On 2012-02-03 21:37 , -Hammer- wrote:
Thanks Jeroen (and Ryan/Philip/Cameron/Justin/Etc.) for all the online
and offline responses. That was fast. The struggle is that I'm having
trouble seeing how/why it would matter other than potential latency on
the IPv4 side. IPv6 conversations usually
On 2012-02-10 18:37 , Leo Bicknell wrote:
[..]
There's no reason my mail client shouldn't validate the signed e-mail
came from the same entity as the signed web site I'd previously logged
into, and give me a green light that the link actually points to said
same web site with the same key.
On 2012-02-16 14:51 , Mark Andrews wrote:
[..]
that can occur. As IPv4 and IPv6 are often configured independently
we provide a way to test each independently.
Could you make that label also for both IPv4/IPv6, that way, one could
figure out if the query ends up being answered over IPv4 or
On 2012-02-16 17:13 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:33 AM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I suppose if you buy a SSL certificate, you should be looking for
your CA to have insurance to reimburse the cost of the certificate
should that happen, and an ironclad
On 2012-02-23 21:11 , Maverick wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to collect traffic traffic from pcap file and store it in
a database but really confused how to organize it. Should I organize
it on connection basis/ flow basis or IP basis.
It might be an effort to write a customized traffic
On 2012-02-23 21:34 , Mike Lyon wrote:
Random thought, anyone ever used Splunk for this kind of thing?
Various folks have, the problem of course comes down to processing
power, thus you'll need to throw a lot of hardware against it to be able
to process traffic in a decent network.
Check
Hi Folks,
I would like to get more organizations on the Native IPv6 list:
http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=native
Thus, if you have updates and also new entries, do not hesitate to
forward them to i...@sixxs.net.
Please provide the list of countries that you are offering the service,
On 2012-03-09 10:02 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Mehmet Akcin meh...@akcin.net wrote:
if you know anyone who is filtering /48 , you can start telling them to STOP
doing so as a good citizen of internet6.
I had a bit of off-list discussion about this topic, and I was
On 2012-03-20 15:40 , vinny_abe...@dell.com wrote:
FYI - it's also the main IPv4 site, not just IPv6... although I'm
unsure if it's the same issue.
I was monitoring availability as a point of reference for my network
and started receiving 500 errors recently as well that tripped up the
On 2012-03-20 16:53 , Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 20/03/2012 14:54, Jeroen Massar wrote:
For everybody who is monitoring other people's websites, please please
please, monitor something static like /robots.txt as that can be
statically served and is kinda appropriate as it is intended for robots
On 2012-03-29 18:21 , james jones wrote:
Not to sound like I am trolling here, but how hard is it get VPS servers or
some EC2 servers and setup your own DNS servers. Are there use cases where
that is not practical?
They tend to not do IPv6, let alone native IPv6, they also tend to be
behind a
On 2012-06-03 20:26, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 10:05:40PM -0400, Joe Maimon wrote:
[..]
actually, to be safe, 1220.
That will work really well with the minimum IPv6 MTU being 1280 ;)
Greets,
Jeroen
On 3 Jun 2012, at 20:40, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/12, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Joe Maimon jmai...@ttec.com wrote:
[snip]
#5 According to the IETF, MSS hacks do not exist and neither do MTU
issues
On 3 Jun 2012, at 22:41, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Joe Maimon wrote:
So IPv6 fixes the fragmentation and MTU issues of IPv4 by how exactly?
Completely wrongly.
Got a better solution? ;)
Or was the fix incorporating the breakage into the basic design?
Yes.
On 3 Jun 2012, at 23:20, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/3/12, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
If one is so stupid to just block ICMP then one should also accept that one
loses functionality.
ICMP tends to get blocked by firewalls by default
Which firewall product does
On 4 Jun 2012, at 06:36, Masataka Ohta mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
So IPv6 fixes the fragmentation and MTU issues of IPv4 by how exactly?
Completely wrongly.
Got a better solution? ;)
IPv4 without PMTUD, of course.
We are (afaik) discussing IPv6
On 4 Jun 2012, at 06:50, Jason Fesler jfes...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
I know a lot of people are using / pointing to test-ipv6.com . The hardware
picked a bad week to quit sniffing glue.
You got a bunch of mirrors for it right? Should not be to tricky to get someone
to let their act as the
On 2012-06-04 08:13, Jason Fesler wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
You got a bunch of mirrors for it right? Should not be to tricky to
get someone to let their act as the real thing for a bit.
