On 2010-05-15 05:32, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Michael Ulitskiymulits...@acedsl.com wrote:
So my question still stands: is anyone aware of a reasonable tunneled ipv6
transit service (I mean aside from HE tunnel broker)? The load will be really
light. I don't
On 2010-05-19 14:36, Malte von dem Hagen wrote:
[..]
I am aware of this way, sure. I just hoped, there would be a more...
efficient way.
State publically that you know the location of a known terrorist
somewhere in the top X of the wanted list. Tell them that they can reach
you at email
On 2010-06-15 01:37, Brandon Applegate wrote:
I mean really simple. Like 2000::/3. If it's not in there it's bogon,
yes ?
At the current time and hopefully for the next 20 years at least yes ;)
What I'm really asking, is for folks thoughts on using this - is it too
restrictive ?
You
On 2010-07-27 20:03, Jared Mauch wrote:
[..]
I'm honestly interested in what the US based DSL (incumbent) providers
are doing for IPv6 (eg: att/bls/sbc/uverse, qwest, vz dsl).
Most of the ethernet (including PON) equipment is more likely
to do IPv6 correctly, but I'm not sure that the PPPo*
On 2010-07-29 19:32, Tim Franklin wrote:
Why waste valuable people's time to conserve nearly valueless
renewable resources?
See my earlier comments on upsell and control. While you
have some ISPs starting from the mentality that gives us accepting
incoming connections is a chargeable
On 2010-07-30 09:27, Matthew Walster wrote:
On 29 July 2010 18:08, Leo Vegoda leo.veg...@icann.org wrote:
There's a good chance that in the long run multi-subnet home networks will
become the norm.
With all due respect, I can't see it. Why would a home user need
multiple subnets?
*
On 2010-08-16 08:49, Mike wrote:
Hi Folks,
I am needing to renumber some core infrastructure - namely, my
nameservers and my resolvers - and I was wondering if the collective
wisdom still says heck yes keep this stuff all on seperate subnets away
from eachother? Anyone got advice either
On 2010-08-16 13:01, Harry Strongburg wrote:
Hello NANOG, first time writing to here.
My inquiry for you is on the subject of IPv6 Geolocation tools; or
better yet, the lack accuracy in them. My main problem comes from
YouTube.com and other Google Geolocation required tools (Google Voice,
On 2010-08-16 14:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
Thus don't forget to provide all your private details in as many places
as possible, the more they know about you, the better they can serve you.
Wow... That's pretty absurd. I order stuff from Amazon/etc. from IP addresses
all over the world to be
On 2010-08-20 23:27, Franck Martin wrote:
I'm trying to debug a pesky PMTUD issue with IPv6 on Mac OS-X 10.6.
It happens only from home, on wireless, when connected to a mac aiport
that does an automatic tunnel (teredo) to IPv6 backbone.
Welcome to the great world of Teredo/6to4 where the
On 2010-08-21 09:18, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:34:23PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2010-08-20 23:27, Franck Martin wrote:
I'm trying to debug a pesky PMTUD issue with IPv6 on Mac OS-X 10.6.
It happens only from home, on wireless, when connected
On 2010-08-23 20:52, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote:
We offer an optional internet content filtering service to our residential
and business customers using M86's appliance
(http://www.m86security.com/products/web_security/m86-web-filtering-reportin
g-suite.asp).
I've been in conversation
On 2010-08-27 21:13, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 01:29:15PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
Unknown BGP attribute 99 (flags: 240)
Unknown BGP attribute 99
On 2010-08-31 08:22, Mitchell Warden wrote:
[..]
Is there a reason not to advertise more specific prefixes from 2002::/16 to
ensure that traffic for your v4 routes comes back to your own 6to4 router?
If for example all my users have v4 addresses in 192.0.2.0/24, I could
advertise
On 2010-08-31 16:54, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010, Jack Bates wrote:
Teredo usage isn't common enough on our network to warrant the work.
Very few apps will activate it is my guess.
http://ipv6.tele2.net/teredo_stats.php
As I stated, either your users are using your
On 2010-08-31 18:07, Jack Bates wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Jack: there are a lot more methods to infect a host than this as there
are lots and lots of p2p protocols which are being used by CC botnets.
And never forgot about this very simple protocol called HTTP(S).
I agree, though let's
On 2010-08-31 19:02, Jack Bates wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
just remember that a lot of people have VPN software, connect from home
to that VPN and do other weird setups (Skype for instance, BitTorrent)
where there are possibilities to bypass your firewall.
