On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes... The network is still multihomed, but, instead of using routing to
handle the source/dest addr. selection, it is managed at each end host
independent of the routers. The routers function sort of like the
network is single homed. It's very
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A single tier-2 ISP who uses BGP multihoming with several
tier 1 ISPs can provide multihoming to it's customers
without BGP. For instance, if this tier-2 has two PoPs
in a city and peering links exist at both PoPs and they
sell a resilient access
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm?
campaign_id=apn_tech_downchan=tc
I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow
(under the agreement, they basically waive any right to criticize
ICANN's role).
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 24 15:33:02 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:31:17 -0700
Subject: Re: What is multihoming was (design of a real routing v. endpoint id
seperation)
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
[snip]
Other people use this term in very different ways. To some people
it means
On 25-Oct-2005, at 05:56, Robert Bonomi wrote:
*sigh* Multi-homing simply means [...]
As became clear when we wrote the draft that became RFC 3582,
apparently simple terms such as transit provider and multi-homing
mean surprisingly different things to different people.
The important
* william elan net:
They get to continue to be .COM registry forever as new agreement
would extend to 2012 and then automatically extended further without
formal process as it happened recently for .NET. They also are going
to be able to increase registry fees for .COM by 7% per year which
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
As of the last time that I looked at it (admittedly quite awhile
ago), something like 80% of the forwarding table had at least one
hit per minute. This may well have changed given the number of
traffic engineering prefixes that are
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:28:05 -, Christopher L. Morrow said:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
Yea, but that's just me pinging everything and google and yahoo
fighting over who has the most complete list of x rated sites.
and this probably depends greatly on the network,
This IRR Coordination mailing list was mentioned this morning
during the BGP Filtering talk.We'd like
to invite anyone interested in improving the trust, consistency, and
coordination of IRR's
to join. The archive and subscription details can be found at
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:28:05 -, Christopher L. Morrow said:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
Yea, but that's just me pinging everything and google and yahoo
fighting over who has the most complete list of x rated sites.
Robert Bonomi wrote:
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 24 15:33:02 2005
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:31:17 -0700
Subject: Re: What is multihoming was (design of a real routing v. endpoint id
seperation)
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
[snip]
Other people use this term in very different ways. To some
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Florian Weimer wrote:
Two possible explanations:
2+2=5, right? :)
Oops. 8-)
tongue location=cheek
No, you got it right. The [third] option at the end, play nice, has only
a passing association to the realm of possibility.
/tongue
--
-- Todd Vierling [EMAIL
I don't understand what VeriSign receives in return for their kowtow
(under the agreement, they basically waive any right to criticize
ICANN's role).
As someone else noted, a perpetual cash cow in .COM with 7%/year
escalator clause.
* ICANN signalled a positive outcome of a future Sitefinder
Could a dns ops contact for any of these hosts please email me offlist
to help troubleshoot a network reachablity / dns lookup issue from our
servers.
thanks
-srs
ccsg3.navy.mil. 30M IN NS ns2.fleet.navy.mil.
ccsg3.navy.mil. 30M IN NS dnsmail.uar.navy.mil.
Assume you have determined that a percentage (20%, 80%, whatever) of
the routing table is really used for a fixed time period. If you
design a forwarding system that can do some packets per second for
those most used routes, all you need to DDoS it is a zombie network
that would send packets to
Vice versa. DDOS attack will never work by this way, because this router
will (de facto) prioritize
long established streams vs. new and random ones, so it will not notice DDOS
attack at all - just some DDOS packets will be delayed or lost.
You do not need to forward 100% packets on line card
16 matches
Mail list logo
