Fw: new message
Hey! New message, please read <http://campingmeetingpoint.com/he.php?psqn> Aria Stewart
Fw: new message
Hey! New message, please read <http://takestockinyourlife.com/miss.php?w> Aria Stewart
Resilient streaming protocols
Anyone have any interest in a forward-error-corrected streaming protocol suitable for multicast, possibly both audio and video? Good for when there's some packet loss. Aria Stewart
Re: Had an idea - looking for a math buff to tell me if it's possible with today's technology.
On Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Landon Stewart lstew...@superb.net wrote: Lets say you had a file that was 1,000,000,000 characters consisting of 8,000,000,000bits. What if instead of transferring that file through the interwebs you transmitted a mathematical equation to tell a computer on the other end how to *construct* that file. First you'd feed the file into a cruncher of some type to reduce the pattern of 8,000,000,000 bits into an equation somehow. Sure this would take time, I realize that. The equation would then be transmitted to the other computer where it would use its mad-math-skillz to *figure out the answer* which would theoretically be the same pattern of bits. Thus the same file would emerge on the other end. The real question here is how long would it take for a regular computer to do this kind of math? The real question is whether this is possible. And the short answer is No, at least not in general. Exactly: What you run up against is that you can reduce extraneous information, and compress redundant information, but if you actually have dense information, you're not gonna get any better. So easy to compress a billion bytes of JSON or XML significantly; not so much a billion bytes of already tightly coded movie. Aria Stewart
Re: Had an idea - looking for a math buff to tell me if it's possible
On Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Heath Jones wrote: My point here is it IS possible to transfer just a hash and counter value and effectively generate identical data at the remote end. The limit that will be hit is the difficulty of generating and comparing hash values with current processing power. I'm proposing iterating through generated data up until the actual data. It's not even a storage issue, as once you have incremented the data you don't need to store old data or hash values - just the counter. No massive hash tables. It's a CPU issue. Google Birthday paradox and hash collision Aria Stewart
Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers
On Aug 16, 2010, at 12:49 AM, Mike wrote: Hi Folks, I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away from eachother? Anyone got advice either way? Should I try to give sequential numbers to my resolvers for the benefit of consultants ... like .11, .22 and .33 for my server ips? Resolvers being easily memorable is nice, since they get keyed in by IP. Authority servers are referred to by name, so IP matters less. Definitely keep an authority server in another prefix if you can, and resolvers in different prefixes is also nice -- but that's more a question of redundancy, not numbering. Other than that, go dense. Addresses are starting to get scarce. Aria Stewart
Re: Emulating ADSL bandwidth shaping
On May 3, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: - do ISPs typically use token bucket filters with large bursts to shape traffic? - what kind of burst sizes and latencies/limits are typically used for the filter? You will definitely have to account for latency. For emulating cable traffic, latencies (in the USA) will be about 60-80ms to typical sites. Burst mode in my experience occurs only for about the first 15 seconds, then is throttled back (though not always; seems to depend on time of day). And queues of 1 second at line rate are not uncommon, so if you load the link, things lag. For DSL, I seem to recall latency being about 90-110ms (note, I haven't used DSL in many years). Burst mode was generally not noticeable or available, that is, you got the same speed regardless of downloading a 1MB jpeg or a 640MB .iso file. Now more typically 40ms. And yeah, no bursts over normal line rate. Most turn down line rate for other plans, not shape.
Re: IPv6 Confusion
On 18/02/2009 19:39, Kevin Loch wrote: Just how DO we get the message to the IETF that we need all the tools we have in v4 (DHCP, VRRP, etc) to work with RA turned off? What operational reasons are there for working with RA turned off? Aria Stewart aredri...@nbtsc.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: IPv6 Confusion
On Feb 18, 2009, at 1:15 PM, Randy Bush wrote: What operational reasons are there for working with RA turned off? networks with visitors have shown a serious problem with rouge RAs Does that get better with RAs from the good routers turned off? Aria Stewart aredri...@nbtsc.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: IPv6 Confusion
On Feb 18, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: Try that with an IPv6 router. About 10 ms after you plug into the wrong port out goes an RA, the entire subnet ceases to function, and your phone lights up like a christmas tree. Let me repeat, none of these solutions are secure. The IPv4/DHCP model is ROBUST, the RA/DHCPv6 model is NOT. Depends -- the DHCP model also ceases to work, and some time later, when there's no cause and effect. When I've added a misconfigured router to my IPv6 network, I added a few prefixes, but since it never worked, it never got used. Multihoming and good address selection seems to be a real win there. Good router authentication would be a nice thing to have in both cases, though. Aria Stewart aredri...@nbtsc.org smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