I agree. My concern here
On 2010-08-31 19:32, Jack Bates wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
If you have one person setting up ICS on their machine and they have
enabled IPv6 voila the whole network gets IPv6, that thus does not solve
your problem either. Or are you monitoring IPv6 RAs etc?
Setting up ICS with IPv6
On 2010-08-31 19:58, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
The only thing you can do to help your users is to provide them with proper
education and to explain them to keep up to date and run the right tools and
not click anywhere they can and that is a mission which is near
impossible.
I thought
On 2010-09-08 14:56, Jared Mauch wrote:
This is something that has been expected out of the EU as it relates
to PII for a few years now.
Fortunately Switzerland is NOT part of the European Union, even though
it seems there are a lot of influences and political pulls
Court verdict (german):
On 2010-09-11 22:22, Jeff Kell wrote:
[..]
What is currently breaking things is the preference of IPv6 over
IPv4. If you're running a default Win2K8 active directory, it's
publishing all of it's goodies for login in IPv6 form complete with
address records. If your network isn't
On 2010-09-14 14:27, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
Hi guys,
I am looking for operational experience here.
We have just turned up IPv6 in our guest wireless, by way of using RA
for address distribution and DHCPv6 for the DNS server address (stupid, yup).
Unfortunately not a lot of gear understands
On 2010-09-20 16:04, Tom Mikelson wrote:
Presently our organization utilizes BIND for DNS services, with the
Networking team administering. We are now being told by the Systems team
that they will be responsible for DNS services and that it will be changed
over to the Microsoft DNS service
On 2010-09-25 23:53, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 21:43:25 BST, Matthew Walster said:
Was anything ever standardised in that field? I imagine with much of
P2P traffic being (how shall I put this...) less than legal, it's of
questionable legality and the ISPs would not
On 2010-10-01 17:04, Christopher Morrow wrote:
[..]
I think so far the models proposed in SIDR-wg include:
o more than one cert tree (trust anchor)
Why not in a similar vain as RBLs: white and black lists.
One can then subscribe to the white black lists that one trust and
give
On 2010-10-13 10:25, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/10/13/0044233/Dutch-Hotels-Must-Register-As
-ISPs
I don't see the problem here, they are generally already outsourcing the
ISP part anyway to a company, and that company is generally already a ISP.
The only thing that
On 2010-10-15 21:26, Zaid Ali wrote:
SO I have been turning up v6 with multiple providers now and notice that
some choose /64 for numbering interfaces but one I came across use a /126. A
/126 is awfully large (for interface numbering) and I am curious if there is
some rationale behind using a
On 2010-10-18 12:02, Day Domes wrote:
What is the name of the mailing list for Network Operators Europe?
RIPE
which has several mailing lists on a subject basis. Most simply use
nanog though ;)
and per-country there are several other *NOGs too. See Wikipedia for an
extended list.
Greets,
APNIC just got another IPv4 /8 thus only 5 left:
http://www.nro.net/media/remaining-ipv4-address-below-5.html
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
So, if your company is not doing IPv6 yet, you really are really getting
late now.
Greets,
Jeroen
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people
[John, is 45.127.0.0/16 one of the two blocks they keep, or is it
hijacked already? :) ]
On 2010-10-20 17:11, Joel Esler wrote:
Now, if we could get everyone that has these gigantic /8's (or multiple of
them)
that aren't using them to give some back, that'd be great.
The problem with that is
On 2010-10-20 22:19, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
On 10/20/10 12:51 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
Jeroen Massar wrote:
(And the spammers will take the rest...)
I am afraid so too.
(PS: There seems to be a trend for people calling themselvesIPv6
Pioneers as they recently did something with IPv6, if you
On 2010-10-21 13:33, Ray Soucy wrote:
[..]
People may throw a fit at this, but as far as I'm concerned FD00::/8
will never leave the edge of our network (we null route ULA space
before it can leak out, just like you would with RFC1918 space). So
you can pretty much use it has you see fit. If
On 2010-10-21 16:59, Patrick Giagnocavo wrote:
On 10/21/2010 4:28 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Actually for those of my clients in one location, it served as an
impetus to extend a contract with Level3 for another 3 years - with
their existing allocation of a /24 of IPv4 addresses included.
