On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:49:24AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 10:45 AM, TGLASSEY tglas...@earthlink.net wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense if we created a specific mail alias for requesting
DNS flushes? This seems to happen statistically often enough it might be a
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 03:59:21PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 14, 2014, at 15:47 , Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Niels Bakker
niels=na...@bakker.netwrote:
At least one vendor, Akamai is helping out now:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 07:47:46PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
It must be quite a while. Unix systems have routinely cleared the RAM
and disk allocated to programs since the earliest days.
When you say clear the disk allocated to programs what do you mean
exactly?
On a clear disc,
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:49:27PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is named explicitly as a recipient in the RFC822
header. Anything To: somelist@somehost does not qualify :)
Jeff
and just how is an
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 05:56:45PM -0600, Me wrote:
On 04/08/2014 10:16 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Lots of tools available. I'm with ferg, surprised more haven't been
mentioned here.
Tools to check for the bug:
• on your own box:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:46:31PM -0400, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Me jsch...@flowtools.net writes:
Thanks for the expanded list, I had some of these already. I'm not
comfortable in letting some online code that I can't see test my site
though.
If that's true, you might want to consider
Loves my old Heathkit WWVB unit. Keeps drift in check most days.
Pairs nicely with the Spectracom 9383.
Looking at the Microsemi TP-5000 w/ rubidium oscillator.
/bill
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:25:07PM -0400, Rob Seastrom wrote:
On a tangential note, it's all very nice to say We
I can send you a copy of an invited presentation at AINTEC from 2009.
/bill
On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 02:14:22PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
Hi all,
It's common wisdom that a datagram that needs to be fragmented between
endpoints (because it is bigger than the path MTU) will demonstrate less
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 04:27:16PM -0500, Timothy Morizot wrote:
On Mar 23, 2014 11:27 AM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@mykolab.com wrote:
Also, IPv6 introduces some serious security concerns, and until they
are properly addressed, they will be a serious barrier to even
considering it.
And
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:31:57PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 23/03/2014 21:02, Mark Andrews wrote:
Actually all you have stated in that printer vendors need to clean
up their act and not that one shouldn't expect to be able to expose
a printer to the world. It isn't hard to do this
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:27, manning bill bmann...@isi.edu wrote:
alas, our service predates Joe’s marvelous text.
“B” provides its services locally to its upstream ISPs.
We don’t play routing tricks, impose routing policy, or
RFC 2182
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 02:57:06PM -0400, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net writes:
On 3/7/2014 5:03 AM, Rob Seastrom wrote:
for decades. i have a vague recollection of an rfc that said
secondary nameservers ought not be connected to the same psn
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 08:07:55AM -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org writes:
haven't you heard about anycast??
rs probably has. The owner of 199.73.57.122, probably not.
indeed. there are many pieces of evidence that this is not an anycast
prefix. proof
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 07:52:10AM -0500, Rob Seastrom wrote:
Paul S. cont...@winterei.se writes:
For all it's worth, it might be Cox ignoring TTLs and enforcing their
own update times instead.
Wait 24-48 hours, and it should probably fix it all up.
Possibly.
I'm not seeing
if you have comments or feedback
- Forwarded message from Julie N -
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:34:51 +
Subject: 5350-5470 MHz
Dear Members,
As you know, we have been actively engaged in the International
Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Joint Task Group (JTG) studies to
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:37:32AM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
I am looking for some info on current practice for an email server and SMTP
delivery. It has been a while since I have had to setup an email server and
I have been
of possible interest.
/bill
- Forwarded message from Philip Smith pfsi...@gmail.com -
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 19:37:41 +1000
Subject: [APRICOT-INFO] APRICOT 2014 call for papers
Hi everyone,
We have just released the call for presentations for APRICOT 2014.
Please
On Sun, Nov 03, 2013 at 08:49:32AM -0800, Private Sender wrote:
On 11/3/2013 8:39 AM, rw...@ropeguru.com wrote:
I am looking for some info on current practice for an email server
and SMTP delivery. It has been a while since I have had to setup an
email server and I have been tasked with
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 03:29:07PM +, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
A couple of folks have asked me privately for links to some presos on DDoS,
BCPs, et. al., so I'm re-posting the links here, for future citation:
DDoS BCP presos:
https://app.box.com/s/4h2l6f4m8is6jnwk28cg
2009 - 2011
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:18:15PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:
This would be a lot of work, so nobody does it.
