My two cents is that something like this won't pass until at least
2016 if not 2020.
Jeff
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Ken Chase wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said:
> >Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the
> >progressive's futi
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:00:43AM -0500, Jeffrey Lyon said:
>Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the
>progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is
>once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep the internet
>safe
When I ran a bun
Anyone else seeing problems reaching AT&T/XO possibly others from
AS6453 in Europe?
From mclink.it (195.110.152.67), I see the following:
[12-97-129-192:~] owen% traceroute 140.239.191.10
traceroute to 140.239.191.10 (140.239.191.10), 64 hops max, 52 byte packets
1 192.168.15.254 (192.168.15.254
Indeed, offshore resolvers, offshore DNS infrastructure and the
progressive's futile attempts at interference with free markets is
once again thwarted. We all know that U.S. law helps keep the internet
safe
Jeff
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
>
>
> On 22/11/2010, at 3
On 22/11/2010, at 3:37 PM, ML wrote:
> On 11/19/2010 3:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>> It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
>> passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee
>> with a unanimous (!) vote :
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2
On 11/19/2010 3:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA)
passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee
with a unanimous (!) vote :
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/pirate-slaying-censorship-bill-gets-unanimous-sup
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> Imea nrea lly, what ifwe wrot eEng lish thew aywe writ eIPv 6add ress
>>> es? Looks pretty stupid without a floating separator, doesn't it?
>>>
>> If this were prose, sure. It isn't. It's an addressing scheme. I mean,
>> really, we don'
This isnt new - there have been proposals elsewhere for a resolver
based blacklist of child porn sites.
There are also of course the various great firewalls of various
countries. In case you'd prefer that to having to blacklist them at
your end ..
Doing this for trademark infringement is going
On 11/21/10 2:50 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> There is a lot of assumption on the part of ipv6 that the use of ipv6
>> literals in uri's would be a rather infrequent occurrence, given how
>> infrequent it is in ipv4 it would seem to be a reas
On 21/11/2010 22:50, William Herrin wrote:
Just for my own edification, who else besides Cisco do you know who
uses that notation for MAC addresses? I want some convincing before
I'll accept the claim that it's widespread.
Brocade, or at least the Foundry part of Brocade.
Nick
>
> An option w/ movable separators:
>
> 260:abc:1234:9876:fe::1
>
> Actual IPv6 standard (and also allowed w/ movable separators):
>
> 260a:bc12:3498:76fe::1
>
The problem with movable separators is in handling zeros. If the
separators are a known distance apart, zeros can be deduced. The
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> Well,
>>
>> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2a00:1288:f006:1fe::1000
>> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f00b:1fe::1000
>> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f011:1fe::1000
>>
>> In my bgp I see
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> There is a lot of assumption on the part of ipv6 that the use of ipv6
> literals in uri's would be a rather infrequent occurrence, given how
> infrequent it is in ipv4 it would seem to be a reasonable assumption.
Joel,
Looks like an ass-u-m
On Nov 21, 2010, at 2:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> Well,
>>
>> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2a00:1288:f006:1fe::1000
>> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f00b:1fe::1000
>> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f011:1fe::1000
>>
>> In my bgp I see
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
>>
>> Well,
>>
>> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2a00:1288:f006:1fe::1000
>> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f00b:1fe::1000
>> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f011:1fe::1000
>>
>> In my bgp I see
On Nov 21, 2010, at 7:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
fd00:68::1 and fd:0068::1 mean different things now. The former means
fd00:0068::1 while the latter means 00fd:0068::1. I would instead have
them mean the same thing: fd00:6800
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Grzegorz Janoszka wrote:
> On 21-11-10 22:31, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>>
>> Yahoo just dropped in on the IPv6 content party
>> http://ipv6.weather.yahoo.com/
>> I just bookmarked it. Well done Yahoos.
>
> Well,
>
> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2a00:1288:f
>
> Well,
>
> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2a00:1288:f006:1fe::1000
> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f00b:1fe::1000
> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f011:1fe::1000
>
> In my bgp I see only the first address, I don't see any path to two
> others
> > Yahoo just dropped in on the IPv6 content party
> > http://ipv6.weather.yahoo.com/
> > I just bookmarked it. Well done Yahoos.
>
> Well,
>
> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2a00:1288:f006:1fe::1000
> ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f00b:1fe::1000
> ipv6.ycpi.ops.y
On 21-11-10 22:31, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Yahoo just dropped in on the IPv6 content party
http://ipv6.weather.yahoo.com/
I just bookmarked it. Well done Yahoos.
Well,
ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2a00:1288:f006:1fe::1000
ipv6.ycpi.ops.yahoo.net has IPv6 address 2001:4998:f00b:1fe::1
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>> On 11/18/2010 5:14 PM, Lee Riemer wrote:
>>> Try tracerouting to 2001:500:4:13::81 (www.arin.net) or
>>> 2001:470:0:76::2 (www.he.net) via Cogent.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting. I noticed a simi
On 11/19/2010 03:45 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> It seems that the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act
> (COICA) passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee with a
> unanimous (!) vote :
>
> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/pirate-slaying-censorship-bill-gets-unani
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:12:09 EST, William Herrin said:
> 260:abcde:123456:98::1
>
> 260 - IANA to ARIN, a /12
> abcde - ARIN to ISP, a /32
> 123456 - ISP to customer, a /56
> 98 - customer subnet
> ::1 - LAN address
What do you do when ARIN gives Tier1 a /24, and Tier1 gives Billy Bob's
Bait, Ta
On 11/21/10 7:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> We've gone too far down the wrong path to change it now; colons are
> going to separate every second byte in the v6 address. But from a
> human factors perspective, floating colons would have been better.
>>From a computer parser perspective, a character
On 11/21/10 2:58 AM, Franck Martin wrote:
> My understanding was that there was a partial power outage that lasted only a
> few minutes for some systems (not the entire facility). Generators kicked in
> but a few UPS did not do their job correctly.
>
There's been some weather activity on this s
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> fd00:68::1 and fd:0068::1 mean different things now. The former means
>>> fd00:0068::1 while the latter means 00fd:0068::1. I would instead have
>>> them mean the same thing: fd00:6800::1. The single-colon separator
>>> gets syntax but no sem
My understanding was that there was a partial power outage that lasted only a
few minutes for some systems (not the entire facility). Generators kicked in
but a few UPS did not do their job correctly.
- Original Message -
From: "Ravi Pina"
To: "Ulf Zimmermann"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent:
And mine just came back up within in the last 5 minutes.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 02:01:36AM -0800, Ulf Zimmermann wrote:
> Yes, it was a power issue, friend is now back up afik, although he
> still tries to figure out why one machine came up, while another and
> the remote console didn't.
>
Yes, it was a power issue, friend is now back up afik, although he
still tries to figure out why one machine came up, while another and
the remote console didn't.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 04:51:08AM -0500, Ravi Pina wrote:
> Linode went down and lost equipment[1]. Of course my node was
> one of th
Linode went down and lost equipment[1]. Of course my node was
one of them.
LinkedIn and Minecraft (among others) were also cold offline.
-r
[1] http://status.linode.com/2010/11/possible-power-outage-in-fremont.html
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:15:30PM -0800, Ulf Zimmermann wrote:
> Friend lost m
30 matches
Mail list logo
