On 11/27/2012 09:00 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message <20121128041816.gf1...@dyn.com>, Andrew Sullivan writes:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 08:41:13AM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
If they are writing network based code a tunnel broker should not
be a issue. Tunnel brokers are not that hard to use.
On 11/28/2012 09:00 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
And still, if you as a proper engineer where not able to test/add IPv6
code in the last 10++ years, then you did something very very wrong in
your job, the least of which is to file a ticket for IPv6 support in the
ticket tracking system so that one c
On 11/28/2012 10:30 AM, david peahi wrote:
On the practical side: Have all programmers created a 128 bit field to
store the IPv6 address, where IPv4 programs use a 32 bit field to store the
IP address? This would seem to be similar to the year 2000 case where
almost all programs required auditing
On 11/28/2012 09:40 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-11-28 18:26, Michael Thomas wrote:
It's very presumptuous for you to tell me what my development/test
priorities ought to be, and I can tell you for absolute certain that any
such badgering will be met with rolled eyes and quick dism
On 11/29/2012 10:36 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Got some bad data here. Let me help.
Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 29, 2012 8:22 AM, "Michael Thomas" mailto:m...@mtcc.com>> wrote:
> Phone apps, by and large, are designed by people in homes or
> small companie
On 12/01/2012 11:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
ps. I work for a division of my employer that does not yet have IPv6 support in
its rather popular consumer software product. Demand for IPv6 from our rather
large customer base is, at present, essentially nonexistent, and other things
would be way ab
Matthew Newton wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:42:46PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 13/12/2012 22:54, Jason Castonguay wrote:
Advisory — D-root is changing its IPv4 address on the 3rd of January.
You've just given 3 weeks notice for a component change in one of the few
critical part of the
I was looking at a Raspberry Pi board and was struck with how large the ethernet
connector is in comparison to the board as a whole. It strikes me: ethernet
connectors haven't changed that I'm aware in pretty much 25 years. Every other
cable has changed several times in that time frame. I imaging
On 12/20/2012 10:28 AM, Michael Loftis wrote:
It's not all about density. You *Must* have positive retention and alignment.
None of the USB nor firewire standards provide for positive retention. eSATA
does sort of in some variants but the connectors for USB are especially
delicate and easy
On 12/20/2012 11:43 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Also, RJ45 is around the minimum size where you can hand-terminate a
cable. How would you go about quickly making a 36.5 foot 8 conductor
cable with, say, micro USB ends?
You're assuming that that's a universal requirement. Most people
in retail si
On 12/20/2012 12:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On the other hand, I wonder if it would be worth asking the 802.3 committee look at defining a single-pair ethernet standard that would interoperate with a normal 4-pair switch. So, you'd have two conductors into some kind of 2P2C micro-RJ connector on
On 12/21/2012 04:08 AM, Aled Morris wrote:
Good luck with that! :-) Referring back to the original question and the reference to Raspberry Pi... The latest HDMI has Ethernet capability and the connector is already on the Pi, so there's a possible (future) solution that would work for all manner of
On 12/21/2012 09:29 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
I'd turn this back the other way though: in this day and age, why do we
have any interconnection/bus that isn't just ethernet/IP?
The need for isochronous transmission and more bandwidth.
That's why G*d i
On 12/21/2012 12:00 PM, Aled Morris wrote:
On 21 December 2012 18:22, Chris Adams wrote:
I will say that one nice thing about having different connectors for
different protocols (on consumer devices anyway) is that you don't have
to worry about somebody plugging the Internet into the "Video 1"
On 01/02/2013 09:14 PM, Damian Menscher wrote:
Back on topic: encryption without knowing who you're talking to is worse
than useless (hence no self-signed certs which provide a false sense of
security),
In fact, it's very useful -- what do you think the initial diffie-hellman
exchanges are doin
On 01/10/2013 07:02 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jan 10, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I certainly want to use something more modern, having run Xmodem to load images
into devices or net-booted systems with very large images in the past…
I've seen all sorts of creative ways to do t
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:50:15AM -0600, Joe Greco wrote:
However, as part of a "defense in depth" strategy, it can still make
sense.
