On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Ray Soucy wrote:
(I'm just waiting for Apple's lawyers to try an get names out of me...)
But yes, it does appear that Apple is addressing the issue:
8
cat /etc/ip6addrctl.conf
# default policy table based on RFC 3484.
# usage: ip6addrctl install
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 05:55:53PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
The lack of NTP and certain other options in SLAAC is still a
disappointment and I would argue that a fully matured SLAAC process
would include a mechanism for specifying extensible choices of things.
That's O=1 and stateless DHCPv6.
Subject: Sunday Funnies: Using a smart phone as a diagnostic tool Date: Sun,
Feb 27, 2011 at 09:00:18PM -0500 Quoting Jay Ashworth (j...@baylink.com):
Do you have a smartphone? Blackberry? iPhone? Android?
Do you use it as a technical tool in your work, either for accessing
devices or
In message 1298850835.2109.33.camel@karl, Karl Auer writes:
On Mon, 2011-02-28 at 09:39 +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
DHCP kills privacy addresses.
DHCP kills CGAs.
For temporary addresses couldn't a client clamp the upper limits of its
received lifetimes to the desired lifetimes, then
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
But the ND messages don't tell you anything other than the Mac
address about which host it actually is. In theory, at least, snooping
the DHCP messages might include a hostname or some other
useful identifier.
It ought to be possible to look at SMB or
On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
It ought to be possible to look at SMB or mDNS messages to get more
information about what the host claims to be...
We can't trust those, they're easily manipulated and/or
situationally-irrelevant.
Or not present at all, if the endpoint
On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:10 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm not saying there are no uses for DHCPv6, though I suspect
that some of the reasons proposed are more people wanting to do
things the way they always do, rather than making small changes
and ending up with equivalent effort.
add noc and
On 02/28/2011 08:25 AM, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:10 21AM, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm not saying there are no uses for DHCPv6, though I suspect
that some of the reasons proposed are more people wanting to do
things the way they always do, rather than making small changes
and
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is
a potentially a serious security/safety issue.
We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to periodically
change them, do we not?
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote:
Oh... did not know about the heavy baggage...
No, when I first played with IPv6 only network, I found out that RD was
silly, it gives an IP adddress but no DNS, and you have to rely on IPv4 to do
that. silly, so my
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:52 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
IPv6 is simple, elegant, and flexible.
This is the first time I've ever seen 'IPv6' in the same sentence with
'simple', 'elegant', or 'flexible', unless preceded by 'not'.
;
On 02/28/2011 08:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is a
potentially a serious security/safety issue.
We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to
On 2011-02-28, at 08:44, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is
a potentially a serious security/safety issue.
We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to
On Feb 28, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
By embedding the MAC into the layer-3 address, the concern is that the
information becomes accessible Internet-wide.
Given the the toxicity of hotel networks alone, my guess is that it already is
pretty much available Internet-wide, at least to
On 2/28/2011 8:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is
a potentially a serious security/safety issue.
We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to periodically
On 28/02/2011 13:52, Ray Soucy wrote:
The real point, initially at least, for stateless addressing was to
make the Link-Local scope work. It's brilliantly elegant. It allows
all IPv6 configuration to be made over IPv6 (and thus use sane
constructs like multicast to do it).
Wonderful,
- Original Message -
From: Joshua William Klubi joshua.kl...@gmail.com
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Do you have a smartphone? Blackberry? iPhone? Android?
Try a Nokia N900 Maemo device,
I've had an n800 for about 3 years now. Original
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Kell [mailto:jeff-k...@utc.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 8:49 AM
To: Dobbins, Roland
Cc: nanog group
Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
On 2/28/2011 8:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
Again,
On 2011-02-28, at 09:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I will be a lot more sympathetic about listening to arguments / explanations
about this insanity the day that the IETF filters out arp and ipv4 packets
from the conference network and depends entirely on ipv6 for connectivity for
the entire
On 2011-02-28, at 09:53, Brian Johnson wrote:
Can someone explain what exactly the security threat is?
The threat model relates to the ability for a third party to be able to
identify what subnets a single device has moved between, which is possible with
MAC-embedded IPv6 addresses but not
On Feb 28, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
There's no point worrying about v6-only operations if we can't get
dual-stack working reliably.
