I have been cleaning up and reworking some old stuff of mine regarding
how to determine required address space based on sizes of sites, sizes
of different VLANs, etc. I have versions of these for IPv4, IPv6 using
actual network sizes, and IPv4 using a /48 prefix or smaller for every
site. I
It's been a while since I was configuring subnets, and last time I did
the guidance was always no more than 1,000 hosts per subnet/vlan. A lot
of that was IPv4 thinking regarding broadcast domains, but generally
speaking we kept to it for dual stacked networks, equating an IPv4 /22
with an
I'll add a voice to the chorus. :) Happy user off and on over many
years, and deeply appreciative of all that you both have done to support
the community.
Best regards,
Doug
On 6/12/15 1:11 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
Ole said:
do we agree that a host that wakes up and has expired its last
default router should restart router discovery?
In my mind this makes a lot of sense.
That's not necessary. For things to work well a host needs to be able to
maintain
On 11/9/14 12:27 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
So far you've been claiming that the problem lies with Google or
Akamai. If true - and I don't dispute that it is - then testing from
the RING should work just as well as from any home network.
No, that's not true at all. Eyeball networks have very
So far all the conversation I've seen about this has been on the eyeball
side. Has anyone looked into whether or not the content networks have
made changes (removing/adding s for example) that would be
responsible for the temporary skew?
Doug
On 11/5/14 7:23 PM, Kate Lance wrote:
Hi
On 10/27/14 11:25 AM, Michael Chang wrote:
On OS X 10.9.5 and Safari 7.1 (9537.85.10.17.1) I see:
[2a02:ed8:::8] yields first part of its address is not valid.
[2a02:0ed8:::8] (change the second part) yields a webpage.
[2a02:ed8::0::8] yields first part of its address is not valid.
On 10/27/14 1:43 AM, Antonio Prado wrote:
Hi,
some customers report they can't open certain IPv6 addresses using
Safari Version 8.0 (10600.1.25) on OSX Yosemite Version 10.10 (14A389).
If an address starts with 2A02 Safari complains 'can’t open
“[2a02:ed8:::8]” because the first part of
On 10/27/14 12:15 PM, Marco Davids wrote:
Hi,
I ran across something similar (while I was still running 10.9) when I
tried to configure an IPv6- printer:
https://twitter.com/marcodavids/status/514381881719394304
Yeah, posting this on twitter is useless. :) Meanwhile, it looks like
the bug
FWIW, I agree with Matthew 100%, especially about the fact that the SMTP
world is changing. It's also worth noting that it's been in constant
(although not always rapid) flux since I first got involved in Internet
stuff 20+ years ago. Back then it was common for any connected system to
be able
On 06/14/2014 12:12 PM, niels=clue...@bakker.net wrote:
The problem isn't the amount of CNAMEs, the problem is Microsoft's
broken nameserver implementation.
Quite correct, your message arrived shortly after I sent mine, and your
analysis was more thorough.
Doug
On 02/18/2014 07:55 PM, SM wrote:
Hi Doug,
At 17:52 18-02-2014, Doug Barton wrote:
My point is that all the hooha about We can't do mail over IPv6
because we can't do IP address reputation seems to be nonsense. There
are plenty of ways to do spam filtering that don't involve keeping a
log
On 01/13/2014 09:28 PM, Friedemann Stoyan wrote:
Isn't ShowIP that spying app which reports all IP-Addresses to api.ip2info.org?
Dunno about the specific location, but ShowIP does phone home.
Personally I'm a big fan of SixOrNot:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/sixornot/
On 11/25/2013 10:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:36 AM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
mailto:do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
DNS64 was a non-starter because there are always going to be IPv4
sites that hard-code IP addresses, and a non-trivial number of them
On 11/26/2013 12:22 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us
mailto:do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
Wait, what? The problem you describe is the one that 464xlat solves.
Didn't you just make my case? DNS64 didn't solve the problem
On 11/25/2013 05:20 AM, Dick Visser wrote:
We've been running a NAT64/DNS64 set-up for a while now on some parts
of our office network. This seems to work well, but it doens't work
for everything (e.g. Skype etc).
When it was first being considered there was a non-zero number of us who
made
On 10/28/2013 10:49 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Phil Mayers p.may...@imperial.ac.uk
mailto:p.may...@imperial.ac.uk wrote:
I wanted to follow up on this. Some folks from Cisco kindly
contacted me off-list, and correctly guessed that a large number of
Has anyone communicated directly with the Apple folks on this issue?
Doug
On 10/21/2013 01:37 PM, Phil Mayers wrote:
On 21/10/2013 21:19, Cutler James R wrote:
4. Does Apple's approach to IPv6 privacy addresses properly support
the intent of privacy addresses?
My tentative answer is, Yes,
On 06/29/2013 03:18 AM, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
IPv4 doesn't have link-local addresses or anything similar (unless you
want to consider 192.169/16 similar in this context).
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3927
Lars,
support.netapp.com looks good from here (Los Angeles) over IPv6. The
page loads some elements from now.netapp.com, which seems to still be
IPv4-only, but I'm not going to quibble. :)
Doug
On 06/02/2013 11:53 PM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
Hi Bernhard,
your email was forwarded to me last
20 matches
Mail list logo