Brother, you're preaching to the choir. I've argued for defense in depth
for longer than I can remember. Still am.
But defenses have
On 01/30/2013 01:51 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
On Jan 30, 2013, at 12:43 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
As a product of having a motorola sb6121 and a netgear wndr3700 both of which I
bought at frys I have ipv6 in my house with dhcp pd curtesy of commcast. If it
was any simpler somebody else would h
O oracle of nanog: unlike things like rogue processes eating tons of CPU,
it seems to me that network monitoring is essentially a black art for the
average schmuck home network operator (of which I count myself). That
is: if the "network is slow", it's really hard to tell why that might be and
wh
On 02/12/2013 02:07 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
Someone created an application for uverse users that goes into the gateway and pulls relevant
information. The information (link retrain, for example) is then color coded for caution and
out of range. The application is called up real time, not somet
On 02/12/2013 04:46 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
Large buffers have broken the average home internet. I can't tell you how
many people are astonished when I say "one of your family members
downloading a huge Microsoft ISO image (via TCP or other congestion-aware
algorithm) shouldn't even be noticed by
On 03/12/2013 12:27 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Once IPv6 is sufficiently ubiquitous (rough estimate,
but say 900+ of the Alexa 1000 sites have IPv6 and ~95%
of eyeball networks), you'll see a rapidly declining desire to
pay the increased cost o
On 04/24/2013 03:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Frankly, the ISPs likely to be tracking this list aren't the people holding
back there. To pick on one that is fairly public, Verizon Wireline is running
dual stack for at least its FIOS customers, and also deploying CGN, and being
pretty up fr
On 04/24/2013 05:34 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
On Apr 24, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Michael Thomas
wrote:
On 04/24/2013 03:26 PM, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
Frankly, the ISPs likely to be tracking this list aren't the people holding
back there. To pick on one that is fairly public, Ve
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT? Assuming
that it's death for the ISP to just say no to the long tail of legacy v4-only
sites?
One thing that occurs to me though is that it's sort of in an ISP
On 04/25/2013 10:10 AM, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Michael Thomas wrote:
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT?
Do you count NAT64 or MAP as carrier grade NAT?
I suppose that
On 04/25/2013 11:09 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:24 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
So here is the question I have: when we run out, is there *anything* that
will reasonably allow an ISP to *not* deploy carrier grade NAT? Assuming
that it's death for the ISP to just say no t
On 04/25/2013 07:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
At some level, I wonder how much the feedback loop of "providers
won't deploy ipv6 because everybody says they won't deploy ipv6"
has caused this self-fulfilling prophecy :/
It's a definite issue. The bigger issue is the financial incentives are all in
On 04/29/2013 11:00 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
If the existing cards handle CGN without additional licensing, then the only
real cost is personal, my sanity, and the company need/will not factor that in.
One thing to consider is what the new support load will be from issues dealing
with CGN causin
On 12/06/2011 05:03 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:49:29 PST, "andrew.wallace" said:
A trojan can be used for good if in the right hands as a remote access tool for
business use.
