Hello,
>> I work for a Luxembourg company that provide Wifi in the street of
>> luxembourg cities (and some other places too).
>>
>> I saw that DNS over TLS (not TCP) eg port 853/TCP is more and more used.
>>
>> I don't have any graphs about its usage but yes our dnsdist is more and more
>> use
In my opinion, a new C root operator should be chosen based on the fact
that Cogent is not fulfilling its duty to operate their root servers for
the benefit of the internet as a whole.
It seems to me that they are operating the root for the benefit of their
customers only. And the fact that they d
On 10/10/2019 04:51, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
$ traceroute6 f.root-servers.net.
1 tunnel545690.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net 8.442 ms 6.772 ms 7.252
ms
2 ve422.core1.nyc4.he.net 4.641 ms 3.155 ms 5.392 ms
3 100ge16-1.core1.ash1.he.net 10.781 ms 21.786 ms 8.0
Thanks everyone for the useful feedback and filling in the gaps for me.
We’ve now gone full circle since the easiest solution is to destroy and
re-create a few VMs and a Raspberry Pi with the latest and greatest release and
pkgsrc/apt (Viktor - I checked and latest Raspbian gets me Unbound 1.9.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 5:12 AM Matthew Pounsett wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 22:57, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 05:41:43PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>>
>> > No, even small responses receive no answers from the IPv6 addresses
>> > of the C and F roots. Both o
Adam,
On Oct 10, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Adam Vallee wrote:
> In my opinion, a new C root operator should be chosen based on the fact that
> Cogent is not fulfilling its duty to operate their root servers for the
> benefit of the internet as a whole.
>
> It seems to me that they are operating the ro
Hi Warren,
> The lack of peering with a network doesn't prevent my accessing them,
> it just means that my packets take a sub-optimal[0] route.
> The above doesn't look like that at all, it looks like $something else
> (like dropped fragments), which is completely different to not
> peering[1].
>
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 04:39:19PM +0200,
Warren Kumari wrote
a message of 64 lines which said:
> The lack of peering with a network doesn't prevent my accessing them,
This is true for the IPv4 Internet, where there is always another
route, but the IPv6 Internet is not so well connected, and
On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 10:51:06PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> I still see no answers from C or F from NYC via a Hurrican Electric
> GRE tunnel, since my ISP (Verizon FiOS) still does not provide
> native IPv6. :-(
Ray Bellis reached out asking me test a fix for F root's IPv6
reachability, an
> On Oct 10, 2019, at 1:08 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> Like Warren, I am quite surprised to learn that the IPv6 backbone
> has such gaps in 2019. We're expected to *prefer* IPv6, but in
> reality one is a masochist to do so, (my server prefers V4). :-(
It seems this was already a surprise 7
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:59 PM Frank Louwers wrote:
>
> Hi Warren,
>
> The lack of peering with a network doesn't prevent my accessing them,
> it just means that my packets take a sub-optimal[0] route.
> The above doesn't look like that at all, it looks like $something else
> (like dropped fragme
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:40 AM David Conrad wrote:
> Adam,
>
> I’d recommend reading "A Proposed Governance Model for the DNS Root
> Server System” (
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/rssac-037-15jun18-en.pdf)
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
I think you are only helping my point, in that it s
>> Neither Cogent or HE buy transit from anybody else
i believe this statement to be false
randy
___
dns-operations mailing list
dns-operations@lists.dns-oarc.net
https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations
as a purely technical matter.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:59 PM Frank Louwers wrote:
...
Neither Cogent or HE buy transit from anybody else. They only peer
and have customers. They don't buy "fallback" traffic.
that doesn't match the perspective from my server inside cogent.
[cc3.tisf:i386] t
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:56:11PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> Neither Cogent or HE buy transit from anybody else
>
> i believe this statement to be false
i know of at least 2 transit providers..
- jared
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.n
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 at 17:26, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 01:56:11PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > >> Neither Cogent or HE buy transit from anybody else
> >
> > i believe this statement to be false
>
> i know of at least 2 transit providers..
>
Both providing v4 transit,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:25:41PM -0400, Matthew Pounsett wrote:
> The speculation I've seen is that Cogent refuses to treat HE as a Tier1
> network in v6 because they don't try to also be one in v4, but that they
> should because HE's v6 network is much wider reaching and much longer
> establish
This is the point I've been trying to make for over 24 hours but it would
seem that my comments are not being approved and sent to the list.
It is apparent by looking at any predominantly IPv6 Network that they have
to have more than one IP Transit provider that provides them with IPv6. I
believe
On jeu. 10 oct. 22:31:48 2019, Adam Vallee wrote:
> Cogent and Hurricane Electric are not and never have been Tier 1 providers
> they both have Transit provided through other carriers.
Cogent is a Tier 1 provider, they don’t have any transit. Although they
don’t have an IPv6 full-view.
--
Alarig
19 matches
Mail list logo
