On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 10:58 +0200, Thomas Mangin wrote:
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4271.html section 4.2
>
> So unless you know something I don't, I believe you are totally mistaken :)
updates serve as implicit keepalives.
in that same section:
"Hold Time:
The calculated value indicates the
On Jun 11, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Raymond Dijkxhoorn wrote:
Not from what i have been told, but hey i am not working there. We
got a v6 transit offer as pilot from them so perhaps they are moving
towards live service Would not be strange in this current
stage...
same thing here.
routing
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 08:18 -0400, Robert D. Scott wrote:
> Any one making use of Google IPV6?
yes. We participate in the Google IPv6 trial program so our recursors
get records for www.google.com and so far it's been great, no
issues whatsoever.
dan...@jun1> traceroute www.google.com
tra
On Fri, 2009-03-27 at 09:34 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> It's working for me, too, though I noticed that tcptraceroute (at least
> the version I have) doesn't do well with ipv6.google.com.
seems to work fine from over here:
# tcptraceroute6 www.google.com 80
traceroute to www.google.com (20
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 11:28, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> It is really nice that folks where able to put records on their
> websites for only 24 hours, but they forgot to put in the glue on their
> nameservers.
agreed, but still better than juniper.net at the moment, glue seems to
be completely g
5 matches
Mail list logo
