john
> To what extent is the ROA growth rate in the RIPE region (on page 5 of
> the NANOG slides) enabled by the IRR practices of that region?
check out slide 3, lacnic has a 20% adoption rate. both ripe and lacnic
have put energy into their own systems, educating users, ... ripe's
curve would
On Oct 26, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> 20% coverage in lacnic low? how do ipv6 and dnssec compare (which is
> damned sad)? over 2,000 in ripe and over 8%? how does that compare to
> ipv6?
>
> arin, 388 and 0.7%, a joke.
LACNIC numbers (as a percent) are quite good, but my quest
it's just a consequence that our initial idea was just about to protect
allocations of our members - not about secure routing at all
On 26 Oct 2014, at 14:40, John Curran wrote:
> On Oct 26, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>
>> 20% coverage in lacnic low? how do ipv6 and dnssec compare
John
- it is not about RPK
I - our initial goal was to deploy some kind of certification to resources
allocated to our members
Dmitry
If we use for it some SIDR developments - may be - it is a mistake or
misentrepration - but what's true that we never thougy
On 26 Oct 2014, at 14:40, John Curr
On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>>
>> Random IPv6 complaint of the day: redirects from FCC.gov to pay.gov fail
>> when clients have IPv6 enabled. Work fine if IPv6 is off. One more set of
> Still broken, 7 months later. And again, I was too busy trying to pay to try
> to p
On 10/25/14 02:03, Rafael Possamai wrote:
> Those addresses are anycasted, so you would have to do a bit of research
> and figure out what part of their network is having any packet loss.
>
> Here is an alternative: http://www.opennicproject.org/
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Emir Sosa
On Sat, 25 Oct 2014 17:56:52 -0500, Jimmy Hess said:
> The next thing you know, SystemD will add package management, ISO
> building, and eliminate the need for Debian, Ubuntu, SuSE, Redhat,
> Etc to even exist.
That's already on Lennart's to-do list, you know.
pgpsrz4mwPqsz.pgp
Description:
In message
, Todd Lyons writes:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> >>
> >> Random IPv6 complaint of the day: redirects from FCC.gov to pay.gov fail
> >> when clients have IPv6 enabled. Work fine if IPv6 is off. One more set of
> > Still broken, 7 months later. And again
Have you tried emailing the server admin at pay.gov.c...@clev.frb.org?
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message vl3...@mail.gmail.com>
> , Todd Lyons writes:
> > On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Matthew Kaufman
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Random IPv6 complaint of the day
This is why I need to pull logs the next time I need to pay the FCC. There are
several rounds of redirects involved from clicking the payment button on the
FCC site to the final landing at pay.gov, and one of the last steps never
connects if IPv6 is enabled.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhon
David wrote:
Indeed, and I must commend Warren and Eric for caring enough to actually engage
in this stuff. While many people in the NANOG/IETF/DNS Operations communities
complain about the latest abomination ICANN is inflicting upon the world, there
aren't a whole lot of folks from those comm
> LACNIC numbers (as a percent) are quite good, but my question
> was why only RIPE has the very impressive total count of ROAs.
< conjecture follows >
of course one can never know. but i conject
o the are the largest registry actively promotin registration
o the ncc, particularly alex, tim
I think one missing or weak component are those who actually make this
stuff work vs the pie-in-the-sky infringer/volume/policy crowd.
I've sat in IPC meetings and suffice it to say there isn't much clue
on that front and why should there be unless the go-fast/go-always
crowd shows up?
Sure it d
13 matches
Mail list logo
