On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 10:53:04PM -0500,
Streiner, Justin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 72 lines which said:
> Most providers lack the levels of traffic or the geographic footprint to
> peer with the big guys (UUNET, Sprint, AT&T, CW, Genuity, etc), who
> typically build private int
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 04:40:20PM -0800,
Jon Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> buy PAIX and if there is a way to continue to make money selling
> cross connects in the future.
Not all exchange points are built with the idea of making money. Some
are grat
This morning, when clicking on Help on their Web site:
You are Here:
Help -> Error
Error
We were unable to answer your question for the following reason:
Compiled keyword file not found. Package at 'nsol' could not be loaded. Please
contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
© Copyright 2002 Veri
On Wednesday 3 April 2002, at 1 h 9,
"Shashi Kumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let us say Network A has a peering Agreement with Network B. Now let us
> say Network X wants to reach Network B. X and B do not have a peering
> agreement. Can Network A use the peering Link between A nd B to ro
On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 07:02:58PM -0400,
Ralph Doncaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 10 lines which said:
> I'm trying to collect statistics on how many routes match certain
> patterns. So far I've been using zebra, set term len 0, and then sh ip
> bgp regexp, and wait for the to
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:21:47PM +,
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 6 lines which said:
> > Every public root experiment that I have seen has always
> > operated as a superset of the ICANN root zone.
>
> not www.orsn.net.
You are playing with words. ORSN serves the sa
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:38:55PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
> You are playing with words. ORSN serves the same data as ICANN. So,
> it is a superset, albeit a strict one.
(The excellent readers of NANOG already sa
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 07:25:20AM -0500,
Church, Chuck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 109 lines which said:
> Is it possible that one of the authoritative servers for .us
> is unreachable/down at the moment, at least from name server
> 24.197.96.16's point of view?
It is perfec
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 04:29:52PM +,
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
> Forwarded Message from Neil Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---
...
> After extensive analysis and discussion, the Mozilla community and Opera
> have already produced a fi
On Sun, Jul 17, 2005 at 09:49:32PM -0700,
Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
> 2. Who is the authority that decides whether a TLD uses an
> acceptable policy?
That's the big problem with this so-called "solution".
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 12:45:33PM +0300,
Evren Demirkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
> I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in
> plain English?
There is nothing related with your country in the whole thread. The
subject is misleading.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:55:51AM -0600,
John Neiberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 10 lines which said:
> Would it be improper to suggest that you pick a different acronym? :-)
Mehmet did not say so, but I assume his mailing list will be in
spanish and that PRIX is OK in his lan
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 07:39:29PM -0700,
Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 20 lines which said:
> Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other
> country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism.
The problem is that all gTLD are controlled only in
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:56:50PM -0400,
Robert Boyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:
> Well said! Other than government entities, I never understood why
> anyone would want a country specific name.
So he can call upon the law of his country, rather than the law o
It can be of operational interest or it can fuel a new flame about
alternative DNS roots.
http://www.neustar.com/pressroom/files/announcements/ns_pr_09282005.pdf
GSM Association and NeuStar Sign Agreement to Offer Root DNS Services
to More than 680 Global GSM Mobile Operators
...
NeuStar's Roo
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 04:05:34PM +0100,
Andy Davidson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
> A bit like an internationally organized, non-profit corporation
...
> Has anyone considered this ?
Yes, replacing the DoC puppet by an internationally organized
corporation w
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 11:54:03PM -0700,
william(at)elan.net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
> they [ISC] run .museum TLD
It does not seem so.
> and serve as secondary for one or two other TLDs.
Not with their anycast servers, unless they added this service very
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 09:19:07AM +0200,
MÃ¥ns Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 34 lines which said:
> .museum is operated from Sweden.
Correct, Europeans will stop using ".com" and switch to ".museum", its
main competitor :-)
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:32:32PM -0500,
Mike Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 3 lines which said:
> On the subject of ipv6, is there currently any way to multi-home
> with IPv6 yet?
RFC 4177: Architectural Approaches to Multi-homing for IPv6 (five
approaches, including at least o
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 12:08:38PM +0100,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> There are 437 cities of 1 million or more population. There are
> roughly 5,000 cities of over 100,000 population. And there are
> 3,047,000 named communities in the world.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:45:30PM +0600,
Md. kamal Hossain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 54 lines which said:
> I am a newbie in bgp.
