On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:12 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>
> we had an instance of "B" root there for a season. connectivity was a
> problem and
> we pulled the node in 2001.
>
> /bill
You should install it on sattelite
dima
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:45:16PM -0800, Bill W
Danny,
just one more comment.
So named vendor's support can be the worst case when there are no practical
ways to deploy and it is absolutely
not clear - should we follow this hierarchical model - I think it is the key
point as we pushed ourselves by inertia to this way of thinking.
Imho -
Randy -
you know that I'm enough stupid- means straightforward -
may be the way is not only technical (recomendations design) - but also to
combine with some policy changes as
splitting allocations and assignments (may be changing who is responsible for
what?)
Or we follow the traditional way(
On Jul 5, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 20:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST,
>> I doubt that either of those proposals is likely to fly.
>
> Russian govt. did eliminate DST.
>
> http://www.
John,
I like your approach - simply no comments
I think the way as your legislation guys decided to follow can be absolutely
wrong.
My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing
countires and US native commercial interests that you (not you personally - of
cours
t 5:57 PM, Dmitry Burkov
> wrote:
>
>> My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing
>> countires
>
> Dmitry -
>
> There is a very real financial issue that developing countries face
> with affording the infrastructure that thei
same manner or I mistaken?
On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Burkov wrote:
> The real issue is not laid in their economics - but in ours - our legacy
> players(mobile are the same)
> We simply try to hide our own problems behind their issues and use them again
> to protec
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 02.07.10 0:27, Randy Bush wrote:
The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean
that the USA have control over all those domain names?
the usg controls the cctlds too.
you know better...
randy
On 02.07.10 2:01, Randy Bush wrote:
There is a part 2 as well
and this is a bug or a feature?
I see it is a feature ...
11 matches
Mail list logo
