I'm sorry, mangle not DNAT, so it's post routing / arp translation. The idea is you don't nat, but just rewrite the ip header and do the real communication all at layer 2 via mac addresses.
Why the hell is everyone saying he needs crazy vlan rules or expensive switch magic or even some rediculous number of VMs?!?!
Switches are fucking stupid and don't inspect layer 3 unless you beg them to.
Step 1, see what the list of mac addresses is with basic ping and dump Step 2, just throw a translation table up for a pile of 10 addresses to static far side arps + DNAT and just do what you need to to those with a 5 line bash script.
We already do for black females as they are more likely to cost us money bringing a claim against us for dismissing them. Either firing them or terminating their employment for various reasons.
As a small company we cannot afford to make a mistake with the whole weight of Federal and State laws for someone to crush us with so we have taken risk mitigation very seriously.
So you admit to the discrimination you are saying you don't want to be accused of? yeah, shocking that you might get sued...
But seeing how domain names are often treated like property, i'm not sure why it isn't expected to be treated a lot like property.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but my understanding is you feel that a domain owner's personal information should be clearly available in WHOIS. I disagree.
If you as the owner of a domain are party to a court case involving that domain, whether due to your operation of a business using that domain or for any other cause of action, your ownership will become public record during the legal proceedings, regardless of your domain registration preferences. It's not as if WHOIS privacy protection somehow makes the registered owner truly anonymous.
Do you drive a car? If so, I presume it displays a license plate. The license plate doesn't contain your name, your address, your phone number, or any other personally identifying information (unless perhaps you've volunteered the info by registering a vanity tag). Suppose one day you do something in traffic which another driver perceives as an asshole move, and they become enraged. Like, "I want to kill that person" enraged. They can't just go home and type `whois [your tag]` and get all of your personal information. That's a good thing, right?
If you've committed a crime, the police have access to that data and are able to unmask you in order to enforce the law. But Joe Random, who has become upset at you for some reason and wishes to do you harm, isn't readily able to derive your personal information from your car's license plate. Why should your domain name be any different? If you make a post on your blog that offends someone, should that person be able to look up your full name and address and do who-knows-what?
What? All of those things that person listed are public records that can be looked up if you go to the clerk's office and spend about $20. That was the point. You can even just look some of them up now on the web, although it usually is behind a small paywall.
True. I am preparing for a multi-year court battle myself over the right to put an antenna on my roof. I did it to myself, but fighting fascism from the inside is more effective when you're dealing with people who don't understand that in UDOTS, laws are for restricting governments, not freedom. Still, I fear the battle is lost once you realize that a strip search at an airport is deemed reasonable. Before you argue what "a well regulated militia" means, you need to define "infringed". Well, I mean to say, you need to stop running words through Google translate English--doublespeak. More to your point, I suggest you start reviewing the laws in your own town. Just because you haven't been prosecuted for violating a city ordinance or tax law, doesn't mean you're not guilty.
There shouldn't be any court battle over this if you did it correctly. FCC trumps.
Dick Cheney brought us the current mess. He set the bar. W was just his sock-puppet.
Oh yeah, that makes sense. The son of a former President, former CIA Director, grandson of a U.S. Senator, and great-grandson of one of the 19th centuries rail barons was merely a sock puppet serving the interests of the son of a minor bureaucrat with the Department of Agriculture. You know, people should look at the nature of history before they start building conspiracy theories.
This also explains using names like John Connor. You and I would be able to recognize the source of the name. It's much less likely that a senior citizen would, so it gives them a way to filter out the people least likely to fall for the scam.
Really? The original Terminator movie came out in 1984. People now in their 60s would have been about the same age as most of us here. Someone now in their 90s might not know about the movie, but I would bet at least as many people in their 60s and 70s know the name John Connor as do people in their teens and 20s.
Actually it would be the opposite.
The original terminator movie came out in 1984, the sequel came out in 1992. Someone born in 1984 is now 32 years old, you get a lot of people in their 20's who have never seen terminator.
