On 30-Nov-2006, at 12:59, John Payne wrote:
On Nov 29, 2006, at 2:36 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Seems relevant.
Any word from vendors on supporting images? I found some old
presentations that said Juniper (ERX) and Redback had announced
supporting images and Cisco had an
. This will be implemented for NANOG 39 in Toronto.
Further discussion of funding models and related topics is
encouraged, and should take place on the nanog-futures mailing list.
Please see http://www.nanog.org/email.html for subscription
instructions.
Joe Abley
for the SC
On 26-Oct-2006, at 09:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could do the same fly-drive via Detroit but there is
a lot more driving.
Indeed. Rough estimates, excluding time taken to cross the border and
assuming good weather:
BUF to Toronto: 2 hours
DTW to Toronto: 5 hours
CLE to
On 23-Oct-2006, at 11:54, Craig Holland wrote:
I just ran into something for the first time, and apparently it
isn’t that uncommon. ATT was asked to install a circuit into a
collocation facility where, like any I’ve been into, required them
to show a government ID.
In a similar vein,
Snowhorn
Pete Templin
Todd Underwood
Vish Yelsangikar
New (or returning) members:
Steve Feldman
Igor Gashinsky
Kobi Hsu
Mike Hughes
Keith Mitchell
Ted Seely
Richard Steenbergen
Bill Woodcock
Joe Abley
(for the SC)
Tuc!
On 23-Oct-2006, at 18:03, Tuc at T-B-O-H.NET wrote:
Is there someone out there that might be able
to help me explain this to the techs there. That you
can't subdomain an in-addr.arpa like you do a domain
name?
RFC 2317. A zone's a zone's a zone, and zones can contain CNAMEs.
On 23-Oct-2006, at 21:13, Edward Lewis wrote:
If an admin were granted the authority for a /25 worth of space,
then you can't just delegate that part of the in-addr.arpa domain.
That's the RFC Joe Abley cited.
Ah, so you smell an apex CNAME. They might be using DNAME, though :-)
Joe
by SC, 2-year term)
Joe Abley
(for the SC)
The SC plans to select a new Programme Committee during their meeting
on Thursday 19 October. The complete list of PC candidates is here:
http://www.nanog.org/pccandidates06.html
If you have any opinions or comments you would like to share with the
SC about any of the PC candidates
The Internet Society (ISOC) a 501c(3) corporation (http://
www.isoc.org/isoc/general/trustees/incorp.shtml), has agreed to
accept a restricted donation from an anonymous source to be known as
the Postel Network Operator's Scholarship.
The Scholarship will be awarded annually to a recipient
], or
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Finally, on behalf of the Mailing List Panel and the Steering
Committee, we would like to thank everyone for their help in making
NANOG a useful environment for operators.
Joe Abley, SC chair
Chris Malayter, MLC chair
On 10-Oct-2006, at 12:01, David W. Hankins wrote:
But it's just /weird/ to ask the IETF to have this kind of
role...one it has never had to my memory, and seeks constantly
not to fulfill.
It's not so weird when you realise that the notation adopted has an
impact on other IETF work (RPSL
On 4-Oct-2006, at 19:04, Steve Sobol wrote:
ICANN *does* have a requirement for accurate information in WHOIS and
while I don't know how strongly the requirement is enforced, they
*can*
pull your domain registration if you don't have accurate information.
While I'm not familiar with the
On 3-Oct-2006, at 00:37, Rick Kunkel wrote:
Boy, this is certainly OT.
Yeah. Apologies for contributing to the noise, but since someone
mentioned it earlier...
I had a suspicion it might be standard somewhere.
The ITU recommendation is E.123 (02/01), ITU article number E20897 in
On 3-Oct-2006, at 08:53, Joe Abley wrote:
E.123 also tells us how to write our e-mail addresses and URLs on
business cards, except that it calls URLs web addresses. At
least, this is what I can glean from the many E.123 summaries I
could find, since the actual document isn't available
On 2006-09-19, at 03:59, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
Does any fiber run into Zimbabwe? Or is everything via satellite?
Having fibre to your neighbiour is the exception in Africa, not the
rule.
There has to be a remaining uplink (albeit low-capacity) if
nameservers within the country are
Le 2006-09-13 à 11:43, D'Arcy J.M. Cain a écrit :
Notice that no one is getting worked up about circuit
number portability.