If someone asks for the rdns for:
2001:0db8:85a3:0042:1000:8a2e:0370:7334
it's a lot of work for
back in the good o'l days when we would hand out 24 bits for the
number of hosts in a network. It was too many bits then and is
too many bits now a /64 is just overkill.
/bill
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 03:11:39PM -0400, Ryan McIntosh wrote:
I'd love to be able to turn the microwave
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 11:27:26AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:46 AM, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 9:32 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
IPv4 jumped from 8 bits to
32 bits. Which when you think about it is the same ratio as
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
/bill
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 06:45:02AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Each site should get at least a /48.
Stop worrying about dense-packing the IP space in IPv6. This is IPv4-think.
IPv6 is intended to be sparsely allocated.
Owen
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:29:17PM -0700, Darren Pilgrim wrote:
On 9/26/2013 1:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
The foundation of that, though, was ignorance of address space
exhaustion. IPv4's address space was too small
Yup. Seen/Heard all that. Even tooted that horn for a while.
/64 is an artifical boundary - many/most IANA/RIR delegations are in the top
/32
which is functionally the same as handing out traditional /16s. Some RIR
client
are bigger and demand more, so they get the v6 equvalent of /14s or
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 06:36:22PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
* bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com (bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com) [Fri 13 Sep
2013, 22:16 CEST]:
from where? to where? what % of the Internet is _not_
reachable from my DNS service at any given time? why is
that
there is a huge amount of information on the net. have you done any homework?
brief summary, an exchange is a shared fate transport where an ISP can exchange
traffic
with two or more other participants on the exchange.
most of the traffic exchange is done via peering with the BGP protocol.
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 04:01:51PM -0400, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
On 13-09-12 21:53, Larry Sheldon wrote:
I expect 100.000%
I'll accept 99.999% or better.
At these numbers, one has to start to count failover time. A system
can be disaster tolerant but take 2 hours to recover
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 04:58:52PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
Quite frankly, all this chatter about technical 'calls to arms' and
whatnot is pointless and distracting (thereby calling into question
the motivations behind continued agitation for technical remedies,
which clearly won't have
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 12:10:32PM -0400, William F. Maton Sotomayor wrote:
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Clayton Zekelman wrote:
Just wondering aloud if an ISP that did have commercial interest could run
a non-member driven exchange point successfully as long as they had
pricing and policies that
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:37:20AM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
Even the researchers at the Library of Congress, if you give them
enough beer and beg them enough, will eventually give you an estimate
about the Library collection size as of the end of the last year.
What so special about the
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:32:13AM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
Researchers have complained for years about the lack of good
statistics about the internet for a couple fo decades, since the
end of NSFNET statistics.
What are the current estimates about the size of the Internet, all IP
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 03:00:51PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
I should have remembered, NANOG prefers to correct things. So here are
several estimates about how much IP/Internet traffic is downloaded
in a month. Does anyone have better numbers, or better souces of
numbers that can be
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 08:45:50AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message krmkg2$flc$1...@ger.gmane.org, Chris Hills writes:
On 11/07/2013 15:27, Jon Mitchell wrote:
After .nyc thread, thought this IAB announcement may be of interest.
f the assignment predated ARIN, then its not clear if current ARIN policy
is applicable.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:18:54PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
On 2013-06-26, at 13:52, Adam Greene maill...@webjogger.net wrote:
We have a customer who was assigned some PI IPv4 space by Paetec back in
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:39:12PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On May 23, 2013, at 23:17 , David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On May 23, 2013, at 10:53 PM, Andreas Larsen andreas.lar...@ip-only.se
wrote:
The whole idea of Geoip is flawed.
Sure, but pragmatically, it's an 80%
ISOC - the folks who bring you IETF standards, is seeking public input.
This from Emma:
Hi all,
In case it is of interest there is currently a public consultation on the
Internet Society's mission now and in the future, you can voice your
opinions by filling in the form at:
paging Softbank/Sony.
/bill
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:50:57AM -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
your not alone... (Sprint is the upstream for this email)
The original message was received at Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:21:10
your not alone... (Sprint is the upstream for this email)
The original message was received at Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:21:10 GMT
from localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]
- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -
tom.a.sch...@sprint.com
(reason: 501 5.5.4 Invalid domain
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 08:13:49PM -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 4/9/13 5:47 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Can you point is at the right address or form to submit regarding this?
