Guys can somebody send me a contact with gmail admin that can fix this:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
my@email
Technical details of permanent failure:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient
domain. We recommend contacting
On 5/6/12, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
Which way do *you* vote?
Hi Matthew,
Cisco routers forward packets for 127.0.0.0/8 unless explicitly
configured not to, treating it like any other unicast address.
Linux load balancers require a special kernel patch to also use them
as
Try out Observium...simple install and integration with RANCID.
- Original Message -
From: Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Saturday, May 5, 2012 12:18:34 AM
Subject: Re: Network diagram app that shows realtime link utilizatin
David Miller wrote:
I
On 7. May 2012, at 12:56 , William Herrin wrote:
I vote for the Cisco approach. It has occasionally quirky results but
it's also flexible enough to handle situations the protocol designers
didn't conceive of.
Isn't it a simple scope violation in IPv6 and thus a bug and with that end of
I am not sure who uses DSL here. I have two people I know who use it,
both are dissatisfied and if they had an alternative it woud not be.
It is slow, unreliable compared to cable.
Ralph Brandt
Communications Engineer
HP Enterprise Services
Telephone +1 717.506.0802
FAX +1
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 3/27/12 23:21 , Roberts, Brent wrote:
Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with multiple
Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of traffic. BGP
Doesn't support URPF which makes it unsuitable for RTBH
Brandt, Ralph wrote:
I am not sure who uses DSL here. I have two people I know who use it,
both are dissatisfied and if they had an alternative it woud not be.
It is slow, unreliable compared to cable.
That's a rather bold statement which I find hard to believe. Do you have
any data to
On 5/7/12 21:17 , Jo Rhett wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:48 AM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 3/27/12 23:21 , Roberts, Brent wrote:
Is anyone running an E300 Series Chassis at the internet edge with
multiple Full BGP feeds? 95th percent would be about 300 meg of
traffic. BGP
Doesn't support URPF
FYI: The E300 is the TeraScale series. If you're looking at used, be sure to
get dual-cam cards or else you'll top out at 256k routes. Dual-cam should give
you 512K/32K (v4/v6). Next step up would be the E600i with EJ RPM(s) which is
the ExaScale series and supports up to 688k/128k (v4/v6)
Sorry... small correction. EH/EJ are line cards with different CAM sizes. RPM's
for Terascale vs Exascale are EF vs EH. I'm getting my letters mixed up. :)
-Vinny
-Original Message-
From: Abello, Vinny
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 6:46 PM
To: jrh...@netconsonance.com; joe...@bogus.com
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-04-16/landline-service-becoming-obsolete/54321184/1
Indiana is doing away with its requirement that the incumbent LECs
supply voice service to rural areas. Indiana also used
Hi All,
I just wrote a perl daemon that seems to be a working rwhois server but the
RFC is quite difficult to read for me. When talking about the protocol it
mentions a bunch of requirements and describes them quite strangely
(see rfc2167 section 3.1.9). Is there a layman's guide around
Dunno how much help it'll be but here's mine.. It's basic and probably
non-RFC compliant, but it might help.
crapbox.idge.net/~tjackson/rwhois.tar.gz
On May 7, 2012 6:35 PM, Landon Stewart lstew...@superb.net wrote:
Hi All,
I just wrote a perl daemon that seems to be a working rwhois server
Hello Georgi
I have passed your message to my known contact in Gmail team.
Hopefully you will her back from them.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Georgi Chorbadzhiyski g...@unixsol.orgwrote:
Guys can somebody send me a contact with gmail admin that can fix this:
Delivery to the
On 5/7/12, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On 5/6/12, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote:
Which way do *you* vote?
Hi Matthew,
Cisco routers forward packets for 127.0.0.0/8 unless explicitly
configured not to, treating it like any other unicast address.
The difference with IPv4,
you try to deliver an email to *my@email* address. Of course it failed :)
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Georgi Chorbadzhiyski g...@unixsol.orgwrote:
Guys can somebody send me a contact with gmail admin that can fix this:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
Maybe you can temporary fix the issue adding mail-gy0-f174.google.com to
your /etc/hosts file ?
On 07.05.2012 14:21, Georgi Chorbadzhiyski wrote:
Guys can somebody send me a contact with gmail admin that can fix this:
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
my@email
17 matches
Mail list logo
