Re: network name 101100010100110.net
Technically, no. But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing that right on the first attempt. On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this?
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 08:07:41AM +0200, Per Carlson wrote: On 17 Oct 2010 06:47, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? Technically, no. But you probably fancy annoying people. I wouldn't imaging anyone typing that right on the first attempt. And imagine answering the phones... - Matt
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
Matthew said: And imagine answering the phones... Bender's Big Score. Is this for Jewish Hospital (AS 22694)? And many years ago I had jh.org, but domains were $70 back then and my wife thought I had too many... -- Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
On Oct 16, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Franck Martin wrote: You give a /64 to the end users (home/soho), and /48 to multi homed organization (or bigger orgs that use more than one network internally) and get a /32 if you are an ISP. Please DON'T do that. End users (home/soho) should get at least a /56 and ideally a /48. The standards and the RIR policies both allow for end-users/sites to get /48s. If you are an ISP, you get AT LEAST a /32. See also the discussion about what to use in p2p links. Yep. Personally, I like the /64 per subnet including p2p link approach. Others have different opinions. Owen - Original Message - From: Brandon Kim brandon@brandontek.com To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, 17 October, 2010 8:58:57 AM Subject: RE: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption Thanks everyone who responded. This list is such a valuable wealth of information. Apparently I was wrong about the /64 as that should be /32 so thanks for that correction Thanks again especially on a Saturday weekend! From: rdobb...@arbor.net To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:09:43 + Subject: Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:56 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Then move on to the Internet which as with most things is where the most cuurent if not helpful information resides. Eric Vyncke's IPv6 security book is definitely worthwhile, as well, in combination with Schudel Smith's infrastructure security book (the latter isn't IPv6-specific, but is the best book out there on infrastructure security): http://www.ciscopress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=1587055945 http://www.ciscopress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=1587053365 --- Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com Sell your computer and buy a guitar.
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6 (IPv6 STANDARDS)
On Oct 16, 2010, at 4:52 PM, Bill Bogstad wrote: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Kevin Oberman ober...@es.net wrote: Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 00:40:41 +1030 From: Mark Smith na...@85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:31:22 +0100 Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they? Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a handful have ever been designated as Standards. I hope this becomes one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by anyone with a large network running IPv6.) And none of the listed IETF full standards are IPv6 related. That seems a little bit odd to me given that everyone is supposed to have implemented them by now. Bill Bogstad IPv4 was much further along in deployment than IPv6 is now when the first IPv4 STDs were published as STDs. Usually RFCs bake for quite a while in the real world before becoming STDs. Owen
Re: 12 years ago today...
On 16/10/10 09:09 -0700, Rodney Joffe wrote: I'm not sure about a documentary, but a group of us are working on identifying all the different independent archives that have records from the early years with the idea of creating a Smithsonian/national archive collection at some point. We'll probably issue an rfc early next year. Hopefully someone remembers to call it the Postel Historical Institute[*]. [*] RFC 1607 -- Dan White
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100 From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they? must be some blowhard i have plonked Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a handful have ever been designated as Standards. I hope this becomes one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by anyone with a large network running IPv6.) juniper and cisco implement today Unfortunately, a couple of other router vendors whose top of the line units I have tested recently did not. Simple Matter of Programming ;-) Please suggest to said vendors that they implement this -- IMO it's the right way to do it... W -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.netPhone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in use, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net. Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29: domain ::= element | element . domain element ::= name | # number | [ dotnum ] mailbox ::= local-part @ domain ... name ::= a ldh-str let-dig ... a ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z in upper case and a through z in lower case d ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9 -- -Jh
Re: Choice of network space when numbering interfaces with IPv6
From: Warren Kumari war...@kumari.net Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:07:53 -0400 On Oct 16, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 01:56:28 +0100 From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt Drafts are drafts, and nothing more, aren't they? must be some blowhard i have plonked Drafts are drafts. Even most RFCs are RFCs and nothing more. Only a handful have ever been designated as Standards. I hope this becomes one of those in the hope it will be taken seriously. (It already is by anyone with a large network running IPv6.) juniper and cisco implement today Unfortunately, a couple of other router vendors whose top of the line units I have tested recently did not. Simple Matter of Programming ;-) Please suggest to said vendors that they implement this -- IMO it's the right way to do it... Rest assured that I did so during the debrief on our evaluation. I know one promised a fix quickly. I don't recall on the other as that problem was not very significant compared to other issues with that unit. These evals are so much fun. I had to listen to a sales type explain that mBGP was incomplete for MY benefit. It might confuse me to be able to run multiple address families over a single peering session. I am so touched for this sort of concern. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) E-mail: ober...@es.net Phone: +1 510 486-8634 Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4 EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
On Oct 17, 2010, at 7:16 PM, James Hess wrote: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote: I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see any issues with this? The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC 1034, due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit, A valid actual hostname can start with a digit. Many do. I'm guessing 3com may have had something to do with that trend. RFC 1123 2.1 clarified that a couple of decades ago, so I doubt you'll find any running software that doesn't agree. and, for example, some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in use, will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even if the actual hostname is something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net. Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29: There are several less obsolete RFCs that specify email addresses, they're all quite specific about what a valid hostname is in an email sense. 5321 is the latest, I think, section 4.1.2. Cheers, Steve
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
In message 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com., bmann...@vacation.kar
oshi.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC
1034,
due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit,
and, for example,
some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in us
e,
will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even
if the actual hostname is
something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die.
the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
held true.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain
name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
domain ::= element | element . domain
element ::= name | # number | [ dotnum ]
mailbox ::= local-part @ domain
...
name ::= a ldh-str let-dig
...
a ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z
in upper case and a through z in lower case
d ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821
vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the
IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the
convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of
Non-Ascii labels.
Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you
*also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively
you are limited to LDLDH*LD*{.LDLDH*LD*}+.
If you want to buy !#$%^*.com go ahead but please don't expect
anyone to change their mail software to support b...@!#$%^*.com
as a email address.
The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets
in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the
DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for
naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035.
There are lots of RFCs which confuse domain name with domain
style host name. Or confuse domain name with a host name stored
in the DNS.
Mark
That said, the world was much simpler last century.
--bill
--
-Jh
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
Re: network name 101100010100110.net
That's why 3M registered mmm.com back in 1988.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 20101018024021.gc8...@vacation.karoshi.com.,
bmann...@vacation.kar
oshi.com writes:
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 09:16:04PM -0500, James Hess wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Day Domes daydo...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been tasked with coming up with a new name for are transit data
network. I am thinking of using 101100010100110.net does anyone see
any issues with this?
The domain-name starts with a digit, which is not really recommended, RFC
1034,
due to the fact a valid actual hostname cannot start with a digit,
and, for example,
some MTAs/MUAs, that comply with earlier versions of standards still in us
e,
will possibly have a problem sending e-mail to the flat domain, even
if the actual hostname is
something legal such as mail.101100010100110.net.
if there is code that old still out there, it desrves to die.
the leading character restriction was lifted when the company
3com was created. its been nearly 18 years since that advice
held true.
Which goes back to one of the standard-provided definitions of domain
name syntax used by RFC 821 page 29:
domain ::= element | element . domain
element ::= name | # number | [ dotnum ]
mailbox ::= local-part @ domain
...
name ::= a ldh-str let-dig
...
a ::= any one of the 52 alphabetic characters A through Z
in upper case and a through z in lower case
d ::= any one of the ten digits 0 through 9
at least three times in the past decade, the issues of RFC 821
vs Domain lables has come up on the DNSEXT mailing list in the
IETF (or its predacessor). RFC 821 hostnames are not the
convention for Domain Labels, esp as we enter the age of
Non-Ascii labels.
Correct but if you want to be able to send email to them then you
*also* need to follow RFC 821 as modified by RFC 1123 so effectively
you are limited to LDLDH*LD*{.LDLDH*LD*}+.
If you want to buy !#$%^*.com go ahead but please don't expect
anyone to change their mail software to support b...@!#$%^*.com
as a email address.
The DNS has very liberal labels (any octet stream up to 63 octets
in length). If you want to store information about a host, in the
DNS, using its name then you still need to abide by the rules for
naming hosts. Yes this is spelt out in RFC 1035.
There are lots of RFCs which confuse domain name with domain
style host name. Or confuse domain name with a host name stored
in the DNS.
Mark
That said, the world was much simpler last century.
--bill
--
-Jh
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
36/8 and 42/8 allocated to APNIC
Hi, The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of two /8 IPv4 blocks to APNIC in October 2010: 36/8 and 42/8. You can find the IANA IPv4 registry at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt The complete list of IPv4 /8s allocated so far this year is: 1/8 14/8 27/8 31/8 36/8 42/8 49/8 50/8 101/8 107/8 176/8 177/8 181/8 223/8 Please update your filters as appropriate. The IANA free pool contains 12 unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s. Regards, Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager, IANA ICANN
Re: Enterprise DNS providers
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010, Ken Gilmour wrote: Hello any weekend workers :) We are looking at urgently deploying an outsourced DNS provider for a critical domain which is currently unavailable but are having some difficulty. I've tried contacting UltraDNS who only allow customers from US / Canada to sign up (we are in Malta) and their Sales dept are closed, and Easy DNS who don't have .com.mt as an option in the dropdown for transferring domain names (and also support is closed). I have worked for one of the biggest poker networks and we used UltraDNS. The company was first operated from Sweden and later Austria. /Jonas
Re: Enterprise DNS providers
We're using Afilias now, we had nothing short of a horrendous experience dealing with Neustar / UltraDNS and their uninformed, blood hungry sales team. Best regards, Jeff On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Jonas Björklund jo...@bjorklund.cn wrote: On Sat, 16 Oct 2010, Ken Gilmour wrote: Hello any weekend workers :) We are looking at urgently deploying an outsourced DNS provider for a critical domain which is currently unavailable but are having some difficulty. I've tried contacting UltraDNS who only allow customers from US / Canada to sign up (we are in Malta) and their Sales dept are closed, and Easy DNS who don't have .com.mt as an option in the dropdown for transferring domain names (and also support is closed). I have worked for one of the biggest poker networks and we used UltraDNS. The company was first operated from Sweden and later Austria. /Jonas -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Communications - AS32421 First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