All
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy to indicate a topic change! ;) ]
On 2010-10-21 18:29, Allen Smith wrote:
[... well described situation about having two/multiple IPv4 upstreams,
enabling dual-stack at both, but wanting to failover between them
without doing NATv6 ...]
Short answer: you
On 2010-10-21 21:35, George Bonser wrote:
From: Jeroen Massar Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:57 AM
To: Allen Smith
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Failover IPv6 with multiple PA prefixes (Was: IPv6 fc00::/7 —
Unique local addresses)
[Oh wow, that subject field, so handy to indicate a topic
On 2010-10-26 15:57, Jack Bates wrote:
[..]
Am I missing something, or is this minimalist approach going to cause
issues in BGP the same as v4 did?
You are missing the point of making a proper plan which can justify
address space for your business for the next years.
If done properly, you have
Job Snijders wrote:
They are missing roughly 1000 prefixes.
See http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/status/
which just now when I peeked stated at the top:
8-
2704 good/required prefixes
Minimum of 1714 prefixes (-990)
Average of 3513 prefixes (+809)
Maximum of
On 2010-11-19 16:35, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010, Jeroen Massar wrote:
What now is more disturbing is that there appears to be a couple of
prefixes out there which are not in the ARIN registry anymore which are
still being used (Hexago/Gogo6/Freenet6/nameoftheday's 2001:5c0
On 2010-12-20 08:36, Oleg A. Arkhangelsky wrote:
Hello,
It seems that 192.175.48.6 and 192.175.48.42 not replying to RFC1918
addresses DNS-reverse lookups.
Does anybody noticed this?
As those addresses are generally hosted by AS112 instances (see
http://www.as112.net) it depends to which
On 2011-01-25 17:21, Jethro R Binks wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Larry Smith wrote:
I use Squish (www.squish.net/dnscheck) for this purpose. Reasonable web
interface and gives lots of info about where things are breaking down...
--
Larry Smith
squish.net/dnscheck is great, except when
On 2011-01-29 00:29, Blake Hudson wrote:
Does this site have an record? If so, my DNS does not pick it up.
ipv6-test.com itself does not, and that would be 'bad' also as then when
somebody has an IPv6 stack but broken connectivity they would not be
able to reach that site.
From the oh so
On 2011-02-25 18:21, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Does anyone know who to ping at Microsoft about their teredo
platform? Their relay(s) doesn't/don't seem to have reachability to
some bits of IPv6 space.
(Afaik) Microsoft only operates Teredo servers, no Teredo Relays, those
are run by other
On 2011-03-01 22:16, Franck Martin wrote:
Don't forget there is no commission for the salesperson to enable
IPv6 for you, so definitively they are not interested and you asking
them to deal with the issue, will just lower their pay at the end of
the month because they could not use this
On 2012-10-11 23:02 , Jo Rhett wrote:
I've finally convinced $DAYJOB to deploy IPv6. Justification for the
IP space is easy, however the truth is that a /64 is more than we
need in all locations. However the last I heard was that you can't
effectively announce anything smaller than a /48. Is
On 2012-10-25 09:18, Frank Bulk wrote:
Since Wednesday at 1:48 pm Central www.ipv6.facebook.com has not been
loading (though it's pingable). Does anyone know if this has been formally
deprecated?
I am getting NXDOMAIN for www.ipv6.facebook.com thus it likely is fully
gone now:
On 2012-10-25 09:45, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
[..]
;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.facebook.com. 49 IN CNAME www.c10r.facebook.com.
www.c10r.facebook.com.39 IN
2a03:2880:2110:9f01:face:b00c::
Interresting, I was just now getting responses pointing
On 2012-10-30 11:19, Sander Steffann wrote:
Hi,
Certainly fixing all the buggy host stacks, firewall and compliance
devices to realize that ICMP isn't bad won't be hard.
Wait till you get started on fixing the security consultants.
Ack. I've yet to come across a *device* that doesn't
On 2012-11-06 13:33, Seth Mos wrote:
Hi,
Since about a week or so it's become impossible to reach wp.com content
over IPv6.
IPv4 content does work fine, using the IPv6 literal returns a 404 which
is small enough to fit in a smaller 1480 byte MTU.
I have another test site that has a
Hi,
As it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfVsfOSbJY0 ...
(don't look if you have a video and audio enabled terminal ;)
I just came across the following:
8--
I want to use IPv6 to test if my Marketing Referral System will work
with this protocol. Since IPv4s are running low, it takes
On 2012-11-27 20:21, mike wrote:
On 11/26/12 9:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
The main problem with IPv6 only is that most app developers (most
programmers totally) do not really have access to this, so no testing
is being done.
