Nah I run into situations almost every day where I need IP addresses and getting them is a headache.
NAT is cool, but it sucks when you are in an organization where you cannot use the 10. Space, the 172.28 space is largely spoken for as well as the 192.168.
I would love to have a massive block of addresses that I could manage myself and not have to consult with anyone. Why put up with restrictions of any kind if it really isn't neccisary?
Well, text books say SONET/SDH is layer 1 but in my head I think of it as layer 2 also. When you do IP over SONET you put Ethernet in between and that has always bugged me because I don't see why you need an Ethernet header to transport an IP packet over SONET.
Use a different screen for certificate issues than the standard error screen so that people notice the difference. Maybe throw up a little diagram explaining what a self-signed cert is and what it means to the person browsing.
Alert the user of the situation, and then provide them with the information (in a simplified but not over-simplified format) they need to make the decision correctly.
This isn't a very difficult issue to deal with.
Not entirely outside the scope of your original question...
Cable modem internet service is "best effort" you can't reliably (depending on your definition of reliable) achieve your goal if all your packet prioritization efforts go out the window as soon as they leave your LAN.
ISP provided VoIP cable modem traffic on the other hand has a higher priority than all other traffic on the ISP network, and it doesn't even use your allotted internet bandwidth.
If your Cable ISP doesn't offer VoIP then I guess you are stuck with Vonage, but I would ditch it as soon as another option presented itself.
If you have a cable modem, you would be far better off just getting phone service from your cable provider. That is the only way to really guarantee bandwidth.
When you use your cable providers phone service they do all the prioritization for you and you never have to think about it. Also they won't begin any maintenance if you are placing a 911 call. with Vonage you could be right in the middle of a 911 call and they would begin maintenance and leave you on your own in an emergency.
with 32 customers per OLT, there is no way they can deliver true 20/20 service. Also I have heard rumors that Verizon blocks your ability to host any services (web server, ftp server, etc)
FIOS is dumb, there is no need to use Fiber for residential services. Hybrid Fiber/Coaxial networks make more sense. There is a common misconception that fiber optic is better than a cable modem simply because its optical.
The bottom line is that you will only have as much bandwith as your ISP allows you to have and how much you share with your neighbors . Ideally with FIOS you share the same fiber with 32 other customers, and a large chunk of that is devoted to video.
FIOS is Passive Optical Networking, similar to Ethernet using a hub instead of a switch. it runs at half duplex and is susceptible to collisions. It may be amazingly fast compared to what most people are accustomed to, but just wait till your neighborhood fills up with FIOS customers you will experience the same speeds as a cable modem. Even in rural areas you will essentially be sharing the same OLT with people in a larger geographical area, and lets not forget that PONs have limited distance so its not going to be available to people who live in BFE. I don't understand why you would build a $50,000+ circuit for a service that you will charge $65 a month for. dumb. I think the Verizon executives have a bet going to see how fast they can put themselves out of business.
Verizon is just using Fiber as a gimmick when in reality it is no better than a hybrid fiber/coaxial network. Fiber should only be used for Business customers on switched fiber rings or passive networks with less than 10 customers per OLT. Fiber is way to expensive to be installing it for residential service, it's going to take Verizon a very very long time to actually turn a profit from this. But what do I know I'm just a fiber optic network technician.
yea.. we should totally start letting foreign gambling sites take all our money away through gambling on sites we can't regulate. I don't think you understand how seriously gambling laws are enforced in the US and how much is done to make sure it is completely legitimate.
Internet gambling is banned because it is almost impossible to regulate. The only form of "online gaming" that operates in the US that I am aware of are poker tournament sites, which aren't gambling sites ("gaming" = gambling, at least thats what it means according to the Nevada Gaming Commission, Viva Las Vegas!) , you pay a single, one time low fee to enter.
This article is saying the US "allows domestic gambling sites to operate with impunity" while banning foreign sites. If the WTO is going to start filing these sorts of claims against us than maybe we (US) should remove ourselves from it. Although, I don't see this "fine" going anywhere.
Fining 100 Billion dollars from the worlds biggest consumer/customer is bad business.
