On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > Something I'm surprised no one has commented on considering the
> > direction of this thread has been should ISPs be responsible for
> > customer actions if they are not allowed to refuse service to customers?
>
> ISP's can't refuse service t
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Baldwin, James wrote:
>
> Something I'm surprised no one has commented on considering the
> direction of this thread has been should ISPs be responsible for
> customer actions if they are not allowed to refuse service to customers?
ISP's can't refuse service to customers?
>
> The first MPEG-4 HD set top boxes are beginning to appear
>
> http://www.sigmadesigns.com/news/press_releases/030108.htm
>
> Watch this space
>
If you read the document carefully, you´ll figure that they support MPEG2 HDTV
(1920x1080)
and MPEG4 SDTV (640x480/720x576), which was my point ea
Something I'm surprised no one has commented on considering the
direction of this thread has been should ISPs be responsible for
customer actions if they are not allowed to refuse service to customers?
I'm surprised this hasn't come up since the latter half of the question
also represented a fairl
Andy -
- Original Message -
From: "Andy Dills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Vadim Antonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Re: Is
Hello;
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 06:04 PM, Petri Helenius wrote:
Drifting off-topic, but those are 'raw' data rates. Compression
algorithms
along with motion-estimation allow you to get full-screen video down to
~1.5 Mbps with not much in the way of image quality loss.
Raw HDTV i
> Drifting off-topic, but those are 'raw' data rates. Compression algorithms
> along with motion-estimation allow you to get full-screen video down to
> ~1.5 Mbps with not much in the way of image quality loss.
>
Raw HDTV is about 1.2Gbps. RAW NTSC SDI bitstream is a few hundred.
The 6 and 19.8
"Al Rowland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mention the effect everyone on AOL going to broadband and downloading
> Disney clips all the time would have on their settlement plans with
> backbone providers.
Of course, because you are definitely being kept in the loop regarding
the AOL settlement p
PM
Subject: RE: FW: Re: Is there a line of defense against Distributed
Reflective attacks?
>
> At 09:28 AM 1/22/2003 -0800, Al Rowland wrote:
>
> >Not to mention that fact that 99.99% of current consumer connections are
> >not up to the task. Standard full-screen video digital
At 09:28 AM 1/22/2003 -0800, Al Rowland wrote:
Not to mention that fact that 99.99% of current consumer connections are
not up to the task. Standard full-screen video digital stream is ~6Mbps,
HDTV requires 19.4Mbps. Don't know many consumers with T3s. ;)
Drifting off-topic, but those are 'raw
sage-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Vadim Antonov
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:51 PM
> To: todd glassey
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FW: Re: Is there a line of defense against
> Distributed Reflective attacks?
>
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:11:19 -0500 Damian Gerow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (Taking NANOG out, as this is moving a little towards personal
> conversation)
Apparently, I didn't read my own Cc: line. Sorry, folks.
(Taking NANOG out, as this is moving a little towards personal conversation)
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 16:44:26 -0800 "todd glassey"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Vadim - the instant someone sues a Provider for sexual harassment from
> their spam epidemic you will start to see things change. The reas
glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Re: Is there a line of defense against Distributed
Reflective attacks?
>
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, todd glassey wrote:
>
> > Vadim - the instant someone sues a Provi
hen they should find other
businesses.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Vadim Antonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Avleen Vig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Re: Is there a line of
ROTECTED]>
Cc: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Daniel Senie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Re: Is there a line of defense against Distributed
Reflective attacks?
>
>
>
Stoned koalas drooled eucalyptus spit in awe as Avleen Vig exclaimed:
Doesn't this stop kazaa/morpheus/gnutella/FTP/? This is a problematic setup, and woudl require the cable
modem provider to maintain a quickly changing 'firewall' :( I understand
the want to do it, but I'm not sure its practic
urkholder
> -Original Message-
> From: todd glassey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: January 19, 2003 12:02
> To: Christopher L. Morrow; Stewart, William C (Bill), RTLSL
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: FW: Re: Is there a line of defense against
> Distributed
d put some stronger legislation in
place.
Todd Glassey
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stewart, William C (Bill), RTLSL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 6:29 PM
Subject:
> *shrug* just seems like it would make more sense to block all incoming
> 'syn' packets.
> Wouldn't that be faster than inspecting the destination port against two
> seperate rules?
blocking all SYN's will break too much other stuff (Instant Messangers,
games ...). I think we would be much bette
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 10:45:11PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> How is this different than "ip verify unicast reverse-path" (modulo CEF
> problems and bugs, which of course NEVER happen :-) )?
It would be useful for all sorts of things besides verifying a source
address. So in addition to complic
Once upon a time, John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It might be nice if all router vendors were able to associate the
> interface configured address(es)/nets as a variable for ingress
> filters. So for in the Cisco world, a simple example would be:
>
> interface Serial0
> ip addres
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 08:58:13AM -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:
> While it's nice that router vendors implemented unicast RPF to make
> configuration in some cases easier, using simple ACLs isn't necessarily
> hard at the edges either.
It might be nice if all router vendors were able to associate
At 09:29 PM 1/17/2003, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Stewart, William C (Bill), RTLSL wrote:
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stewart, William C (Bill), RTLSL
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:35 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: Is there a line of def
24 matches
Mail list logo