This is a point that is probably more significant than is
On 2012-11-28 17:30 , david raistrick wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2012, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Do you really want to run netowrking software written by someone
incapable of setting up a test network? This doesn't have anything with
tunnel brokers or native access to do at all.
So the software
On 2012-11-28 18:26, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 11/28/2012 09:00 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
And still, if you as a proper engineer where not able to test/add IPv6
code in the last 10++ years, then you did something very very wrong in
your job, the least of which is to file a ticket for IPv6
On 2012-11-29 13:53 , . wrote:
On 29 November 2012 12:48, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
On Nov 29, 2012, at 6:47 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
What's the proper term for software which happens to access the network?
Just about anything, these days.
;
'Network-enabled' or
On 2012-11-30 13:51 , Joakim Aronius wrote:
* Will Hargrave (w...@harg.net) wrote:
On 29 Nov 2012, at 20:53, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
wrote:
The assertion being made here, that it's somehow illegal (or
immoral, or scary) for there to be not-completely-traceable
internet
On 2012-12-01 00:00, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 29, 2012, at 12:27 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
60% of the world's population still isn't on the internet and I
expect a significant fraction of that will be coming on in the next
2-4 years.
I live and work in a part of the world which
Hi folks,
For quite a few folks here on the list travel is a common thing, going
into foreign wireless networks is too. Likely your laptop/tablet comes
with IPv6 enabled per default, it is 2012 after all almost going 2013.
And then you get to a silly hotspot and it does not work as the
On 2012-12-04 11:51, Nick B wrote:
In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the ISP's
safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection.
As performed in France, what happens is that some copyright owner
contacts the ISP that IP address a.b.c.d had accessed/served copyright
On 2013-01-31 08:04 , Shahab Vahabzadeh wrote:
Hi everybody,
Last two days I was under an interesting attack which comes from multiple
sources to three of my ADSL users destination.
You say that it comes from multiple sources to 3 of your DSL users.
The below source/dest though shows that the
On 2013-01-31 08:53 , Shahab Vahabzadeh wrote:
Those ip addresses I send were only sample, its 5 page :D and not only
those addresses.
And you are looking to target 128.141.X.Y its mine
128.141.0.0/16 is CERN in Switzerland.
Thus not yours, but owned(*) by n...@cern.ch.
(unless you work
On 2013-02-08 15:39 , Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
to watch the latest Quad-HD movie
Multicast
-I'm afraid it has to be unicast so that people can pause/resume anytime
they need to go... well you know what I mean
Works fine too with multicast, for instance with FuzzyCast:
On 2013-02-08 16:13 , fredrik danerklint wrote:
to watch the latest Quad-HD movie
Multicast
-I'm afraid it has to be unicast so that people can pause/resume anytime
they need to go... well you know what I mean
Works fine too with multicast, for instance with FuzzyCast:
On 2013-02-08 17:03 , fredrik danerklint wrote:
You really think people did not have problems with the 1mbit links they
had back then?
Yes, I do.
And you really think that we won't have problems with
Zillion-HD or whatever they will call it in another 20 years?
I think that this is
Jason Lewis wrote:
I started seeing these on May 8th.
* 95.87.192.0/18 3257 9070 43561 {196738}
* 8928 9070 43561 {196738}
* 8928 9070 43561 {196738}
* 1273 9050 8866 43561 {196738}
* 6762 8400 8866 43561 {196738}
Semi-Off-Topic here, I know, but it might help Network Operators to
explain certain misguided people and thus lower noise and raise signal
in various places.
https://www.arin.net/knowledge/comic.html
Short short synopsis: comic about how ARIN handles certain things and
what ARIN does etc.
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
[..]
I ask because the AMS-IX is frequently used as an example that v6 is
being heavily adopted. If it is all one source for one application,
that is important information to the people fighting for v6 adoption.
Going from peaks of 1.4 Gbps to 0.4 Gbps is
Nathan Ward wrote:
[..]
I think someone wrote a draft explaining this a while back.. not sure
where or what it was called.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6in4 = proto-41
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6to4 = proto-41 with 2002::/16 dst
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/6rd= proto-41 with own
Sean Donelan wrote:
The typical network architecture problem, what are the best (shortest
latency, greatest bandwidth, etc) locations to connect to the every
nation in the world? As you increase the number of locations, how do
the choices change?