I don't know about that. I have always harboured a desire to visit
ZOWISAP0001 in person. I hear Zoowie Island is quite lovely at this
time of year.
This is not
Le 2006-09-13 à 15:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
P.S. are the standards of this list so unclear that
Darcy and I have to discuss this? Who is right?
http://nanog.cluepon.net/index.php/Posting_Style_Conventions
Joe
Le 2006-09-13 à 15:59, Andrew Kirch a écrit :
I might just to watch the hilarity. Is there any real interest in
this?
MediaWiki with restricted editing for people on the NANOG list.
At the risk of repeating myself, http://nanog.cluepon.net/. This is
a NANOG wiki with somewhat
Le 2006-09-12 à 15:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
It makes me wonder just how much space like that there is out
there artifically increasing IP scarcity.
The fact that there is a lot of space assigned/allocated and not used
in any easily observable way is well known to
Le 2006-09-12 à 17:21, Daniel Golding a écrit :
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs could
be replaced with From each according to the ARIN fee schedule, to
each
according to our impossible to decipher allocation templates.
I find the references to
Le 2006-09-12 à 19:52, Richard A Steenbergen a écrit :
Ever notice the only folks happy with the status quo are the few
who have
already have an intimate knowledge of the ARIN allocation process,
and/or
have the right political connections to resolve the issues that
come up
when dealing
On 11-Sep-2006, at 13:44, Chris Jester wrote:
Also, what about ARINS hardcore attitude making it near impossible
to aquire ip space, even when you justify it's use? I have had
nightmares myself as well as MANY of my collegues share similar
experiences.
I have talked to many people who
[this message has been cross-posted to nanog@ and nanog-futures@,
with followups set accordingly, as we used to say back when Usenet
was read by humans. If you're interested in discussing any of this,
and you're not on nanog-futures@ already, see http://www.nanog.org/
email.html]
** If
On 5-Sep-2006, at 09:31, Tim Donahue wrote:
Does anyone know if Verizon has a publicly accessable looking glass?
There is not one listed on bgp4.net nor could I find one searching
Google.
It might pay to specify exactly which AS number you're particularly
interested in peeking into.
On 1-Sep-2006, at 02:11, Martin Hannigan wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that ISPs run stealth slaves for these
kinds of zones. This may have been a useful pointer for ISPs in days
gone by, but I think today it's impractical advice.
How so? Anyone can get a zone and turn up [a-m] on-net
and
On 1-Sep-2006, at 13:47, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I can't get a TLD zone?
*You* can do anything, Marty! You are the man! :-)
But back to the root servers. Are you
agreering with me that if I announce F and I root's netblocks
inside of my own network that everyone would be ok with that?
On 1-Sep-2006, at 15:07, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Well, let's rephrase that. Anyone can't get a TLD zone?
While there are many smaller TLD zones that don't get updated very
often and which have wide-open AXFR to all and sundry, I'm betting
that the majority of zones that people on this
On 1-Sep-2006, at 18:48, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think my previous post may have touched on a more global issue.
Given the number of such posts I have seen over time, and, my
experiences trying to report problems to other ISPs in the past,
it seems
On 31-Aug-2006, at 05:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have your own mirrors of TLDs that are
important to your users, i.e. .com, your .xx
country domain, etc.?
You seem to be suggesting that ISPs run stealth slaves for these
kinds of zones. This may have been a useful pointer for ISPs
On 27-Aug-2006, at 14:00, Barry Shein wrote:
Can I make a suggestion about inappropriate postings which I GUARANTEE
would help a lot?!
Can we have a DESIGNATED WHINER, or small list of whiners, who has a
CANNED MESSAGE and the option to add some text specific to the
message? And can take
On 9-Aug-2006, at 12:02, Ken Simpson wrote:
Maybe I'm just an ignorant e-mail postmaster. I thought that
nearly all e-mail was (E)SMTP-based (LMTP excepted).
If it doesn't use the SMTP protocol, it's not reaching any
mailbox. HTTP is a web browser protocol. WebMail gets converted
by the
On 3-Aug-2006, at 04:05, Duane Wessels wrote:
I am looking for a way that you, or anyone else, could indicate a
domain
should not be considered in service although the name is
registered and
has an A record pointing to an active server so when I check that
name
it doesn't require a
On 27-Jul-2006, at 13:11, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Or how to get someone at UltraDNS or PIR to take ownership of a
issue and resolve it?
