Re: What day is 2010-01-02

2010-03-13 Thread Francois D. Menard
For me, the best reason to keep dates in the format of: MMDD is that if you name your files in this way, when you do a directory list, files get sorted in alphabetical order So if only for this reason, this is why its the ONLY convention I will ever use, even if I decide to learn a third

RE: Why DNS sucks for referrals (was Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.)

2006-03-29 Thread Francois D. Menard
ENUM is not deadborn if it forced onto the ILECs as a replacement for SS7 for E.164 URIs. F. -Original Message- From: Peter Dambier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 29, 2006 2:46 PM Cc: IETF Discussion Subject: Re: Why DNS sucks for referrals (was Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to st

RE: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP

2001-11-28 Thread Francois D. Menard
Cable companies in Canada charge "per computer" connected to the cable modems. This is the subject of several procedures in the CISC HSWG. See http://www.crtc.gc.ca/cisc/eng/cisf3g8b.htm for a list of contributions. -=Francois=- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTEC

RE: Cable Co's view: NAT is bad because we want to charge per IP

2001-11-28 Thread Francois D. Menard
> Of course, cable companies probably won't impose rate limits as long as DSL remains an option, because then they wouldn't be able to claim (inaccurately) that cable gives you more bandwidth than DSL. At least publicly ... In Canada, several cable carriers put rate limits on the upstream at 14 K

RE: Cable modem spec(s) sites - lookie here

2001-12-03 Thread Francois D. Menard
What are the details on DOCSIS 2.0 and the upcoming effort on implementing open access on DOCSIS? More partcularly, what are the IP protocol implications on the nature of open access that cablelabs members are proposing? -=Francois=- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PR

RE: IPv6 MTU issues in FTTH applications

2002-02-22 Thread Francois D. Menard
FTTH = Fiber to the home... > then you'll be > increasing the size > of the last-hop MTU without increasing the MTUs on > intermediate hops, so > you won't gain much. Might be more important to preserve the > 1500 byte The reason to increase the MTU anywhere in the network must originate fr