On 6/19/11 10:47 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:32:59 -0700
From: Doug Bartondo...@dougbarton.us
... the highly risk-averse folks who won't unconditionally enable IPv6
on their web sites because it will cause problems for 1/2000 of their
customers.
let me just say that if i
On 06/19/2011 23:38, Mike Leber wrote:
On 6/19/11 10:47 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:32:59 -0700
From: Doug Bartondo...@dougbarton.us
... the highly risk-averse folks who won't unconditionally enable IPv6
on their web sites because it will cause problems for 1/2000 of
(Mark:)
Which just means we need to write yet another RFC saying that
resolvers shouldn't lookup simple host names in the DNS. Simple
host names should be qualified against a search list.
I don't see the problem. I'm happily running with a empty search
list for the last
In message 4dfedb8b.5080...@dougbarton.us, Doug Barton writes:
On 06/19/2011 19:31, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 19:22:46 -0700
From: Michael Thomasm...@mtcc.com
that's a good question. marka mentioned writing an RFC, but i expect
that ICANN could also have an impact on
On Jun 17, 2011, at 9:13 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I really don't think that namespace issues are part of the role for the ASO
AC.
Why do you think there is an ASO?
This is clearly a problem for ICANN's disaster-ridden domain-name side, and
In message 201106200739.p5k7dxhj071...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
(Mark:)
Which just means we need to write yet another RFC saying that
resolvers shouldn't lookup simple host names in the DNS. Simple
host names should be qualified against a search
On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:00, Doug Barton wrote:
On 06/19/2011 23:38, Mike Leber wrote:
On 6/19/11 10:47 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 22:32:59 -0700
From: Doug Bartondo...@dougbarton.us
... the highly risk-averse folks who won't unconditionally enable IPv6
on their web
Which is your choice. Lots of others want search lists. I've seen
requests for 20+ elements.
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
jaap
In message 201106200951.p5k9pmsw051...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
Which is your choice. Lots of others want search lists. I've seen
requests for 20+ elements.
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
jaap
There is no
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
In message 201106201034.p5kayz2e008...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
RFC 897.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas
Hello NANOG,
I work for a medium-sized ISP with our own ARIN assignments (several /18 and
/19 netblocks) and I've got a question about a possibly dubious customer
request. I know a lot of you have experience on a much grander scale than
myself, so I'm looking for some good advice.
We have a
On 06/20/2011 08:13 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
What I'd like to know is whether there is a
legitimate use for so many addresses in discontiguous networks besides
spam? I am trying my best to give them the benefit of the doubt here,
because they do work directly with Spamhaus to not be listed
On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
Personally I would charge them for the /24 too, makes users think twice about
the need for a block that large.
I would also give them a /64 per lan (alt: broadcast domain) as well to allow
them to start working with IPv6 for their email.
-
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes:
what's new? how about the operational technical effects, like data from
modeling various resolvers' responses to a large root zone?
I think the proper model is popular TLDs, perhaps the traditional
gTLDs. As any (even former) decent sized TLD operator can
* Adam Atkinson:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk, the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
It must have been before 1996. Windows environments cannot resolve
A/ records for single-label domain names.
--
Matthew Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org writes:
And it only gets better from there... how many places have various cutesy
naming schemes that might include one or more trademarks (or whatever) that
someone might want as a TLD?
As it happens, I have a set of routers that are named { craftsman,
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
Personally I would charge them for the /24 too, makes users think twice
about the need for a block that large.
We do charge them for addresses already and cost
On 6/20/2011 7:44 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Jared Mauchja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Bret Clark wrote:
Personally I would charge them for the /24 too, makes users think twice about
the need for a block that large.
We do
That behavior is usually a warning sign of snowshoe bulk mailing,
especially when coupled with randomly named domains / hostnames
As for working directly with spamhaus .. did they specify how they do
that? You might find http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=641
worth reading
On Mon, Jun
Let them submit the IP justification form, I would like to read how spammers
justify their IP usage and I would really like to see how RIR would take it.