Best troll line since n3td3v got banned from full-disclosure. Well played,
I've been
o
On 12/22/2011 10:47 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 12:26:56PM -0600, PC wrote:
This particular product is often used by the SMB types. This changes
things a bit. While I disagree with paying for signature updates you
didn't use (It's a service, and I don't
On 12/22/2011 11:07 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Michael Thomas wrote:
At that point why should they sell iron at all? Seems like you get
all of the downside of owning the iron, and all of the downside of
paying for a cloud based service. Either you own what you own,
or you pay
On 01/03/2012 05:09 AM, Greg Ihnen wrote:
A side issue is the people who use the same password at fuzzykittens.com as they do at bankofamerica.com. Of course fuzzykittens doesn't need high security for their password management and storage. After all, what's worth stealing at fuzzykittens? All tho
On 01/21/2012 11:38 AM, George Bonser wrote:
Entire governments in the US are using "cloud storage" for their documentation these
days. It is my understanding (which is hearsay) that Google has an entire service aimed at small
governments (county and municipal mostly) in Google Docs for just t
On 01/21/2012 03:28 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 1/21/12 11:38 , George Bonser wrote:
Entire governments in the US are using "cloud storage" for their
documentation these days. It is my understanding (which is hearsay)
that Google has an entire service aimed at small governments (county
and munic
On 01/21/2012 12:19 PM, George Bonser wrote:
Sure, but balance that with podunk.usa's possibly incompetent IT staff?
It costs a lot of money to run a state of the art shop, but only
incrementally more as you add more and more instances of essentially
identical shops. I guess I have more trust tha
Lantronix still makes terminal servers? Huh. I designed their first ones over
20 years ago!
Mike
Dan White wrote:
+1 for the Lantronix SLC.
On 01/30/12 11:24 -0500, Paul Stewart wrote:
We really like Lantronix .. use them a lot.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Ray Soucy [mailto:r...
On 02/27/2012 06:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
programming is not being able to write a hundred lines of unreadable
perl.
a real programmer can be productive in networking tools in a matter of a
month or two. i have seen it multiple times.
a networker can become a useful real progammer in a year or
On 03/01/2012 06:26 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 7:20 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The simpler approach and perfectly viable without mucking
up what is already implemented and working:
Don't keep returns from GAI/GNI around longer than it takes
to cycle through your connect() loo
On 03/01/2012 07:22 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
It's deeper than just that, though. The whole paradigm is messy, from
the point of view of someone who just wants to get stuff done. The
examples are (almost?) all fatally flawed. The code that actually gets
at least some of it right ends up being too c
On 03/01/2012 08:57 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Moving it across the kernel boundary solves nothing
Actually, it does. Right now, applications effectively cache the address in
their data space, requiring the application developer to go to quite a bit of
work to deal with the address changing (o
On 03/01/2012 08:58 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/01/2012 06:26 AM, William Herrin wrote:
The even simpler approach: create an AF_NAME with a sockaddr struct
that contains a hostname instead of an IPvX address. Then let
connect() figure
On 03/05/2012 03:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
However, the bigger problem (from my experience-driven POV) is that it is not
so intuitively obvious that developing a network-based product using a team
consisting entirely of developers who view the network as an unnecessarily
complicated serial por
On 03/12/2012 02:32 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Whenever I've built code to check someone's email address on a form, I always just looked for the following: 1. matches ^[^@]+@[A-Za-z0-0\-\.]+[A-Za-z]$ 2. The component to the right of the @ sign returns at least one A, , or MX record. If it passed t
On 03/21/2012 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Wieling"
Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is installed in a building. This
prevents other companies from providing service by leasing Verizon's
copper
On 03/21/2012 12:28 PM, John T. Yocum wrote:
On 3/21/2012 12:16 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 03/21/2012 11:58 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Eric Wieling"
Verizon, the copper wireline company, is removing service from
locations EVERY TIME VZ fiber is
On 03/28/2012 09:16 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:45:12AM -0700, David Conrad
wrote:
An interesting assertion. I haven't looked at how end-user networks are built
recently. I had assumed there continue to be customer aggregation points
within ISP in
On 03/28/2012 12:03 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
None of the routers are "trusted" if your perspective is right.
It's easy to find a path like:
"Tier 1 ISP" - Regional ISP - Local Provider - Subscriber - User
Techologically it may look like:
Tier 1 T640 core network with 10GE handoff
Region
On 04/06/2012 08:49 AM, George Herbert wrote:
This seems like a very 1999 anti-spam attitude.
I have been doing anti-spam a long long time - literally since before Canter
and Siegel (who I had as customers...) and before j...@cup.portal.com.
