On Aug 8, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm sure there will be platforms that end up on both sides of this question.
I know of no asic in a switch that claims to support ipv6 that does it this
way... That would tend to place you at a competitive disadvantage to
It's at least true of how some of the Cisco platforms cope with IPv6 access
lists.
Owen
On Aug 8, 2011, at 11:54 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On Aug 8, 2011, at 5:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I'm sure there will be platforms that end up on both sides of this question.
I know of no asic in a
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 11:52 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Chris,
On Aug 8, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
messing with basic plumbing will have unintended consequences, they will be
bad.
If the users her WANT to have this experience, there are lots of
Silly confidentiality notices are usually enforced by silly corporate
IT departments and cannot be removed by mere mortal employees.
They are an unavoidable part of life, like Outlook top posting and
spam.
Alternatively, if your corporate email imposes stupid policies and / or a
stupid email
Once upon a time, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com said:
If you must not have someone plugging into your server LAN without
permission, you
turn unused ports off, or preferably, place them in a VLAN island with
no topological
connection to anything.
That's about what I do; unused ports are in a
Folks,
We have created the IPv6 Hackers mailing-list for discussion of IPv6
security issues and low-level issues. The charter of the list is:
cut here
This list was created for the discussion of IPv6 security issues and
low/packet-level issues related to the IPv6 protocols. It is meant
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 11:24:03 +1200, Jonathon Exley said:
Silly confidentiality notices are usually enforced by silly corporate IT
departments and cannot be removed by mere mortal employees.
They are an unavoidable part of life, like Outlook top posting and spam.
They may all three be things
Folks -
Is there a public list somewhere of service providers that do not support
4-byte
autonomous system numbers when peering? (if not, should there be one?)
At ARIN, we are still having parties returning 4-byte ASN's (seeking 2-byte
instead),
indicating that the 4-byte ones are
On 09/08/2011 14:47, John Curran wrote:
At ARIN, we are still having parties returning 4-byte ASN's (seeking 2-byte
instead),
indicating that the 4-byte ones are not sufficiently accepted in peering to
be usable.
This is obviously a less than desirable situation, and it appears that
While attempting to focus on ISPs there is still [unbelievably] a vendor
support issue. You may consider this a procurement failure, but the
fact remains that some products [Cisco me3400e] have yet to implement
support.
-Michael
On 8/9/2011 9:24 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 09/08/2011
and the number 1 threat ... suprisingly no Bears!
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com wrote:
http://blog.level3.com/2011/08/04/the-10-most-bizarre-and-annoying-causes-of-fiber-cuts/
On 09/08/2011 15:45, Michael Hare wrote:
While attempting to focus on ISPs there is still [unbelievably] a vendor
support issue. You may consider this a procurement failure, but the fact
remains that some products [Cisco me3400e] have yet to implement support.
the me3400 is a metro core
Aren't there still community issues with 4 byte ASN space as well that have
not been resolved?
-Blake
On 09/08/2011 16:43, Blake Dunlap wrote:
Aren't there still community issues with 4 byte ASN space as well that have
not been resolved?
I think I mentioned that.
draft-raszuk-wide-bgp-communities will fix this, but it's unclear when
we'll start seeing this rolled out in production code.
Nick
Granted I've never worked outside academia but the me3400 is otherwise a
cost effective gig-e demarc for very simple bgp multihoming.
They have made a strategic decision to not implement a simple software
update support RFC4893 [it has been 4 years] and to set an artificial
price point on
as i'm rolling v6 into my world, i'm not sure which way to go with
reverse dns conventions. for forward i'm doing things like:
foo.example.coma1.1.1.1
foo.example.com1000::1.1.1.1
foo.v4.example.coma1.1.1.1
foo.v6.example.com1000::1.1.1.1
so i can use a
On 2011-08-09 20:47 , Joe Pruett wrote:
as i'm rolling v6 into my world, i'm not sure which way to go with
reverse dns conventions. for forward i'm doing things like:
foo.example.coma1.1.1.1
foo.example.com1000::1.1.1.1
foo.v4.example.coma1.1.1.1
gentlefolk, ARIN is the community's self-generated steward for internet
numbering resources (ip addresses and autonomous system numbers) and it
is governed by volunteers from the community who serve on its advisory
council and executive board. every year ARIN holds an election to fill
or renew
On Aug 9, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Joe Pruett wrote:
as i'm rolling v6 into my world, i'm not sure which way to go with
reverse dns conventions. for forward i'm doing things like:
foo.example.coma1.1.1.1
foo.example.com1000::1.1.1.1
foo.v4.example.coma1.1.1.1
I am sad to announce that Robert Seastrom has resigned from the NewNOG
Board of Directors, effective yesterday. Rob has served on the
Steering Committee, transition team, and the board for the past three
years, and has provided valuable insight and assistance throughout the
transition of NANOG to
On 9 August 2011 16:36, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
My PTRs are all to the same host name. In any context where the protocol
actually matters, you should have other ways to detect it.
I also don't recommend doing the foo.v4/foo.v6 thing in your forwards.
There's
really no advantage
I'm using a GRE IPv4 tunnel between a cisco and linux machines
I did some packet capture, and saw that my MTU was 1418, but the cisco was
sending TCP packet with a MSS of 1380. This created a bunch of issues. When I
told the cisco box to use a MSS of 1378 everything starting to work fine.
So
Everything from checksums, keys, and sequence numbers is optional. The only
required fields IIRC amount to 2 bytes of overhead. Sounds like they both
interpret what should be included in the GRE header slightly differently.
Stefan Fouant
GPG Key ID: 0xB4C956EC
Sent from my HTC EVO.
-
I too agree the v4/v6 stuff is pointless and slightly annoying so I have been
using same name with A/ records.
-Original Message-
From: Landon Stewart [mailto:lstew...@superb.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 6:16 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: v4/v6 dns thoughts?
On 9
24 matches
Mail list logo
