Uh,
I'm looking at this in the source below in sysdep/unix/log.c
and it looks like it is there. I assume you want mrtdump protocols
messages
The manual for Global options it says this:
mrtdump filename
Set MRTdump file name. This option must be specified to allow MRTdump
feature. Default: no
Ah, you said rib. Did look at the code a bit more.
It looks like there is a dump routes command. Might
try that.
Here it says birdc can do some stuff...
http://bird.network.cz/?get_docf=bird-4.html
dump resources|sockets|interfaces|neighbors|attributes|routes|protocols
and
show route
On 21 February 2013 21:58, Jack Bates jba...@brightok.net wrote:
...
The A-team doesn't get caught and detailed. The purpose of the other teams
is to detect easy targets, handle easy jobs, and create lots of noise for
the A-team to hide in. Hacking has always had a lot in common with magic.
- Original Message -
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat
And since it's Wacky Friday somewhere:
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123 describe the legal syntax of a
hostname. There is no trailing period.
May someone create a com subdomain in a DNS domain you have to work in,
Mark.
Or *course* the trailing dot matters, even if only
Dear Sir or Madam,
(We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this message)
Recent Advances in Message Passing Interface. 20th European MPI Users' Group
Meeting (EuroMPI 2013)
EuroMPI 2013 is being held in cooperation with
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:19:03PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
It's a convention common enough and useful enough that I can see why
people would want a handy term for it.
The core issue I'm trying to resolve surrounds the generation of a
CSR. We're trying automate this process for a network
- Original Message -
From: Brian Reichert reich...@numachi.com
The core issue I'm trying to resolve surrounds the generation of a
CSR. We're trying automate this process for a network appliance
my employer sells.
When our appliance generates a CSR for itself, among the steps is
to
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:57:42PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123 describe the legal syntax of a hostname.
There is no trailing period.
Mark is of course correct about this, but it doesn't fully help.
The basic problem is (as always) the confusion about the
On 2013-02-22, at 14:01, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 04:57:42PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123 describe the legal syntax of a hostname.
There is no trailing period.
Mark is of course correct about this, but it doesn't fully
- Original Message -
From: Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca
Actually, I think the problem is the confusion between a label string
terminated in a dot (to indicate that no search domain should be
appended) and a label string not so-terminated (which might mean that
a search domain is
Jay,
On 2013-02-22, at 14:20, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Actually, I think the problem is the confusion between a label string
terminated in a dot (to indicate that no search domain should be
appended) and a label string not so-terminated (which might mean that
a search domain is
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
- Original Message -
From: Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca
In fact, Joe, I think it's distinguishing your second case from a label
string which is intended to reference a rooted FQDN, but the user did not
specify the trailing dot -- and yet still does not want a search path
On 2013-02-22, at 14:39, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
In fact, Joe, I think it's distinguishing your second case from a label
string which is intended to reference a rooted FQDN, but the user did not
specify the trailing dot -- and yet still does not want a search path
applied...
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 01:39:21PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
but since the dot is a separator (I believe by definition), if it exists
at the end, it has to be separating *something*.
Without getting into metaphysics, we can think of the dot in the
presentation format as representing the
This report has been generated at Tue Feb 19 16:13:14 2013 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: 11-Feb-13 -to- 18-Feb-13 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS9498 111602 4.7% 107.9 -- BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd.
2 - AS24560 91379
On 2/22/13 11:01 AM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
Without getting into metaphysics, we can think of the dot in the
presentation format as representing the separators in the wire
format. In the wire format, of course, these separators are octets
that indicate the size of the next label. And since
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41:33PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
My snap reaction is to say that nothing should ever be *trying* to
compare a rooted F.Q.D.N. against a certificate; it is, as has been
noted, merely command line/entry field shorthand to tell the local
resolver where to quit;
In short, yes, Jay, I do. Got it. :-)
You saw Joe's second reply?
Brian Reichert reich...@numachi.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:41:33PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
My snap reaction is to say that nothing should ever be *trying* to
compare a rooted F.Q.D.N. against a certificate; it
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 02:10:02PM -0800, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
just keep in mind that while . ought to be a label separator, the
utc's bidi algorithm allows the directionality of a label to leak
across the period character, where it is not a terminal character.
Yes, this is true,
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:21:02PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
In short, yes, Jay, I do. Got it. :-)
:)
You saw Joe's second reply?
Apparently, I lost track of that while writing this up. :)
--
Brian Reichert reich...@numachi.com
BSD admin/developer at large
So, should browsers send absolute host names in http/1.1 requests, and
shouldn't servers strip the trailing dot if they get one?
I vote No and Yes, resp.
Brian Reichert reich...@numachi.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:21:02PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
In short, yes, Jay, I do. Got it.
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:19:03PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
It's a convention common enough and useful enough that I can see why
people would want a handy term for it.
How about stopdot? Seems to cover the function and the form.
---rsk
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:46:27PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
So, should browsers send absolute host names in http/1.1 requests, and
shouldn't servers strip the trailing dot if they get one?
I vote No and Yes, resp.
The first question is tough, only because of the depth of the
exatblished
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 03:30:57PM -0800, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
This is clarified in RFC 3280:
When the subjectAltName extension contains a domain name system
label, the domain name MUST be stored in the dNSName (an IA5String).
The name MUST be in the preferred name syntax, as
Well, the followup question is: are absolute host names real, or /solely/
hint to the local resolver not to search-list?
I will reread 1035 later tonight ...
Brian Reichert reich...@numachi.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:46:27PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
So, should browsers send
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 06:12:41PM -0500, Brian Reichert wrote:
The spec for a URL also calls out what constitutes a hostname, and
I've yet to see a HTTP client that trips over a rooted domain name.
Well, RFC 3986 (URI) explicitly allows the final dot. See the section
on reg-name in section
Yrs, but he wanted the retronym for domain names not containing one, not the
dot.
Absolute and relative domain names, as Joe and 1035 said.
Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 05:19:03PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
It's a convention common enough and useful enough that I
http://domainincite.com/page/5?s=right+of+the+dot
--
-Barry Shein
The World | b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE
On 2/21/13, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
RFC 952 as modified by RFC 1123 describe the legal syntax of a hostname.
There is no trailing period.
A hostname is not a domain name, the hostname is just a label, and
has stricter syntax than is allowed in a DNS label; however: When
hostnames
A domain name without a terminal dot is a relative domain name.
-- An application requesting name to address translation gets to decide if a
search list is to be used, including the default of dot.
A domain name with a terminal dot is a Fully Qualified Domain Name.
-- An application
- Original Message -
From: Cutler James R james.cut...@consultant.com
A domain name without a terminal dot is a relative domain name.
-- An application requesting name to address translation gets to
decide if a search list is to be used, including the default of dot.
A domain name
On 2/22/13, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
RFC103 5.1 is correct in the context of a DNS zonefile.
In other contexts, however, a domain is absolute without a trailing dot.
One example, would be in the case of the SMTP protocol, where
hostnames are required to _always_ be absolute.
In
- Original Message -
From: Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com
RFC103 5.1 is correct in the context of a DNS zonefile.
In other contexts, however, a domain is absolute without a trailing
dot.
If that can be nailed down authoritatively, then it will answer my
followup questions, and at least
36 matches
Mail list logo
