Subject: Re: Where to buy Internet IP addresses Date: Tue, May 05, 2009 at
10:43:17PM -0400 Quoting Ricky Beam (jfb...@gmail.com):
The address space has be carved out;
there's no uncutting that pie. (much in the same way the /8 handed out
in the early 80's aren't being reclaimed.)
I believe
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 07:49 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Sorry, I don't see why /56 is qualitatively different to a /60.
Because more is more, and it makes it less likely that people will start
to invent silly solutions to problems that do not really exist. With a
/56, I can't really
Some times ago, i would say 6 or 7 years, there was a BoF proposition at IETF
to deal with such issue.
Work areas were to propagate routing mesh configuration information and
automatic assignment of subnet prefixes to links.
There were quite a lot of persons interested in such issues and some
Carsten Bormann wrote:
For now: Reserve a /64 for your own allocations (SAA), then hand out
half of what you have (i.e., of a /56 for the first CPE, so a /57) to
the first asker, then a /58, then a /59 etc. The first asker (nested
CPE) has a /57, reserves a /64 for itself (SAA), hands out a
On May 6, 2009, at 14:52, Jack Bates wrote:
Better standards
Sure!
(You are preaching to the choir here.)
While we are still on the way there, we just:
1) Shouldn't waste time reinventing decisions that are a done deal
(say, EUI-64 in SAA).
2) Shouldn't use the lack of our favorite
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need to
generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
On May 5, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
Look, the Ark *is* finished. It floats. It can be steered. It has
space
for everyone. The fact that some of the plumbing is a bit iffy is just
not a major issue right now; getting everybody on board is. We have
LOTS
of very clever people ready
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 14:24 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need to
generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is
-Original Message-
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need
to generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses
is only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
I have a new T3 thats 65msec long. I'd usually be using iperf to test new
links, but at 65msec, even at the maximum window size, I can only get
6-8mbit through. No combination of options I've been able to find has gotten
me more than 6mbit through this link. Should I just shotgun 9 copies of it?
set your system send and receive TCP buffers larger. You're probably
being limited by that. With linux, make sure you have window auto-
scaling enabled and have increased the maximum size it can grow to to
at least 4MB.
Or test with UDP and blast as fast as you can so that you're not
With regard to the recent discussion...
Late last month the Minnesota Department of Public Safety announced
it would require ISPs and telcos to block computers located in the
state from accessing gambling sites, and said non-compliant companies
would be referred to the FCC. Now, the state has
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:10:45 -0400
From: Kaegler, Mike kaegl...@tessco.com
I have a new T3 thats 65msec long. I'd usually be using iperf to test new
links, but at 65msec, even at the maximum window size, I can only get
6-8mbit through. No combination of options I've been able to find has
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 06:57:53AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Of course, the builders used screen doors and windows for the
below-the-waterline openings, but not to worry, the bilge pump equivalent
of Moore's Law will undoubtedly save us.
Speaking as a builder, I have to say the screen doors
Thanks to everyone who responded on and off-list!
It seems evident that I didn't have a complete understanding of the iperf
switches which alter buffer sizes.
Several people made a few neat points, which I'll quickly summarize:
* In iperf, -P will allow one to run multiple tcp tests at once.
*
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
With regard to the recent discussion...
Late last month the Minnesota Department of Public Safety announced
it would require ISPs and telcos to block computers located in the
state from accessing gambling sites, and said non-compliant companies
would
Lets see... so that list of domain names and IP addresses will be out
of date, what, 3 weeks ago?
I don't see how something so terribly arbitary can be long lived.
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:41:55AM -0400, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
With regard to the recent discussion...
Late last month the
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Mauritz Lewies maur...@lho.co.za wrote:
All based on the Alcatel 7750 chassis.
snip
What is the general consensus of them in these layers of the network and
can anyone point out some strong points/short falls?
snip
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:24:09 -0400, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later.
Their awful experimental
On Wed, 06 May 2009 11:17:09 -0400, David Andersen d...@cs.cmu.edu wrote:
Or test with UDP and blast as fast as you can so that you're not
seeing TCP weirdness.
That's the best option... spew packets. Just make sure they are as large
as possible without needing fragmentation.
And if your
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses
is only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later.
Their awful experimental IPv6 stack in XP already does 3041, so I assume
Vista,
2008, and 7 all
On Wed, 06 May 2009 16:50:15 -0400, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default criteria
for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
I define that as not aggressive. (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
faster than that.)
FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default
criteria for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
I define that as not aggressive. (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
faster than that.)
Fair enough, but IMHO it is aggressive enough to accomplish the
Hello all,
Does anyone have a contact within Verizon Wireless data (ie: EV-DO) that
could help with some... odd (for lack of a better word) connection
problems from an EV-DO modem?
I think there may be some sort of packet filtering going on, but I can't
tell for sure. It's kinda
24 matches
Mail list logo
