[125284] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Solar Flux
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Pete Carah)
Sun Apr 11 23:40:51 2010
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:40:33 -0400
From: Pete Carah <pete@altadena.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <g3wrwdabra.fsf@nsa.vix.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 04/11/2010 06:02 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> Warren Bailey <wbailey@gci.com> writes:
>
>
>> Are we thinking its going to get worse??
>>
> i am. looking at some local passive dns data (generated from ISC SIE),
> we find the following single bit errors by anchoring some searches at
> the known names and addresses of the f-root server. DNS does not have
> its own crc or checksum, it relies on UDP and IP for error detection
> (in which it is weak or nonexistant). i think it's probably time to
> formalize the study of bit errors in DNS, and then see if we can make
> a sensible mapping between what we observe and what the solar flux is.
>
> because if they're related and we're going to have a strong solar cycle
> then everybody's insurance rates are about to go up.
>
And to top it all off, how many picojoules are stored in a modern ram cell
compared to the same during the last sunspot peak. There is a hidden
cost to memory density growth here...
-- Pete
