Thanks all for the input, huawei is ruled out due to politics, looks
like for costs we'll stick to the 48 ports from planet
On 1/1/20, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
>
> I'd recommend avoiding the C7 - ADSL2+
> performance on them isn't the best. Look for
> something with a Broadcom chipset. Even
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
I'm not saying that maybe one day we won't need 25Mb/s to a hand-held
device, but hologram telephone calling, Netflixing and even video
calling, are not the use-cases, IMHO.
Actually you went on to say that future innovations shouldn't exist
One of my hats is to design/manufacture/sell GPS third party timing
receivers for Cambium Radios.It seems like something happened around
2PM MST today which caused (at a minimum) certain Globaltop/Sierra Wireless
GPS modules to quit receiving signals from the GPS constellations.
Because these
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 5:32 PM, Andreas Ott wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 05:08:17PM -0500, Matt Hoppes wrote:
>> Is anyone else seeing GPS timing source outages across the U. S. In the last
>> two hours?
>
> On what hardware/firmware are you seeing this?
>
> Nothing unusual in the Bay
On 12/31/2019 7:21 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/31/19 1:32 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>> On 12/30/2019 8:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> On 12/30/19 8:22 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Is anyone from ntpd.org on here? You're pointing DNS at me for some
reason. That zone (ntpd.org) isn't in
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 05:08:17PM -0500, Matt Hoppes wrote:
> Is anyone else seeing GPS timing source outages across the U. S. In the last
> two hours?
On what hardware/firmware are you seeing this?
Nothing unusual in the Bay Area so far, in other words "All Quiet on the
Western Front". I am
I've heard from people having the issue in South Africa as well.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Hoppes"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Is anyone else seeing GPS timing source outages across the U. S. In the last
two hours?
I'd recommend avoiding the C7 - ADSL2+
performance on them isn't the best. Look for
something with a Broadcom chipset. Even an old
Calix B6 would be better than C7 - although the
B6 gear is getting old, and reliability is
sketchy. The power converter modules on board seem to go.
At
That's a tough one. 48 port dslams with internal splitters are easy. When
you're looking for more density you're almost always looking at external
splitter shelves. Could also look at the calix c7 platform -- tons around on
the used market -- but then again, no splitters.
-Original
Contacted servicefinder, describing the problem in Swedish, kindly asking
them to unsubscribe.
Best regards.
—Dennis
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 17:24 J. Hellenthal via NANOG
wrote:
> Well if that ain’t just plain spam I don’t know what is!
>
> --
> J. Hellenthal
>
> The fact that there's a
Hej. Kan ni vänligen avregistrera i...@servicefinder.com på nanog@nanog.org
mailing-listan?
I skrivande stund får alla dom postar till denna lista detta svar tillbaka
vilket är lite irriterande.
Mvh.
—Dennis Lundström
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 12:33 NANOG wrote:
>
Found this one:
ftp://ftp2.dlink.com/SUPPORT/End_of_Life_Product_List_091519.pdf
Stating EOL 2015-04-14 for HW revision A1.
—Dennis
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:27 Nick Edwards wrote:
> Howdy y'all
>
> Chasing some info, does dlink still sell DAS4672 - 672 port adsl2+ dslams?
>
> after simple
On 12/31/19 08:25, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/31/19 8:10 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
>> Argumentation on the basis of a tu quoque fallacy doesn't really add
>> much to the dicussion. Depreciating potentialy dangerous and definitely
>> obsolete protocols does not make you a hypocrite.
>
>
> Then
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 7:46 AM Matt Harris wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:34 AM Royce Williams
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 7:17 AM Matt Harris wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The better solution here isn't to continue to support known-flawed
>>> protocols, which perhaps puts those same
On Dec 31, 2019, at 00:30, Matt Hoppes
wrote:
Why do I need Wikipedia SSLed? I know the argument. But if it doesn’t work why
not either let it fall back to 1.0 or to HTTP.
This seems like security for no valid reason.
On Dec 31, 2019, at 04:04, John Adams wrote:
because no one should
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 17:26 Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/31/19 8:10 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> > Argumentation on the basis of a tu quoque fallacy doesn't really add
> > much to the dicussion. Depreciating potentialy dangerous and definitely
> > obsolete protocols does not make you a hypocrite.