I'm not sure that NANOG charter allow posting by BGP newbies :-) But,
since I'm not an operator myself:
> Would any one describe the as path from th
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 03:52:38AM +0200,
Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 174 lines which said:
> 171 uk.zone
Everything is in subdomains like co.uk, so there is no point in
blocking zone transfers for the TLD.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 07:59:58PM -0500,
Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 26 lines which said:
> I'll leave the packet layout and arithmetic as an exercise for the
> reader
This has been already done :-)
http://w6.nic.fr/dnsv6/resp-size.html
On Fri, Dec 17, 2004 at 12:31:37AM +0100,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 68 lines which said:
> and then sees an anycast instance for all root servers over
> peering. If then something bad happens to the peering connection
...
> but even if 5 or 8 or 12 addresses b
[Warning: I've never actually deployed an anycast DNS setup so you are
free to ignore my message.]
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 01:28:43PM +0100,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 109 lines which said:
> 1. There should always be non-anycast alternatives
I believe there
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:43:40AM -0500,
Nils Ketelsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
> > is there any recommended method to measure overall
> > network availability?
>
> The problem is, that most people have no definition when they
> consider their network avai
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 04:11:42PM +,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
> And if you will trust an ISP to deliver port 25 packets then why
> wouldn't you trust them to deliver email messages?
There are *many* ISP which provide a reasonable job w
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:59:43AM -0500,
Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
> 0) for the love of God, Montresor, just block port 25 outbound
> already.
If there is no escape / exemption (as proposed by William Leibzon),
then, as a consumer, I scream "
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:59:43AM -0500,
Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
> 1) any legitimate mail source MUST have valid, functioning,
> non-generic rDNS indicating that it is a mail server or
> source. (Most do, many do not. There is NO reason why
On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 10:59:43AM -0500,
Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 98 lines which said:
> 4) all domains with invalid whois data MUST be deactivated (not
> confiscated, just temporarily removed from the root dbs) immediately
> and their owners contacted.
Because
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 10:21:20AM -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 45 lines which said:
> > Requesting rDNS means "I don't want to receive email from Africa".
>
> Having an rDNS entry for a host doesn't mean you know if it is/isn't
> in Africa,
Of course, I kn
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 05:08:18AM +0100,
Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
> Further, these options are not documented anywhere,
In the man page of GNU whois :-)
When querying \fIwhois.denic.de\fP for domain names, the program will
automatically
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 05:00:22PM -0500,
William Warren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 45 lines which said:
> If the UN wants control of the INET WE invented.
Who is WE? ICANN? The US governement?
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:44:26AM -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> I'm skeptical that a model that only sort of works for under 30K ASNs
> and maybe 1K bilateral peering agreements for the *really* big Tier-1s
> won't scale to a world that
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 03:55:15PM -0700,
Vicky Rode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 20 lines which said:
> Just wondering how many have transitioned to djbdns from bind
If transitioning from BIND, why go to the non-free and non-compliant
djbdns instead of nsd (http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 10:14:05AM +0200,
Jeroen Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
> Btw, is there going to be an LACNIC-alike system for transfering
> RIPE/ARIN resources to AfriNIC?
AFAIK, all inetnums belonging to Africa in the RIPE-NCC database have
alread
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:39:09PM -0400,
Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> From the thread (certainly not a scientific sampling), many people
> seem to be filtering port 53 TCP to their name servers.
Again, a non-scientific sampling but AFNIC ("
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 07:01:47PM +,
Christopher L. Morrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
> Even after I imagine that folks left the filters in place either
> 'because' or 'I don't run router acls' or 'laziness'
[Warning, operational content.]
Remember t
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 03:04:25PM -0400,
Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 46 lines which said:
> I am interested in how many name servers - caching or authoritative
> - are filtering incoming and/or outgoing TCP port 53.
For authoritative name servers of TLD, you can
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:52:04PM +,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
> the only entities that can be members are nations/governments.
This is no longer true (for several years). Corporations ("Sector
members") can now join (ITU is the only UN
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 12:11:14AM -0400,
Steven Champeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 92 lines which said:
> So, these are *all* non-compliant?
Yes, and you can easily check that the FreeBSD resolver, for instance,
cannot retrieve them (the GNU libc resolver on Linux can).
notux:~
On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:05:56AM +0100,
Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
> However case insensitivity puts a big spanner in the works.
