On 7/13/12 7:38 AM, -Hammer- wrote:
> OK. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get some flak for this but I'll share this
> question and it's background anyway. Please be gentle.
>
> In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or "non-routable" space
> Internally in production for segments that won't be se
On 7/17/12 3:34 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2012-07-18 00:21, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> [..]
>> Don't, because there's already a /10 defined for such things. It's
>> called ULA (unique local address) aka RFC 4193. ULAs are not globally
>> routable.
>>
On 7/17/12 3:57 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> I am wondering what you meaning with 'squat', note that what I reference
> above is real full RFC4193 calculated ULA.
>
By "squat" I meant take a random chunk of IPv6 space and use it as
"private" address space. He said:
On 7/13/12 7:38 AM, -Hammer-
On 8/3/12 8:56 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Alain Hebert wrote:
>> Yes the easier way to do it is have your subnet routed to someone that
>> is willing to colo your router, or provide your with something like NHRP,
>> and use a 87x on your brand new unnamed Cabl
On 8/3/12 12:22 PM, Otis L. Surratt, Jr. wrote:
> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>
Nope, and no plans to.
~Seth
On 8/3/12 3:42 PM, William Pitcock wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:22 PM, "Otis L. Surratt, Jr." wrote:
>
>> Anyone charging end users for IPv6 space yet? :p
>>
>> Just wondering, with so many IPv6 resources in a single allocation it
>> would seem difficult to charge anything at all.
>>
>>
On 8/6/12 4:15 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> That's simply not true at all...
>>
>> Let's look at what it takes to configure BGP as I suggested...
>>
>> 1. The ASN number of the two providers
>> 2. The ASN to be used for the local side
>> 3. The
On 8/10/12 9:14 AM, fc lists wrote:
> Hi ...
>
> This is my last resort. Apologies if this have been discussed before or if
> is totally OT ... but i figured i could find some useful help here.
>
> I need to find a good VPS provider in India where to setup a small set of
> machines in a Virtual I
On 8/16/12 2:35 PM, John Osmon wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:10:42PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> [...]
>> +1 for ubiquity. I've had excellent results with their products though
>> I have not used the Air Fiber product specifically and haven't
>> tested any of the long-haul 1Gbps products.
>
On 8/21/12 6:10 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Many moons ago I worked in a place where we had a Brady LS2000 wire
> labeler. So long as the supplies were fresh it was great.
>
> In the storage unit I have a Brady TLS2200. Supplies are expensive,
> but it works reasonably wel
On 8/23/12 7:18 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> On Aug 23, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Blake Hudson wrote:
>
>> How does one suddenly justify needing 1,000,000 more IP addresses (explosive
>> expected growth in the next couple months?)
>
> I can easily see people moving through those IPs in short order if y
What's the state of MPLS on Linux these days?
~Seth
On 9/4/12 9:05 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "John Peach"
>
>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 11:57:38 -0400 (EDT)
>> Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> SMTP Auth to *arbitrary remote domains' MX servers*? Am I missing
>>> something,
>>> or are you?
>>
>> I run an MTA on my server and
I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
if these are the people providing internet access to end users. We focus
our worries on the big guys like AT&T going IPv6 (which I'm sure but
they're slow
On 9/16/12 10:06 AM, John T. Yocum wrote:
>
>
> On 9/16/2012 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
>> some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
>> if these are the
On 9/16/12 9:55 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> I came across these threads today; the blind ignorance towards IPv6 from
> some of the posters is kind of shocking. It's also pretty disappointing
> if these are the people providing internet access to end users. We focus
> our worrie
Does Verizon have IPv6 on their LTE network everywhere or is it limited
to specific regions? I ask because I have a Verizon LTE iPad just
upgraded to iOS6 (which supposedly added this capability), but it's not
getting an IPv6 address on the LTE interface. Or does Verizon now need
to authorize these
On 9/20/12 5:39 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> Your problem is likely with Apple, they have not yet supported ipv6 on
> the cellular interface afaik.
>
Well, that's true under iOS 5, but iOS 6 released yesterday (and
assuming you have a third gen iPad with LTE) was supposed to correct
that. It run
Huh, so I come home and now I'm getting IPv6 from Verizon LTE. But I
definitely wasn't at the office. I verified with an app called "IT
Tools" that shows the interfaces and routing table, plus it does
traceroute/ping. Maybe the nearest tower over there doesn't support
IPv6? Odd.
