Re: Amazon diagnosis

Unlike the US of A, here in Australia the industry has gone *very* heavily down the path of requiring/expecting certification. They have bought into the faith that unless your resume includes CC?? you're worthless. There are "colleges" (er, I mean training businesses) who will *guarantee* you will

Looking for contact from either ATT.net (@txt.att.net) or T-Mobile (@tmomail.net)

Hi Folks, I'm seeing TXT messages leaving our network to @txt.att.net and @tmomail.netusers. The messages look very spammy. I'm wondering if there have been any complaints of TXT spam from the IP address 66.36.240.39 (messages are From: davidba...@tmsg4.com). I have examples if you are interest

Re: trouble with .gov dns?

At 18:53 +0200 5/3/11, Florian Weimer wrote: * David Conrad: On May 2, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: I would go even further---the DO bit is not about DNSSEC at all. Err, yes it is. I know you think it is, but you're wrong if you look at the overall protocol. This is becomi

Re: trouble with .gov dns?

* David Conrad: > On May 2, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I would go even further---the DO bit is not about DNSSEC at all. > > Err, yes it is. I know you think it is, but you're wrong if you look at the overall protocol. >> If DO were about DNSSEC, a new flag would have been >> int

RE: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone?

> > Multicast is an elegant solution to a dwindling problem set. And that is fundamentally where we disagree. I see this as not "elegant" at all. It is a fundamental part of the protocol suite. It is no more "elegant" than unicast. I also believe that it will be the wireless operators that

Re: trouble with .gov dns?

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:23 AM, David Conrad wrote: > This probably isn't the right venue for this discussion. Hi David, I'm going to go with Mark's answer: "nameservers that don't set TC [truncated bit] when they can't fit glue are broken RFC 1034." When that happens to be both TLD servers for

Re: Amazon diagnosis

On 5/2/2011 4:11 PM, George Herbert wrote: On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Mon, 02 May 2011 12:27:34 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said: It surprised me because I, perhaps naively, assumed IT workers in general have a rather broad knowledge So

Re: trouble with .gov dns?

On May 2, 2011, at 10:19 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > I would go even further---the DO bit is not about DNSSEC at all. Err, yes it is. > The > resolver just promises to ignore any ancillary record sets it does not > understand. How people implement RFC 3225 does differ from the intent of the auth

Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes

On 5/3/2011 6:17 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On May 2, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Joe Abley wrote: It's perhaps worth noting that there is work in the IETF to recommend that every prefix originated as part of an anycast cloud uses a unique origin AS (see

Re: Suspecious anycast prefixes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On May 2, 2011, at 12:35 PM, Joe Abley wrote: > It's perhaps worth noting that there is work in the IETF to recommend that > every prefix originated as part of an anycast cloud uses a unique origin AS > (see

Re: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 03/05/2011, at 1:33 PM, George Bonser wrote: > f there are 10,000 Comcast subscribers watching exactly the same live > event on the net, sending 10,000 streams of exactly the same data is > dumb and it doesn't have to be that way. IMHO, It's