Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last
↑↑↑ Old messages ↑↑↑            ↓↓↓ New messages ↓↓↓
[#] Mon Apr 25 2011 22:49:36 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Some of us work in the ISP industry :)

[#] Tue Apr 26 2011 14:14:30 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

And some of us work in the networking equipment industry. :)

[#] Tue Apr 26 2011 15:57:52 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

will become common for hosts to automatically register themselves with

nameservers, and we will have come full circle.

Ahhh but which one is better?

The fat client / thin client circle has now gone around one and a half times, and different people will tell you one or the other is better. It also might be that the registering-yourself thing worked well in small networks but doesn't work well at the internet level for some as yet unforseen reason.

[#] Tue Apr 26 2011 15:59:35 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

you imagine a routine change of your provider-assigned address
renumbering your entire internal network? If they do that, I'd rather

be assigned a single /128 for my firewall and run NAT66.

Okay, maybe my as-yet-unforseen problem has already been forseen.

[#] Tue Apr 26 2011 16:04:35 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Some of us are programmers who don't trust their network department so had to learn a few of the more simple things about networking.


[#] Mon May 02 2011 22:37:28 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


The fat client / thin client circle has now gone around one and a half times, and different people will tell you one or the other is better. It also might be that the registering-yourself thing worked well in small networks but doesn't work well at the internet level for some as yet unforseen reason.

We're not talking about registering your host with DNS at the "entire Internet" level.  What would happen (and in some cases is already happening) is that your host registers itself with your local nameserver.  In a well-integrated network it'll actually happen automatically.  (This was easier when there was such a thing as DHCP, but we'll get there anyway)



[#] Tue May 03 2011 16:33:35 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

Subject: Re:

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

But then how do you refer to your machine from the open net?
Is everybody going to start being universe.galaxy.westernspiralarm.whatexactlyiswestwhenyourereferringtothegalax y.unfashionableend.earth.us.ny.mtkisco.me

That's a hell of a url.
Of course that's google's problem, not ours.

[#] Wed May 04 2011 15:01:04 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Here's a question for ya.
There's zillions of speed tests on the internet, but I'm trying to find a connectivity test that's not about speed, and I can't.
As in, I want it to see how long it takes to look up dns, I want to see how long it takes to connect, and the latency, things like that.
Once it gets going my mass data transfers are fast, but sometimes there's a lot of lag in starting a new connection or just hangups in the middle.

Are there any popular good diagnostic tests? I realize it would have to be a linux program not a webpage if it were going to be reall good, but I'll take anything at this point.

[#] Thu May 05 2011 09:26:28 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

If you are using scp for transfers and it takes a bit to get connected, you could try to disable reverse dns lookups on the server end:
Edit /etc/ssh/sshd_config and add UseDNS no

[#] Thu May 05 2011 09:29:10 EDT from ax25 @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Not related to dns lookups, but httping has been a usefull tool for me to test connection setup and time it takes to get the headers instead of a whole page, but that would be testing the web server instead of response times for dns.

[#] Thu May 05 2011 17:18:39 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

traceroute--or tracert on Windows--is a "low-level" network tool that will report round-trip times on a per-hop basis to a destination. It does its thing using ICMP packets, so it's best suited for gauging network delay. You'd need an application-specific tool to test how long it takes the destination to process a request.

For DNS, though, don't nslookup and dig have options to report the time it takes to fulfill a request?
tracebinder

[#] Sun May 08 2011 13:21:42 EDT from ambushbug @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I used uucp bangpaths way back when for email and I loved them(sorta) at the time. I also had 100+ bbs phone numbers, login/password tuples memorized.


The old grey matter ain't what she used to be.

[#] Tue May 10 2011 11:49:00 EDT from dothebart @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

so, twitter and facebook ditch a bunch of ther RSS/Atoms:

http://www.staynalive.com/2011/05/twitter-and-facebook-both-quietly-kill.html

twitter still seems to support:

http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/[ID].rss

and facebook rss'ing your own wall.



[#] Wed May 11 2011 22:19:46 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

traceroute--or tracert on Windows--is a "low-level" network tool that

will report round-trip times on a per-hop basis to a destination. It


mtr is even better -- it operates continuously and keeps a rolling average of the latency and dropped packet rate to each hop in the path. mtr is probably the closest thing to what you're looking for.

[#] Thu May 12 2011 09:10:34 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

that's COOL. thanks.

[#] Wed Jun 01 2011 15:38:25 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I just want one thing to work.
I've got 3 stupid projects and none of them work.
Here's one:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Wireless_Bridge

I did exactly what they said, and something is working.
I've got the ddwrt router plugged into nothing but the power outlet and I can ping it from my wired network so the wireless bridge is working.
But nothing I've got will connect wirelessly to the ddwrt router.
As in I get the same crappy signal from my far away main wireless router as I do the ddwrt router.
What am I doing wrong?

Specifically I'm trying to get my G1 to connect to it. The thing is, with the same ssid, how can I tell which router my g1 is actually connecting to?

[#] Wed Jun 01 2011 16:13:32 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Stupid question, but did you see that there's a link to more up-to-date instructions at the top of the page?

http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Client_Bridged

The first thing that pops into my mind is that your wireless devices might be caching info about the last AP they were connected to. I think Weendoze does this to allow fast reconnection if it loses the signal. In fact, in Windows I think it's called fast-reconnect and can be disabled. You might check to see if your devices have a similar feature.

There's two ways I can think of to check which AP a wireless device connects to. The first is to see if the device can display the MAC address of the AP to which it's connected. Unfortunately, not all devices have an option to display that.

The second way is to log into the management interface for each AP and have it display the list of connected devices. This is the most sure-fire way and pretty much every AP should have the ability to at least display this list. Each device will be identified by its MAC address.
AP Binder

[#] Wed Jun 01 2011 16:58:19 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

right, well, I do and the client bridge router (ddwrt) doesn't show anything.
I think I did follow those instructions or at least they're very similar to the ones I read, but I did all the stuff they mention.

[#] Wed Jun 01 2011 17:34:47 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I have another router I'm installing ddwrt on hopefully that will work.

[#] Wed Jun 01 2011 18:01:10 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Same thing. intalled ddwrt set it up as per directions, enabled web security, I can now ping the client bridge router from my wired network, but nothing seems to pick up a good signal when I'm far away from my main wifi radio but close to the client bridge one.
I could be doing something wrong or ddwrt is broken, but the only thing I can rule out at the moment is that the router is fine, since I got the same results with both. blah.

Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last