This reminds me of a story I heard once where someone described a method of using SMTP itself as a backup mechanism.
Basically you tar/zip/whatever up all your files and email them to a non-existant address. The SMTP server will try to redeliver for like 5 days, and eventually bounce the message back to you.
If you automate it to redo this every 5 days, you could be assured that the longest you would ever have to wait to retrieve your backups was 5 days.
Obviously this is hell on SMTP, but I thought it was fairly interesting to say the least.
The University of Washington (UW, not WU) already did this about two years ago. And using studio quality HDTV to boot. There were two different types of streaming, one which was around 40Mbps and a higher quality one at 200+ Mbps. Check out http://www.washington.edu/hdtv/
for more info.
It is true that Speakeasy only uses Covad for DSL. However Covad does not necessarily have to run a second pair of copper to your place. I have DSL via Covad and they did not have to do that. Some DSL circuits (such as iDSL) need a second pair. I would imagine it varies depending on location as well.
I've used both Qwest and Speakeasy and found the prices pretty comparable. Service and network quality on the other hand are no comparison. Speakeasy is leaps and bounds better than Qwest in these regards in my opinion. Remember that monetary cost should not be the end-all-be-all qualifier for rating an ISP.
Speakeasy is NOT based on the east coast. While they do have service points on the east coast, they are headquartered in Seattle, WA. They have many service points on the east coast, the west coast, and in the central US.
As far as I know Speakeasy does not have its own backbone, but instead relies on NSPs (Internap in particular) to carry traffic to and from customers in different service points. Under this model there is absolutely no reason why all traffic would have to go to the east coast and back...especially since they started out in Seattle.
Nickserv/Chanserv allows you to reserve your own nickname and reserve your own channels for personal use.
SPOF (Single Point of Failure). It is trivial to take out a NickServ/ChanServ. What happens then? What is the state of nicks and channels when there's no active authority for it?
You could have a distributed NickServ/ChanServ to try to solve this, but then you've got a mini IRC network within an IRC network along with all the same old IRC problems; slipts, lag, TS, collisions, etc.
Believe me, as a longtime user and former IRCop of EFnet, this has all been discussed many many times. The IRC protocol is inherently flawed, and it is not trivially easy to just replace it.
What would be OK with me would be if the FTC hadn't limited it to three, but let any ISP that wanted in to compete, just like the situation with the DSL providers today. Each ISP would of course be responsible for their own costs of equipment/leases/whatever.
If that were to happen, I would seriously consider cable over DSL. The main objection I have to cable these days is the less-than-favorable TOS that AOS/TW has.
The fact that I have a broad (haha) choice of ISPs to use with my DSL circuit and that I can choose one with a sane TOS which will allow me to run the services I want is worth the slight price difference and the potential of having a slightly slower connection in real world situations.
If I want to, I can choose an ISP that treats me like I am an important customer, rather than having to go through AOL/TW's call centers. This is worth a lot to me.
All you need is the money and a birthday at least 18 years ago (less if you have a co-signer).
It is my understanding that this is not entirely true. You must be 18 or have a co-signer only if you are trying to get a loan to buy the car. If you pay the entire amount with cash upon purchase, I don't believe there are any age restrictions (or need for a co-signer).
Granted, this probably doesn't happen too often to those under 18.
Actually yes they do, for outbound traffic. I set up routers to do this all the time. If you choose per-destination or per-flow (which ospf does natively on Cisco boxen for equal cost paths) you can achieve bi-directional results since two flows will have different source addresses*. This assumes of course that each interface has its own unique IP address. This won't improve performance for a single connection, but if you do lots of network transactions at once this will improve throughput, assuming that the single ethernet connection was the bottleneck.
Etherchannel will also work, if it is supported on your network.
-B
* This depends on your software. Some hosts will fill in the source address of the outbound interface (such as Cisco routers), and some will always use the same one.
... anyone who has a connection capable of sustaining a 2MB/sec per user connection has at *least* dual or triple t1's...
Uh two or three T1's ain't jack anymore, especially those on Internet2 where connections can and do range from OC3 to OC48. Even for those not on Internet2, ds3's and OC3's are commonplace.
