nanog mailing list archives
Re: Solar Flux
From: Pete Carah <pete () altadena net>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:40:33 -0400
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
Current thread:
- Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack) Warren Bailey (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux Paul Vixie (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux Pete Carah (Apr 11)
- RE: Solar Flux George Bonser (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux Robert E. Seastrom (Apr 12)
- Re: Solar Flux Pete Carah (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux Paul Vixie (Apr 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack) Leigh Porter (Apr 11)
- Re: Solar Flux (was: Re: China prefix hijack) Warren Bailey (Apr 11)
