alas, our service predates Joe’s marvelous text.
“B” provides its services locally to its upstream ISPs.
We don’t play routing tricks, impose routing policy, or attempt to
influence prefix announcement.
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 17March2014Monday, at 7:17, Joe Abley wrote:
If you wouldn’t mind a quick tracerooute - Can you confirm reachability to the
following:
2001:500:84::b
Thanks in advance.
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
Thanks All for taking the time to prod 2001:500:84::b
Looks like it is reachable from many places… enough that we will proceed to
augment the “B” root server with perhaps the last in a long line of IPv6
addresses that it has had over the last 15 years.
Splay will increase over time.
/bill
/b
did you ask Jared?
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 4June2014Wednesday, at 12:15, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Yup, I did think it was worth asking the entire list.
>
> W
well then. you could just use that date then and it should be alright…
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 4June2014Wednesday, at 12:24, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014, manning bill wrote:
> did you ask Jared?
>
>
> Yup.
>
> An
er… this is no longer news… back in -MAY-… it was:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 6June2014Friday, at 14:31, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> In one of the worst written stories
announce them so folks can use the space as darknets…
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 17June2014Tuesday, at 15:39, John Levine wrote:
> In article
> you
> write:
>> +1+1+1 re living room
>
> My cable company assigns my home network a /50. I can figure out what
On 23June2014Monday, at 22:55, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> The question at hand is.. Do countries/businesses have to affiliate or
>> utilize any of those services provided by ICANN other than the assignment
>> of an IP address?
>
> No.
except for RFC 1918 and ULA space, which require no
On 14July2014Monday, at 9:52, Barry Shein wrote:
>
> On July 14, 2014 at 08:17 d...@dcrocker.net (Dave Crocker) wrote:
>> On 7/12/2014 3:19 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>>> On July 12, 2014 at 12:08 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote:
or are you equating shell access with isp? that would be nove
whats not to love… its DKIM’d & everything
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 16July2014Wednesday, at 1:12, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> I love the From: field :-)
>
Sprint used to proxy aggregate… I remember 128.0.0.0/3
the real question, imho, is if folks are going to look into their crystal balls
and roadmap where the default offered is a /32 (either v4 or v6)
and plan accordingly, or just slap another bandaid on the oozing wound...
/bill
PO Box 1231
so Internet in the US is safe…
/bill
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet.
On 31August2014Sunday, at 22:35, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> Cause it's a long weekend, and why shouldn't it be whackier than normal.
>
> - Forwarded Message -
>> From: "PRIVACY Forum mailing list"
>> To: privacy-l..
Perhaps a dose of factual information may temper this thread.
If we are talking about ISO-3166-2 - the basis for the CCTLD delegations, then:
1_ Scotland has no say in the country code selected.
2_ ICANN has no say in the country code selected.
3_ The choice is up to an ISO committee.
See:
yes! by ALL means, hand out /48s. There is huge benefit to announcing all
that dark space, esp. when
virtually no one practices BCP-38, esp in IPv6 land.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 8October2014Wednesday, at 18:31, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> Give them a /48. T
FNC “reserved” .gov and .mil for the US.
And Postel was right… there was/is near zero reason to technically
extend/expand the number of TLDs.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, a
The IRTF is looking for data…
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan
> Subject: Survey on Smart Data Pricing for Affordable Internet access
> Date: November 3, 2014 at 1:56:30 PST
> To: irtf-disc...@irtf.org
> Cc: i...@ietf
On 9November2014Sunday, at 11:40, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/8/14 6:33 PM, Roland Dobbins wrote:
>> this is incorrect and harmful, and should be removed:
>>
>> iii.Consider dropping any DNS reply packets which are larger
>> than 512 Bytes – these are commonly found in DNS DoS Amplifica
and then there are the loons who will locally push /64 or longer, some of which
may leak.
even if things were sane & nothing longer than a /32 were to be in the table,
are we not looking at the functional
equivalent of v4 host routes?
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
O
Frank was the most vocal…
the biggest cidr deployment issue was hardware vendors with “baked-in”
assumptions about addressing. IPv6 is doing the same thing with its /64
nonsense.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 1March2015Sunday, at 13:37, David Conrad wrote:
>> O
it is true that the risk profile has changed in the last 30 years.
his core belief in interconnecting things in an open way, enabling _anyone_ to
create,build, and deploy
is the core of ISOCs “permission less innovation” thrust.
crypto/security folks are green with envy … it is somewhat “sour gr
perfectly legal… the octal records confuse me more than the hex.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 14April2015Tuesday, at 5:36, Colin Johnston wrote:
> never saw hex in host dns records before.
> host-242.strgz.87.118.199.240.0xfff0.macomnet.net
>
> range is bl
21 matches
Mail list logo