I've got redirects up now to spread the load across VMs. For the
next
On 2012-06-04 07:31, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 4 Jun 2012, at 06:36, Masataka Ohta
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
So IPv6 fixes the fragmentation and MTU issues of IPv4 by
how exactly?
Completely wrongly
On 2012-06-04 14:26, Joe Maimon wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Tunnels therefor only should exist at the edge where native IPv6 cannot
be made possible without significant investments in hardware and or
other resources. Of course every tunnel should at one point in time be
replaced
On 2012-06-04 14:55, Templin, Fred L wrote:
I just want to know if we can expect IPv6 to devolve into 1280 standard
mtu and at what gigabit rates.
1280 is the minimum IPv6 MTU. If people allow pMTU to work, aka accept
and process ICMPv6 Packet-Too-Big messages everything will just work.
On 2012-06-04 15:27, Joe Maimon wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
If people want to use a tunnel for the purpose of a VPN, then they will,
be that IPv4 or IPv6 or both inside that tunnel.
Instead of having a custom VPN protocol one can do IPSEC properly now as
there is no NAT that one
On 2012-06-04 16:58, Owen DeLong wrote:
http://ipv6chicken.net
$ dig -t any ipv6chicken.net
; DiG 9.8.1-P1 -t any ipv6chicken.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; -HEADER- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 16935
The chicken cannot cross the road as the chicken does not exist.
On 2012-06-04 17:57, Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
If you're going to redesign the header, I'd be much more interested
in having 32 bits for the destination ASN so that IDR can ignore IP
prefixes altogether.
One can already do that: route your IPv6 over IPv4 IPv4 has 32bit
destination addresses
On 2012-06-05 07:29, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
[..]
;; ANSWER SECTION:
comcast.net.358 IN MX 5 mx3.comcast.net.
comcast.net.358 IN MX 10 mx1.comcast.net.
comcast.net.358 IN MX 5 mx2.comcast.net.
;; ADDITIONAL
On 2012-06-04 23:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jun 4, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-06-04 17:57, Owen DeLong wrote: [..]
If you're going to redesign the header, I'd be much more
interested in having 32 bits for the destination ASN so that IDR
can ignore IP prefixes altogether
On 2012-06-05 11:44, Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
LISP et. al requires a rather complicated deployment and would be even
more complex to troubleshoot when it fails.
What I am proposing could, literally, be deployed with the existing system
still running as it does. The difference would be that
On 2012-06-20 01:04, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I am seeing all IPv6 prefixes that are monitored by Sixxs as being down
and unavailable.
Hmmm, I didn't see this on i...@sixxs.net which would be the usual place
to report any issues with respect to SixXS, but there the same reply
would be given:
Good morning (at least on this side of the planet),
On 2012-06-20 02:14, Hank Nussbacher wrote: On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Jeroen
Massar wrote:
Ill report it to them but:
NANOG is afaik still not the contact the people who run things email
address...
Nevertheless, if issues, do not hesitate
On 2012-06-20 23:23, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
At 19:25 20/06/2012 -0400, Kyle Creyts wrote:
Until such time that Sixxs responds as to what happened, it will all be
conjecture.
-Hank
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2012-1820 possibly
related?
I pointed to the status
On 2012-06-28 02:27, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I am urgently trying to find Geoff but it appears he has left Telstra:
g...@telstra.net: host pit-mail.telstra.net[203.50.40.14] said: 550 5.1.1
g...@telstra.net... User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command)
Sorry for using the list but I don't
On 2012-07-05 19:11 , Wouter Prins wrote:
hi all,
Is there anyone active on this list who is actively working on/at
ipv6forum.com/nav6.org?
I tried to contact both administrative and technical contacts listed
under the domain, but no response so far.
Latif Ladid la...@ladid.lu is the right
On 2012-07-13 14:52 , Jared Mauch wrote:
On Jul 13, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Brandon Applegate wrote:
So I sent an email over a week ago to ipv6...@networksolutions.com
- and since I've only recieved the auto reply.
A year or so ago I did this and got very quick turnaround, but now
just dead
On 2012-07-13 16:38, -Hammer- wrote:
OK. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get some flak for this but I'll share this
question and it's background anyway. Please be gentle.
