Hello all,
Does anyone have a contact within Verizon Wireless data (ie: EV-DO) that
could help with some... odd (for lack of a better word) connection
problems from an EV-DO modem?
I think there may be some sort of packet filtering going on, but I can't
tell for sure. It's kinda annoying...
>> FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default
>> criteria for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
>I define that as "not aggressive". (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
>faster than that.)
Fair enough, but IMHO it is aggressive enough to accomplish t
On Wed, 06 May 2009 16:50:15 -0400, TJ wrote:
FWIW - WinXP uses 24hours/change_in_prefix/reboot as the default criteria
for new Privacy IID creation, is that not aggressive enough?
I define that as "not aggressive". (I've seen ISPs rotate addresses (DHCP)
faster than that.)
I'd be
>>> No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses
>>> is only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
>>
>> You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later.
>
>Their awful experimental IPv6 stack in XP already does 3041, so I assume
Vista,
>2008,
On Wed, 06 May 2009 11:17:09 -0400, David Andersen wrote:
Or test with UDP and blast as fast as you can so that you're not
seeing TCP weirdness.
That's the best option... spew packets. Just make sure they are as large
as possible without needing fragmentation.
And if your setup can suppor
On Wed, 06 May 2009 09:24:09 -0400, Tony Finch wrote:
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses is
only ever something you want in very specific circumstances.
You'll love RFC 4941 as implemented by Windows Vista and later.
Their awful experimental IPv6 stack in XP
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Mauritz Lewies wrote:
> All based on the Alcatel 7750 chassis.
> What is the general consensus of them in these layers of the network and
> can anyone point out some strong points/short falls?
--
I've been
Lets see... so that list of domain names and IP addresses will be out
of date, what, 3 weeks ago?
I don't see how something so terribly arbitary can be long lived.
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 11:41:55AM -0400, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
> With regard to the recent discussion...
>
> "Late last month the
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
With regard to the recent discussion...
"Late last month the Minnesota Department of Public Safety announced
it would require ISPs and telcos to block computers located in the
state from accessing gambling sites, and said non-compliant companies
would
Thanks to everyone who responded on and off-list!
It seems evident that I didn't have a complete understanding of the iperf
switches which alter buffer sizes.
Several people made a few neat points, which I'll quickly summarize:
* In iperf, -P will allow one to run multiple tcp tests at once.
* IO
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 06:57:53AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> Of course, the builders used screen doors and windows for the
> below-the-waterline openings, but not to worry, the bilge pump equivalent
> of Moore's Law will undoubtedly save us.
Speaking as a builder, I have to say the screen doo
> Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 11:10:45 -0400
> From: "Kaegler, Mike"
>
> I have a new T3 thats 65msec long. I'd usually be using iperf to test new
> links, but at 65msec, even at the maximum window size, I can only get
> 6-8mbit through. No combination of options I've been able to find has gotten
> me
With regard to the recent discussion...
"Late last month the Minnesota Department of Public Safety announced
it would require ISPs and telcos to block computers located in the
state from accessing gambling sites, and said non-compliant companies
would be referred to the FCC. Now, the state has sen
set your system send and receive TCP buffers larger. You're probably
being limited by that. With linux, make sure you have window auto-
scaling enabled and have increased the maximum size it can grow to to
at least 4MB.
Or test with UDP and blast as fast as you can so that you're not
see
I have a new T3 thats 65msec long. I'd usually be using iperf to test new
links, but at 65msec, even at the maximum window size, I can only get
6-8mbit through. No combination of options I've been able to find has gotten
me more than 6mbit through this link. Should I just shotgun 9 copies of it?
A
>-Original Message-
>> > > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need
>> > > to generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
>> >
>> > No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing addresses
>> > is only ever something you want in very
On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 14:24 +0100, Tony Finch wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need to
> > > generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
> >
On May 5, 2009, at 10:12 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
Look, the Ark *is* finished. It floats. It can be steered. It has
space
for everyone. The fact that some of the plumbing is a bit iffy is just
not a major issue right now; getting everybody on board is. We have
LOTS
of very clever people ready to
On Wed, 6 May 2009, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > "stateless" with "constant" and "consistent". SLAAC doesn't need to
> > generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
>
> No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it does. Changing add
On May 6, 2009, at 14:52, Jack Bates wrote:
Better standards
Sure!
(You are preaching to the choir here.)
While we are still on the way there, we just:
1) Shouldn't waste time reinventing decisions that are a done deal
(say, EUI-64 in SAA).
2) Shouldn't use the lack of our favorite feature
Carsten Bormann wrote:
For now: Reserve a /64 for your own allocations (SAA), then hand out
half of what you have (i.e., of a /56 for the first CPE, so a /57) to
the first asker, then a /58, then a /59 etc. The first asker (nested
CPE) has a /57, reserves a /64 for itself (SAA), hands out a /5
Some times ago, i would say 6 or 7 years, there was a BoF proposition at IETF
to deal with such issue.
Work areas were to propagate routing mesh configuration information and
automatic assignment of subnet prefixes to links.
There were quite a lot of persons interested in such issues and some d
22 matches
Mail list logo