I think this is the most insightful, cogent, and pertinent comment made
regarding IPv6 in just about any medium at any time.
[Yes, I know that
On 28/02/2011 14:59, Joe Abley wrote:
I'm not sure why people keep
fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working
towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no
point worrying about v6-only operations if we can't get dual-stack
working reliably.
On Feb 28, 2011, at 5:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is
a potentially a serious security/safety issue.
We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks
On 2011-02-28, at 10:27, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 28/02/2011 14:59, Joe Abley wrote:
I'm not sure why people keep
fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working
towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment. There's no
point worrying about v6-only operations
On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Having a MAC address as a permanent identifier is a very different problem
from having that MAC address go into a layer 3 protocol field.
Given the plethora of identifiable information already frothing around in our
data wakes, I'm unsure
On Feb 28, 2011, at 10:27 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
We haven't got there because I can't plug in my laptop into any arbitrary
ipv6-only network and expect to be able to load up ipv6.google.com.
-
One day a master from another monastery came upon Abley as he was watching a
young child
Really, if you look back at the archives of this list these arguments
are starting to get silly as you put it.
Yes and no...
It seems that every few months, as people discover that IPv6 isn't
going away and they should brush up on it, people go through this
process of debating the way IPv6
On 28/02/2011 15:45, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
At that moment, the master was enlightened.
One day a master from another monastery came upon Dobbins and Abley as they
were watching a 14 year-old cripple learning how to fly.
I do not believe we should waste time teaching children to walk, said
On Feb 28, 2011, at 6:59 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2011-02-28, at 09:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I will be a lot more sympathetic about listening to arguments / explanations
about this insanity the day that the IETF filters out arp and ipv4 packets
from the conference network and depends
1. Multiple subnets on the same media that are intended for
different hosts and have different routers are no longer
feasible. (Yes, you can argue they're less than desirable
in IPv4 and I would agree, but, they exist in the real world
On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
IPv6-only viability is the real goal. This is, in the long run, a
transition from v4 to v6. Dual-stack is an interim stop-gap, not an end
solution.
I think most everyone agrees with this. However, getting experience with
dual-stack is
On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
At that moment, Dobbins and Abley were enlightened.
hahaha
;
Hey, I think dual-stack is pretty ugly - just that it's less ugly than getting
no operational experience with IPv6 at all on production networks until some
point in the
On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2011-02-28, at 10:27, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 28/02/2011 14:59, Joe Abley wrote:
I'm not sure why people keep
fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be working
towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack environment.
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:04:23 EST, Joe Abley said:
I don't think this has ever been cited as a global, general threat that
must be eliminated (just as people are generally happy to use the same
credit card as they move around the planet and don't generally stress
about the implications).
It's
On 28 Feb 2011, at 16:57, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:04:23 EST, Joe Abley said:
I don't think this has ever been cited as a global, general threat that
must be eliminated (just as people are generally happy to use the same
credit card as they move around the planet
OT, but NANOG is almost always good for quick clue ...
For those who have residential VoIP, what provider {features | bugs}
are most vexing?
For those who provision residential VoIP, what subscriber
{expectations | behaviors} are most vexing?
Thanks in advance,
Eric
Some provider woes:
FAX over VOIP is a PITA. I've not yet seen an ATA or softswitch that handled
it reliably.
E911 for mobile devices sucks. Regulations, and the E911 system, do not seem
to have the flexibility for handling this in a seamless way.
Call routing (on a more global scale)
On Feb 28, 2011 8:45 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:34 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2011-02-28, at 10:27, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 28/02/2011 14:59, Joe Abley wrote:
I'm not sure why people keep
fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be
Power supply!
Old POTS is remote-power-suplied,
so the phone will work for hours, days or even weeks
from remote battery power.
In my area, one mobile network was off after 4h,
the other after 10h,
but my good-old analogue telefone did work all the
time during an 40h power outage (it was 11
Simplicity.
POTS lets me plug almost anything in from the past who-knows-how-many-years and
it just works. When it breaks, I can go next door and borrow a telephone.
When I can pick up an automagically configured VoIP device from a huge
selection down at the local electronics shop and when
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on this
list, not my mother.