Running test-ipv6
On 9/20/12 6:33 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>
> Huh, so I come home and now I'm getting IPv6 from Verizon LTE. But I
> definitely wasn't at the office. I verified with an app called "IT
> Tools" that shows the interfaces and routing table, plus it does
> traceroute
On 9/20/12 6:47 PM, TJ wrote:
> Did Apple use their version of Happy Eyeballs on the iPads?
> ISTR they cache certain timeouts, so if IPv6 was failing before it may take
> awhile for it to become preferred again.
>
Well, I can try creating a new DNS record that never existed before and see.
~Se
On 9/20/12 6:47 PM, TJ wrote:
> Did Apple use their version of Happy Eyeballs on the iPads?
> ISTR they cache certain timeouts, so if IPv6 was failing before it may take
> awhile for it to become preferred again.
>
It seems you may be correct.
~Seth
So I'm back at the office this morning and the iPad is *not* getting an
IPv6 address but is showing LTE service. It did do IPv6 over LTE at home
so it's not a device problem. So I suppose the closest tower to my
office is not IPv6 enabled.
Is this an expected behavior in some areas or something th
On 9/27/12 8:52 AM, Jason Fesler wrote:
>> Safari on the iPad seems to be preferring A over if a hostname has
>> both, though. I can browse to a bracketed IPv6 address so it is working.
>
> I think perhaps it is time to update test-ipv6.com a bit, and have it
> penalize the first number when
On 9/28/12 11:08 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
> Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a
> customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what I
> dont know).
>
> Has anybody else seen this brain damage?
>
Hand draw two squares, label them "our AS" and "your A
On 10/10/12 10:10 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM, jamie rishaw wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 7:15 PM, Aaron Toponce
>>> Instead, purchase a cellular USB modem with a standard plan. All 4 major
>>> carriers provide APIs to interact with the modems, and you get every
On 10/31/12 11:25 AM, andy lam wrote:
> Anyone knows if there's a way to find out how involved NSA monitors 151 front
> street at Toronto? NSA allegedly monitors data centres in the US, but does
> it have the same influence at a building sitting in its neighbor's soil?
>
> There's something on
Does anyone use Eaton 9130 series UPS for anything? I'm curious how
they've worked out for you.
I bought a 700VA model to give it a whirl versus the traditional APC
since the Eaton is an online type with static bypass and also does some
high efficiency thing where it normally stays on bypass, but
On 11/13/12 1:20 PM, Blake Dunlap wrote:
> As a side note, how do you call a UPS "online" if it stays on bypass most
> of the time, and throws out of "bypass" to go to battery?
>
It's a selectable feature. I was probably going to set it to true online
mode, but play with the other mode for curios
On 11/13/12 6:49 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 11/13/2012 6:42 PM, Tom Morris wrote:
>> Sorry to say, I've used them and had them eat themselves. They just
>> die mysteriously and let out lots of smoke when they do. When they do,
>> however, they leave behind a perfectly good set of batteries. I'd
>> r
On 11/19/12 6:08 PM, Wallace Keith wrote:
> Just got paged with a pbx alarm that had 1970 as the year. By the time I
> logged in , it was showing 2012. Using GPS for time and date.
>
I use GPS for my NTP server and didn't notice anything, but it's PPS
disciplined after initial sync so it does
On 11/19/12 9:16 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> Actually, this is kind of an interesting aside. Last time I checked, Canada
> counts as North America and large parts of Quebec are inhabited by folks who
> don't speak much, if any, English. Having said that, I can't recall having
> seen any Quebecoi
On 11/20/12 3:19 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <50abc681.5040...@rollernet.us>, Seth Mattinen writes:
>> On 11/19/12 9:16 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
>>> Actually, this is kind of an interesting aside. Last time I checked, Canad
>> a counts as North America
On 12/6/12 12:49 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm looking at several brands of rackmount 3kva double-conversion
> UPSes, such as Tripp Lite and Eaton Powerware. I'm specifically
> looking for something that will work as a line-interactive UPS until
> the power starts to misbehave and
I apologize for mentioning it; thanks for taking the time to point out such
data could not possibly be useful.
