On 15 November 2015 at 01:31, Jonas Bjork wrote:
> Dear Mr. Jeff,
>
> Thank you for your reply. Below is the complete output in question (l2 is
> short for l2transport).
> You are mentioning platform capabilities and that the default might have
> changed. How do I alter this?
>
> pe#sh mpls l2 v
Last month after a service upgrade/reprovisioning I am no longer
getting an IPv6 prefix. Now all I see are RAs and never a response to
DHCPv6 solicit. I have tried different support channels but no luck
getting an answer.
>From what I gathered IPv6 is available in my market and no known
outages. C
Owen DeLong wrote:
> Again, if you’re the only resolver the clients are using, you can claim that
> nothing from the root down is signed without ever providing any cryptographic
> anything.
If the client is validating it will know the root is signed and the ISP
resolver will not be able to strip
eric-l...@truenet.com wrote:
> Actually, how are other places implementing these lists? I would have
> thought to use RPZ, but as far as I know if the blocked DNS domain is
> using DNSSEC it wouldn't work.
You can configure RPZ with the "break-dnssec" option which means
validating clients will
Friendly reminder...
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kash, Howard M
CIV USARMY RDECOM
> ARL (US)
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 12:39 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Advance notice - H-root address change on December 1, 2015
>
>
> T
Just a heads up, even the latest CentOS 7 package has the wrong IPv4 and v6
address.
Version : 9.9.4
Release : 18.el7_1.1
Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373
On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Kash, Howard M CIV USARMY RDECOM ARL
Hi,
> Just a heads up, even the latest CentOS 7 package has the wrong IPv4 and v6
> address.
whilst the new H-ROOT is alive now, the official switch-over date is 1st
December 2015
and the old address will be available for 6 months after thatso if any BIND
package
comes out AFTER 1st Decembe
With Wi-Fi calling it gets a bit more simplified (no "transit" operators in
user plane) and may provide better privacy (only your home country will
monitor your calls, lol). The UE establishes IPsec tunnel over the Internet
to the home operator and uses it for native VoIP/messaging applications.
O
In message <20151116161939.ga3...@lboro.ac.uk>, a.l.m.bu...@lboro.ac.uk writes:
> Hi,
>
> > Just a heads up, even the latest CentOS 7 package has the wrong IPv4 and v6
> > address.
>
> whilst the new H-ROOT is alive now, the official switch-over date is 1st
> December 2015
> and the old address
No. CentOS follows RedHat. They backport fixes to older versions rather than
put the new version out. It appears that have aversion to new feature and just
want to put the fixes onto the older versions. So that 9.9.4 probably has 60%
of the changes that the diff of 9.9.4 has to 9.9.8 . This
In message , Alan Buxey
writes:
> >
> No. CentOS follows RedHat. They backport fixes to older versions rather
> than put the new version out. It appears that have aversion to new
> feature and just want to put the fixes onto the older versions. So that
> 9.9.4 probably has 60% of the changes
This action by red hat is nice from a stability perspective but infuriates many
standards derived folks like ISC/BIND and NTP amongst others as a version
number means something to them.
This dialogue is typically broken from both sides as expectations are different
and bug reports get lost bet
On 11/16/15 4:55 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> This action by red hat is nice from a stability perspective but
> infuriates many standards derived folks like ISC/BIND and NTP amongst
> others as a version number means something to them.
>
> This dialogue is typically broken from both sides as expecta
13 matches
Mail list logo
