On 22/10/2021 06:39, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> \032 is not a space.
>
> Decimal 32 (0x20, \040) is a space.
> \032 is a Ctrl-Z (26 decimal, 0x1a)
In DNS zone files (and dig's presentation format) backslashed numbers
are in decimal, not octal - RFC 1035, §5.1.
Ray
\032 is space. Go read STD13 aka RFC 1034 and RFC 1035.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 22 Oct 2021, at 16:40, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>
> \032 is not a space.
>
> Decimal 32 (0x20, \040) is a space.
> \032 is a Ctrl-Z (26 decimal, 0x1a)
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Oct 21, 2021, at 22:14 , Mel Beckman
On Friday, 22 October, 2021 06:39, "Owen DeLong via NANOG"
said:
> \032 is not a space.
>
> Decimal 32 (0x20, \040) is a space.
> \032 is a Ctrl-Z (26 decimal, 0x1a)
So, someone trying to "undo" in a GUI editor, or a failed attempt to exit 'vi'?
Cheers,
Tim.
Owen,
Ah, so a cross-base typo! :)
-mel via cell
> On Oct 21, 2021, at 10:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> \032 is not a space.
>
> Decimal 32 (0x20, \040) is a space.
> \032 is a Ctrl-Z (26 decimal, 0x1a)
>
> Owen
>
>
>> On Oct 21, 2021, at 22:14 , Mel Beckman wrote:
>>
>> Typo I’d say.
For those who run FreeBSD, the Fort RPKI validator is now available in
the ports tree:
https://www.freshports.org/net/fort/
Many thanks to Toni Kalombo for submitting and maintaining the port, and
to Philip Paeps to committing it.
I've also sent a note to the Fort developers to update the
Thanks for sharing. Maybe I have blinders on, but LDPv6 and the v6 SR
flavors don't have much use if v4 CE sites aren't supported.
Jason
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 12:56 AM Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 10/21/21 21:18, Jason Iannone wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Have there been any gap closures
On 10/22/21 15:19, Jason Iannone wrote:
Thanks for sharing. Maybe I have blinders on, but LDPv6 and the v6 SR
flavors don't have much use if v4 CE sites aren't supported.
Indeed. If your goal is an IPv6-only network with IPv6-only services,
then Nokia may have an answer for you.
But if
> 2. On the ARIN side, when ARIN-NONAUTH goes away next year, does that do away
> with our ability to do proxy route objects? Do we need to require all of our
> BGP customers to set up their own IRRs?
Not only ARIN. LACNIC and TC (the two IRRs covering the LAC region, TC
for Brazil, LACNIC for
On 10/22/21 11:13 AM, Job Snijders via NANOG wrote:
> Another aspect that flabbergasts me anno 2021 is how there *still* are
> BGP peering disputes between (more than two) major global internet service
> providers in which IPv6 is 'held hostage' as part of slow commercial
> negotiations. Surely
On Friday, 22 October, 2021 16:45, "Bryan Fields" said:
> Until IPv6 becomes provides a way to make money for the ISP, I don't see it
> being offered outside of the datacenter.
I don't think it'll ever make money, but I think it will reduce costs. CGNAT
boxes cost money, operating them costs
Marco Davids via NANOG writes:
> It turns out that there underlying CDN's with domain names such as
> ‘l-msedge.net’ and ‘trafficmanager.net’ (Microsoft) or 'fastly.net',
> that reside on authoritative name servers that *only* have an IPv4
> address.
Fastly does have IPv6 enabled authoritative
On second thoughts...
I seem to have been confused by the 'no records for fastly.net' (as
a DNS-purist: that should have said "ns[1234].fastly.net" instead, to
make it relevant). ;-)
I ran into this some time ago with deb.debian.org
Right.
So please ignore:
Just for the record;
Hi everyone, goedenmiddag Marco!
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 01:40:42PM +0200, Marco Davids via NANOG wrote:
> We currently live in times where is actually fun to go IPv6-only. In my
> case, as in: running a FreeBSD kernel compiled without the IPv4-stack.
