New Node [and PI space]

[mick]

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:06:40 -0400
grarpamp <grarpamp at gmail.com> allegedly wrote:

> On 8/24/10, Sven Olaf Kamphuis <sven at cb3rob.net> wrote:
> >> additional management overhead.
> > eh say what?
> 
> I agree with this from experience as well. There is no real technical
> problem with
> PI space on non-legacy gear anymore. And any recent PC can crunch
> more tables than routers of the same age, they just don't have
> silicon switching or port density yet... that's an aside, though
> relevant to following sections.
>
> It's age or just more hands on setup and verification/paper grunt
> work that some [many] operators decline to do, especially without
> surcharge. Small ISP's should take it on for fun. Large ones that
> don't take it on may be a sign of technical or other weakness.

I moved the /24s from UKERNA to CWC back in the early to mid 90s (and
we didn't call them Clueless and Witless for nothing....)

> > mick sayeth
> > The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines.
> > Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this?
> 
> yeah, it'll probably take 854 years to get rid of telnet,
> and umm, rlogin... eh mick? heh.

:-) Heh indeed, but ssh.net had gone when I registered that.

Mick

---------------------------------------------------------------------

The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. 
Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this?

Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt
---------------------------------------------------------------------



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/attachments/20100824/e4ddbb06/attachment.pgp>