~Seth
Sent from my iPad, please excuse my brevity.
On Dec 6, 2012, at 16:19, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
>> I have a 700VA 9130 rackmount that I recently bought to give it an eval run
>>
On 9/24/15 09:59, William Astle wrote:
On 2015-09-24 10:49, Dovid Bender wrote:
The issue now is convincing clients that they need it. The other issue
is many software vendors still don't support it.
Regards,
Dovid
Actually, the issue now is convincing certain big providers to actually
make
I've got a problem where AS20115 continues to announce prefixes after
BGP neighbors were shutdown. They claim it's a wedged BGP process but
aren't in any hurry to fix it outside of a maintenance window.
I'm at a loss of what else I can do. They admit the problem but won't
take action saying it
On 9/28/15 18:30, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
I've got a problem where AS20115 continues to announce prefixes after BGP
neighbors were shutdown. They claim it's a wedged BGP process but aren't in
any hurry to fix it outside o
On 9/28/15 20:19, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Is this related to 104.73.161.0/24? That's ours. :-)
We'll take a look and get back to you. Thanks for caring!
Yep, that's one of the affected prefixes.
~Seth
On 9/29/15 7:26 AM, Rampley Jr, Jim F wrote:
On 9/28/15, 10:24 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Seth Mattinen"
wrote:
On 9/28/15 20:19, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Is this related to 104.73.161.0/24? That's ours. :-)
We'll take a look and get back to you. Thanks for caring!
Ye
On 9/29/15 8:18 AM, Rampley Jr, Jim F wrote:
>
This issue was caused by a hung BGP process which was resolved last night.
Nothing nefarious. No static configuration nailed up, no BGP highjacking
purposely done. ;)
Is there a Cisco bug ID?
~Seth
On 10/25/15 15:22, Randy Bush wrote:
you might think that with all the committees, boards, badges, ... that
there was an actual operator in the nanog resume building circle who
would actually do something useful about the crap mail flood now into
its second day.
Maybe a committee with authori
On 6/20/17 16:57, Keith Medcalf wrote:
How else would one maintain government control over free encryption
certificates?
So Let's Encrypt is run by the Illuminati now? Or is it Freemasons? It's
hard to keep track.
On 7/3/17 12:07 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
I was wondering whether anyone was experience with the "EdgeRouter Infinity
XG" device, specifically in the role of a simple peering router for a
couple of tens of thousands of routes. (I'd point default to the left and
take just the on-net routes on the ri
On 9/17/17 20:05, JASON BOTHE wrote:
My best experience with Apple has been directly peering with them. Definitely
handles the update issue without putting strain on transit links. Apple is very
well connected.
The cache thing mentioned in their peeringdb entry appears useless
outside of an
On 9/17/17 20:02, Robert Perkins wrote:
mini racks:https://kuula.co/post/7lkXV
Even if you're not doing Minis at that scale they easily fit into a 1U
space. Someone said minis aren't rack friendly and no, they aren't
rackmount standalone, but just add a 1U shelf.
~Seth
Out of curiosity, why weren't there any existing emergency/last-resort
microwave links already in place? It seems to be known that this cable
is a single point of failure ahead of time. Were there previous plans to
set up any microwave links that got put on the back burner or canceled?
Is th
On 11/13/17 12:49, Mike Hammett wrote:
Keep the humans out of the rack and you should be fine.
Where should I send the invoice?:-P
It's easy to keep a rack nice if you take the time. I've spent hours
removing and replacing cables in neatly dressed bundles because
equipment changes require
On 11/20/17 9:09 AM, Luke Guillory wrote:
I don't think the current model is cruel as much as the rising price of
programing has been which is only getting worse. In the end going direct will
cost the end user more in the long run. ESPN has lost 100s of thousands of
customers, being that 80%
On 12/5/17 10:28 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I understand that most BGP implementations are single-threaded.
Well, yeah. That's where the "lots of slow cores" model doesn't work.
