perfectly legal… the octal records confuse me more than the hex.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 14April2015Tuesday, at 5:36, Colin Johnston wrote:
> never saw hex in host dns records before.
> host-242.strgz.87.118.199.240.0xfff0.macomnet.net
>
> range is bl
it is true that the risk profile has changed in the last 30 years.
his core belief in interconnecting things in an open way, enabling _anyone_ to
create,build, and deploy
is the core of ISOCs “permission less innovation” thrust.
crypto/security folks are green with envy … it is somewhat “sour gr
Frank was the most vocal…
the biggest cidr deployment issue was hardware vendors with “baked-in”
assumptions about addressing. IPv6 is doing the same thing with its /64
nonsense.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 1March2015Sunday, at 13:37, David Conrad wrote:
>> O
and then there are the loons who will locally push /64 or longer, some of which
may leak.
even if things were sane & nothing longer than a /32 were to be in the table,
are we not looking at the functional
equivalent of v4 host routes?
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
O
On 9November2014Sunday, at 11:40, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/8/14 6:33 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>> this is incorrect and harmful, and should be removed:
>>
>> iii.Consider dropping any DNS reply packets which are larger
>> than 512 Bytes – these are commonly found in DNS DoS Amplifica
The IRTF is looking for data…
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> Subject: Survey on Smart Data Pricing for Affordable Internet access
> Date: November 3, 2014 at 1:56:30 PST
> To: irtf-disc...@irtf.org
> Cc: i...@ietf
FNC “reserved” .gov and .mil for the US.
And Postel was right… there was/is near zero reason to technically
extend/expand the number of TLDs.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, a
yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing all
that dark space, esp. when
virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 8October2014Wednesday, at 18:31, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Give them a /48. T
Perhaps a dose of factual information may temper this thread.
If we are talking about ISO-3166-2 - the basis for the CCTLD delegations, then:
1_ Scotland has no say in the country code selected.
2_ ICANN has no say in the country code selected.
3_ The choice is up to an ISO committee.
See:
so Internet in the US is safe…
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 31August2014Sunday, at 22:35, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Cause it's a long weekend, and why shouldn't it be whackier than normal.
>
> - Forwarded Message -
>> From: "PRIVACY Forum mailing list"
>> To: privacy-l..
Sprint used to proxy aggregate… I remember 128.0.0.0/3
the real question, imho, is if folks are going to look into their crystal balls
and roadmap where the default offered is a /32 (either v4 or v6)
and plan accordingly, or just slap another bandaid on the oozing wound...
/bill
PO Box 1231
whats not to love… its DKIM’d & everything
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 16July2014Wednesday, at 1:12, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I love the From: field :-)
>
On 14July2014Monday, at 9:52, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> On July 14, 2014 at 08:17 d...@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote:
>> On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>>> On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be nove
On 23June2014Monday, at 22:55, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> The question at hand is.. Do countries/businesses have to affiliate or
>> utilize any of those services provided by ICANN other than the assignment
>> of an IP address?
>
> No.
except for RFC 1918 and ULA space, which require no
announce them so folks can use the space as darknets…
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 17June2014Tuesday, at 15:39, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
>> +1+1+1 re living room
>
> My cable company assigns my home network a /50. I can figure out what
er… this is no longer news… back in -MAY-… it was:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 6June2014Friday, at 14:31, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> In one of the worst written stories
well then. you could just use that date then and it should be alright…
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 4June2014Wednesday, at 12:24, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014, manning bill wrote:
> did you ask Jared?
>
>
> Yup.
>
> An
did you ask Jared?
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 4June2014Wednesday, at 12:15, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Yup, I did think it was worth asking the entire list.
>
> W
Thanks All for taking the time to prod 2001:500:84::b
Looks like it is reachable from many places… enough that we will proceed to
augment the “B” root server with perhaps the last in a long line of IPv6
addresses that it has had over the last 15 years.
Splay will increase over time.
/bill
/b
If you wouldn’t mind a quick tracerooute - Can you confirm reachability to the
following:
2001:500:84::b
Thanks in advance.
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
alas, our service predates Joe’s marvelous text.
“B” provides its services locally to its upstream ISPs.
We don’t play routing tricks, impose routing policy, or attempt to
influence prefix announcement.
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 17March2014Monday, at 7:17, Joe Abley wrote:
21 matches
Mail list logo