To answer the original poster, yes it is indeed possible. Routers routinely utilize multiple equal cost paths on a per-packet, per-flow, or per-destination (there are more too) basis depending on the switching method chosen. I don't see why hosts can't do this either. In fact some probably already do with the proper configuration.
It all depends on when you signed up for an account. If you signed up recently (for some value of recent) then you automatically get subscribed to several lists, which is how you get spammed.
As far as I know, it's not obvious how to get off the lists. So if MSN considers spam to be unsolicited email other than the mailing lists you got auto-subscribed to, then they're probably not lying.
UUnet is more than just dial-in POPs. They have one of the largest backbones on the Internet (and they charge as if they were the largest too).
UUnet has always done free peerings (between backbones -- nothing to do with dial-in POPs), it's just that there hasn't been an official policy made public until now and the last network they peered with was quite a while ago. It just means UUnet is picky who they peer with, and now their criteria is known publically.
I generally don't associate myself with one political party or another. However, my views and opinions are tend to be more democrat-like than republican-like, and I happened to vote libertarian the last two presidential elections if that helps....
You are correct that five arrests does not necessarily mean five guilty crimes. However in the case of Bush, it is well known he had cocaine and alcohol problems (and related arrests) which he miraculously escaped being convicted for. Maybe it was because daddy was the head of the CIA at the time. Oh, and then there's the rumor of him paying for his then girlfriend to have an abortion at a time when abortions were illegal in the US. But that has yet to be proven.
I'm in no way saying Gore is any better, with or without his alleged "bag after bag of dope smoking". All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have someone in office who hasn't broken the law. It would set a good and refreshing precedent.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of a story I heard once where someone described a method of using SMTP itself as a backup mechanism.
Basically you tar/zip/whatever up all your files and email them to a non-existant address. The SMTP server will try to redeliver for like 5 days, and eventually bounce the message back to you.
If you automate it to redo this every 5 days, you could be assured that the longest you would ever have to wait to retrieve your backups was 5 days.
Obviously this is hell on SMTP, but I thought it was fairly interesting to say the least.
-B
The University of Washington (UW, not WU) already did this about two years ago. And using studio quality HDTV to boot. There were two different types of streaming, one which was around 40Mbps and a higher quality one at 200+ Mbps. Check out http://www.washington.edu/hdtv/ for more info.
-BHow about you convince Cisco to come up with some technology that doesn't make the router keel over when you apply these filters at > OC3 speeds?
-BThey would if they could. The only reason Qwest lets you use other ISPs besides Qwest.net now is because they have been legally forced to.
-B
You seem to be misinformed.
It is true that Speakeasy only uses Covad for DSL. However Covad does not necessarily have to run a second pair of copper to your place. I have DSL via Covad and they did not have to do that. Some DSL circuits (such as iDSL) need a second pair. I would imagine it varies depending on location as well.
I've used both Qwest and Speakeasy and found the prices pretty comparable. Service and network quality on the other hand are no comparison. Speakeasy is leaps and bounds better than Qwest in these regards in my opinion. Remember that monetary cost should not be the end-all-be-all qualifier for rating an ISP.
Speakeasy is NOT based on the east coast. While they do have service points on the east coast, they are headquartered in Seattle, WA. They have many service points on the east coast, the west coast, and in the central US.
As far as I know Speakeasy does not have its own backbone, but instead relies on NSPs (Internap in particular) to carry traffic to and from customers in different service points. Under this model there is absolutely no reason why all traffic would have to go to the east coast and back...especially since they started out in Seattle.
-B
I've done work on I2 so I have some experience in the matter.
-B
Certainly there are users of IPv6 on I2, but it is not strictly an IPv6 network. It is based on IPv4 TCP/IP just like I1.
-B
SPOF (Single Point of Failure). It is trivial to take out a NickServ/ChanServ. What happens then? What is the state of nicks and channels when there's no active authority for it?
You could have a distributed NickServ/ChanServ to try to solve this, but then you've got a mini IRC network within an IRC network along with all the same old IRC problems; slipts, lag, TS, collisions, etc.
Believe me, as a longtime user and former IRCop of EFnet, this has all been discussed many many times. The IRC protocol is inherently flawed, and it is not trivially easy to just replace it.
