Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
i also remain convinced that using anycast to do distributed load
balancing for applications like WWW, ... is silly, and will more often
do harm or do nothing than do good. (and i've told akamai and speedera
this many times.)
The fact your digs returned different
NetBSD.ORG's trouble-ticket system is currently being overwhelmed by
a virus attack facilitated by connect.com.au (which is bouncing viral
mail to forged From: addresses corresponding to trouble tickets at
NetBSD.ORG).
We don't want to have to dump all mail from connect.com.au; they seem
to have
Could whoever is responsible for the machine at 35.11.141.251 please
contact me offlist or otherwise investigate the box, which has already
sent several hundred viruses to hotmail.com addresses with forged
senders in my domain? I reported it yesterday to abuse/postmaster but
have heard nothing ba
On May 4, 2005, at 12:08 AM, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
PWG> I was just talking about people setting up anycast name
servers, each
PWG> of which pointed at a different HTTP server (or other
service), to
PWG> spread load. In many cases, the two servers are the same.
Ah, okay... which again helps
On May 3, 2005, at 10:28 PM, Nicholas Suan wrote:
In the previous paragraph Vixie said:
while i'm on the subject, i also remain convinced that using
anycast to do
distributed load balancing for applications like WWW, on the
assumption
that the path you heard a dns query on is instructive as to
PWG> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:56:48 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore
PWG> I was just talking about people setting up anycast name servers, each
PWG> of which pointed at a different HTTP server (or other service), to
PWG> spread load. In many cases, the two servers are the same.
Ah, okay... w
Sorry if it was not clear, but my post had _nothing_ to do with "CDNs".
I was just talking about people setting up anycast name servers, each
of which pointed at a different HTTP server (or other service), to
spread load. In many cases, the two servers are the same.
--
TTFN,
patrick
On May 3,
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> >> If you check, I think you'll see that he actually said "ultradns's
> >> anycast for .ORG is completely coherent".
> >
> > And last time I checked -- on this list, mind you -- it certainly was not.
>
> If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps you migh
On 3 May 2005, at 20:07, James wrote:
Anycast obviously opens a small set of can of caveats and notes while
providing benefits.
Comments on (and contributions to) draft-ietf-grow-anycast-00 would be
gratefully received (by private mail, probably, rather than on this
list).
Joe
On 5/3/05 7:21 PM, "Todd Vierling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you check, I think you'll see that he actually said "ultradns's
>> anycast for .ORG is completely coherent".
>
> And last time I checked -- on this list, mind you -- it certainly was not.
If you want to be taken seriously,
TV> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:21:45 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
TV> From: Todd Vierling
[ trimming CC list before it grows too long ]
TV> And last time I checked -- on this list, mind you -- it certainly
TV> was not. Cf. people trying to run and hide, or lash out at me for
TV> complaining, wh
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Paul G wrote:
i'm terribly sorry, but i'm unable to extract any meaning at all from these
statements. when i parse them, they make no sense at all (not in terms of
being wrong, just not understandable). could you rephrase them?
coherency and consistency are
PWG> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:58:37 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore
PWG> Just to make life fun, there is the whole "anycast a bunch of name
PWG> servers, each with different zone files pointing at local HTTP
PWG> servers". Since the "anycast" portion is over UDP, it avoids a lot
PWG> of the
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mark Boolootian wrote:
> > Note the nonsense about anycast being "completely coherent".
>
> If you check, I think you'll see that he actually said "ultradns's
> anycast for .ORG is completely coherent".
And last time I checked -- on this list, mind you -- it certainly was not
On May 3, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
PWG> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:03:12 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore
PWG> NB [translation, "operational content"]: Akamai does not use any
PWG> anycast for HTTP. I am not at all certain why Paul is telling us
PWG> this is a bad idea, since we
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Paul G wrote:
> i'm terribly sorry, but i'm unable to extract any meaning at all from these
> statements. when i parse them, they make no sense at all (not in terms of
> being wrong, just not understandable). could you rephrase them?
>
> coherency and consistency are well-def
--- Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2005, David Barak wrote:
>
> > Dean has weighed in on topics such as router
> architecture and the
> > ubiquitousness of packet-based-load-balancing in
> backbone networks, and
> > been thoroughly wrong.
>
> I never said that PPLB is
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Bill Nash wrote:
> Since nothing any part is saying is changing anyone's mind, agree to
> disagree and take it offlist.
Some progress is being made, in spite of the wailing and name-calling.
The people doing the name-calling aren't contributing more than disruptive
noise,
- Original Message -
From: "Dean Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Paul G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: [dnsop] DNS Anycast revisited (fwd)
> On Tue, 3 May 2005, Paul G wrote:
>
> > > There seems to be no possibility for anycast to be "comp
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Paul G wrote:
> > There seems to be no possibility for anycast to be "completely coherent",
> > so ultradns' anycast couldn't be "completely coherent" either. But Vixie
> > mentions it to respond to comments by others about Ultradns' particularly
> > pervasive use of anycast.
