On Wednesday, 2004-06-16 at 20:02 AST, "support services"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:28:37PM -0700, Tony Rall wrote:
> > > http://216.239.57.104
>
> Yes, the old servers are still there but, they are out of date and not
> in-sync with any other servers. They can ac
Jared Mauch wrote:
I think the question is truly this:
some of the dns responses that i saw had low ttls, should
they use a longer ttl?
the problems i saw were related to the data expiring from the cache,
some of this is to workaround broken clients/resolvers that will "lat
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 04:28:37PM -0700, Tony Rall wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 2004-06-16 at 13:56 MST, "Duncan Meakins"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is anyone aware of a non-akamized way to access google?
>
> http://216.239.57.104
>
> (No guarantee that that address will continue to work, b
On Wednesday, 2004-06-16 at 13:56 MST, "Duncan Meakins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is anyone aware of a non-akamized way to access google?
http://216.239.57.104
(No guarantee that that address will continue to work, but it currently
goes to one of their servers in Calif.)
Tony Rall
I'd suggest working with Google if you feel you need some sort of out of
band access to them rather than asking here. I'm sure Google doesn't need
thousands of people picking weird random ways to access their clusters. :)
> Is anyone aware of a non-akamized way to access google? Considering
> we
Is anyone aware of a non-akamized way to access google? Considering we've
had a few Akamai issues in the past couple months it could proove handy in
the future to be able to access google through non-Akamai channels. I
thought maybe the API access they provide may bypass it, but with a little
ethe
