On 9 Jun 2011, at 05:36, Karl Auer wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 17:37 -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
Dumb question.. what does the switch (L2) have to do with IPv6 (L3), or
is it one of those 'somewhere in between the two' things?
Well, a modern switch should work fine, even if not directly
I had to ask this here a while back, so I can now share. :-)
IPv6 addresses are written as 8 16-bit chunk separated by colons
(optionally with the longest consecutive set of :0 sections replaced
with ::). A /112 means the prefix is 7 of the 8 chunks, which means you
can use ::1 and ::2 for
As far as commercial packages go, Surgemail is worth a look. Very affordable
and insanely powerful and customizable. The support team is the development
team. It's not uncommon for bugs to be fixed in hours to day and even new
features requests to be added in days to weeks. Runs on practically
On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:10 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 03:05:05PM -0500, Richard A Steenbergen said:
global reachability, in the hopes that it will strengthen their
strategic position for peering in the long term (i.e. they both want to
be an IPv6 Tier 1).
I'm not making a
On Jun 8, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 07:48:42PM +, Brielle Bruns wrote:
Has been going on for a long while now. HE even made a cake for
Cogent (IIRC), to no avail.
But, this is not surprising. A lot of public/major peering issues
with v4
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 11:38:54AM -0400, David Swafford wrote:
Overall though the day seems to be going well, I've sparked a
lot of enthusiasm at work by bragging this event (I even made a
shirt to promote it :-), and I'd love to see this become a
regular occurrence.
In fact, daily would be
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Hello,
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
basically LSNs and they suffer from all the same problems. I don't think
that NAT64
On Jun 8, 2011, at 7:24 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:58 PM, Kelly Setzer kelly.set...@wnco.com wrote:
IPv6 newbie alert!
I thought the maximum prefix length for IPv6 was 64 bits,
so the comment about a v6 /112 for peering vexed me. I
have Googled so much that Larry
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 23:39 -0400, ML wrote:
Did Cogent have the gumption to charge you more for IPv6 too?
We have a bit of transit from them (~20Mbit or so) to stay connected to
their customers.
Getting IPv6 setup was really simple. No extra charges. It's been easier
than via our existing L3
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has
aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering
in every way possible. If you are interested in peering with HE and
you have a presence at any of the
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Jun 9, 2011, at 17:39, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has
aggressively tried to improve the situation through
On 2011-Jun-09 10:39, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has
aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering
in every way possible. If you are interested in peering with HE
On (2011-06-09 18:03 +0900), Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Even though HE gives away free transit now, Owen said nothing about free
transit.
Yes there might be that some networks are unable physically to connect to HE.
But I'm sure within time HE will have global presence to reach all networks
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Martin Hepworth max...@gmail.com wrote:
Have a look at the Hermes mail system at cam.Ac.uk, built buy among
people Philip Hazel of exam fame
It will give you some insight into the challenges of building a
scalable high perfomance mail system.
I rolled
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 10:33:29PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, William Herrin b...@herrin.us said:
Now, as to why they'd choose a /112 (65k addresses) for the interface
between customer and ISP, that's a complete mystery to me.
I had to ask this here a while back, so I can
Please don't use /127:
Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627
Do keep up. :-)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6164
Rob
On 09-06-11 14:01, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Please don't use /127:
Use of /127 Prefix Length Between Routers Considered Harmful
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3627
Well, this RFC says not to use PREFIX::/127. You are safe to use other
/127's within your prefix.
--
Grzegorz Janoszka
You can actually use DHCPv6 to assign addresses to hosts dynamically
on longer than /64 networks.
However, you may have to go to some effort to add DHCPv6 support to
those hosts first.
Also, there is no prefix-length (or default router) option in DHCPv6,
so you have to configure the
On 6/9/2011 4:39 AM, Tom Hill wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 23:39 -0400, ML wrote:
Did Cogent have the gumption to charge you more for IPv6 too?
We have a bit of transit from them (~20Mbit or so) to stay connected to
their customers.
Getting IPv6 setup was really simple. No extra charges.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Saku Ytti s...@ytti.fi wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
I look forward for IPv4 to go away, as in future I can have full free
connectivity through HE to every other shop who all have full free
connectivity
to HE. Something went terribly
Does Cogent participate in the meetings/shows like the one coming up
next week ? Would that not be a good place for NANOGers to voice their
opinion?
