High density virtual machine setups can have 100 VMs per host. Each VM
has at least a link-local address and a routable address. This is 200
groups per port, 9600 per 48 port switch. This is a rather large amount
of state for what it's worth. If you have mld snooping on a switch
aggregating multipl
On Wed, 2013-01-30 at 06:41 +0200, Jussi Peltola wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:07:57PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> > Also, if a switch does not do MLD snooping, it will flood multicast to
> > all ports. You lose one of the major benefits of IPv6 multicast - less
> > admin traffic.
> NDP multica
On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:36 , George Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:46:06PM -0800, Owen DeLong
>> wrote:
>>> Case 2, you move the CO Full problem from the CO to the adjacent
>>> cable vaults. Even with fibe
On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:30 , Jean-Francois Mezei
wrote:
> On 13-01-29 22:03, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>> The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind. The muni
>> MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a generator
>> to work. It should not need to be staffed 24x7,
On Jan 29, 2013, at 20:16 , Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:53:34PM -0800, Owen DeLong
> wrote:
>> It really isn't. You'd be surprised how many uncompensated truck rolls
>> are eliminated every day by being able to talk to the ONT from the
>> help desk and
>
> That's why I think rather than having the muni run colo (which may
> fill), they should just allow providers to drop in their own fiber
> cables, and run a fiber patch only room. There could then be hundreds
> of private colo providers in a 1km radius of the fiber MMR, generating
> lots of co
- Original Message -
From:
To: "Rob McEwen"
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: Looking for success stories in Qwest/Centurylink land
snip
So where are all the arrests and convictions for the mortgage games and
other Wall Street malfeasance that led to the financi
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:07:57PM +1100, Karl Auer wrote:
> Also, if a switch does not do MLD snooping, it will flood multicast to
> all ports. You lose one of the major benefits of IPv6 multicast - less
> admin traffic.
>
> You need to spec new switches with IPv6 capability.
NDP multicast has
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:46:06PM -0800, Owen DeLong
> wrote:
>> Case 2, you move the CO Full problem from the CO to the adjacent
>> cable vaults. Even with fiber, a 10,000 strand bundle is not small.
>>
>> It's also a l
On 13-01-29 22:03, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> The _muni_ should not run any equipment colo of any kind. The muni
> MMR should be fiber only, and not even require so much as a generator
> to work. It should not need to be staffed 24x7, have anything that
> requires PM, etc.
This is not possible in a
On 13-01-29 19:39, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> It rings true to me, in general, and I would go that way... but there is
> a sting in that tail: Can I reasonably expect that Road Runner will in fact
> be technically equipped and inclined to meet me to get my residents as
> subscribers? Especially if th
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:53:34PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
> It really isn't. You'd be surprised how many uncompensated truck rolls
> are eliminated every day by being able to talk to the ONT from the
> help desk and tell the subscriber "Well, I can manage your ONT and
> it'
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:46:06PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
> Case 2, you move the CO Full problem from the CO to the adjacent
> cable vaults. Even with fiber, a 10,000 strand bundle is not small.
>
> It's also a lot more expensive to pull in 10,000 strands from a few
> bloc
On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:11:56PM -0800, Owen DeLong
> wrote:
>> I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled services
>> of various
>> forms.
>
> Could you expand on why you think this is necessary?
On Jan 29, 2013, at 7:03 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:14:46PM -0800, Owen DeLong
> wrote:
>> The MMR should, IMHO be a colo facility where service providers can
>> lease racks if they choose. The colo should also be operated on a cost
>> recovery bas
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 07:11:56PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
> I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled services of
> various
> forms.
Could you expand on why you think this is necessary? I know you've
given this some thought, and I'd like to unders
I would put it differently.
I believe that the entity (muni, county, state, special district, or whatever)
should
be required to make dark fiber patches available.
I believe they should be allowed to optionally provide L2 enabled services of
various
forms.
I believe that they should be prohibi
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 03:03:51PM -0500, Zachary Giles
wrote:
> Not to sidestep the conversation here .. but, Leo, I love your concept
> of the muni network, MMR, etc. What city currently implements this? I
> want to move there! :)
I don't know any in the US that have the mo
On Jan 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei"
>
>> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
>> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
>> offering. Wholesale only.
