On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:51 PM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
Why carry a laptop? Here are some examples
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Belkin-Mini-Notebook-Surge-Portector-with-Built-In-USB-Charger/10248165?sourceid=1503142050ci_src=14110944ci_sku=10248165
If you're looking at
On Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 8:24 PM, N. Yaakov Ziskind aw...@ziskind.us wrote:
Jon Lewis wrote (on Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 01:44:02PM -0400):
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Reese wrote:
A friend brought this to my attention:
http://ipq.co/
And now FF blocks it as a reported attack page.
Bound to
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 9:26 AM, N. Yaakov Ziskind aw...@ziskind.us wrote:
And, even if it *is* unreasonable, well, his network, his rules, right?
I block all SMTP traffic from IPV4 servers (clients?) which have odd
numbers in the third octet. might not be a good idea for a high volume
mail
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
Some do. Anyone with control of a phone system with digital lines (i.e.
asterisk with PRI) can trivially set callerID to whatever they want. There
are perfectly legitimate, and not so legitimate uses for this.
You don't even
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 5:35 AM, iHate SORBS ihateso...@gmail.com wrote:
I am calling on all Network Operators to stand up and stop routing
dnsbl.sorbs.net until that time they can commit to making real changes.
What sort of changes are you suggesting? Suggesting a block unless they
make
http://www.google.com/search?q=nanog+126+64 would be a good place to
start...
(And I'm guessing you mean that /64 is awfully large, not /126)
Scott.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Ken Chase k...@sizone.org wrote:
I have two independent mailservers, and two other customers that run their
own
servers, all largely unrelated infrastructures and target domains, suddenly
experiencing low levels of spam.
There's definitely been a drop-off in
From http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/011211-world-ipv6-day.html
Several of the Internet's most popular Web sites - including Facebook,
Google and Yahoo - have agreed to participate in the first global-scale
trial of IPv6, the long-anticipated upgrade to the Internet's main
communications
From all accounts it will remain carrier neutral.
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2011/01/28/verizon-terremark-will-remain-carrier-neutral/
Scott.
On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Ryan Finnesey
ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com wrote:
With Verizon acquiring Terremark does
102/8 AfriNIC2011-02whois.afrinic.net ALLOCATED
103/8 APNIC 2011-02whois.apnic.net ALLOCATED
104/8 ARIN 2011-02whois.arin.netALLOCATED
179/8 LACNIC 2011-02whois.lacnic.net ALLOCATED
185/8 RIPE NCC 2011-02whois.ripe.netALLOCATED
The Windows Media stream was working for me (the others were giving the
database error), but it's all over now.
There's a press conference at 10:00am EST, but I'm not sure if it's going to
be webcast or not.
Scott.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Sameer Khosla skho...@neutraldata.comwrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
While I have a few WRT54G's lying around, I've never tried IPv6 on them,
and would find it interesting if anyone has.
I used a WRT54G running DD-WRT for some time with a HE IPv6 tunnel (now
replaced with a Cisco 877, but not
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Joe Greco jgr...@ns.sol.net wrote:
In my neck of the woods, you can get a basic POTS line for $15/month if
it's important to you, local calls billed by the number of calls and the
normal LD charges. Add a basic DSL service to that ($20) AND add a basic
39/8 was assigned to APNIC in January, and realistically should have been
removed from any bogon lists at that time.
At this stage it appears they are still doing Resource Quality Assessment
on it and haven't actually carried out any assignments, but that in itself
is enough of a reason to make
It was unallocated a few days ago :
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-issued/2011-March/000807.html
Google will probably give you a fair idea why (the word botnet comes up a
lot!)
Scott
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:14 AM, mikea mi...@mikea.ath.cx wrote:
I rise to expose my ignorance.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Paul Graydon p...@paulgraydon.co.ukwrote:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/133-us-cities-now-run-their-own-broadband-networks.ars
Ars Technica has a short article up about the growth of municipal networks,
but principally a nice little 'hey
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
If the creation of .xxx is a preliminary step in making the fact of
your web site only being accessible by a name ending in .xxx an
affirmative defense against a charge of allowing minors to access your
site then
But do
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:28 PM, andrew.wallace
andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:59 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
*yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
Remember a wall of tsunami water travels in general at approx 970 kph (600
mph),
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
I am getting NXDOMAIN for www.ipv6.facebook.com thus it likely is fully
gone now:
Same from here.
www.facebook.com is nicely at 2a03:2880:2050:1f01:face:b00c:: (which is
kinda scary as typically the lowest address is a
But only over HTTP. Working fine over HTTPS for me.