~Seth
On 12/6/17 09:16, Nate Metheny wrote:
I've always been more than willing to share knowledge and skill training
with those who show interest and talent; the more qualified and interested
people involved, the better, in my opinion. Making the club "exclusive" by
requiring thousands of dollars of tr
On 1/2/18 2:46 PM, James Breeden wrote:
And before you come back with "Well they may be using it internally where it doesn't
need to be in the GRT" - that's why we have Private AS numbers.
I.e. some form of ARIN or global policy that basically says "If AS number not routed
or whois updated or
On 3/7/18 10:02 AM, Romeo Czumbil wrote:
Ohh no NRC.
Reason = Somebody has to pull back the cables (aka cut the ends off)
You mean you're not supposed to let cables pile up indefinitely until
they become an immovable tangled mass?
On 3/7/18 11:35 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
Because it's a capital outlay up front, instead of a
build-as-you-need-it with the capital investment spread over time.
There's no cost if the customer is charged for it when they need it.
On 3/29/18 7:17 AM, Izaac wrote:
And I'd really like not to enrich my ISP's trove of information about
my browsing habits by them recording all my DNS lookups. Of course,
9.9.9.9 could be collecting that information, but they're in less
of a position to insert ads than my cableco is.
Don't worr
On 3/29/18 7:24 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
That's certainly a more important issue. Even when someone has skills,
he or she may not have the time and inclination to do system
administration at home. The solution is proper packaging of this
DNS function in ready-made boxes such as the Turris O
On 4/2/18 8:35 AM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
This looks like a willy-waving exercise by Cloudflare coming up with the lowest
quad-digit IP. They must have known that this would cause routing issues, and
now suddenly it's our responsibility to make significant changes to live
infrastructures just so
On 4/2/18 10:49, David Conrad wrote:
Wait. What?
Why do you think 1/8 shouldn’t be used for anything?
I didn't say that.
In case this is a non-native English issue, "nobody should have been
using" is past tense, which is to say everyone squatting on 1/8 space
for their own purposes becaus
On 4/2/18 14:58, Marty Strong via NANOG wrote:
Routing from ~150 locations, plenty of redundancy.
https://www.cloudflare.com/network/
I recommend 9.9.9.9 to people (if they must use a public resolver)
because Quad9/PCH serves local markets of all sizes with anycast nodes
and peering, not ju
On 4/2/18 5:10 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
On 3 Apr 2018, at 1:39 am, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 4/2/18 8:35 AM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
This looks like a willy-waving exercise by Cloudflare coming up with the lowest
quad-digit IP. They must have known that this would cause routing issues, and
now
On 4/2/18 7:24 PM, Robert Mathews (OSIA) wrote:
To be clear.
*DNS resolver 9.9.9.9 will check requests against IBM threat database*
To be clear on what? That an IBM database is queried, just like it says
on their website? That doesn't mean they are recording who is making
what requests.
On 4/2/18 7:43 PM, J Crowe wrote:
That database could possibly be ingested and used locally. Traffic may
not even be traversing to the database hosted by IBM.
At least they are open about where they are getting the data that allows
for blocking to certain FQDNs.
Even if it does traverse som
On 4/3/18 12:15 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Ok, sorry if I was being overly persnickety. My apologies. I’ve been spending
too much time answering questions on “social media” and it’s making me
antisocial.
Commenting on social media is like having to write a dissertation
perfectly with your f
On 5/24/18 4:21 PM, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
Actually, GDPR specifically requires processors to include statements of
compliance right in their contracts; we also strongly recommend that
controllers insist on indemnification clauses in their contracts with
processors, because if the pro
On 5/26/18 1:30 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
I don't think, in general the DPAs need to use lawsuits.
If they discover (by their own, or by means of a customer claim) that a company (never
mind is from the EU or outside) is not following the GDPR, they will just fine it and the
On 5/26/18 8:15 PM, Michel 'ic' Luczak wrote:
The two levels depend on the nature of the infringement, but it says clearly
“up to 10M” (or 2% of your worldwide revenue, whichever is bigger) for the
“less serious” infringements. So no, there is no minimum fine actually.
To me that says the
On 6/3/18 9:05 AM, Max Tulyev wrote:
Hi All,
Looking for similar, but other one.
Have Asterisk with E1 connection to PSTN (not VoIP). Is there some
software to let it work as a fax and modem?
iaxmodem
On 6/19/18 8:48 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
MikroTik is getting there but most people are just not enabling it either.
