Thus spake Deepak Jain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crap. Now people are going to start asking if the ipv6 platform
does ipv6 forwarding in hardware or software. :|
We'll all have to answer hardware of course, since admitting we forward
the Experiment's traffic in software would be rather embarassing,
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
[..]
P.S. I'm writing this from behind a monopoly ISP who deliberately
blocks all proto 41 traffic, and thus 6to4, so I have no idea what
content, if any, the Experiment is actually providing... Anyone want to
give me a Teredo relay for research purposes? :)
As the
On Sep 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
As the site (http://www.ipv6porn.com) states:
8--
If you're here for the free content, it's not here! We're not ready
for
the world to know about this experiment yet, so don't go submitting
this
to
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 04:19:32 +
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 09:37:46PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
At 9:21 PM -0400 9/3/07, Joe Abley wrote:
Is there a groundswell of *operators* who think TCP should be replaced,
and believe it can be replaced?
Just
On Monday 03 September 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
More seriously -- the question is whether new services will cause
operator congestion problems that today's mechanisms don't handle.
It's also possible, per the note that some solutions will have operator
implications, such as new tuning
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of
congestion than the efficiency part of congestion.
TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not
per-flow?
How would you define user in that context?
http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/03/really-bad-wiring-jobs_20.html
On 9/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://gallery.colofinder.net/shameful-cabling had a great collection of
What not to do photos, but it has apparently evaporated in the mists of
time. Anybody know if
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/03/really-bad-wiring-jobs_20.html
My contribution:
http://www.tux.org/wb8foz/66-666/
Note this was the closet at a group on the Hill that lobbies
against the evils of regulation. In 25-30
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Operators always define the user as the person paying the bill. One
bill, one user.
It's easy to imagine a context where authentication at the application
layer determines user in a bill-paying context. Passing that
information into the OS, and
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, David Lesher wrote:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/03/really-bad-wiring-jobs_20.html
My contribution:
http://www.tux.org/wb8foz/66-666/
Note this was the closet at a group on the Hill that lobbies
On Sep 5, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
That's the issue with per-flow sharing, 10 institutions may be
sharing a cost equally but if one student in one department at one
institution generates 95% of the flows should he be able to consume
95% of the capacity?
The big problem
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
Operators always define the user as the person paying the bill. One
bill, one user.
It's easy to imagine a context where authentication at the application
layer determines user in a bill-paying context. Passing that
information into the OS,
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote:
That depends on the expectations of the institutions. If our example
student is able to generate 95% of flows because the network in
question is otherwise relatively quiet (maybe it's the middle of the
night, or a holiday), then yes, our example student
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Fred Baker wrote:
capacity. My ISP in front of my home does that; they configure my cable modem
to shape my traffic up and down to not exceed certain rates, and lo and
Well, in case you're being DDoS:ed at 1 gigabit/s, you'll use more
resources in the backbone than most,
14 matches
Mail list logo