Scott
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Joshua Goldbard j...@2600hz.com wrote:
Http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/regions.com
Down.
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 26, 2012, at 1:45 PM, Positively Optimistic
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 6:07 AM, John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Really, this isn't hard to understand. Current SSL signers do no more
than tie the identity of the cert to the identity of a domain name. Anyone
who's been following the endless crisis at ICANN about bogus WHOIS knows
that
Working now, tested from 3 hosts on different networks on both 80 and 443 :
$ telnet wpa.one.microsoft.com 443
Trying 94.245.126.107...
Connected to wpa.one.microsoft.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
Scott
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Ben Carleton carle...@vanoc.net wrote:
-
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.comwrote:
Or ask me every time. Sites should not require cookies
just to look around. I get it if there's a transaction to
be made, but just to look? :-( Especially a site like RIPE!
Umm.. Before deciding what sites should
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
(Yes, yes, I'm well aware that many people will claim that *their* captchas
work. They're wrong, of course: their captchas are just as worthless
as everyone else's. They simply haven't been competently attacked yet.
And
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.comwrote:
And at least in the US, I'm yet to encounter a complementary WiFi at
any hotel that would be doing JavaScript insertion, so I'm not sure
where you get your information that the free internet always means ads
or a
On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Constantine A. Murenin
muren...@gmail.comwrote:
Additionally, it seems like both yelp.com and retailmenot.com block
the whole 173.230.144.0/20 from their web-sites, returning some
graphical 403 Forbidden pages instead.
Although I have knowledge of either of
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
wrote:
no you don't... the dreamhost example used the google ARIN allocation
2607:: this example uses the 2404 APNIC allocation.
note that this may still be 'wrong', but .. it's a different wrong. :)
But
No issues on Comcast cable in the bay area, either Comcast business or
Comcast home.
Scott
$ nslookup gmail.com 8.8.4.4
Server: 8.8.4.4
Address:8.8.4.4#53
Non-authoritative answer:
Name: gmail.com
Address: 74.125.239.149
Name: gmail.com
Address: 74.125.239.150
On
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Chris Meidinger cmeidin...@sendmail.comwrote:
Just to restate here, for people who have been responding both publicly and
privately:
I know that *I* can make it work, and I know that *you* can make it work.
But I also know that it's not likely to stay
Did you check the ADDITIONAL SECTION in what you've pasted below?
Scott.
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Anton Zimm anton.z...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm looking for glue record for ns1.push.mobi so I ask one of the root
name server.
It gives me the list of dot mobi authorized name
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Anton Zimm anton.z...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, from the 'authority section' dig is telling me that I can get the
authorize answer from ns1.push.mobi. But isn't that circular
dependency?
We're looking at getting connectivity via Level 3 in a particular
datacenter, but we're being told that it's legacy Wiltel/Looking Glass
rather than true Level 3.
Given that both of these acquisitions occurred years ago should I be
worried, or is this legacy connectivity the same as L3 at any
Starting a little closer and I'm seeing :
traceroute to 70.164.18.1 (70.164.18.1), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 ge-7-21.car1.Atlanta1.Level3.net (4.71.24.129) 0.393 ms 1.590 ms
1.492 ms
2 ge-6-0-0-51.gar2.Atlanta1.Level3.net (4.68.103.7) 3.484 ms 3.981 ms
5.614 ms
3
I'm seeing high latency and some packet loss via multiple providers from the
US to Singapore, matching what we saw a few days ago although not as bad
(ie, packet loss is only about 5%, down from the 40% we were seeing a few
days ago).
At that time the cause was a cable fault somewhere in/near
Some further press on it :
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136558/Update_Asian_undersea_cable_disruption_slows_Internet_access
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/communications/0,39044192,62056838,00.htm
In the past hour we've seen latency and packet loss return to almost normal
(we were
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Ray Burkholder r...@oneunified.net wrote:
Just in case anyone cares, from personal experience, I can see that
Google's
priority is indeed 'rank by content'. Everything else is fluff.
This is not true. It's been well documented that PageRank uses a number
Just came back up!
Scott
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:35 AM, RAAPID Technical
raapidtechni...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looks like HE.net's core router and/or power at Fremont-2 is down,
affecting
me and many others. No response from them by email, phone.
$ ping core1.fmt2.he.net
PING
Looks like it was power...
01:19:20 up 3 min, 1 user, load average: 1.34, 1.16, 0.51
Scott.