If you only had small (2 3 5 7 11) number of
Chris Gotstein wrote:
We are a small ISP that is in the process of setting up IPv6 on our
network. We already have the ARIN allocation and i have a couple
routers and servers running dual stack. Wondering if someone out there
would be willing to give me a few pointers on setting up my
TJ wrote:
[..]
A great counter-point to this is that if you do use /64s (or for that matter
- anything shorter than the currently-not-recommended /127s, AFAIK), you
should apply ACLs to them to prevent ping-pong.
One should be doing uRPF at minimum on all links anyway. BCP84 ;)
If the user
William Herrin wrote:
[..]
I'm not aware of any way of dynamically assigning an IPv6 subnet to a
customer that's as well automated as IPv4 /32 dynamic assignment to a
DSL router with an RFC1918 NATed interior, but that may just be my
ignorance since I haven't needed to research it.
DHCP-PD
mark [at] edgewire wrote:
The end problem is still users and really, these users will click on
anything that has a bright and shiny button which says, Ok. Really, does
setting up a portal help? Perhaps a sandboxed area which has some
information on securing their machine and keeping it clean
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
[..]
As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance be a
good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64 addresses
Can you please *NOT* suggest people *STUPID* ideas like filtering on
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On Oct 12, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Marco Hogewoning wrote:
[..]
As this thread has drifted off topic any way, would it for instance be a
good idea to simply not accept mail from hosts that clearly use
autoconfig ie reject all smtp from EUI-64
Michael Dillon wrote:
[..]
[..] The
side effect of this is
that it makes the network operator's tool sharper, and able to knock
down single sites
with a /32 ACL.
You actually mean a /128 in the case of IPv6, the /32 would be the
complete ISP...
For a hosting provider, I would think that
Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
[..]
But do the commonly-used operating systems support adding hundreds or
thousands of addresses to an interface, and what would the performance
implications be?
Remember that IP addresses are 128bits, while hostnames (the ones for
the Host: header in the HTTP query) are
Leslie wrote:
[..]
It seems to me like the best solution might be a semi-hacky solution of
asking arin (and other IRR's) if i can copy its DB and creating an
internal peer which null routes unallocated blocks (updated nightly?)
What you want to take is:
$rirs = array(
afrinic
Randy Bush wrote:
It seems to me like the best solution might be a semi-hacky solution of
asking arin (and other IRR's) if i can copy its DB and creating an
internal peer which null routes unallocated blocks (updated nightly?)
What you want to take is:
$rirs = array(
afrinic
Leslie wrote:
John Kristoff wrote:
I suppose if there is interest and a need we could do this. Shoot
myself or the team (i...@cymru.com) a note off list if you have
thoughts on the matter or simply want to provide some feedback into
such a service and how it might best be used. We're
Andrey Gordon wrote:
uf, another question I'll have ask my users now:
User: I can't get to the intranet.mycompanydomain.local! What did you
break!?
Me: Hey, you can't to the intranet,domain.local? Did you make your laptop
use Google DNS?
But it is s easy to just route 8.8.8.8 and
Justin Shore wrote:
Does anyone know of any tools that can do repeated traceroutes over time
to a remote IP and log the results for later viewing/comparison?
RIPE TTM @ http://www.ripe.net/ttm/
Greets,
Jeroen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 2011-10-12 19:34 , Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
I don't buy the bad-guys-rig-policies thing... but well, I could be wrong.
Rigging is not the right name for it, which is why the original message
stated 'gaming', which is quite accurate. You just set up an official
(shell) company and thus
[hmmm this subject is not really ops now is it...]
On 2011-10-23 19:43 , steve pirk [egrep] wrote:
Just about everything on Google pages is https these days, even search if
you enable it.
(or just use https://encrypted.google.com which is available for quite
some time already)
If anybody on
On 2011-10-25 11:49 , Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
With this combination, I have not encountered a hotel, airport lounge, or
other poorly run environment from which I cannot send mail through my
home server from my laptop/ipad/iphone/etc.
Ever heard of this magical thing called a VPN? :)
Indeed,
On 2011-10-25 12:20 , Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 25, 2011, at 3:04 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-10-25 11:49 , Owen DeLong wrote:
[..]
With this combination, I have not encountered a hotel, airport lounge, or
other poorly run environment from which I cannot send mail through my
home
On 2011-10-31 08:56 , Dmitry Cherkasov wrote:
Hello,
Please advice what is the best practice to use IPv6 address block
across distributed locations.