>>
>> Not o
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:14:46PM -0800, Owen DeLong
wrote:
> The MMR should, IMHO be a colo facility where service providers can
> lease racks if they choose. The colo should also be operated on a cost
> recovery basis and should only be open to installation of equipment
> d
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:54:26PM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
> Hmmm. I tend to be a Layer-2-available guy, cause I think it lets smaller
> players play. Does your position (likely more deeply thought out than
> mine) permit Layer 2 with Muni ONT and Ethernet handoff, as lo
On 1/29/2013 4:39 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Jean-Francois Mezei"
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
offering. Wholesale only.
Not only is the last mile comp
- Original Message -
> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei"
> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail
> offering. Wholesale only.
>
> Not only is the last mile competitively neutral because it is not
>
On 1/29/13 3:50 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
> It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince or
> federal) to stay at a last mile layer 2 service with no retail offering.
> Wholesale only.
That reminds me, the City of Eugene is interviewing for a CTO. I think
the City could
Peter,
Network visibility wasn't mentioned as a requirement, but it is worth
considering since the ToR switches are the best place monitor server
network I/O, tunneled traffic (VxLAN, GRE etc), storage (iSCSI, FCoE,
HDFS etc).
The Nexus 5548 switch does not include monitoring (i.e. no
NetFlow/sFl
It's a matter of economies of scale. If everyone has to light their own
fiber, you haven't saved that much. If the fiber is lit, at L2, and
charged back on a cost-recovery basis, then there are tremendous
economies of scale. The examples that come to mind are campus and
corporate networks.
On 13-01-29 15:17, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> If you're at layer 1, and arguably at layer 2, then move-add-change on
> physical patches / VLAN assignments is all you would need to log, since you
> don't actually touch "real traffic".
It is in fact important for a government (municipal, state/privince
On Jan 29, 2013, at 09:05 , Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:59:31AM -0500, Jay Ashworth
> wrote:
>> Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks
>> (at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the first,
>>
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 9:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 28, 2013, at 10:03 , Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Pavel Dimow wrote:
>>
>>> As being personally involved deploying IPv6 on an enterprise network,
>>> here's how I did it (
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 1/28/2013 7:27 AM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
>>
>> - configure IPv6 firewall rules (mostly a mirror of the IPv4 rulesets)
>
>
> Hopefully that did not included filtering ICMPv6? :)
No, of course not :)
I did a bit (actually very little) of re
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Mukom Akong T. wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu
> wrote:
>>
>> I thought about running pure IPv6 inside and do 6to4, but it's too
>> much of a headache,
>
>
> Nice call (skipping 6to4)
>
>>
>> not to mention that not all the internal eq
There's a really simple solution to this problem...
Let the muni provide L1/L2 network, and make sure that your L3 usage is
entirely run over encrypted channels between you and your (non-muni)
L3 service provider.
At that point, sure, the muni can see that you sent a lot of packets full of
gibber
One thing that is bothersome about carriers is that sometimes if they
have Tons of fiber to your building, they still will only offer
Layer2/3 services. If there's fiber there, I'd like to be able to
lease it in some fashion (even if expensive, but preferably not).
If a muni is making something th
>
>>> Whereas, with IPv6 you have most, if not all of the same factors
>>> to consider, but there is some marginal added complexity around
>>> things like SLAAC/RA, some different terminology, binary math in
>>> hex instead of octal, network sizes are many orders of magnitude
>>> larger, etc. So t
In article
you
write:
>- Original Message -
>> From: "Doug Barton"
>
>> > Depends on how big your "deployment" is. For a small office -- say,
>> > 100 PCs or less; something that will fit in what I will catch schidt
>> > for referring to as a "Class C" :-) -- with a single current
>> >
- Original Message -
> From: "Elle Plato"
[ attribution lost ]
> > See, the Comcast's and AT&T of the world are right that governments
> > shouldn't be ISP's, that should be left to the private sector. I
> > want a choice of ISP's offering different services, not a single
> > monopoly. In
Both.
If you're looking for some kind of actual out of band (for disaster recovery
scenarios), Satellite is an excellent option. If you just need 100-200kbps for
basic console access, you could absolutely accomplish this with satellite. The
only real difference between Satellite and Cellular is
> See, the Comcast's and AT&T of the world are right that governments
> shouldn't be ISP's, that should be left to the private sector. I
> want a choice of ISP's offering different services, not a single
> monopoly. In this case the technology can provide that, so it
> should be available.
