On Nov 7, 2007, at 5:21 PM, Kim Davies wrote:
Dean Anderson wrote:
The ICANN announcement doesn't seem to have come through on DNSOP as
Patrick indicated. I can't find it in my archive Did anyone else
get it?
Actually, I said it went to "DNS Operations", which is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
, as
On Apr 1, 2010, at 12:29 AM, John Jason Brzozowski wrote:
> Not necessarily, if a dual stack hosts communicates with a recursive name
> server over both IPv4 and IPv6 and other conditions are met then I believe
> it would be fine based on what was presented.
What other conditions need to be met?
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
On Aug 6, 2014, at 7:47, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> Sorry, haven't been following this group for a long time, so
> please excuse if answers to these questions have been discussed in before:
>
> a) What documents beside RFC3258 are describi
>> Is it fair to say that DNS would be the prime reason for anycast addresses
>> injected into the global BGP routing table ?
I would -guess- there are more DNS anycast than HTTP anycast nodes. But looking
at the global table to figure that out is not likely to yield useful results.
> There is a