What about google(ultradns noc) and feeling lucky.
Not forgetting puck.nether.net/netops/nocs.cgi and various other
resources mentioned in the FAQ and in a
On 21-Jul-2006, at 09:17, Rob Evans wrote:
There seem to be a whole load of ASNs that have deaggregated. AS5416,
AS5639, AS6140, AS9121, AS13049, AS16130, AS17849, AS18049 (that's as
far as I got before getting bored). Some of these are advertising the
covering prefix too, so they're
On 21-Jul-2006, at 10:48, Joe Abley wrote:
It would help immensely with getting that document published if
people could read that draft, and let me know if it looks like
something they would implement if it was implemented. Private mail
would be great.
Uh, something they would deploy
On 21-Jul-2006, at 11:20, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2006-07-21 10:48 -0400), Joe Abley wrote:
As it happens, Tony Li, Rex Fernando and I wrote up a proposal for a
new attribute which might help in some of these situations. (It's a
crude mechanism, but not as crude as NO_EXPORT).
http
On 11-Jul-2006, at 02:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Patrick W. Gilmore:
Actually, I take that back. Why wouldn't you just get a feed from
Cymru http://www.cymru.com/Bogons/index.html ??
I don't think Team Cymru offers a feed of what is supposed to be in
the routing table.
No, but they
On 7-Jul-2006, at 16:41, Sean Donelan wrote:
In addition to the traditional backhoe threat, as the price of copper
increased so has the threat of people stealing telephone trunk cables
containing copper wire.
At least when this happens in other places there's the prospect of
attractive
On 29-Jun-2006, at 14:25, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
We're looking to acquire a couple small servers that can act as
routers for
us at remote locations.
How small? :-)
http://www.compulab.co.il/x270/html/x270-cm-datasheet.htm
Joe
On 15-Jun-2006, at 09:41, Will Hargrave wrote:
Unless I am mistaken, h.gtld-servers.net is offline and has been
for an hour or two. I can't see the containing prefix,
192.54.112.0/24.
I think you're mistaken about the server being off-line, since I can
see it just fine from many
On 13-Jun-2006, at 13:27, Randy Bush wrote:
the isc web page now says
Before it is accepted into the dlv.isc.org zone, ISC will
perform checks to ensure the keys are being used in the
requested zone, that the persons making the request are who
they claim to be and that they
On 13-Jun-2006, at 14:37, Randy Bush wrote:
I don't profess to speak for ISC here, but it may be worth noting
that ISC staff continue to spend a lot of time travelling to operator
meetings, workshops, root server installations and RIR and ICANN
meetings. Outreach and community participation
(followups set)
On 10-Jun-2006, at 06:09, Mattias Ahnberg wrote:
Mattias Ahnberg wrote:
I've recently stumbled over an error in the logs of one of my
Black Diamond
6808's. Due to redundant MSMs this hasn't had any practical effect
yet, but
I have just initiated a ticket on the matter.
On 7-Jun-2006, at 12:35, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
I can't tell you what is going on. But I can ask, (a) why are you
doing
asymmetrical routing in the first place?
For any non-trivial path, it seems to me that asymmetry in forward
and return paths is normal. Symmetrical paths are the
On 6-Jun-2006, at 08:19, Gunther Stammwitz wrote:
I have customers who are complaining about packet loss and they are
providing me with MTRs and pathpings (that's some sort of
traceroute that
pings every hop it sees several times - comes with windows xp)
(if it comes with win xp, then
On 3-Jun-2006, at 10:49, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2-Jun-2006, at 15:44, Joe Abley wrote:
NANOG attendees who use PGP are encouraged to meet up and sign
keys at the meeting next week. The time and precise location are
still being confirmed with Merit and the PC, but in the mean time
here's
On 2-Jun-2006, at 15:44, Joe Abley wrote:
NANOG attendees who use PGP are encouraged to meet up and sign keys
at the meeting next week. The time and precise location are still
being confirmed with Merit and the PC, but in the mean time here's
the place to paste your public keys:
http
Hi,
NANOG attendees who use PGP are encouraged to meet up and sign keys
at the meeting next week. The time and precise location are still
being confirmed with Merit and the PC, but in the mean time here's
the place to paste your public keys:
http://www.biglumber.com/x/web?keyring=9214
On 17-May-2006, at 14:11, Steve Gibbard wrote:
Of Marty's list above, only UltraDNS and PCH are anycast (there are
several other anycast networks hosting TLDs that aren't on Marty's
list).