If we add a non-western culture into the mix (in Australia, a lot of these telemarketers/scammers have thick Indian accents) they will likely have never seen Terminator, let alone make the John Conor connection. Also, it's not an unusual name.
I want to know how someone born in 1984 is somehow 32 years old in 2014. This isn't even hard math. The last digit is the same...
Jeff Sessions, Tea Party Guy. Of course he's going to take the nativist view. He probably thinks Microsoft could just take the 18,000 people it's laying off and repurpose them to fill whatever positions it's trying to use H1B visas for. Because tech skills are interchangeable, right? And all those 18,000 are totally okay relocating across the country (or globe) right?
Just because a lot of his opinions are idiotic, doesn't mean this one is. Tea Party people terrify me, and I still agree with this point.
If all you see is the source in a vote, and not the individual messages or topics, you're part of the problem in our system of government.
We're paying a general market rate here (Palo Alto) plus ~20% and it's STILL hard to find good developers because of the competition with companies like Google.
Right, so you aren't competitive... This isn't hard, you just don't like the answer.
You think we'd have a lot of money if we didn't spend it on wars, imagine how much we would have if we didn't spend it on Welfare (corporate and social) which represents a MUCH larger number.
We could buy every working person a new fuel efficient car every year and repave all the interstates and still have money left over.
Yeah, all we have to do is kill the indigent, poor, lazy, and crippled. Imagine what a better world it would be.
#1 is critically important. It is my understanding that getting land rights to put up poles and lay cable is the largest hurdle for many potential providers, to the point of making it cost prohibitive. And who is lobbying to keep it that way? The one provider already in the area. This must be fixed. I agree with you that a free-er (as opposed to completely free) market solution is the best. We just need some ground rules to ensure that competition can be made fair.
Too many people are looking to strong-arm the companies with strict regulation instead of looking at the situation and providing an environment in which the free market can work. We haven't really had a chance for the free market to work, and #1 is a great example of why, so we haven't seen what the free market can do in this sector.
Let's try the less-government solution first. If that doesn't work, then we can go to the more-government later. We can ALWAYS get more government later. It's excruciatingly difficult to go the other direction.
'You can't kid a kidder. Having been a lobbyist, he knows all their tricks,' says Blair Levin.
So this is what we've been reduced to? The disconsolate wish, having turned the regulatory body over to one of the kleptarchs, that he will discover not only his duty to society but also unbiased objectivity, and turn on his own? A ray of hope so thin strains my credulity.
I don't know, if done right it can go really well. See Joseph Kennedy and the initial SEC. He may actually be on the up and up, only time will tell.
Let me try this as simple as I can. Just because you ran BGP with your provider, does not make you a peer or transit network.
You just said default route. That is a leaf node. You're at the end of the world. You are not peering. uRPF is useful when you're a leaf. It is *completely useless as a real peer* in it's current form.
Let me illustrate this for you with a completely made up scenario: You are Telia, you peer with Abovenet in 3 places, how do you configure uRPF on those links so that it keeps spoofed packets out and doesn't break all your downstreams?
Slashdot Mirror
If you're building a datacenter this size and care if a disaster takes it out 48 hours from power loss, you're doing it wrong.
That 48 hours is there to gracefully transition to the other sites and is a gift that the disaster didn't destory the building outright.
I'm sorry, mangle not DNAT, so it's post routing / arp translation. The idea is you don't nat, but just rewrite the ip header and do the real communication all at layer 2 via mac addresses.
Why the hell is everyone saying he needs crazy vlan rules or expensive switch magic or even some rediculous number of VMs?!?!
Switches are fucking stupid and don't inspect layer 3 unless you beg them to.
Step 1, see what the list of mac addresses is with basic ping and dump
Step 2, just throw a translation table up for a pile of 10 addresses to static far side arps + DNAT and just do what you need to to those with a 5 line bash script.