RouterOS still has "will not fix" IPv6 bugs, so that doesn't help shops
dependent on Mikrotik want to move forward with deploying it.
On 6/21/18 09:59, McBride, Mack wrote:
I will speak more generally as I don't have insight into that provider.
Last mile providers are working on ipv6 everywhere because ipv4 is expensive
and so is CGN and MAP-T.
IPv6 can reduce the need for ipv4 addresses and translation technology.
In all like
On 7/18/18 7:26 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I don't think iPhones have SFP cages.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Keith Medcalf"
To: "Mike Hammett", "Mark Tinka"
Cc: "NAN
On 7/26/18 9:51 AM, Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG wrote:
Capitalist solution: Build yet another IoT device that just does emergency
alerting.
People in tornado areas seem to be the most aware that alert radios
already exist. No internet access required.
On 7/26/18 9:59 AM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
Almost everyone with a cell phone gets real time alerts too. I am not sure how
many more ways we can make people aware of things around them. Seems like yet
another government mandate to dictate what a device must do.
People in tornado areas seem to
On 7/20/2010 06:11, Brandon Kim wrote:
>
> Interesting question, I'd like to know more about this myself. I'm so used to
> monitoring SNMP-based
> devices, never really thought about multi-casts and being able to see the
> pattern/tree
>
>
Is it just me, or is anyone else receiving multi
On 7/21/2010 12:34, Brandon Kim wrote:
>
> Is dual-stacking with an edge device considered native? Or is "true" native
> when you have
> an edge device or any network device for that matter that's v6 only?
>
> Just curious
>
Dual stack is considered native, i.e. "no tunnels".
~Seth
On 7/21/2010 12:08, Zaid Ali wrote:
> I currently have a v4 BGP session with AS 701 and recently requested a v6
> BGP session to which I was told a tunnel session will be provided (Same
> circuit would be better but whatever!). Towards the final stage in
> discussions I was told that it will cost $
On 7/25/10 11:05 AM, Tarig Yassin wrote:
>
> probabaly every web server in USA e.g. Google, Verisign and sourceforge.
>
Hah, no.
~Seth
On 7/27/10 10:32 AM, Schiller, Heather A (HeatherSkanks) wrote:
>
>
> We do not charge v4 customers anything to turn up an IPv6 tunnel. If
> you hear otherwise, please feel free to drop me a line. Native v6 is
> available in atleast 31 markets, on over 210 edge devices in 701. There
> is a g
On 7/31/10 12:20 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:04:16 +0800, Diogo Montagner said:
>> This was the best compilation that I found before. Unfortunately, this
>> presentation is a little bit old (2006). I am supposing that most of
>> commercial tools have improved your IP
On 8/9/2010 17:48, Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> I'm researching a list of some colocation providers I have here to find the
> most suitable one to provide services for a project I'm working on. My
> thought is to send out an informal RFI, which I believe is something others
> may have done too. If a
On 8/13/10 10:42 AM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
> Alternate #4: A "rents" the space to B without ARIN knowing it, while A
> continues to claim that the space belongs to them.
>
This already happens as we speak with "IP brokers".
~Seth
On 8/13/2010 19:55, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> when the registry work was re-competed and taken from sri to netsol (i
> think it was called that at the time), rick adams [0] put in a no cost
> bid to do it all with automated scripts. hindsight tells me we should
> have supported that much more strongl
On 8/26/10 3:26 AM, Daniel Migault wrote:
>
> Currently we are considering the following values. Packet Lost Rate for L2
> seems 7% for Wifi and 5% for 3G. We are wondering how L3 is affected?
>
TCP retransmits. UDP does not.
~Seth
On 8/26/2010 09:20, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> On 8/26/10 3:26 AM, Daniel Migault wrote:
>>
>> Currently we are considering the following values. Packet Lost Rate for L2
>> seems 7% for Wifi and 5% for 3G. We are wondering how L3 is affected?
>>
>
> TCP retransmits
On 9/3/2010 17:12, Owen DeLong wrote:
> I was not attempting to defend security through obscurity. It doesn't
> ultimately help at all.
>
> However, compared to the network and other resource costs of scanning, even
> at more than a billion pps, I think there will be more effective vectors of
>
On 9/4/10 6:35 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
> Anyone with a contact at Doster with the ability to make things happen?