--
Leigh
Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be
whining about POT's lines decreasing exponentially year over year!
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
this list, not my mother.
Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be
whining about POT's lines
On 2/28/2011 1:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for
people on this list, not my mother.
--
Leigh
Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be
whining about POT's lines
On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:29, Bret Clark wrote:
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
this list, not my mother.
--
Leigh
Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be whining
about
On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:37, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
this list, not my mother.
Baloney...if that was the case, then
They are in the US.
Comcast tallies 8.6 million household telephone service accounts, making
it the United States' third-largest telephone provider. As of February
16, 2011 Comcast has 8.610 million voice customers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
People are not,
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Leigh Porter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2011, at 18:37, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:29:08 EST, Bret Clark said:
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on this
list, not my
Since our company is a VoIP company, I will chime in to this topic.
Let's start off with the definitions so everyone is on the same page:
vex |veks|
verb [ trans. ]
make (someone) feel annoyed, frustrated, or worried, esp. with trivial matters
: the memory of the conversation still vexed him |
On 28 Feb 2011, at 19:03, Jameel Akari wrote:
Sounds very different indeed. In the US, it's basically your local Ma Bell
derivative, or something not-POTs. Anecodtally, as of this morning we just
dropped one of our POTS lines for the cable company's alternative. Cost
dropped from $69/mo
Another vexation for VOIP in the SMB environment is that it rarely works
particularly
well (if at all) in light of a multiple-external-address NAT pool.
You simply have to map all of your VOIP phones in such a way that they
consistently
get the same external IP every time or shit breaks badly.
We haven't run into that issue and have very large clients.
I'm interested to find out where you may have run into that issue?
-Bret
On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Another vexation for VOIP in the SMB environment is that it rarely works
particularly
well (if at all) in
Sorry I didn't include this in the last email...
We have large clients who have phones registered on multiples of public IPs
from the same location. Works no problem. We do some trickery on our side to
make that happen, but I thought all VoIP companies would do that.
-Bret
On Feb 28, 2011, at
Odd - do the phones just randomly egress from different IPs in the pool if you
don't? Is this perhaps a too-long registration interval issue? Short
registration timers seem to deal with keeping the state table appeased on most
firewalls. Any chance the NAT device has some god-forsaken ALG
Ahhh yes... ALG... Turn it off.
-Bret
On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Any chance the NAT device has some god-forsaken ALG agent installed that's
trying to proxy the SIP traffic?
It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose
solution to anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why
people keep fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be
working towards is a consistent, reliable, dual-stack
environment. There's no point worrying
On 2011-02-28, at 15:27, Randy Bush wrote:
o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
better be able to stand on its own.
Do you think I was suggesting that IPv6 as a protocol doesn't need to be
On 2011-02-26 10:34, bill manning wrote:
The IANA function was split?
RFC 2860 already did that. It seems to work well.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
I'm glad to see they are up to date:
Paper submissions should
include a three and one-half inch
o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
better be able to stand on its own.
Do you think I was suggesting that IPv6 as a protocol doesn't need to
be able to stand on its own two feet?
you may
On 2/27/2011 11:53 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
No, when I first played with IPv6 only network, I found out that RD was
silly, it gives an IP adddress but no DNS, and you have to rely on IPv4 to do
that. silly, so my understanding is then people saw the mistake, and added
some DNS resolution...
On 2011-02-28, at 15:38, Randy Bush wrote:
you may want to read your words and the thread which followed.
The phrase you apparently missed (or which was not sufficient for me to explain
myself clearly) was viable, general-purpose solution.
Joe
From: Randy Bush
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 12:27 PM
To: Joe Abley
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group
Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.7, still no DHCPv6
It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose
solution to anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why
people keep
Any idea how to workaround the uverse broken alg? I've had to do some fun hacks
to work around it. Sometimes I can reboot or crash them with the cisco notify
for config check.
Jared Mauch
On Feb 28, 2011, at 2:45 PM, Bret Palsson b...@getjive.com wrote:
Ahhh yes... ALG... Turn it off.
In a message written on Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:49:36PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
I do think though, that assuming DHCP is the way to get some of these
things might be shooting from the hip. Perhaps there is a better way,
with IPv6?
