Looks like they have removed the IPv6 addresses.
% dig nameserver1.mc.duke.edu
;; BADCOOKIE, retrying.
; <<>> DiG 9.21.0-dev <<>> nameserver1.mc.duke.edu
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 51760
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER
Is there anyone from duke.edu on this list? I am having problems with
IPv6 on one of their sub-delegations causing mail delays. Trying to go
through the front door writes me off with "not our problem".
dm.duke.edu. 21600 IN NS nameserver1.mc.duke.edu.
dm.duke.edu. 21600 IN NS nameserver2.mc.du
For some IETF work in progress related to Source Address Validation (SAV), it
is useful to know the purposes for which NO_EXPORT may be attached to routes
announced in BGP, especially towards transit providers?
I know it makes sense for an AS to announce an aggregate less-specific prefix
to tra
Jorge,
Just curious if this issue was resolved or is it still an issue for
non-Brazilian networks ?
Rubens
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 4:09 PM Jorge Lobo wrote:
>
> Hi folks
>
> I'm looking for X's (former twitter) technical contact, we haven't no luck
> with mailing they noc.
>
> Their funny wa
For some IETF work in progress related to Source Address Validation (SAV), it
is useful to know the purposes for which NO_EXPORT may be attached to routes
announced in BGP, especially towards transit providers?
I know it makes sense for an AS to announce an aggregate less-specific prefix
t
5 matches
Mail list logo