http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/3561756/detail.html
The event monitor gives all the agencies instant access to any event to
local police, fire officials, the FBI and dozens of law enforcement
representatives working with utility providers. "Public safety officials
from our carriers -- Veriz
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Christopher Woodfield wrote:
> OK, from my reading in Newton's Telecom Dictionary, it appears that NIU
> is a generic term for "whatever the customer plugs their cable into",
> be it a powered or a dumb device. Mea culpa.
...
> "...installed on the premises as a semi-intellig
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Duane Wessels wrote:
> Maybe, but don't forget that when BIND9 and DJBDNS caches find
> expired nameserver address (A) records they don't trust any cached
> data and start them back at the roots. And in the case of BIND9,
> it sends both A and A6 queries for each nameserver
> If a zone owner lowers a TTL and causes an increase in load, most of
> the foot being shot off is his or her own: the zone's own name servers
> will bear the brunt of the increased query load.
Maybe, but don't forget that when BIND9 and DJBDNS caches find
expired nameserver address (A) records
> Christopher Woodfield wrote:
> I think we can probably chalk this up to a difference
> in dialect, for lack of a better word...what you're
> calling an NIU is exactly what I would call a smartjack
> and vice versa. Can you point to any sort of "official"
> documentation that defines these?
> Ch
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> the primary beneficiaries of this new functionality are spammers and
> other malfeasants
It appears your glass is half empty rather than half full. The
primary beneficiaries are all current and future .com/.net domain
holders: timely and predictable zone
Petri Helenius wrote:
> What would be your suggestion to achieve the desired
> effect that many seek by lower TTL's, which is changing
> A records to point to available, lower load servers at
> different times?
On a similar note (and not viewing the issue through
the usual spam-colored glasses
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 22:30:46 BST, Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think relying on accurate DNS information to distinguish spammers from
> genuine senders is at best shakey currently, the only people I can think
> would suffer with making it easier and quicker to create new domains
> w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 17:01:54 +
| From: Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Subject: that MIT paper again (Re: VeriSign's rapid DNS updates in
.com/.net )
|
|>>wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that
|>>y'all actually re
> so, let's increase dynamicism of domain addition, but let's please
> not also increase dynamicism of delegation change and domain deletion.
dear customer, you can have wheat bread today, but rye takes a
day. here is a url which explains the reasons in obscure technical
terms. right; bloody li
OK, from my reading in Newton's Telecom Dictionary, it appears that NIU
is a generic term for "whatever the customer plugs their cable into",
be it a powered or a dumb device. Mea culpa.
However, the writeup on "smart jack" reads, in part:
"...installed on the premises as a semi-intelligent dema
I think we can probably chalk this up to a difference in dialect, for
lack of a better word...what you're calling an NIU is exactly what I
would call a smartjack and vice versa. Can you point to any sort of
"official" documentation that defines these? I'm looking to see if
anyone in my office h
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 24 Jul, 2004
i'd said:
> > wrt the mit paper on why small ttl's are harmless, i recommend that
> > y'all actually read it, the whole thing, plus some of the references,
> > rather than assuming that the abstract is well supported by the body.
someone asked me:
> Would you happen to have the URL for the MIT
I don't want to digress into a spam-l or asrg standard thread, but I do want
to point out the similarity of what I think are ad networks that manage
sets of write-engines (aka "zombies") in the blog-spam (http) problem space
with the canonical abuse-desk/xdsl swamp meta-thread on nanog.
I'm obser
> >... so, let's increase dynamicism of domain addition, but let's please
> >not also increase dynamicism of delegation change and domain deletion.
>
> What would be your suggestion to achieve the desired effect that many seek
> by lower TTL's, which is changing A records to point to available, l
At 10:05 AM 7/23/2004, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
On 7/23/04 5:29 AM, "Richard Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:27:37 -1000 Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | all they need to do is register foo.bar with delegation to their
> | dns servers, and change a third level
I did a lot of work on MPLS and the enterprises last year while I was at
Cisco and got some different conclusions:
Enterprises are not really turned on by full mesh almost all of their stuff
is hub and spoke, even the VOIP.
QOS was not a big thing and it wasn't clear that MPLS added anything hea
On 7/23/04 5:29 AM, "Richard Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:27:37 -1000 Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | all they need to do is register foo.bar with delegation to their
> | dns servers, and change a third level domain name at will.
>
> Er, no. They h
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 23 21:40:01 2004 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
Paul Vixie wrote:
so do i. but more importantly, i agree with daniel that the next thing
that's going to happen as a result is that there will be pressure toward
lower ttl's. and i further agree with daniel that lower ttl's would be
bad. so, let's increase dynamicism of domain addition, but let's
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:27:37 -1000 Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| all they need to do is register foo.bar with delegation to their
| dns servers, and change a third level domain name at will.
Er, no. They have of course tried that already!
By registering foo.bar with delegation to THE
because i have sometimes been accused of being unfair to markk, i checked.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Kosters) writes:
> > > the primary beneficiaries of this new functionality are spammers and
> > > other malfeasants,
> >
> > I think this is a true statement.
>
> Has anyone done any studies to
> I welcome the change.
so do i. but more importantly, i agree with daniel that the next thing
that's going to happen as a result is that there will be pressure toward
lower ttl's. and i further agree with daniel that lower ttl's would be
bad. so, let's increase dynamicism of domain addition,
It's IPv6 time.
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3384791
Thanks,
-J
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
25 matches
Mail list logo