[125253] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Micheal Patterson)
Sun Apr 11 12:40:34 2010
From: "Micheal Patterson" <micheal@spmedicalgroup.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:38:14 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I'm more inclined to believe that it would be a solar conjunction actually.
The scenerio would be that they lost track of their bird and started
tracking the sun. Since we all know that old Sol is an excellant originating
point of radiated noise, surely with that much noise, and a solid lock on
it, the odds of its random noise being something decipherable are much more
acceptable than normal.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
To: "Paul Vixie" <vixie@isc.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 9:07 AM
Subject: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack)
>
> Paul Vixie <vixie@isc.org> writes:
>
>> i'm more inclined to blame the heavy solar wind this month and to assume
>> that chinanet's routers don't use ECC on the RAM containing their RIBs
>> and
>> that chinanet's router jockeys are in quite a sweat about this bad
>> publicity.
>> --
>> Paul Vixie
>> KI6YSY
>
> That is likely to be an increasing problem in upcoming months/years.
> Solar cycle 24 started in August '09; we're ramping up on the way out
> of a more serious than usual sunspot minimum.
>
> We've seen great increases in CPU and memory speeds as well as disk
> densities since the last maximum (March 2000). Speccing ECC memory is
> a reasonable start, but this sort of thing has been a problem in the
> past (anyone remember the Sun UltraSPARC CPUs that had problems last
> time around?) and will no doubt bite us again.
>
> Rob Seastrom, AI4UC
>