*Interetesting*
Regards,
Aftab A. Siddiqui
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.comwrote:
On 6/20/2011 7:44
In a message written on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:06:44AM -0500, Jason Baugher
wrote:
Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they requested
a /24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks. I can only think of
one reason why a customer would specifically ask for that. They
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.comwrote:
On 06/20/2011 08:13 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
What I'd like to know is whether there is a
legitimate use for so many addresses in discontiguous networks besides
spam? I am trying my best to give them the benefit of
Hi Jason,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they requested a
/24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks. I can only think of one
reason why a customer would specifically ask for that. They
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:30 -0400
Steve Richardson steverich.na...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jason Baugher
ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they
requested a /24s worth in even more dis-contiguous
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/
Florian Weimer wrote:
It was a very long time ago, but I seem to recall being shown
http://dk, the home page of Denmark, some time in the mid 90s.
Must I be recalling incorrectly?
It must have been before 1996. Windows environments cannot resolve
A/ records for single-label domain
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:30 EDT, Steve Richardson said:
*definitely* concerns me. One thing they do say is that they need
several IPs per block to assign to their MTAs to handle such a large
amount of email (3 to 5 million per day). Being primarily focused on
layers 1 through 4, I don't
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Steve Richardson wrote:
We have a customer who, over the years, has amassed several small subnet
assignments from us for their colo. They are an email marketer. They have
requested these assignments in as many discontiguous netblocks as we can
manage. They are now asking
Hi !
I'm trying to put together some statistical data about the allocation
status of a (rather large) IPv6 LIR range. I'm used to representing v4
address space using Hilbert curves, but it's not really optimal for
IPv6 as the allocated space is too sparse, and the unitary allocations
way too
On 6/20/2011 9:52 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:26:30 EDT, Steve Richardson said:
*definitely* concerns me. One thing they do say is that they need
several IPs per block to assign to their MTAs to handle such a large
amount of email (3 to 5 million per day). Being
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
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Steve Richardson
steverich.na...@gmail.com wrote:
We have a customer who, over the years, has amassed several small subnet
assignments from us for their colo. They are an email marketer. They have
requested these assignments in as many discontiguous netblocks
On Sat, 18 Jun 2011, George B. wrote:
I suppose the moral of the story is: never single-home to Cogent
The moral is multihome. It gets real old hearing people whine that
they're losing $XXX,XXX.XX per hour, minute, whatever, when their internet
access fails...but they spend some tiny
On 20/06/11 6:18 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Almost every customer I've dealt with who requested such a thing
eventually ended up having their contract terminated for spamming.
I would use this answer in reply to the customer, and ask them to
(specifically) justify their request for the
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 09:26:30AM -0400, Steve Richardson wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Jason Baugher ja...@thebaughers.com wrote:
Did everyone miss that the customer didn't request a /24, they requested a
/24s worth in even more dis-contiguous blocks. I can only think
In a message written on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:01:24AM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
I would use this answer in reply to the customer, and ask them to
(specifically) justify their request for the discontiguous blocks.
Or, just don't offer it. Make them fit in one block, giving them
3 months to
2011/6/20 Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org:
In a message written on Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 08:01:24AM -0700, JC Dill wrote:
I would use this answer in reply to the customer, and ask them to
(specifically) justify their request for the discontiguous blocks.
That's like asking them to state the
On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
There is no ambiguity if tld operators don't unilaterally add address
records causing simple hostnames to resolve.
EDU.COM.
Regards,
-drc
Another avenue could be At-Large. The North American Regional At-Large
Organization (NARALO) - uniquely amongst the RALO's - accepts individual
members.
http://naralo.org
j
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:26 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
Well, yes, ICANN could have contracted
On 18 Jun 2011, at 09:22, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
In . lives a pointer to apple. consisting of one or more NS records and
possibly some A/ glue for those nameservers if they are within apple.
Don't forget the DS records containing the hash of Apple's DNSSEC KSK.
Tony.
--
Technical issues aside (and there are many...)
