-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Apr 11, 2011, at 11:02 AM, harbor235 wrote:
http://www.lisp4.net/
This sounds a lot like LNP in the telco world. Is the goal here to make IP's
portable ? Or is this a viable way to access IPv6
On Feb 13, 2010, at 4:58 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
i am often on funky networks in funky places. e.g. the wireless in
changi really sucked friday night. if i ssh tunneled, it would multiply
the suckiness as tcp would have puked at the loss rate.
You can always run your own local resolver... Or
On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:42 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
How does that help? It still sends port 53 requests to the authorities,
which will be intercepted.
Hrm.. Maybe I misunderstood. Are the packets being intercepted, or is the
problem the local resolvers?
Well, in either case, another
On Dec 4, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
That the old ILECs are having problems due to the fact that few if any
of them know how to run a decent business is not exactly news. IMO, it
might be best if some of them were finaly placed in the position of
figuring out how to come into
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Scott Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nice to see a wholesale DNSSEC rollout underway (I must confess to being a
little surprised at the source, too!). Granted, it's a much more manageable
problem set than, say, .com - but if one US-controlled TLD can do it,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in spite of that caution i am telling you all, patch, and patch now. if you
have firewall or NAT configs that prevent it, then redo your topology -- NOW.
and make sure your NAT isn't derandomizing your port numbers on the way
6 matches
Mail list logo