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 10:34 AM Royce Williams
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 7:17 AM Matt Harris wrote:
>
>>
>> The better solution here isn't to continue to support known-flawed
>> protocols, which perhaps puts those same populations you're referring to
>> here at greatest risk, but rather
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 7:32 AM Royce Williams
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 7:17 AM Matt Harris wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 9:11 AM Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/31/19 12:50 AM, Ryan Hamel wrote:
>>> > Just let the old platforms ride off into the sunset as originally
>>> >
No one mentioned the passwords need to be encrypted?
Why have an old encryption method that isn't secure?
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 11:34 AM Royce Williams
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 7:17 AM
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 7:17 AM Matt Harris wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 9:11 AM Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>> On 12/31/19 12:50 AM, Ryan Hamel wrote:
>> > Just let the old platforms ride off into the sunset as originally
>> > planned like the SSL implementations in older JRE installs, XP, etc.
There are really two arguments here.
1. TLSv1.0 is insecure and should never be used in an HTTPS scenario - cant
argue with this
2. Alot of static content sites are forcing HTTPS even though “technically”
there is nothing that needs to be secured in transit - this is where the
argument lies.
On 12/31/19 8:10 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Argumentation on the basis of a tu quoque fallacy doesn't really add
much to the dicussion. Depreciating potentialy dangerous and definitely
obsolete protocols does not make you a hypocrite.
Then how about privilege?
If someone is living in a
joel jaeggli wrote on 31/12/2019 18:10:
TLS1.0 is genuinely hard to support at this point. Doing so limits the
tooling you can use, It limits the CDNs that you can use. It forces you
to use obsolete codes bases.
not just that, TLS 1.2 has been around since 2008, i.e. 1 month before
android
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 9:11 AM Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/31/19 12:50 AM, Ryan Hamel wrote:
> > Just let the old platforms ride off into the sunset as originally
> > planned like the SSL implementations in older JRE installs, XP, etc. You
> > shouldn't be holding onto the past.
>
>
> Because
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 6:12 AM Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/31/19 12:50 AM, Ryan Hamel wrote:
> > Just let the old platforms ride off into the sunset as originally
> > planned like the SSL implementations in older JRE installs, XP, etc. You
> > shouldn't be holding onto the past.
>
>
> Because
On 12/31/19 07:10, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/31/19 12:50 AM, Ryan Hamel wrote:
>> Just let the old platforms ride off into the sunset as originally
>> planned like the SSL implementations in older JRE installs, XP, etc.
>> You shouldn't be holding onto the past.
>
>
> Because poor people
If you want the increased security and can afford so, by all means use it.
If you cannot afford the increased security, I guess the response is to just
bugger off... we don't need your kind?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 2:30 AM Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
> Why do I need Wikipedia SSLed? I know the argument. But if it doesn’t
> work why not either let it fall back to 1.0 or to HTTP.
>
> This seems like security for no valid reason.
Being able to authenticate
I still don’t see any multi-million dollar donation receipts though..
So if we want to do this, do we sacrifice security for the 99.9% or do we have
Wikimedia pay the bill?
Oh, BTW, I have some network equipment with only 16-bit ASN support, or no
large communities, or no IPv6, or no AES, or
I do not disupte the fact that 5G NR is better than 4G LTE. However, it isn't
going to have monumental spectral efficiency improvements that aren't available
in the LTE world. Mostly the capacity improvements are coming from moving from
2x2 MIMO to something like 64x64 MuMIMO (which is
On Tue Dec 31, 2019 at 08:10:20AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I would still find it hard to believe you would need that kind
> of speed, today, in any reasonable situation.
Who said it's all for you? Marketing may tell you it is to
get you to buy but it's really for everyone else. In some places
Howdy y'all
Chasing some info, does dlink still sell DAS4672 - 672 port adsl2+ dslams?
after simple IP based units with pppoe pass through.
We could buy a bunch of planet 48 ports, which we used before, but we
hoping someone still puts out high capacity (320 plus port) units with
inbuilt pots
On 12/31/19 1:32 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
On 12/30/2019 8:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 12/30/19 8:22 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Is anyone from ntpd.org on here? You're pointing DNS at me for some
reason. That zone (ntpd.org) isn't in our system. Your NS looks odd
too, *.darkness-reigns.net and
On 12/31/19 12:50 AM, Ryan Hamel wrote:
Just let the old platforms ride off into the sunset as originally
planned like the SSL implementations in older JRE installs, XP, etc. You
shouldn't be holding onto the past.