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Stef Walter stef-l...@memberwebs.comwrote:
RAAPID Technical wrote:
Confirmed total power outage at Fremont-2 building:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Justin Shore jus...@justinshore.comwrote:
I can also speak from experience from the enterprise customers of the
consulting side of my SP that I worked with before returning to the SP. Not
a one of them made use of the MSP port. The vast majority, I'm sorry to
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/10/23/1715235/Peering-Disputes-Migrate-To-IPv6
I wouldn't bother with the comments unless you really need to know how the
analogy between IP peering and two gay guys ends up... (hey, it's Slashdot,
what did you expect?)
Scott
Has anyone managed to get a root cause from HE yet regarding what happened?
I'm still waiting for them to get back to me over 24 hours later...
Scott
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Tico tico-na...@raapid.net wrote:
I can't get through to Hurricane Electric, and they seem to be having an
Scott,
If you're going to blatantly copy what others have written on another
mailing list, please at least have the common decency to attribute it to the
original author, and/or get the original authors permission first.
Scott.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Scott Weeks
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 6:38 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
Are passwords still the only lowest-common-denominator?
There's OpenID, where a provider can use any verification process it
wants, but all the OpenID providers I know use ordinary passwords.
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L matlo...@exempla.orgwrote:
These days at 1Gb+ Full-Duplex seems to be the 'default' for
auto-negotiation failures.
Thankfully it's even more than a seems to be - it's written into the IEEE
spec that if duplex negotiation fails then the
As of about an hour ago ATT appear to have started blocking access to a few
of our IP addresses. This is being done at a /32 level, and the IP addresses
above and below are still allowed through.
Has anyone seen them do this before, or know who I need to contact to get it
fixed? ATT won't talk
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
Traceroute to the neighboring IP addresses don't go anywhere near the
above path, so it's apparently a blackhole of sorts.
Are they bots or CC servers, or open DNS recursors?
They are (authenticated-required) proxy
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Paul Bennett paul.w.benn...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:22:50 -0500, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
As of about an hour ago ATT appear to have started blocking access to a
few of our IP addresses.
ATT won't talk to me as I'm not a customer
This service has been discussed several times in the ~2 years since it was
first released (including topics such as why it's bad for CDNs)
The archives would be a good place to start...
Scott.
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:12 PM, steve pirk [egrep] st...@pirk.com wrote:
I saw this in a post
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:27 PM, steve pirk [egrep] st...@pirk.com wrote:
Awesome link Todd - Why did I think that the resolving server would already
know where network path wise the request came from. Let me post this as a
comment and ask how the CDN endpoint routing is working.
I would
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
the initial release date (not
actually shown in the that version as far as I can see, but it was around
the same time Google announced
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM, McCall, Gabriel
gabriel.mcc...@thyssenkrupp.com wrote:
ActiveSync on Android allows corporate to force compliance with security
policy and allow remote wipe. User cannot complete the exchange account
setup without permitting the controls. If the user doesn't
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Aftab Siddiqui aftab.siddi...@gmail.comwrote:
Blocking port/25 is a common practice (!= best practice) for home
users/consumers because it makes life a bit simpler in educating the end
user.
MAAWG have considered this a best practice for residential/dynamic
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
Interesting... Most people I know run the same policy on 25 and 587 these
days...
to-local-domain, no auth needed.
relay, auth needed.
auth required == TLS required.
Anything else on either port seems not best practice
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Timothy McGinnis mc...@isc.org wrote:
Dear Unnamed person at The SpaceMarket,
He appears to not be unnamed. Gmail links the user to the Google+
profile https://plus.google.com/116655492141266828122 under the name Dan
Cooper, and with a photo of another Dan
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM, joseph.sny...@gmail.com wrote:
My biggest problem still is the multiple computer issue. I am on at least
3-5 physical computers and 1-20 virtual machines, and 2 cellphones a day.
I honestly do not want to store a database of passwords encrypted or not
on an
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Joel Maslak jmas...@antelope.net wrote:
That said, the purpose of CVV is to stop *one* type of fraud - it's to
stop a skimmer from being able to do mail-order/internet-order with your
card number. The CVV is not on the magnetic strip, so a skimmer installed
at
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote:
The main weakness of CVV2 these days is form history in browsers.
(auto complete).
Any website requesting a CVV2 in a form field without the form
history/autocomplete being disabled is in breach of PCI compliance, and
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone must have something in a database that can easily derive the
CVV2 number;
There is no way to derive the CVV2 number. It is little more than a
random number assigned to the card.
otherwise there would be no way
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Todd Underwood toddun...@gmail.comwrote:
This was not a cascading failure. It was a simple power outage
Cascading failures involve interdependencies among components.