How long before we see marketing campaigns urging people to only trust
.band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
With a $185,000 application fee this tends to really kill small
businesses and conditions the public to favor ecommerce with the
On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
internet connectivity, and that much $ is at stake, you're stupid if you
don't have some redundancy. Nothing works all the time forever.
I can't consider Cogent even a redundant link, since I need two other
upstreams to reach
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Mon Jun 20 00:15:32
2011
To: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
Subject: Re: unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:14:49 +1000
Cc: NANOG list nanog@nanog.org
internet connectivity, and that much $ is at stake, you're stupid if you
don't have some redundancy. Nothing works all the time forever.
I can't consider Cogent even a redundant link, since I need two other
upstreams to reach the Internet redundantly.
-cjp
Well, they aren't someone you
On 6/20/11 5:44 AM, Steve Richardson wrote:
They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
same reason and I don't really *think* it's a
Now that the cat is out of the bag, maybe we should look at trying to
get people to make use of FQDN's more.
I just added a rewrite to my person site to give it a try, and threw a
quick note up about it:
http://soucy.org./whydot.php
So far, it looks like every browser correctly respects the use
On 20 Jun 2011, at 02:24, Paul Vixie vi...@isc.org wrote:
furthermore, the internet has more in it than just the web, and i know that
foo@sony. will not have its RHS (sony.) treated as a hierarchical name.
Trailing dots are not permitted on mail domains.
There has been an ongoing argument
- Original Message -
From: Tony Finch d...@dotat.at
Trailing dots are not permitted on mail domains.
I couldn't believe that, so I went and checked 5322. Tony's right:
there is no way to write an email address which is deterministic,
unless mail servers ignore the DNS search path.
How long before we see marketing campaigns urging people to only trust
.band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
An interesting question. There was a group that was supposed to work
on high security TLDs. I suggested that to be usefully high
security, the registry should make site visits to
On Jun 20, 2011, at 2:35 AM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes:
what's new? how about the operational technical effects, like data from
modeling various resolvers' responses to a large root zone?
Yep. That is an area that has been identified as needing additional
With a $185,000 application fee this tends to really kill small
businesses and conditions the public to favor ecommerce with the
giants, not to mention a nice revenue boost for ICANN.
Would love to hear the dirt on backroom conversations that led to this
decision...
Hopefully there will
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
RFC 897.
I see where it says that all of the hosts that existed in 1984 were
supposed to change their names to something with at least two
I would like to design VSS LACP based MECs with ESX hosts.
Does VMware ESX support LACP?
Do we need Nexus 1000 for ESX LACP support?
R/
Manu
ESX does NOT support LACP out of the box. Not sure about the nexus 1kv.
Thanks,
Josh Smith
KD8HRX
email/jabber: juice...@gmail.com
phone: 304.237.9369(c)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Manu Chao linux.ya...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to design VSS LACP based MECs with ESX hosts.
ray,
... only trust .band and that .com et. al. are less secure.
secure is not a well-defined term.
as the .com registry access model accepts credit card fraud risk,
a hypothetical registry, say .giro, with wholesale registration at
the same dollar price point but an access mechanism accepting
On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:43, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
There is also no such thing as in-bailiwick glue for the TLD’s DNS servers.
The root zone contains glue for TLDs. No TLD zone contains glue for TLDs.
In-bailiwick means that the nameservers for a zone are under the apex of that
Another avenue could be At-Large. The North American Regional At-Large
Organization (NARALO) - uniquely amongst the RALO's - accepts individual
members.
as the elected unaffiliated member representative (or umr) i suppose i
should point out that (a) yes, the structural feature of individual
Does not out of the box mean that there is an LACP 'fix' ?
--
Leigh Porter
On 20 Jun 2011, at 21:45, Josh Smith juice...@gmail.com wrote:
ESX does NOT support LACP out of the box. Not sure about the nexus 1kv.
Thanks,
Josh Smith
KD8HRX
email/jabber: juice...@gmail.com
phone:
In message 77733847-fbf7-460a-ad30-08dc42dc3...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:14 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
So they get what they ask for: Ambiguity in resolving the name space.
