Thanks to everyone that responded. Based on the information from this list and
several other areas I posted the same question, it seems like a feasible goal.
If anyone has any ideas on how to either reduce my sleeping requirements or
extend the number of hours in a day so that I can actually
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:18:52PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
records are consistent. It is however good practice that these exist and
are consistent.
I will note that the IETF DNSOP WG was unable to agree even on that
latter claim.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan
Dyn Labs
asulli...@dyn.com
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regard .0
and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that should be
considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you should
expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP
As far as I know. There is no RFC based restrictions based on having
those as usable IPs.
We have been routing customers IP blocks on our network for a while
and never had a problem with 0 or .255 as the assigned IP even with
Microsoft Windows 2003 as the operating system.
Im not sure how to fix
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com
wrote:
Any experience or recommendations? Besides replace the ISA proxy…. Since
it's not mine to replace. Also curious whether there's an RFC recommending
against the use of .0 or .255 addresses for this reason.
Way
Hi Paul,
On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com wrote:
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regard .0
and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that should be
considered invalid. When you have a pool of
On 10/22/12 17:18 -0500, Matt Buford wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Paul Zugnoni paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com
wrote:
Any experience or recommendations? Besides replace the ISA proxy…. Since
it's not mine to replace. Also curious whether there's an RFC recommending
against the use
Hello,
Several months ago, there was discussion on the list regarding IP
tunnel maximum transmission unit (MTU). Since that time, it has been
brought to my attention by members of my company's network operations
staff that tunnel MTU is a very real problem they need to cope with
on a daily basis
From: Paul Zugnoni [mailto:paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com]
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that
automatically regard .0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as
src/dst in packets as traffic that should be considered
invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you
Hi,
We're trying to resolve some delivery issues reported by hotmail users.
Started happening a few weeks ago. Getting immediate NDRs, and the
server that is supposed to receive the email has no records of
attempts. The messages also don't match what the receiving server
should be sending. The
--- j...@instituut.net wrote:
From: Job Snijders j...@instituut.net
Curious whether it's commonplace to find systems that automatically regard
.0 and .255 IP addresses (ipv4) as src/dst in packets as traffic that should
be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses,
d be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you =
should expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP or N=
AT pool, or subnets larger than /24). Yet I've run into a commercial IP mgm=
t product and getting reports of M$ ISA proxy that is
In message 201210222307.q9mn7aiv063...@aurora.sol.net, Joe Greco writes:
d be considered invalid. When you have a pool of assignable addresses, you
=
should expect to see x.x.x.0 and x.x.x.255 in passing traffic (ie. VIP or N
=
AT pool, or subnets larger than /24). Yet I've run into a
Ten year old equipment should be CIDR aware. It's not like it CIDR
wasn't in wide spread using in 2002.
And BCP38 has had sufficient time to be globally deployed.
What's your point, again? ;-)
I was pretty careful in trying to outline that it's still expected
that there are defective
On 10/22/12, Paul Zugnoni paul.zugn...@jivesoftware.com wrote:
[snip]
Any experience or recommendations? Besides replace the ISA proxy…. Since
it's not mine to replace. Also curious whether there's an RFC recommending
against the use of .0 or .255 addresses for this reason.
ISA is old, and
On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:24 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Since tunnels always reduce the effective MTU seen by data packets due to the
encapsulation overhead, the only two ways to accommodate
the tunnel MTU is either through the use of path MTU discovery or through
fragmentation and reassembly.
And since owen has not yet mentioned it, consider something that supports
having : in its address as well.
Sort of tangentially related, I had a support rep for a vendor once tell me
that a 255 in the second or third octet was not valid for an ipv4 address. Hard
to troubleshoot a problem when
On 2012-10-18, at 14:57, Pedersen, Sean sean.peder...@usairways.com wrote:
Does anyone out there have any experience with a script, tool or appliance
that would help manage the creation and maintenance of DNS records for Layer
3 interfaces on routers and switches?
On 2012-10-22, at 11:36, Andrew Sullivan asulli...@dyn.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 03:18:52PM +1100, Mark Andrews wrote:
records are consistent. It is however good practice that these exist and
are consistent.
I will note that the IETF DNSOP WG was unable to agree even on that
On 10/22/12, Joe Abley jab...@hopcount.ca wrote:
I will further note that just because dnsop can't agree on something doesn't
mean that it's not worth agreeing on.
[snip]
Some of the IETF WGs' members wouldn't be able to agree what color
the sky appears to be on a clear sunny day.
But it is
20 matches
Mail list logo
