er... if I may - this whining about the evils of tunnels
rings a bit hollow, esp for those who think that a VPN is
the right thing to do.
--bill
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 08:44:53AM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 14:57 -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
Tunnels promote poor
odd.. two of them are in my table... which table are you using
Jim?
--bill
On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 05:09:57PM +, deles...@gmail.com wrote:
I just checked all those /8's none of them are in the table.
-jim
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
sigh... where was this useful data 10 years ago!
http://www.fcc.gov/worldtravel/
--bill
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 08:07:07AM -0400, Drew Weaver wrote:
Howdy,
Recently I have been noticing a good amount of totally bogus DNS traffic
coming in on my transit links via my own IP addresses (spoofed).
SLOT 2:Jul 2 11:26:02 EDT: %SEC-6-IPACCESSLOGP: list 119 permitted udp
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:51:52AM -0400, Brandon Ross wrote:
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010, Michael Painter wrote:
Have we all gone mad?
Absolutely! For example, those thousands of flight plans filed every day
by airlines across the globe, not to mention private flights, should be
done manually
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 08:24:27PM +0300, Tarig Yassin wrote:
Deal all
I want to show you some obstacles that some countries face them every day.
For example when users from Sudan trying to access some web site they will
get a *Forbidden Access Error* message.
And some
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 01:21:46PM -0500, Jorge Amodio wrote:
PS. ICANN has no responsibility or operational role denying access or
services.
Regards
except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
it has taken on root server operations for some years now
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:57:26AM +0200, David Conrad wrote:
Bill,
On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:21 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
ICANN, since its inception, has been the IANA functions _operator_. It
inherited the role
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:44:12AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:23:56PM +0430, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
if you have data on abuse, please use the ARIN abuse
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:43:11PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 1:55 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
could you provide 4 numbers for me please?
% of ARIN managed resource covered by standard RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource covered by legacy
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:19:20PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
if this characterization is in ballpark, then Owens view on
reclaimation only holds for ~30% of the resource under ARIN
administration.
31% (33/106) of the address space managed by ARIN is per-RSA,
and ARIN's
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 12:32:50PM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
Bill,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:51 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
In the formal ARIN context, there is a distiction between abuse and
fraud.
abuse:: https://www.arin.net/abuse.html
This is a FAQ for folks
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:34:23PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2010-08-20 23:27, Franck Martin wrote:
I'm trying to debug a pesky PMTUD issue with IPv6 on Mac OS-X 10.6.
It happens only from home, on wireless, when connected to a mac aiport
that does an automatic tunnel (teredo) to
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 09:57:27PM +0200, Mans Nilsson wrote:
Subject: Re: DNSSEC and SSL Date: Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 09:11:43AM -0400
Quoting ML (m...@kenweb.org):
On 8/22/2010 2:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
No, because DNSSEC isn't secured all the way from the DNS server to the
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 09:11:43AM -0400, ML wrote:
On 8/22/2010 2:38 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
No, because DNSSEC isn't secured all the way from the DNS server to the
application, only to the resolver. Both systems have problems, I'd
imagine the best security is when they work
come on Chris, is the Internet an experiment or not? :)
one would think that a responsible party would have made
efforts to let others in the playground know they were
going to try something different that could have ramifications
on an unkown distribution
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 09:22:34AM +0100, Thomas Mangin wrote:
On 28 Aug 2010, at 08:56, Randy Bush wrote:
imiho, researchers injecting data into the control plane are responsible
to have tested it at least against major bgp speakers. and, considering
its placement in the net (big core),
the power/cooling budget for a rack full of router vs a rack
full of cores might be distinction to make. I know that
historically, the data center operator made no distinction
and a client decided to push past the envelope and replaced
their kit with space heaters. most data centers now are
morning gentle people.
i find myself in need of a multiport (8-16) 1 Gig ethernet HUB.
or a switch smart enough to do transparant port mirroring to at least
four ports.
some kind soul pointed me here, http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=337
but its not
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 04:10:12AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
No, it's kind of like asking the DMV whether the car belongs to the thief
or to someone else. They keep the records for Christ's sake! They *can*
take a position on that rudumentary, simple, and basic question, and they
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 08:47:29AM -0400, David Miller wrote:
As to what ARIN can 'do' about addresses that are unused/abandoned and
later hijacked...
