Re: shameful-cabling gallery of infamy - does anybody know where it went?

> http://www.tux.org/wb8foz/66-666/a.jpg > > ah, security through obscurity, a time honored strategy! > > - lucy > residents are not allowed phones? --bill

Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos

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,

Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos

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

Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos

> 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 > > informa

Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos

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 with

Re: shameful-cabling gallery of infamy - does anybody know where it went?

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: Note this was the closet at a group on the Hill that lobbies a

Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos

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 ha

Re: shameful-cabling gallery of infamy - does anybody know where it went?

Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/03/really-bad-wiring-jobs_20.html > My contribution: Note this was the closet at a group on the Hill that lobbies against the evils of regulation. In 25-

Re: shameful-cabling gallery of infamy - does anybody know where it went?

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 kn

Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos

> 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 defi

Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos

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 tuni

Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos

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?

Re: [funsec] The "Great IPv6 experiment" (fwd)

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 Slashdo

Re: [funsec] The "Great IPv6 experiment" (fwd)

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 t

Re: [funsec] The "Great IPv6 experiment" (fwd)

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 "hard"ware of course, since admitting we forward the Experiment's traffic in "soft"ware would be rather embara