- Original Message -
> From: "Arturo Servin"
> Again, if every ISP followed BCP 38 that would not happen (IPv6 and
> IPv4). But they are not, and probably they won't.
I disagree with Arturo's assertion that BCP38 would help the "people
don't SWIP their subdelegations" problem, but that d
On 6/17/12 1:18 PM, "Jason Roysdon"
wrote:
>Jason,
>
>Will all MX get RRs, or at least all of your MX priority levels
>have at least one RR? Without a failure of mx2 & mx3, Sendmail and
>well-behaving mail servers are never going to try mx1.
Yes, in the relatively near future.
- Jaso
On 18 Jun 2012, at 09:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:50 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 Jun 2012, at 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lather rinse repeat with a better choice of address...
>>>
>>> 2001:550:3ee3:f329:102a3:2aff:fe23:1f69
>>>
>>> This is in the A
In article <20120617095906.ga32...@vacation.karoshi.com.?>,
bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com top-posts:
Why not. Lots of aspects of the Internet are regulated.
Internet Regulator?
/bill
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:43:26AM +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
In article <20120616160738.eee09...@resin05.m
On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:50 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> On 17 Jun 2012, at 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> Lather rinse repeat with a better choice of address...
>>
>> 2001:550:3ee3:f329:102a3:2aff:fe23:1f69
>>
>> This is in the ARIN region...
>>
>> It's from within a particular ISP's /32.
On 17 Jun 2012, at 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Lather rinse repeat with a better choice of address...
>
> 2001:550:3ee3:f329:102a3:2aff:fe23:1f69
>
> This is in the ARIN region...
>
> It's from within a particular ISP's /32.
>
> Has that ISP delegated some overlapping fraction to another I
6 matches
Mail list logo