ARIN delegates Reverse DNS for every allocation that they make. Address
blocks that are reported, investigated, and determined to be
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 11:07:58AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message 20101001123356.ga10...@vacation.karoshi.com.,
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 04:10:12AM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
No, it's kind of like asking the DMV whether the car
I ask:
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:47 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
i find myself in need of a multiport (8-16) 1 Gig ethernet HUB.
or a switch smart enough to do transparant port mirroring to at least
four
On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 12:47:52PM -0400, Greg Whynott wrote:
A partner had a security audit done on their site. The report said they were
at risk of a DoS due to the fact they didn't have a SPF record.
that does not follow at all.
I commented to his team that the SPF idea
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 02:49:37PM -0200, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
Maybe that's why they shut the power off in the first place... :-)
BTW, who's Leber? He/she doesn't seem to be CCed. I have more mailing lists
to suggest where he/she might be found...
Leber is a corruption of
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 05:24:58PM +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I'm assuming we aren't making jokes here, but 3com.com was created in
1986:
I'm confused. 3com.com would not appear to be entirely numerical. Or maybe
someone spiked my coffee this morning.
Best Regards,
Nathan
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:01:48PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Of course ifconfig will also happily take whatever mask you feed it in
your choice of notation so it's not exactly a bronze age tool.
first - IPv6 isn't 5x IPv4, its only 4x... :)
and the idea f bronze-age
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:19:43PM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
I am afraid so too.
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselvesIPv6
Pioneers as they recently
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 04:43:37PM -0400, Ray Soucy wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:17 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
first - IPv6 isn't 5x IPv4, its only 4x... :)
Couldn't let this one slide...
Bits grow exponentially. Saying IPv6 is 4x IPv4 isn't really accurate
unless
The IPv4 space here was retired in 2009. We love the IVI
translator code. Whats keeping the rest of you?
--bill
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:09:39PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Oct 21, 2010, at 9:51 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
Anyhow, it might be an interesting topic to discuss in the appropriate
venues, IETF, What is the cost of maintaining IPv4 forever? but it's
getting a little ahead of ourselves in
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:52:32PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
On 10/21/2010 10:48 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
not so much - it runs on linux instead of a closed OS.
I think you missed the point. Many are waiting for it to be supported on
their brand of routers. Not everyone
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 09:42:50AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:20 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Morrow Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:49 PM
To: bmanning
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv4 sunset date
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 01:28:24PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
It occurs to me that there is some pressing need to investigate this
all-IPv6 internet -- motivated by the cost of (not) maintaining IPv4
forever.
Right now we can observe essentially an all-IPv4 internet (99%,
whatever.)
--
Message-
From: Christopher Morrow Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:49 PM
To: bmanning
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: IPv4 sunset date revised : 2009-02-05
(now I'm teasing.. .Bill where's your docs on this fantastic new
teknowlogie?)
I found it here:
http
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:20:45PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
ah... but the trick is to only need enough IPv4 in the pool
to dynamically talk to the Internet. Native v6 to Native v6
never has to drop back to the Internet, It uses
two observations:
) this sounds/looks like a modern kremvax story
) what a slow news day
--bill
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:07:26PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I had the timeframe wrong then and it was the April 8 routing leaks.
Sorry for the false alarm.
http://www.isc.org/store/logoware-clothing/isc-9-layer-osi-model-cotton-t-shirt
--bill
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 11:01:39AM -0800, Steve Miller wrote:
politics, finance...
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Paul WALL pauldotw...@gmail.com wrote:
What are the layer 8-9 issues?
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 07:45:19PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
Hi all,
as most of you are aware, there is no definite, canonical name for the
two bytes of IPv6 addresses between colons. This forces people to use
a description like I just did instead of a single, specific term.