Seems like its time for both on and DS.
Jared,
Joe is an employee of the corporation, a rather high
is there a clear understanding of the edge in the network operations
community? in a simpler world, it was not that difficult, but interconnect
has blossomed and grown all sorts of noodly appendages/extentions. I fear
that edge does not mean what you think it means anymore.
/bill
On Thu,
On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:47:45PM -0400, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:16:48 -, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com said:
is there a clear understanding of the edge in the network operations
community? in a simpler world, it was not that difficult, but interconnect
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 08:07:22AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 26, 2013, at 08:01 , Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Mar 26, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
let's suppose I just happen to have, or have access to, a botnet comprised
of (tens of) millions of
but they are paying attention
/bill
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 09:25:09AM -0700, Jared Mauch wrote:
I'm not sure you want this regulated.
Jared Mauch
On Mar 26, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
Can't we get homeland security into this? Threat to US
don't think of this in terms of waste (v6 has an unthinkable number of numbers)
and think of security. by announceing more space than you are actually using,
you create
dark-space that attackers can hide in-plain-sight. so, for example, in your
P2P links,
you can use tools that lazy
ah - those were the days of glory... :)
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 06:06:39PM -0700, Brett Watson wrote:
Hell, we used to not have to bother notifying customers of anything, we just
fixed the problem. Reminds me a of a story I've probably shared on the past.
1995, IETF in Dallas. The big
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:49:59PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote:
ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work.
Care to try to cite an example? R we can't pull out of because NRO needs its
slots. I'm not sure that constitutes
its not that black/white. The ITU-R is actually -very- useful and does a
really good job of coordinating spectrum
use and has for many years. The ITU-T, however is questionable. It is
possible to fund by sector, so a blanket
defunding for the entire ITU, as outlined in this petition, is a
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:45:32AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 15/12/2012 23:07, David Conrad wrote:
The handwringing over this issue is a bit over the top.
It's a question of what's procedurally sensible. Sensible things would
include longer notice of the impending change to the root
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:59:19AM -0800, Michael Thomas wrote:
Matthew Newton wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 04:42:46PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 13/12/2012 22:54, Jason Castonguay wrote:
Advisory
You've just given 3 weeks notice for a component change in one of the few
critical part
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:45:00PM -0500, Joe Abley wrote:
These changes have happened before (other root servers have renumbered). I
have never heard of an operational problem caused by such an exercise, and I
guarantee there are resolvers running happily today with hints files that are
not at all... the WCIT 2012 concluded without agreement. Hardly the same
thing.
/bill
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 02:46:49PM -0500, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com
So, in short, UMD will still own the losing allocation, and be able
to make
relatively sure nothing else is placed at that IP (though of course
they
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 03:10:44PM -0600, Joe Antkowiak wrote:
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Jason Castonguay casto...@umd.edu wrote:
The old address, which is in the middle of UMD's network, is going to be
black-holed once the change is over. Nothing will be on that IP once we
move
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 08:48:07PM -0800, David Conrad wrote:
On Dec 14, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
Other root servers have renumbered out of institutional, general-purpose
networks into dedicated networks in the past. I think the last one was
B-Root in 2004,
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 07:57:11AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
flower tailor samba...@hotmail.com wrote:
Delete me
though possibly merciful, it is illegal in most cultures
Montenegrins would be sad with the unilateral removal of thier TLD.
/bill
2013 - the year of the NAT. (the only way a single stacked address family is
going to be able to talk to
a single stacked member of a different address family... and unless we start
agressive reuse of v4, this will
happen sooner than later (dual-stack is rate limited to the smaller of the
Dr. Frederick Frankenstein: LIFE! DO YOU HEAR ME? GIVE MY CREATION... LIFE!
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:14:18AM +0100, Tomas Podermanski wrote:
It seems that today is a big day for IPv6. It is the very first
time when native IPv6 on google statistics
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 05:38:32AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you're on local subnet, why not pull the MAC address out of the
received packet?
Further, what happens to this when IPv4 goes away?
