On 24 Nov 2008, at 15:55, Jeremy Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-24 at 15:20 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the right mailing list for this question:
how widely is TRIP (Telephone Routing over IP [RFC3219]) deployed /
used in current networks?
http://xconnect.net/ is
INVITATION
Please consider to contribute to and/or forward to the appropriate groups the
following opportunity to submit and publish original scientific or educational
results.
== LMPCNAP 2009 | Call for Papers ===
CALL FOR PAPERS, TUTORIALS, PANELS
The first Inter
INVITATION
Please consider to contribute to and/or forward to the appropriate groups the
following opportunity to submit and publish original scientific or educational
results.
== LMPCNAP 2009 | Call for Papers ===
CALL FOR PAPERS, TUTORIALS, PANELS
The first Inter
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:31:21PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
> (Manning and Woodcock have so far refused to
> accept the certified letters)
and then sometime in the past 5 days, you posted a comment to DoC
here; http://www.ntia.doc.gov/dns/dnssec.html
that states: " Bill Manning refused to a
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If I may... I am in possesion of your certified letter
> -AND- the signed acknowledgement that you received notice
> that I have taken posession of said certified mail.
>
> please get your facts straight, esp. when
Someone is basicly "twicking the mail headers" by sending messages like "[EMAIL
PROTECTED]"-who is?
OUI...yes, great topic! Now mind me asking but why would you need a "private"
OUI if the well-known (registed) list is quite public and everyone has a
reserved allocation? (vendors have)
and yes
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:56:43AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If I may... I am in possesion of your certified letter
> > -AND- the signed acknowledgement that you received notice
> > that I have taken po
Can anyone explain why we are being exposed to this? From either side?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:56:43AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If I may... I am in possesion of your certified letter
> -AND- the sign
I'm looking for a contact within AS34012 (Parc Productions Webdesign) in
regards to reachability issues from AS11170. The problem feels like
34012 is not seeing a route back to me. I can see 217.195.112.0/20, but
as soon as any of my traffic hits 34012, it goes into a black hole.
~Seth
the bills having a war with dean. how droll. can you maybe take it
elsewhere?
randy
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Dean Anderson wrote:
> A photo of Bill Woodcock's refused letter is at
> http://www.av8.net/BillWoodcock.jpg
Oh my god... What _is_ that sitting on? Is your desk upholstered with
the hides of your victims?
Also, I suggest you consult a dictionary. The word "
Jack Bates wrote:
> .
> Yes and no. The test that was being run used 6to4 addresses, so every
> 6to4 capable device did try to reach it via 6to4, since that is
> preferred over IPv4. If it had used non-6to4 addressing, then IPv4
> would
> had been preferred on those hosts that didn't have non-
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if they simply put up
a local 6to4 router alongside their 2001:: prefix, and populate DNS with
both. Longest match will cause 2001:: connected systems to chose that dst,
while 6to4
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Niels Bakker writes:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
> > In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if they simply put u
> p
> > a local 6to4 router alongside their 2001:: prefix, and populate DNS with
> > both. Longest ma
Mark Andrews writes:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Niels Bakker writes:
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
> > > In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if they simply put
> u
> > p
> > > a local 6to4 router alongside their 2001:: prefix, and p
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 18:52, Bill Woodcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Dean Anderson wrote:
>> A photo of Bill Woodcock's refused letter is at
>> http://www.av8.net/BillWoodcock.jpg
That's not a refused letter, that's a certified letter that hasn't yet
been mai
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Andrews) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:55 CET]:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Niels Bakker writes:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
In any case, content providers can avoid the confusion if they simply put up
a local 6to4 router alongside their 20
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Niels Bakker writes:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Andrews) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:55 CET]:
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Niels Bakker writes:
> >> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Hain) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 01:03 CET]:
> >>> In any case, content providers can avoid the con
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Andrews) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 02:57 CET]:
2002::/16 vs non 2002::/16 should be in the policy table. This is the
default prefer ipv6 policy table for FreeBSD 6.4-PRERELEASE. There is
also a alternate prefer ipv4 policy table that will be set if IPv6 is
disabled.
Prefix
Wie? Ik, zei de gek schreef:
I believe that is used for local address selection, not for sorting DNS
replies.
I was too quick - getaddrinfo() indeed uses that policy list to reorder
addresses.
-- Niels.
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Niels Bakker writes:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Andrews) [Wed 26 Nov 2008, 02:57 CET]:
> > 2002::/16 vs non 2002::/16 should be in the policy table. This is the
> > default prefer ipv6 policy table for FreeBSD 6.4-PRERELEASE. There is
> > also a alternate prefer
These guys need to get a room already.
It's clear that the two bills have forgotten that "No U r !!!1" arguments
happen on efnet; nanog@ is reserved strictly for "Are any engineers from
[insert_company_who_blacklisted_my_company_here] around?" pages.
All three of these boys are acting like drama
22 matches
Mail list logo