> Apparently they do not support v6 glue records and they have been
> unresponsive to my ticket. This seems a kooky reason to change registrars.
>
> The table of registrars over at sixxs w
On 9/4/10 10:30 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> On 9/4/10 9:31 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> On 9/4/10 6:35 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
>>> Anyone with a contact at Doster with the ability to make things happen?
>>> Apparently they do not support v6 glue records and they have been
&g
On 9/4/10 6:35 AM, Ryan Shea wrote:
> Anyone with a contact at Doster with the ability to make things happen?
> Apparently they do not support v6 glue records and they have been
> unresponsive to my ticket. This seems a kooky reason to change registrars.
>
> The table of registrars over at sixxs w
On 9/5/2010 11:17, Joseph C. Bender wrote:
>
> Perhaps economic pressure will be a good enough reason for the
> registrars to actually get moving and make progress with better support.
> OpenSRS kept my business because they at least have a mechanism for
> handling glue, albeit not an automat
On 9/7/10 10:23 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> More often than not today the only replies I've been getting back from
> the ARIN whois servers is:
>
> ERROR 503: Unable to service request due to high volume.
>
> Is there really high volume today, or is the new restful thing broken
> again?
>
S, it'
On 9/9/2010 10:59, Alan Bryant wrote:
> I did a quick google search for a converter but either I'm not
> understanding, or I'm not searching for the right thing.
>
> We currently have a POS OC-3 that I would like to be able to convert
> it to Ethernet, if possible.
>
> Do such devices exist?
>
On 9/16/10 9:35 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
> Hopefully they don't treat this the same way they treat their billing,
> otherwise you all will be degraded for months or even years. It is
> absolutely amazing that this company is still in business.
>
The "big guys" will always remain in business, or be
On 9/21/10 5:38 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> And, of course, the easy way:
>
> http://bill.herrin.us/pictures/2008/cables-sm.jpg
>
A similar way would be MRJ21 cables and patch panels or fan out ends,
but Cisco doesn't make any line cards with it.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vax-o-matic/2465
On 9/21/10 8:23 AM, Matthew Topper wrote:
> Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, but it seems to be that
> that would be a huge problem when you need to change out a cable or
> move something. Do the benefits outweigh the headaches with this kind
> of setup?
>
I can't speak for others,
On 9/21/2010 10:52, Holmes,David A wrote:
> Modern telephone pole aerial fiber uses all dialectric self-supporting
> (ADSS) technology, where the self-supporting component consists
> primarily of aramid yarn, the same material used for bullet-proof vests.
> This makes for an extremely light weight,
On 9/23/2010 12:43, Justin Horstman wrote:
> Via http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/facebook.com
>
> It's not just you! http://facebook.com looks down from here.
>
> Also down from LA, qwest has been having issues today as well, not sure if
> its related.
>
>
However, www.v6.facebook.com wor
On 9/23/2010 13:04, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> IPv6 seems to be working fine for me www.v6.facebook.com :)
>
Yep, works great. You guys should really upgrade your networks to
something that works. ;)
~Seth
On 9/24/10 5:28 PM, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
>> While this question has many dimensions and there is no real
>> definition of either I suspect that what many people mean when they
>> talk about a DC routers is:
>
>>From the datacenter operator prospective, it would be nice if some of these
>>vendor
On 9/26/10 11:09 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>
> Joel's widget number 2
>
> On Sep 26, 2010, at 10:47, Chris Adams wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time, Joel Jaeggli said:
>>> On Sep 26, 2010, at 8:26, Chris Adams wrote:
There are servers and storage arrays that have a front that is nothing
On 9/25/2010 13:37, Leo Woltz wrote:
> I am looking for some guidance from the list. We will soon be deploying
> wireless payment devices (CDMA/GSM). We are looking at options on where to
> locate the servers that will run the backend payment gateways; we would like
> the least amount of latency
On 9/28/10 7:49 AM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2010, at 8:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> 465 is not an odd-ball port, it's the standard well-known port for STMPS.
>
> It is? That's not what's recorded at:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
>
> urd 465/tcpU
201 - 300 of 641 matches
Mail list logo
