Happily Microsoft have fixed their smtps stupidity, so you only need
to support it on the server if you need to support users running old
versions of Outlook etc. There was never anything particularly wrong
with smtps, apart from a dogma in the IETF that it is architecturally
wrong. The con
Bloom filters work that way.
Tony (on his iPod).
--
f.anthony.n.finchhttp://dotat.at/
On 28 Apr 2010, at 02:19, Larry Sheldon wrote:
(A human brain can respond "I don't know that" without an inventory of
everything it does know.)
(That may be to only truly unique thing about humans. An
> -Original Message-
> From: David Conrad [mailto:d...@virtualized.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 3:01 AM
> To: Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: [Nanog] Re: IPv6 rDNS - how will it be done?
>
> On Apr 27, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Jason 'XenoPhage' Frisvold
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 02:13 -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> > I would see UPNP as being a security risk and prone to denial of
> > service attacks when you have torrent clients attempting to grab
> every
+1
apologies if I've said this here before - UPNP = unstoppable Peek and
Poke
Gord
On 28.04.2010, at 09:31, Mark Scholten wrote:
Hmm. A macro expansion for a /48 would mean
1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 leaves. An interesting stress test
for name servers... :-).
With LUA scripting and PowerDNS you could create a reverse DNS/
forward DNS
based on the input and match it
Hi!
In some internal DNS applications, I've missed the so useful pipe feature of
the sendmail alias (user: | /script), I mean, being able to forward a DNS
request to a script that returns the resolution response. Maybe
something similar would be useful in this IPv6 rDNS scenario too. Does
anyone o
On 28.04.2010, at 11:02, David Pérez wrote:
Hi!
Ahoi,
In some internal DNS applications, I've missed the so useful pipe
feature of
the sendmail alias (user: | /script), I mean, being able to forward
a DNS
request to a script that returns the resolution response. Maybe
something similar
We want to go with incognito ipam solution.
http://www.incognito.com/products/address-commander/
2010/4/26 Phil Regnauld
> Michael Hertrick (mike.hertrick) writes:
> >
> > I found netdot recently. It's a work in progress, but is coming along.
> > IPAM (with v6 support) is just one component; i
Had forgotten to answer the list...
On 28/04/2010, at 07.07, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> What I ask of the members of the community, is if you can make a
> recommendation on a piece of software that can bridge the gap so
> that my
> colleagues can use the pointy-clicky method of making simple change
Webmin?
- Original Message -
From: "Phil Regnauld"
To: "NANOG list"
Sent: Wednesday, 28 April, 2010 9:34:55 PM
Subject: Re: [dns-operations] Desire to migrate back to BIND
Had forgotten to answer the list...
On 28/04/2010, at 07.07, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> What I ask of the members o
On Wednesday 28 April 2010 03:13:24 John R. Levine wrote:
> > Of course what they offer over those "long long rural runs" and what they
can
> > actually provide are two different things. DSL performance decreases with
> > distance rather dramatically..
>
> That's what I thought, but my friend
You might read it that way, I read it as looking for a sales droid
recommendation. I'm sure Comcast has more then one.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> --- car...@race.com wrote:
>
> Looking for a sales contact for Comcast enterprise/carrier services for
>
>
> --Origin
On 2010.04.28 05:34, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Had forgotten to answer the list...
>
> On 28/04/2010, at 07.07, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>
>> What I ask of the members of the community, is if you can make a
>> recommendation on a piece of software that can bridge the gap so
>> that my
>> colleagues ca
On 2010.04.28 05:54, Franck Martin wrote:
> Webmin?
Webmin has already been recommended, and I appreciate the thought.
However...there's just no way that I'm going there...
Steve
Steve Bertrand (steve) writes:
>
> Thanks for the recommendations...
>
> What I'm most confused about, is how this ended up on this list ;)
Duh. I did a reply from my iPhone, and then reread the mail that
came in, saw your "what I ask from the community" and realized I'
David Conrad wrote:
While better than 1 septillion zone entries, you still have the problem of how
to let the clients add the records. DDNS is one approach. Manual intervention
(e.g., as part of a customer provisioning system) is another as long as you
don't use privacy extensions.
Realtim
Colleagues,
ICANN plans to begin a test deployment of DNSSEC in various zones starting on
2010-04-29:
IN-ADDR-SERVERS.ARPA
IP6.ARPA
IP6-SERVERS.ARPA
IRIS.ARPA
URI.ARPA
URN.ARPA
These zones will be signed using RSASHA256 and NSEC with 2048-bit KSKs and
1024-bit ZSKs.
Given DNSSEC d
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:29:50 -0400
Dave Israel wrote:
> On 4/27/2010 1:36 PM, Andy Davidson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:29:59AM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
> >
> >>> Did you use Yahoo IM, AIM, or Skype?
> >>>
> >> Yes, yes, and yes. Works fine.
> >>
> > What about every
In June of last year, when Comcast did firmware updates on the business
gateways in the MSP area, we lost all (3) of our sites with Netgear gateways,
but not the sites SMC gateways (the management interface is almost identical,
but the brand is marked on the modem). Business support was apparen
IMHO the cable provider and enterprise provider subsets have no intersection.
I've never had a good experience with a cable provider trying to pretend to be
an enterprise provider.
Thanks,
Matt
Matt Adcock, Manager
334-481-6629 (w) / 334-312-5393 (m) / madc...@hisna.com
700 Hyundai Blvd.
On 4/28/2010 02:29, Tony Finch wrote:
> Bloom filters work that way.
I charge the time to order, index, hash the key space so that can work.
I don't know what a fair distribution of that cost would be.
> Tony (on his iPod).