DHCP is a terrible protocol for 2011, and will be an old school
Le lundi 28 février 2011 à 15:50 -0500, Edward Lewis a écrit :
At 9:35 +1300 3/1/11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
I'm glad to see they are up to date:
Paper submissions should
include a three and one-half inch
computer
On 28 Feb 2011, at 20:50, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 9:35 +1300 3/1/11, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf
I'm glad to see they are up to date:
Paper submissions should
include a three and one-half inch
computer diskette in
On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
this list, not my mother.
--
Leigh
Baloney...if that was the case, then all these ILEC's wouldn't be whining
about
In message 28d10d13-988b-4c7d-833b-eba6e1bc1...@hopcount.ca, Joe Abley writes
:
On 2011-02-28, at 09:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
I will be a lot more sympathetic about listening to arguments / =
explanations about this insanity the day that the IETF filters out arp =
and ipv4 packets from
On Feb 28, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Michael Hallgren wrote:
I'm glad to see they are up to date:
Paper submissions should
include a three and one-half inch
computer diskette in HTML, ASCII,
Word or WordPerfect format (please
specify version).
Any problem with Postscript or PDF? Somewhat less
I run a small network in the jungle of Venezuela which is fed by a rebranded
Hughesnet connection. We just had a four day failure where the only protocol
that worked was ICMP and we were completely without communication. Traceroutes
all failed in a bizarre way when using UDP, TCP or GRE packets
On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2011-02-28, at 15:27, Randy Bush wrote:
o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
better be able to stand on its own.
Do you think I was
They are in the US.
Comcast tallies 8.6 million household telephone service accounts, making
it the United States' third-largest telephone provider. As of February
16, 2011 Comcast has 8.610 million voice customers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
People are not,
It's only an issue if you have a single gateway which is serving up multiple
public addresses.
SIP is not the only traversal that breaks in this environment, but, it does
choose to break in some
of the most interesting (especially to troubleshoot when you don't know that's
what is causing
the
On 2/28/2011 5:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
People are not, en-masse, going away from POTS and towards plugging a VoIP
device into the back of their router.
Twenty bucks says the first poster is correct; I'm willing to bet that
most of the
On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Cutler James R wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Bret Clark wrote:
On 02/28/2011 01:17 PM, Leigh Porter wrote:
VoIP at the last mile is just too niche at the moment. It's for people on
this list, not my mother.
--
Leigh
Baloney...if that was the
From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
I have no idea why anyone would be paying Ma Bell $69/month for a phone
line, unless you like giving them your money or something.
In my neck of the woods (Washington DC), the POTS line is the one that works
during a bad power outage, and has qualitatively
On 2/28/2011 5:19 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast#Home_telephone
People are not, en-masse, going away from POTS and towards plugging a
VoIP device into the back of their router.
Twenty bucks says the first poster is correct; I'm willing to bet that
most of the
From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net=0AI have no idea why anyone would be =
paying Ma Bell $69/month for a phone=0Aline, unless you like giving them y=
our money or something.=0A=0AIn my neck of the woods (Washington DC), the P=
OTS line is the one that works =0Aduring a=A0bad=A0power outage, and
On 2011-02-28, at 17:04, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 12:34 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2011-02-28, at 15:27, Randy Bush wrote:
o if ipv6 can not operate as the only protocol, and we will be out
of ipv4 space and have to deploy 6-only networks, it damned well
better be able to
So then let's argue that ILEC-delivered POTS is digital too, because it went
on fiber to the local SLC hut...
It is, at least in some cases, and its even VOIP in a few (Occam BLC's
for example). Having said that its almost never derived voice of any
type into the home because of life line
- Original Message -
From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
the ability to handle multiple calls intelligently, no hook race
conditions, etc.
When
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Pretty soon, cell phones will, essentially, be VOIP devices. In fact,
some already are.
In fact, one could argue that LTE cell phones are in essence what VOIP
will be when it grows up.
TTBOMK, that isn't *quite* true, yet,
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Anton Kapela tkap...@gmail.com wrote:
One won't find many, but a common rule of thumb is most apps will be
'fine' with networks that provide 10E-6 BER or lower loss rates.
