Would you mind contacting me off-list, please? I would like to ask a couple
questions on the behaviors of the DNS resolvers present in DigWebInterface:
195.129.12.122 (UUNET (CH)):
192.76.144.66 (UUNET (DE)):
158.43.240.3 (UUNET (UK)):
198.6.100.25 (UUNET (US)):
They're lit in the bulding and have a much faster installation interval. How
reliable are they?
Tri Tran
We've had them direct for transit in LA for about a year. And a year before
that in Denver.
Never had any issues aside from some missing BGP when New York was under
water. Great for US domestic traffic. Not very good for international
traffic.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Tri Tran wrote:
>
Let me correct that.
Not very good for pacific international traffic. Atlantic bound is fine.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
> We've had them direct for transit in LA for about a year. And a year
> before that in Denver.
>
> Never had any issues aside from some missing BGP
We have several 100Mb Cogent DIA lines in various places, NYC, Boston,
Portland OR, and it works fine.
It isn't the highest quality, but it works well enough for any office/small
hosting needs.
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Tri Tran wrote:
> They're lit in the bulding and have a much faster
We've had them since May 2008. Recently upgraded from 100Mb to 250Mb.
Had minor issues here and there (no outages to speak of).
I've had some IPv6 issues since moving the link to dual-stack a few
months back, but we are not deploying IPv6 to end-users yet, so I'll let
them slide on that.
On 10/
On 14 October 2013 12:57, Tri Tran wrote:
> They're lit in the bulding and have a much faster installation interval. How
> reliable are they?
> Tri Tran
It's worth pointing out that many IPv6 networks are unavailable from
Cogent; so, effectively, in 2013, you still can't get IPv6
connectivity fr
It's worth pointing out that many IPv6 networks are unavailable from
.
Hardly something to hold against them until the rest of us can all get
our own houses in order...
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 01:41:48PM -0700, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> On 14 October 2013 12:57, Tri Tran wrote:
> > They're
Cogent is great if you treat them as a path. I wouldn't use Cogent in place
of single homing a service provider though due to how they run their
network and the subsequent peering disputes that arise. Don't get me wrong,
I like Cogent, they definitely have a good use case, just be cognizant of
how
On 14 October 2013 14:18, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
> It's worth pointing out that many IPv6 networks are unavailable from
> .
>
> Hardly something to hold against them until the rest of us can all get
> our own houses in order...
Which other provider? Please name at least one.
Other providers ei
On 10/14/2013 18:00, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Which other provider? Please name at least one.
Other providers either offer IPv6, or don't. When those other
providers do, good or bad, you can connect to any other IPv6 network
(well, except maybe for Cogent's AS174).
When Cogent offers IPv
- Original Message -
> From: "Constantine A. Murenin"
> On 14 October 2013 12:57, Tri Tran wrote:
> > They're lit in the bulding and have a much faster installation
> > interval. How reliable are they?
> > Tri Tran
>
> It's worth pointing out that many IPv6 networks are unavailable from
On 10/10/13 1:09 AM, "Barry Shein" wrote:
>
>On October 9, 2013 at 20:18 c...@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Barry Shein said:
> > > It's very useful for blocking spammers and other miscreants -- no
> > > reason at all to accept SMTP connections from troublesome
> > > *
On 10/14/13 3:30 PM, staticsafe wrote:
On 10/14/2013 18:00, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Which other provider? Please name at least one.
Other providers either offer IPv6, or don't. When those other
providers do, good or bad, you can connect to any other IPv6 network
(well, except maybe for
On October 15, 2013 at 02:28 l...@asgard.org (Lee Howard) wrote:
>
>
> On 10/10/13 1:09 AM, "Barry Shein" wrote:
>
> >
> >On October 9, 2013 at 20:18 c...@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) wrote:
> > > Once upon a time, Barry Shein said:
> > > > It's very useful for blocking spammers and othe
If you want to block spam on IPv6, then you can start by rejecting connections
to SMTP from any IPv6 that do not have a PTR. No need to analyze the format of
the PTR.
It is in several recommendations that a sending email IP must have a PTR.
That ISPs will not do a PTR on all IPv6 but only on st
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/14/2013 6:23 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
> If you want to block spam on IPv6, then you can start by rejecting
> connections to SMTP from any IPv6 that do not have a PTR. No need to
> analyze the format of the PTR.
>
> It is in several recommendati
On October 15, 2013 at 01:23 fmar...@linkedin.com (Franck Martin) wrote:
> If you want to block spam on IPv6, then you can start by rejecting
> connections to SMTP from any IPv6 that do not have a PTR. No need to analyze
> the format of the PTR.
>
> It is in several recommendations that a
>Is there any reason other than email where clients might demand RDNS?
There's a few other protocols that want rDNS on the servers. IRC maybe.
Doing rDNS on random hosts in IPv6 would be very hard. Servers are
configured with static addresses which you can put in the DNS and
rDNS, but normal us
That gets to the core of the original question. I figured there must be a
reason for the conscious omission. However, I've noticed also that Comcast
hasn't bothered to give PTR to their routers, either.
I think that's a horse of a different color. Leaving out PTR on the last
hop for the residen
>This would be a lot of work, so nobody does it.
If someone asks for the rdns for:
2001:0db8:85a3:0042:1000:8a2e:0370:7334
it's a lot of work for example.com to return something like:
2001-0db8-85a3-0042-1000-8a2e-0370-7334.example.com
?
What it means, exactly, is a different discussio
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
> >This would be a lot of work, so nobody does it.
> >If someone asks for the rdns for:
> > 2001:0db8:85a3:0042:1000:8a2e:0370:7334
> >it's a lot of work for example.com to return something like:
> > 2001-0db8-85a3-0042-1000-8a2e-0370-733
>it's a lot of work for example.com to return something like:
>
> 2001-0db8-85a3-0042-1000-8a2e-0370-7334.example.com
Add some NSEC3 records and, yeah, it's a lot of work. And for what?
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:18:15PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
>
> > >This would be a lot of work, so nobody does it.
> > >If someone asks for the rdns for:
> > > 2001:0db8:85a3:0042:1000:8a2e:0370:7334
> > >it's a lot of work for example.
In message <20131015024711.55297.qm...@joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> >Is there any reason other than email where clients might demand RDNS?
>
> There's a few other protocols that want rDNS on the servers. IRC maybe.
>
> Doing rDNS on random hosts in IPv6 would be very hard. Servers are
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
