On 18 Jun 2011, at 19:35, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Note, none of these came with glue.
No, you used dig +trace which does not show the additional section. If they had
not included glue then resolution would have failed.
Tony.
--
f.anthony.n.finch d...@dotat.at http://dotat.at/
In message 3da28681-35cf-4a48-9840-af5f8ed34...@dotat.at, Tony Finch writes:
On 18 Jun 2011, at 19:35, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
=20
Note, none of these came with glue.
No, you used dig +trace which does not show the additional section. If they h
=
ad not included glue then
Adding records for existing nameservers will NOT cause TC to
be set where it would not be set without records unless you
do a ANY lookup of the nameserver where it MAY result in TC being
set.
All current implementations, including named, fail to set TC when
adding glue records to a
In message e1f85fb9-7e52-4ce9-b5a9-c9ac0da01...@delong.com, Owen DeLong write
s:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
=20
In message BANLkTi=3ddgwun_9xnbzq-ukdkxeynuq1...@mail.gmail.com, =
Michael Dillon writes:
The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Not really. A record adds 28 octets (a A record takes 16). Unless
you have a lot of name servers most referrals still fall within 512 octets
additionally most answers also still fall withing 512 octets.
I agree.. not
Not really. A record adds 28 octets (a A record takes 16). Unless
you have a lot of name servers most referrals still fall within 512 octets
additionally most answers also still fall withing 512 octets.
1. Most != All even in IPv4 (ran into this in a few hotels with some
On Jun 18, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Not really. A record adds 28 octets (a A record takes 16). Unless
you have a lot of name servers most referrals still fall within 512 octets
additionally most answers also
The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or
your own.
It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (perhaps jointly with RIPE and
other NOGs) to organize monthly IPv6 days with a theme or focus for
each month. If you have a focus, then you can recruit a lot of IPv6
In message BANLkTi=dgwun_9xnbzq-ukdkxeynuq1...@mail.gmail.com, Michael Dillon
writes:
The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or
your own.
It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (perhaps jointly with RIPE and
other NOGs) to organize monthly IPv6 days with a
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message BANLkTi=dgwun_9xnbzq-ukdkxeynuq1...@mail.gmail.com, Michael
Dillon writes:
The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog effort or
your own.
It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (perhaps jointly with RIPE
Message-
From: Ryan Pavely [mailto:para...@nac.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:08 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?
I was thinking the same thing. Good call :)
Ryan Pavely
Net Access Corporation
http://www.nac.net/
On 6
I think this would be helpful.
Cheers
Ryan
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Pavely [mailto:para...@nac.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 11:08 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?
I was thinking the same thing. Good call :)
Ryan Pavely
So should monthly IPv6 day be the same week as Microsoft Patch Tuesday? :-)
My thoughts are that we need either a week or a 36-48 hour period. I thought
this before the events of last week.
I am very happy with the results and that based on the public statements so far
(Looking forward to hearing what is presented at NANOG on this as well) that it
was viewed as
I was thinking the same thing. Good call :)
Ryan Pavely
Net Access Corporation
http://www.nac.net/
On 6/8/2011 10:40 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
It certainly sounds like it might be.
Cheers,
-- jra
+1
I've enjoyed it so far!
On 08/06/2011 16:07, Ryan Pavely wrote:
I was thinking the same thing. Good call :)
Ryan Pavely
Net Access Corporation
http://www.nac.net/
On 6/8/2011 10:40 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
It certainly sounds like it might be.
Cheers,
-- jra
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:46 AM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: So... is it time to do IPv6 day monthy yet?
In a message written on Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 10:40:56AM -0400, Jay
Ashworth wrote:
It certainly sounds like it might
In message 24415722.168.1307544055966.javamail.r...@benjamin.baylink.com, Jay
Ashworth writes:
It certainly sounds like it might be.
Cheers,
-- jra
I would do perhaps do one more then do IPv6 TURN ON DAY with the
intent to *leave* the IPv6 enabled. The longer the content providers
take to
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
It certainly sounds like it might be.
I would do perhaps do one more then do IPv6 TURN ON DAY with the
intent to *leave* the IPv6 enabled. The longer the content providers
take to switch it on the bigger the switch on load will
19 matches
Mail list logo