In the past, with IPv4, we have used reserved or non-routable space
Internally in production for segments that won't be seen
On 2012-07-13 18:11, Tom Cooper wrote:
[..]
As an IPv6 newbie myself
Play with it and get your ears wet, it is still not entirely too late to
start to learn to swim ;)
, I wonder how hosts handle link local, ULA and
global addresses.
For example, if you have some internal web traffic used for
On 2012-07-13 19:30, David Hubbard wrote:
[..]
We don't use it for
billing purposes, mostly for spotting malicious
remote hosts doing things like scans, spotting
traffic such as weird ports in use in either
direction that warrant further investigation,
[..]
The primary difference between
On 2012-07-18 00:21, Seth Mattinen wrote:
[..]
Don't, because there's already a /10 defined for such things. It's
called ULA (unique local address) aka RFC 4193. ULAs are not globally
routable.
Here's a calculator that will generate a random one for you:
http://bitace.com/ipv6calc/
A
On 2012-07-18 00:47, Seth Mattinen wrote:
[..]
Here's a calculator that will generate a random one for you:
http://bitace.com/ipv6calc/
A random one indeed, because the javascript for it is just:
[..]
does not follow RFC4193 in any way at all. A such do not use it.
The original real
On 2012-07-18 00:57, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2012-07-18 00:47, Seth Mattinen wrote:
[..]
Here's a calculator that will generate a random one for you:
http://bitace.com/ipv6calc/
[..]
Yes, it is a shame that the bitace thing references RFC4193 and then
does not use it. Lets Bcc: them and see
On 2012-09-13 02:18 , Miles Fidelman wrote:
Hi Folks,
I expect folks on NANOG would know: Are there any domain registrars who
provide APIs for managing domains and/or DNS records? It's kind of a
pain managing large numbers of domains via klunky web interfaces. It
sure would be nice to
On 2012-09-13 14:21 , Fernando Gont wrote:
Folks,
We are pleased to announce the release of ipv6mon v1.0!
** Description **
ipv6mon (http://www.si6networks.com/tools/ipv6mon) is a tool for
monitoring IPv6 address usage on a local network. It is meant to be
particularly useful in
On 2012-09-13 16:29 , Jay Ashworth wrote:
[..]
If not, do any of the people who've already done have 5 minutes to chime in
on what they did and what they learned?
You might want to go through the network presentations given for IETF,
NANOG/ARIN and last but definitely not least: CCC congress +
On 2012-09-13 18:32 , Tim Franklin wrote:
You'll need a beefy NAT box. Linux with Xeon CPU and 4GB RAM
minimum.
Or not. The CCC presentation is showing *real* Internet for
everyone, unless I'm very much mistaken...
No NAT was involved there indeed. Typically conferences can get a
To all folks running NOC's at events like CCC/Assembly/DEFCON/etc: hats
off, and enjoy the fun ;)
On 2012-09-14 09:34 , Måns Nilsson wrote:
[..]
A couple hours will get the user over a lunch break if not overnight,
which means that long TCP sessions survive on Proper Computers (that
don't tear
On 2012-09-18 16:07 , Eugen Leitl wrote:
[..]
John Graham-Cumming, who found this unused block, wrote in a blog post that
the DWP was in possession of 51.0.0.0/8 IPv4 addresses. According to Cumming,
these 16.9 million IP addresses are unused at the moment and he derived this
conclusion by
On 2012-09-19 14:05 , Joseph M. Owino wrote:
Hi,
Hope you are all well. I work at an exchange point and was seeking
any assistance on how to implement a software based route server as
currently we are using a Cisco Router for that purpose. Any form of
assistance will be highly appreciated.
On 2012-09-20 16:01 , John Curran wrote:
On Sep 19, 2012, at 5:01 AM, Tim Franklin t...@pelican.org wrote:
So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they
aren't publicly routable?
Because the RIRs aren't in the business of handing out publicly
routable address space. They're
On 2012-09-21 15:31 , Mark Radabaugh wrote:
The part of IPv6 that I am unclear on and have not found much
documentation on is how to run IPv6 only to end users. Anyone care to
point me in the right direction?
Can we assign IPv6 only to end users? What software/equipment do we
need in
On 2012-09-24 14:48 , Joe Loiacono wrote:
Peter Phaal peter.ph...@gmail.com wrote on 09/23/2012 12:23:57 PM:
Exporting packet oriented measurements doesn't mean that you have to
loose ingress/egress interface data.
