Et al,
I got some Copper going cheap. ;^(
I saw this on Reddit I figured I'd share it here too since no one else
did.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/17/3655442/restoring-verizon-service-manhatt
an-hurricane-sandy
Ephesians 4:32 & Cheers!!!
A password is like a... toothbrush ;^)
Choos
Hello,
Given this query, the local DNS response with three sections ANSWER,
AUTHORITY, ADDITIONAL.
;; ANSWER SECTION:
geocast.net.735 IN MX 10 ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
geocast.net.735 IN MX 20 ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.
geocast.net.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:25:48PM +0800,
Feng He wrote
a message of 59 lines which said:
> >;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> >ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.2626IN A 1.2.3.4
> >ALT1.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.2626IN A 5.6.7.8
> >ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.2626IN A 1.
Hi,
My name is Kareem Ali and I'm a Network Operations Engineer at
CentralNIC. I wanted to be added to your list to enrich my information
about DNS and updates and new stuff comes to life with DNS and it's
relation to networking in general. I hope to benefit from your list and
to have a good
Ah, the good old bad old days. :-)
On Tue, 20 Nov 2012, Feng He wrote:
> > ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > geocast.net.735 IN MX 10 ALT2.ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM.
> > geocast.net.735 IN MX 20 ASPMX2.GOOGLEMAIL.COM.
> > geocast.net.735 IN MX
δΊ 2012-11-21 3:05, Fred Morris ει:
I believe that appropriately paranoid (you're not paranoid if they really
are out to get you) nameserver implementations these days won't use what's
in the additional section here because it's out of bailiwick.
Are you using some specific resolver which does?
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:49:47 +0200
Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> [Apologies for duplicates]
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The RIPE NCC has just published an article on RIPE Labs, comparing the
> TCP and UDP response times of DNS queries to the root name servers:
>
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/bwijnen/
On Nov 21, 2012, at 8:06 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> Technical barriers, funding issues or lack of demand perhaps?
All of the above, plus inertia, lack of awareness, perceived lack of need
compared to UDP with individualized congestion-control mechanisms, et. al.
DCCP was proposed quite some ti
On 2012-11-21 1:06 AM, John Kristoff wrote:
> Any ideas on when we might expect to see some
> DNS implementations support DNS over DCCP, if ever? It might be quite
> handy in lieu of the ongoing DoS nuisance. If not, why not? Technical
> barriers, funding issues or lack of demand perhaps?
i thi
