On 04/03/2011 12:50 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:24 PM
But it also only affects priority queue traffic. I realize I'm making
a value judgment, but many customers under DDoS would find things
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 5:56 PM
In an IP network, the bandwidth constraints are almost always across an
administrative boundary. This means in the majority of the case across
transit circuits, not peering.
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:24 PM
But it also only affects priority queue traffic. I realize I'm making
a value judgment, but many customers under DDoS would find things
vastly improved if their video
Folks,
The Canadian telecommunications regulator, the CRTC, has just launched a public
notice with possible worldwide implications IMHO, Telecom Notice of
Consultation CRTC 2011-206:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-206.htm
I think this is the very first regulatory inquiry into IP
In a message written on Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 04:00:30PM -0400, Francois Menard
wrote:
One of the postulates that I intend to defend, is that in the
PSTN today, in addition to interconnecting for the purpose of
exchanging voice calls, it is possible to LOCALLY (at the Local
Interconnection
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
The PSTN features fixed, known bandwidth. QoS isn't really the
right term. When I nail up a BRI, I know I have 128kb of bandwidth,
never more, never less. There is no function on that channel similar
to IP QoS.
The PSTN
In a message written on Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 07:00:52PM -0400, Jeff Wheeler
wrote:
I don't agree with this. IMO all DDoS traffic would suddenly be
marked into the highest priority forwarding class that doesn't have an
absurdly low policer for the DDoS source's access port, and as a
result,
7 matches
Mail list logo