Owen
the cat came back ... IPv4 is going away like RIP is a dead routing
protocol.
cool. this is the fifth version of a DHCP server modified to work
with IPv4 and IPv6 in accord with the DHCP specs.
a feature request... some sites run IVI, and so the have a MAC and
and v6 address and need to be dynamically assigned a v4 address. My crude
attempt uses the last 48bits of
corruption!
http://mina.naguib.ca/blog/2012/10/22/the-little-ssh-that-sometimes-couldnt.html
/bill
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 03:46:57PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Templin, Fred L wrote:
Yes; I was aware of this. But, what I want to get to is
setting the tunnel MTU to infinity.
Essentially, its time the network matured to the point where
inter-networking actually works (again),
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 04:44:40PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 03:46:57PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Templin, Fred L wrote:
Yes; I was aware of this. But, what I want to get to is
setting the tunnel MTU to infinity.
ok... so lets look at some space here.
98.32.0.0/22
98.32.0.0/32 is clearly on the unusable boundary.
what about
98.32.0.255/32 98.32.1.0/32 ???
98.32.4.255/32 is also clearly on the unusable boundary... UNTIL
the delegation moves from a /22 to a /21. Then its usable.
clear?
https://intelligence.businessinsider.com/facebook-is-adding-over-25000-mobile-users-an-hour-2012-10
dream big
/bill
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 08:31:44AM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Cameron Byrne
FYI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r27324698-LTE-access-early-
So much for next
one of the downsides to v6 is the huge amnt of space the folks expect you to
announce.
lots of space to do nefarious things. that said. if you select your peers
carefully and don't mind
a bit of hand crafting, you can /96 and even /112
that said, get a /32 and assign/announce /48s...
/bill
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 10:14:41AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 06/10/2012 03:20, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Those who know Fred and knew Jon personally might want to throw an oar in
the
water on this blog posting from last month...
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4591
not sure if it's
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 06:12:08PM -0400, Frank Kastenholz wrote:
On Oct 6, 2012, at 6:39 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 10:14:41AM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 06/10/2012 03:20, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Those who know Fred and knew Jon personally might
not how i read that section Owen...
...networks require interconnectivity and the private IP address numbers are
ineffective, globally unique addresses may be requested and used to provide
this interconnectivity.
One does not have to request RFC 1918 space from ARIN (or other RIR)
and the
ah... again the distinction between routed and routable.
RFC 1918 space is clearly routeable and routed. one does not need ARIN to
assign such space.
what i -think- the NRPM section you refered to actually touches on (but does
not state outright)
the concept of uniqueness. In the dim
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:23:34AM +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
I'm trying to figure out whether CERNET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERNET
is part of the official Internet, or is behind the Great Firewall where
access to invididual networks on the public Internet must be explicitly
granted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guys_and_Dolls_(film)
i -think- the term we are looking for is: Troglodyte
1:
A person considered to be reclusive, reactionary, out of date, or brutish.
/bill (top posting like a civilized human...)
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:28:04PM -0700, Ray Van
thank you for your kind words and attempts to educate. clearly these items are
critical for North American Network Operations (NANOG) and should be widely
promoted
and discussed ... But NOT, I think, here.
may i humbly suggest that there exist other, better fora for discussion of
these
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 12:35:57PM -0700, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote:
On 08/28/12 12:12, Walter Keen wrote:
Free is preferred
Free is always preferred... ;)
Free is too costly. Unless you have zero-cost labor...
/bill
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 08:47:30PM +, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:
[Feels operational to me.]
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html
The U.S. House of
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 10:36:31PM -0400, Chuck Church wrote:
I disagree. I see it as an extra layer of security. If DOD had a network
with address space 'X', obviously it's not advertised to the outside. It
never interacts with public network. Having it duplicated on the outside
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 09:50:39AM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first message.
Is there an agreed upon definition of end site?
Sincerely,
Laurent
this might help. seems like these folks have general agreement on terms.
NANOG-critters might have different
i've been using a earlier version of this:
http://www.spectracomcorp.com/ProductsServices/TimingSynchronization/NetworkTimeServers/9483NetClockTimeServer/tabid/1439/Default.aspx
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:35:29PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
my experience with cdma was kinda funky
and there
Internet Regulator?
/bill
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:43:26AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In article 20120616160738.eee09...@resin05.mta.everyone.net, Scott
Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com writes
What is going to make folks change their behavior?
If all else fails, perhaps a regulator
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:05:40PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
Joe Maimon wrote:
Looks like a tunnel mtu issue. I have not as of yet traced the
definitive culprit, who is (not) sending ICMP too big, who is (not)
receiving them, etc.
