> >Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
> >confidence they have all the clue necessary?
>
> Probably because they don't think that new TLDs are particularly
> useful or valuable.
Oops, just a minute, gotta grab the popcorn and cooler for this
one...ok, proceed.
In message <51d61b2b.8020...@abenaki.wabanaki.net>, Eric Brunner-Williams write
s:
> Someone who should know better wrote:
>
> > Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
> > is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
> > everywhere if you want it. Na
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:12:52 -0700, Michael Rathbun wrote:
>I have never yet succeeded in contacting a live body at Y!. Does anyone
>know whether the lights are even on, let alone anybody being home?
Info received. Thanks all.
mdr
--
The hits just keep on coming for poor "Nadine". See th
Y! is haemorrhaging PII to me and I cannot figure out how to make it stop.
I have an ancient three-letter account (you can easily guess what the three
letters are) and hundreds of people have somehow been led to believe that
they own and control it, to the point of associating it with their own
a
>Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
>confidence they have all the clue necessary?
Probably because they don't think that new TLDs are particularly
useful or valuable.
R's,
John
>I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
>support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
>"our older gear/software/admins need upgrading" issues.
I've read the IPv6 and DNSSEC parts of a lot of the applications,
including the ones that aren't backed b
> I'm reasonably sure that there are more than 50 service providers
> who are able to privide you with a connection that will do IPv6.
In this context the universe of 50 providers are registry service
providers, existing and entrant. Verisign, NeuStar, Afilias, CORE,
AusReg, ISC, ...
Your side w
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 18:02:35 -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams said:
> higher technical and financial requirements to pick one of a universe
> of fewer than 50 service providers,
I'm reasonably sure that there are more than 50 service providers
who are able to privide you with a connection that will do
On 7/4/13 6:23 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
>
> OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Sigh. DNSSEC and Draft Applicant Guidebook.
> OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Draft Applicant's Guidebook.
On 7/4/2013 8:02 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
And this was true when the v6 and DEC requirements entered the DAG?
OK, I 'fess to terminal stupidity--in this contest: "DEC"? "the DAG"?
Why are the people who don't follow the shitty process so full of
confidence they have all the clue ne
Someone who should know better wrote:
> Well give that .com thingie is IPv6 accessable and has DNSSEC there
> is nothing we need to let you know. And yes you can get IPv6
> everywhere if you want it. Native IPv6 is a little bit harder but
> definitely not impossible nor more expensive.
And this
Palo Alto has zero support for anything lea wise past the 7200 if I recall. We
spent a ton of money on asr's and found out we needed to lawful intercept ios
which was only working/tested on a 7206vxr with a g2. Palo Alto is insanely
expensive, and (in my opinion) is only really cool for seeing w
In message <9ff40d24-169e-4568-9f25-ee00beeed...@matthew.at>, Matthew Kaufman
writes:
> Well, for starters there's whole truckloads of surplus gear that you
> can't get for pennies and use successfully.
Surplus IPv6 capable gear has been around for a long while now.
Remember most gear has had I
In message <51d5c750.4090...@nic-naa.net>, Eric Brunner-Williams writes:
> On 7/4/13 11:11 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
> > support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
> > "our older gear/software/a
Well, for starters there's whole truckloads of surplus gear that you can't get
for pennies and use successfully.
Matthew Kaufman
(Sent from my iPhone)
On Jul 4, 2013, at 11:11 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:34:41 -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams said:
>
>> #insert us
On 7/4/13 11:11 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnssec and ipv6
> support for a greenfield rollout? It's greenfield, so there's no
> "our older gear/software/admins need upgrading" issues.
You'll let me know there is no place where v6 is no
On 7/4/13 10:48 AM, John Levine wrote:
> I dunno. Can you point to parts of your house that have been
> significantly improved by fire insurance?
Cute John. Let me know when you've run out of neat things other people
should do.
Eric
On Mar 15, 2013 11:37 AM, "Christopher Morrow"
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Joshua Goldbard wrote:
> > God I want one of those PA firewalls just to play with in the lab. I
can't
> > justify the expense, but as far as firewalls go they're gorgeous. From
the
> > chassis to the UI, P
On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 10:34:41 -0700, Eric Brunner-Williams said:
> #insert usual junk from *nog v6 evangelicals that .africa and .eos
> (Basque Autonomous Region) must drive v6 adoption from their
> ever-so-deep-pockets, or the net will die.
I'll bite. What's the *actual* additional cost for dnss
>Anyone care to advance evidence that either zone has been, not "will
>someday be", significantly improved by the adoption of DS records?
>Evidence, not rhetoric, please.
I dunno. Can you point to parts of your house that have been
significantly improved by fire insurance?
On 7/4/13 8:00 AM, Ted Cooper wrote:
> Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
> for a virgin TLD.
In the evolution of the DAG I pointed out that both the DNSSEC and the
IPv6 requirements, as well as other SLA requirements, were
significantly in excess of those pla
>> "As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
>> city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
>
>Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
>for a virgin TLD.
Yes. See the AGB, to which I sent a link a few messages back.
On 7/3/13 9:32 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> honestly? this sounds like typical alu :(
> some of their kit requires either proxy-arp from the default-gw (and
> no support for default-gw, all of the 'internet' is out the management
> ether... on that ether link) or 'can we run ospf with your route
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Ted Cooper
wrote:
> On 03/07/13 11:12, Scott Weeks wrote:
> > "As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
> > city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
>
> Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
> for a vir
On 03/07/13 11:12, Scott Weeks wrote:
> "As of July 2, 2013, .nyc has been approved by ICANN as a
> city-level top-level domain (TLD) for New York City"
Do they have DNSSEC from inception? It would seem a sensible thing to do
for a virgin TLD.
On 2013-07-03, at 01:04, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Why does this discussion have to always be "one or the other"?
>
> We have multiple problems here, friends.
>
> Focus.
I think you mean "de-focus". :-)
Joe
27 matches
Mail list logo
