Subject: Re: The End-To-End Internet (was Re: Blocking MX query) Date: Wed, Sep
05, 2012 at 06:56:36PM -0400 Quoting William Herrin (b...@herrin.us):
Thing is, spam levels *are* down a good 20% in the last couple years,
that being about the time ISPs began doing this. More, 20% *is* in
rough
My idealistic preference would be the ISP allows outbound port 25,
but are highly responsive to abuse complaints;
My idealistic preference is that ISPs not let their botted customers
fill everyone's inbox with garbage.
Why do you think that blocking port 25 precludes logging what they
block,
I'd wager what ARIN is going to do in said Relying Party Agreement
is tell RPs (i.e., *relying* parties) that they ought not rely to much
on the data for routing, and if they do and something gets hosed,
ARIN's not at fault -- but I'll wait to read the actual agreement
before speculating
On Sep 5, 2012, at 8:24 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
In order to access the
production RPKI TAL, you will first have to agree to ARIN's Relying
Party Agreement before the TAL will be emailed to you. To request the
TAL after the production release, follow this link:
On Thursday 06 September 2012 14:01:50 Masataka Ohta wrote:
All that necessary is local changes on end systems of those who
want the end to end transparency.
There is no changes on the Internet.
You're basically redefining the term end-to-end transparency to suit your own
agenda. Globally
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 5:37 AM, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote:
If a relying party's use of PKI infrastructure legally equated to
acceptance of the relying party agreement (RPA), then having an
explicit record of acceptance of the RPA would not be necessary.
Alas, it does not appear
A while back we had a customer colocated vpn router (2911) come in and we put it
on our main vlan for initial set up and testing. Once that was done, I created
a
separate VLAN for them and a dot1q subinterface on an older, somewhat overloaded
2811. I set up the IPSec Tunnel, a /30 for each end
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:39:44PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Never mind the fact that all the hosts trying to reach you have no
way to know what port to use.
Despite my scepticism of the overall project, I find the above claim a
little hard to accept. RFC 2052, which defined SRV in an
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:55 AM, u...@3.am wrote:
A while back we had a customer colocated vpn router (2911) come in and we put
it
on our main vlan for initial set up and testing. Once that was done, I
created a
separate VLAN for them and a dot1q subinterface on an older, somewhat
We've run into an issue with a customer that has been confounding us for a few
months as we try to design what they need.
The customer has a location in the relative middle of nowhere that they are
trying to build a protected OC3 to. Ultimately, their traffic on it will be
packet data
On the surface this makes me want to cry. I could be missing something as
well.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Will Orton w...@loopfree.net wrote:
We've run into an issue with a customer that has been confounding us for a
few
months as we try to design what they need.
The customer has a
On 06/09/2012 17:38, Will Orton wrote:
The customer has a location in the relative middle of nowhere that they are
trying to build a protected OC3 to.
Not sure if I see the problem here. Show them the bill for an OC3 service,
and then show them the bill for the equivalent ethernet service.
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
RFC 2052, which defined SRV in an
experiment, came out in 1996. SRV was moved to the standards track in
2000. I've never heard an argument why it won't work, and we know
that SRV records are sometimes in use. Why
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 01:49:06PM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
the DNS and won't discover anything about the DNS that can't be had
via getaddrinfo() until long after its too late redefine the protocol
in terms of seeking SRV records.
Oh, sure, I get that. One of the problems I've had with
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote:
On 06/09/2012 17:38, Will Orton wrote:
The customer has a location in the relative middle of nowhere that they are
trying to build a protected OC3 to.
Not sure if I see the problem here. Show them the bill for an OC3
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 06:00:37PM +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Not sure if I see the problem here. Show them the bill for an OC3 service,
and then show them the bill for the equivalent ethernet service. This
usually works for me. If they want to pay for OC3 when there's no
compelling reason
On Sep 6, 2012, at 08:14 , Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 09:39:44PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Never mind the fact that all the hosts trying to reach you have no
way to know what port to use.
Despite my scepticism of the overall project, I find the above
Hello,
I have a client in the ottawa ontario canada area who is looking at DSL for
a secondary connection. I am pretty unfamiliar with the state of telecom
industry in Canada, I googled around and found this rather lengthy list of
CLEC's.
I recommend TekSavvy (www.teksavvy.com) as a DSL reseller pretty much
anywhere in Ontario (and any other provinces they can get service in).
Not sure why they're not on that CLEC list, but they're a pretty big
(and awesome) provider up here. For bonus points, if you have to call
their
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:14:58 -0400, Andrew Sullivan said:
Despite my scepticism of the overall project, I find the above claim a
little hard to accept. RFC 2052, which defined SRV in an
experiment, came out in 1996. SRV was moved to the standards track in
2000. I've never heard an argument
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Will Orton w...@loopfree.net wrote:
. I suppose they were all built
directly on the fiber (maybe with WDM but no layer1.5-2 muxing) and the
provider was always the one who handled protection switching?
or protection at the optical layer isn't as predictable for
It would be really nice if people making statements about the end to end
principle would talk about the end to end principle.
http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.pdf
The abstract of the paper states the principle:
This paper presents a design principle that helps
In message 85250.1346959...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
writes:
--==_Exmh_1346959671_1993P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:14:58 -0400, Andrew Sullivan said:
Despite my scepticism of the overall project, I find the above claim a
Hello,
We have been working on refreshing the data and algorithms behind
CAIDA's as-rank project. We have published AS-relationships and
AS-rankings computed for June 2012. We are currently seeking further
validation of our rankings and relationship inferences.
http://as-rank.caida.org/
On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:33:35PM -0400, chris wrote:
Also would be an added plus if they supported MLPPP as the client mentioned
they were concerned with the lower speeds of DSL, so we would love to do
two circuits with MLPPP if possible
I can second the recommendation of Teksavvy
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:30:12 +1000, Mark Andrews said:
In message 85250.1346959...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu,
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu writes:
My PS3 may want to talk to the world, but I have no control over Comcast's
DNS.
What point are you trying to make? Comcast's servers support SRV as
26 matches
Mail list logo