You go to multiple RIRs and get multiple prefixes.
Heck, you apparently can even get multiple disjunct prefixes from the
same RIR.
There went
On 2011-11-03 12:36 , Meftah Tayeb wrote:
Hello
please could one of the SixXS admin contact me privatly ?
As was previously pointed out to you on these very lists:
http://www.sixxs.net/contact/
Greets,
Jeroen
On 2011-11-03 13:22 , Meftah Tayeb wrote:
dear Jeroen,
why i'm posting here is that cause Sixxs never reply to my query.
http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2011-September/040108.html
i don't need this stupid SixXs at all anymore.
Please keep it that way.
Greets,
Jeroen
On 2011-11-04 16:18 , Andrew Kirch wrote:
On 11/4/2011 10:01 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I realize you're volunteers, but grow up.
We already did quite some time ago, which means we have full time jobs
nowadays and guess what goes first before all those whining people ;)
As this is a mailing
On 2011-11-08 12:05 , Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4eb8f028.8040...@dds.nl, Seth Mos writes:
[..]
Sounds like FUD. Who has trusted the contents of a PTR record in the
last 2 decades?
Lots of tools (read: SSH, Spam-checks, oh and IRCd's ;) trust PTR, but
only if the reverse = forward =
On 2011-11-08 13:27 , Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4eb90ef2.3030...@unfix.org, Jeroen Massar writes:
On 2011-11-08 12:05 , Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 4eb8f028.8040...@dds.nl, Seth Mos writes:
[..]
Sounds like FUD. Who has trusted the contents of a PTR record in the
last 2 decades
On 2011-11-09 17:32 , Brzozowski, John wrote:
Update from http://www.comcast6.net
IPv6 Pilot Market Deployment Begins
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Comcast has started our first pilot market deployment of IPv6...
Congrats! One step closer to full deployment!
Greets,
Jeroen
On 2011-12-20 15:17 , Steve Clark wrote:
Hello,
I have a SIXXS ipv6 tunnel that terminates in Ashburn, Va.
I have two HE ipv6 tunnels, one terminates in Dallas the other
terminate in Ashburn. I can ping each endpoint of the tunnels that
terminate
in Ashburn, but I can't ping between the
On 2012-01-20 10:47 , Yang Xiang wrote:
Hi,
I build a system ‘Argus’ to real-timely alert prefix hijackings.
Argus monitors the Internet and discovers anomaly BGP updates which caused
by prefix hijacking.
When Argus discovers a potential prefix hijacking, it will advertise it in
a very
On 2012-01-20 12:01 , Yang Xiang wrote:
2012/1/20 Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.li...@gmail.com
mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Yang Xiang
xiang...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
mailto:xiang...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn wrote:
Hope I can find enough
On 2012-01-25 18:55 , Justin M. Streiner wrote:
[..]
Locally managed means locally manage, though. The RFC is more of
a suggestion than a requirement at that point.
Right, though it's a shame that the registry-assigned ULA concept didn't
take off.
What everybody calls Registered ULA or
On 2012-01-25 19:51 , William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
On 2012-01-25 18:55 , Justin M. Streiner wrote:
[..]
Locally managed means locally manage, though. The RFC is more of
a suggestion than a requirement at that point.
Right
On 2012-01-26 02:21 , William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
On 2012-01-25 19:51 , William Herrin wrote:
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
What everybody calls Registered ULA or ULA-C(entral) is what
On 2012-01-26 13:43 , Ray Soucy wrote:
Local traffic shouldn't need to touch the CPE regardless of ULA or
GUA. Also note that we already have the link local scope for traffic
between hosts on the same link (which is all hosts in a typical home
network); ULA only becomes useful if routing is
On 2012-02-01 22:44 , Schiller, Heather A wrote:
AS8300 started announcing one of the Rove Digital dns changer IP ranges.
[..]
I searched around and couldn't find any mention of what they might be
testing. Anyone know?
They do internal aggregation of common prefixes to keep their
On 2012-02-03 21:10 , -Hammer- wrote:
So, we are preparing to add IPv6 to our multi-homed (separate routers
and carriers with IBGP) multi-site business. Starting off with a lab of
course.
Dear Hammer,
Welcome to the 21th century. 2012 is going to the year (they claim,
again ;) of IPv6 thus
1 - 100 of 296 matches
Mail list logo
