Hey!
New message, please read <http://teapartyhost.com/hot.php?c>
Igor Gashinsky
Hey!
New message, please read <http://magento.onnet.com.vn/scarcely.php?7>
Igor Gashinsky
Hey!
New message, please read <http://marmaradetay.com/lips.php?z87>
Igor Gashinsky
:: Isn't his point that y! could offer IPv6 e-mail in parallel to the
:: existing IPv4 service, putting the IPv6 machines in a subdomain
:: ipv6.yahoo.com, so that end users and networks who want to do it can
:: do so without bothering the others?
Not speaking directly for my employer (in
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
:: >Not speaking directly for my employer (in any official capacity
:: > that is), but it's is *not* as easy as as just IPv6 enabling our network,
:: > enabling ipv6 on the servers, and putting up ipv6.yahoo.com. Currently,
:: > the biggest roadblock we
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Matt Addison wrote:
:: You're forgetting Matthew Petach's suggestion- reserve/assign a /64 for
:: each PtP link, but only configure the first /126 (or whatever /126 you
:: need to get an amusing peer address) on the link.
Matt meant "reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, b
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Pekka Savola wrote:
:: On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: > Matt meant "reserve/assign a /64 for each PtP link, but only configure the
:: > first */127* of the link", as that's the only way to fully mitigate the
:: > scanning-type attack
:: > If a worst-case situation arises, and you have to peer with a device that
:: > doesn't properly support /127's, you can always fall back to using /126's
:: > or even /64's on those few links (this is why we reserved a /64 for every
:: > link from the begining)..
::
:: If this is the case,
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010, Dale W. Carder wrote:
::
:: On Jan 27, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
::
:: > you face 2 major issues with not using /127 for
:: > PtP-type circuits:
:: >
:: > 1) ping-ponging of packets on Sonet/SDH links
:: >
:: > Let's say you put 2001:db
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
:: a real use for the diffserv bits! why not flowlabel in 6? it's been
:: looking for a use for a decade.
Honestly, we figured flowlabel might actually find a use before all the
values of diffserv will :) In all seriousness, we are starting to set the
spec
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Shane Amante wrote:
::
:: On Mar 9, 2011, at 00:35 MST, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
:: > On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Randy Bush wrote:
:: >
:: > :: a real use for the diffserv bits! why not flowlabel in 6? it's been
:: > :: looking for a use for a decade.
:: >
:: &g
On Mon, 9 May 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
:: Given the following posting from earlier this morning:
::
:: > The location that's affecting the results is pending removal from DNS;
:: > and ASAP we hope to have the name moved to the geo-LB that suppors v6,
:: > instead of the round robin i
:: >> In any case, the content side can mitigate all of the latency related
issues
:: >> they complain about in 6to4 by putting in a local 6to4 router and
publishing
:: >> the corresponding 2002:: prefix based address in DNS for their content.
They
:: >> choose to hold their breath and turn blue
On Tue, 10 May 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
:: On Tue, 10 May 2011 02:17:46 EDT, Igor Gashinsky said:
::
:: > The time for finger-pointing is over, period, all we are all trying to do
:: > now is figure out how to deal with the present (sucky) situation. The
:: > current r
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
:: On 9 mei 2011, at 21:40, Tony Hain wrote:
::
:: >> Publicly held corporations are responsible to their shareholders to get
:: >> eyeballs on their content. *That* is their job, not promoting cool new
:: >> network tech. When you have millions of
:: From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
:: Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:23 PM
:: To: Igor Gashinsky
:: Cc: nanog@nanog.org
:: Subject: Re: Yahoo and IPv6
::
:: On May 10, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Igor Gashinsky wrote:
::
:: > On Tue, 10 May 2011, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
:: >
:: &g
On Wed, 8 Jun 2011, 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.
::
:: As such, for the folks testing IPv6-only, a lot of sites will fail
:: unless they use a
17 matches
Mail list logo