The culprit is the v6 tunnel, which wanders into v4
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 12:38:23PM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
Putting it another way, the ISP doesn't want to be fooled even if
it is fooling its customers.
don't lie to us, but we lie to our customers.
and you don't see a problem with this?
/bill
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:33:28PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:40 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Paul will be there to turn things off when
they no longer make money for his company.
is the dns changer thingy making money for isc?
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:14:16PM -0700, Henry Linneweh wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/17/dns_changer_blackouts/
-Henry
Paul certainly knows how to manipulate the press.
/bill
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:52:52PM -0700, Michael J Wise wrote:
On May 22, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
father of bind? that's news.
http://boingboing.net/2012/03/29/paul-vixies-firsthand-accoun.html
He was there, and Put The Fix In, to down the network.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 10:07:52PM -0700, Michael J Wise wrote:
On May 22, 2012, at 9:10 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:52:52PM -0700, Michael J Wise wrote:
On May 22, 2012, at 8:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
father of bind? that's news.
unless you cross connect in the landing shack, there will -always- be a
domestic local loop.
(you don't like Telstra?)
/bill
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:40:42PM +, James Braunegg wrote:
Dear All
Just wondering if I can get some recommendations for international transit
providers who
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 10:26:11AM -0700, George B. wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Matt Ryanczak ryanc...@gmail.com wrote:
I too had with nesol years ago. It required special phone calls to
special people to update. Customer support never knew what was going on
regarding
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:55:35AM -0700, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:47 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but, c'mon. For a provisioning
system, an record is just a fragging string, just like any other
DNS record. How difficult to
we had an instance of B root there for a season. connectivity was a problem
and
we pulled the node in 2001.
/bill
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:45:16PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Justin M. Streiner
Control of ground-state pluripotency by allelic regulation of Nanog
Nature advance online publication 12 February 2012. doi:10.1038/nature10807
Authors: Yusuke Miyanari Maria-Elena Torres-Padilla
Pluripotency is established through genome-wide reprogramming during mammalian
pre-implantation
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:17:00AM -, John Levine wrote:
Almost everyone are basically just selling an activation with one of the
SSL certificate authorities.
I usually buy a RapidSSL (Verisign) certificate from
https://www.sslmatrix.com/ -- they seem to have some of the best
prices
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 09:36:54PM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
DNS is case-insensitive when you are talking about 7-bit ASCII
pedantry
dns itself is purely eight bit transparent. one can even have a dot as
a non-separator. p.r.c could be a tld. it's strictly length/value.
of course,
There are four really good candidates. Please consider sending in a statement
of
support for one of them.
/bill
- Forwarded message -
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:38:06 +1000
To: Bill Manning bmann...@karoshi.com
Subject: Comment Period for ICANN Board Seat 9 Election
Consistent with
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 05:57:23AM -0500, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com writes:
I missed the part where ARIN turned over its address database
w/ associatedd registration information to the Fed ... I mean
I've always advocated for LEO access, but ther has been
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 10:20:08PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Randy Epstein na...@hostleasing.net wrote:
On 1/27/12 1:23 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:16:27 EST, Bryan Horstmann-Allen said:
Bit
anyone keeping track of their RTTs?
i'm finishing up some work on latency and all i have are my numbers.
its going to be highly variable based on where you are and where you go,
but it would be nice to have other sets of numbers.
roughly my targets are ::
43% are cloud oriented - CBN stuff
On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 07:16:39PM -0600, A. Pishdadi wrote:
Hello,
We recently tracked down a botnet that attacked our network. We found the
CC server, it has approximately 40-50 servers, consisting of mostly *nix
machines with high speed connections, for example AWS servers or dedicated,
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 03:05:47AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:25 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I suspect most file sharing site don't have illegal content. Most
would have some content that is there without the permission of the
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 06:36:12AM -0600, Robert Bonomi wrote:
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Sun Jan 15 02:02:00
2012
Subject: Re: Whois 172/12
From: Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 02:58:11 -0500
To: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:01:58AM -0500, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Paul Kaminsky wrote:
We are at a stage where we need an all-out uplink vendor to fuel our
business endeavor. The bells and whistles we need are:
1. 1 Gbps link with complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol
1 - 100 of 374 matches
Mail list logo
