I agree 100%. If a municipality wants to provide service to its
citizens and contracts it out, nothing prevents that.
On 7/24/2014 6:17 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Roy wrote:
The question posed is whether or not a state can control where a local
governmental
Any idea how well CeroWRT stands up to nation-state level intrusion efforts?
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 24, 2014, at 10:24 AM, char...@thefnf.org wrote:
>
>> On 2014-07-24 12:04, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
>> So the EFF is pushing development of an open CPU router
>> htt
On 7/24/2014 10:26 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Larry Sheldon
wrote:
One other possibility--traffic not routed by most direct,
fire-wall-free route, but being detoured through a firewall.
Or a transparent layer-2 firewall that's in-line somewhere in the
path . . .
On Jul 25, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> One other possibility--traffic not routed by most direct, fire-wall-free
> route, but being detoured through a firewall.
Or a transparent layer-2 firewall that's in-line somewhere in the path . . .
---
[Sorry about the null reply.]
On 7/24/2014 11:51 AM, Zach Hill wrote:
Also just to reiterate I would lean more heavily on something fishing in
the WAN cloud if all traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 were not seeing tcp
window scaling properly, however it's only for Server A that is seeing
this. Server
On 7/24/2014 11:51 AM, Zach Hill wrote:
Also just to reiterate I would lean more heavily on something fishing in
the WAN cloud if all traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 were not seeing tcp
window scaling properly, however it's only for Server A that is seeing
this. Server A is able to properly TCP win
On 7/24/2014 4:10 AM, hayden wrote:
Sorry, no feedback from me.. I have couple of questions though, how
much licensing do you need to go through, to actually start a WISP?
Also, Kansas.. Are you concerned that you’ll have to compete with
Google Fiber at some point?
I used to correspond with a m
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Roy wrote:
> The question posed is whether or not a state can control where a local
> governmental agencies can provide service.
Hi Roy,
If the answer is anything other than, "of course they can," then I
really want to read the judge's opinion. There are no short
The question posed is whether or not a state can control where a local
governmental agencies can provide service. In the document below, the
Electric Power Board of Chattanooga (EPB) wants to expand its internet
into a location that outside it's authorized area.
On 7/24/2014 3:28 PM,
On 07/18/2014 10:43 PM, Ca By wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2014 5:55 PM, "Jay Ashworth" wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>>> My cells all operate as a single cohesive system with an actual
>>> central control (one brain).
>> Nope; not really. Look up autonomic nervious syste
Well that's where it gets tricky.
Section 253 of the Telecom Act says that nobody can write laws or
regulations that preempt "any entity" from entering the telecom
business. The Act gives the FCC the power to preempt such laws and
regulations.
But, the Supreme Court has ruled that municipal
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> For the record, Eric, I'm certain that states can preempt municipalities.
Howdy,
Actually, it usually stands on its head: states determine the scope of
what local governments are -permitted- and required to do rather than
what they're forbid
For the record, Eric, I'm certain that states can preempt municipalities. The
question is can FCC preempt States?
- jra
On July 24, 2014 5:18:26 PM EDT, Eric Brunner-Williams
wrote:
>For those interested, first in my morning's inbox is a letter from
>Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15, Hi
For those interested, first in my morning's inbox is a letter from
Oregon State Senator Bruce Starr (R-15, Hillsboro), and Nevada State
Senator Debbie Smith (D-13), President and President-elect,
respectively, of the National Conference of State Legislatures to FCC
Chairman Thomas Wheeler, expr
Not to single out Jason, who has demonstrated his worth as one of the “good
guys” in the community time after time, however I and somewhat of a skeptic:
That Comcast is in a “pretty good spot” for capacity could be punctuated by any
number of shifts in traffic, or new sites/services emerging as
Congrats to you and your team John!
I presume Comcast Business is still a work in progress?
- Jim
On 7/24/2014 08:08, Brzozowski, John wrote:
> FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions:
>
> http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-i
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Ian Bowers wrote:
Thank you for sharing! Would LOVE to see something like this from Verizon
about FioS.
Agreed. I'd love to see some movement from Verizon, but I'm not hopeful.
I'm not above using this announcement to needle them a bit (more than
normal) the next time
I don't have root access to that server but I should be able to get it then
get some tcpdumps.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Matthew Petach
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Zach Hill wrote:
>
>> All are from SPAN ports at each end. So for the second round of packet
>> captur
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Zach Hill wrote:
> All are from SPAN ports at each end. So for the second round of packet
> captures Site 1 is from a SPAN port off the NIC of Server A. Site 2 is from
> a SPAN port off the NIC of the MPLS router.
>
> The first round of packet captures are only f
All are from SPAN ports at each end. So for the second round of packet
captures Site 1 is from a SPAN port off the NIC of Server A. Site 2 is from
a SPAN port off the NIC of the MPLS router.
The first round of packet captures are only from the SPAN port off the MPLS
router at Site 2.
On Thu, Jul
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:33:56 -0400, Zach Hill said:
> First is the SYN from Server A to Server B http://i.imgur.com/E5cu4ev.png
Was this captured with tcpdump on Server A on its way out, or on Server B
on its way in, or at some other point using a span port? The answer matters
if we're suspectin
*First round of packet captures*
Here are the snippets from a packet capture.