NS-EXT.ISC.ORG is anycast within AS 3557 as described in ISC-
TN-2004-1 (and
On 17-May-2006, at 10:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well Peter, ONE root server operator has that practice. Others
have different practices regarding anycast.
Actually, it looks to me like all thirteen root servers answer
HOSTNAME.BIND CHAOS TXT queries (J might check for trailing dots,
On 12-May-2006, at 01:17, Martin Hannigan wrote:
At 2:43 PM -0400 05:11:2006, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
the how-to-label problem has been around since the w3c's pics effort.
the jurisdictional issue is aterritorial,
Negative. 92% of the root is under US jurisdiction
How are you
Anybody here have a favourite electrical supply store in downtown LA
(or within easyish driving distance of downtown) which would stock
30A rack-mount power strips fed through a L5-30P twist-lock plug,
with output through regular 15A three-pin receptacles?
Please reply off-list. I can
Hi all,
Any IXP operators on this list interested in participating in a BOF
at NANOG 37 in San Jose?
This would be a get-together for exchange point operators to discuss
back-end automation and measurement, switches, etc, not a place for
ISPs to discuss peering.
If anybody is
On 7-Apr-2006, at 12:06, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:41:26PM -0400, Alain Hebert wrote:
Hummm squid.
With a touch of haproxy... (Or for those with money
ServerIron's)
...
Do Foundry ServerIrons proxy and cache, or just switch?
ServerIrons don't
On 4-Mar-2006, at 23:48, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 4, 2006, at 7:06 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
No support in big networks is required, beyond the presence of
shim6 in server stacks.
Why do you say this? Enterprises who multihome need their client
machines (tens and hundreds of thousands
On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of
pushing
routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts. Source
Routing
is a technology that most of the internet figured out is problematic
years ago. Making source
On 5-Mar-2006, at 17:03, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
All this time, energy, and thought spent on shim6 would have been
better spent on a scalable IDR solution. Luckily, we still have
another decade or so to come up with something.
So the answer to the lack of a routing solution to
On 3-Mar-2006, at 11:48, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
That depends on your perspective. There's a compelling need for
usable multicast in many environments, and so far there's nobody
(in the US) with a compelling need for IPv6, much less shim6.
If there's such a compelling need for native
On 1-Mar-2006, at 02:56, Kevin Day wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
o a small to medium multi-homed tier-n isp
A small-to-medium, multi-homed, tier-n ISP can get PI space from
their RIR, and don't need to worry about shim6 at all. Ditto
larger ISPs, up
On 1-Mar-2006, at 10:33, John Payne wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
-- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to
people whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual
device
On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:22, David Barak wrote:
Also, the current drafts don't support middleboxes,
which a huge number of enterprises use - in fact the
drafts specifically preclude their existence, which
renders this a complete non-starter for most of my
clients.
I have not yet reviewed the
On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:55, David Barak wrote:
--- Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just one guy, one ASN, and one content/hosting
network. But I
can tell you that to switch to using shim6 instead
of BGP speaking
would be a complete overhaul of how we do things.
You are not alone
On 1-Mar-2006, at 13:32, Kevin Day wrote:
We have peering arrangements with about 120 ASNs. How do we mix
BGP IPv6 peering and Shim6 for transit?
You advertise all your PA netblocks to all your peers.
Ok, I was a bit too vague there...
How do we ensure that peering connections are
On 1-Mar-2006, at 18:29, Randy Bush wrote:
You will note I have glossed over several hundred minor details (and
several hundred more not-so-minor ones). The protocols are not yet
published; there is no known implementation.
possibly this contributes to the sceptisim with which this is
On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:09, Kevin Day wrote:
Some problems/issues that are solved by current IPv4 TE practices
that we are currently using, that we can't do easily in Shim6:
Just to be clear, are you speaking from the perspective of an access
provider, or of an enterprise?
