On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 08:21 -0700, Matthew Black wrote:
> What would you do if a major US computer security firm
> attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
> Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
> it out?
Can you better define "attempted to hack", please.
-Jim P.
At 8:22 -0700 5/29/07, David Conrad wrote:
Jordi,
On May 29, 2007, at 6:50 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
This is useless. Users need to use the same name for both IPv4 and IPv6,
Why?
The IETF chose to create a new protocol instead of extending the old protocol.
Even the way you ask for n
I understand the problems but I think there are clear cut cases where
/48's make sense- a large scale anycast DNS provider would seem to be a
good candidate for a /48 and I would hope it would get routed. Then again
that might be the only sensible reason...
Don't give people an excuse to deagg
On Tue, 29 May 2007 15:08:34 + (GMT)
"Chris L. Morrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> vixie had a fun discussion about anycast and dns... something about him
> being sad/sorry about making everyone have to carry a /24 for f-root
> everywhere. I think there is a list of 'golden prefixes' or some
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Matthew Black wrote:
What would you do if a major US computer security firm
attempted to hack your site's servers and networks?
Would you tell the company or let their experts figure
it out?
I'd hold a very public discussion on the matter.
If their people are intentional
> > I understand the problems but I think there are clear cut cases where
> > /48's make sense- a large scale anycast DNS provider would seem to be a
> > good candidate for a /48 and I would hope it would get routed. Then
> > again that might be the only sensible reason...
>
> f-root does this on
On Tue, 29 May 2007, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
f-root does this on the IPv6 side: 2001:500::/48
Whether that's available everywhere on IPv6 networks, is as Bill
pointed-out, another question.
Have a look at it:
http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/lg/?when=now&year=2007&month=05&day=29&hour=18&show=a
and this means getting a good story in front of bean-counters about
expending opex/capex to do this transition work. Today the simplest answer
is: "if we expend Z dollars on new equipment, and A dollars on IT work we
will be able to capture X number of users for Y new service" or some
version of
[Major cross post, set reply-to to NANOG, please honor it... ]
[Note: I am not talking about ULA Central here, though it could apply]
To stop the pesky emails about ULA, I hereby present a (partial)
solution to this problem.
We have ULA as per RFC4193. With a little math one can generate a ULA
pr
On Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:20:24 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
>On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 08:21 -0700, Matthew Black wrote:
>> What would you do if a major US computer security firm attempted to
>> hack your site's servers and networks? Would you tell the company or
>> let their experts figure it out?
On 5/29/07, Pete Ehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 08:21 -0700, Matthew Black wrote:
What would you do if a major US computer security firm attempted to
hack your site's servers and networks? Would you tell the company or
let their experts figure it out?
Personally, I wou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) writes:
> I once suggested that due to the odd nature of the root name server
> addresses in the DNS protocol (namely, that they must be hardwired
> into every caching resolver out there and thus, are somewhat
> difficult to change), the IETF/IAB should desi
Mark Jeftovic wrote:
Don't suppose there's an swbell.net dns admin around somewhere?
Please give me a shout offlist, thx
-mark
I sent this to a contact there. Should reply shortly
-Dennis
13 matches
Mail list logo
