On Tue, 2015-05-26 at 23:59 -0700, Tony Hain wrote:
> (...) For fun, project this
> http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html
> (...)
Hi,
If someone from google is listening it would be really nice to
spend a few minutes t oavoid flash for displaying this graph, it doesn't
work on my G
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 19:06 -0500, Brandon Applegate wrote:
> Just saw this in a message tonight. No idea if this is a transient error
> or not.
Got one too for AS197422 at "Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:59:01 +0100", resent
the mail at "Wed, 15 Jan 2014 00:03:12 +0100" and it worked so probably
transient
guration,
not waste any IPv4 and avoid all issues with shared L2 (rogue RA/ARP
spoofing/whatever) since there's no shared L2 anymore between user VM.
It also allows us to not pre split our IPv4 space in a fixed scheme,
we manage only /32 so no waste at all.
Of course you still have work to do on PP
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 10:35 +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 11:23 +1200, Ben wrote:
> > With regards to security of OpenBSD versus Linux, you shouldn't be exposing
> > any
> > services to the world with either. And it's more stability/configu
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 11:23 +1200, Ben wrote:
> With regards to security of OpenBSD versus Linux, you shouldn't be exposing
> any
> services to the world with either. And it's more stability/configuration
> that would
> push me to OpenBSD rather than performance.
>
> And with regards to crashin
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 10:50 -0800, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 2/8/13 9:46 AM, fredrik danerklint wrote:
> >>> About 40 - 50 Mbit/s. Not bad at all.
> >>>
> >>> Downloading software does not have to be in real-time, like watching
> >>> a movie, does.
> >> In both cases it's actually rather convenient
On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 16:39 +0100, Edward J. Dore wrote:
> MikroTik RouterOS is indeed based on Linux, however I believe they rolled
> their own MPLS stack.
Hi,
Does Mikrotik publish their modified Linux kernel source? Might be
interesting to look at it.
Laurent
> Last time I looked, the "mpls
Hi,
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 17:02 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We use LLA to "virtualize" interconnection to our users:
> > their network configuration is always static default via fe80::
> > and we route their /56 prefix to fe80::: where : is
> > unique per user -
On Sat, 2012-07-14 at 09:18 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
>
> > Le 13/07/12 16:38, -Hammer- a écrit :
> >> In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or "non-routable"
> >
> > I guess "non-routable IPv4" translates well to "non-routable IPv6", t
On Sun, 2012-04-15 at 10:52 -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> In any given 24 hour period, the probability of at least
> one single bit error exceeds 98%.Assuming the memory is good and
> functioning correctly;
>
> It's expected to see on average approximately 3 to 4 1-bit errors
> per day. Mo
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 18:46 +0200, Ido Szargel wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> We are currently looking to connect to one of the IX's available in Paris,
>
> It seems that there are 2 "major" players - FranceIX and Equinix FR, can
> anyone share their opinions about those?
Hi,
We're connected to bo
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 09:37 -0800, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Mikael and I both have 3G networks with demonstrated IPv6
> capabilities, perhaps people should request Google drive Android IPv6
> support. Please point your IPv6 interest here
> http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=3389 and c
On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 17:39 +0100, Leen Besselink wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 11:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > If IPv4 is like 640k, then, IPv6 is like having
> > 47,223,664,828,696,452,136,959
> > terabytes of RAM. I'd argue that while 640k was short sighted, I think it is
> > unlikely we will see mac
On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 09:47 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
> (...) All we're ending up with is what is mostly hearsay being treated as
> facts.
One consumer organization in France during the ongoing debate with
regulators on network neutrality called for network operator to publish
some verifiable in
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 05:31 -0500, Randy Epstein wrote:
> Laurent,
>
> >If a 10G port for transit is paid by comcast $30/Mbit/s monthly
> >that's 0.19 cent/internet customer/month for a new 10G port
> >to properly desaturate this particular link.
>
> >Did I compute something wrong?
>
> >Laurent
On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 16:20 -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:24:45 -0500, Craig L Uebringer
> wrote:
> > Same crap I've seen on loads of provider networks.
>
> No ISP I've ever worked for or with has ever willingly ran their transit
> (or peering) links at capacity.
>
> (Gra
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 19:36 -0800, George Bonser wrote:
> (...) The financial derivatives market isn't, in my opinion, a good analogy of
> the peering market. A data packet is "perishable" and must be moved
> quickly. The destination network wants the packet in order to keep
> their customer happ
17 matches
Mail list logo