-BWhat would be OK with me would be if the FTC hadn't limited it to three, but let any ISP that wanted in to compete, just like the situation with the DSL providers today. Each ISP would of course be responsible for their own costs of equipment/leases/whatever.
If that were to happen, I would seriously consider cable over DSL. The main objection I have to cable these days is the less-than-favorable TOS that AOS/TW has.
-BThe fact that I have a broad (haha) choice of ISPs to use with my DSL circuit and that I can choose one with a sane TOS which will allow me to run the services I want is worth the slight price difference and the potential of having a slightly slower connection in real world situations.
If I want to, I can choose an ISP that treats me like I am an important customer, rather than having to go through AOL/TW's call centers. This is worth a lot to me.
-B
If you run SETI@Home, then you are doing a lot of FFT's on your computer.
-B
True dat.
-B
Hahahaha, this is the best comment I've read all day.
-B
It is my understanding that this is not entirely true. You must be 18 or have a co-signer only if you are trying to get a loan to buy the car. If you pay the entire amount with cash upon purchase, I don't believe there are any age restrictions (or need for a co-signer).
Granted, this probably doesn't happen too often to those under 18.
-BUm....They make ATMs. Lots of them. And they fix them too. So unless you want to give them up....
No problem. ATM sucks anyway, use SONET instead.
Oh that ATM...
-BI'm not much of a programmer or a sysadmin
Say... What's your IP address again? ;)
-BActually yes they do, for outbound traffic. I set up routers to do this all the time. If you choose per-destination or per-flow (which ospf does natively on Cisco boxen for equal cost paths) you can achieve bi-directional results since two flows will have different source addresses*. This assumes of course that each interface has its own unique IP address. This won't improve performance for a single connection, but if you do lots of network transactions at once this will improve throughput, assuming that the single ethernet connection was the bottleneck.
Etherchannel will also work, if it is supported on your network.
-B
* This depends on your software. Some hosts will fill in the source address of the outbound interface (such as Cisco routers), and some will always use the same one.
Uh two or three T1's ain't jack anymore, especially those on Internet2 where connections can and do range from OC3 to OC48. Even for those not on Internet2, ds3's and OC3's are commonplace.
To answer the original poster, yes it is indeed possible. Routers routinely utilize multiple equal cost paths on a per-packet, per-flow, or per-destination (there are more too) basis depending on the switching method chosen. I don't see why hosts can't do this either. In fact some probably already do with the proper configuration.
-BIt all depends on when you signed up for an account. If you signed up recently (for some value of recent) then you automatically get subscribed to several lists, which is how you get spammed.
As far as I know, it's not obvious how to get off the lists. So if MSN considers spam to be unsolicited email other than the mailing lists you got auto-subscribed to, then they're probably not lying.
-B
UUnet is more than just dial-in POPs. They have one of the largest backbones on the Internet (and they charge as if they were the largest too).
UUnet has always done free peerings (between backbones -- nothing to do with dial-in POPs), it's just that there hasn't been an official policy made public until now and the last network they peered with was quite a while ago. It just means UUnet is picky who they peer with, and now their criteria is known publically.
-B
Hmm, I thought this was a 2010 reference, not 2001, although I could be wrong.
-B
Those poor lawyers taking the case need to get paid somehow. Duh.
-BWARNING: This post contains sarcasm.
I generally don't associate myself with one political party or another. However, my views and opinions are tend to be more democrat-like than republican-like, and I happened to vote libertarian the last two presidential elections if that helps....
-B
Having five arrests isn't 'getting away with it.'
You are correct that five arrests does not necessarily mean five guilty crimes. However in the case of Bush, it is well known he had cocaine and alcohol problems (and related arrests) which he miraculously escaped being convicted for. Maybe it was because daddy was the head of the CIA at the time. Oh, and then there's the rumor of him paying for his then girlfriend to have an abortion at a time when abortions were illegal in the US. But that has yet to be proven.
I'm in no way saying Gore is any better, with or without his alleged "bag after bag of dope smoking". All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have someone in office who hasn't broken the law. It would set a good and refreshing precedent.
-BWhat's worse; spending 9 months being hospitalized for psychiatric care when you were a minor, or having 5 arrests between you and your running mate?
Frankly I'd prefer someone in office who wasn't used to breaking the law and getting away with it.
-B