And the fact that you can use any 8-bits character in a domain name
but nothing says what the encoding is. UTF-8 ? Lat
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 11:32:31AM +0200,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
> The number of agreements needed in the email world is significantly
> higher than what is needed for BGP.
The proponents of "email peering" typically want to switch from t
On Thursday 3 October 2002, at 12 h 23,
Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure how applicable it may be, but the OpenBSD FAQ has referenced (since
> at least 2.7) a paper called "Understanding IP Addressing" that I found to =
> be
> pretty useful.
> http://www.3com.com/corpinfo/en
On Tuesday 7 January 2003, at 16 h 40,
Hendrianto Muljawan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to register a domain in the com.af, but I couldn't find any registrar
> who can help.
Giving the situation in Afghanistan, I wish you good luck.
> I did try to contact [EMAIL PROTECTED], that is li
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 04:52:57PM -0800,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 45 lines which said:
> how/why is this proposed group distinct from the European Operator Forum?
Bill, Nicolas Deffayet just wanted a NOG for himself. Let him play.
For those who are not membe
On Wednesday 5 February 2003, at 0 h 54,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > NDSoftware exist.
...
> I'm still waiting.
NDsoftware does not exist, at least as a company in France. It is *not*
registered in any French directory of companies (check it out:
http://www.societe.com/).
Theref
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:53:51AM +,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 55 lines which said:
> Yes there are other ways and I suggest that the optimal choice of protocol
> for publishing this information is LDAP, not DNS.
...
> Next step is to get ISPs to replace t
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:26:04AM -0700,
Henry Linneweh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 4 lines which said:
> This is not a good beginning
>
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1642848,00.asp
Bad paper. The CipherTrust story, which is mentioned, is very weak: it
contains several b
On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 11:32:11AM +0100,
Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 24 lines which said:
> Also, SPF doesnt tell you whether it is spam.
Of course. It never pretended to do so.
> Indeed, apparently majority of SPF-valid email at moment is spam!
No. Where did you find
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:59:51PM +,
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> you could bet that by closing off this avenue, SPF will force
> spammers to use other methods that are more easily
> detected/filtered, and that if you play this cat&mouse game lo
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 03:15:14PM -0500,
Robert Bonomi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
> Same thing applies for 'simple' forwarding via sendmails '~/.forward'
> mechanism. the mail server 'accepts' the mail from the original source,
> and then 're-sends' to the ne
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 01:57:51AM -0700,
Joe Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
> I'm not sure where "true" diverges from reality in your analysis,
> but perhaps you should create one of those mail environments and
> test before you put your foot in your mouth a
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 10:58:13AM -0400,
Jeff Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
> Top story on Slashdot:
> http://it.slashdot.org/it/04/09/13/1317238.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218
Warning: this is probably non-operational content. I suggest to move
the discus
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 03:42:26PM -0700,
Gary E. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
> Not been able to reach my machines in Jamaica. The Kingston Daily
> Gleaner is back up with text only pages. They report BOTH the
> primary and secondary submarine cables to
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 09:08:21AM -0500,
Hosman, Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> We would like accounts setup at these companies to monitor outgoing
> email to these complexes.
May be it would be simpler to suggest them to implement Message
Tracking? (http:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:10:58PM -0400,
Matt Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> A few people have asked me privately to publish the IPv6 addresses
> ahead of time for reachability testing purposes, so here they are:
>
> 2001:503:a83e::2:30 (a.gtld-servers.n
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 04:01:45PM -0400,
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> Since I mailed that, 3557 started receiving a covering /48 for A.
a.gtld-servers.net works now for us. Verisign does not reply but may
listen :-)
b is still unreachable. We get a
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 11:00:54PM +,
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> as far as i know, the root-servers.org web site is 100% accurate,
Following the recent discussion about "anycast jitter" with
j.root-servers.net, I believe one information is mi
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:37:25PM +0100,
Elmar K. Bins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 34 lines which said:
> in alternating fashion, but I would assume "jns1" through "jns6" are
> just the individual servers of a setup called "hgtld".