>
It
For typical console access/OOB use cases only or a lot more data? If the
former, I can't see any reason to mess with anything more than a
telemetry-rate plan SIM card in a 3g/4g console server. Chances are, if
you can get cell phone coverage to your cage, it will work fine. They're
also very che
- Original Message -
> From: "John Kemp"
> Not sure if anyone mentioned Aaron's presentation on this topic
> from way back... Here's the link:
>
> http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Wednesday/Hughes_Kosters_fundamentals_N47_Wed.pdf
I hadn't, but now that I have, my opin
I would be more than happy to put an antenna on a data center roof. Depending
on throughput requirements, it would probably end up being cheaper to use
satellite. Satellite is excellent for actual OOB and obviously much more
reliable in a DR scenario.
>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The fi
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Mike Lyon wrote:
> Last I heard, roof rights are pricey down there :)
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Warren Bailey <
> wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Satellite! ;)
...And somewhat silly, given that it's *that* facility. But the roof
Not sure if anyone mentioned Aaron's presentation on this topic
from way back... Here's the link:
http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Wednesday/Hughes_Kosters_fundamentals_N47_Wed.pdf
John Kemp (k...@routeviews.org)
On 1/26/13 1:26 AM, Pavel Dimow wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have read
Last I heard, roof rights are pricey down there :)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Warren Bailey <
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com> wrote:
> Satellite! ;)
>
>
> From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
>
>
>
> Original message
> From: Mike L
Satellite! ;)
>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Mike Lyon
Date: 01/29/2013 12:17 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: Christopher Nielsen
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Ethernet Service at 150 S. Market Street, SJ
GSM modem? Then
- Original Message -
> From: "Jean-Francois Mezei"
> Is last mile infrastructure really considered "internet" ? If a GPON
> system operates as layer 2, it provides no internet connectivity, no IP
> routing and would/should not implement any IP use policies such as
> throttling etc. About
GSM modem? Then you aren't depending on the fiber coming into the
building...
-Mike
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Christopher Nielsen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We're in need of low-bandwidth ethernet service in our cage at
> Datapipe at 150 S. Market Street for OOB. Any recommendations?
>
> TIA
>
On 13-01-29 10:59, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>
> Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks
> (at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the first,
> second, fourth, and fifth, particularly), and this is the first really good
> counter-argument I've s
> Also, if a switch does not do MLD snooping, it will flood multicast to
> all ports. You lose one of the major benefits of IPv6 multicast - less
> admin traffic.
Agreed; but just to be fair: there is still a difference between
multicast being flodded everywhere and boradcast being flooded
everywh
Not to sidestep the conversation here .. but, Leo, I love your concept
of the muni network, MMR, etc. What city currently implements this? I
want to move there! :)
-Zach
2013/1/29 Masatoshi Enomoto :
> ifHCin-が64bitでifin-が32bitカウンタのMIBなんですね
> 勘違いしてました。
>
--
Zach Giles
zgi...@gmail.com
Hello,
We're in need of low-bandwidth ethernet service in our cage at
Datapipe at 150 S. Market Street for OOB. Any recommendations?
TIA
--
Christopher Nielsen
"They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
"The tree of lib
On 01/29/2013 01:54 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> You haven't tried to *buy* IPv6 edge transit, have you?
*cough*Implementation detail*cough*
:)
- Original Message -
> From: "Doug Barton"
> > Depends on how big your "deployment" is. For a small office -- say,
> > 100 PCs or less; something that will fit in what I will catch schidt
> > for referring to as a "Class C" :-) -- with a single current
> > generation consumer market edge
On 01/29/2013 01:09 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Doug Barton"
>
>>> IPv4 is mature enough that for small to medium sized networks,
>>> the answer is "you plug everything in".
>>>
>>> My appraisal of v6 is that it's an order of magnitude (or two)
>>> more compl
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 01:43:04PM -0500, Thomas York wrote:
> Have any of you noticed issued delivering email through MessageLabs [...]
Better on the mailop list. I believe (but am not certain) that personnel
from those operations are present there.
---rsk
- Original Message -
> From: "Doug Barton"
> > IPv4 is mature enough that for small to medium sized networks, the
> > answer is "you plug everything in".
