At 17:15 -0500 1/3/03, Daniel Senie wrote:
It's so nice Verisign is pushing a solution for COM/NET. I have to wonder if
we'll have a different solution in .ORG, another in .BIZ, etc. Folks, this is
why we cooperate with competitors and produce standards.
Well, the way I look at this is: I hope
At 04:24 PM 1/3/2003, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
> abhorrent and scary?
Sounds like a fine interweb kludge
It'll just be annoying until other applications aquire similar
bodgery as the users will not understand why they can't u
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:26:05PM -0800, just me wrote:
> Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
> abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
I find Microsoft blatantly sending out UTF-8 and 'another local encoding' to
nameservers interesting too.
The real qu
> Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
> abhorrent and scary?
Sounds like a fine interweb kludge
It'll just be annoying until other applications aquire similar
bodgery as the users will not understand why they can't use it
for mail and all
brandon
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, just me wrote:
> Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
> abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
And you find this unusual for Verisign/Network Solutions?
At 12:26 -0800 1/3/03, just me wrote:
Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
It's scary but I'm not sure it's abhorrent.
The DNS is hit by a lot of bad traffic. E.g., a presentation at the
previous nanog (http://ww
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, just me wrote:
> Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
> abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
It is quite disturbing, you would think that the folks responsible
for two of the biggest TLDs on the net would appreciate that not
everythi
> I find the interesting that there were immediate assumptions by
> all the followup posters that the hypothectical mesh wbn suggested
> would be run by an exchange point operator.
I beg to differ.
I said "if the exchange-point operator is the one carrying the
traffic," at the point where th
Am I the only one that finds this perversion of the DNS protocol
abhorrent and scary? This is straight up hijacking.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Verd, Brad wrote:
To improve this user experience and to encourage the adoption of an
application that supports IDNA, VGRS is announcing a measure intend
SMB> Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 14:41:45 -0500
SMB> From: Steven M. Bellovin
SMB> I'm sorry, but this is incorrect in many different dimensions. The
SMB> subject was discussed exhaustively in the IETF's IDN working group; I
SMB> refer you to its archive for detailed discussions. Among many other
S
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Lockhart) writes:
> But, given that peering costs are more than just the circuit cost (once
> you include Exchange Point costs, and colo, etc), why would anyone do this
> when you can just buy transit for $100/Mbps or less?
Because peering is better. There's no way to b
I find the interesting that there were immediate assumptions by
all the followup posters that the hypothectical mesh wbn suggested
would be run by an exchange point operator. Perhaps no public
statements were sent by anyone in using similar trans-atlantic
services (that are not run by the af
In a message written on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 08:22:11PM +0100, Kandra Nygårds wrote:
> IDN(A) is an effort to encode unicode into 7-bit DNS-labels, without
> breaking backward compatibility (too hard). While there originally were a
> few voices arguing for UTF-8 over the wire, they were few and the
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "E.B.
Dreger" writes:
>
>EL> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:44:53 -0500
>EL> From: Edward Lewis
>
>
>EL> The DNS protocol is not 8-bit safe, much less any
>EL> implementations of it. This is because ASCII upper case
>EL> characters are down cased in comparisons. I.e.,
> This message explains an upcoming change in certain behavior of the
> com and net authoritative name servers related to internationalized
> domain names (IDNs).
Put your support people on overtime warnings!
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 07:15:43PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> Yes, comparisons are case-insensitive. So what? strcasecmp()
> works on ASCII strings. Now it must work on .
> Why not let be UTF-8, something programmers
> should support already? Maybe MS-style Unicode encoding? Why
> add yet
From: "E.B. Dreger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> BV> Before IDNA, some application developers had developed
> BV> proprietary mechanisms designed to support IDNs. The Internet
>
> UTF-8 is a standard. MS products have used two-octet chars to
> support Unicode for a long time. Any reason to add yet ano
On Wed, Jan 01, 2003 at 05:32:36PM -0700, James-lists wrote:
>
> I am not getting through to speed.planet.nl in English, can anyone give
> me
> a decent translation of in Dutch (The Netherlands):
Everybody here speaks English. If they are ignoring you, they will ignore
you in Dutch too.
Regards
EL> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:44:53 -0500
EL> From: Edward Lewis
EL> The DNS protocol is not 8-bit safe, much less any
EL> implementations of it. This is because ASCII upper case
EL> characters are down cased in comparisons. I.e., the
My point is there's no need to force chars <= 0x7f if DNS s
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 10:11:09AM -0500, David Diaz wrote:
> 2) Perhaps a time limit
who is still connected to mae-w fddi?
i know there are people there.
time limits don't work well.
--
Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clue++; |
At 18:31 + 1/3/03, E.B. Dreger wrote:
UTF-8 is a standard. MS products have used two-octet chars to
support Unicode for a long time. Any reason to add yet another
encoding?
Sounds like a question to ask of the IETF.
How about encouraging widespread adoption of EXISTING standards
instead
> clearly, interconnecting their exchange points to create a richly-
> connected Internet 'core' is a natural progression if their
> customers don't complain too loudly.
> not that it's a bad long-term plan...
Actually, it is. It's failed in every prior instance.
It's on
BV> Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 12:49:06 -0500
BV> From: "Verd, Brad"
[ At the risk of going OT... ]
BV> Before IDNA, some application developers had developed
BV> proprietary mechanisms designed to support IDNs. The Internet
UTF-8 is a standard. MS products have used two-octet chars to
support Uni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
This message explains an upcoming change in certain behavior of the
com and net authoritative name servers related to internationalized
domain names (IDNs).
VeriSign Global Registry Services (VGRS) has been a longtime advocate
of IDNs. Our IDN Test Bed has b
Thank you!
--- Mike Damm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.google.com/bot.html for issues with the crawler.
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] will get you a human bean to talk to.
> Normally
> when there is a problem with their robot, they are pretty responsive.
>
> -Mike
>
> ---
> Mic
http://www.google.com/bot.html for issues with the crawler.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] will get you a human bean to talk to. Normally
when there is a problem with their robot, they are pretty responsive.
-Mike
---
Michael Damm, MIS Department, Irwin Research & Development
V: 509.457.5080 x
We are a domain registrar and we host/park over 750,000 domain names.
Every now and then the Google Crawler decides to bury the machines that
host our 'parked' domain pages. We use robots.txt but that doesn't
help under these circumstances. I have tried sending a message to
Google using their w
Both Stephen and Jeff and correct.
And Im not sure it would be in the best interests of the colo company
to be a jack of all trades.
Where I do see a benefit are where an exch pt company wants to start
a new one in a new city. It's the classic chicken and the egg.
Where I have promoted allow
> - Transit providers who came to the exchange point for the purpose of
> picking up transit sales.
>
> - If the exchange point operator is the one carrying the traffic, they
> lose for competing with their customers in the previous bullet; they
> will have taken the first steps on the path
This report has been generated at Fri Jan 3 21:45:27 2003 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
On Thu Jan 02, 2003 at 03:59:35PM -0800, William B. Norton wrote:
> This has sent the price point down to historic levels, O($28K/mo
> for STM-1) or less than $200/Mbps for transport! This is approaching an
> attractive price point for long distance peering so, just for grins,...
>
> Are there
Rearranged slightly.
> What are the technical issue with extreme long distance (transoceanic)
> peering?
>
> In particular, what are the issues interconnecting layer 2 switches across
> the ocean for the purposes of providing a global peering cloud
> using:
In the generic sense, the issues ar
32 matches
Mail list logo
