&
> > This sounds something like the MEF Third Network type stuff I mean
> > the ability to setup connection dynamically across network boundaries
> > on-the-fly, via an ordering system... that has always sounded awesome
> > to me... and I've wondered how we could actually get there one day.
> t
> >> to me, this was the dream of optical switching and gmpls (which is
> >> not mpls)
> > And, pray tell, what is the use of me setting up "peering" between
> > myself and a network on the other side of the world when the data
> > still has to flow over the same connections, merely encapsulated
>
Microsoft has released "critical patches" for "recently disclosed
vulnerabilities which may be used for imminent attacks". Main page is here:
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/security/4025685.aspx
and that has links to the appropriate articles and places where you can
actually down
How else would one maintain government control over free encryption
certificates?
--
˙uʍop-ǝpısdn sı ɹoʇıuoɯ ɹnoʎ 'sıɥʇ pɐǝɹ uɐɔ noʎ ɟı
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 June, 2017 17:34
> To: Edwin Pers
> Cc:
> ... smart speakers ...
Do not we need to find intelligent life on earth before we can find "Smart
Speakers"?
Looks OK on my old 12" 240i interlace CRT. However, it is not High Definition.
Like everything on the Roku it is CATRS (Compressed All To Rat Shit) and
motion decimated and unsuitable for display on anything bigger/more modern than
a 12 240i CRT circa 1980 or so, and certainly completely unwa
In which case neither will they be RFC compliant.
(1) The "inaddr-arpa" ptr from the incoming connection, when resolved, MUST
result in a set of IP Addresses which includes the original IP Address.
(2) The "name" specified in the HELO/EHLO MUST resolve to an MTA that meets the
above reverse/fo
Not old enough to have had an Executive Secretary processing your incoming
snail-mail before it gets to you?
The "envelope" in which a letter arrived is just as important as the letter
itself and contains valuable information that is duplicated in e-mail -- the
postmark (received headers), the
On Thursday, 30 November, 2017 10:55, Bjørn Mork , wrote:
>Steve Atkins writes:
>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:22 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>>> "John Levine" writes:
>> It tells you something about the competence of the operator and
>> whether the host is intended by the owners to send email.
>No.
On Monday, 4 December, 2017 04:20, Edwin Pers wrote:
>As an anecdotal aside, approx. 70% of incoming portscanners/rdp
>bots/ssh bots/etc that hit the firewalls at my sites are coming from
>AWS.
>I used to send abuse emails but eventually gave up after receiving
>nothing beyond "well, aws ip's ar
On Wednesday, 6 December, 2017 03:53, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:54:21AM -0700, Grant Taylor via NANOG
>wrote:
>> If you are trying, make an honest mistake, and are willing to
>> correct it when others politely let you know, you will quite
>> likely find people willing to h
And thank god for that. Since Microsoft stopped diddle-farting with Windows 98
is was never infested with the UDP "Execute Payload with NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM"
flag that appeared in all later versions of Windows TCP/IP stack.
As Windows 98 worked on the day after Microsoft stopped diddling with i
UPnP is the spawn of Beelzebub.
Implementation by Bugs Bunny's maroons for use by other maroons is ok, I
suppose, as long as those of us who are not maroons can turn the evil off.
However, if those maroons start whining about all the crap that happened to
them because they enabled UPnP they be
The "minimum" network size for IPv4 is a /29
The "Minimum" network size for IPv6 is a /64
That means that IPv6 has 2**(64-29) more minimal sized networks that IPv4 (the
fact that the size of those networks is different is immaterial).
2**(64-29) is 34,359,738,368 or 3.4e10
That is quite a few
No, because you have no cause of action known to law. You are not a customer
of Hulu and have no right of action.
However, your "users" could sue you for failing to provide proper service or
perhaps otherwise cause you to suffer damages.
In the former case you could file a defense and cross-c
would have certain success.
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: Michael Crapse [mailto:mich...@wi-fiber.io]
>Sent: Tuesday, 26 December, 2017 19:03
>To: Keith M
>> If you want to make that argument, that we shouldn’t have SLAAC and
>> we should use /96 prefixes, that wouldn’t double the space, it would
>> multiply it by roughly 4 billion.
> I'm saying I should be able to use whatever size LAN I want.
You are totally free to do that if you please, no one
LaBrea Tarpit http://labrea.sourceforge.net/ can do this as well, though
perhaps only for IPv4. Basically it looks for unanswered ARP requests and
answers them. What it does with the ensuing session data is configurable.
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heave
Why would the carriers want to do anything? They are making money from call
termination fees.
---
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>-Original Message-
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Be
>Does anyone believe privacy etc will be enhanced by forbidding your
>finding out who owns this domain you were directed towards by a
>search engine?
>Granted you may not get a satisfactory answer but then maybe you
>choose not to do business with them, ok, your choice.
>But what if the response
>I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics.
>ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when
>it comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if
>any) because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps
>per
>The question at hand is.. Do countries/businesses have to affiliate or
>utilize any of those services provided by ICANN other than the assignment
>of an IP address?
No.
>And can you get away with LAN/CAN/MAN stand-alone systems [instead of
>utilizing DNS-via-ICANN]??
Yes.
>Example:
>Is it
>An LED screen doesn't refresh the way a CRT does, right? The light
>doesn't flash and fade, it stays constant until the next change. So
>why would a 30 hz refresh rate make any difference at all for tasks
>which update the screen less often than 30 times a second? Mike did
>say he used it for doi
eatre
and provides no actual security benefit whatsoever. Anyone believing otherwise
is operating under a delusion.
--- Keith Medcalf
() ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org
101 - 200 of 321 matches
Mail list logo