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 06:59:45PM -0400, Paul G wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Dean Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mark Boolootian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [dnsop] DNS Anycast revisited (fwd)
>
>
> >
> > On Tue
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:
Basically, when the discussion degenerates to "dean is a troll", on a
forum like this, it means they've run out of ideas, but don't want to
concede anything, and are looking to divert attention to something else.
And of course, one can't make someone (on a f
PWG> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:03:12 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore
PWG> NB [translation, "operational content"]: Akamai does not use any
PWG> anycast for HTTP. I am not at all certain why Paul is telling us
PWG> this is a bad idea, since we don't do it. Then again, we might in
PWG> the fut
Not sure how many of you actually keep up with the daily
handler's diary over at the ISC, but today's entry really
reaffirms the seriousness, and "Alice-in-Wonderland-rabbit-hole-
depth," that these issues are getting to be. More than just a
minor annoyance...
Pointer:
http://isc.sans.org/diary
On Wed, 4 May 2005, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
> No it's because you're off topic. Whether justified or not SORBS
> complaints and SORBS bashing are not on-topic for NANOG.
This is not particularly about SORBS bashing. Its about the need for SMTP
AUTH, whether SMTP AUTH stops spam, and who abuses
Responding to Iljitsch and Booloo's comments only, and recognizing that
somehow or other 6 month old threads on other lists seem to have made their
way onto NANOG...
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:01:42 +0200
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Dean Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark Boolootian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [dnsop] DNS Anycast revisited (fwd)
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mark Boolootian wrote:
>
> >
> > > Note the nonsense about anycast
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Mark Boolootian wrote:
>
> > Note the nonsense about anycast being "completely coherent".
>
> If you check, I think you'll see that he actually said "ultradns's
> anycast for .ORG is completely coherent".
There seems to be no possibility for anycast to be "completely coher
On Tue, 3 May 2005, David Barak wrote:
> Dean has weighed in on topics such as router architecture and the
> ubiquitousness of packet-based-load-balancing in backbone networks, and
> been thoroughly wrong.
I never said that PPLB is ubiquitous (widely used--for those not so used
to big words). I
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > Thats right. That's why I debunk them. The lying children call me names.
> > They really hate it when you debunk their fallacies.
> >
> > Vixie is a "screamer", like John Bolton. I'd love to say "procmail Vixie",
> > but he has too much control over DN
Dean Anderson wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
Off topic again Dean...? Can't you keep on topic and keep the personal
attacks out of the list...?
Funny how its only off topic when its about your abuse.
No it's because you're off topic. Whether justified or not SORBS
On May 3, 2005, at 5:50 PM, Dean Anderson wrote:
This was Vixie's last post on the subject of Anycast on DNSOP.
NB: Patrick Gilmore and Chris Morrow, note that Vixie agrees that HTTP
anycast is a bad idea.
Reasonable people can disagree. I think Paul is reasonable, I hope
he thinks I am reasonab
FYI.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/networking/162101115
- ferg
--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
> Note the nonsense about anycast being "completely coherent".
If you check, I think you'll see that he actually said "ultradns's
anycast for .ORG is completely coherent".
BTW, Iljitsch notes that "he is worried, but not as much as Dean seems to
be". As I told Iljitsch, I'm not saying the sky is falling, but I am
saying there is a problem, and instead of addressing the problem, people
are just making personal attacks.
-- Forwarded message --
Date:
[ questionably OT for NANOG; subject line changed; killfile at your
discretion ]
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 03:08:54PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > To expand: the problem is the VoIP client being able to *furnish* an
> > approximation of where it is, to permit the selection of the proper
> >
This was Vixie's last post on the subject of Anycast on DNSOP.
NB: Patrick Gilmore and Chris Morrow, note that Vixie agrees that HTTP
anycast is a bad idea.
Note the nonsense about anycast being "completely coherent".
Note also that Vixie continues to ignore per-packet load balancing issues,
an
> bingo. he's already procmail'ed off by anyone who cares. reserve
> moderation for cases where such doesn't work (eg when the person
> in question deliberately evades filtering).
i would be much more restrictive/specific. i would leave the list
self-moderating except for users who repeatedly vi
- Original Message -
From: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gadi Evron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: On the-record - another "off-topic" post
>
> > Where are our brand new and shiny moderators?
>
> why? what damage is dean actually doi
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:40:51PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, Jay Ashworth has now set up the Best Practices wiki at
> http://bestpractices.wikicities.com/wiki/Main_Page
> Perhaps that is a better place to have these technical
> arguments?
Thanks for the plug, Michael.
Knowing
> Where are our brand new and shiny moderators?
why? what damage is dean actually doing other than to himself?
and some would contend, and i tend to agree, that it is not
possible for him to further damage himself.
don't create or invoke forces that are not needed lest you
are willing to regret
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:59:37PM +0400, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
> Okay. Paul is an asshole. You got your point across. Now what? Did you
> prove him wrong? You going to such a personal level on-list makes you a
> (chose 4 letter word).