Anton,
Who uses BER to measure packet switched networks? Is it even possible
to measure a
So let's look for a rational comparison instead.
Take your CD player's analog audio output and run it fifty feet,
making sure to route it along some nice fluorescent lights. Even
with a good shielded cable, analog signal is notorious for picking
up noise.
Now take your CD player's
On 28 Feb 2011, at 23:15, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
the ability to handle multiple calls
On Feb 28, 2011 12:28 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
It's hard to see v6-only networks as a viable, general-purpose
solution to anything in the foreseeable future. I'm not sure why
people keep fixating on that as an end goal. The future we ought to be
working towards is a consistent,
On 2/28/2011 15:35, Joe Greco wrote:
There may be no compelling reason to do so, at least. However, digital
gear offers benefits, and some people want them. Others, like me, live
in bad RF environments where POTS picks up too much noise unless you
very carefully select your gear and
Small (say, under 50,000 customer) ISPs in my experience have a planning
horizon which is less than five years from now. Anything further out than
that is not foreseeable in the sense that I meant it. I have much less
first-hand experience with large, carrier-sized ISPs and what I have is a
- Original Message -
From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
With end-to-end digital, you can have reliable call supervision and
status, OOB Caller-ID delivery, crystal clear call quality, probably
the ability to handle multiple calls intelligently, no hook race
conditions, etc.
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
This no intermediate gear term, it does not mean what you think it
means...
Loading coils, Bridge-Taps, WDFs, Protection Blocks, etc. all could
be classified as intermediate gear. Many of these things have been
the bane of DSL
- Original Message -
From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
Yeah, um, well, hate to ruin that glorious illusion of the legacy
physical plant, but Ma Bell mostly doesn't run copper all the way
back to a real CO with a real battery room these days when they're
deploying new copper. So if
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
TTBOMK, that isn't *quite* true, yet, Owen.
The only US carrier with LTE deployed is VZW, and their only
*handset* with LTE is the not-yet-quite-shipped HTC Thunderbolt...
That's the US market. We are, as usual,
On Feb 28, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net
Yeah, um, well, hate to ruin that glorious illusion of the legacy
physical plant, but Ma Bell mostly doesn't run copper all the way
back to a real CO with a real battery room
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Owen DeLong o...@delong.com
Sad. There are definitely LTE-data-only VOIP handsets in other
deployments.
Of course. Silly me. :-)
Couldn't fine Owens original post, so I'll ask here.
Which are these handsets?
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 3:15 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
On 2/18/11 6:30 AM, Matt Newsom matt.new...@rackspace.com wrote:
I am looking for a switch with a minimum of 12 X
10GE
ports on it, that can has routing protocol support and can do GRE in
hardware. Does
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:27:31 -0430, Greg Ihnen wrote:
I run a small network in the jungle of Venezuela which is fed by a
rebranded Hughesnet connection. We just had a four day failure where
the only protocol that worked was ICMP and we were completely without
communication. Traceroutes all
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
In my neck of the woods, you can get a basic POTS line for $15/month if
it's important to you, local calls billed by the number of calls and the
normal LD charges. Add a basic DSL service to that ($20) AND add a basic
Jeff,
I would try the 4900M
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps6021/ps9310/Data_Sheet_Cat_4900M.html
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/switches/ps5718/ps6021/ps9310/Data_Sheet_Cat_4900M.html
Theo
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Jeff Hartley
On Feb 28, 2011, at 9:16 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Those who designed IPv6 appear to have ignored the problem space.
This is true of many, many aspects of IPv6. And those of us who didn't get
involved in the process to try and address (pardon the pun, heh) those problems
bear a burden of the
On Mar 1, 2011, at 7:00 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
In five years we should be just about ready to start deprecating IPv4, if not
already beginning to do so.
That's been said about so many things, from various legacy OSes to other
protocols such as SNA and SMB/CIFS.
None of those things are
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 04:00:16PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
Ready or not, IPv6-only (or reasonably IPv6-only) residential
customers are less than 2 years out, so, well within
your 5-year planning horizon, whether those ISPs see that or
not. Denial is an impressive human phenomenon.
1 - 100 of 123 matches
Mail list logo