It's not 1999 anymore. Patrick is not the enemy. You
On 04/06/2012 09:17 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
On 4/6/12 10:02 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I wonder how long a popularish blacklist operator would last if they,
oh say, blacklisted all of google or microsoft before they got some
very threatening letters from their legal staff. An hour? A day? A
On 05/29/2012 06:30 PM, Ameen Pishdadi wrote:
Of all the people you pick to spam you picked NANOG, maybe you should hit up
bugtraq next
Maybe it's really an ipv6 cabal advertisement :)
Mike
On 05/31/2012 05:43 PM, Grant Ridder wrote:
I think this is an interesting concept, but i don't know how well it will
hold up in the long run. All the initial verification and continuous
scanning will no doubtingly give the .secure TLD a high cost relative to
other TLD's.
Countries would neve
On 05/31/2012 06:16 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
not necessarily. It can be done with a laptop that does "dig" and sends email
to the place.
What will drive the price up is the lawsuits that come out of the woodwork when they
start trying to enforce their provisions. "What? I have already printed my
Linkedin has a blog post that ends with this sage advice:
* Make sure you update your password on LinkedIn (and any site that you visit
on the Web) at least once every few months.
I have accounts at probably 100's of sites. Am I to understand that I am
supposed to remember
each one of them an
On 06/08/2012 12:56 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Use a password safe. Simple. Most of them even include secure password
generators. That way you only have one password to remember stored in a
location you have control over (and is encrypted), and you get to adopt secure
practices with websites.
On 06/08/2012 01:24 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
On 06/08/2012 10:22 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 06/08/2012 12:56 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Use a password safe. Simple. Most of them even include secure password
generators. That way you only have one password to remember stored in a
location you
On 06/08/2012 01:24 PM, Paul Graydon wrote:
Oh come on.. now you're just being ridiculous, even bordering on childish.
LinkedIn are offering solid advice, routed in safe practices. If you don't
want to do it that's your problem. Stop bitching just because security is hard.
PS: when security
On 06/08/2012 01:35 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On 2012-06-08, at 1:22 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Does your password safe know how to change the password on each
website every several months?
Yes.
I run a website. If it can change it on mine, I'd like to understand
how it manages to do
On 06/08/2012 01:41 PM, Alec Muffett wrote:
PS: when security is hard, people simply don't do it. Blaming the victim
of poor engineering that leads people to not be able to perform best
practices is not the answer.
Passwords suck, but they are the best that we have at the moment in terms of
bei
On 06/08/2012 02:01 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
On 2012-06-08, at 1:41 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
I run a website. If it can change it on mine, I'd like to understand
how it manages to do that.
I log in to your website, change my password, and the software picks up that
I've c
On 06/08/2012 05:59 PM, Ted Cooper wrote:
They have some things correct in this and some are complete hogwash.
Changing your password does not provide any additional security. It is
meant to give protection against your credentials having being
discovered, but if they have been compromised in t
On 06/10/2012 11:22 AM, John T. Yocum wrote:
A merchant can offer a cash discount.
I believe that the law just recently changed on that account. I believe
that what Barry says was the old reality.
Mike
--John
On 6/10/2012 11:16 AM, Barry Shein wrote:
I was under the impression (I should d
On 06/10/2012 11:33 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Thomas"
On 06/10/2012 11:22 AM, John T. Yocum wrote:
A merchant can offer a cash discount.
I believe that the law just recently changed on that account. I
believe that what Barry says was the o
On 06/23/2012 05:52 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
Leo,
This will never work. The "vested profiteers" will all get together and make it a condition that
in order to use this method the user has to have "purchased" a "verified" key from them.
Every site will use different profiteers (probably whoev
On 07/02/2012 09:04 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Alex Harrowell"
On 02/07/12 16:47, AP NANOG wrote:
Do you happen to know all the kernels and versions affected by this?
