On Jul 27, 2012, at 8:47 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <25f0b21a-0319-45e3-9dbf-9906cb77a...@kapu.net>, Michael J Wise
> writ
> es:
>>
>> On Jul 27, 2012, at 6:40 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>
>>> MX records don't "chain".
>>
>> But they do, "Expand".
>> And I can think of a way whereby i
In message <25f0b21a-0319-45e3-9dbf-9906cb77a...@kapu.net>, Michael J Wise writ
es:
>
> On Jul 27, 2012, at 6:40 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
> > MX records don't "chain".
>
> But they do, "Expand".
> And I can think of a way whereby if an MX record referenced itself, =
> *AND* included something
If anyone from Dreamhost participates here, I'd like to talk about an
apparent routing issue you may have with reaching anything originating in
AS6364. Specifically, I'm able to reach IPs in 208.113.240.0/24 from
off-net (outside AS6364) machines, and from a customer owned CIDR to which
we pro
On Jul 27, 2012, at 6:40 PM, David Miller wrote:
> MX records don't "chain".
But they do, "Expand".
And I can think of a way whereby if an MX record referenced itself, *AND*
included something extra … (did you see the something extra?)
That it would be possible (and I'm not saying this is what
On 7/27/2012 9:00 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 7/27/12, Tony Finch wrote:
>> That would be a seriously broken violation of the SMTP specification.
> I would definitely agree it would be quite broken behavior, but you
> know, I never said Hotmail's processing wasn't broken -- only that
> they seem
On 7/27/12, Tony Finch wrote:
> That would be a seriously broken violation of the SMTP specification.
I would definitely agree it would be quite broken behavior, but you
know, I never said Hotmail's processing wasn't broken -- only that
they seem to honor MX records in the common case.If yo
That would be a seriously broken violation of the SMTP specification.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
On 26 Jul 2012, at 08:21, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> If the MX records are not responsive / timing out, they might be falling
> back to the A record.
>
> On Thu, Jul 26, 20
This report has been generated at Fri Jul 27 21:13:00 2012 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 21-Jul-12 -to- 26-Jul-12 (5 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS163739517 1.6% 365.9 -- DNIC-AS-01637 - Headquarters,
USAISC
2 - AS17813
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
TRNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.ap
--- rgolod...@infratection.com wrote:
From: "Richard Golodner"
Grant and the rest of you NANOGERS, more regarding new problems in Iran via
an F-Secure blog. Here is the link:
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/2403.html
If you connect
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
>
Perhaps we should have newnog implement a penalty payment
system for registrations; tag an extra $25 "excessive leakage"
charge onto conference registrations for networks that are in the
top 30 list?
I worked at a network that made it onto
http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/2403.html
> There was also some music playing randomly on several of the
> workstations during the middle of the night with the volume maxed
> out. I believe it was playing 'Thunderstruck' by AC/DC.
Someone "orchestratesd an attack", hmm?
Nice.
--
Da
On the downstream end the limiting is usually done on the subscriber
aggregation equipment. Router vendors sell linecards with large amounts of
queue capability for this reason. This is where you would introduce some kind
of QoS to deal with video or voice as well. Upstream could be done the
Many CPE platforms have the rate limit built in. Some (eg: Zhone) do this in
1mbps increments. Ideally there would be some greater level of granularity but
it seems to work. You can obviously police on the other end as well if
required.
Jared Mauch
On Jul 26, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Jason Lixfeld
On 7/26/2012 11:21 PM, Erik Muller wrote:
> I've seen a few deployments using Packeteer's (now BlueCoat)
> PacketShaper for this purpose; the only downside I've heard with that
> platform is cost. Sandvine and Fortinet are a couple other options
> that have different approaches, but have a lot of
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> You don't lookup MX records for MX targets. This is basic MTA
> processing.
>
> If the MX lookup fails, as apposed to returns nodata, you don't
> lookup the A/ records and synthesis a MX record. You treat it
> as a soft error and queue
17 matches
Mail list logo