Because poor people anywhere on earth that might not have access to the
Perhaps in some cases, but not in most. For example, I live in a brick house
with a metal roof on a farm, near the edge of most mobile providers' cells for
the respective towers.
https://www.speedtest.net/result/a/5615500436
https://www.speedtest.net/result/a/5615504363
I would still find it hard to believe you would need that kind of speed, today,
in any reasonable situation. Also, today's infrastructure can more than handle
that in most places. Where it can't, 5G isn't going to be there for a very long
time or some other method would fix it first (such as
I figured someone would bring that likely misquote out at some point. I say
likely misquote because there is no evidence that he actually said it.
Now... now very, very few have any "need" for 25 megabit/s via mobile service
to their phone. You would be hard-pressed to find an actual need
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 8:37 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>
> Silicon Valley is typically out of touch with reality.
>
I think this is a bit over the top and troll-ish but there is a big thing going
on in circles where transport integrity and secrecy are tied together when it’s
not necessary.
If you care that bad, you work towards meeting the requirement. If you don't
care, then you don't.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "John Adams"
To: "Matt Hoppes"
Cc:
Some don't have the fiscal or logistical ability to do better.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Hamel"
To: "Constantine A. Murenin"
Cc: "North American Network
" the sheer amount of ppl left that have the older phones most likely are not
going to Wikipedia anyway."
Why?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "J. Hellenthal via
"obvious reasons"
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Antonios Chariton"
To: "North American Network Operators' Group"
Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2019 3:47:58 AM
Silicon Valley is typically out of touch with reality.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Constantine A. Murenin"
To: "North American Network Operators' Group"
Sent:
On Tuesday, 31 December, 2019 04:44, Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
>Just to make it clear: are you suggesting that it should be a requirement
>to always verify the site where anonymous people make anonymous edits?
>Let that sink in.
TLS 1.2 as deployed in Web Browsers does not authenticate
On Tuesday, 31 December, 2019 02:48, Antonios Chariton
wrote:
>Ignoring the obvious reasons why TLS is needed and HTTP should not be
>used,
I am curious -- what exactly are those "obvious reasons"? (And for the record
HTTP *IS* being used, it is just being tunneled inside a TLS
Just to make it clear: are you suggesting that it should be a requirement
to always verify the site where anonymous people make anonymous edits? Let
that sink in.
C.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 05:31, J. Hellenthal wrote:
> ... because you should be able to verify the site you are at is actually
>
Well, that would be nothing, because they're blocking your device from
having any access.
C.
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 04:04, John Adams wrote:
> because no one should know what you read about or check out at wikipedia
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Dec 31, 2019, at 00:30, Matt Hoppes <
>
I think that the argument about the need for basic research should be
orthogonal to individuals' vision of demand.
I would say that this holds true for applied research and development too.
I'd add that we tend to place too much importance on our individual visions.
On the other hand, applied
... because you should be able to verify the site you are at is actually the
site you intended to be at...
Let the old crap go. Besides the sheer amount of ppl left that have the older
phones most likely are not going to Wikipedia anyway.
--
J. Hellenthal
The fact that there's a highway to
because no one should know what you read about or check out at wikipedia
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 00:30, Matt Hoppes
> wrote:
>
> Why do I need Wikipedia SSLed? I know the argument. But if it doesn’t work
> why not either let it fall back to 1.0 or to HTTP.
>
> This
Ignoring the obvious reasons why TLS is needed and HTTP should not be used, I
guess people who want an HTTP version of Wikipedia that is read-only and
knowingly insecure, censorable, modifiable, etc. can donate a few million
dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation, before the tax year is over, for
On 12/30/2019 8:32 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 12/30/19 8:22 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Is anyone from ntpd.org on here? You're pointing DNS at me for some
>> reason. That zone (ntpd.org) isn't in our system. Your NS looks odd
>> too, *.darkness-reigns.net and .nl? Is that legit? I don't know
Just let the old platforms ride off into the sunset as originally planned
like the SSL implementations in older JRE installs, XP, etc. You shouldn't
be holding onto the past.
Ryan
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 12:41 AM Constantine A. Murenin
wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 02:29, Matt Hoppes <
>
On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 at 02:29, Matt Hoppes
wrote:
> Why do I need Wikipedia SSLed? I know the argument. But if it doesn’t
> work why not either let it fall back to 1.0 or to HTTP.
>
> This seems like security for no valid reason.
Exactly. I used the wording from their own page; but I think
Why do I need Wikipedia SSLed? I know the argument. But if it doesn’t work why
not either let it fall back to 1.0 or to HTTP.
This seems like security for no valid reason.
56 matches
Mail list logo