> >
> > My appraisal of v6 is that it's an order of magnitude (or two) more
> > complex than that, both in 'attack' surface and interop
On 01/29/2013 09:20 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Doug Barton"
>
>> On 1/28/2013 6:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>>> To paraphrase Guy L Steele:
>>>
>>> If we are this far on into the "new IPv6 world" and that question is
>>> not
>>> one which can be answered by a
Have any of you noticed issued delivering email through MessageLabs to
people who use MXLogic for spam/AV filtering? I've seen it more and more
over the last month, to the point that I have to call 5-10 people a day to
tell them to whitelist our domain in MXLogic. It isn't specific to a certain
dom
ifHCin-が64bitでifin-が32bitカウンタのMIBなんですね
勘違いしてました。
- Original Message -
> From: "Eric Brunner-Williams"
> i'm also indifferent to the "leo-in-the-noc" rationale, as the
> separation is presently somewhat fictive and overzealous prosecutions
> are the norm.
So, you're saying "muni transport is bad because there's *less* separation"
is act
On 1/29/13 9:40 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave
> supporting muni network ...
+1
i'm indifferent to the "public-can't" rational as munis appear to do
an adequate job of water and power delivery-to-the-curb, in eugene,
palo alto, san francis
- Original Message -
> From: "Leo Bicknell"
> I am a big proponent of muni-owned dark fiber networks. I want to
> be 100% clear about what I advocate here:
>
> - Muni-owned MMR space, fiber only, no active equipment allowed. A
> big cross connect room, where the muni-fiber ends and provi
On 1/29/2013 12:21 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> ill-informed racist
Really? And you call me a "troll", too?
> anti-Obama diatribe that has no place on this list.
I never said anything about Obama, but, at face value, the 'Disclose'
Act was totalitarian in nature. Something I'd expect to se
I'd like to join Jay, Scott, Leo, and presumably Dave
supporting muni network ownership -- or at least a
not-for-profit entity.
I tried to start one a decade ago, but a lawsuit was
threatened by the incumbent cable provider (MediaOne in
those days) who claimed an exclusive right. Since then
the
On 1/29/13 8:30 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
On 1/29/2013 7:43 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
The graft and corruption was in *private* industry, not the Federal
government, due to lack of regulation and oversight.
I never said there wasn't graft and corruption in private industry...
but that is an
On 01/29/13 12:02, Jay Ashworth allegedly wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Rob McEwen"
>> When any government entity desires log files from an ISP, and if that
>> ISP is very protective of their customer's privacy and civil liberties,
>> then the ISP typically ONLY complies with the
- Original Message -
> From: "Scott Brim"
> > (Actually, my approach if I was building it would be Layer 2 unless the
> > resident wants a Layer 1 connection to {a properly provisioned ISP,some
> > other location of theirs}. Best of both worlds.)
> Right, and a public-private partnership
- Original Message -
> From: "Valdis Kletnieks"
> What's different about the Post Office is that they're required to pre-fund
> for 75 years. Yes, you read that right - they need to pay in *now* for
> the pension fund of mail carriers who won't even be born for another
> decade.
And if t
On 1/29/2013 11:38 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> So where are all the arrests and convictions for the mortgage games and
> other Wall Street malfeasance that led to the financial crisis of 2008?
> Seems that was a tad more egregious than anything Enron did, so there should
> have been more a
In a message written on Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:59:31AM -0500, Jay Ashworth
wrote:
> Regular readers know that I'm really big on municipally owned fiber networks
> (at layer 1 or 2)... but I'm also a big constitutionalist (on the first,
> second, fourth, and fifth, particularly), and this is the
- Original Message -
> From: "Rob McEwen"
> When any government entity desires log files from an ISP, and if that
> ISP is very protective of their customer's privacy and civil liberties,
> then the ISP typically ONLY complies with the request if there is a
> proper court order, granted b
On 1/29/2013 10:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
>> From: "Rob McEwen"
>> (C) The fact that the Internet is a series of PRIVATE networks... NOT
>> owned/operated by the Feds... is a large reason why the 4th amendment
>> provides such protections... it becomes somewhat of a "firewall" of
>> protection ag
On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:20:25 -0500, Rob McEwen said:
> The market will eventually sort this out... and in many cases already
> has! Meanwhile, Amtrack and the Post Office show no signs of ever making
> it without their MASSIVE taxpayer subsidies.
