On 24 Nov 2008, at 15:55, Jeremy Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 15:20 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list for this question:
how widely is TRIP (Telephone Routing over IP [RFC3219]) deployed /
used in current networks?
http://xconnect.net/
INVITATION
Please consider to contribute to and/or forward to the appropriate groups the
following opportunity to submit and publish original scientific or educational
results.
== LMPCNAP 2009 | Call for Papers ===
CALL FOR PAPERS, TUTORIALS, PANELS
The first
INVITATION
Please consider to contribute to and/or forward to the appropriate groups the
following opportunity to submit and publish original scientific or educational
results.
== LMPCNAP 2009 | Call for Papers ===
CALL FOR PAPERS, TUTORIALS, PANELS
The first
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:31:21PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
(Manning and Woodcock have so far refused to
accept the certified letters)
and then sometime in the past 5 days, you posted a comment to DoC
here; http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dns/dnssec.html
that states: Bill Manning refused to
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I may... I am in possesion of your certified letter
-AND- the signed acknowledgement that you received notice
that I have taken posession of said certified mail.
please get your facts straight, esp. when
Someone is basicly twicking the mail headers by sending messages like [EMAIL
PROTECTED]-who is?
OUI...yes, great topic! Now mind me asking but why would you need a private
OUI if the well-known (registed) list is quite public and everyone has a
reserved allocation? (vendors have)
and yes as
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:56:43AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I may... I am in possesion of your certified letter
-AND- the signed acknowledgement that you received notice
that I have taken
Can anyone explain why we are being exposed to this? From either side?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:56:43AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If I may... I am in possesion of your certified letter
-AND- the
I'm looking for a contact within AS34012 (Parc Productions Webdesign) in
regards to reachability issues from AS11170. The problem feels like
34012 is not seeing a route back to me. I can see 217.195.112.0/20, but
as soon as any of my traffic hits 34012, it goes into a black hole.
~Seth
the bills having a war with dean. how droll. can you maybe take it
elsewhere?
randy
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Dean Anderson wrote:
A photo of Bill Woodcock's refused letter is at
http://www.av8.net/BillWoodcock.jpg
Oh my god... What _is_ that sitting on? Is your desk upholstered with
the hides of your victims?
Also, I suggest you consult a dictionary. The word
Jack Bates wrote:
.
Yes and no. The test that was being run used 6to4 addresses, so every
6to4 capable device did try to reach it via 6to4, since that is
preferred over IPv4. If it had used non-6to4 addressing, then IPv4
would
had been preferred on those hosts that didn't have non-6to4
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if they simply put up
a local 6to4 router alongside their 2001:: prefix, and populate DNS with
both. Longest match will cause 2001:: connected systems to chose that dst,
while
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels Bakker writes:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if they simply put u
p
a local 6to4 router alongside their 2001:: prefix, and populate DNS with
both. Longest match will
Mark Andrews writes:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels Bakker writes:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if they simply put
u
p
a local 6to4 router alongside their 2001:: prefix, and populate DNS
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 18:52, Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Dean Anderson wrote:
A photo of Bill Woodcock's refused letter is at
http://www.av8.net/BillWoodcock.jpg
That's not a refused letter, that's a certified letter that hasn't yet
been mailed.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Andrews) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:55 CET]:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels Bakker writes:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if they simply put up
a local 6to4 router alongside their
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels Bakker writes:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Andrews) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:55 CET]:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels Bakker writes:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Andrews) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 02:57 CET]:
2002::/16 vs non 2002::/16 should be in the policy table. This is the
default prefer ipv6 policy table for FreeBSD 6.4-PRERELEASE. There is
also a alternate prefer ipv4 policy table that will be set if IPv6 is
disabled.
Prefix
Wie? Ik, zei de gek schreef:
I believe that is used for local address selection, not for sorting DNS
replies.
I was too quick - getaddrinfo() indeed uses that policy list to reorder
addresses.
-- Niels.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels Bakker writes:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Andrews) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 02:57 CET]:
2002::/16 vs non 2002::/16 should be in the policy table. This is the
default prefer ipv6 policy table for FreeBSD 6.4-PRERELEASE. There is
also a alternate prefer ipv4
These guys need to get a room already.
It's clear that the two bills have forgotten that No U r !!!1 arguments
happen on efnet; nanog@ is reserved strictly for Are any engineers from
[insert_company_who_blacklisted_my_company_here] around? pages.
All three of these boys are acting like drama
22 matches
Mail list logo