There is no ambiguity if tld operators don't unilaterally add address
records
On 20 Jun 2011, at 16:26, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
But most RBL managers are shitheads anyway, so help them evade, that'll be
one more proof of spamhaus co. uselessness and negative impact on the
Internet's best practices.
An organization that blocks 90% of spam with no false
On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them. If you do
use them, then you are accepting a certain amount of ambiguity. Naked TLDs will
increase that ambiguity and would
Op 20 jun 2011, om 23:24 heeft Tony Finch het volgende geschreven:
On 20 Jun 2011, at 16:26, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
But most RBL managers are shitheads anyway, so help them evade, that'll be
one more proof of spamhaus co. uselessness and negative impact on the
Internet's
In message 20110620190517.2242.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
Simple hostnames as, global identifiers, were supposed to cease
to work in 1984.
Can you point out where that is stated?
jaap
RFC 897.
I see where it says that all of the hosts that existed in
On 6/20/2011 11:26 AM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
SNIP /
Unless many contiguous blocks are assigned as different objects : a
RBL must NOT presume of one end-user's inetnum unless it has been
cathed doing nasty things AND didn't comply to abuse@ requests.
An RBL *can* do whatever an RBL wants to
2011/6/20 Tony Finch d...@dotat.at:
An organization that blocks 90% of spam with no false positives is incredibly
useful.
Greylisting and reverse-DNS checks alone blocks 95-98% with no impact
on mail sent from properly maintained mail servers. RBLs are only
usefull for lazy mailadmins, and to
My feeling is that (paraphrasing here) we might get blocked
occasionally and we need this many IPs on our MTAs because they
can't handle the load are *not* legitimate reasons for requesting
so many addresses.
It is definitely not your job to help spammers evade blocking. If
someone's
They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
same reason and I don't really *think* it's a legitimate reason.
No legitimate mailer needs more
An organization that blocks 90% of spam with no false positives is
incredibly useful.
Using a greylisting system is equally effective without the black
list part.
Hi. I'm the guy who wrote the CEAS paper on greylisting.
Greylisting is useful, but anyone who thinks it's a substitute for
(Marka)
See RFC 1535. Yes, a mistake was made implementing search lists.
A RFC was issued to say don't do search lists this way.
Which RFC? What way?
It would be nice if you would say what you mean instead keep referring to
things the reader has to guess.
jaap
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Manu Chao linux.ya...@gmail.com wrote:
I would like to design VSS LACP based MECs with ESX hosts.
Does VMware ESX support LACP?
No, ESX does not support the LACP protocol for control and negotiation of
link aggregation.
Should you want link aggregation, and the
ESX does support link aggregation, if by that is meant more than one Ethernet
switch-to-ESX bundle, acting as a single logical pipe, and with stacked TOR
switch configurations the bundles Ethernet links can connect to different TOR
switches for redundancy. Nexus 1000V is better for network
Op 20 jun 2011, om 23:55 heeft John Levine het volgende geschreven:
An organization that blocks 90% of spam with no false positives is
incredibly useful.
Using a greylisting system is equally effective without the black
list part.
Hi. I'm the guy who wrote the CEAS paper on
2011/6/20 David Miller dmil...@tiggee.com:
OK. I'll bite. What particular internet best practices are Spamhaus
trampling on?
RBL's are often seen as an easy solution to a quite complex problem.
Most mail administrators are relying on them so blindly that some may
forget to evaluate an RBL's
2011/6/20 John Levine jo...@iecc.com:
Hi. I'm the guy who wrote the CEAS paper on greylisting.
URL ?
Greylisting is useful, but anyone who thinks it's a substitute for
DNSBLs has never run a large mail system.
You're right, greylisting on a large system may not be efficient as it
won't
Seth,
2011/6/21 Seth Mos seth@dds.nl:
We use the black lists for scoring spam messages, but we never outright block
messages. I was not implying that blacklists are not useful at all. I just
see things in shades of grey over black and white.
