Hi all,
Hi,
What should happen is this quasi-legitimate method of
multi-homing should just be declared illegitimate for IPv6, to
facilitate stricter filtering. Instead, what should happen is the
multi-homing should be required to fit into one of 3 scenarios, so
any announcement with
On 9 Mar 2012, at 22:24, Jay Hanke wrote:
How critical is BGP MD5 at Internet Exchange Points? Would lack of
support for MD5 authentication on route servers prevent some peers
from multilaterally connecting? Do most exchange operators support it?
At LONAP in London, the route-servers do not
Steve Gibbard (scg) writes:
I have no idea what Cisco equipment Elmar is using, but I wouldn't jump to
the conclusion that it can't withdraw routes when needed.
Wouldn't the dns bit of ip sla do most of what's needed on IOS ?
On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:01 PM, George Bonser wrote:
I haven't heard anyone advocate accepting less than a /48. I think /48
is a reasonable You must be this tall to ride barrier.
Beyond that, YMMV.
Owen
Apparently AS6939 has at various times :) I remember getting some /64
Andy Davidson a...@nosignal.org writes:
Because TCP MD5 packets touch a router's CPU, using MD5 introduces a
new attack vector - see nanogii passim
(e.g. http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog39/presentations/Scholl.pdf).
Don't do it. :-)
Tom's slide deck is often misinterpreted - the salient
Anurag Bhatia m...@anuragbhatia.com writes:
Can someone share if there's huge difference in . root servers Vs gTLD
servers? I understand that root only hold all TLD's - cc and gTLD
delegation that would be few hundred TLDs delegation while gTLDs hold lot
of domain names but if one country
On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
there are four gtlds
Aren't there actually seven?
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net // http://www.arbornetworks.com
Luck is the residue of opportunity and
On 10/03/2012 14:54, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
there are four gtlds
Aren't there actually seven?
According to ICANN[1] there are roughly two dozen gTLDs
[1] http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about
--
Graham Beneke
In article 95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net you write:
On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
there are four gtlds
Aren't there actually seven?
Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60.
R's,
John
aero. 172800 IN NS
Op 10 mrt 2012, om 03:40 heeft Chris Adams het volgende geschreven:
Can anybody tell me how they are configuring their IPv6 setup?
They deploy using 6rd. In other words, they get to deploy IPv6 _again_ in about
a few years time.
Basically any router with 6rd support and the knobs in the ui
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:52 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
I'm well into my second decade of having a v6 prefix in the dfz and am
passingly familiar with powers of two...
Point is that expecting people globally to take a /48 from PA space probably
isn't a realistic expectation.
bgptables.merit.edu
On Mar 7, 2012 2:06 PM, Radke, Justin jra...@canbytel.com wrote:
All great answers! Thank you!
-=JGR
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 10:35 AM, David Walker davidianwal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 08/03/2012, Anurag Bhatia m...@anuragbhatia.com wrote:
Hi Radke
You can try
In article 95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net you write:
On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
there are four gtlds
Aren't there actually seven?
Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60.
well
there are the legacy (pre-2000) set.
there are the seven
On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article 95f7df59-052d-43ba-869f-289df915c...@arbor.net you write:
On Mar 10, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
there are four gtlds
Aren't there actually seven?
Including the new IDN TLDs, there are now 60.
The IDN TLDs (to date,
On Mar 10, 2012, at 1:28 AM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
Can someone share if there's huge difference in . root servers Vs gTLD
servers?
Yes, there is a huge difference. For one thing (and ignoring the quantity of
data), the operations of a gTLD's name servers is managed by a single entity
(e.g.,
Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the
traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for
huge racks of extremely powerful servers .. and are possibly also open to
cross subsidizing the costs that GTLD operators will incur to host
instances of
The IDN TLDs (to date, with the exception of the test IDN TLDs) are more
properly considered ccTLDs as they are the localized version of country names.
Good point.
Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and generic TLDs, but
that's probably splitting hairs.
I suppose,
On 3/10/12 08:05 , Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the
traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for
huge racks of extremely powerful servers .. and are possibly also open to
cross subsidizing the costs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
There appear to be no anycast instances of the gTLD servers in Africa either.
That's not the case. .ORG, for example, is hosted in Cape Town and Cairo, and
we host more than a hundred ccTLDs in
Thanks for info Mr Bill.
What about India? Do you see any gTLD instances in India?
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mar 9, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Graham Beneke wrote:
There appear to be no anycast
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the
traffic, and has staff who are able to provide efficient remote hands for
huge racks of extremely powerful servers .
Yes of course, if you don't count the multi gbps DDoS attacks and such ..
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
DNS even at scale is not a particularly compute intensive service.
That said whether it's worth it or not is in the eyes of operator.
--
Also, one could make a distinction between sponsored TLDs and
generic TLDs, but that's probably splitting hairs.