---
Dennis Burgess, Mikrotik Certified Trainer
Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik WISP
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 10:59:41 -0500, James Harr james.h...@gmail.com said:
JH I noticed that one of our vendors wasn't actually participating when
JH they very publicly put on their home page that they would. So I
JH queried the IPv6 day participation list to see who didn't have 's
JH for
On Jun 9, 2011, at 2:06 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-Jun-09 10:39, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2011-06-09 00:55 -0700), Owen DeLong wrote:
To be an IPv6 TIer 1, one has to peer with other IPv6 Tier 1s. HE has
aggressively tried to improve the situation through promiscuous peering
in every
On 6/9/2011 1:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Still that doesn't give any reason to provide /112 for point to point
connectivitiy. Seriously, I'm peering with a transit provider with /126 and
when I asked for a reason they said, ease of management. How come Subnetting
/32 to /126 is ease of
On Jun 9, 2011 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Hello,
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
basically LSNs and they
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
Some networks prefer a uniform numbering scheme. /112 allows for reasonable
addressing needs on a circuit. In addition, while Ethernet is often used in
a point-to-point access circuit, such layouts may change and renumbering
On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:02 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
On 6/9/2011 1:58 AM, Aftab Siddiqui wrote:
Still that doesn't give any reason to provide /112 for point to point
connectivitiy. Seriously, I'm peering with a transit provider with /126 and
when I asked for a reason they said, ease of management.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Hello,
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN)
On Jun 9, 2011, at 6:09 AM, Dennis Burgess wrote:
Does Cogent participate in the meetings/shows like the one coming up
next week ? Would that not be a good place for NANOGers to voice their
opinion?
generally telling another party how to run their business in specific is
considered poor
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
basically LSNs and
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
So we have to buy from BOTH HE and Cogent?! Sounds like market fixing to me!
:/
Guess if we do we can advertise that on our webpage... now with BOTH halves
of the ipv6 internets!
Or just buy from someone who have sessions with
On 6/9/2011 10:02 AM, William Herrin wrote:
I follow the reasoning, but unless you attach undue importance to the
colons you get basically the same result with a /124.
I guess choosing /112 for a point to point link is one of the weird
side-effects of placing :'s in the address at fixed
IPv6 newbie alert!
I thought the maximum prefix length for IPv6 was 64 bits, so the comment
about a v6 /112 for peering vexed me. I have Googled so much that Larry Page
called me and asked me to stop.
Can someone please point me to a resource that explains how IPv6 subnets
larger than
Wouldn't the multicast flooding be just like broadcasts tho? Some of
my sites don't have switches that will be upgraded or upgradeable to
software that will support IPv6 directly (at least not for a few
years). Is that going to cause major headaches? I under stand the RA
risks but the DHCPv6
On 6/9/11 3:06 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You could, today, setup a IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel and HE will pay for the
IPv4 transit at the cost of a little smaller lower MTU;)
Just need to find folks on the other side to terminate those tunnels who
find also that using a free service is a good idea
On 6/9/11 7:37 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I was an HE Tunnel users long before I joined the company. In my experience,
our free tunnel service is quite reliable and provides excellent connectivity.
HE has been happily exchanging BGP and routing my /48 for several
years. The high quality of this
As a matter of fact, an IPv6 address has a maximum (but not restricted)
fixed lenght of 64 bits for the network and subnetwork definition, and 64bit
for the interface identifier.
The most left 64 bit in that address contains information about type of
address, scope, network and subnetwork and
On 9 jun 2011, at 6:36, Karl Auer wrote:
Well, a modern switch should work fine, even if not directly IPv6 aware,
but it won't understand multicast and will generally flood multicast
frames to all interfaces. So definitely stipulate IPv6 capability, even
for switches
Are there any
yes
http://www.google.com/search?q=mld+snooping+switch
On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:49 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 9 jun 2011, at 6:36, Karl Auer wrote:
Well, a modern switch should work fine, even if not directly IPv6 aware,
but it won't understand multicast and will generally flood
On 9 jun 2011, at 10:32, Owen DeLong wrote:
You can actually use DHCPv6 to assign addresses to hosts dynamically
on longer than /64 networks.
The trouble is that DHCPv6 can't tell you the prefix length for your address,
so either set up the routers to advertise this prefix (but without the
On 9 jun 2011, at 14:19, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
It is perfectly possible to use RA *only* for the default router, and
not announce any prefix at all. This implies a link-local next hop.
Router advertisements always use the router's link local address, you can't get
a router's global address
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:50 AM, ML m...@kenweb.org wrote:
I guess someone with a 1 Gb commit in a not so small city deserves to be
charged extra for a few Mbps of IPv6...
For a not so full table at that.
We canceled some 10GbE Cogent circuits because of Cogent's refusal to
provision IPv6
Don't assume that DHCPv6 is the same as DHCP.
DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task is handled
by RA in IPv6.
An IPv6 RA has flags for Managed (M), Other (O), and Autonomous (A)
address configuration. None of these flags are exclusive.
While most routers have the A flag
On 09/06/2011 17:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
can't get a router's global address from this. IPv6 routing protocols
also pretty much only use link locals
Really? I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me then.
