Re: 2600:: No longer pings

2409:: is replying the ICMPv6 request, in case anyone interested > On 6 Apr 2024, at 15:31, nanog@nanog.org wrote: > > It appears that 2600:: no longer responds to ICMP. > > $ mtr -rwc 1 2600:: > Start: 2024-04-06T10:53:41+0100 > HOST: metropolis Loss% > 1.|-

Re: ru tld down?

> On 09-Feb-2024, at 02:03, ma...@isc.org wrote: > >  > >> On 9 Feb 2024, at 03:10, darkde...@darkdevil.dk wrote: >> >>> Den 31-01-2024 kl. 20:47 skrev Bjørn Mork: >>> Why do they put their DNS servers in an unsigned zone? >> >> To try to make a more in-depth example: >> >> At the moment, .

Re: 202401100645.AYC Re: IPv4 address block

+1 to the Christopher comment > On 11-Jan-2024, at 16:24, ch...@thesysadmin.au wrote: > > There really is no reason for 240/4 to remain "reserved". I share Dave's > views, I would like to see 240/4 reclassified as unicast space and 2 x /8s > delegated to each RIR with the /8s for AFRINIC to be

Re: Out of ideas - Comcast issue BGP peering with Tata

Hi friend, Any idea how many segments are in routing table which are still not part of RIR holder ship ? Regards, Gaurav Kansal > On 22-Nov-2023, at 07:40, nanog@nanog.org wrote: > >> >>> Special note, deprecation of non-authoritative registries >>> >>&g

Re: ipv6 address management - documentation

I will second this. Netbox is very rich and we can do and manage multiple other things also in netbox. Like I am managing my complete server infra details and my service connectivity details in netbox. Kudos to the developer and the netbox community. Regards, Gaurav Kansal > On 16-Nov-2

Re: Acceptance of RPKI unknown in ROV

> On 20-Oct-2023, at 00:35, nanog@nanog.org wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:56, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 at 11:46, Owen DeLong via NANOG >> > wrote: A question for network operators out there that implement ROV…

Re: Historical info on how 'x.com' came to be registered

> On 29-Jul-2023, at 01:04, jo...@iecc.com wrote: > > It appears that Drew Weaver said: >> -=-=-=-=-=- >> >> Does anyone have any historical information on how 'x.com' came to be >> registered even though single letters were reserved? >> >> Is there a story or is it as simple as it was regi

Re: Google.com SSL cert issues

I am able to access google.com without any issues. > On 21-Sep-2022, at 20:57, mana...@monmouth.com wrote: > > Is anyone else getting the following error when trying to access any of > google's services? > SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG > This started about an hour ago and is not dependent on bro

Re: (Free)RADIUS Front-End

suggestions in FR, then feel free to connect. Thanks, Gaurav Kansal > On 12-Feb-2022, at 20:45, mark@tinka.africa wrote: > > For posterity, finally went with Splynx. > > Really awesome product, covering not only RADIUS but also CRM, billing, > invoicing, remote integration, e

Re: Redeploying most of 127/8, 0/8, 240/4 and *.0 as unicast

> On 20-Nov-2021, at 02:21, g...@toad.com wrote: > > David Conrad wrote: >> Doesn't this presume the redeployed addresses would be allocated >> via a market rather than via the RIRs? >> >> If so, who would receive the money? > > You ask great questions. > > The community can and should do t

Re: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public

> On 18-Nov-2021, at 09:10, Jerry Cloe wrote: > > > > Subject: Redploying most of 127/8 as unicast public > To: nanog mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>; > This seems like a really bad idea to me; am I really the only one who noticed? > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-schoen-intarea-unicast-127-00.