Re: Paul Brislen:
" The ISP doesn't. It's up to the rights holder to determine that
you've downloaded that file called The Terminator and that it's a
movie and that they have the rights to it and that you haven't got the
rights to download it.
if they can't demonstrate that to the ISP (which will then check its
records to determine if that file was downloaded and if so at what
time and by whom) then the ISP rejects the claim."
I don't quite get this. I know the ISP will have records of who had
what IP address and perhaps even fairly detailed logs of how much
throughput over the day, but if they get told that whatever IP at
8:08:45 pm was observed downloading The Terminator, are any of the the
ISP's able to refute that? Do they even log what kind of traffic I was
doing at the time? Do they keep track of http vs. torrent vs. skype
Sorry to ask here, but it seemed like the best place to get an
informed answer. Also, beer...
APNIC 32 Conference Report
APNIC would like to thank everyone who contributed to APNIC 32.
The APNIC 32 Conference Report is now available:
View the NRO NC election result, the outcome of the Policy SIG, and much
We also want to thank all our Sponsors for their kind generosity and for
making the event the success that it is.
Sponsors for APNIC 32 include:
Gold Sponsors: NIXI, SK telecom
Silver Sponsors: Google, KT
Bronze Sponsors: TWNIC, CNNIC, JPNIC, Korea Tourism, Busan CVB,
Samsung SDS, SK broadband, LG U+
Social Event Sponsor: PHCOLO
Remote Hub: Mekongnet
APNIC Secretariat secretariat(a)apnic.net
Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) Tel: +61 7 3858 3100
PO Box 3646 South Brisbane, QLD 4101 Australia Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD http://www.apnic.net
* Sent by email to save paper. Print only if necessary.
I'm having a little problem with exhaust ports of some of my Cisco
switches going in the wrong direction so my servers in the same rack are
ingesting the hot air from the switches.
Corp standard for 1RU switches is 2960s but it would appear that 2360s are
what I probably want since they are "Layer-2 top of rack" targeted and
have reversible airflow.
Just wondering if (a) I can get reversible airflow in 2960s or (b) what
is the main difference between the models? Tried finding a comparison page
but nothing so far.
Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.
If you had it all to do over again, what would you use for network
monitoring: Nagios, OpenNMS, or something else entirely?
I care about availaility, latency, loss, jitter, and trap handling for
interface up/down, loss of power, etc. Sensible behavior in situations where
parent routers/links are flapping is also important.
I would very much appreciate input from folks monitoring 1000+ network
+64 27 502 8230
You may recall some discussions on this list back in March about the ITU-T developing a competing MPLS standard to the IETF:
This is still an issue and I recently received the following email from an overseas contact that I thought it would be useful to share:
> ITU-T SG15 is proposing to approve an MPLS Recommendation at its next meeting (December 2011). The history as to why this situation has come about is itself contentious. However were this approval to proceed, there is considerable belief in industry that the creation of a second standard, in addition to the IETF’s MPLS RFC, would be confusing and detrimental to industry.
> The approval of the recommendation is following the ITU-T’s traditional approvals process. This process requires Member States to give the ITU-T the authority to approve the Recommendation, in order for the ITU-T SG15 meeting to be allowed to approve it. [name removed] is trying to assess whether there is sufficient support by Member States to stop authority being granted to the ITU T SG15 meeting and that would remove approval of the Recommendation from the meeting.
> One reason for withholding such support is to give the IETF time to complete its activities. Since the ITU has started its approval’s process, the IETF has been working to develop RFC;s that cover the same issues. Should these activities in the IETF be successful then the need for having the ITU-T Recommendation can be questioned, with the intention of avoiding having 2 standards.
If you would like to see the NZG support this action to prevent the ITU-T from developing a competing standard to the IETF then please speak up and I will pass on the feedback, or alternatively please contact the relevant person from MED directly - Frank March <Frank.March(a)med.govt.nz>
.nz Registry Services (New Zealand Domain Name Registry Limited)
desk: +64 4 931 6977
mobile: +64 21 678840