>
> Why do I write this? Because if you can send such thi
Dan Hollis wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
>
>>Where are our brand new and shiny moderators?
>
>
> When you respond quoting someone can you please include the quote
> attribution line so our procmail filters can work properly? most of us
> have procmail'd dean out, but your res
On Tue, 3 May 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Where are our brand new and shiny moderators?
When you respond quoting someone can you please include the quote
attribution line so our procmail filters can work properly? most of us
have procmail'd dean out, but your response cutting off his name from th
> Thats right. That's why I debunk them. The lying children call me names.
> They really hate it when you debunk their fallacies.
>
> Vixie is a "screamer", like John Bolton. I'd love to say "procmail Vixie",
> but he has too much control over DNS root servers to ignore him. I did
> that back
--- Dean Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 3 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I believe it is still necessary (and a good thing)
> to
> > post messages on the record that debunk technical
> fallacies.
>
> Thats right. That's why I debunk them. The lying
> children call me nam
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 02:34:22PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 May 2005, David Lesher wrote:
>
> > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
> > >
> > > Better yet, try to name 16 mail clients people _actually use_ which
> > > DON'T, other than MUA-only programs
On Mon, 2 May 2005, David Lesher wrote:
> Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
> >
> > Better yet, try to name 16 mail clients people _actually use_ which
> > DON'T, other than MUA-only programs like mailx and mutt with no SMTP
> > support at all. When I worked at a medium
On Tue, 3 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > it does no good for me to filter out the crackpots
> > if the rest of you are just
> > going to keep on replying to same. so, as RAH had
> > LL say: "never try to teach
> > a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
>
> I believe
Does anyone have, or know of, example naming/labeling conventions for
outside and inside plant cabling? I came across more than a few
mentions of TIA-606, but couldn't find an actual copy of it (didn't
look very hard, not a telephone person, so I'm going to assume it's
one of those "pay for a big,
On Tue, 3 May 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 7200 most certainly does not have interface processors. 7500 does have
> > processors on the VIPs that do forwarding lookups in a distributed
> > fashion, but the same procedure for software forwarding apply, there
> just
> > happen to be a f
At 01:53 PM 5/3/2005, you wrote:
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
All this argument about a guy whose business website is a GIF, with 4 links
above it, 2 of which point to a machine that's refusin
Vixie makes almost nothing but a personal attack. The one relevant
mis-statement is that Vixie seems to suggest that I'm the only one to have
"been around the loop" on PPLB. There were numerous others who agreed with
me on DNSOP. In fact, there wasn't anyone not part of ISC who agreed with
Vixie.
Does anyone have, or know of, example naming/labeling conventions for
outside and inside plant cabling? I came across more than a few
mentions of TIA-606, but couldn't find an actual copy of it (didn't
look very hard, not a telephone person, so I'm going to assume it's
one of those "pay for a big,
On Mon, 2 May 2005, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
> Off topic again Dean...? Can't you keep on topic and keep the personal
> attacks out of the list...?
Funny how its only off topic when its about your abuse.
> Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> >ignored. Then, in the fall of 2003, when the major open rela
On Sun, 1 May 2005, Will Yardley wrote:
> Is it time to break out the "Please do not feed the trolls" sign?
>
> Feeding 'em anyway... but *plonk* for Mr. Anderson. For those who are
> masochists, read on.
>
> On Sun, May 01, 2005 at 10:50:29PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
>
> > But only 16 emai
Are there any sales people lurking that might have fiber in the Palo
Cedro area of California. Contact me off list please.
Dan
> it does no good for me to filter out the crackpots
> if the rest of you are just
> going to keep on replying to same. so, as RAH had
> LL say: "never try to teach
> a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
I believe it is still necessary (and a good thing) to
post messages on
> To expand: the problem is the VoIP client being able to *furnish* an
> approximation of where it is, to permit the selection of the proper
> Public Safety Access Point (or equivalent).
VoIP clients can't provide such information unless they
KNOW this information in the first place. The only so
> 7200 most certainly does not have interface processors. 7500 does have
> processors on the VIPs that do forwarding lookups in a distributed
> fashion, but the same procedure for software forwarding apply, there
just
> happen to be a few more CPUs floating around.
Also, it may not be clear f
I have tried to find a working Vonage security contact for a few weeks
now about a vulnerability... no luck.
Anyone here can help?
Thanks and sorry for the semi-OT post,
Gadi.
On Tuesday 03 May 2005 6:53 am, Colin Johnston wrote:
> Hey folks, just saw this info on UK Gov's ITSafe site
>
> http://www.itsafe.gov.uk/library/news/2005-news-02.html
>
> Call me old fashioned if you want
Get with the modern way Colin ;)
> but this seems crazy, If you ask me
> election time
62 matches
Mail list logo