That's a reasonable guess. Someone from Verisign
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:05:20AM -0500,
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 36 lines which said:
> I have no idea about Verisign's scheme, but in case anybody notices
> similar distribution of queries across F root servers, it may help to
> know that:
>
> xxxNa.f.root-server
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 03:06:43AM -0500,
Dan Mahoney, System Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 25 lines which said:
> I'm having trouble wrapping my head around ipv6 style suffixes --
> does anyone have a chart handy? How big is a /64, specifically?
Since an IPv6 address is 128 b
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 08:16:43PM +,
Vince Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> "This memorandum includes a proposal to create a new IPv6 address
> space distribution process, based solely on national authorities.
This is a wrong presentation of the ITU d
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 11:12:54PM -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
> Does anyone here has a script (or perl procedure) for converting range
> of ips (i.e. 10.0.0.0 - 10.0.2.255) into cidr (i.e. result would be
> 10.0.0.0/23,10.0.2.0/24 fr
Messages I send from an email address which is not subscribed to
nanog-post are apparently silently dropped. I do not receive a bounce
(like it is typically the case when a list is closed) but, according
to the archives, they are not distributed either (which may be good
for the S/N ratio but I di
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 12:23:35AM -0500,
Justin Shore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 20 lines which said:
> > What software is available/recommended for NOC contact
> > management?
>
> I've used Nagios (formerly NetSaint) in the past and have been very
> impressed with it.
I used N
On Thursday 16 October 2003, at 22 h 52,
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i think i agree with where this was going, but it would be a fine thing if
> we all stop calling this NXDOMAIN. the proper term is RCODE 3. when you say
> NXDOMAIN you sound like you've only read the BIND sources
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 05:00:58AM -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 35 lines which said:
> then there is the idea of "permanent" deployment ...
> little is permanent in networking. the hard problem
> is when vendors put filters in silicon. :(
On Thursday 25 December 2003, at 14 h 18,
"Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Among the ones I found when I looked into the question with some
> rigor a few years ago were that mailing list traffic often no longer
> has a useful "precedence" value that was used to screen such
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 0 h 50,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Suresh Ramasubramanian) wrote:
> > There are several other tests to perform (if you are a reasonable program,
> > that is), before sending an "Out of the office" message. An obvious one is to
> > see wether your human owner is mentioned i
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 11 h 18,
"Stephen J. Wilcox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Surely regardless of the presence of precedence you would never autoreply to an
> email that wasnt addressed to you personally?
And I add: in the To: field, not the CC: one.
On Friday 26 December 2003, at 9 h 11,
Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I said is that the method proposed wouldn't cut down on OOOs to the
> list.
Yes, it will, in most cases. Let's take the following message:
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMA
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 07:41:54PM -0500,
Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
> I didn't notice anybody saying "thank you for doing the right thing
> by announcing the change" amongst the flurry of jerking knees. So,
> thank you for doing the right thing. Good
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:43:01PM -0800,
Martin J. Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 9 lines which said:
> I believe there have been 26 (opps, now 27) responses to this
> announcement in the last 2 hours 45 minutes, that's about one response
> every 6 minutes.
This is normal and re
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:21:33AM -0800,
Avleen Vig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> Verisign is learning their lesson, and it might take a while yet, but
...
> Verisign didn't do right last time, but they did this time.
No, they are not learning. At least this i
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 10:44:42PM -0800,
bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 54 lines which said:
> > http://www.root-servers.org/ seems to only have news on I's ASN change, no
> > mention of B or J or the anycast F/K/I's ... methinks this info should have a
> > home on this site..
On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:19:43PM -0500,
Coppola, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> In preparation for tomorrow morning's B-root IP change from 128.9.0.107 to
> 192.228.79.201
I notice trouble to reach the new server from many places.
Here a machine connec
[I'm sure that Paul Vixie knows the difference but others may not and
the Washington Post paper, mentioned at the beginning of the thread,
was quite confused.]
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 04:37:09AM +,
Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
> why? that is, why
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 05:58:16PM -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 46 lines which said:
> How many times do you propose we FTDT before we get fed up and ask
> upper management to authorize a migration to some other software
> with a better record? And how many m
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:42:36AM +0900,
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 4 lines which said:
> any cctld ops seeing unusual traffic in the last hours?
DSC showed nothing at all on Sunday for the ".fr" nameservers that we
directly manage. Some are also secondaries for other
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 01:48:19PM -0800,
william(at)elan.net <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 18 lines which said:
> Maybe I'm ignorant, but isn't there [cc]tld operations mail list
> somewhere?