Note that you get these in NetFlow too. Depends on which version you
pick or
On 2012-09-21 01:57, Brandon Wade wrote:
Hello,
I was wondering if there are any problems originating APNIC IP's in the
ARIN region through transit providers? I have a Singapore-based prospect
who would like to do business with us, but I'm not sure if I'll run into
problems originating
On 2012-09-27 11:23 , Eugen Leitl wrote:
I'm trying to figure out whether CERNET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERNET
is part of the official Internet,
There is no 'official Internet', there is a 'view on the Internet'.
Note that if you would do an eyeball count the 'official' one would be
David W. Hankins wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:41:01AM -0600, Mike Lewinski wrote:
This is a sound evolutionary tactic lemmings use. =)
I know this is way OT, but I can't let it pass. The lemming suicide myth
was created by a very questionable Walt Disney documentary:
This is also way
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are there any parties out there routing /48 IPv6 networks globally? I ran
into a supposed Catch-22 with Verizon and IPv6 address space and was
looking for clarification.
Let them signup to GRH (http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/) then it will be
very easy to see which
Michael Sinatra wrote:
On 11/18/08 9:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Ward [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish them good luck in reaching the DNS root servers.
They are in critical infrastructure space, which is a single /32
with
traceroute6 to the
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:26:36PM -0500, Christopher
Morrow wrote:
traceroute6 to the ISC's v6 allocation(s) for f-root ... (from inside
701) oh, not working...
traceroute6 to ipv6.google.com from inside 701, oh... not working either.
vzb's v6
Matthew Huff wrote:
It's not just technical. Companies are reluctant to migrate to an IP address
owned by an ISP. We are one of those companies. If and when it is easy for us
to apply and receive our own Ipv6 address space, [..]
Because like, ARIN wasn't the first RIR to provide that
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
[please fix your line length, my screen is still not a 100]
Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now.
As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48),
APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this.
Yes, you have to pay for it, but the
Kevin Loch wrote:
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 22, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
Zhenkai Zhu wrote:
I just want to make sure if I understand correctly. You mean that
the anycasted address space can be announced in different places yet
with the same origin AS?
Yes, and it is
Shin SHIRAHATA wrote:
192.88.99.0/24, 2002::/16, and 2001::/32 are some
notable examples of heterogeneous origin AS.
And those prefixes (6to4 Teredo) all come with annoying problems as
one never knows which relay is really being used and it is hard to debug
how the packets really flow.
I
Elliott Karpilovsky wrote:
Hello everyone. My name is Elliott Karpilovsky, a student at Princeton
University. In collaboration with Alex Gerber (ATT Research), Dan Pei (ATT
Research), Jennifer Rexford (Princeton University), and Aman Shaikh (ATT
Research), we studied the extent of IPv6
Larry J. Blunk wrote:
[..]
A v6 server is now up at www.ipv6.nanog.org. As a bonus
incentive, you get to see the Merit mascot (no, it's not a dancing
turtle).Unfortunately, there's some unresolved issues with
the secure registration server, so we can't add an record
for
Hi,
As more and more cool IPv6 applications and services are becoming
available, I converted the former FAQ entry we had on this into a more
easily found/remembered page.
The page is at: http://www.sixxs.net/misc/coolstuff/
I am spamming this to NANOG, as there is bound to be ISP's out there
Frank Bulk wrote:
The Billy Goat product only seems to detect and notify nefarious activity,
but it does nothing for the owned clients.
I want something that restricts my owned subscribers to downloading updates
and tools while preventing them from spewing forth more spam and the like.
A
Hi folks,
As everybody is a big fan of securing their networks against foreign
attacks, be aware that the US DoD has been assigned 14 /22's, IPv6 that
is, not IPv4, they all come from a single IPv6 /13 though, which is what
they apparently asked for in the beginning, at least that was the rumor,
Mike Linsenmayer wrote:
Hey all,
I am looking for a IPV6 internet feed for our testing labs in Southern
California, I know this is off subject but I am a little exasperated in
trying to locate one. if anyone on the list knows of a provider please
contact me off list.
My queue to spam:
=
Scott McGrath wrote:
[..]
For a long time there has been a effective practice of
UDP == resolution requests
TCP == zone transfers
WRONG. TCP is there as a fallback when the answer of the question is too
large. Zone transfer you can limit in your software. If you can't
configure your dns
Scott McGrath wrote:
There is no call for insults on this list
Insults? Where? If you feel insulted by any of the comments made on this
list by people, then you probably are indeed on the wrong list. But that
is just me.
