On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jul 10, 2011, at 12:23 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> Consider, for example, RFC 3484. That's the one that determines how an
>> IPv6 capable host selects which of a group of candidate IPv4 and IPv6
>> addresses for a particular host name gets
On Fri, 8 Jul 2011, Seth Mattinen wrote:
- At this stage, mail.amsl.com will be the only MX for NANOG list
services.
No more IPv6? I don't see an record for it...
There seems to be one now:
mail.amsl.com. 1800IN 2001:1890:1112:1::14
--
Mikael Abraham
On 07/10/2011 10:03 PM, Steve Feldman wrote:
> Another test, sorry for the noise.
> Steve
Well, at least the fears that nanog would be IPv4 only are unfounded..
Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [IPv6:2001:1890:1112:1::14])...
--
Joe Sniderman
Another test, sorry for the noise.
Steve
CNN patched the redirect vulnerability which was making it easier to
social engineer Nancy Grace tards who followed the case
Hello:
We have moved the NANOG list back to its original location for the time being.
We have a few issues to address before we can cut the system over permanently.
I will let everyone know again when we are ready to proceed.
Thanks,
Mike
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Techni
No.
On Jul 10, 2011 7:06 PM, "Michael K. Smith - Adhost"
wrote:
> Please ignore
>
> --
> Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
> Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com
> w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050
> PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A9
Please ignore
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksm...@adhost.com
w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050
PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)
Hello All:
We are going to cut the mailing list over to the new location at 4:00 PM PDT
(GMT -7). We will be testing the cutover on this list to make sure everything
goes smoothly. Please filter on the subject "NANOG TEST".
Regards,
Mike
--
Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP
Chief Technic
> The IETF is run by volunteers. They volunteer because they find
> designing protocols to be fun. For the most part, operators are not
> entertained by designing network protocols. So, for the most part they
> don't partiticpate.
Randy Bush, "Editorial zone: Into the Future with the Internet Vend
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Number two: While anyone can participate, approaching IETF as an
> operator requires a rather thick skin, or, at least it did the last couple
> of times I attempted to participate. I've watched a few times where
I am subscribed to the IDR (BGP
On Jul 10, 2011, at 12:23 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> On 7/10/2011 12:16 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>> You are on NANOG out of your own free will, the same applies to the
>>> IETF. If you don't participate here your voice is not heard either
On 07/10/2011 12:45 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
While this is true, there are a couple of factors that make it more difficult
than it would appear on the surface.
Number one: Participating effectively in IETF is a rather time-consuming
process. While a lot of engineers and developers may have IETF e
On Jul 10, 2011, at 9:16 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2011-07-10 17:56 , David Miller wrote:
> [..]
>> +1
>>
>> The lack of will on the part of the IETF to attract input from and involve
>> operators in their processes (which I would posit is a critical element in
>> the process).
>
> Eh A
so... how much of the heavy lifting are you personally willing to do and how
much are you
depending/expecting others to do on your behalf?
public whining that the v6 network does not mirror the v4 network is not
productive and
is not news.
of course ymmv.
/bill
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:41 PM, David Miller wrote:
> On 7/10/2011 12:16 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>> You are on NANOG out of your own free will, the same applies to the
>> IETF. If you don't participate here your voice is not heard either, just
>> like at the IETF.
>
> True, anyone can participat
On 7/10/2011 12:16 PM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-07-10 17:56 , David Miller wrote:
[..]
+1
The lack of will on the part of the IETF to attract input from and involve
operators in their processes (which I would posit is a critical element in
the process).
Eh ANYBODY, including you, can s
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:21:13PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Jared Mauch:
>>
>> > 2) is a mapped-v4 address a valid *source* address on the wire
>> > even if it's not a valid dest?
>>
>> By the way, has the analogous issue involving v4 addresses from
>> RFC 1918 space ever been settled?
Yet another Casey Anthony scam floating around but via a vulnerability
in CNN's advertising system so Facebook lusers think it's authentic
and from CNN. GoDaddy domain and Softlayer hosting the site.. called
Softlayer NOC - "1 person is in the abuse department on Sunday"
--
--C
"The dumber peopl
On 2011-07-10 17:56 , David Miller wrote:
[..]
> +1
>
> The lack of will on the part of the IETF to attract input from and involve
> operators in their processes (which I would posit is a critical element in
> the process).
Eh ANYBODY, including you, can sign up to the IETF mailing lists and
On 7/10/2011 10:14 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Bob Network wrote:
Why is IPv6 broken?
You should have titled your thread, "my own personal rant about
Hurricane Electric's IPv6 strategy." You may also have left out the
dodgy explanation of peering policies and techn
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Bob Network wrote:
> Why is IPv6 broken?
You should have titled your thread, "my own personal rant about
Hurricane Electric's IPv6 strategy." You may also have left out the
dodgy explanation of peering policies and technicalities, since these
issues have been rema
22 matches
Mail list logo
