On 08:33 PM 7/11/02, Barney Wolff wrote:
>
>On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:00:45PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>>
>> The problem with asymmetric pricing is that the cost of passing the
packets
>> is equally born by both ends. Take 2 networks that peer, one with mostly
>> content, one with mostly ey
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:00:45PM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
>
> The problem with asymmetric pricing is that the cost of passing the packets
> is equally born by both ends. Take 2 networks that peer, one with mostly
> content, one with mostly eyeballs. The content providers pay a higher
> price
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I don't know which is scarier. Lucent/Bell Labs trying to design
> > the next generation Internet architecture, or Cisco trying to
> > design the next generation DCN/SS7 architecture.
>
> the contest is keen. for a nice view of this insanity fueled by
On 11:31 AM 7/11/02, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
>JD> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:01 -0700
>JD> From: JC Dill
>
>
>JD> It is my opinion that eventually the Internet will be mostly
>JD> funded by those who send packets, and will be mostly free for
>JD> those receiving said packets, much in the w
> When it's high-tech /rioting/ it's then called sabotage right?
Terrorism? (maybe :p)
- James
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Yes, several people mentioned that the two groups should just maintain
> their seperate ways. There is this thing called convergence.
I know a small number of operators with really talented and dedicated
architecture people who hav
Its all the same!
Just remember.
Be sure to pillage before you burn!
- Original Message -
From: "Jacob M Wilkens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:41 PM
Subject: RE: CA Power
>
> When it's high-tech /rioting/ it's then called sabotage right?
When it's high-tech /rioting/ it's then called sabotage right?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Joseph Barnhart
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:35 PM
To: G. Scott Granados
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CA Power
Hrmm...hi-tech riote
Hrmm...hi-tech rioters...interesting idea :)
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, G. Scott Granados wrote:
> As long as they leave the fiber alone:).
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Joseph Barnhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:31 PM
> Subject: RE:
As long as they leave the fiber alone:).
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Barnhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 6:31 PM
Subject: RE: CA Power
>
> Funny thing about rioters is they usually
> destroy their own neighborhoods...go figure.
>
Funny thing about rioters is they usually
destroy their own neighborhoods...go figure.
--jb
> Doug Barton:
> [deletia]
> Reporter: So, how many generators do you have at this plant?
> Operator: 3
> R: How many do you have operating today?
> O: Just one.
> R: REALLY? But we had rolling blackou
> Doug Barton:
> [deletia]
> Reporter: So, how many generators do you have at this plant?
> Operator: 3
> R: How many do you have operating today?
> O: Just one.
> R: REALLY? But we had rolling blackouts all through San Diego County
> today, why aren't you operating all 3 generators?
> O: Becaus
> I don't know which is scarier. Lucent/Bell Labs trying to design
> the next generation Internet architecture, or Cisco trying to
> design the next generation DCN/SS7 architecture.
the contest is keen. for a nice view of this insanity fueled by
greed, paranoia, greed, and oh greed, see the ie
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Scott Call wrote:
> Working for a Telco with an ISP division, I can tell you the best thing to
> to do is wait for the Bell Heads to retire for the third time and keep
> them away from your gear until then :)
Yes, several people mentioned that the two groups should just main
Multicast won't become pervasive until there are
applications that use it (as has been pointed out in this
thread), and those applications won't be widely-used until
there is some momentum with high-speed connectivity (ie >
1Mbps and probably more like 10+Mb/s).
Many multicast applications (prim
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Gary E. Miller wrote:
>
> Yo Martin!
>
> If there is plenty of power in CA then howcum there was a "stage 2" alert
> yesterday and a "market alert today"? Today's "projected demand" equaled
> "available resources" today If demand played out as expected there
> would have b
Increased power demands from all the paper shredders? ;-)
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Gary E. Miller wrote:
>
> Yo Martin!