First is the SYN from Server A to Server B http://i.imgur.com/E5cu4ev.png Here
is the SYN from Server B backhttp://i.imgur.com/RRSAl8G.png
Second test from Server C to Server B: First is the SYN from Server C to
Server
On 2014-07-24 12:04, Valdis Kletnieks wrote:
So the EFF is pushing development of an open CPU router
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/building-open-wireless-router
https://openwireless.org/
It's currently targeting WNDR3800's and based on the CeroWRT software
(which works pretty well in my
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Zach Hill wrote:
> Also just to reiterate I would lean more heavily on something fishy in
> the WAN cloud if all traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 were not seeing tcp
> window scaling properly, however it's only for Server A that is seeing
> this. Server A is able to
On 7/24/14, 1:04 PM, "Valdis Kletnieks" wrote:
>It's currently targeting WNDR3800's and based on the CeroWRT software
>(which works pretty well in my own experience).
Agree - CeroWRT works well. We at Comcast worked with Dave Taht on CeroWRT
to explore and understand approaches to resolving Buff
So the EFF is pushing development of an open CPU router
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/building-open-wireless-router
https://openwireless.org/
It's currently targeting WNDR3800's and based on the CeroWRT software
(which works pretty well in my own experience).
What will possibly be intere
On 7/23/14, 1:18 PM, "Adam Rothschild" wrote:
>Comcast¹s position is that they could buy transit from some obscure
>networks who don¹t really have a viable transit offering, such as DT and
>China Telecom, and implement some convoluted load balancing mechanism to
>scale up traffic.
>
>(I believe
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 06:31:06 -0700, Ca By said:
> Fooled me once shame on you. Fooled me twice... Dont by service from
> companies that allow peering wars to happen at paying customers expense
> (verzon, cogent, ...)
There's one coax coming into my domicile, and the owner of the other end
of the
Also just to reiterate I would lean more heavily on something fishing in
the WAN cloud if all traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 were not seeing tcp
window scaling properly, however it's only for Server A that is seeing
this. Server A is able to properly TCP window scale for any local traffic.
On Thu,
Hi Machael,
Let me setup another packet capture at each side to see if the initial
packets are being modified at all.
Thanks,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Michael Brown
wrote:
> On 14-07-24 12:30 PM, Zach Hill wrote:
> > Hi Tony. No firewall in the way.
> >
> > Physical flow is as below.
FCC licensing? No licenses as long as you operate in unlicensed bands (ie,
900mhz/2.4ghz/5).
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 5:10 AM, hayden wrote:
> Sorry, no feedback from me.. I have couple of questions though, how much
> licensing do you need to go through, to actually start a WISP?
> Also, Kansas
On 14-07-24 12:30 PM, Zach Hill wrote:
> Hi Tony. No firewall in the way.
>
> Physical flow is as below.
>
> Server A -> Nexus 7k -> 3845 router -> Sprint MPLS -> 3845 router -> Cisco
> 3750x stack -> Server B
>
I blame the cloud.
Dump the actual packets as they leave Server A and arrive at Server
On 14-07-24 12:25 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Zach Hill wrote:
>
>> What's interesting is this is only affecting a single server and only
>> when traffic is going over the WAN circuit. Testing from Server A to any
>> server on it's network shows it is negotiating window scaling just fine.
> Check your
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 07:40:26PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 05:29:55PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:54:59PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > > Others appear to be having similar issues. Seems like Verizon is
> > > pointing at AWS:
> > >
Sorry, no feedback from me.. I have couple of questions though, how much
licensing do you need to go through, to actually start a WISP?
Also, Kansas.. Are you concerned that you’ll have to compete with Google Fiber
at some point?
On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:58, char...@thefnf.org wrote:
> Hey everybo
Hi Tony. No firewall in the way.
Physical flow is as below.
Server A -> Nexus 7k -> 3845 router -> Sprint MPLS -> 3845 router -> Cisco
3750x stack -> Server B
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Tony Finch wrote:
> Zach Hill wrote:
>
> > What's interesting is this is only affecting a single se
Zach Hill wrote:
> What's interesting is this is only affecting a single server and only
> when traffic is going over the WAN circuit. Testing from Server A to any
> server on it's network shows it is negotiating window scaling just fine.
Check your firewall isn't buggering about with TCP option
Hello,
I know this isn't precisely on topic but I'm having an issue that I could
use some assistance with.
I'm currently seeing a very interesting issue for a single server. File
transfers from Server A to Server B are relatively slow and not using up
much of the circuit. Upon further inspectio
Fios would have to start deploying IPv6 to reach 100% deployment. Their
press release should be coming in 2019.
David
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ian Bowers
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:18 AM
To: Brzozowski, John
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re
Thank you for sharing! Would LOVE to see something like this from Verizon
about FioS.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Brzozowski, John <
john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions:
>
>
> http://corporate.comcast.com/comc
On 7/24/2014 11:08, Brzozowski, John wrote:
> FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions:
>
> http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network
>
> Thank you,
>
> John
"we recently crossed 1Tb/s of Internet
FYI – please feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions:
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-reaches-key-milestone-in-launch-of-ipv6-broadband-network
Thank you,
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
w) www.comcast6.net
42 matches
Mail list logo
