tion
layer stuff can go wrong when the link starts bouncing or is intermittent which
IGRP and ASN can handle transparently.
IMHO trying to solve this via DNS is really complicating the issue far greater
than it needs to be.
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 10:46:23 +0530
Subject: Can I have Inbou
In article ,
Blake Hudson wrote:
> Phil Mayers wrote the following on 11/14/2013 2:39 AM:
> > I think there are better solutions than publishing an enormous list of
> > A/ records, personally, and I think it's good that browser
> > manufacturers aren't blasting out 6 SYNs every time someon
Phil Mayers wrote the following on 11/14/2013 2:39 AM:
On 13/11/13 22:21, Carl Byington wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
number of timeouts before the browser ca
On 13/11/13 22:21, Carl Byington wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
number of timeouts before the browser can give them an error message.
Well, the browser *could*
In message <661ca5ab225cad04bdcc3831c6964...@tux.org>, Joseph S D Yao writes:
> On 2013-11-13 16:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
> ...
> > RFC 1123 (October 1989) applies to all applications on all hosts.
> > Note "SHOULD" and "until".
> ...
>
>
> Mark, I've always read "SHOULD" here as more of a plaint
On 2013-11-13 16:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
...
RFC 1123 (October 1989) applies to all applications on all hosts.
Note "SHOULD" and "until".
...
Mark, I've always read "SHOULD" here as more of a plaintive hope than
anything else. People have certainly felt free to ignore it. Yes, that
makes t
In message , Barry Mar
golin writes:
> In article ,
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > No, there is no such requirement. The browsers are just BROKEN if
> > they don't try all the offered addresses. All browsers we were
> > written after RFC 1123 was published.
>
> That attitude should probably be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
> number of timeouts before the browser can give them an error message.
Well, the browser *could* of course give a message like "I have t
In article ,
Mark Andrews wrote:
> No, there is no such requirement. The browsers are just BROKEN if
> they don't try all the offered addresses. All browsers we were
> written after RFC 1123 was published.
That attitude should probably be moderated when interactive applications
are involved.
In message , Joseph S D Yao writes:
> On 2013-11-13 00:16, Manish Rane wrote:
> ...
> > 6.Assume if ISP1 goes down, client coming on ISP1 would never be able
> > to reach; hence as per DNS protocol will try for another link and
> > come
> > on ISP2 and then probably get an IP address of Link 2 i.
On 2013-11-13 00:16, Manish Rane wrote:
...
6.Assume if ISP1 goes down, client coming on ISP1 would never be able
to reach; hence as per DNS protocol will try for another link and
come
on ISP2 and then probably get an IP address of Link 2 i.e. 2.2.2.2.
...
I'm not sure about your DNS setup,
Hey Fellas,
I am thinking on this perspective need some help on this. Please guide me
if I am wrong or let me know if I can achieve the stuff
1. I have a firewall with TWO ISP links, lets assume ISP1 and ISP2. And
then I have internal webserver www.foobar.com with IP 192.168.1.10
2. I have natted
12 matches
Mail list logo