>
> If there is plenty of power in CA then howcum there was a "stage 2" alert
> yesterday and a "market alert today"? Today's "projected demand" equaled
> "available resources" t
At 03:03 PM 7/11/2002 -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
>Yo Martin!
>
>If there is plenty of power in CA then howcum there was a "stage 2" alert
>yesterday and a "market alert today"? Today's "projected demand" equaled
>"available resources" today If demand played out as expected there
>would have b
>> hme0/1.2.3.1/www.test1.com
>> hme0/1.2.3.2/www.test2.com
It is probably better to attach the IP addresses to the loopback
interface rather than the ethernet interface.
-mark
Yo Martin!
If there is plenty of power in CA then howcum there was a "stage 2" alert
yesterday and a "market alert today"? Today's "projected demand" equaled
"available resources" today If demand played out as expected there
would have been big trouble in CA today.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Marti
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
> Actually, the reverse would be useful, as well. Voice Networking/SS7 stuff
> for us IP weenies. (i.e. not voice over IP, just straight voice)
"Integrating Voice and Data Networks," Cisco Press, ISBN 1-57870-196-1
Part I, "Traditional Voice Networks"
http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/vhosts/name-based.html
Summary: Name based if you can to save on addressing and if you don't need
SSL. IP Based for SSL and if customer insists for some strange reason. It
got really popular when ARIN said no more IP's for web addressing, then
they backed off of
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 04:22:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>
>
> Folks, could use some pointers.
>
> I seem to remember from experience some years ago that if you were
> hosting multiple domains for web hosting in a shared environment that
> they needed to have individual IP numbers a
Folks, could use some pointers.
I seem to remember from experience some years ago that if you were
hosting multiple domains for web hosting in a shared environment that
they needed to have individual IP numbers assigned specifically to the
domain, all sharing the interface, so things like AOL
As part of the status page
http://www.multicasttech.com/status/mbgp.full ,
updated every 6 hours, is a full dump of all of our mbgp peering,
including with Sprint.
http://www.multicasttech.com/status/mbgp.sum is a AS list derived from
that dump.
Things mbgp have been pretty bad the last w
Working for a Telco with an ISP division, I can tell you the best thing to
to do is wait for the Bell Heads to retire for the third time and keep
them away from your gear until then :)
But in all seriousness, a book or set of documents would be very helpful
for those few Bell-shaped Heads that w
You're thinking of:
Carrier-scale IP networks: designing and operating Internet networks
Edited by Peter Willis, ISBN 0 85296 982 1, The Institute of Electrical
Engineers, London
Kris
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin J. Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 200
Sean,
My vote goes for...
How to build an Internet Service Company
From A to Z...
All you need to know to plan, build and market an Internet service company.
Tips and tricks from the inside.
Charles H. Burke
July '96
ISBN: 0-935563-02-4
And I quote...
> Coffee Maker - Coffee is an
Actually, the reverse would be useful, as well. Voice Networking/SS7 stuff
for us IP weenies. (i.e. not voice over IP, just straight voice)
- Dan
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Sean Donelan
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 3:09 PM
On 12:18 PM 7/11/02, Peter Salus wrote:
>
>I'd love to write The Internet for Bell-Heads.
>Tell you what, Sean. You find an interested publisher
>and I'll write it.
Looks like a perfect title for the Idiot's Guide series.
jc
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 03:09:19PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Has anyone written the equivalent of the old Bell Systems Notes on the
> Network for the Internet?
Hrmn, I can seem to download standards from
http://www.ietf.org/ just fine.
For some reason, I can't download anything from
http://t
I'd love to write The Internet for Bell-Heads.
Tell you what, Sean. You find an interested publisher
and I'll write it.