This is literally a 2 minute job...
Fucking amateurs....
I'm old enough to know exactly what you're talking about. Thanks for the memory!
Helllooo my babyy....... Hello my honneeyyyyyyyyy......
We already do for black females as they are more likely to cost us money bringing a claim against us for dismissing them. Either firing them or terminating their employment for various reasons.
As a small company we cannot afford to make a mistake with the whole weight of Federal and State laws for someone to crush us with so we have taken risk mitigation very seriously.
So you admit to the discrimination you are saying you don't want to be accused of? yeah, shocking that you might get sued...
It seems like the end game is peer-to-peer wireless.
Physics disagrees
Well that, and the amount of bullshit dropped around the place...
Nah that's just how you tell you're in the right wing of the field if you can't see the sun. It can save your life one day.
Hope you like radon.
But seeing how domain names are often treated like property, i'm not sure why it isn't expected to be treated a lot like property.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but my understanding is you feel that a domain owner's personal information should be clearly available in WHOIS. I disagree.
If you as the owner of a domain are party to a court case involving that domain, whether due to your operation of a business using that domain or for any other cause of action, your ownership will become public record during the legal proceedings, regardless of your domain registration preferences. It's not as if WHOIS privacy protection somehow makes the registered owner truly anonymous.
Do you drive a car? If so, I presume it displays a license plate. The license plate doesn't contain your name, your address, your phone number, or any other personally identifying information (unless perhaps you've volunteered the info by registering a vanity tag). Suppose one day you do something in traffic which another driver perceives as an asshole move, and they become enraged. Like, "I want to kill that person" enraged. They can't just go home and type `whois [your tag]` and get all of your personal information. That's a good thing, right?
If you've committed a crime, the police have access to that data and are able to unmask you in order to enforce the law. But Joe Random, who has become upset at you for some reason and wishes to do you harm, isn't readily able to derive your personal information from your car's license plate. Why should your domain name be any different? If you make a post on your blog that offends someone, should that person be able to look up your full name and address and do who-knows-what?
What? All of those things that person listed are public records that can be looked up if you go to the clerk's office and spend about $20. That was the point. You can even just look some of them up now on the web, although it usually is behind a small paywall.
True. I am preparing for a multi-year court battle myself over the right to put an antenna on my roof. I did it to myself, but fighting fascism from the inside is more effective when you're dealing with people who don't understand that in UDOTS, laws are for restricting governments, not freedom.
Still, I fear the battle is lost once you realize that a strip search at an airport is deemed reasonable. Before you argue what "a well regulated militia" means, you need to define "infringed". Well, I mean to say, you need to stop running words through Google translate English--doublespeak.
More to your point, I suggest you start reviewing the laws in your own town. Just because you haven't been prosecuted for violating a city ordinance or tax law, doesn't mean you're not guilty.
There shouldn't be any court battle over this if you did it correctly. FCC trumps.
Dick Cheney brought us the current mess. He set the bar. W was just his sock-puppet.
Oh yeah, that makes sense. The son of a former President, former CIA Director, grandson of a U.S. Senator, and great-grandson of one of the 19th centuries rail barons was merely a sock puppet serving the interests of the son of a minor bureaucrat with the Department of Agriculture. You know, people should look at the nature of history before they start building conspiracy theories.
Every family has their dumbass.
Says the guy that doesn't have to manage a network that just outgrew an /8
This also explains using names like John Connor. You and I would be able to recognize the source of the name. It's much less likely that a senior citizen would, so it gives them a way to filter out the people least likely to fall for the scam.
Really? The original Terminator movie came out in 1984. People now in their 60s would have been about the same age as most of us here. Someone now in their 90s might not know about the movie, but I would bet at least as many people in their 60s and 70s know the name John Connor as do people in their teens and 20s.
Actually it would be the opposite.
The original terminator movie came out in 1984, the sequel came out in 1992. Someone born in 1984 is now 32 years old, you get a lot of people in their 20's who have never seen terminator.
