Re: Anyone see a game changer here?

> When did this become slashdot? about 1996 randy

Re: Daily Industry and Government call for Commuinications infrastructure (fwd)

To all I received yesterday morning from Mr. Montaigne Marcelin, Director of Conatel the aid that has been given by Codetel to help the technicians in the Telecommunications sector: 1. 9 packs of rice 60 Kg 2. 2 packs of beans 60 Kg 3. 2 containers of oil 30 pounds each 4. 4 herring

Re: Anyone see a game changer here?

On 1/24/10 7:48 AM, Damian Menscher wrote: On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Gadi Evron wrote: On 1/24/10 6:37 AM, Damian Menscher wrote: So... you're taking incomplete information hyped up by "tech" reporters operating based on leaks from people tangential to an investigation as fact, and dec

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:04:31 CST, Larry Sheldon said: > I remember a day when 18 was the largest number of computers that would > ever be needed. First off, it was 5, not 18. :) Second, there's not much evidence that TJ Watson actually said it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson#Fam

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On 1/24/2010 10:03 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:04:31 CST, Larry Sheldon said: I remember a day when 18 was the largest number of computers that would ever be needed. First off, it was 5, not 18. :) Second, there's not much evidence that TJ Watson actually said i

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 1/23/2010 9:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > 64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M, you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with M&Ms before you ran out of /64s. >>> >>> Did somebody once say s

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:57:17 -0800 Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:04 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > > > On 1/23/2010 9:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > 64 bits is enough networks that if each network was an almond M&M, > you would be able to fill all of the great lakes with

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Mark Smith wrote: > > Actually, from what Christian Huitema says in his "IPv6: The New > Internet Protocol" book, the original IPv6 address size was 64 bits, > derived from Steve Deering's Simple Internet Protocol proposal. > IIRC, they doubled it to 128 bits to spec

Re: Best Practices - BGP community to signal transit announces.

On 23/01/2010 17:51, Patrick Tracanelli wrote: I am acting as transit for a number of ASNs, and my upstream peers do filter my announces (as they should as I understand). Absolutely. Is there any best practices or RFC which shall suggest how this community should be set up? Say, while I do st

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:21 EST, Steven Bellovin said: > Actually, Scott Bradner and I share most of the credit (or blame) for > the change from 64 bits to 128. > > During the days of the IPng directorate, quite a number of different > alternatives were considered. At one point, there was a com

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Jan 24, 2010, at 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:21 EST, Steven Bellovin said: > >> Actually, Scott Bradner and I share most of the credit (or blame) for >> the change from 64 bits to 128. >> >> During the days of the IPng directorate, quite a number of di

Re: Status as of Friday COB @ Boutillers, Port au Prince, Haiti

On Jan 23, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > Reginald Chauvet, the owner of the Data Center in Boutillers, in which the > .ht Country Code registry is a tenant, has left Haiti with his family. All > the critical telecom infrastructures are located at the Data Center in > Boutille

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On 24/01/2010, at 5:28 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 01:52:21PM +0100, Mathias Seiler > wrote: >> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link >> between two routers. This works great but when I think that I'm wasting 2^64

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On 24/01/10 12:54, Owen DeLong wrote: Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind. I'd suggest using a /126. For two reasons. 1) Using EUI-64 addresses on router-router links is an error, the consequences of which you encounter the first time you replace some faulty har

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:41:18 -0500 Steven Bellovin wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2010, at 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:01:21 EST, Steven Bellovin said: > > > >> Actually, Scott Bradner and I share most of the credit (or blame) for > >> the change from 64 bits to

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:12:04 +1030 Glen Turner wrote: > On 24/01/10 12:54, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Use the /64... It's OK... IPv6 was designed with that in mind. > > I'd suggest using a /126. For two reasons. > > 1) Using EUI-64 addresses on router-router links is an error, the > consequence

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

> During the days of the IPng directorate, quite a number of different > alternatives were considered.  At one point, there was a compromise proposal > known as the "Big 10" design, because it was propounded at the Big Ten > Conference Center near O'Hare.  One feature of it was addresses of leng

DURZ published in root - you ready?

Figured I'd drop a note here reminding folks of the signed root zone publication timeline, which calls for L root to begin serving a 'DURZ' the "week of 1/25/2010" -- which is now - depending on what timezone you're in: If yo

Re: DURZ published in root - you ready?

Good point, tomorrow/today we'll start seeing what gets broken and hopefully why. Regards. Jorge On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Danny McPherson wrote: > > Figured I'd drop a note here reminding folks of the > signed root zone publication timeline, which calls for > L root to begin serving a 'D

Re: DURZ published in root - you ready?

In message <202705b1001241834l5b1911bat97ee2130f632f...@mail.gmail.com>, Jorge Amodio writes: > Good point, tomorrow/today we'll start seeing what gets broken and > hopefully why. > > Regards. > Jorge I don't expect to see much until the last root server (J) switches over. DNS implemententatio

Re: DURZ published in root - you ready?

Danny/NANOG'ers L-Root will start serving DURZ 2010-01-27 2000 UTC. Let me know if you have any questions Mehmet Akcin ICANN/L-ROOT On 1/24/10 6:30 PM, "Danny McPherson" wrote: > > Figured I'd drop a note here reminding folks of the > signed root zone publication timeline, which calls for >

Re: DURZ published in root - you ready?

On 2010-01-24, at 21:30, Danny McPherson wrote: > Figured I'd drop a note here reminding folks of the > signed root zone publication timeline, which calls for > L root to begin serving a 'DURZ' the "week of 1/25/2010" > -- which is now - depending on what timezone you're in: > >

Re: Using /126 for IPv6 router links

On Jan 24, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Nathan Ward wrote: > > On 24/01/2010, at 5:28 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > >> In a message written on Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 01:52:21PM +0100, Mathias >> Seiler wrote: >>> I use a /126 if possible but have also configured one /64 just for the link >>> between two route