I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart
html crap.
+1
Unfair: the 'text' formatting mode from GMail is very standard
compliant, trimming the lines etc.
Maybe one should just more
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 16:49 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:41 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:37 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:01 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
Nope, ARP is gone. But it gets a replacement as a
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Brunner, Brian T.
bbrun...@gai-tronics.com wrote:
From: centos-boun...@centos.org
[mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Tom H
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:34 AM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:27 AM, Adam Tauno Williams
awill...@whitemice.org wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:16 +, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off
On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 08:32 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 16:49 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:41 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:37 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:01 +0100, David
On 08/12/10 04:15, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 9:02 PM, Ryan Wagoner wrote:
Well in fact I don't think that will even work with the present URL
rules. Just on a lark I clicked on your string, and my firefox
interpreted it as http://3ffe:1900. Unless there's a special http
protocol string
On 08/12/10 03:36, Ross Walker wrote:
On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org
wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:37 -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
On Dec 7, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Adam Tauno
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:15:50PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 9:02 PM, Ryan Wagoner wrote:
Well in fact I don't think that will even work with the present URL
rules. Just on a lark I clicked on your string, and my firefox
interpreted it as http://3ffe:1900. Unless there's a
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 21:36 -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
I can only image phonetically calling these off on a support call, I'd
get half way through it and the other end would tell me to forget it
I'll wait until DNS is working again.
You aren't crippled currently when DNS doesn't work?
On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it)
Really? In blatant disregard for the published guidelines for
use on this and other
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been
already written before you reply.
But all the time people snip out big sections. That IMHO defeats the
reason for bottom posting.
Top posting ruins the
On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 05:10 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
The even more horrendous problem, which is so pervasive it affects
everyone, is the insistence on asymmetric connections. Even when
Australia does get this fabled fibre-to-the-home, it still won't be
symmetric. *sigh*
Fibre
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been already
written before you reply.
But all the time people snip out big sections. That IMHO defeats the reason
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:41:58AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
Why do we bottom post? People have said so you can read what has been
already written before you reply.
But all the time people snip out big sections. That IMHO
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:43:03AM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
http://howto-pages.org/posting_style
give good explanations. Trimming is important. Putting a two line
answer at the end of 400 line message isn't
Scott Robbins wrote:
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:43:03AM -0500, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Scott Robbins wrote:
http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php
http://howto-pages.org/posting_style
give good explanations. Trimming is important. Putting a two line
answer at the end of
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart
html crap.
---
This message and any attachments may contain Cypress (or its
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:16 +, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post properly.
Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off multipart
html crap.
+1
Although I've found @gmail user's consider themselves
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:01 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
Nope, ARP is gone. But it gets a replacement as a part of IPv6, instead
of ARP being an addition to IPv4.
http://itkia.com/how-to-arp-a-in-ipv6/
http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPIPIPv6NeighborDiscoveryProtocolND.htm
I have a
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:37 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:01 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
Nope, ARP is gone. But it gets a replacement as a part of IPv6, instead
of ARP being an addition to IPv4.
http://itkia.com/how-to-arp-a-in-ipv6/
On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:03:26 am Scott Robbins wrote:
I remember in an effort to get a life outside tech, I joined a mailing
list for something else. I hadn't realized how most people top post,
don't trim, and still use aol.
Lots of corporate people top post to retain the
Le 2010-12-08 07:41, Steve Clark a écrit :
On 12/07/2010 04:31 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it)
Really? In blatant disregard for the published
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 15:16 +, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
I guess the reason it jars us here is because most people post
properly.
Except the gmail lusers who haven't figured out how to turn off
multipart html crap.
+1
Although I've found @gmail
Lots of corporate people top post to retain the threading,
and get rather upset when you trim the replies below, since
they aren't using MUA's that can thread. Not to mention that
top-posting is the default reply setup for the most commonly
used corporate-type MUA's.
