*yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
Sorry to continue off topic:
Try to imagine ... a temporary very high tide, rather than a cresting
wave. In addition to the height, it's the wave-length you have to take
into account. Tsunami's rarely become towering breaking waves.
On 3/23/11 6:14 AM, Hammer wrote:
Nathalie,
As an end customer (not a carrier) over in ARIN land I purchased a /48
about a year ago for our future IPv6 needs. We have 4 different Internet
touchpoints (two per carrier) all rated at about 1Gbps. Recently, both
carriers told us that the
- Original Message -
From: Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/032811-paul-baran-packet-switching-obit.html
Oh hell; now we'll *never* lay the ghost of packet switching was
invented to create a nuclear-war-survivable network.
[ reads obit ]
See?
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/032811-paul-baran-packet-switching-obit.html
Oh hell; now we'll *never* lay the ghost of packet switching was
invented to create a
Gavin Pearce wrote:
*yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
Sorry to continue off topic:
Try to imagine ... a temporary very high tide, rather than a cresting
wave. In addition to the height, it's the wave-length you have to take
into account. Tsunami's rarely become
You guys forget a lot of folks on the list are working on cabling ships and
off shore platforms, its not all about what happens on shore in this industry.
Valid point ... however in deep ocean, these things are pretty imperceptible.
The effect on ships on the surface are nominal, and off
On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
You guys forget a lot of folks on the list are working on cabling ships and
off shore platforms, its not all about what happens on shore in this
industry.
Valid point ... however in deep ocean, these things are pretty imperceptible.
On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
You guys forget a lot of folks on the list are working on cabling ships and
off shore platforms, its not all about what happens on shore in this
industry.
Valid point ...
JCG ship in the the open ocean.
Impressive video. The wave height and speed would suggest shallower
waters, and that likely the ship was close to land mass when the video
was filmed rather than open ocean (in the sense of being far out to
sea). Not being there of course I could easily be
On Mar 28, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
You guys forget a lot of folks on the list are working on cabling ships
and off shore platforms, its not all about what
On 03/28/2011 01:22 PM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
JCG ship in the the open ocean.
Impressive video. The wave height and speed would suggest shallower
waters, and that likely the ship was close to land mass when the video
was filmed rather than open ocean (in the sense of being far out to
sea). Not
On 03/28/2011 03:14 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Roland Dobbinsrdobb...@arbor.net
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/032811-paul-baran-packet-switching-obit.html
Oh hell; now we'll *never* lay the ghost of packet switching was
invented to create a
On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
On 3/27/11 2:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
Only if you want to make use of ugly ugly BGP hacks on your routers, or,
you don't care
On Mar 28, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
On 3/27/11 2:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Single AS worldwide is fine with or without a backbone.
Only if you want to make use of ugly ugly
I'm attempting to find out information on the SEO implications of testing ipv6
out.
A couple of concerns that come to mind are:
1) www.domain.com and ipv6.domain.com are serving the exact same content.
Typical SEO standards are to only serve good content from a single domain so
information
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
I agree that allowas-in is not as bad as default, but, I still think that
having one AS per routing policy makes a hell of a
lot more sense and there's really not much downside to having an ASN for each
independent site.
Michael Thomas wrote:
Gavin Pearce wrote:
*yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
Sorry to continue off topic:
Try to imagine ... a temporary very high tide, rather than a cresting
wave. In addition to the height, it's the wave-length you have to take
into account.
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:18:30 -0700
Wil Schultz wschu...@bsdboy.com wrote:
I'm attempting to find out information on the SEO implications of
testing ipv6 out.
A couple of concerns that come to mind are:
1) www.domain.com and ipv6.domain.com are serving the exact same
content. Typical SEO
On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Dave Temkin wrote:
On 3/27/11 2:53 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 25, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Single AS worldwide is fine with or without
On Mar 28, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
I'm attempting to find out information on the SEO implications of testing
ipv6 out.
A couple of concerns that come to mind are:
1) www.domain.com and ipv6.domain.com are serving the exact same content.