Nick
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 09/06/2011 17:59, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
can't get a router's global address from this. IPv6 routing protocols
also pretty much only use link locals
Really? I guess my eyes must be playing tricks on me then.
Nick
Hi Iljitsch,
The switches from Extreme Networks do MLD and MLD snooping, I know for sure on
the x450's and up, probably below that line as well.
Erik Bais
Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPad
Op Jun 9, 2011 om 18:49 heeft Iljitsch van Beijnum iljit...@muada.com het
volgende geschreven:
On 9 jun 2011,
Cisco has had MLD snooping support for some time. But they seem to
have broken it in a recent release, so it drops ND traffic and breaks
IPv6; been after them to fix it, but doesn't look like it's been
resolved yet.
But you're correct that without MLD snooping IPv6 ND traffic is on par
with IPv4
On 09/06/2011 18:19, Ray Soucy wrote:
DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task is handled
by RA in IPv6.
Thankfully this silliness is in the process of being fixed, along with
prefix delegation - so in future, there will be no requirement for either
RA or cartloads of
On 09/06/2011 18:26, Ray Soucy wrote:
What OS?
IOS, for example (as opposed to iOS which is just freebsd from that point
of view). JunOS uses link-locals.
Iljitsch noted: IPv6 routing protocols also pretty much only use link
locals. This is not true in the general case.
Nick
Iljitsch,
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljit...@muada.com wrote:
Are there any switches out there that do MLDP snooping to avoid flooding IPv6
multicasts?
Something as enterprisey as even HP Procurve (!) has been doing this for years.
Regards,
Martin
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 21:45:25 EDT, Ravi Pina said:
We hit some vendor issues which prevented us from having a larger
showing, sadly.
Sorry you weren't able to deploy more. But the *important* question is:
Did you get enough packet traces/logs/etc of the issue so the vendor is able to
take
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:47:48PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 21:45:25 EDT, Ravi Pina said:
We hit some vendor issues which prevented us from having a larger
showing, sadly.
Sorry you weren't able to deploy more. But the *important* question is:
Did you
Discussion has been had on-list before, suffice to say I respectfully
disagree that there is a problem with the current design.
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 09/06/2011 18:19, Ray Soucy wrote:
DHCPv6 does not provide route information because this task
+1 Jared.
Big thanks to all the participants and the ISOC.
John
=
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Cable
e) mailto:john_brzozow...@cable.comcast.com
o) 609-377-6594
m) 484-962-0060
w) http://www.comcast6.net
=
On
Agreed, in fact, I don't usually applaud Microsoft, but IPv6 wouldn't
be nearly as possible as it is today without them. They've been
better than almost everyone in making sure IPv6 support has been in
place and implemented correctly.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Jared Mauch
On 9 jun 2011, at 19:34, Ray Soucy wrote:
But you're correct that without MLD snooping IPv6 ND traffic is on par
with IPv4 broadcast traffic and not a major problem. It does mean,
however, that a large IPv6 multicast stream, like video or system
imaging, would be about as bad as doing so on
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 13:34, Ray Soucy r...@maine.edu wrote:
Cisco has had MLD snooping support for some time. But they seem to
have broken it in a recent release, so it drops ND traffic and breaks
IPv6; been after them to fix it, but doesn't look like it's been
resolved yet.
But you're
Someone has told me that Microsoft switched off IPv6 for the day. Is that
true? To what extent?
j
--
---
Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
VP
They are probably referring to this:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2533454/
The following Fix it solution will resolve the issue by configuring
your computer to prefer IPv4, instead of IPv6. By default, Windows
prefers IPv6 over IPv4. This Fix it solution is temporary, to resolve
issues on
IMHO, it's worse than that. Most sites only added a record for
their website, and frequently didn't for their DNS server. So they
weren't *really* doing a complete IPv6 test, IMHO.
There is a reason for that. First of all, we (my employer) took this
as a brief test to simply see how
On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:03 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
Someone has told me that Microsoft switched off IPv6 for the day. Is that
true? To what extent?
I think this depends on the division.
their search (bing) folks turned it off.
% host www.bing.com.
www.bing.com is an alias for
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives
Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in
an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see
RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2.
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 01:34:25PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
Cisco has had MLD snooping support for some time. But they seem to
have broken it in a recent release, so it drops ND traffic and breaks
IPv6; been after them to fix it, but doesn't look like it's been
resolved yet.
Nice. Juniper
Some networks prefer a uniform numbering scheme. /112 allows for
reasonable addressing needs on a circuit. In addition, while Ethernet
is
often used in a point-to-point access circuit, such layouts may change
and renumbering would be annoying.
