>On 15/10/2007, at 12:05 AM, Simon Lyall wrote:
> As for where the Blackboxes will be used, It'll be where companies
>> want
>> servers in place in weeks or months and existing datacenters are
>> full or
>> in the wrong place. Think of a building full of people processing
>> insurance claims
I have a few customers' customers, who appear at a local IX. Due to
the MLPA-like nature of the IX, I hear their prefixes both at the IX
and via my own transit customers. I normally use localpref to prefer
customer advertisements over peers' advertisements.
There is a customer's customer w
On 15/10/2007, at 12:05 AM, Simon Lyall wrote:
As for where the Blackboxes will be used, It'll be where companies
want
servers in place in weeks or months and existing datacenters are
full or
in the wrong place. Think of a building full of people processing
insurance claims in India or a clu
Further explanation and examples for XP, Windows 2003 and Vista also
available here:
http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/guides&id=2
http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/guides&id=1
http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=using/connectivity/guides&id=13
Regard
On 14-okt-2007, at 19:34, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Is this a configurable option for the inverse behavoir? Seems to me
that it should be since it affects the user experience and sets policy
for the network. It just may be, but I can't find the option if it is.
If you have FreeBSD or Windows you
On 13 Oct 2007 15:47:16 +, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Nathan Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ...
> > Nice rant though :-)
>
> agreed.
>
> > ...
> > Does anyone have info on how bind (and other recursive resolvers)
> > select whether to use v6 or v4 if an NS points at a re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:23:15 GMT
> From: Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: How to Handle ISPs Who Turn a Blind Eye to Criminal Activity?
> [ ... ]
> Sometimes I think to myself that "...ISPs have Terms of Service and
> Acceptable
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Andy Davidson wrote:
> I understand what Lorell means - the web 2.0 scaling model is to
> throw resources, rather than intelligence at your bottlenecks.
I think this is a little hard. Just about all the Web 2.0 presentations I
see have a big bit that says that how they had to
On 4-okt-2007, at 14:36, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
I would be interested to know how many people favor each of the
following approaches. Feel free to send me private email and I'll
summerize.
I only got three replies, which don't really support drawing many
conclusions.
1. Keep NAT a
On 14 Oct 2007, at 01:26, Jim Popovitch wrote:
- New Media / Web 2.0
HUH?
I understand what Lorell means - the web 2.0 scaling model is to
throw resources, rather than intelligence at your bottlenecks.
I met some 'web 2' people at a conference quite recently, and they
were telli
10 matches
Mail list logo