+1. M$ Outlook
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:41 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 09:37 -0600, David G. Mackay wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 10:01 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
Nope, ARP is gone. But it gets a replacement as a part of IPv6, instead
of ARP being an addition to IPv4.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Bob McConnell rmcco...@lightlink.com wrote:
Ryan Wagoner wrote:
IPv6 is not broken by design. NAT was implemented to extend the time
until IPv4 exhaustion. A side effect was hiding the internal IPv4
address, which complicates a number of protocols like FTP and
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Ryan Wagoner rswago...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Bob McConnell rmcco...@lightlink.com wrote:
Ryan Wagoner wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Bob McConnell rmcco...@lightlink.com
wrote:
David Sommerseth wrote:
On 06/12/10 15:29, Todd
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:08 AM, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 08:57 AM, David wrote:
Folks
I have been following the IPV6 comments.
What concerns me with the loss of NAT are the following issues:
1) My
On 07/12/10 02:26, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/6/10 6:27 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
You are enjoying a side-effect of NAT by thinking it
is a firewall.
The other nice side-effect of NAT is that you get an effectively infinite
number
of addresses behind it without any pre-arrangement with
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 17:15 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
So, spending one or two or 100s /64 subnets with public IPv6 addresses
which is completely blocked in a firewall will serve exactly the same
purpose as a site-local subnet. But this /64 net may get access to the
Internet *if*
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:28 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
IPv6 is not broken by design. NAT was implemented to extend the time
until IPv4 exhaustion. A side effect was hiding the internal IPv4
address, which complicates a number of protocols like FTP and SIP. The
only downside I see is ISPs
b) Do I get charged by my ISP on a per-device basis?
Heh, if they want to micromanage...
This is no science fiction.
Some big providers in some countries limit the number of device that
can connect to internet. You have to register the MAC address of your
single PC (which, by the way, is
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 07:23 PM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
b) Do I get charged by my ISP on a per-device basis?
Heh, if they want to micromanage...
This is no science fiction.
Never said it was.
Some big providers in some countries limit the number of device that
can connect to
/me does not care. Not sure about other folks though...do them a service :-p
In theory, a lot of residential routers (not provided by the ISP) will
allow to set the sent MAC address via their web interface.
And on a full fledged Linux OS:
ifconfig ethX hw ether MY:MA:CA:DD:RE:SS
(or something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mathieu Baudier said the following on 07/12/10 12:23:
Some big providers in some countries limit the number of device that
can connect to internet.
FastWeb does this in Italy.
They configure their router (to which you do NOT have access) giving
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 12:23:08PM +0100, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
b) Do I get charged by my ISP on a per-device basis?
Heh, if they want to micromanage...
This is no science fiction.
Some big providers in some countries limit the number of device that
can connect to internet. You
On 12/07/2010 12:53 PM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
...
And on a full fledged Linux OS:
ifconfig ethX hw ether MY:MA:CA:DD:RE:SS
(or something like that, see man ifconfig)
I just did not say whether I have ever tried in real...
You just add the following line to
Can a machine with only an IPV6 address communicate with a machine that only
has an IPV4 or are they separate?
--
Sincerely,
John Thomas
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 07/12/10 12:23, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
b) Do I get charged by my ISP on a per-device basis?
Heh, if they want to micromanage...
This is no science fiction.
Some big providers in some countries limit the number of device that
can connect to internet. You have to register the MAC
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:17PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
3) When I connect my IPV6 refrigerator with its automatic inventory
system tracking every RFID-enabled carrot I use, won't I be making my
shopping habits visible to all those annoying advertisers? Or, in
other words, am I
On 12/07/2010 06:56 AM, Luigi Rosa wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mathieu Baudier said the following on 07/12/10 12:23:
Some big providers in some countries limit the number of device that
can connect to internet.
FastWeb does this in Italy.
They configure
On 12/07/2010 05:13 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 07/12/10 02:26, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/6/10 6:27 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
You are enjoying a side-effect of NAT by thinking it
is a firewall.
The other nice side-effect of NAT is that you get an effectively infinite number
On 07/12/10 13:22, John Thomas wrote:
Can a machine with only an IPV6 address communicate with a machine that
only has an IPV4 or are they separate?
They are separated. It's two different protocols, even though they are
similar in many aspects.
There are some projects trying to bridge that
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:26 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/6/10 6:27 PM, Brian Mathis wrote:
You are enjoying a side-effect of NAT by thinking it
is a firewall.