Joe
On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:52, Kevin Day wrote:
I'm not saying shim6 is flawed beyond anyone being able to use it.
I can see many scenarios where it would work great. However, I'm
really wary of it becoming the de facto standard for how *everyone*
multihomes if they're under a certain size.
On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:
Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF
telling us to
sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best.
Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there are far too
few operators involved in
On 1-Mar-2006, at 01:09, Randy Bush wrote:
How about some actual technical complaints about shim6?
good question. to give such discussion a base, could you
point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
the two most common situation operators see
o a large multi-homed
On 1-Mar-2006, at 01:06, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
However, the only alternative on the table is a v6 swamp.
Would that really be so bad? I keep being bonked on the head by
this thing called Moore's law.
I don't know that anybody can tell how bad it might be. It'd be a
shame if it
On 25-Feb-2006, at 03:41, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Limit UDP queries to 512 bytes. This greatly decreases the
amplification affect, though it doesn't stop it.
limiting UDP to 512 has other, unwanted effects,
edns0 for one... crippling ENUM, DNSSEC, IPv6, etc...
is
On 15-Feb-2006, at 19:33, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
Want to dual-home to SBC and Cox? Great. You get IP space from
1.0.0/18
which is advertised via AS64511. Lots of leaf dual-homers do the
same,
yet there is ONE route in the global table for the lot of you. SBC
and
Cox
On 16-Feb-2006, at 13:32, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
JA I get the feeling that there's a lot of solutions-designing
going on in this
JA thread without the benefit of prior problem-stating.
Problem:
Consumers want to multihome.
That sentence needs profound expansion before it's going to be
On 10-Feb-2006, at 13:43, Mark Foster wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Gary Wardell wrote:
I've seen one or two blogs that suggest gmail has a potential as a
source for anonymous SPAM and other abuses.
One said he blocks all gmail.
I'd be interested as to what others think.
Well after I
On 9-Feb-2006, at 02:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But back to EMIX. Maybe they do not offer any peering today
but is it true that they actively prohibit any companies
with routers at EMIX from peering?
There is no at EMIX. EMIX is an ISP, AS 8966, with network
connecting various cities in
At the risk of perpetuating a thread that arguably should have died
some days ago, someone without a nanog-post subscription reminded me
of GPX, who have plans to being an exchange point live in Egypt
(amongst other places).
http://www.gpx.ie/
No association, knowledge or endorsement
On 7-Feb-2006, at 23:25, Martin Hannigan wrote:
You keep saying EMIX
and you're confusing me. Peering or no? IX naturally insinuates
yes regardless of neutrality.
I'm not sure how to be more clear about this. EMIX is the name of a
transit service offered by Emirates Telecom.
Joe
On 7-Feb-2006, at 11:27, Aaron Glenn wrote:
On 2/7/06, Howard C. Berkowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one in
Kuwait as yet?
http://www.emix.net.ae/
it's flash heavy fyi
Note that EMIX is a transit service, not really peering.
On 7-Feb-2006, at 11:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I know of a Cairo IXP, and possibly one in the UAE. Is there one
in Kuwait as yet?
Yes, KIX. Note, there's CIX and CRIX. If you are trying to
reach African users, there's also KIX ala Kenya.
The exchange point in Nairobi is called KIXP,
On 7-Feb-2006, at 20:50, Martin Hannigan wrote:
As Joe's pointed out, what's available in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and
Kuwait are governmental monopoly incumbent transit services, a la
STIX, as
opposed to Internet exchanges where peering takes place. There are
several private colocation
On 4-Feb-2006, at 15:21, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
honestly I'm not a fan of IRR's, so don't pay attention to them,
but... is
the IRR 'not well operated' or is the data stale because the
'users' of
the IRR are 'not well operated' ?
The data ought to be maintained by the people to
On 3-Feb-2006, at 15:09, Dave Stewart wrote:
At 02:55 PM 2/3/2006, you wrote:
The heart of this problem, like so many other problems before
it, is that
most people are dumber than dirt itself.
So ... responsible prociders should only serve customers with some
minimum IQ?
One can wish
On 3-Feb-2006, at 15:59, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
With all due respect to the INOC-DBA project, which is actually
somewhat
interesting (from a I want to play with free IP phones too
perspective
if nothing else), it isn't a workable solution to operational contacts
yet.