Larry on his.oh, who cares?
--
Somebody should have said:
A demo
All:
I did some searching and have not found any concrete replies on the
list, but what carriers can offer L3 DDoS mitigation? Specifically, I
noticed an old UUnet offering, but it seems like I must be speaking
the wrong language to my sales drones. Specifically, we're dealing
with AT&T, Qwest and
Might also try Prolexic. Or level3, which resells Prolexic.
And then there's other forms of redundancy - ultradns or similar for
your nameservers, for example.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:39 PM, William McCall
wrote:
> All:
>
> I did some searching and have not found any concrete replies on the
>
> -Original Message-
> From: William McCall [mailto:william.mcc...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:09 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: DDoS mitigation services from SPs
>
> All:
>
> I did some searching and have not found any concrete replies on the
> list, but what car
On 2010-04-26, at 11:07, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
>> Don't forget the hotspot vendor that returns an address of 0.0.0.1 for
>> every A query if you have previously done an query for the same
>> name (and timed out). That's a fun
Mark Smith wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:29:50 -0400
Dave Israel wrote:
On 4/27/2010 1:36 PM, Andy Davidson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:29:59AM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
Did you use Yahoo IM, AIM, or Skype?
Yes, yes, and yes. Works fine.
Does any one have a contact at Prolexic? I've been attempting to get in touch
with their sales force for 2-3 weeks with no success.
Thanks,
Jesse Proudman
Blue Box Group, LLC
p. 800-613-4305 x 801
www.blueboxgrp.com
On Apr 28, 2010, at 7:25 AM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
> Verizon Business and AT&T
IPPlan currently does have IPv6 functionality, but we're still on BETA
phase. The BETA is pretty stable and feature rich, but we're have some
work to do before we officially release it.
BETA version can be found on:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/iptrack/files/
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:10 AM, l
I'm not sure they have a sales force anymore, one of the VP's is
handling sales inquiries now so it's not a surprise that responses are
latent or worse.
Jeff
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Jesse Proudman
wrote:
> Does any one have a contact at Prolexic? I've been attempting to get in
> touc
Michael Renshaw
Director of Global Partner Sales
O 954-620-6002 x1018
D 954-620-1318
mrens...@prolexic.com
Tom Sands
Chief Network Engineer
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:44:41 -0700
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Mark Smith wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:29:50 -0400
> > Dave Israel wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 4/27/2010 1:36 PM, Andy Davidson wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:29:59AM -0400, John R. Levine wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
I'm not normally one to respond to NANOG messages with opinions but...
Yeah, NAT broke the internet. Yes you can engineer around it. There is NO
reason to hold onto NAT as a standard. With v6 we have the opportunity to do it
right (or at least semi-right) from the beginning, lets not choos
On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should be a fundamental part of the
> v6 internet
Perhaps the ability to change service providers without having to renumber?
Regards,
-drc
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:54 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> > I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should be a fundamental part of
> the v6 internet
>
> Perhaps the ability to change service providers without having to renumber?
>
Couldn't we us
> IPv6's fundamental goal is to restore end-to-end.
For some. For many, IPv6's fundamental goal is to keep doing what we've been
doing without running out of addresses. The fact that the two camps have
orthogonal goals is probably part of the reason the rate of growth on IPv6
is so slow.
--
Dave
On Wed, 2010-04-28 at 14:54 -0700, David Conrad wrote:
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> > I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should be a fundamental part of
> > the v6 internet
>
> Perhaps the ability to change service providers without having to renumber?
DHCPv6 solv
In message <01f57362-8092-48cb-8336-15b9cc171...@virtualized.org>, David Conrad
writes:
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> > I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should be a fundamental part =
> of the v6 internet=20
>
> Perhaps the ability to change service providers with
--- On Wed, 4/28/10, Mark Smith
wrote:
>
> I'm not people are understanding or know the true reality.
> NAT broke the
> Internet's architecture, by turning IP from being a
> peer-to-peer
> protocol into a master/slave one (think mainframes and dumb
> terminals).
> Read RFC1958 if you don't under
Mark,
On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Perhaps the ability to change service providers without having to renumber?
>
> We have that ability already. Doesn't require NAT.
Cool! You've figured out, e.g., how to renumber authoritative name servers
that you don't have direct co
Thank you all for the information. This has helped us get a move in
the right direction with both our carriers and alternative services.
--WM
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:09 AM, William McCall
wrote:
> All:
>
> I did some searching and have not found any concrete replies on the
> list, but what car
In message , David Conrad
writes:
> Mark,
>
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:07 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >> Perhaps the ability to change service providers without having to =
> renumber?
> >=20
> > We have that ability already. Doesn't require NAT.
>
> Cool! You've figured out, e.g., how to renumber
--- Forwarded Message
Return-Path: MAILER-DAEMON
Delivery-Date: Thu Apr 29 10:51:31 2010
Return-Path: <>
Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3T0pUQJ060935
for ; Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:51:30 +1000 (EST)
X-Origi
What have been the routing implications in regards to internet traffic
with SMW4
cable beign down?
Regards,
Shake Righa
Hi,
In the past year I have been working in collaboration with psychologists
Robert Cialdini and Rosanna Guadagno on a paper analyzing some of what I
saw from the social perspective in Estonia, when I wrote the post-mortem
analysis for the 2007 attacks, but didn't understand at the time.
Asi
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 14:54:04 PDT, David Conrad said:
> On Apr 28, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Carl Rosevear wrote:
> > I don't understand why anyone thinks NAT should be a fundamental part
> > of the v6 internet
>
> Perhaps the ability to change service providers without having to renumber?
RFC4193 or PI a
45 matches
Mail list logo
