Hello all,
does anybody knows the NIC for Afghanistan ?
I have to register a domain in the com.af, but I couldn't find any registrar who can
help.
I did try to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED], that is listed as the sponsor for the
CC-TLD .af, but I don't get any reply.
Any information regarding
On Tuesday 7 January 2003, at 16 h 40,
Hendrianto Muljawan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to register a domain in the com.af, but I couldn't find any registrar
who can help.
Giving the situation in Afghanistan, I wish you good luck.
I did try to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED], that is listed
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:51:21AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I have to register a domain in the com.af, but I couldn't find any registrar
who can help.
Giving the situation in Afghanistan, I wish you good luck.
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;af.IN SOA
;;
At 17:00 07/01/2003 +, Verd, Brad wrote:
This message explains an upcoming change in certain behavior of the
com and net authoritative name servers related to internationalized
domain names (IDNs).
Hi,
This is to inform you that Characterisation GmbH (www.characterisation.de)
has
At 17:40 07/01/2003 +, Steve Dyer wrote:
This is to inform you that Characterisation GmbH (www.characterisation.de)
has patents pending Ref PCT/DE02/00632 filed 28th February 2001.
CentralNic have actually been working with this system for around 12 months
now, and it's pretty cool. It
CentralNic have actually been working with this system for around 12 months
now, and it's pretty cool. It works with a lot more browsers than the VGRS
one, and requires no client or server-side plugins or patches :)
It's really rather good at providing a seamless end-to-end IDN solution
Hi, this is kind of a newbie question but this doesn't make a whole lot of
sense :P
I have an etherstack hub connected to a FastEthernet port on a cisco 3660
router, these are the stats when I do a show int fast0/0:
5776 input errors, 5776 CRC, 2717 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored
Whats weird is I
Hi there, no that is not normal. How long is the cat5 between the two?
Also, with a hub you should normally see collisions but not crc errors.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Drew Weaver wrote:
Hi, this is kind of a newbie question but this doesn't make a whole lot of
sense :P
I have an etherstack
Check your duplex settigs you may also want to test with another cable.
Thanks,
Mario Puras
SoluNet Technical Support
Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Direct: (321) 309-1410
888.449.5766 (USA) / 888.SOLUNET (Canada)
-Original Message-
From: Drew Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Title: RE: Weird networking issue.
By nature, a hub is half-duplex - it's a repeater.
Besides, misconfigured duplex will not cause CRC errors.
C.
-Original Message-
From: David G. Andersen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 2:08 PM
To: Drew Weaver
Cc:
I have an available cabinet at 55 Market Street 11th floor co-locate. If
anyone is interested in space there, please let me know. It currently has a
private 100mb fddi to the switch.
Andrew Staples
www.nwnetcom.com
I am not a vegetarian because I love animals; I am a vegetarian because I
hate
Sun's hme cards won't go full duplex even though they advertise it to
remote switch, causing immense headaches to anyone with Sun gear...
http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~rayh/solaris/solaris2-faq.html#q4.13
-alex
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh. Tell that to my Catalyst 3548's
David G. Andersen wrote:
Rule number 1 with any ethernet: Check to make sure you have the duplex
and rate statically configured, and configured identically on both ends of
the connection. [...]
I'd like to thank Cisco for this piece of advice, as the only company
incapable of
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun's hme cards won't go full duplex even though they advertise it to
remote switch, causing immense headaches to anyone with Sun gear...
That is just not true. I've had several Sun boxes with hme interfaces
properly autoneg into 100/full with
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Charles Youse wrote:
Besides, misconfigured duplex will not cause CRC errors.
Yes it will. It will cause CRC errors/RX underflows/RX frags/RX align on
one end and late collissions on the other end depending on which one is
running half duplex and which one is running full
### On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 22:32:15 +0100 (CET), Mikael Abrahamsson
### [EMAIL PROTECTED] casually decided to expound upon '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
### [EMAIL PROTECTED] the following thoughts about RE: Weird networking
### issue.:
MA On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MA
MA Sun's hme cards
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Jake Khuon wrote:
problems in the past, namely a bunch of E4500s to some 5000-series switches.
Since they were in remote datacenters, I did pin the interfaces on both
ends.
I've seen problems with 3548:s and Sun le-interfaces though, sometimes the
link would only see
At 10:32 PM 1/7/2003 +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun's hme cards won't go full duplex even though they advertise it to
remote switch, causing immense headaches to anyone with Sun gear...
That is just not true. I've had several Sun boxes with
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should be avoided
whenever possible. When you are looking for the root cause of the errors on
your 3660, look at the speed and duplex settings for each device connecting
to the etherstack hub. If one of those is miss-configured or possibly
This may be of interst:
AP: Bush Expected to Sign Scaled Back Internet Security Plan
Washington, DC -- A new Bush administration plan aimed at improving the
security of key U.S. computer networks will not be as ambitious as
previously indicated, the Associated Press reported on Tuesday. The
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Braun, Mike wrote:
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should be avoided
whenever possible. When you are looking for the root cause of the errors on
I don't agree. I have seen more problems generated by incompetence in
trying to fix duplex/speed, than
Even Cisco states in some of their documentation
that it is best to pin the interfaces to match
both ends. I have had many a strange issue with
auto negotiation depending on which side was up first.
Additionally, TAC usually says to never trust
auto negotiation.
Regards,
Jeff
-Original
Peter E. Fry wrote:
[...] the only [...]
Yeah, *that* is a nutty statement. I could re-phrase, but I think
most here get the intent.
Peter E. Fry
At 18:07 07/01/2003 +, Neil J. McRae wrote:
CentralNic have actually been working with this system for around 12
months
Have you looked at RFC 2026?
Yes, and I'd be interested to find out where in my email you read the word
Standard.
BR
j
x
--
Joel Rowbottom,
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should be avoided
whenever possible. When you are looking for the root cause of the errors
on
I don't agree. I have seen more problems generated by incompetence in
trying to fix duplex/speed, than I have seen problems generated by
At 05:36 PM 1/7/2003, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Braun, Mike wrote:
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should be avoided
whenever possible. When you are looking for the root cause of the
errors on
I don't agree. I have seen more problems generated by
Hendrianto Muljawan wrote:
Hello all,
does anybody knows the NIC for Afghanistan ?
Your request seemed to indicate that you'd been here already, but just
in case I thought I'd point out that I've found the page at
http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm to be generally pretty
accurate. At
I think we all agree that autonegotiation is evil, and should be avoided
whenever possible. When you are looking for the root cause of the errors on
I don't agree. I have seen more problems generated by incompetence in
trying to fix duplex/speed, than I have seen problems generated by
yes, I did try contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] as well, but no luck yet.
Muljawan
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 09:51:21AM +0100, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Tuesday 7 January 2003, at 16 h 40,
Hendrianto Muljawan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to register a domain in the com.af, but I
At 03:17 PM 07-01-03 -0600, Peter E. Fry wrote:
David G. Andersen wrote:
Rule number 1 with any ethernet: Check to make sure you have the duplex
and rate statically configured, and configured identically on both ends of
the connection. [...]
I'd like to thank Cisco for this piece of
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
So thats human error not a problem with using forced settings, eliminate the
human error and I think you'll see forced always works, autoneg sometimes
works. (For future reference dont employ incompetent people to run your networks
folks!)
Rule number 1 with any ethernet: Check to make sure you have the duplex
and rate statically configured, and configured identically on both ends of
the connection.
I'd wager you've got half duplex set on one side, and full on the other...
-Dave
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 02:19:10PM -0500, Drew
32 matches
Mail list logo
