Please reply to him directly, thanks,
Pascal
- Original Message -
From: Benoit Panizzon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 9:32 PM
Subject: [swinog] Contact @ AOL?
Does somebody have any contact to an AOL hostmaster or abuse person?
Since about
This is not a political question, only operational process.
Has ICANN and NTIA worked out their operational issues so they can quickly
change the root zone to reflect changes in ccTLD nameservers if people
need to change which name servers are handling the ccTLDs. Last year,
some of the
Hallo Sabine,
lange nichts gehoert ...
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 09:51:11AM +0200, Sabine Dolderer/Denic wrote:
At least each IXP member would have direct connectivity to such
infrastructural services (DNS, NTP, WHOIS, NNTP??) and thereby their
customers would benefit from it.
I agree
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said:
Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around
even more information is backwards. It should carry less.
If IXes need numbers at all (why???) then use RFC 1918 addresses
and
number and distribution of registrations maybe - that comes down to number
and sizing of servers and geography/network diversity, the others are at best
operational concerns for the backend, not for the frontend DNS servers.
backend/frontend?
Taking RFC 2870, why wouldn't all of
On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:18:19 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
sure, you could take those sections as a starting point. But why
stop at TLDs? Why not make this applicable to -ALL- dns servers?
Mighty fine pharmaceuticals you got there. ;)
I'd settle for a requirement that dns
now someone will surely step up to the plate in their defence and rant
about how this is all a good thing for NASC and how they will go on to
reemerge next year as a lean, mean, bigger better company.
I think at this point we are all long past the innocent stage and
rapidly approaching
At 05:26 AM 6/7/02, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said:
Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around
even more information is backwards. It should carry less.
If IXes need numbers at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, is it *that* hard to avoid lame delegations and typos in
the SOA or NS records?
apparently
--
Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
[ On Friday, June 7, 2002 at 10:26:53 (+0100), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Bogon list
RFC1918 does not break path-mtu, filtering it does tho..
So, in other words inappropriate use of RFC 1918 does not break Path MTU
Discovery! You can't still have your cake and have eaten it
Greetings;
I would like to protect an unattended server enclosure in a remote
location with some variety of fire suppression device. I imagine that
some enterprising soul has invented a fire extinguisher with a nozzle
that opens at a preset temperature (i.e. exploding head). Thank you in
Title: RE: Portable Fire Suppression
Well, aren't fire extinguishers supposed to explode anyway upon high temperature?
Rick Cheung
NPI IT Wan Team, CCNP
-Original Message-
From: Christopher J. Wolff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 1:00 PM
To: [EMAIL
From the first few responses I believe some clarification is in
order...This specific 'unattended server enclosure' is sitting outside
in the middle of the desert.
Regards,
Christopher J. Wolff, VP CIO
Broadband Laboratories
http://www.bblabs.com
Greetings;
I would like to protect an
Well, the biggest offender in this respect by far was @home, and you know what
happened to THEM...
-C
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:55:08PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[ On Friday, June 7, 2002 at 10:26:53 (+0100), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Bogon list
RFC1918 does not break
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 08:36:21AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd settle for a requirement that dns servers have *basic* configuration
correct - I mean, is it *that* hard to avoid lame delegations and typos in
the SOA or NS records?
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation
This specific 'unattended server enclosure' is sitting outside
in the middle of the desert.
How will you protect it from gunshots:
http://sadtomato.net/mojave.html
They removed that phone booth a couple of years ago:
http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2000/May-23-Tue-2000/news/13631118.html
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD
servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112
domains in .com alone with at least one incorrect NS record pointing at
my nameservers.
MX0 lame.delegation.to.hostname.
* MX0
Yo John!
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Payne wrote:
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD
servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112
domains in .com alone with at least one incorrect NS record pointing at
my nameservers.
There is an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
] Greetings;
]
] I would like to protect an unattended server enclosure in a remote
] location with some variety of fire suppression device. I
] imagine that
] some enterprising soul has invented a fire extinguisher with a
nozzle
] that
In the referenced message, Stephen J. Wilcox said:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
In the referenced message, Sean M. Doran said:
Basically, arguing that the routing system should carry around
even more information is backwards. It should carry less.
If IXes need
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 11:48:24AM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo John!
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, John Payne wrote:
Don't even get me started on typos in the delegation records at the TLD
servers (entered by the registrants at least) there are currently 112
domains in .com alone with at
On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Gary E. Miller wrote:
Yo John!
There is an easy tool I use to fix that. Just put up a zone file for
them on your NS that points their www to www.playboy.com. This gets
action fast!
I think pointing it to www.poopsex.com would be far more entertaining.
Charles
RGDS
Does anyone have information why ATT's Worldnet portal is being
routed through Splitrock, UIUC and NCSA? It seems to have pretty
much taken the Worldnet site off the net.
nslookup www.worldnet.att.net
Server: localhost
Address: 127.0.0.1
Non-authoritative answer:
Name:
Hi All -
At the Peering BOF Monday evening, so far I have Peering Coordinators lined
up from Adelphia, CableVision, Comcast, Cox, DACOM Korea, Equinix, GNAPs,
ICG, ISC, Japan Telecom, Merit, Powered, Shaw, TELUS, T-Systems, Videotron,
Yahoo! and CW. We can take another 5-7 folks on the
Anyone driving over to the docks from the Sheraton hotel tomorrow AM?
Willing to split a cab otherwise.
--
David Diaz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Email]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [Pager]
Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons
[ On Friday, June 7, 2002 at 15:28:56 (-0400), Stephen Griffin wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Bogon list
I agree, however, most folks want to see the topology, some just choose
to violate RFC1918 in order to do it.
Sometimes even I stoop so low! :-)
# bloody rogers routers use these nets for
This is an auto-generated mail on Fri Jun 7 23:00:00 PDT 2002
It is not checked before it leaves my workstation. However, hopefully
you will find this report interesting and will take the time to look
through this to see if you can improve the amount of aggregation you
perform.
Check
27 matches
Mail list logo