The other nice side-effect of NAT is that you get an effectively infinite
number
of addresses behind it without any
3) When I connect my IPV6 refrigerator with its automatic inventory
system tracking every RFID-enabled carrot I use, won't I be making
my
shopping habits visible to all those annoying advertisers? Or, in
other words, am I compromising my privacy? Actually, although such
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 20:55 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
David wrote:
Folks
I have been following the IPV6 comments.
What concerns me with the loss of NAT are the following issues
3) When I connect my IPV6 refrigerator with its automatic inventory
system tracking every RFID-enabled
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 17:15 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
So, spending one or two or 100s /64 subnets with public IPv6 addresses
which is completely blocked in a firewall will serve exactly the same
purpose as a site-local subnet. But this /64 net may get access to
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 05:29:09 am Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:28 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
No, the downside is that each address used will be exposed to the world.
False. That is *NOT* a downside.
In your opinion. Others hold a different opinion. While
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Mathieu Baudier mbaud...@argeo.org wrote:
b) Do I get charged by my ISP on a per-device basis?
This is no science fiction.
Some big providers in some countries limit the number of device that
can connect to internet. You have to register the MAC address
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:28 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
IPv6 is not broken by design. NAT was implemented to extend the time
until IPv4 exhaustion. A side effect was hiding the internal IPv4
address, which complicates a number of protocols like FTP and SIP. The
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Bob McConnell rmcco...@lightlink.com wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:28 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
IPv6 is not broken by design. NAT was implemented to extend the time
until IPv4 exhaustion. A side effect was hiding the internal IPv4
Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 05:29:09 am Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:28 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
No, the downside is that each address used will be exposed to the
world.
False. That is *NOT* a downside.
In your opinion. Others hold a
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:11 -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 05:29:09 am Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:28 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
No, the downside is that each address used will be exposed to the world.
False. That is *NOT* a downside.
In
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:32:32 am Tom H wrote:
Is 172.16.10.72 a private address of yours or of your ISP?
More to the point; do you have a route to his address?
Blackhole routing makes the best firewall in the world; you can't even attempt
to hack an address to which your autonomous
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:32 -0500, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Bob McConnell rmcco...@lightlink.com wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:28 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
IPv6 is not broken by design. NAT was implemented to extend the time
until IPv4
Gavin Carr wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:17PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
3) When I connect my IPV6 refrigerator with its automatic inventory
system tracking every RFID-enabled carrot I use, won't I be making my
shopping habits visible to all those annoying advertisers? Or, in
other
On 12/7/10 9:07 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
site-local addresses are officially deprecated.
If you want a device to only be available locally - block the traffic
to/from that device.
So security will depend on every connection owner having a high level of
knowledge about ipv6 internals?
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:49 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
There _is_ more information leakage with ipv6, in the sense that you are
using a real ip from an internal machine on the connection. But the
point is that the security benefit of that is largely illusory, security
by obscurity.
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:01 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 9:07 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
site-local addresses are officially deprecated.
If you want a device to only be available locally - block the traffic
to/from that device.
So security will depend on every connection
On 12/7/10 9:04 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
The other nice side-effect of NAT is that you get an effectively infinite
number
of addresses behind it without any pre-arrangement with anyone else. Even if
ISPs hand out what they expect to reasonably-sized blocks, won't it be much
harder to
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:16 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 9:04 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Some people's belief that NAT is some magic sauce that makes
themmore
secure [it does not] or provides them more flexibility [it does not]
than real addresses ... causes the people who
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Brunner, Brian T.
bbrun...@gai-tronics.com wrote:
Trim your quotes.
LOL
I was in a hurry... I think that this applies to all in this thread so
I hope that you've email everyone else...
Also, please keep your commands on-list; I only caught your email
because
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:43 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:32:32 am Tom H wrote:
Is 172.16.10.72 a private address of yours or of your ISP?
More to the point; do you have a route to his address?
I have a route to his dsl router, which, assuming that the
LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it)
I didn't want my whining (not commanding) archived for-frigging-ever, so
I sent it direct.
TBH I ran out of steam/indignation/angst after a few of the over-quoter
under-trimmers, so I didn't get all.
