I hate to jump in late. but... :)
After reading this a few times it seems like what's going on is:
o a set of assumptions were built into the software stack
this seems fine, hard to build with some assumptions :)
o the assumptions seem to include: "if rrdp fails feel free
to jump
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 4:27 PM Christopher Morrow
wrote:
>
> 1) I shot myself in the foot .. the meeting data I cared about is
> directly available on www.nanog.org (or the link to it anyway)
>
> 2) I meant feb 2020 (which SEEMS like 1.5yrs ago? or 100.5 yrs ago? :)
> ) and meeting 78:
>
1) I shot myself in the foot .. the meeting data I cared about is
directly available on www.nanog.org (or the link to it anyway)
2) I meant feb 2020 (which SEEMS like 1.5yrs ago? or 100.5 yrs ago? :)
) and meeting 78:
https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog-78/
specifically this talk:
- On Nov 5, 2020, at 5:58 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
Hi,
>> The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and only reinforce the
>> notion that at this time, we simply do not know enough. We do know, that
>> at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful
>>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
Midwest Internet Exchange
The Brothers WISP
- Original Message -
From: "Jeff Shultz"
To: "North American Network Operators' Group"
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:26:25
Looking for a contact with a clue at Verizon/Wireless who can help me with
a problem, to wit, Verizon is blocking calls from our landline customers to
one of their local wireless prefixes. We've got the error that the Verizon
switch gives ("Welcome to Verizon your call can not be completed as
I second Jeff in using YANG.
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 1:37 PM Jeff Tantsura
wrote:
> YANG is the right direction.
> OpenConfig BGP and policy models are supported by every vendor on the
> earth.
> We are finalizing IETF BGP and policy models
> draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model is about to be
YANG is the right direction.
OpenConfig BGP and policy models are supported by every vendor on the earth.
We are finalizing IETF BGP and policy models
draft-ietf-rtgwg-policy-model is about to be last-called
draft-ietf-idr-bgp-model is pretty much ready
Cheers,
Jeff
On Nov 5, 2020, 4:57 AM -0800,
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:55 AM Douglas Fischer wrote:
>
> I'm designing a tool for provisioning configurations for an ITP and his Peers.
> The idea is that based on that, all the configs to all the involved
> components configurations to be deployed based on that source of data. I'm
> Talking
Sir, I too believe in taking a low profile approach, but the irony is that
those in academia who I have appoached that do recognize this gap in
safeguards are reticent to take up this topic since it involves research
intersecting with negative actors.
I do not wish to take more time from this
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 5:59 AM Tom Beecher wrote:
> Let's say roughly half of the science says the hypothesis is false, and half
> says it is true. It is absolutely fair in this case to state "We don't know
> enough."
Hi Tom,
Strictly speaking, if a hypothesis is disproven by even one
Well,
I'm just saying...
Speculating about "how to/was harm", on an open forum, is a
good way to help design "scenarios" that can be abused by bad actors.
It would be better to address it in an academia setting.
*Now* if you're looking for worker safety, surely your
> Can you provide a case where this may
> have happened?
>
As you mention, a normal operational scenario finds powerful RF on the
rooftop. My concern is an abnormal scenario where powerful RF is used to
sabotage an electronic equipment or human. Magnetron + horn antenna
(forgive me for using this
> ...who THINKS he MIGHT have identified
> something to the contrary does not instantly
> disqualify the thousands of studies that have
> already been completed on the topic
>
I am not a doctor. The majority of results you refer to is equivalent to
the Sun' impact on human situated on Earth's
Hi Sabri,
I hope by now my position on health effects from RF is becoming apparent,
ie., my focus is exclusively on health effects from chronic overexposure
scenarios (unintentional overexposure experienced by firefighters, telecom
workers etc. and intentional overexposure) which have attracted
Oops, meant include this reference
*1 Mashevich M, Folkman D, Kesar A, et. al. Exposure of human peripheral
blood lymphocytes
to electromagnetic fields associated with cellular phones leads to
chromosomal instability.
Bioelectromagnetics. 2003;24:82–90.
On Thursday, November 5, 2020, Suresh
Hello,
> ...I agree with Suresh that at this time, there
> is no scientific evidence that links RF with
> any kind of bodily harm.
>
Please note that there is scientific evidence to link chronic exposure to
RF result in chromosome instability*1, however there is no diagnostic test
to attribute a
Existing research on health effects from RF signals dwell on emissions from
regulated sources, (mobile handset, base of a tower etc), my overriding
concern is, unrestricted/chronic exposure for extended duration of time for
which there are very rare research efforts devoted.
Chronic exposure to
> Vulnerability to EMI is a lot less than folks imagine.
>
I hope that is true.
> Malicious use of EMI emitters to harm
> human health is definitely out of scope for
> this list.
>
I am of the belief that people are as important as electronic equipment in
the gamut of workplace safety in the
> There is other venues to work this out
> "safely", IMHO.
>
I started this effort for safeguards in July 2007. Until 2018, I did
exactly what you mention. The FCC's Office of Engineeting and Technology in
2015 has been the only government agency that replied to my email query on
jurisdiction
> I'm a bit confused as to what this message
> is trying to ultimately get at
>
The superior tactical advantage of causing intentional harm with high power
beam-forming RF and escape detection. Meaning, assault with powerful RF
leaves a victim and bystander unaware of being attacked and my
I experienced this as well dealing with some soho "routers" such as the
RT-AC1200. I imagine this configuration is something in-common with a lot
of their offerings. The issue was resolved by making sure the primary DHCP
server and the Asus device both pointed to the same DNS server.
On Wed, Nov
Hello,
> Did you test against common equipment
> deployments or did you just measure the field
> strength?
>
I have not conducted any test, only going by the field strength that is
capable of causing EMI.
> In common equipment deployments, the
> electronics are wrapped in two layers of
> Faraday
To that end, anyone working around RF should be properly trained and use the
safety tools provided them, they should be fine. If an untrained individual
does something and gets hurt with high power RF, it is unfortunate and happens
all too often because of people thinking that the worst case
>
> The parts that Tom cited, are very much relevant, and
> * only reinforce thenotion that at this time, we simply do not know
> enough.* We do know, that
> at the low doses we generally receive, there is no evidence for harmful
> consequences.
>
> My point is that we should not dismiss the
I received some contacts in PVT...
And joining the recommendations of some of them, I will give a shot with
BSDRP+Napalm(with Ansible).
Let's see if it can scale as expected.
Thank you all.
Em qua., 4 de nov. de 2020 às 05:15, Douglas Fischer <
fischerdoug...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> I'm
I'm designing a tool for provisioning configurations for an ITP and his
Peers.
The idea is that based on that, all the configs to all the involved
components configurations to be deployed based on that source of data. I'm
Talking about Routers, BMP, SNMP tool(Ex.: Zabbix), etc...
But, once again,
27 matches
Mail list logo