Thanks for pointing this out : I was whining
On 20 Jun 2011, at 23:09, Jérôme Nicolle jer...@ceriz.fr wrote:
But if you can point me to any serious organisation
providing a real value-added service maintained by real professionals,
those who performs thorough checks _before_ putting a legitimaite mail
server in a blacklist, then i'd
Paul Graydon wrote:
I've seen the stuff about adding a few extra TLDs, like XXX. I haven't
seen any references until now of them considering doing it on a
commercial basis. I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy
and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet.
I don't know
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them.
You're in good company. It's hard to find a modern mail system that
allows abbreviated domain names in addresses. I just checked the mail
at AOL, Yahoo, Gmail, and Hotmail,
On 6/20/11 9:26 AM, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
But most RBL managers are shitheads anyway, so help them evade,
that'll be one more proof of spamhausco. uselessness and negative
impact on the Internet's best practices.
I do believe in this one paragraph, we know who the real shithead is.
Noted and
In message 3da313a7-911e-4439-9082-b50844338...@dotat.at, Tony Finch writes:
On 20 Jun 2011, at 08:43, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
=20
There is also no such thing as in-bailiwick glue for the TLD=E2=80=99s DN=
S servers. The root zone contains glue for TLDs. No TLD zone contains glu=
185K is just the application few, the process includes some
requirements to have a given amount of dough for operations in escrow,
add what you need to pay attorneys, experts
, lobbyists, and setup and staff a small corporation even if you plan
to outsource part of the dayt-2-day operations to a
In message b568f14d-2d30-4501-bac9-fb3b4125a...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them. If
you do use them, then you are
In message 201106202158.p5klwaxw088...@bartok.nlnetlabs.nl, Jaap Akkerhuis wr
ites:
(Marka)
See RFC 1535. Yes, a mistake was made implementing search lists.
A RFC was issued to say don't do search lists this way.
Which RFC? What way?
RFC 1535.
A Security
In message 20110620223618.2927.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine writes:
do you want to issue a RFC that bans search lists?
Personally, I think search lists are a mistake and don't use them.
You're in good company. It's hard to find a modern mail system that
allows abbreviated domain names
185K is just the application few, the process includes some
requirements to have a given amount of dough for operations in escrow,
add what you need to pay attorneys, experts
, lobbyists, and setup and staff a small corporation even if you plan
to outsource part of the dayt-2-day operations
I wonder what sort of money .wpad would be worth...
- Original Message -
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
In message 20110620223618.2927.qm...@joyce.lan, John Levine
writes:
You're in good company. It's hard to find a modern mail system that
allows abbreviated domain names in addresses. I just checked the
mail at AOL, Yahoo,
2011/6/21 Tony Finch d...@dotat.at:
Spamhaus. And none of your complaints apply to them.
Oh really ? So the blame is to throw at Google Docs administrators for
beeing blacklisted (on the SBL, which should contain only verified
spam source, thus implying discussion with the service manager) ? And
On Jun 20, 2011, at 5:52 27PM, John Levine wrote:
They have inquired about IPv6 already, but it's only gone so far as
that. I would gladly give them a /64 and be done with it, but my
concern is that they are going to want several /64 subnets for the
same reason and I don't really *think*
All they need -- or, I suspect, need to assert -- is to have
multiple physical networks. They can claim a production net, a DMZ,
a management net, a back-end net for their databases, a developer
net, and no one would question an architecture like that
My impression is that this is about a
On Jun 20, 2011, at 10:22 45PM, John R. Levine wrote:
All they need -- or, I suspect, need to assert -- is to have
multiple physical networks. They can claim a production net, a DMZ,
a management net, a back-end net for their databases, a developer
net, and no one would question an
And you are to be complimented on your diligence in this respect, Eric.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 6:21 PM, brun...@nic-naa.net wrote:
this is still an area of active work, i was working on it ... yesterday
and the day before, today, and tomorrow and the day after tomorrow ...
--
93 matches
Mail list logo
