On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 at 14:16, wrote:
> On 2024-03-07 04:10, Dave Hart via time-nuts wrote:
> > [...] this coming Monday at 3:00pm local time. With Sunday's leap
> > ahead in local time, that's 17:00 UTC, Noon US Pacific time.
>
> Thank you for this notice. However, if this
The University of Delaware is hosting a memorial service for "Father Time"
David Mills this coming Monday at 3:00pm local time. With Sunday's leap
ahead in local time, that's 17:00 UTC, Noon US Pacific time. There will be
a live stream: https://sites.udel.edu/udlive/mills/
Cheers,
Da
these connections were timing out
during connect, rather than quickly determining that there was no
route to the unavailable hosts and failing quickly.
potential translation:
We continue to shoot ourselves in the foot by filtering all ICMP
without understanding the implications.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
one second, the step threshold
(and hence -x) are not a decision factor -- the step is taken.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
completely
align with my recollection. There's no mention of fixing the bricking
bug I mentioned. The closest likely mention is of a 3.60 fix:
Version 3.50 to 3.60
1. Fixed factory firmware flash capabilities.
It does confirm the NMEA timing fix for 3.70, on the other hand.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
on a compromised system, but it helps if the system
is compromised after the private keys are generated, or if the private
key is generated elsewhere and loaded onto the compromised system.
And it doesn't help if the passphrase is easily guessed.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
insisting on IPv6 so transparent with
a lot of legacy NAT used by people who loves it.
That is, end to end transparency can not be a reason to
insist on IPv6.
It certainly is, for those of us not arguing by redefinition.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:05 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dave Hart daveh...@gmail.com
Sure, there are folks out there who believe NAT gives them benefits.
Some are actually sane (small multihomers avoiding BGP). You stand
out as insane
you're smoking.
You can get news about this sort of stuff by following @SI6Networks on
Twitter.
news in quotes is appropriate given it's really eyeball harvesting
for marketing purposes.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
from self-injury. Security costs overhead for
too-often no perceived benefit until someone gets hurt. When you are
forced to deal with it, it's nice to have the best in class
infrastructure under your feet.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 06/13/2012 02:28 PM, Dave Hart wrote:
The aforementioned article is available at:
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/tip/Analysis-Vast-IPv6-address-space-actually-enables-IPv6-attacks
published and available are misleading at best
assuming the NAT trusts
its clients.
When TCP headers are being rewritten, it's a strong hint that
transparency has been lost, even if some communication remains
possible.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
sharing the same last 24 bits of
the IPv6 address indicate the packet up the stack. The rest of the
IPv6 nodes filter the multicast in the NIC.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 21:07 +, Dave Hart wrote:
Bzzt. With ARP, every IPv4 node on the link indicates each ARP packet
to the OS. With ND, only those nodes sharing the same last 24 bits of
the IPv6 address indicate
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
Yes - whether with ARP or ND, any node has to filter out the packets
that do not apply to it (whether it's done by the NIC or the host CPU is
another question, not relevant here).
It is relevant to the question of the
of AS numbers. BGP's
preference for low AS numbers doesn't come into play much. On the
other hand, a low AS number can't hurt at the human level when
negotiating peering or attracting customers.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 15:22, Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 02:53:26PM +, Dave Hart
wrote:
I recognize there's no practical shortage of AS numbers. BGP's
preference for low AS numbers doesn't come into play much. On the
other hand
. I'm
not sure I'd want to sign a contract with someone dumb enough to think I
was the first company on the internet.
Did you intend to say the first autonomous system number assigned for
use on ARPAnet?
Pedantically yours,
Dave Hart
registrations
when AS42 changed hands. I suppose it's possible the current
registrant acquired or merged with whatever entity THINK refers to,
but I doubt it, so it seems likely at least at one time transfers were
reflected in updated registrations.
I bet Douglas would have been tickled.
Cheers,
Dave
BGP. AS1 was assigned by or before RFC 820 (Jan 1983). EGP
was RFC 827 (Oct 1982). Presumably the development involved informal
assignment of at least test AS numbers.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
current
evil. Breaking end-to-end and encouraging everything that needs it to
jump through ugly hoops such as UDP NAT traversal or carrying all
sorts of non-HTTP over 80 and 443 has made it harder to secure
networks, not easier.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
if the client
is 444'd, but not due to CGN/LSN. Could both 192.168.10.1 and
192.168.1.1 be on-premises, with 192.168.1.1 terminating PPPoE? The
latencies seem to confirm. It is possible it's only a single level of
NAT on .1.1, with more-respectable routing by .10.1...
Cheers,
Dave Hart
ignorant of IPv6.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
address is also still active, and is the one registered
automatically in DNS, so you would still reach your kit via stable
addresses (well, as stable as the physical network interface).
Cheers,
Dave Hart
_
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
(complete with more than 1 static
IP, someone tie me down lest my soul escape my body from sheer joy!):
http://pastebin.com/DMrsiUQf
Note I made no attempt to ensure I was tracing to the same numeric IP
address from both, and the tests were simultaneous.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
P.S. A special flip
with IPv6 connectivity and v4-only recursive DNS servers. I
don't think ISPs will have problems setting aside a handful of IPv4
addresses for authoritative DNS infrastructure to work around this
until v6 transport in recursive DNS servers is common enough.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
this is entirely uncommon.
Then you're going to either accept the hit to reachability, or you're
going to use at least one third-party authoritative DNS service
provider who can slave your zone over v6 and serve it over v4.
puck.nether.net likely fits the bill and is free of charge.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
hesitantly clears
its throat. Moreover, I assume computers will be used by people who
have never had reason to believe a leading zero implies base 8, and I
find no joy in forcing them to learn that quirk of computing history.
Take care,
Dave Hart
some spec. Thankfully.
Cheers,
Dave Hart
is
either 3m or 5m long, if your PC is not close enough to a
southern-exposed window or to roof access for the 18x to lock, you may
also need a RS-232 extension cable and USB power supply. Unlike
timing-focused GPSes, the 18x needs 3 or more birds in view to provide
a PPS signal.
Good luck,
Dave
30 matches
Mail list logo