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 09:42:55PM -0500, Scott Morris wrote:
On 12/4/10 5:56 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I recently calculated the capacity of a 747F full of LTO-4 tapes; it's
about 8.7 exabytes. I *think* it's within weight and balance for the
airframe.
Cheers,
-- jra
Just how
actually, botnets are an artifact. claiming that the tool is the problem
might be a bit short sighted. with the evolution of Internet technologies
(IoT) i suspect botnet-like structures to become much more prevelent and
useful for things other than coordinated attacks.
just another PoV.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:41:18AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
Now OTOH if someone wants to demonstrate the value in having a
publication channel for TLD DNSKEYs outside of the root zone, I'm
certainly willing to listen. Just be forewarned that you will have an
uphill battle in trying to prove
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 08:07:22PM -0800, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Yes, having a verifiable source of keys OOB might have a small bit of
value, but, assuming we get general adoption of RFC 5011, I think it's
pretty limited value. Of course, this begs the question, how do we do a
better job of
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 02:56:35PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
On 28 Dec 2010, at 22:46, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
IMHO, key management should be able to use an OOB channel
when the in-band is corrupted or overlaoded. Reliance on
strictly the IB channel presumes there
On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:15:02AM -0500, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 15:01:41 GMT, Tony Finch said:
No cryptography can expose the difference between data that is correctly
signed by the proper procedures and data that is correctly signed by a
corrupt
procedure.
i have seen dups in 3com, dell, and hp kit over the years.
the best was moving mac addresses btwn 802,3 and 802.5 cards.
--bill
On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 03:03:24PM +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 20:59:16 -0700
Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com wrote:
On 1/1/11 8:33 PM, Graham
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 02:10:48PM +0100, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
While reading up on IPv6, I've seen numerous places that subnets are now
all /64.
I have even read that subnets defined as /127 are considered harmful.
RFC3627, with a lot of discussion in the IETF on this. See also
as a test case, i built a small home network out of /120. works just fine.
my home network has been native IPv6 for about 5 years now, using a /96 and IVI.
some thoughts. disable RD/RA/ND.
none of the DHCPv6 code works like DHCP, so I re-wrote
client and
well... you are correct - he did say shorter. me - i'd hollar for my good
friends Fred and Radia (helped w/ the old vitalink mess) on the best way to
manage an arp storm and/or cam table of a /64 of MAC addresses. :) It was
hard enough to manage a lan/single broadcast domain that was global
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:33:10PM -0500, Warren Kumari wrote:
On Jan 24, 2011, at 6:22 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
You can get a CLEAR WiMAX fixed modem with static IP address for $50
(USD) monthly, or less if you opt for the low-bandwidth plan.
I wouldn't dare rely on something of
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:10:59PM +0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
with the iana free pool run-out, i guess we won't be getting those nice
graphs any more. might we have one last one for the turnstiles? :-)/2
and would you mind doing the curves now
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 12:18:17PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 1 feb 2011, at 4:55, Jimmy Hess wrote:
IPv4's not dead yet; even the first RIR exhaustion probable in 3 -
6 months doesn't end the IPv4 ride.
IPv4 is very dead in the sense that it's not going to go anywhere in
For all you folks mourning the demise of IPv4, could you PLEASE
transfer those old, used, not useful to you anymore IPv4 blocks
to me ... PLEASE? Pretty Please?
just saying.
--bill
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:28:53AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
On 2/4/2011 5:03 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Given
http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com/index.php/2009/how-much-ipv6-is-there/
it is pretty clear the allocation algorithms have to change, or the
resource
is just as finite as the one
the protocols ability to route around failures is an attribute of packet
based protocols. it has little to do with legal compliance of an order to
cease and desist forwarding packets. end of the day, i guess it boils
down to the question of -civil disobedience-
if the law is unjust, do you
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:54:42PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 3, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
[ir]relevant RIRs. I fully expect this
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:47:10PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4d4ca1b1.5060...@brightok.net, Jack Bates writes:
On 2/4/2011 6:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
I used to work for CSIRO. Their /16's which were got back in the
late 80's will now be /48's.