Typical SEO standards are to only
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 15:55 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you're worried about SEO, go with native IPv6 and then deploy s
for WWW.domain.foo.
Why is native IPv6 needed? I'd have thought a tunnel would be fine, too.
Regards, K.
--
Why is native IPv6 needed? I'd have thought a tunnel would be fine, too.
I believe the concern is that the higher latency of a tunnel would impact SEO
rankings.
On Mar 28, 2011, at 7:10 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 15:55 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you're worried about SEO, go with native IPv6 and then deploy s
for WWW.domain.foo.
Why is native IPv6 needed? I'd have thought a tunnel would be fine, too.
So why does
www A
On Mar 28, 2011, at 7:17 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Why is native IPv6 needed? I'd have thought a tunnel would be fine, too.
I believe the concern is that the higher latency of a tunnel would impact SEO
rankings.
True but you live with what you can get acces to ;-)
Tom
On Mar 28, 2011, at 3:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 3:18 PM, Wil Schultz wrote:
I'm attempting to find out information on the SEO implications of testing
ipv6 out.
A couple of concerns that come to mind are:
1) www.domain.com and ipv6.domain.com are serving the exact
I would be getting ipv6 connectivity, adding an unknown record
such as ipv6 or www6; but not www, and do as many comparative ipv4 vs
ipv6 tracerouts from as many route servers as possible. Then you will
have the data you need to actually make an informed decision rather
than just guessing how
On 3/25/2011 at 2:21 AM, Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de wrote:
* Roland Dobbins:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Disclosure devalues information.
I think this case is different, given the perception of the cert as
a 'thing' to be bartered.
Private keys have been
I would be getting ipv6 connectivity, adding an unknown record such as
ipv6 or www6; but not www, and do as many comparative ipv4 vs
ipv6 tracerouts from as many route servers as possible. Then you will have the
data you need to actually make an informed decision rather than just guessing
Why do you even need a record to do that? Just do a traceroute to the
v6 address. The temporary record seems to do nothing useful in your
proposed procedure.
Easiest hack to test site usability: Modify your hosts file. Don't even
publish the record in DNS until you're ready.
On Mar 28, 2011, at 4:10 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 15:55 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you're worried about SEO, go with native IPv6 and then deploy s
for WWW.domain.foo.
Why is native IPv6 needed? I'd have thought a tunnel would be fine, too.
He was worried about the
On Mar 28, 2011, at 4:20 PM, TR Shaw wrote:
On Mar 28, 2011, at 7:10 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 15:55 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
If you're worried about SEO, go with native IPv6 and then deploy s
for WWW.domain.foo.
Why is native IPv6 needed? I'd have thought a
In a message written on Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:18:30PM -0700, Wil Schultz
wrote:
I'm attempting to find out information on the SEO implications of testing
ipv6 out.
I don't run a web site where SEO is a top priority, so I don't track
such things.
Quite simply, who's crawling on IPv6? That
On Mar 28, 2011, at 9:50 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 03:18:30PM -0700, Wil Schultz
wrote:
I'm attempting to find out information on the SEO implications of testing
ipv6 out.
I don't run a web site where SEO is a top priority, so I don't track
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Wil Schultz wschu...@bsdboy.com wrote:
I'm attempting to find out information on the SEO implications of testing
ipv6 out.
A couple of concerns that come to mind are:
1) www.domain.com and ipv6.domain.com are serving the exact same content.
Typical SEO
Anyone have details?
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:14:18 -0400 (EDT)
Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote:
Oh hell; now we'll *never* lay the ghost of packet switching was
invented to create a nuclear-war-survivable network.
Maybe you're confusing the invention of packet switching with the
creation of the ARPANET?
On Mar 29, 2011, at 1:21 AM, Wil Schultz wrote:
So far the consensus is to run dual stack natively.
While this definitely is the way things should be set up in the end, I can
see some valid reasons to run ipv4 and ipv6 on separate domains for a while
before final configuration. For
37 matches
Mail list logo