Not always. Cascading failures can also occur when there is zero
dependency between
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
The NTP daemon could still provide a configuration option to not
implement leap-seconds locally, or ignore the leap-second
announcement received. So the admin can make a tradeoff favoring
Stability over Correctness, of
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:16 AM, David Coulson da...@davidcoulson.netwrote:
What if they said it would cause the generation of port-unreachable ICMP
packets to cease, and applications may hang until they timeout? Not the
answer you're looking for, but not wrong either.
Umm, yeah, it is
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
Routers are sometimes used on networks that don't have internet
connectivity [by design]. This seems amazingly short-sighted for a company
that's been around selling routing gear as long as cisco.
If the router is not
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
You don't lookup MX records for MX targets. This is basic MTA
processing.
If the MX lookup fails, as apposed to returns nodata, you don't
lookup the A/ records and synthesis a MX record. You treat it
as a soft error
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.comwrote:
So...why do you need publicly routable IP addresses if they aren't
publicly routable?
Because doing anything else is Harmful! There's even an RFC that says so!
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1627 - Network 10
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Jo Rhett jrh...@netconsonance.com wrote:
Guys seem to think that it's gender neutral. The majority of women are
used to this, but they have indicated to me that they don't believe it to
be very neutral. Using guys is not gender neutral, it's flat out implying
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just an
IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL Cable modem,
then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
v4 just gets a
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Matthew Moyle-Croft
m...@internode.com.auwrote:
My issue is that customers have indicated that they feel statics are a
given for IPv6 and this would be a problem if I went from tens of thousands
of statics to hundreds of thousands of static routes (ie. from a
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 9:54 PM, John Osmon jos...@rigozsaurus.com wrote:
It isn't SOX, but sadly enough, PCI DSS Requirement 1.5 says:
Implement IP address masquerading to prevent internal addresses from
being translated and revealed on the Internet. Use technologies that
implement RFC
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Dale Carstensen d...@lampinc.com wrote:
I get Connection timed out on whois commands to it.
Sorry to attempt to answer my own question, but maybe it's the fires
in Australia, as the last traceroute hop is a Brisbane.telstra.net
Brisbane (where APNIC is) is
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Dave Temkin dav...@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly. I've seen this as well in both instances but haven't seen it on
mobile phones. It's something so obscure that you're going to have to
really want it to turn it on. I don't think the Port 25 example holds much
I can't help directly with your biggest question, but there's a smaller
point here that seems to come up a lot and I think is important to
address...
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Carl Rosevear
carl.rosev...@demandmedia.com wrote:
I can't see why hosts would need any more addresses than
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.netwrote:
CSR isnt $0 ROI. Unless they're doing it wrong.
I said essentially. If you think they're making even 1% of $20M, one of us
confused. I'll admit I do not do marketing, so maybe it's me.
The tax write-off alone is
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Hank Nussbacher h...@efes.iucc.ac.ilwrote:
Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity? I don't
like MS any more than most, but Gates Foundation has received $20B from Bill
and Warren over the past 3 years. My hat goes off to those guys!
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:
It must be purchased:
Only if you want the dead-tree edition. The others are linked below the
text you've quoted.
Scott.
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 6:27 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
So you can put a lot of process around changes in advance but there
isn't quite as much to manage incidents that strike out of the clear
blue. Too much process at that point could impede progress in clearing
the issue.
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Brian Dickson
brian.dick...@concertia.com wrote:
I think it would certainly be useful, both diagnostically and operationally,
for IANA and the RIR's to *actually announce* the unused space, and run
either or
both of tar-pits and honey-pots on those, for just
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:41 PM, chip chip.g...@gmail.com wrote:
Get your data with these:
http://www.maxmind.com/app/api
From this database (OSS/Free):
http://www.maxmind.com/app/geolitecity
In my experience Maxmind does at best a fairly ordinary job when it
comes to routers, especially if
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:45 AM, David Birnbaum dav...@pins.net wrote:
We have noticed a lot of issues with Asterisk 1.2 and some 1.4 rollouts.
FreePBX had some truck-sized holes in it.
Most/all of the big issues that existed in previous version of
Asterisk/FreePBX have been resolved in later
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Sean Reifschneider j...@tummy.com wrote:
Why conjecture? Examining the /32s from inside and outside of 3356
I said conjecture because every person I found in my searches said things
like I think it might be anycasted or they could be using anycast.
Until this
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
I don't care what internal routing tricks are used, they are still
under the *one* external route and as such subject to single points
of failure and as such don't have enough independence.
