On Apr 13, 2008, at 2:24 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
For example, I feel very strongly that if a user signs up for a
list, and
then doesn't like it, it isn't the sender's fault, and the mail
isn't spam.
Now, if the user revokes permission to mail, and the sender keeps
sending,
that's covered as
On Apr 7, 2008, at 7:17 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 5 apr 2008, at 12:34, Kevin Day wrote:
As long as you didn't drop more packets than SACK could handle
(generally 2 packets in-flight) dropping packets is pretty
ineffective at causing TCP to slow down.
It shouldn't be. TCP
On Apr 4, 2008, at 8:51 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
What is really necessary is to detect just the flows that need to
slow
down, and selectively discard just one packet at the right time, but
not more, per TCP cycle. Discarding too many will cause a flow to
stall -- we
On Apr 5, 2008, at 7:49 AM, Paul Vixie wrote:
You've also got fast retransmit, New Reno, BIC/CUBIC, as well as host
parameter caching to limit the affect of packet loss on recovery
time. I
don't doubt that someone else could do a better job than I did in
this
field, but I'd be really
On Mar 22, 2008, at 2:44 PM, Joel Snyder wrote:
We would like to get an IPv6 tunnel to begin limited testing of IPv6
for customers. Is there any IPv6-savvy ISP out there who will give/
sell tunnels to other ISPs?
Experimentation with SixXS.NET has proven to be problematic, so I'd
On Sep 5, 2007, at 4:07 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
As the site (http://www.ipv6porn.com) states:
8--
If you're here for the free content, it's not here! We're not ready
for
the world to know about this experiment yet, so don't go submitting
this
to
On Dec 29, 2006, at 4:19 PM, The Shadow wrote:
Question:
Why is it that every company out there allows connections through
their
firewalls to their web and mail infrastructure from countries that
they
don't even do business in. Shouldn't it be our default to only
allow US
based IP
On Oct 15, 2006, at 8:21 PM, John Levine wrote:
In addition to all of the offered AC services others have mentioned,
some planes have power outlets for vacuum cleaners, typically
behind a
small panel next to a door.
ISTR, these AC sockets are airplane flavour 115VAC @ 400Hz.
No. it's
On Jun 21, 2006, at 12:43 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
If the proxy is not at the Tor exit node, how can the tor network
enforce the addition of the this connection went through tor HTTP
header that Kevin Day was asking for? Fundamentally, if you rely on a
program sitting on the user's
On Jun 21, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Todd Vierling wrote:
On 6/21/06, Kevin Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Failing that, having an exit node look at HTTP headers back from the
server that contained a X-No-Anonymous header to say that the host
at that IP shouldn't allow Tor to use it would work
On Jun 17, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Apologies if this has been brought up before.
Being as I'm not a network administrator myself (although I do filter
some stuff using pf and ipfw on my severs), I'm curious what NAs
think of the following technology:
On Jun 6, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Nick Burke wrote:
How many of you have actually use(d) Zebra/Linux as a routing
device (core and/or regional, I'd be interested in both) in a
production (read: 99.999% required, hsrp, bgp, dot1q, other
goodies) environment?
And, if you care to spend this
On May 15, 2006, at 4:36 PM, Alain Hebert wrote:
Yeap,
I'm moron. You didn't know it yet?
-
Come on...
The way we disperse static IP ain't imagination, its fact...
We spread a /20 on dynamic dialup and dsl over 2 provinces and
since most of the residential services
On Apr 7, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Mark Boolootian wrote:
Its just NTP, I can't imagine that it is *really* enough traffic
to care
all that much.
You're kidding, right? Do you know what happened to wisc.edu:
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~plonka/netgear-sntp/
Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ome.
When I see comments like this I wonder whether people
understand what shim6 is all about. First of all, these
aren't YOUR hosts. They belong to somebody else. If you
are an access provider then these hosts belong to a customer
that is
On Mar 2, 2006, at 7:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clearly, it would be extremely unwise for an ISP or
an enterprise to rely on shim6 for multihoming. Fortunately
they won't have to do this because the BGP multihoming
option will be available.
Are you *sure* BGP multihoming will be
On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 1-Mar-2006, at 02:56, Kevin Day wrote:
If you include Web hosting company in your definition of ISP,
that's not true.
Right. I wasn't; I listed them separately.
It's important to note that even if you are a hosting company who
*does
For those watching and grumbling, I'll move the discussion to a shim6
mailing list, or in private if anyone wants to continue beyond this.
