On Saturday 30 August 2014 07:35:17 Mark Wendt did opine And Gene did reply: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 6:32 AM, Gene Heskett <ghesk...@wdtv.com> wrote: > > On Friday 29 August 2014 05:23:48 Mark Wendt did opine > > > > And Gene did reply: > > > On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 12:55 PM, andy pugh <bodge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 28 August 2014 17:32, David Armstrong <cncbas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Andy , > > > > > i was taking the example from here for the 0 - 10v analog > > > > > spindle http://linuxcnc.org/docs/html/examples/spindle.html > > > > Works ok from here, at 5:29 local time. BGP overflow bug? That has > > finally started to become a problem even for the 13 main root DNS > > servers on the planet, first started about 3 weeks ago. Newer > > server software is needed to expand the lookup tables beyond 512k > > entries, and in some cases the server machines will need to be > > replaced by even more capable ones. > > > > I am told a temporary fix, or at least a test is to force your lookup > > to use the google dns servers but they aren't capable of serving the > > whole planet. Most home machines will have a list of two obtained > > via DHCP from your provider, and it might be educational to > > interchange the order of those two addresses. > > No worries Gene, it was an outside IPv6 routing issue between my web > browser and the web server. DNS was not a problem, either IPv4 or > IPv6. I pinged the webserver and got returns. What I had failed to > do initially was ping6 the server, and when I did that, it did not > return any ACKs. Traceroute6 found the offending router, and about 15 > minutes or so after I had problems connecting, it cleared up. > > We run our own DNS servers at work, both IPv4 and IPv6. The DoD does > not allow us to use outside DNS like google DNS. > > Mark
You actually have ipv6 running? I have doubts that there is an ipv6 capable router within 100 miles of me. And nothing here in this piece of real estate can pass it except the cat5 ports on the motherboards. Even that isn't configured in the net settings. I have become quite comfortable with ipv4 as its all hidden behind a non-routeable 192.168.xx.xx address, my own little kingdom I guess. I might be tempted to set it up locally just so I'd be ready if and when it actually arrives at the cat5 connector on my cable modem, but I've no knowledge of ipv6 having a private address block that will not pass thru a router without a NAT setup in the router. The unrouteable blocks of ipv4 have far more security aspects and if that feature is not carried over to ipv6, security is going to be a hell of a lot bigger problem. NSA of course will love it. Tutorial URL's to educate the old fart will be accessed though, heck, I might even learn something! Cheers, Gene Heskett -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene> US V Castleman, SCOTUS, Mar 2014 is grounds for Impeaching SCOTUS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