- Rather thought this list was
about techincal discussions
David Conrad wrote:
On Jun 26, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Ken Simpson wrote:
How will ICANN be allocating these?
https://par.icann.org/files/paris/GNSO-gTLD-Update-Paris22jun08.pdf
and
http://www.circleid.com/posts/86262_launch_of_paris_domain_icann/
and
Balazs Laszlo wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] i'rta:
There are probably some variations based on the zone, languages,
IDN'ability, etc., but it certainly is a good idea to be
bankofamerica.* for reasons that I think are obvious to most of us.
To make it hard for your customers to figure out
R. Irving wrote:
/lurk
Thank you people doing all the ICANN politics for destroying the
Internet.
You know, last time someone ( Robert Metcalfe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Metcalfe) prophesied the death of
the Internet, when it didn't
come true... we made him eat his words. You up
Chris Owen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
It is because, if someone reports (by telephone, IRC or IRL) that he
sent an email and I did not receive it, I regard as VERY IMPORTANT to
be able to check the spam folder (with a search tool, not by hand) and
go back to him saying No, we really did not
Frank P. Troy wrote:
Hi,
Can someone point me to the latest information on the minimum IPv6 prefix
providers will accept for Provider Independent IPv6 prefixes?
Ask the providers directly, it is their network thus they will have
their own policies.
In general though, ASNs are
Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 04:55:37PM +0200, Jeroen Massar
wrote:
In general though, ASNs are following:
http://www.space.net/~gert/RIPE/ipv6-filters.html
I don't know how common the strict/non-strict case is though, but
looking at GRH (http
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 04:07:28PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apart from using Bernstein's tinydns, anyone have any scripts
for looking for problems in zone files or for incrementing the
serial number reliably?
Well, all my networks are tiny, and I've only recently
Nick Downey wrote:
This is an heads-up from the Mediacom Network Operations Center about an
issue we are seeing. We
were recently given an IP scope from ARIN (American Registry for Internet
Numbers) that still
[..]
Please fix your mailer as it seems to be broken with respect to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
matsuzaki-san's preso, i think the copy he will present next
week at apops:
To summarize, using /64 on a link opens the door to a DOS
problem that we need to pressure the vendors to fix.
How is this not an obvious 'duh' kind of situation that just depends on
doing
Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:11:41AM -0400, kcc wrote:
ls it possible t convert the interger to ip
Yes.
If you are using 128-bit integers, which according to some will also
change some day, thus one should be using struct addrinfo and:
getaddrinfo()
getnameinfo()
as
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:53:26 -0700
Kevin Oberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So the question I have is... will operators (ISP, etc) turn on
DNSsec checking? Or a more basic question of whether you even
_could_ turn on checking if you were so inclined?
As far as I can
Kevin Oberman wrote:
[..]
Right. The real questions are the clients and the trust anchor -- what
root key do you support?
A distributed one. I personally don't really see an issue with
downloading a public key for every TLD out there. These keys could come
in a pack even by an OS
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:20 AM, yangyang. wang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, everyone:
For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not deploy AS
number based routing scheme? BGP is path vector protocol and the shortest
paths are calculated based on
Steven Bellovin wrote:
Note: we really want ops clue!
*
DIMACS/CCICADA Workshop on Secure Routing
February 22 - 24, 2010
I recognize those dates they match NANOG48, I guess we can guess
where people will be thus:
Richard E. Brown wrote:
Folks,
My company, Dartware, have derived a regex for testing whether an IPv6
address is correct. I've posted it in my blog:
http://intermapper.ning.com/profiles/blogs/a-regular-expression-for-ipv6
This has links to the regular expression, a (Perl) program
Mark Andrews wrote:
[..]
And now for the trick question. Is :::077.077.077.077 a legal
mapped address and if it, does it match 077.077.077.077?
:::0:0:0:0/96 should never ever be shown to a user, as it is
confusing (is it IPv6 or IPv4?) and does not make sense at all.
As such whatever
Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
Hurricane Electric has a full production dual-stack environment.
I'm being tasked with coming up with an IPv6 migration plan for a data
center.
Mostly interested in if ATT, Level3, GLBX, Saavis, Verizon Business
and Qwest are capable as those are the typical ones I
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Chris Grundemann wrote:
SixXS maintains a list here:
http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=ipv6transit.