I think you
On 27-Jan-2006, at 11:12, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but by definition, the right-most entry is the prefix origin...
Suppose AS 9327 decides to originate 198.32.6.0/24, but prepends 4555
to the AS_PATH as it does so. Suppose 9327's uses a transit provider
which builds prefix
On 27-Jan-2006, at 11:54, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
seems to me that certified validation of prefix ownership and as
path are the only real way out of these problems that does not
teach us the 42 reasons we use a *dynamic* protocol.
On 25-Jan-2006, at 16:12, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Gadi Evron wrote:
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Admins: Clearly, a personal attack and I'd like the AUP enforced
please.
Clearly, exactly what you've been trying to get me to do for a
long time, to get me off NANOG,
On 24-Jan-2006, at 12:07, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
He said via two different autonomous domains, which I took to mean
two upstreams... and my understanding is that (on ciscos anyway)
you're talking per-packet, not per-flow load balancing.
If you can get two candidate routes for the same
On 24-Jan-2006, at 13:05, Joe Abley wrote:
On 24-Jan-2006, at 12:07, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
He said via two different autonomous domains, which I took to mean
two upstreams... and my understanding is that (on ciscos anyway)
you're talking per-packet, not per-flow load balancing.
If you
On 24-Jan-2006, at 13:09, Robert E.Seastrom wrote:
Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you can get two candidate routes for the same destination into the
FIB, then you'll get per-flow load balancing as long as CEF is
running, no?
Yes and no. CEF is {src, dst} hash IIRC, and per-flow
On 24-Jan-2006, at 14:17, Matt Buford wrote:
Actually, TCP handles out of order packets rather well as long as
the reordering isn't too severe.
There's packet reordering, and there's oscillating RTT on segments
that travel by different paths.
I suspect the veracity of your statement
On 23-Jan-2006, at 14:47, Josh Karlin wrote:
Short of perfect filters, or perfect IRRs combined with PKI,
To what extent does the route object validation in the RIPE database
(for routes covering RIPE-allocated space), together with maintainer
object authentication, provide a perfect
On 20-Jan-2006, at 07:54, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Whatever. No-one's actually trying to do some packets are more
equal than others here in Europe, except for the mobile people
with IMS and such. BT just transferred its access network into
On 20-Jan-2006, at 11:25, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Things like sports events will still require real-time feeds, and
people will pay for them.
That and breaking news seem like reasonable exceptions to point out
in contrast to my rampant generalisations.
For news, however, stories seem
On 15-Jan-2006, at 18:15, Elijah Savage wrote:
Any validatity to this and if so I am suprised that our team has
got no calls on not be able to get to certain websites.
http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=477562
I think the main thing I learned from that is that there are a
On 13-Jan-2006, at 15:09, Randy Bush wrote:
it is a best practice to separate authoritative and recursive
servers.
why?
Because it prevents stale, authoritative data on your nameservers
being returned to intermediate-mode resolvers in the form of
apparently authoritative answers,
On 13-Jan-2006, at 17:07, Randy Bush wrote:
it is a best practice to separate authoritative and recursive
servers.
why?
Because it prevents stale, authoritative data on your nameservers
being returned to intermediate-mode resolvers in the form of
apparently authoritative answers,
On 13-Jan-2006, at 19:20, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Jeffrey I. Schiller wrote:
Let me attempt to bring this back to the policy question.
Does someone have the *right* to put one of your IP addresses as
an NS
record for their domain even if you do not agree?
Registrar
On 6-Jan-2006, at 11:23, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
guess terado services will get a facelift then too? (since they
require/use the 3ffe range for comms)
The most recent draft for teredo only requires use of 3FFE::/16
obliquely:
2.6 Global Teredo IPv6 service prefix
An IPv6
On 13-Dec-2005, at 16:28, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Sam Cr
ooks writes:
I would think you would want to drop your DNS record TTLs for all
domains being moved to something very low several days before the
switch-over period.
More precisely, you want to
On 14-Dec-2005, at 10:17, Joe Maimon wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
You also want to check all the registries which are superordinate
to zones your server is authoritative for, and check that any IP
addresses stored in those registries for your nameserver are
updated, otherwise you
101 - 200 of 483 matches
Mail list logo
