+1 from the peanut gallery
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:30 PM Allen Kitchen <
allenmckinleykitc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 2:07 PM Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> i do not find the volume or diversity on the nanog list problematic.
>> in fact, i suspect its diversity and openness are
I would suggest that the regulation paradigm in Texas does not allow
coordinated maintenance scheduling to adapt to supply and load issues
(especially in the face of a disaster like the Winter event earlier this
year). That would mean a stronger regulatory framework and that smacks of
government in
/21 18:03, Stan Barber wrote:
>
> > I would suggest that the regulation paradigm in Texas does not allow
> > coordinated maintenance scheduling to adapt to supply and load issues
> > (especially in the face of a disaster like the Winter event earlier
> > this year). T
As someone else remarked, part of this will depend on the type of network
you are profiling. One enterprise networking may have critical internal
applications that depend on multicast to work and others may have nothing
but the basic requirements of the network itself (e.g. IPv6 uses multicast
inst
I am with Owen here. If the IPv6 management is working and reliable,
maintaining the IPv4 management infrastructure should not be needed.
Certainly, the ability to get to "working and reliable" is going to depend
on a host of factors, but a good architecture and using best practices
during the dep
I got it on ATT IPhone I have and a Verizon Pixel as well.
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:38 PM Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> Anecdotally, we had staff feeding off of both AT&T and VZW IP-based
> metrocells get the alert message.
>
> Ray
>
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 12:53:57PM -0700, mike.l...@gmail.com wrot
I am not personally aware of such a standard that is used in every state,
but it is worth checking with the state authority to see what standards are
applicable in the state.
That being said, I would ask if the home is being prewired for alarm
services or not. If so, you could find an avenue to as
Charles calls out the major reason the InterOp conferences were so useful
to so many. It is a shame there is nothing like this today in many domains
like IPv6 or Smart Home or others.
Thanks to Dan for his work to drive this kind of effort during the early
days of the commercial Internet.
On Tue,
s for your attention and I hope to see some of you at an upcoming NANOG
meeting.
Stan Barber
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (called "the other SOB on the Internet" by Scott Bradner
many years ago in his first column for Network World magazine)
I have been using BIND9. I have also seen a number of folks try other things,
but I have found when testing those software that DNSSEC/EDNS0 and properly
handling DNS query/response on TCP are not well supported.
On Feb 22, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Claudio Lapidus wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> We are a mi
On Mar 4, 2010, at 1:30 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>
> Because we expect far fewer end users to multihome tomorrow than do today?
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
I would suggest that the ratio of folks that will multihome under IPv6 versus
those that won't will get smaller. I base that on an assumpt
I was not trying to say there would be a reduction in multihoming. I was trying
to say that the rate of increase in non-NATed single-homing would increase
faster than multihoming. I guess I was not very clear.
Here is the basis for my assumptions since they are not clear:
1. Almost all home use
on that a
>>> reduction in the use of NAT would naturally result in a reduction of
>>> multihoming.
>
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Stan Barber wrote:
>> I was not trying to say there would be a reduction in multihoming. I was
>> trying to say that the ra
termine if I was seeing clearly or was mistaken in how
these things might unfold. However, I think a discourse about these
possibilities is helpful in driving consensus and that's one of the valuable
things about mailing lists like this.
On Mar 18, 2010, at 8:20 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>
Me,too.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 12:23 PM Mel Beckman wrote:
> Randy,
>
> I, too, appreciate your thoughtfulness.
>
> Although I never got to work with Dr. Itojun, he definitely was a
> pathfinder for IPv6 deployment that we owe a great deal to.
>
> There is a memorial fund for his ISOC Service A
15 matches
Mail list logo