I can't speak to Amtrack, but a large part of the
On 1/29/13 7:43 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
On 1/29/13 1:20 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
[...] the US Federal government:
(A) ...cannot do a darn thing without MASSIVE graft & corruption... plus
massive overruns in costs... including a HEAVY dose of "crony
capitalism" where, often, the companies
On 1/29/2013 7:59 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Rob McEwen"
(C) The fact that the Internet is a series of PRIVATE networks... NOT
owned/operated by the Feds... is a large reason why the 4th amendment
provides such protections... it becomes somewhat of a "firewa
- Original Message -
> From: "Rob McEwen"
> (C) The fact that the Internet is a series of PRIVATE networks... NOT
> owned/operated by the Feds... is a large reason why the 4th amendment
> provides such protections... it becomes somewhat of a "firewall" of
> protection against Federal gov'
Hi,
I do suggest you go over EN offering with a fine tooth comb.
We experienced a whole lot of issues with 6 x650:
. from hardware licensing (start at shipping from the fab and
not when the customers get them);
. software licensing (have to license every box even the
- Original Message -
> From: "Doug Barton"
> On 1/28/2013 6:23 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> > To paraphrase Guy L Steele:
> >
> > If we are this far on into the "new IPv6 world" and that question is
> > not
> > one which can be answered by a link on the first page of ghits for
> > 'implement
although everyone here seems to hold Cisco in contempt, the Nexux 5548 is a
rock-solid switch - at least that has been my experience with it.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Piotr wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I looking some 10G switches, it should work as TOR or core in DC. It
> should have more than
We use IBM networking (used to be BLADE networks) Rackswitch 8264. They will do
TRILL, and have multi-chassis link aggregation, they call vLAG. We use this for
cross datacenter aggregation. They do have the L3 features you are looking for
and BGP as a possibility, but no full tables. It is a c
On 1/29/2013 7:43 AM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> The graft and corruption was in *private* industry, not the Federal
> government, due to lack of regulation and oversight.
I never said there wasn't graft and corruption in private industry...
but that is anecdotal... "hit and miss". In contrast
On 1/29/13 1:20 AM, Rob McEwen wrote:
[...] the US Federal government:
(A) ...cannot do a darn thing without MASSIVE graft & corruption... plus
massive overruns in costs... including a HEAVY dose of "crony
capitalism" where, often, the companies who get the contracts are the
ones who pad the wal
a...@shady.org replied:
Subject: Re: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:25:57 +
From: andy
To: Nick Hilliard
CC: Piotr , nanog@nanog.org
Force10's S4810 isnt bad, we use these for a 10G 48 port box that doesnt
require Ultra Low latency.
http://www.scribd.com/d
On 29/01/2013 11:27, Piotr wrote:
> Extreme 670 looks good but they have small port buffers. It can be also
> some small chassis with line cards but the cost per 10G ports is too big..
the extreme x670, juniper ex4550, brocade ICX6550 and arista 7150 will most
of this, and probably many others too
Hello,
I looking some 10G switches, it should work as TOR or core in DC. It
should have more than 40 port 10G in one unit, wirespeed L2 L3, with
virtual routers and some other ip functions like some BGP, OSPF, policy
routing, 1-2U, MLAG, g.8032 (ERPS) trill-like ?
Other important features a
On Tue, 2013-01-29 at 09:37 +0100, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> Subject: Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers Date: Mon, Jan
> 28, 2013 at 08:45:39PM +0400 Quoting Mukom Akong T. (mukom.ta...@gmail.com):
> > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
> >
> > Does an L2 switc
Subject: Re: IPV6 in enterprise best practices/white papaers Date: Mon, Jan 28,
2013 at 08:45:39PM +0400 Quoting Mukom Akong T. (mukom.ta...@gmail.com):
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Eugeniu Patrascu wrote:
>
> > I thought about running pure IPv6 inside and do 6to4, but it's too
> > much of
I guess its only a matter of time before they start validating all
requests. And more importantly returning SERVFAIL for invalid hosts.
Mansoor
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Marco Davids wrote:
> This is interesting news; it seems that Google's Public DNS is
> performing DNSSEC validation (w
88 matches
Mail list logo
