April 2001 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Canada - Land of ice and snow (was RE: California power ... unplugged)
by Richard A. Steenbergen 30 Apr '01

30 Apr '01

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, John Fraizer wrote: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote: > > > find out where they screwed it up. But as for datacenters, I have also > > heard the theory that canadian customs inspects every packet crossing the > > border, and that one I tend to believe. :P > > Well, you know they have to keep Charles in porn... They have just found a > way to hijack the porn of his "subjects" which was cheaper and easier than > keeping track of his credit card bills. ;-) (You don't know how long I've > been waiting to bust on Charles!) Oh, and to clear up any misunderstanding, that was intented as a joke about the cause of poor canadian/us internet connectivity, not canadian privacy policy. Sorry, it's been a long night. :P -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)

1 0

Re: Canada - Land of ice and snow (was RE: California power ... unplugged) (fwd)
by John Fraizer 30 Apr '01

30 Apr '01

On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Richard A. Steenbergen wrote: > find out where they screwed it up. But as for datacenters, I have also > heard the theory that canadian customs inspects every packet crossing the > border, and that one I tend to believe. :P > > -- > Richard A Steenbergen <ras(a)e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras > PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6) Well, you know they have to keep Charles in porn... They have just found a way to hijack the porn of his "subjects" which was cheaper and easier than keeping track of his credit card bills. ;-) (You don't know how long I've been waiting to bust on Charles!) --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc

1 0

Custom Wireless Solution
by Wojtek Zlobicki 29 Apr '01

29 Apr '01

I saw this question posed on on the forums at AnandTech.com and would love to see if it is plausible. "Ok, here is the deal. I have a freind that lives about 5.7 miles away from me and almost has a line of sight. He would probably have to put an antenae on his house to get a line of sight to mine. At my house, I have no options for high speed internet access, at all, but at his house, he can get cable. I got to thinking, and I came up with an idea. What if I could get ahold of some wireless networking equipment that I could use to network to his house, then he could get cable, we could split the monthly bill, and I would have cable access at my house. Here is my question: What equipment could I use to do this? I found some stuff on cisco's site, but it costs about $8000. The speed does not have to be supper fast, but I would like to have something at least the speed of ISDN. I want to know what other people have to say abhout this, so shoot. " Is this plausible. Is there any technology out there that uses public spectrum over a 6 mile distance ?

9 10

RE: California power ... unplugged.
by Randy Neals 29 Apr '01

29 Apr '01

I don't think we are stupid.... We are the ones building Internet Data Centers in a place that has lots of cheap and environmentally friendly Hydro-Electric power. We have lots of space left, second largest country by area. It's easier to move photons than electrons. -I.AM.CANADIAN -----Original Message----- From: Mike Leber To: Christian Kuhtz Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org Sent: 29/04/2001 6:33 PM Subject: Re: California power ... unplugged. On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Christian Kuhtz wrote: I find this unlikely since Canada is considering selling power to the western US and they use nuclear. Or they are just stupid?

2 1

Linux, ECN and old firewalls
by Lee Watterworth 29 Apr '01

29 Apr '01

Hello all, Bumped into a problem where my firewall was refusing connections from a linux machine, found the reason and thought I would share: ============================== CONFIG_INET_ECN: Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) allows routers to notify clients about network congestion, resulting in fewer dropped packets and increased network performance. This option adds ECN support to the Linux kernel, as well as a sysctl (/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn) which allows ECN support to be disabled at runtime. Note that, on the Internet, there are many broken firewalls which refuse connections from ECN-enabled machines, and it may be a while before these firewalls are fixed. Until then, to access a site behind such a firewall (some of which are major sites, at the time of this writing) you will have to disable this option, either by saying N now or by using the sysctl.

4 4

Re: California power ... unplugged.
by mike harrison 29 Apr '01

29 Apr '01

> regulation and management of the projects, the US programs were plauged by > competition for bids and shortcuts as well as more regional operators. Lowest bidder (and kickback) mentality affects networks as well as power production.... It's worse than doing it low buck and on a prayer.

1 0

Re: California power ... unplugged.
by Nathan Stratton 29 Apr '01

29 Apr '01

On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Andrew Metcalf wrote: > However, Westinghouse was pretty successful with this in France, I think > almost all their plants are from the westinghouse program (something like 50 > plants).. Yep, they have sold them almost everywhere except the US. :-( -Nathan

1 0

RE: California power ... unplugged.
by Nathan Stratton 29 Apr '01

29 Apr '01

On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Dave VanHorn wrote: > Dosen't have to be that way. > The French have a single design in service, all their plants are the same. > Any operator from any plant can operate any other, and they don't have to > design everything from scratch every time. We could learn from this. Actually Westinghouse tried to do this, they were going to get the licenses and everything and all you needed to do was get the operating license in your state. It was a good idea, but it was just 10 years to late. -Nathan

1 0

Contact at Applied Theory?
by Vivien M. 29 Apr '01

29 Apr '01

Hi. Can anyone point me in the direction of the email address of a clueful person at Applied Theory? I've emailed the address at http://puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi nearly 24 hours ago, but gotten no response, and I'm getting slightly tired of any packets from here to EarthLink disappearing into some equivalent of Null0 or /dev/null somewhere on Applied Theory's network. TIA, Vivien -- Vivien M. vivienm(a)dyndns.org Assistant System Administrator Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/

1 0

RE: California power ... unplugged.
by Roeland Meyer 29 Apr '01

29 Apr '01

We don't have to ignore depleted nuke-fuel. For one thing, there are regen/breeder reactors. For another, fuel usage per year is much less than the environmental damage from fossils. Lastly, we only need the nukes until fusion plants are developed. They're working on NIF just down the street, at LLNL. The point is that, the enviros won't let us build fossils and the anti-nukes wont let us build nukes. NIMBYs wont let us build either one. Until that's settled, we wont get any new plants of either stripe. a.k.a. a self-destructive deadlock. I reiterate that it will be more than 5 years before we can get the first batch of new power plants online. The next sucking sound you hear will be businesses evacuating California, once they figure this out. "No tickee, no laundry" and no power, no business. By the time you figure out you need new plants, it's 4 years past starting to build one. Ironically, American companies are building and selling pocket nuke plants that are safe as houses ... for sale to North Korea and Russia. The $4.5B we just paid to the generator companies would have bought 5 or 6 of those. Maybe, the rest of the world deserves better than we do ... But, I digress ... you have been an excellent example of what I wrote about, thank you kindly. Anyway, I wont reply on this thread, on NANOG, anymore. It's getting too far O/T. It has been suggested that we find another list for those that want to discuss this further. I may post on that tomorrow. > From: Roger Marquis [mailto:marquis@roble.com] > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 10:25 PM > > All true, but irrelevant to the people with cancer in the Ukraine > and elsewhere. Still, having worked in rnd.pge.com back when it > was a state of the art department, the consensus there was that > small nuclear plants were far safer than the large one's in vogue > before 3 mile island (whose core is now encased in concrete for > thousands of years). > > No question nuclear is clean but only if you carefully ignore > the danger of depleted uranium. But I digress, that's a problem > for future generations (if we're lucky). > > Roger > > > Sorry, but nukes are clean and safe. Sure people have died > from nukes, > > but millions have died from producing coal for plants. Why > do we build > > coal plants and not nukes? Because people don't care if > OTHERS die, if > > 100,000 people a year die from digging coal they are not in your > > community, that is better then the risk to THEM however small. > >

2 1