2.6.26 to 3.3 inclusive per news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4183122
Well, my 2.6.32 CentOS6/64
On 07/10/2012 03:56 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
On 07/10/2012 03:32 AM, goe...@anime.net wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
William Herrin wrote:
This is, incidentally, is a detail I'd love for one of the candidates
to offer in response to that question. Bonus points if you discuss MS
On 07/18/2012 06:10 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 10:04:05 +0300, Saku Ytti said:
However I'm not sure what would be good seed? ISO3166 alpha2 +
domestic_business_id + 0..n (for nth block you needed)
You want to roll in at some entropy by adding in the current date or
On 08/17/2012 01:32 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:32:11 -0400, Andrew Sullivan said:
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 04:13:09PM -, John Levine wrote:
The application I have in mind is to see if it helps to keep DNSBL
traffic, which caches poorly, from pushing other stuff
On 09/04/2012 05:05 AM, William Herrin wrote:
There are no "good" subscribers trying to send email direct to a
remote port 25 from behind a NAT. The "good" subscribers are either
using your local smart host or they're using TCP port 587 on their
remote mail server. You may safely block outbound T
On 09/04/2012 11:55 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 09/04/2012 05:05 AM, William Herrin wrote:
There are no "good" subscribers trying to send email direct to a
remote port 25 from behind a NAT. The "good" subscribers a
On 09/04/2012 01:07 PM, David Miller wrote:
There is no requirement that all endpoints be *permitted* to connect to
and use any service of any other endpoint. The end-to-end design
principle does not require a complete lack of authentication or
authorization.
I can refuse connections to port
On 09/04/2012 09:34 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
If you are sending direct SMTP on behalf of your domain from essentially random
locations, how are we supposed to pick you out from spammers that do the same?
Use DKIM.
Mike
On 09/05/2012 05:56 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2012 03:52 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 09/04/2012 09:34 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
If you are sending direct SMTP on behalf of your domain from essentially random
locations, how are we supposed to pick you out from spammers that do the
On 09/05/2012 07:50 AM, Henry Stryker wrote:
Not only that, but a majority of spam I receive lately has a valid DKIM signature. They are adaptive, like cockroaches.
The "I" part of DKIM is "Identified". That's all it promises. It's a
feature, not a bug, that spammers use it.
Mike
On 09/05/2012 08:49 AM, Sean Harlow wrote:
2. The reason port 25 blocks remain effective is that there really isn't a
bypass.
In the Maginot Line sense, manifestly.
Mike
On 09/05/2012 12:50 PM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
On 09/05/2012 10:19 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 09/05/2012 05:56 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2012 03:52 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 09/04/2012 09:34 AM, Daniel Taylor wrote:
If you are sending direct SMTP on behalf of your domain from
On 09/16/2012 08:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
and don't bs me with how humongous the v6 address space is. we once though 32 bits was humongous. randy
No we didn't .
Mike
On 09/18/2012 08:08 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
We've been doing this for years on both Juniper & IOS/IOS-XR devices. Must be
someone else.
We do run into this whole feature parity thing often. The vendors seem to be
challenged in this space. I suspect a significant part of it is they don't
ac
On 10/05/2012 05:25 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
5. Bits is bits.
I don't know how to say that more clearly.
An ipv6 address is a string of 128 bits with some segmentation
implications (net part, host part.)
A host name is a string of bits of varying length. But it's still just
ones and zeros, an in
On 07/26/2014 07:57 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 7:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote:
One day, hopefully, telecommuting really takes off [...]
It often strikes me as incredibly ironic that companies which *would
not ex
On 07/26/2014 04:29 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
Rich,
In principal I agree, and I've said this many times, for years I've
telecommuted myself, mostly effectively. I'd work much longer hours, but
not always worked as efficiently during all of those hours. When I started
my own company, with $$ be
On 07/26/2014 06:01 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Bill, on your list of not so wonderful things in DC, you left off:
Weather
In the sumer, the DC area is, well, what you’d expect from a
hot, humid, fetid swamp.
