On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 02:53:52AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
ipv6 load balancers exist, one's current load balancer is/may probably
not be up to the task.
my favourite load balancer is OSPF ECMP, since there are no extra boxes,
just the routers and switches and hosts i'd have to have
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 07:29:03AM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
If you're load-balancing N nodes, and 1 node dies, the distribution hash
is re-calced and TCP sessions to all N are terminated simultaneously.
i could just say that since i'm serving mostly UDP i don't care about this,
but then
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:47:15AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
*No* security gain? No protection against port scans from Bucharest?
No protection for a machine that is used in practice only on the
local, office LAN? Or to access a single, corporate Web site?
Correct. There's nothing you
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 08:46:41PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
What does the Venice project see in terms of the number of upstreams
required to feed one view,
At least 3, but more can participate to improve resilience against
partial stream loss.
and how much does the size of upstream pipe
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 09:09:27AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Using AS proximity is definitely a help for resilience though,
same-AS sources and adjacent AS sources are more likely to remain
reachable in the event of transit problems, general BGP flaps and so
on.
Do you actually inject
On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 12:35:54PM -0800, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jan 7, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
Colm, a few random questions as they came to mind:[;]
Two more questions:
Do you plan to offer the Venice Project for mobile devices? If so,
which ones?
Will
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 03:18:03AM -0500, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 01:52 AM 1/6/2007, Thomas Leavitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's
baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window...
That's a strong possibility :-)
I'm
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:25:27AM -0500, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Note that 220 MB per hour (ugly units) is 489 Kbps, slightly less
than our current usage.
Oh I should be clear too. We use SI powers of 10, just like for
bandwidth, not powers of two like for storage. We quote in Megabytes
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:09:19AM -0600, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
2. The question I don't understand is, why stream?
There are other good reasons, but fundamentally; because of live
telivision.
In these days, when a terabyte disk for consumer PCs is about to be
introduced, why bother with
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 10:33:42AM -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
Global Crossing says it has deployed native IPv6. Also, TeliaSonera
has picked Lucent to help it prepare for IPv6 service.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/172300284
The full GC PR is at;
On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 09:44:13AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
In other words, I don't really care if the second processor reduces the
MTBF from 200k hours to 60k hours, but I do care if the second processor
reduces the time to restore service from 24 hours to 20 minutes (7.5
minutes for SNMP to
your
tickets from those of others, consider making it easy for people to
distinguish your tickets from each other.
For 1 year now, HEAnet have been issueing tickets with Message-ID's
generated by our ticketing system, for example:
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Colm MacCarthaigh [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 09:13:39PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
I don't think I'm going out on a limb to suggest that names like
example.com should be used by _everybody_ in documentation examples,
least they pick something that might actually be used in the future.
To wit, the point is not
13 matches
Mail list logo