Where has Level 3 ever claimed that
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Richard Golodner
rgolod...@infratection.com wrote:
Cisco tech support tells their customers (us) to use it when testing.
Perhaps this is not such a good practice.
No doubt because they are easier to remember than Cisco's own two
public DNS resolvers :
A resolver is basically a client.
There's two types of resolvers - recursive resolvers (that look after
doing the full resolution themselves - starting at the root servers
and working down), and stub resolvers which are only smart enough
pass the entire request onto another server to handle.
On
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
It is possibly to run both Authoritative and Recursive server on the
same IP, but it's generally not recommended for many reasons (the most
simple being that of stale data if your server is no longer the
correct
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
end user to network
having probs with certs, i.e. what --outform it wants. not finding in
docs. tried raw, but now guessing pem. same for client and server
Use the easy-rsa stuff and it will do all the hard work for you.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:20 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Rich Kulawiec r...@gsp.org wrote:
Barracuda's engineers apparently think
that using SPF stops backscatter -- and it most emphatically does not.
Reject good, bounce baaad. [1]
Whine
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Scott Howard sc...@doc.net.au wrote:
They finally fixed this a few years ago, and can not integrate with
LDAP (and possibly others) for address validation. Of course, it's
still down to the admin to implement it...
... can NOW integrate... even.
Scott.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Or at the cogent website ($4/meg) do the cost justify peering anymore?
Personally I'd rather pay $10 for something that works, than $4 for
something that doesn't
sc...@zaphod:~$ telnet www.cogentco.com 80
Trying
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Blomberg, Orin P (DOH)
orin.blomb...@doh.wa.gov wrote:
Thanks for the information. I am just going on what we have been
formally told by our onsite Cisco engineers on several occasions. It
may be that they were misinformed, or that they are trying to make the
Adding to the recent debate over raised v's solid floor, seem there's
another option that wasn't discussed...
http://www.iphouse.com/
Scott.
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAC_address
The IEEE expects the MAC-48 space to be exhausted no sooner than the year
2100[3]; EUI-64s are not expected to run out in the foreseeable future.
And this is what happens
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:17 PM, A.B. Jr. skan...@gmail.com wrote:
While most of end user devices work with temporarily assigned IP addresses,
or even with RFC1918 behind a NAT, very humble ethernet devices come from
factory with a PERMANENTE unique mac address.
Just don't tell Greenpeace - I
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2010/04/msg2.html
(There's also a PDF version with easier to enlarge images at
http://www.potaroo.net/studies/1slash8/1slash8.pdf )
Scott.
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Robert E. Seastrom r...@seastrom.com wrote:
We've seen great increases in CPU and memory speeds as well as disk
densities since the last maximum (March 2000). Speccing ECC memory is
a reasonable start, but this sort of thing has been a problem in the
past
No problems here on the western side of 101 with our ATT Opt-e-man.
That said, the majority of fiber in the Sunnyvale area is on the other side
of 101.
Scott
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Shon Elliott s...@unwiredbb.com wrote:
I heard there is a fiber outage in Sunnyvale that has taken
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, James Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
For someone who is a CCNA, Mikrotik Certified Whatever, etc, etc, etc,
you really should know how to use dig(1).
Certifications usually
Internap do not have an external Looking Glass (not sure about Route Server,
but I suspect it's the same).
If you're a customer their helpdesk will run traceroutes/etc from a specific
location if you ask, within reason of course...
Scott.
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Max Clark
Made it to Slashdot too -
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/05/10/0056228/The-Status-of-Routing-Reform-mdash-How-Fragile-is-the-Internet
As usual I wouldn't recommend reading the comments unless you want your eyes
to bleed...
Scott.
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Franck Martin
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:22 AM, Nathanael C. Cariaga
nccari...@stluke.com.ph wrote:
ps. I'm just wondering why yahoo doesn't inform their users that the email
that they sent was blocked because of their servers were listed in a
blocklist (inspite that the server is able to return a correct
That's because you're asking the wrong nameservers. The response you're
getting is pointing you to the correct nameservers (glb1/glb2.facebook.com)
which are defintely returning records for me :
$ dig +short www.facebook.com @glb1.facebook.com
2620:0:1c08:4000:face:b00c:0:3
Scott.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Randy Carpenter rcar...@network1.netwrote:
With IPv6, we are having some trouble coming up with a way to do this.
Since there is no NAT, does anyone have any ideas as to how this could be
accomplished?
Juniper, *BSD (including pfsense) and Linux all do NAT66
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