On 7/28/14, 12:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:
And continued selling the product as described, long beyond any
reasonable doubt their customers expected it to work with Netflix.
Right through this very minute and beyond.
It would be amusing to see Netflix just call their bluff. And maybe
donate
On 9/24/14, 3:27 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Brandon Whaley wrote:
The scope of the issue isn't limited to SSH, that's just a popular
example people are using. Any program calling bash could potentially
be vulnerable.
Agreed. My point was that bash is not all t
On 10/04/2014 10:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Majdi makes an excellent point, but I want to clarify it, so no one misses
the important subtext:
It is OK for an enterprise wifi system to make this sort of attack *on rogue
APs which are trying to pretend to be part of it (same ESSID).
It is NOT OK
On 10/04/2014 11:47 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
A copycat AP is unquestionably hostile, and likely interfering with users,
but I'm unconvinced that the hostility triggers a privilege to attack it
under part 15 rules. In addition to not being allowed to interfere, we also
have:
You're not attacking i
On 10/04/2014 01:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 12:39 , Brandon Ross wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2014, Michael Thomas wrote:
The problem is that there's really no such thing as a "copycat" if the client
doesn't have the means of authenticating the destination.
On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about current
state of FCC regulations.
Further, you seem to assume a level of control over client behavior that is
rare in my experience.
Owen
I this particular case, I think that e
On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions. I was talking about current
state of FCC regulations.
Further, you seem to assume a level of co
On 10/06/2014 10:12 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 6, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/06/2014 07:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:23 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/04/2014 11:13 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Very true. I wasn't talking about ideal solutions.
On 10/10/2014 08:10 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
a better approach would be to recommend that mailing list participants
who want to actually participate should utilize a mail service
appropriate for the purpose.
support
to be fair, this means EITHER one which does not DMARC mark messages
OR one which
On 11/11/2014 01:05 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
Someone who puts a real switch doing real work on the Internet with
working telnet access is asking to have at least the switch
compromised very quickly. A plaything, a honeypot, or a teaching tool
- maybe. Anything else, probably a bad idea. Remember th
That will be pretty interesting for anybody who's using aws as their
server infrastructure since aws is
still v6 useless last i heard.
Mike
On 09/24/2015 04:33 PM, Eric Tykwinski wrote:
No doubt as an iOS/Apple developer for a hobby, they have been pretty forth
coming on dual stack.
It’s not
On 11/20/2015 08:16 AM, Scott Brim wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
According to:
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
stream data, but
On 12/26/2015 11:37 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Providing security updates is just a cost, there is no upside, because
these boxes sit in a closet, unloved until they stop working, and
they're thrown out and replaced by a new unloved box that goes into
the closet until it stops working agai
Nice, but i want my router to have an android environment itself, not
just to
be controlled by my phone (which i want as well, of course).
The proximity sensor for app developers would be fun to play with, for
example.
Mike
On 12/27/2015 09:43 AM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
From: Michael
On 02/27/2015 10:02 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
I am talking about real compelling content with value not an HD camera staring at a wall.
Even backups are rarely an issue for the average user as long as their backup solution
is intelligent enough to use bandwidth efficiently. Really, the averag
On 02/27/2015 11:49 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
It is my thought that when people ask for symmetrical circuits, they
are really saying that they would like to see a higher upload. What
they have is too slow for their needs. This is especially true for
older technology that isn't in danger of being
On 02/27/2015 02:52 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
What is that statement based on? I have not seen any outcry for more symmetric
speeds. Asymmetry in our networks causes a lot of engineering issues and if it
were up to the carriers, we would much rather have more symmetric traffic
patterns beca
On 02/28/2015 08:20 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I use Skype regularly. It doesn't require 10 megabits.
No, I didn't forget about them. There's simply not that many of them.
No game requires significant amounts of upload.
I forgot nothing and none of what you presented changes my statement in any
601 - 700 of 820 matches
Mail list logo