This article is pure garbage, they even resorted to Bush bashing, because we all know Bush controls all gambling.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah I run into situations almost every day where I need IP addresses and getting them is a headache. NAT is cool, but it sucks when you are in an organization where you cannot use the 10. Space, the 172.28 space is largely spoken for as well as the 192.168. I would love to have a massive block of addresses that I could manage myself and not have to consult with anyone. Why put up with restrictions of any kind if it really isn't neccisary?
Well, text books say SONET/SDH is layer 1 but in my head I think of it as layer 2 also. When you do IP over SONET you put Ethernet in between and that has always bugged me because I don't see why you need an Ethernet header to transport an IP packet over SONET.
Use a different screen for certificate issues than the standard error screen so that people notice the difference. Maybe throw up a little diagram explaining what a self-signed cert is and what it means to the person browsing. Alert the user of the situation, and then provide them with the information (in a simplified but not over-simplified format) they need to make the decision correctly. This isn't a very difficult issue to deal with.
All of this has happened before, and it will happen again. Kara Thrace is the harbinger of death.
Not entirely outside the scope of your original question... Cable modem internet service is "best effort" you can't reliably (depending on your definition of reliable) achieve your goal if all your packet prioritization efforts go out the window as soon as they leave your LAN. ISP provided VoIP cable modem traffic on the other hand has a higher priority than all other traffic on the ISP network, and it doesn't even use your allotted internet bandwidth. If your Cable ISP doesn't offer VoIP then I guess you are stuck with Vonage, but I would ditch it as soon as another option presented itself.
If you have a cable modem, you would be far better off just getting phone service from your cable provider. That is the only way to really guarantee bandwidth. When you use your cable providers phone service they do all the prioritization for you and you never have to think about it. Also they won't begin any maintenance if you are placing a 911 call. with Vonage you could be right in the middle of a 911 call and they would begin maintenance and leave you on your own in an emergency.
with 32 customers per OLT, there is no way they can deliver true 20/20 service. Also I have heard rumors that Verizon blocks your ability to host any services (web server, ftp server, etc)
FIOS is dumb, there is no need to use Fiber for residential services. Hybrid Fiber/Coaxial networks make more sense. There is a common misconception that fiber optic is better than a cable modem simply because its optical.
The bottom line is that you will only have as much bandwith as your ISP allows you to have and how much you share with your neighbors . Ideally with FIOS you share the same fiber with 32 other customers, and a large chunk of that is devoted to video.
FIOS is Passive Optical Networking, similar to Ethernet using a hub instead of a switch. it runs at half duplex and is susceptible to collisions. It may be amazingly fast compared to what most people are accustomed to, but just wait till your neighborhood fills up with FIOS customers you will experience the same speeds as a cable modem. Even in rural areas you will essentially be sharing the same OLT with people in a larger geographical area, and lets not forget that PONs have limited distance so its not going to be available to people who live in BFE. I don't understand why you would build a $50,000+ circuit for a service that you will charge $65 a month for. dumb. I think the Verizon executives have a bet going to see how fast they can put themselves out of business.
Verizon is just using Fiber as a gimmick when in reality it is no better than a hybrid fiber/coaxial network. Fiber should only be used for Business customers on switched fiber rings or passive networks with less than 10 customers per OLT. Fiber is way to expensive to be installing it for residential service, it's going to take Verizon a very very long time to actually turn a profit from this. But what do I know I'm just a fiber optic network technician.
lol ya. I realize it's never going to happen. I just think its crazy to pay a 100 billion USD fine when the US hasn't done anything wrong.
yea.. we should totally start letting foreign gambling sites take all our money away through gambling on sites we can't regulate. I don't think you understand how seriously gambling laws are enforced in the US and how much is done to make sure it is completely legitimate.
Internet gambling is banned because it is almost impossible to regulate. The only form of "online gaming" that operates in the US that I am aware of are poker tournament sites, which aren't gambling sites ("gaming" = gambling, at least thats what it means according to the Nevada Gaming Commission, Viva Las Vegas!) , you pay a single, one time low fee to enter.
This article is saying the US "allows domestic gambling sites to operate with impunity" while banning foreign sites. If the WTO is going to start filing these sorts of claims against us than maybe we (US) should remove ourselves from it. Although, I don't see this "fine" going anywhere.
Fining 100 Billion dollars from the worlds biggest consumer/customer is bad business.
This article is pure garbage, they even resorted to Bush bashing, because we all know Bush controls all gambling.