That's why I didn't
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:40:44PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 5:57 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
For the ARIN region, it would be nice to know how you'd like ARIN perform
in the presence of such activity (leasing IP addresses by ISP not
providing
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:24:01PM -0500, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
as you pointed out back in oh, IETF-29, actual network operators
don't participate much in the standards setting process so its
no wonder RFC 2050 has
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 10:17:29AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 11:22 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
ARIN's community certinly is dominated by a particular type of network
operator.
It's dominated by the type of
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 11:01:00AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Feb 5, 2011, at 10:27 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
If I justified an allocation 20 years ago, under the then current policy,
it's presumptuous to presume the
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 09:12:53PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 2:33 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
decides current policy. when current policy directly contridicts the
policies
under which old address space was allocated, which policy trumps?
Bill -
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 08:29:44PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 5, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 2/5/2011 6:43 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Feb 4, 2011, at 9:49 PM, Hayden Katzenellenbogen wrote:
Not sure if it has been said already but wasn't one of the key point for
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 04:49:57PM -0800, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 2/13/11 10:31 AM, David Conrad wrote:
On Feb 13, 2011, at 7:56 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Of course, one might ask why those well known anycast addresses
are owned by 12 different organizations instead of being
golden addresses
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 10:54:37AM +0100, Phil Regnauld wrote:
http://xkcd.com/865/
all they have to do is turn off SLLAC and RA/RD and the'll be
good to go...
--bill
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 08:15:20PM -0600, Jima wrote:
On 3/7/2011 5:43 AM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
I'm wondering (and that shows that I have nothing better to do at 3:30am
on Monday...) how many people around here realize that the plain old
IPv4 - as widely implemented and specified in standard
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 02:43:38PM +0100, Phil Regnauld wrote:
(Cross posting to nanog, apologies if this is considered not
appropriate).
Shepherd Magumo (shepherd) writes:
Good day,
I work for an ISP with own small AfriNIC IP block and ASN number and
recently received a
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 10:14:41AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 06/10/2012 03:20, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Those who know Fred and knew Jon personally might want to throw an oar in
the
water on this blog posting from last month...
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4591
not sure if it's
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 06:12:08PM -0400, Frank Kastenholz wrote:
On Oct 6, 2012, at 6:39 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 10:14:41AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 06/10/2012 03:20, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Those who know Fred and knew Jon personally might
https://intelligence.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-adding-over-25000-mobile-users-an-hour-2012-10
dream big
/bill
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:31:44AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Cameron Byrne
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next
one of the downsides to v6 is the huge amnt of space the folks expect you to
announce.
lots of space to do nefarious things. that said. if you select your peers
carefully and don't mind
a bit of hand crafting, you can /96 and even /112
that said, get a /32 and assign/announce /48s...
/bill
ok... so lets look at some space here.
98.32.0.0/22
98.32.0.0/32 is clearly on the unusable boundary.
what about
98.32.0.255/32 98.32.1.0/32 ???
98.32.4.255/32 is also clearly on the unusable boundary... UNTIL
the delegation moves from a /22 to a /21. Then its usable.
clear?
corruption!
http://mina.naguib.ca/blog/2012/10/22/the-little-ssh-that-sometimes-couldnt.html
/bill
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 03:46:57PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Templin, Fred L wrote:
Yes; I was aware of this. But, what I want to get to is
setting the tunnel MTU to infinity.
Essentially, its time the network matured to the point where
inter-networking actually works (again),
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:44:40PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 03:46:57PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Templin, Fred L wrote:
Yes; I was aware of this. But, what I want to get to is
setting the tunnel MTU to infinity.
cool. this is the fifth version of a DHCP server modified to work
with IPv4 and IPv6 in accord with the DHCP specs.
a feature request... some sites run IVI, and so the have a MAC and
and v6 address and need to be dynamically assigned a v4 address. My crude
attempt uses the last 48bits of
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 05:38:32AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you're on local subnet, why not pull the MAC address out of the
received packet?
Further, what happens to this when IPv4 goes away?
Owen
the cat came back ... IPv4 is going away like RIP is a dead routing
protocol.
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: LIFE! DO YOU HEAR ME? GIVE MY CREATION... LIFE!
