On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Slightly old news, but it looks like Cogent depeered ESnet last week:
>
>>
>> http://www.es.net/news-and-publications/esnet-news/2011/important-status-announcement-regarding-cogent-connectivity/
>
> Current traceroutes indicate that ESnet is
Slightly old news, but it looks like Cogent depeered ESnet last week:
http://www.es.net/news-and-publications/esnet-news/2011/important-status-announcement-regarding-cogent-connectivity/
Current traceroutes indicate that ESnet is reaching Cogent via 6939_1299.
In other news, automatically dro
run by agencies of the US government, who knows what will happen in
the future.
I'm not so sure volunteer root operators are in a position to editorialize
and for that to have a positive effect. ICANN could go down the
path of stating that this causes internet stability (due to operators
publi
On Jun 18, 2011, at 8:00 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Not really. A record adds 28 octets (a A record takes 16). Unless
>> you have a lot of name servers most referrals still fall within 512 octets
>> additionally most answers also still
>>
>
> Not really. A record adds 28 octets (a A record takes 16). Unless
> you have a lot of name servers most referrals still fall within 512 octets
> additionally most answers also still fall withing 512 octets.
>
1. Most != All even in IPv4 (ran into this in a few hotels with some
Try Maipu S3400 series, Chinese boxes and it is working really good
for us fr couple of years.
It would suits ur need n price range.
On Saturday, June 18, 2011, Adrian Minta wrote:
> On 06/17/11 21:55, Elliot Finley wrote:
>
> Anyone using a CPE that is reliable and costs<= $300 ?
>
> features n
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 9:55 AM, John Levine wrote:
> That has always been the case in the past. Given the level of public
> unhappiness that the US Dep't of Commerce has with ICANN's plan to add
> zillions of new TLDs, and noting that several of the root servers are
Speaking of some public unha
>I believe the root server operators have stated (the equivalent of)
>that it is not their job to make editorial decisions on what the root
>zone contains. They distribute what the ICANN/NTIA/Verisign gestalt
>publishes.
That has always been the case in the past. Given the level of public
unhapp
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Not really. A record adds 28 octets (a A record takes 16). Unless
> you have a lot of name servers most referrals still fall within 512 octets
> additionally most answers also still fall withing 512 octets.
I agree.. not that it should
i am not learning anything here. well, except maybe that someone who
normally has his head up his butt also had it in the sand.
what's new? how about the operational technical effects, like data from
modeling various resolvers' responses to a large root zone?
randy
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 22:48, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Eugeniu Patrascu said:
>> I need 100Mbs at home because I want to see a streamed movie NOW, not
>> in a month because someone considers broadband a luxury :)
>> Pretty simple usage scenario I might say.
>
> The top profile for
> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
> From: Owen DeLong
> Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 01:24:37 -0700
>
[[.. sneck ..]]
>
> While that is true, there are several McDonalds registered in various
> spaces that actually predate even the existance of Mr. Crok's famous
> burger joints.
Just
On 06/17/11 21:55, Elliot Finley wrote:
Anyone using a CPE that is reliable and costs<= $300 ?
features needed:
SFP for uplink, QnQ, basic layer 2 functionality.
If you're using something with the above parameters and you like it,
please share. :)
Thanks,
Elliot
Something like Zyxel MES-21
On Jun 18, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <201106180718.p5i7irbe020...@mail.r-bonomi.com>, Robert Bonomi
> write
> s:
>>
>>> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
>>> From: Owen DeLong
>>>
>>> MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
In message , Owen DeLong write
s:
>
> On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:11 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> >=20
> > In message , =
> Michael Dillon writes:
> >>> The last v6day was an isoc effort, there can be a separate nanog =
> effort or
> >>> your own.
> >>=20
> >> It does make a lot of sense for NANOG (per
In message <201106180718.p5i7irbe020...@mail.r-bonomi.com>, Robert Bonomi write
s:
>
> > Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
> > From: Owen DeLong
> >
> > MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
> > right?
> >
> > Well... Which MacDonald's?
> >
> > 1. Th
On Jun 17, 2011, at 10:05 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 12:04 AM, George B. wrote:
>> I think I will get .payme and make sure coke.payme, pepsi.payme,
>> comcast.payme, etc. all get registered at the low-low price of
>> $10/year. All I would need is 100,000 registrations to
On Jun 18, 2011, at 12:18 AM, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
>> From: Owen DeLong
>>
>> MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
>> right?
>>
>> Well... Which MacDonald's?
>>
>> 1. The fast food chain
>> 2. O.C. MacDo
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:47 PM, John Osmon wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:44:07AM -1000, Paul Graydon wrote:
>> [...] I don't mind new TLDs, but company ones are crazy
>> and going to lead to a confusing and messy internet.
>
> Maybe we could demote the commercial ones to live under a singl
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:36 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> apple.com is a delegation from .com just as apple is a delegation from
>> .
>>
>>> apple. and www.apple. are *not* -- and the root operators may throw
>>> their hands up in the air if an
On Jun 17, 2011, at 8:39 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Owen DeLong"
>
>> MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
>> right?
>>
>> Well... Which MacDonald's?
>>
>> 1. The fast food chain
>> 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply
>>
> Subject: Re: ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
> From: Owen DeLong
>
> MacDonald's would likely get title to .macdonalds under the new rules,
> right?
>
> Well... Which MacDonald's?
>
> 1. The fast food chain
> 2. O.C. MacDonald's Plumbing Supply
> 3. MacDonald and Sons Paving Systems
>
22 matches
Mail list logo
