> Ah, so you're in the camp that a /10 given to one organization for
> their private use would have been better than reserving that /10 for
> _everyone_ to use. We'll have to agree to disagree there.
you forced an rfc allocation. that makes public space, and is and will
be used as such. you want
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
>> if I ask ns1/2/3/4/5/6.hp.com directly for for onramp01.hpeprint.com.:
>>
>> ; <<>> DiG 9.8.1-P1 <<>> onramp01.hpeprint.com. @ns6.hp.com
>> ;; global options: +cmd
>> ;; Got answer:
>> ;;
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> You left out the authority section that refers you to the correct DNS
> servers - ns[1-6].hp.com are not it. They delegate to another set of HP
> servers, which all time out (as stated by the OP) when asked for .
>
Actually the OP said th
Once upon a time, Christopher Morrow said:
> if I ask ns1/2/3/4/5/6.hp.com directly for for onramp01.hpeprint.com.:
>
> ; <<>> DiG 9.8.1-P1 <<>> onramp01.hpeprint.com. @ns6.hp.com
> ;; global options: +cmd
> ;; Got answer:
> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 30318
> ;;
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> Either way - it breaks Sendmail, some versions of Exchange, and possibly
> other MTA's. The proper answer to a non-existent record is NOERROR,
> with ANSWER 0.
if I ask ns1/2/3/4/5/6.hp.com directly for for onramp01.hpeprint.com
Either way - it breaks Sendmail, some versions of Exchange, and possibly
other MTA's. The proper answer to a non-existent record is
NOERROR, with ANSWER 0.
Hanging or refusing to answer doesn't result in another attempt to look
for an A record since the name server failed to respond to
Based on asnwers so far:
To put things in perspective
The current regulations offer unbundled COPPER loops, as well as an
aggregated wholesale last mile access for DSL/VDSL (wholesale also
mandated for cable for data but not voice)
This may change with the CRTC 2013-551 consultation which revie
Le 03/05/2014 20:23, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
> On Sat, 3 May 2014, Vitkovský Adam wrote:
>
>> Sure it's a different transport protocol altogether, anyways It's
>> interesting to see how everybody tends to separate the IPv4 and IPv6
>> AFs onto a different TCP sessions and still run the plethor
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> Dear HP:
>
> If your not going to support IPv6 can you at least not return SRVFAIL when
> asked for an record:
>
They aren't. Your resolver is - or at least, that's what it looks like for
me.
Sending an query to their nameserver
+1 here we do the same exact thing with our ftth and ont¹s separate vlan
with h.248 gw¹s sitting on it and you just point the profile of the voice
port to the gw. There is a reason why they are doing things this way, as
current regulation does not force them to give you access to there fiber
netwo
On 5/3/14, 10:36 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> a good number of us use that kinky /10 behind home nats and encourage
>> everyone to do so. it was a sick deal and should be treated as such,
>> just more 1918.
>
> A good number of folks use othe
On Sat, 3 May 2014, Vitkovský Adam wrote:
Sure it's a different transport protocol altogether, anyways It's
interesting to see how everybody tends to separate the IPv4 and IPv6 AFs
onto a different TCP sessions and still run the plethora of other AFs on
the common v4 TCP session, maybe apart f
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> a good number of us use that kinky /10 behind home nats and encourage
> everyone to do so. it was a sick deal and should be treated as such,
> just more 1918.
A good number of folks use other folks IP space in all kinds of
strange and kinky way
Sure it's a different transport protocol altogether, anyways It's interesting
to see how everybody tends to separate the IPv4 and IPv6 AFs onto a different
TCP sessions and still run the plethora of other AFs on the common v4 TCP
session, maybe apart from couple of the big folks, who can afford
On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> The fact that you need v4 space to build a MPLS backbone is a very good
> reason to not waste a /10 on CGN crap.
Ah, so you're in the camp that a /10 given to one organization for
their private use would have been better than reserving that /1
We use H.248 in our CLEC area. The voice service for that ONT runs on a
specified VLAN for that ONT, so if we had to share our infrastructure with
other CLECs we could do that.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois
Mezei
Sent: Fr
Dear HP:
If your not going to support IPv6 can you at least not return SRVFAIL
when asked for an record:
root@spoons:/etc/mail # dig onramp01.hpeprint.com
; <<>> DiG 9.8.3-P4 <<>> onramp01.hpeprint.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status
In my experience, where Bell Canada has installed FTTP facilities,
CLECs are not given access to these deployments.
The orders come back as "UNAVAILABLE FACILITIES"
At 11:49 PM 02/05/2014, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
I need a sanity check.
An incumbent in Canada has revealed that its voice
a good number of us use that kinky /10 behind home nats and encourage
everyone to do so. it was a sick deal and should be treated as such,
just more 1918.
randy
Subject: Shared Transition Space VS. BGP Next Hop [was: Re: Best practices
IPv4/IPv6 BGP (dual stack)] Date: Fri, May 02, 2014 at 03:58:42PM -0600 Quoting
Chris Grundemann (cgrundem...@gmail.com):
> Would you expound a bit on what you mean here? I don't quite follow but I
> am very interested to
20 matches
Mail list logo