I suppose, but they all have similar registry and registrar agreements
with ICANN, which is what makes them different from ccTLDs.
at present there are almost as many
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mar 10, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Sure, if you can find a datacenter that's capable of handling all the
traffic, and has staff who are able to
On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the
effort to deploy into India.
operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled
in one_of{us,ca,ie} other than VGRS. as india is a competitor's
property, investment
well... we actually intend to just announce /64's and smaller as well.
i don't see the problem with that.
just get routers with enough memory...
i'm rather for a specification of a minimum supported route-size (let's
say something along the lines of 64GB in each border router, it's 2012
we also should have expanded the ASN to minimum 64 bits at the time it was
expanded to 32 bit for exactly the same reason btw.
there -are- some technical reasons why /64's would be practical as
end-site stuff, and if we want to be able to make all those end site
networks independant, we'd
and anyway, the average visit to facebook is still more data than the
entire ipv6 route table at the moment.
we might also want to speed up bgp handling by routers a bit in the
future, as some are DAMN SLOW in processing a few hundred thousand sets of
data... (no people, it's NOT acceptable
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis s...@cb3rob.net wrote:
just get routers with enough memory...
i'm rather for a specification of a minimum supported route-size (let's
say something along the lines of 64GB in each border router, it's 2012 after
all ;) than for putting limits
Since there was a question about this, some numbers:
Serial: 2012031001
Statistics
==
Number of root servers: 13
Roots with IPv6 glue: 9
Number of gTLDs: 22
Number of ccTLDs:249
Number of IDN TLDs: 42
Total number of
On 3/10/12 2:47 PM, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
well... we actually intend to just announce /64's and smaller as well.
i don't see the problem with that.
just get routers with enough memory...
i'm rather for a specification of a minimum supported route-size
(let's say something along the
On 3/10/12 14:47 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
let's say, there is 6 billion people in the world.. if they all have 1
route table entry (average ;) i see no technical limitations on anything
produced AFTER 2008 actually.
Over in ipv4 land there are ~40k entities that appear in the dfz
On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth the
effort to deploy into India.
operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator domiciled
in one_of{us,ca,ie}
On Mar 10, 2012, at 6:08 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 12:52 AM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
I'm well into my second decade of having a v6 prefix in the dfz and am
passingly familiar with powers of two...
Point is that expecting people globally to take a /48 from
On Mar 10, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 3/10/12 14:47 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote:
let's say, there is 6 billion people in the world.. if they all have 1
route table entry (average ;) i see no technical limitations on anything
produced AFTER 2008 actually.
Over in ipv4 land
On 03/10/2012 04:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth
the effort to deploy into India.
operational control of .in passed to a
I can tell you with 100% certainty that when I was responsible for
handling ccTLD delegation changes that we took the issue of ccTLDs being
operated for the benefit of the Internet community in that country, and
the global Internet community as a whole, very seriously. I have no
reason to
On Mar 10, 2012, at 6:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
The more telling fallacy here that really speaks to the heart of why I am
dismayed and disappointed by ICANN's management of the whole TLD mess is the
idea that a CCTLD is the property of a TLD operator to begin with.
Your dismay and
Hi,
I am trying to look into dsl in the RDU area and att customer service has
been exceedingly unhelpful only telling me no service available, we have
no idea when services will become available, check back periodically.
I would atleast like to get an answer that theres no available capacity,
its
Google for their Uverse site and check if u can get it... They will do Uverse
(Internet only). Only if u order online
Faisal
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 10, 2012, at 9:02 PM, chris tknch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to look into dsl in the RDU area and att customer service has
Looks like no dice on uverse, says its not available. i thought uverse was
fios though atleast that was my understanding. now im even more confused,
how can att/bellsouth be the ILEC and have zero internet options at all but
be offering pots? Only logical thing I can think of is distance from the
Generally speaking these services are available anywhere ATT has wires:
Analog
ISDN
T1
due to these being the old tariffed services. If you call about ISDN, they
will likely say, huh what is that? The easiest way to get T1 in service is
to use a reseller. They will be deal with the ILEC for you.
You mean you haven't then immediately heard the we are a developing
country, please provide it free story?
On 3/11/12, Jonathan Lassoff j...@thejof.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mar 10,
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:02 PM, chris tknch...@gmail.com wrote:
I am trying to look into dsl in the RDU area and att customer service has
been exceedingly unhelpful only telling me no service available, we have
no idea when services will become available, check back periodically.
I would
On 3/10/12 6:34 PM, chris wrote:
Looks like no dice on uverse, says its not available. i thought uverse was
fios though atleast that was my understanding. now im even more confused,
how can att/bellsouth be the ILEC and have zero internet options at all but
be offering pots? Only logical thing
45 matches
Mail list logo
