Re: Gmail down

I was having issues remaining connected to Gtalk but it seems to have corrected itself. On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: > Web interface is broken, downdetector sure sees activity. This attempt is > from mobile. > > Josh Luthman > Office:

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

On Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > > > On 2016-06-08 07:27, Mark Andrews wrote: > >> In message <20160608070525.06fd5...@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>, Tore >> Anderson writes: >> >>> * Davide Davini >>> >>> Blocking access to

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:51 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2016, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> What is non-standard about an HE tunnel? It conforms to the relevant RFCs >> and >> is a very common configuration widely deployed to many thousands of >> locations >> around the

Re: G root not responding on UDP?

I'm see the same thing from multiple networks. $ dig NS . @g.root-servers.net ; <<>> DiG 9.9.5 <<>> NS . @g.root-servers.net ;; global options: +cmd ;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote: > Hello

Re: Colo space at Cermak

They made an announcement about it a while back: http://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/help-support/2uTrAyy8-na-server-roadmap-update-chicago-server-move-complete On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > That's interesting news, how did you hear about

Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:33 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote: Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to understand their firewall. deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple. ipv6 on the otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level. yes, all the

Re: Also Facebook (was: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion)

You should elaborate on some of these 'holes' then. On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Ricky Beam jfb...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 21:48:06 -0400, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: Both techniques indicate more than 20% of the US Internet users are connecting via IPv6.

Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

That's only an issue with airport devices and PPPoE. I can confirm it does native DHCPv6-PD otherwise. On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:32 AM, William Waites wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 06:13:52 +, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org said: In fact, I show just how to do this

Re: leap second outage

Correct, the leap second gets inserted at midnight UTC. Leap seconds can be introduced in UTC at the end of the months of December or June, depending on the evolution of UT1-TAI. Bulletin C is mailed every six months, either to announce a time step in UTC or to confirm that there will be no

Re: quietly....

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Complexity of the configuration vastly increases the size of the attack surface: in a NATted edge network, *no packets can come in unless I explicitly configure for them*; there are any number of reasons why an equivalently

Re: quietly....

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 12:18 AM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Complexity of the configuration vastly increases the size of the attack surface: in a NATted edge network, *no packets can come in unless I explicitly configure for them*; there are any number of reasons why an equivalently

Re: Todd Underwood was a little late

We've been seeing the same thing since 2010-06-10: 22:13:19.687981 IP 72.236.167.197.41789 72.236.167.138.domain: 38783+ A? jkl.cnr.cn. (28) 22:13:19.773076 IP 72.236.167.124.33327 72.236.167.138.domain: 38783+ A? i10.aliimg.com. (32) 22:13:19.855750 IP 72.236.167.169.33381

Re: ingress SMTP

On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 09:40:20AM -0700, Michael Thomas wrote: Allowing unfiltered public access to port 25 is one of the things that increases everyone's spam load, and your ISP is trying to be a Good Neighbor in blocking access to

Re: Security gain from NAT (was: Re: Cool IPv6 Stuff)

On 6/5/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Combined responses to save bandwidth and hassle (and number of times you have to press 'd'): -- Just because it's behind NAT, does not mean it's unreahcable from the internet: Okay, so exactly how many times do you think we have to say in

Re: Security gain from NAT (was: Re: Cool IPv6 Stuff)

On 6/4/07, David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can give you the root password to a Linux machine running telnetd and sshd. If it's behind NAT/PAT, you will not get into it. Period. Just because it's behind NAT, does not mean it's unreahcable from the internet: Fenrir:~% telnet