-Original
On 12/7/10 10:20 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
Some people's belief that NAT is some magic sauce that makes
themmore
secure [it does not] or provides them more flexibility [it does not]
than real addresses ... causes the people who understand networking to
have to spend time explaining that
On 12/7/2010 11:36 AM, Tom H wrote:
I have a route to his dsl router, which, assuming that the ipv4 and
ipv6 firewalls are as good at allowing/disallowing access, makes his
current ipv4 and his future ipv6 addresses equally accessible.
I've been following the NAT debate here and something
On 07/12/10 16:49, Bob McConnell wrote:
Gavin Carr wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:55:17PM -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
3) When I connect my IPV6 refrigerator with its automatic inventory
system tracking every RFID-enabled carrot I use, won't I be making my
shopping habits visible to all
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Les Mikesell said the following on 07/12/10 17:01:
So security will depend on every connection owner having a high level of
knowledge about ipv6 internals? Is this being designed by people planning
careers as consultants?
A network protocol
On 07/12/10 18:01, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 10:20 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
[...snip...]
permit outbound client connections from anything connected behind them
without much regard to how many devices there are, and block everything
else isn't NAT. That's a router/firewall.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/7/10 9:07 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
site-local addresses are officially deprecated.
If you want a device to only be available locally - block the traffic
to/from that device.
So security will depend on
On 07/12/10 16:45, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 10:32 -0500, Tom H wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Bob McConnell rmcco...@lightlink.com
wrote:
Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 18:28 -0500, Bob McConnell wrote:
IPv6 is not broken by design. NAT
On 12/7/10 11:19 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 07/12/10 18:01, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 10:20 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
[...snip...]
permit outbound client connections from anything connected behind them
without much regard to how many devices there are, and block everything
On 07/12/10 18:10, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:36 AM, Tom H wrote:
I have a route to his dsl router, which, assuming that the ipv4 and
ipv6 firewalls are as good at allowing/disallowing access, makes his
current ipv4 and his future ipv6 addresses equally accessible.
I've been
On 07/12/10 18:39, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 11:19 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 07/12/10 18:01, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 10:20 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
[...snip...]
permit outbound client connections from anything connected behind them
without much regard to how many
On 12/7/2010 12:43 PM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 07/12/10 18:10, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:36 AM, Tom H wrote:
I have a route to his dsl router, which, assuming that the ipv4 and
ipv6 firewalls are as good at allowing/disallowing access, makes his
current ipv4 and his future ipv6
On 12/7/10 11:10 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I have a route to his dsl router, which, assuming that the ipv4 and
ipv6 firewalls are as good at allowing/disallowing access, makes his
current ipv4 and his future ipv6 addresses equally accessible.
I've been following the NAT debate here and
On 07/12/10 18:52, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 12/7/2010 12:43 PM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 07/12/10 18:10, Bowie Bailey wrote:
On 12/7/2010 11:36 AM, Tom H wrote:
I have a route to his dsl router, which, assuming that the ipv4 and
ipv6 firewalls are as good at allowing/disallowing access, makes
On 7/12/10 8:33 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
Ah, I must pity you who have to live with what you've got in the United
States being under the rule of these tyrants. You guys probably can only
dream of getting a 100MB fibre connection for 13USD/mnth or a 1GB fibre
connection for 30 or so
On 12/7/2010 1:13 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 12/7/10 11:10 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
I have a route to his dsl router, which, assuming that the ipv4 and
ipv6 firewalls are as good at allowing/disallowing access, makes his
current ipv4 and his future ipv6 addresses equally accessible.
I've been
On 8/12/10 4:12 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 07/12/10 16:49, Bob McConnell wrote:
No, it is not FUD, it is a real concern by people with much to lose.
Those of you evangelizing this new, and still unproven technology can't
seem to recognize this simple fact.
This is FUD.
Agreed, but
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:26:30 pm David Sommerseth wrote:
You mean something along the way ... Oh, this Bob uses 172.16.10.72 ...
let's run some traceroutes towards his gateway. That could be
64.57.176.18, right? Then we can just setup a direct route from us to
his 172.16.10.0/24
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:39:28 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
How many devices? You mean exceeding the number of available inside a
IPv6 subnet? I do hope you're kidding ... as for a /64 subnet we're
talking about 4.294.967.296 addresses doubled 32 times.