Indeed, this is fun experimentation. Shaking
On 10/22/21 14:03, Jens Link wrote:
I don't think it was overlooked or forgotten. More along
"We have always done it this way", "We had problems enabling IPv6 (ages
ago)" or something else you can find on https://ipv6excuses.com/.
I think it's a combination of both... they tried back in
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, 13:03 Jens Link, wrote:
> I ran into this some time ago with deb.debian.org on an IPv6 only Debian
> VM with a locally installed resolver. I opened a ticket which was closed
> in record time: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961296
>
> After some ranting and
Good morning Operators;
I have a couple of questions about best practices for Internet Routing
Registries. I'm able to find lots of documentation about *how* to do
things, but not a lot of documentation about when I *should* do things. I
work for a medium-sized ISP in the US, and we are
Hi Jens,
Op 22-10-21 om 14:03 schreef Jens Link:
I ran into this some time ago with deb.debian.org on an IPv6 only Debian
VM with a locally installed resolver. I opened a ticket which was closed
in record time: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961296
Just for the record;
Dear Lee,
*ring ring* - "IRR/RPKI helpdesk how may I help you today?" :-)
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 08:25:10AM -0500, Lee Fawkes wrote:
> I have a couple of questions about best practices for Internet Routing
> Registries. I'm able to find lots of documentation about *how* to do
> things, but not
Hi!
We currently live in times where is actually fun to go IPv6-only. In my
case, as in: running a FreeBSD kernel compiled without the IPv4-stack.
A few years back doing such thing was mostly disappointing, but nowadays
is actually quite doable and entertaining.
So, the other day I decided
Hello,
client side IPv6-only is one thing, but IPv6-only recursive DNS
resolution is probably so niche that content providers and CDN's do
not particularly care at this point in time.
On the other hand, there is probably no good reason to run
authoritative DNS servers without IPv6 connectivity.
We have telco's registered in the US, Cyprus and Israel. Lately I'm Europe
we have been getting emails from people using protonmail. The conversation
dies one we ask for business registration documents.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021, 16:14 Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG
wrote:
> My normal test for this is
On 10/22/21 18:08, t...@pelican.org wrote:
I don't think it'll ever make money, but I think it will reduce costs. CGNAT
boxes cost money, operating them costs money, dealing with the support fallout
from them costs money. Especially in the residential space, where essentially
if the
Ping me off-list if so. Please and thank you.
--Adam
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Global IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to
On 10/22/21 17:45, Bryan Fields wrote:
Until IPv6 becomes provides a way to make money for the ISP, I don't see it
being offered outside of the datacenter.
It is being offered, it's just not being adopted.
We deliver an IPv6 /126 p2p and /56 or /48 onward assignment to all our
DIA
> But I will capitalize Internet in all relevant uses.
>
> This is an *engineering definition*, it matters that you name the right
> object, and I am one of the people who will, in fact, die on this hill.
You are not alone.
> The associated press can bite me.
While I respect and appreciate
Seth Breidbart has the last word on this point, I think:
The Internet is "the largest equivalence class in the reflexive,
transitive,
symmetric closure of the relationship 'can be reached by an IP packet
from'."
The associated press can bite me.
Nice!
Miles
--
In theory, there is
Hi again,
Op 22-10-21 om 17:13 schreef Job Snijders:
Tl;DR
Not at all. This was a very interesting read! Thank you.
While pondering over it, I noticed that the ns[1234].fastly.net servers
are nicely anycasted throughout the globe. If anyone could turn on IPv6
on their authoritatives
on Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 04:05:44AM +, Steven Champeon wrote:
>
> Anyone?
FWIW, I took a look at my scans data and there's a lot of this around. Of
the 5477 PTRs with spaces, in approximately ~490 domains*, those with more
than twenty hosts with PTRs containing spaces are the following:
29 matches
Mail list logo