I think that list should also include TeliaSonera. TSIC does offer v6
transit, although their product sheet only mentions IPv4.
Updates
TJ wrote:
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Chris Woodfield rek...@semihuman.comwrote:
To pile on in the spirit of if people don't complain, nothing will change
- is VZB still insisting on filtering /32 at their peers? While ARIN is
allocating /40s and /48s directly?
I believe so ...
Rick Ernst wrote:
[..]
I haven't seen anything on the general feel for prefix filtering. I've seen
discussions from /48 down to /54. Any feel for what the standard (widely
deployed) IPv6 prefix filter size will be?
There have been a lot of discussions on this before.
(See also
InterNetX - Lutz Muehlig wrote:
Hello,
has someone experience in anycast ipv4 networks (to support DNS)?
Never been done Dangerous TCP does not work etc etc etc.
I assume quite a number of people know how to do it, especially as
several root DNS servers abuse it.
Simple recipe:
- Box with:
[changing topics, so that it actually reflects the content]
On 2010-04-08 20:33, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
With IPv6 designed the
way it is, is there a realistic chance of running out of IPv6 even if
some questionable delegations
On 2011-May-11 16:39, William Astle wrote:
[..]
I think the above two points illustrate precisely why so many networks
in North America simply cannot deploy IPv6 whether they want to or not.
We simply cannot obtain IPv6 transit from our upstreams. It's just not
available. And the old line
On 2011-May-12 15:14, Joe Loiacono wrote:
Bernhard Schmidt be...@birkenwald.de wrote on 05/12/2011 06:27:38 AM:
Anthony Francis - Handy Networks LLC anth...@handynetworks.com wrote:
I can confirm full IPV6 connectivity from HE.
How can you confirm that when HE just admitted to be lacking
On 2011-May-18 16:44, Todd Snyder wrote:
As I start working more and more with IPv6 and find myself having to address
services, I am wondering if there are any sort of written or unwritten
'conventions'/best practices that are being adopted about how to address
devices/servers/services.
On 2011-May-21 15:37, Deric Kwok wrote:
Hi all
I am trying to use http://www.rwhois.net/rwhois/prwhois.html to check
my rwhois server
but it is not reachable now
DNS is broken it seems.
Do you know why the websie is not in existing?
and how can i check it
google(rwhois) for me 2nd
On 2011-May-25 18:09, Eric J Esslinger wrote:
[..]
Does anyone know of a way for me to block the following, using
postfix, either via refusing to accept the mail or by dropping it in
/dev/null: Mail from or postmaster that originates within our
customer IP blocks/is sent using authentication
On 2011-Jun-01 13:18, Tim Chown wrote:
On 31 May 2011, at 22:31, Voll, Toivo wrote:
Netalyzr (http://n3.netalyzr.icsi.berkeley.edu/analysis) finds no
issues with my IPv6 status, but alerts me to the fact (since
confirmed by switching to IE) that Google Chrome defaults to IPv4
rather
On 2011-Jun-01 18:36, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:54:28 EDT, Atticus said:
Disable the firewall and try again or all results are worthless.
That is quite what I noted, the thing is that apparently the delay for
clicking 'ok' is taken into account for the measurements
On 2011-Jun-03 16:13, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Jun 3, 2011 6:59 AM, Tim Chown t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
On 3 Jun 2011, at 14:38, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
IPv6 only was the original plan of World IPv6 Day
It was?
No. I think there is confusion with ipv6 hour that happens
On 2011-Jun-03 18:20, Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
FIrst I've heard of such a thing.
There is a first time for everything ;)
The original organizers of W6D have zero
motivation to try such a thing and I can't imagine why they would even
consider it for more than a picosecond.
As you where not
As the subject states,
mailer-dae...@messagelabs.com:
@ford.com:
Connected to 136.1.7.8 but sender was rejected.
Remote host said: 501 Sender domain must exist
As it obviously checks only the first MX record if there are A records,
and if there are none it rejects it. This while there are
On 2011-Jun-06 00:07, Matt Sergeant wrote:
I'll get someone to contact Ford and see what they are running. From
google it looks like Exchange. Is this a known bug with Exchange? If so
I think there's bigger problems than messagelabs :)
Ah good catch, indeed the messagelabs.com SMTP is not the
101 - 200 of 296 matches
Mail list logo