Is that what people will
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 03:31:15 pm Lamar Owen wrote:
It will depend upon your provider if you get PA addresses;
Minor edit: 'The prefix size of your address block with depend upon your
provider, if you get PA addresses by default from your provider;
Sorry for the error.
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 11:51:16AM -0500, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
LOL twice, I'll top-post! (I hate M$ Office, but I'm stuck with it)
Really? In blatant disregard for the published guidelines for
use on this and other centos.org mailing lists? How very
sporting of
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Adam Tauno Williams
awill...@whitemice.org wrote:
Bogus. The reason is that they haven't been pressured into adoption by
higher powers; so we will get into a nice scramble to migrate in a
pinch.
most people have no idea what NAT is, don't care, and shouldn't
On Dec 7, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Adam Tauno Williams
awill...@whitemice.org wrote:
Bogus. The reason is that they haven't been pressured into adoption by
higher powers; so we will get into a nice scramble to migrate in a
Does this mean I have to type in URLs like:
http://3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf/
I can only image phonetically calling these off on a support call, I'd get
half way through it and the other end would tell me to forget it I'll wait
until DNS is working again.
In fact with DNS
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:37 -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
On Dec 7, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Adam Tauno Williams
awill...@whitemice.org wrote:
Bogus. The reason is that they haven't been pressured into adoption by
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:44 -0500, Tony Schreiner wrote:
Does this mean I have to type in URLs like:
http://3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf/
I can only image phonetically calling these off on a support call,
I'd get half way through it and the other end would tell me to forget
it I'll
On Dec 7, 2010, at 9:20 PM, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org wrote:
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:37 -0500, Ross Walker wrote:
On Dec 7, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nka...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Adam Tauno Williams
awill...@whitemice.org wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Tony Schreiner schre...@bc.edu wrote:
Does this mean I have to type in URLs like:
http://3ffe:1900:4545:3:200:f8ff:fe21:67cf/
I can only image phonetically calling these off on a support call, I'd get
half way through it and the other end would tell me to
On 12/7/10 9:02 PM, Ryan Wagoner wrote:
Well in fact I don't think that will even work with the present URL
rules. Just on a lark I clicked on your string, and my firefox
interpreted it as http://3ffe:1900. Unless there's a special http
protocol string for ipv6?
Tony
Since : is used to
On Wednesday, December 08, 2010 03:11 AM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 7/12/10 8:33 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
Ah, I must pity you who have to live with what you've got in the United
States being under the rule of these tyrants. You guys probably can only
dream of getting a 100MB fibre connection
On 05/12/10 14:21, Tom H wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:13 AM, RedShift redsh...@pandora.be wrote:
On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
(http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
Haven't switched yet, I have IPv6 at home using sixxs.
I can't even
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 13:50 +0200, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
Seeing as IPV4 is near it's end of life
(http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to
IPV6?
Is anyone using it in production
On 12/06/2010 01:22 PM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to
IPV6?
Is anyone using it in production already, and what are your experiences with
it?
generic questions like that are more suited to ipv6 centric lists. if
you are
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 14:13 +0100, RedShift wrote:
On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
Seeing as IPV4 is near it's end of life
(http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
I'm curios as who know whether everyone is ready for the changeover to
On Dec 6, 2010, at 5:27 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 05/12/10 14:21, Tom H wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:13 AM, RedShift redsh...@pandora.be wrote:
On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
(http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3915471/IPv4+Nearing+Final+Days.htm),
Haven't
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:29 -0600, Todd Rinaldo wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 5:27 AM, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 05/12/10 14:21, Tom H wrote:
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:13 AM, RedShift redsh...@pandora.be wrote:
On 12/05/10 12:50, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
On Dec 6, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Adam Tauno Williams awill...@whitemice.org wrote:
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO and NO! (*...@!^*...@$ @*^*$@ *...@^*@ How many
times does this have to be explained??? NAT *IS* *NOT* a @*(^*(^@(*@
security tool. It isn't. Stop saying it is. You use *firewalls* for
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