There is no worldwide TLD (or even ccTLD) operations list (I would be
on it). There are sev
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 10:56:56AM -0500,
Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 37 lines which said:
> No more Registrant, POCs, or physical address information?
Remember that ".com" and ".net" are thin registries.
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 04:51:09PM -0600,
Chris Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
> unixshell.com claims more service (RAM, disk, monthly transfer) for less
> per month:
>
> http://www.unixshell.com/
Apparently, it is no based on Xen which you may find a good
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 08:11:32AM +1000,
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 14 lines which said:
> Fairly well -- a lot better than (eg) vservers, and almost certainly
> better than UMLs.
Because they are different virtualisation solutions with different
requirments. If yo
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:01:10PM +,
Edward B. DREGER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 27 lines which said:
> AS112-style NTP service, anyone? That would be cooperative and
> possibly even useful.
It already exists (Security warning: do not use it on strategic
machine, there is no
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 10:51:19PM +0200,
Gadi Evron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 106 lines which said:
> As an FYI, seems serious.
If I read correctly the announce, only Delegate and JunOS are
currently found vulnerable (of course, more vulnerabilities may be
discovered in the futu
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 02:42:36PM -0700,
Nick Burke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
> How many of you have actually use(d) Zebra/Linux as a routing device
IMHO, the question is not perfectly phrased. You actually have several
issues:
* use a regular PC instead o
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 09:06:20AM -0700,
Rick Wesson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
> OpenDNS is not SiteFinder; Give them a try, the DNS resolution is
> blazing fast
For the typical NANOGer, yes, but remember that the Internet is larger
than that. From France, t
On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:19:51PM -0700,
Steve Sobol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 16 lines which said:
> There's a big difference, of course, between INTENTIONALLY pointing
> your computers at DNS servers that do this kind of thing, and having
> it done for you without your knowledg
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 06:24:08PM -0400,
Jim Popovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 32 lines which said:
> The strangeness is that some of their crawling is looking for URLs
> with multiple exclamation points, those URLs never existed. This may
> be indicative of a character transla
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 03:35:40PM -0400,
Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 6 lines which said:
> Has anyone come up with a quick method for detecting if a domain
> name is parked, but is not being used except displaying ads?
I don't think it is possible: "being parked" cann
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 10:54:05AM -0500,
Andrew Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
> One could argue that it is less evil to do this at recursive
> servers, because people could choose not to use that service by
> installing their own full resolvers or whatev
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:14:33PM -0600,
David E. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 61 lines which said:
> To try to make this slightly more relevant, is it a good idea,
> either technically or legally, to mandate some sort of standard for
> this? I'm thinking something like the "N
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 03:51:26PM +0900,
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 10 lines which said:
> similarly for the root, as rip.psg.com serves some tlds.
The request has to come from a TLD manager (anyone which uses
rip.psg.com) but, of course, you would get a more authorita
Very interesting interview of an Hollywood consultant (and former FBI
agent) about the facts in the movie 'Untraceable'. Among the many
technical details, I note:
> Q: Any other elements in the movie the naysayers may call you and
> the writers out on as being technically inaccurate?
> A: The IP
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:42:44AM +,
Roland Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 15 lines which said:
> in the UK it [phone number portability] 's done with something
> similar to DNS. The telephone system looks up the first N digits of
> the number to determine the operator it wa
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 12:25:52PM +,
David Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 114 lines which said:
> Shame its not made it to HTTP yet:
Nothing to do with the protocol but with the organization which
manages the server:
> $ lynx --source http://www.internic.net/zones/named
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 02:31:09PM +,
David Freedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 33 lines which said:
> Well gosh, and there was me thinking that both would work together
> to make such a change :)
ICANN is typically 2-3 days behind the root zone file editor.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:27:41AM +0200,
Hank Nussbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 17 lines which said:
> - Lack of clue
> - Couldn't care less
> - No revenue
>
> Take your pick - or add your own reason. PCCW is not alone. They just
> happen to be the latest in a long line of
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:43:10AM +0100,
Arnd Vehling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 12 lines which said:
> Every ISP requesting an ASN from one of the LIR's should be required
> to make a test covering the neccessary skillsets.
Giving the rapid turnover of people in this industry, I
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
