<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
> <channel><title>IPHere &#187; Respond</title> <atom:link href="https://www.iphere.com/tag/respond/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>https://www.iphere.com</link> <description>We show your current IP</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2022 14:13:56 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator> <item><title>Readers Respond: F5 Firewall Challenges Cisco, Check Point</title><link>https://www.iphere.com/readers-respond-f5-firewall-challenges-cisco-check-point</link> <comments>https://www.iphere.com/readers-respond-f5-firewall-challenges-cisco-check-point#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:21:28 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>IPHere</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[General]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Challenges]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Check]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Cisco]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Firewall]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Point]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Readers]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Respond]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.iphere.com/readers-respond-f5-firewall-challenges-cisco-check-point</guid> <description><![CDATA[Network Computing readers weighed in on F5&#8217;s entry into the firewall market and how its strategy of integrating firewall software into its load-balancing platform might play out with customers and competitors. Network Computing]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.iphere.com/readers-respond-f5-firewall-challenges-cisco-check-point/feed</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>The Cable Conundrum Continues &#8211; Vendors Respond</title><link>https://www.iphere.com/the-cable-conundrum-continues-vendors-respond</link> <comments>https://www.iphere.com/the-cable-conundrum-continues-vendors-respond#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:13:18 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>IPHere</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[General]]></category> <category><![CDATA[&#8211]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Cable]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Continues]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Conundrum]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Respond]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Vendors]]></category> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.iphere.com/the-cable-conundrum-continues-vendors-respond</guid> <description><![CDATA[After my initial adventures with 10 gigabit Ethernet cabling, as recounted in The 10 Gigabit Ethernet Cable Conundrum, I realized I needed to research this matter further. I put together a few simple questions about 10 gigabit Ethernet connection technologies and sent them to some leading vendors to see what challenges a system administrator building [&#8230;]]]></description> <wfw:commentRss>https://www.iphere.com/the-cable-conundrum-continues-vendors-respond/feed</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>