Just make sure you cc: me if you move the discussion somewhere else.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 1-Mar-2006, at 13:32, Kevin
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:31 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[Crossposted to shim6 and NANOG lists, please don't make me regret
this... Replies are probably best sent to just one list for people
who don't subscribe to both.]
On 27-feb-2006, at 22:13, Jason Schiller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
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
On Feb 28, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-feb-2006, at 17:09, Kevin Day wrote:
4) Being able to do 1-3 in realtime, in one place, without waiting
for DNS caching or connections to expire
How fast is real time?
And are we just talking about changing preferences here
On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-feb-2006, at 23:15, John Payne wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't
worry too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators control the
DNS for the end hosts come
On Jan 15, 2006, at 6:02 PM, Sam Stickland wrote:
Replying to my own email..
I've found some sites that suggest it's not possible to disable
auto-negotiation on 1000Base-T since other operational parameters
are negotiated including selection of the master clock signal. I
was aware
Just a reminder, at midnight UTC there's a leap second added to most
time systems.
Some time systems will stop the clock at 23:59:59.99 for 1
second, some will display 23:59:60 for a second.
Since the last leap second (1998), leap second aware time keeping
systems(NTP, GPS, etc)
Last NTP spam:
I'm by no means an NTP expert, if anyone else is, please pipe up.
About 30 minutes before the leap second should have occurred, several
of our systems reported xntpd[13742]: time reset 0.958385 s, which
was really strange. They moved the wrong direction, and they did it
, 2005, at 4:56 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Kevin Day wrote:
No, the proposed policy says that if you get a /44 you must
advertise
that connectivity through it's single aggregated address assignment.
Get a /48 from your provider? Your provider can only give /48s to
organizations through its
On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:09 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
With the thousands of datacenters that exist with IPv4 cores, what
will it take to get them to move all of their infrastructure and
customers to IPv6? Can it even be done or will they just run IPv6
to the core and proxy the rest?
-Jim
On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:13 AM, Kevin Loch wrote:
Kevin Day wrote:
9) Once we started publishing records for a few sites, we
started getting complaints from some users that they couldn't
reach the sites.
It is possible that a broken 6to4 relay somewhere was causing
problems
On Dec 21, 2005, at 1:34 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:Kevin Day wrote:[..]I agree with your point that currently your IPv4-solution can't beapplied to IPv6 but..(see the helpful and nice thingy part at the end ;)Thanks. I also just want to add that I'm not expecting to be able to do every single thing
On Dec 21, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
1) IPv6 on the internet overall seems a bit unreliable at the moment.
Entire /32's disappear and reappear, gone for days at a time.
That's certainly true for people not doing it in production. But
that
ain't a problem as they aren't doing
On Nov 15, 2005, at 9:45 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
www.paypal.com
Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was
unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server
On Nov 15, 2005, at 10:22 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
No chance. Do you have the attributions wrong here? Even your own
website
says that 404's are 70% burp-factor - which I would tend to agree with
for the most part. Not enough httpd spurned, reloads, bad pages, etc.
The problem is fewer and fewer modern systems implement the other
recommendations. So password lifetime has become the primary protection
factor.
How many systems notify the user
- the date and time of user's last login
- the location of the user at the last login
- unsuccessfull login
If the .MIL network can't provide International Internet service, is it
time to move the g.root-servers.net and h.root-servers.net off their
current .MIL hosts to better locations to serve the entire Internet.
Otherwise .MIL policies reduce the robustness of the overall Internet.
Heck, even when
Too bad a substantial amount of equipment doesn't allow for
redundant plugins. The ability to plug { servers | routers |
whatever } into two totally separate power feeds is nice.
Anyone for building a rackmount transfer switch for two inputs?
Assuming it didn't fail (!) -- would the economies
At 10:00 PM 1/19/2003, John Payne wrote:
--On Sunday, January 19, 2003 05:35:07 PM -0800 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'n confused. I thought AppliedTheory (was CRL) was bought by Clearblue
which later aquired part in Navisite and later had Navisite aquire
most of Clearblue
Does anyone know how to get meaningful host reports (they call them Domain
Status Reports now) from verisign? It used to be that you could enter either
a contact handle or a host handle, and get every domain that's attached to
them.
But now they have changed things so that as soon as a domain
37 matches
Mail list logo
