On Feb 26, 2016 8:34 AM, "Keith Medcalf" wrote:
>
>
> ISP's should block nothing, to or from the customer, unless they make it
clear *before* selling the service (and include it in the Terms and
Conditions of Service Contract), that they are not selling an Internet
connection but are selling a par
Hey!
New message, please read <http://cakecompanybyvee.co.za/only.php?mo>
Philip Dorr
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Rob McEwen wrote:
> On 10/1/2015 11:44 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> IPv6 really isn't much different to IPv4. You use sites /48's
>> rather than addresses /32's (which are effectively sites). ISP's
>> still need to justify their address space allocations to RIR'
On Sep 9, 2015 11:15 PM, "John Levine" wrote:
>
> The placement may be suboptimal, but free wifi away from home is nice.
> CableWifi really is a consortium, T-W customers can use Comcast's
> hotspots and vice versa.
>
Suboptimal is an understatement. How they are placed around Kansas City,
they
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I’d argue that SSH is several thousand, not a few hundred. In any case, I
>> suppose you can make the argument that only a few people are trying to
>> access their home network res
On Feb 27, 2015 6:48 PM, "Miles Fidelman"
wrote:
>
> Jack Bates wrote:
>>
>> On 2/27/2015 2:47 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>>
>>> Folks,
>>>
>>> Let's not go overboard here. Can we remember that most corporate and
campus (and, for that matter home) networks are symmetric, at least at the
edges. P
In this case the cover is a thin, but ridged peice of plastic. It is
possible that the link stayed up until it rained and the acorns absorbed
water coming in through the hole.
On Jan 30, 2015 4:33 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
> On 1/30/2015 16:23, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/2015 16:13, Larr
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> Maybe the bit-bucket got full?
Then the new packets should be dropped, but this seems like a
potential vulnerability. What it seems like to me is that the
bit-bucket is not size limited, and proceeds to overwrite other
memory, quickly kill
Could someone comment on why they chose systemd over upstart (other
than the Canonical CLA)? Or point to an article on it?
The biggest issue I see with only giving a /64 is that many
residential customers may have have two routers, if the modem is not
bridged and does not have WiFi. Another issue would be for people who
want to use the guest SSID of many routers. With IPv6 I could see
each SSID getting a /64.
You should probably increase those allocations.
Residential & Small Business Customers: /56
Medium & Large size Business Customers: /48
Multi-location Business Customer: /48 per site
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
> We are going thru a similar process.. from all of my
http://www.arrl.org/part-15-radio-frequency-devices#Definitions
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt47.1.15
(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that
endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety
services or seriously degrades, obstruc
On Mar 23, 2014 1:11 PM, "Mark Tinka" wrote:
>
> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > I was at work last week and because I have IPv6 at both
> > ends I could just log into the machines at home as
> > easily as if I was there. When I'm stuck using a IPv4
> > only service
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> it's fair to say, I think, that if you want to say something on the
> network it's best that you consider:
> 1) is the communication something private between you and another party(s)
> 2) is the communication going to be seen by ot
Chrome, Konqueror, and Firefox load the page fine. But wget and curl
gave 500 errors.
With telnet I narrowed it down to the "Accept-Language:" having to be
two or more characters long.
wget -6 ipv6.level3.com --header='Accept-Language: fake'
--2012-03-20 04:40:20-- http://ipv6.level3.com/
Resol
You should accept the full v6 table, because some IPs may not,
currently, be reachable via one of the carriers.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM, -Hammer- wrote:
> So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers and
> carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 01:19:57 GMT, George Fitzpatrick said:
>> Smart tv's should help, no?
>
> Only so much.
>
> No matter what they show on CSI about enhancing video, if that stream got
> compressed so the football Tim Tebow just threw is just a brown ell
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> No Barry, I respectfully disagree. It's almost 2012. The first
>> predictions of IPv4 exhaustion were made *last century*. We've been
>> predicting it to the month level for like 5 years now. Any business
>> that is making business plans an
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Vasil Kolev wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> According to the deployment schedule, a lot of the TLDs support DNSSEC,
> but there's no online resource that shows which registrars support
> adding such records. Is there any such list?
>
Here is a list of .ORG registrars sorted
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:56 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> I'm glad I live in Owen's world and not Bill's. I think my appliance vendors
> will make much cooler and more useful products than yours.
In Owen's world the fridge and pantry would know what they have, the
amounts, and possibly location. Th
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:50 AM, Tim Franklin wrote:
>> Thankfully, the current test has been a success.
>
> Including stopping non-members from posting to the list, and other anti-spam?
>
> I've got a sudden influx this morning of spam addressed to nanog@nanog.org :(
>
> Regards,
> Tim.
>
Same h
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Michael Holstein
> wrote:
>>
>>> Just a weird idea I had. If it's a good idea then please consider this
>>> intellectual property.
>>>
>>
>> It's easy .. the zeros are fatter than the ones.
>
> no no no
It is actually about moving away from IPv6
"I think the IETF hit the right balance with the 128 bits thing. We
can fit MAC addresses in a /64 subnet, and the nanobots will only be
able to devour half the planet."
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 3:54 AM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/865/
>
>
That is on WiFi, NOT cellular.
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
> 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
No SSL errors here using Chrome, IE, or Firefox.
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> I'll happily join Newnog/NANOG and pay my dues when I can reach the
>> web site to do so
>> on IPv6 rather than legacy IPv4.
>>
>> Owen
>
> I'd be happy if htt
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Leen Besselink wrote:
> He did a new presentation at 27c3 in december 2010:
>
> http://events.ccc.de/congress/2010/Fahrplan/events/3957.en.html
>
> A video and slides should show up on the list soon:
>
> http://media.ccc.de/tags/27c3.html
>
> (because of audio trans
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Danijel wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 18:10, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
>>
>> Not being a gmail user this may be a stupid question: can't you
>> whitelist things in gmail? The ratio of spam/ham on NANOG is pretty good.
>>
>>
> Yes, you can, done it a while ago as so
The Ubuquti Instant 802.3af seems to do what you want (as long as the
equipment can handle 16v)
http://ubnt.com/8023af
http://ubnt.com/downloads/instant8023af.pdf
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
> Perhaps someone from this august list can offer a clue here.
>
> Have:
The problem is that they were also slashdotted. The logs would also have a
large number of unrelated.
On Dec 8, 2010 12:49 PM, "Christopher Morrow"
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/8/2010 11:28 AM, William McCall wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Are you prepared for "i
Or more likely Leber's first name is Mike.
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Ryan Harden wrote:
> I suspect "Leber" has either a first or last name that starts with "na"
> or "nan" and this poor guy is the victim of auto-complete failure.
>
> But this is NANOG, so I expect nothing but jumping to
nytimes==troll (when it comes to technology)
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Cringely has a theory and it involves Google and Verizon,
>> but it doesn't involve net neutrality:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?_r=2
>
> Woow thi
31 matches
Mail list logo