Peter
---
Peter H. Salus Chief Knowledge Officer, Matrix NetSystems
Ste. 501W 1106 Clayton Lane Austi
It's there now.
route-views.oregon-ix.net>sh ip mbgp sum | inc 1239
144.228.241.81 4 1239 4900318729 114266 170 00:02:34 3975
Dave
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 12:01:12PM -0700, David Meyer wrote:
>>
>> Pete,
>>
>> >> I'm doing some analysis of who I might be able to reach via
Has anyone written the equivalent of the old Bell Systems Notes on the
Network for the Internet? A couple of books come close, Hueston's ISP
Survival Guide and Cisco's ISP Essentials. But there doesn't seem to
be anything that helps Bell heads understand what switching, routing
or signaling me
Thanks, I got it. And route-views will be fixed, too.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Pete Kruckenberg wrote:
> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 12:53:37 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Pete Kruckenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Sprint multicast route list
>
> I'm doing some analysis of who I migh
Pete,
>> I'm doing some analysis of who I might be able to reach via
>> multicast through Sprint.
>>
>> Sadly, route-views multicast peering with Sprint is not
>> working at the moment.
My mistake. I'll fix it.
Dave
I'm doing some analysis of who I might be able to reach via
multicast through Sprint.
Sadly, route-views multicast peering with Sprint is not
working at the moment.
I'd appreciate if someone could email me the output from
"show ip mbgp neighbor received-routes" or
"show ip mbgp" from a Sprint
JD> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 08:37:01 -0700
JD> From: JC Dill
JD> It is my opinion that eventually the Internet will be mostly
JD> funded by those who send packets, and will be mostly free for
JD> those receiving said packets, much in the way that 800
JD> numbers are funded in the telephone syste
Quoting cw ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> My question is simple.
>
> Is there anyone out there who is using, or has implemented a
> successful monitoring system for Windows Media Server and/or Real
> Server? If so, then how did you go about it?
>
I captured the data exchange between a client and
On 07:55 AM 7/11/02, David Diaz wrote:
>Shane as far as the "thought" that backbones will "pay" to get to
>your content. It's just not going to happen. If the content were
>that important they might go directly to your customers and offer
>them a wonderful deal to buy a link from them.
Th
While I do not like a ton of hold music either, if the wait isn't
ridiculous, and thats who you're sposed to be talking to, then thats it.
Tis nice how customer no-service has become the norm as layoffs and budget
cuts have run wild in the sector the last couple years.
Bri
On Wed, 10 Ju
Hello,
the latest version of Panoptis DoS/DDoS detection tool is out (version
0.1.1). A few fixes should make it more effective and stable. On another
note, if you want to run it on FreeBSD all you have to do is compile
Panoptis *and* the CommonC++ library with g++ 3.x (tested with 3.0.4).
Chicken and the egg.
About 1997 - early 1998 time frame, there was talk of some big
content players getting together to do something similar. I remember
it was some large financial institutes, Disney, etc. There were 5
serious content players that could not get peering and were being
force
--On Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:16:38 -0700 David Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Given the amount of time and resource we've spent on multicast,
> the question one might ask is "why hasn't multicast succeeded"?
> My guess is that it is because the demand from any of the
> potential users o
> The Cisco GSR (12,0xx) just got native support for IPv6 (12.0.21ST1)
> and its being rolled out across Abilene (Internet2). I'm at one of
Uhm, I was under the impression that IOS support had been there for a while
GSRs only could do IPv6 processor switched ,and only 124xx could do it on
th
At 06:19 PM 7/10/2002 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>Hrm looks like I beat Sean Donelan...
>
>http://www.caiso.com/awe/systemstatus.html
>http://www.caiso.com/outlook.html
>
>Is it time for a rolling blackout again?
I see Sean replying down below, but I'm going to virtually beat
both of
the newer openview you have the more alarms it generates... you need to spend a hell
lot of time tuning alarm correlation etc.
by the way
did anyone see a nms that's capable of working in duplicate-ip environments like mpls
vpns etc? e.g. one that'd use saa agents on cisco boxes (or vrf-awa
47 matches
Mail list logo