Finally, having chunks 4-7 define the
On Jun 9, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 9 jun 2011, at 10:32, Owen DeLong wrote:
You can actually use DHCPv6 to assign addresses to hosts dynamically
on longer than /64 networks.
The trouble is that DHCPv6 can't tell you the prefix length for your address,
so either
Wondering what people are using to provide security from their Wireless
environments to their corporate networks? 2 or more factors seems to be the
accepted standard and yet we're being told that Microsoft's equipment can't
do it. Our system being a Microsoft Domain... seemed logical, but they can
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 3:02 PM, eric clark cabe...@gmail.com wrote:
Wondering what people are using to provide security from their Wireless
environments to their corporate networks? 2 or more factors seems to be the
accepted standard and yet we're being told that Microsoft's equipment can't
Tokens are an option but I should have been more clear.
As we're a windows shop (apologies, but that's the way it is), we were
planning on going with user credentials and the machine's domain
certificate. Your solution might still be viable, but I'm not certain if I
can get at the machine certs
You could always take the route of not trusting the wireless network at all.
Users who get to wireless can only go to the Internet.
Put all the APs in a DMZ.
Users who can open up a VPN to your microsoft vpn servers can authenticate
and get to the corporate network.
This is the way things were
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference
between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering
and merely refusing to purchase transit to a network that appears to
offer little or no value to
Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in
an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see
RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2.
We still need to find some solution to that problem.
We've been using two workarounds:
1. Separate DNS resolvers (both BIND
RAS wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference
between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering
and merely refusing to purchase transit to a network that appears to
offer little or no
On 06/09/2011 06:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Respectfully, RAS, I disagree. I think there's a big difference
between being utterly unwilling to resolve the situation by peering
and merely refusing to purchase transit to a
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:06:29PM -0400, Brian Dickson wrote:
So, long history short, there were in fact peering disputes that had
one side saying, hey, we want to peer and the other side saying you
don't have enough traffic, or your ratio is too imbalanced, or
you're my customer -
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 12:55:44AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Er, Sorry... you are kind of siding with Cogent and claiming HE responsible
without any logically sound argument explicitly stated that supports
that
In message banlktimkba5hy3samtzb6w51mghgxqm...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne
writes:
--000e0ce0b4eaf1531104a5486aed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Jun 9, 2011 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Hello,
We use wireless authentication for the purposes of protecting the link layer...
authenticated users are still outside the privileged corprate network and
therefore need to vpn in.
joel
On Jun 9, 2011, at 3:02 PM, eric clark wrote:
Wondering what people are using to provide security from
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Er, Sorry... you are kind of siding with Cogent and claiming HE
responsible without any logically sound argument explicitly stated
that supports that position...
You're confused, read again. :)
I would consider them both
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
You seem to have missed it, so I will say again: IPv6 is not IPv4.
They are two different internetworks, with different participants -- many
IPv4 networks
- Original Message -
From: Fairlight fairl...@fairlite.com
Not just graphics...the fact that Chrome is HTML5 compliant. That's how
they're doing what they're doing with this one, and the previous one with
all the physics balls that would blow around, etc.
FF4 too apparently; I had
Even Cracked realizes this:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-internet-access-in-america-disaster
That can't be good.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
Ok, I have to paste this in time order so that the rest of you can play
along
it all started when I tried to transfer in a new domain name for - of all
people, my future father in law. I am SO not screwing that up because I
don't want to hear it at every family gathering Since my hunny
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Jimi Thompson jimi.thomp...@gmail.comwrote:
Ok, I have to paste this in time order so that the rest of you can play
along
tl';dr
Summary: cheap registers abound.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
re a
Jimi Thompson wrote:
Now I'm going to go off on you people - What kind of crack are you people
smoking?
The same stuff they're smoking over at PayPal.
Some genius decided to send out E-mails which said:
Hello name removed,
It looks like you may be using an outdated browser with known
- Original Message -
From: Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 8:22 PM, Jimi Thompson
jimi.thomp...@gmail.comwrote:
Ok, I have to paste this in time order so that the rest of you can
play along
tl';dr
It's a damned shame there isn't a .dr ccTLD, isn't it?
Any other operators getting complaints from subscribers about not being able to
open emails in hotmail? The problem seems to be random. Are there are hotmail
administrators on this list?
Richard
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:52:46AM -0400, Richard McNeilly wrote:
Any other operators getting complaints from subscribers about not being able
to open emails in hotmail? The problem seems to be random. Are there are
hotmail administrators on this list?
Richard
At my work we do have
On 2011-Jun-10 02:18, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Richard A Steenbergen r...@e-gerbil.net
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
You seem to have missed it, so I will say again: IPv6 is not IPv4.
First you seem to have missed the point
88 matches
Mail list logo