If we add a non-western culture into the mix (in Australia, a lot of these telemarketers/scammers have thick Indian accents) they will likely have never seen Terminator, let alone make the John Conor connection. Also, it's not an unusual name.
I want to know how someone born in 1984 is somehow 32 years old in 2014. This isn't even hard math. The last digit is the same...
Got anything better?
Remove the laws and regulations holding back community fiber projects.
If you truly believe this is the problem, then you clearly have never tried to run a business in that market.
Jeff Sessions, Tea Party Guy. Of course he's going to take the nativist view. He probably thinks Microsoft could just take the 18,000 people it's laying off and repurpose them to fill whatever positions it's trying to use H1B visas for. Because tech skills are interchangeable, right? And all those 18,000 are totally okay relocating across the country (or globe) right?
Just because a lot of his opinions are idiotic, doesn't mean this one is. Tea Party people terrify me, and I still agree with this point.
If all you see is the source in a vote, and not the individual messages or topics, you're part of the problem in our system of government.
I hear the same arguments from failing restaurants, no one complains. People don't complain about the food, they just stop going there.
What you guys don't get is we just don't bother with you at all if you don't look attractive.
We're paying a general market rate here (Palo Alto) plus ~20% and it's STILL hard to find good developers because of the competition with companies like Google.
Right, so you aren't competitive... This isn't hard, you just don't like the answer.
You think we'd have a lot of money if we didn't spend it on wars, imagine how much we would have if we didn't spend it on Welfare (corporate and social) which represents a MUCH larger number.
We could buy every working person a new fuel efficient car every year and repave all the interstates and still have money left over.
Yeah, all we have to do is kill the indigent, poor, lazy, and crippled. Imagine what a better world it would be.
History, and science, seem to think you're an idiot, and the parent is absolutely correct.
See: Tulips, Fishing, Whaling, Timber, Trapping, etc etc etc
#1 is critically important. It is my understanding that getting land rights to put up poles and lay cable is the largest hurdle for many potential providers, to the point of making it cost prohibitive. And who is lobbying to keep it that way? The one provider already in the area. This must be fixed. I agree with you that a free-er (as opposed to completely free) market solution is the best. We just need some ground rules to ensure that competition can be made fair.
Too many people are looking to strong-arm the companies with strict regulation instead of looking at the situation and providing an environment in which the free market can work. We haven't really had a chance for the free market to work, and #1 is a great example of why, so we haven't seen what the free market can do in this sector.
Let's try the less-government solution first. If that doesn't work, then we can go to the more-government later. We can ALWAYS get more government later. It's excruciatingly difficult to go the other direction.
No, you idiot, because this: http://trillastravels.files.wo...
Exactly. It's a problem of over buffering, not a lack of layering violation voodoo.
'You can't kid a kidder. Having been a lobbyist, he knows all their tricks,' says Blair Levin.
So this is what we've been reduced to? The disconsolate wish, having turned the regulatory body over to one of the kleptarchs, that he will discover not only his duty to society but also unbiased objectivity, and turn on his own? A ray of hope so thin strains my credulity.
I don't know, if done right it can go really well. See Joseph Kennedy and the initial SEC. He may actually be on the up and up, only time will tell.
"Perhaps it could feature democratically elected managers."
Because a popularity contest is the best way to chose technical positions.
As if it worked any different in private industry...
The problem is you have to trust that peer to police their network.
It leads to a situation where one bad actor network with content can make it never successful.
Let me try this as simple as I can. Just because you ran BGP with your provider, does not make you a peer or transit network.
You just said default route. That is a leaf node. You're at the end of the world. You are not peering. uRPF is useful when you're a leaf. It is *completely useless as a real peer* in it's current form.
Let me illustrate this for you with a completely made up scenario: You are Telia, you peer with Abovenet in 3 places, how do you configure uRPF on those links so that it keeps spoofed packets out and doesn't break all your downstreams?