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first
time when native IPv6 on google statistics
2013 - the year of the NAT. (the only way a single stacked address family is
going to be able to talk to
a single stacked member of a different address family... and unless we start
agressive reuse of v4, this will
happen sooner than later (dual-stack is rate limited to the smaller of the
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:57:11AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
flower tailor samba...@hotmail.com wrote:
Delete me
though possibly merciful, it is illegal in most cultures
Montenegrins would be sad with the unilateral removal of thier TLD.
/bill
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:59:19AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
Matthew Newton wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:42:46PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 13/12/2012 22:54, Jason Castonguay wrote:
Advisory
You've just given 3 weeks notice for a component change in one of the few
critical part
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:45:00PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
These changes have happened before (other root servers have renumbered). I
have never heard of an operational problem caused by such an exercise, and I
guarantee there are resolvers running happily today with hints files that are
not at all... the WCIT 2012 concluded without agreement. Hardly the same
thing.
/bill
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:46:49PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
So, in short, UMD will still own the losing allocation, and be able
to make
relatively sure nothing else is placed at that IP (though of course
they
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:10:44PM -0600, Joe Antkowiak wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Jason Castonguay casto...@umd.edu wrote:
The old address, which is in the middle of UMD's network, is going to be
black-holed once the change is over. Nothing will be on that IP once we
move
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:48:07PM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
On Dec 14, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
Other root servers have renumbered out of institutional, general-purpose
networks into dedicated networks in the past. I think the last one was
B-Root in 2004,
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:45:32AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 15/12/2012 23:07, David Conrad wrote:
The handwringing over this issue is a bit over the top.
It's a question of what's procedurally sensible. Sensible things would
include longer notice of the impending change to the root
its not that black/white. The ITU-R is actually -very- useful and does a
really good job of coordinating spectrum
use and has for many years. The ITU-T, however is questionable. It is
possible to fund by sector, so a blanket
defunding for the entire ITU, as outlined in this petition, is a
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:49:59PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work.
Care to try to cite an example? R we can't pull out of because NRO needs its
slots. I'm not sure that constitutes
ah - those were the days of glory... :)
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:06:39PM -0700, Brett Watson wrote:
Hell, we used to not have to bother notifying customers of anything, we just
fixed the problem. Reminds me a of a story I've probably shared on the past.
1995, IETF in Dallas. The big
don't think of this in terms of waste (v6 has an unthinkable number of numbers)
and think of security. by announceing more space than you are actually using,
you create
dark-space that attackers can hide in-plain-sight. so, for example, in your
P2P links,
you can use tools that lazy
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 26, 2013, at 08:01 , Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
let's suppose I just happen to have, or have access to, a botnet comprised
of (tens of) millions of
but they are paying attention
/bill
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:25:09AM -0700, Jared Mauch wrote:
I'm not sure you want this regulated.
Jared Mauch
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
Can't we get homeland security into this? Threat to US
is there a clear understanding of the edge in the network operations
community? in a simpler world, it was not that difficult, but interconnect
has blossomed and grown all sorts of noodly appendages/extentions. I fear
that edge does not mean what you think it means anymore.
/bill
On Thu,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:47:45PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:16:48 -, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com said:
is there a clear understanding of the edge in the network operations
community? in a simpler world, it was not that difficult, but interconnect
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:13:49PM -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this?
Seems like its time for both on and DS.
Jared,
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high
your not alone... (Sprint is the upstream for this email)
The original message was received at Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:21:10 GMT
from localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
tom.a.sch...@sprint.com
(reason: 501 5.5.4 Invalid domain
paging Softbank/Sony.
/bill
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:50:57AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
your not alone... (Sprint is the upstream for this email)
The original message was received at Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:21:10
On Wed, May 06, 2009 at 10:39:23AM +1000, Karl Auer wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-05 at 15:58 -0400, Ricky Beam wrote:
stateless with constant and consistent. SLAAC doesn't need to
generate the exact same address everytime the system is started.
No - but it is *phenomenally useful* if it
1 - 100 of 374 matches
Mail list logo
