> On Feb 24, 2019, at 9:20 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 7:41 PM, Montgomery, Douglas (Fed)
>> wrote:
>> In the 3rd attack noted below, do we know if the CA that issued the DV CERTS
>> does DNSSEC validation on its DNS challenge queries?
>
> We know that neither
Måns Nilsson writes:
> NS5
> 21
> DNSKEY3
> SPF 1
> A 28
> NSEC 62
> AFSDB 3
> RP1
> MX2
> CNAME 9
> SOA 2
> RRSIG 147
> TXT 6
> SSHFP 14
> SRV 20
> DS4
> Total:16 rrtypes in zone
No TLSA records?
Bjørn
Background: I used to own the code that was used to bill for awhile...
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:10 PM, Michael Gehrmann
> wrote:
>
> From my provider days if you miss data you can't bill it or assume zero.
This was my experience as well. I remember a router vendor bug that if the
traffic
As per our village lawyer and accountant ...
Assuming
95th percentile billing, sampling every 5 minutes.
You'll need about 1.5days worth of 0 (~447 samples missing in a
row) to bork the curve... and it goes the bith ways.
If you're 5Gbps committed on a 10Gbps and you
Thank you both for the feedback.
I left out the "it depends" because it is more suited to a conversation
or email thread like this than to a quick survey. I'm aware of a few
reasons for which "it depends" and I'm learning a few more from the
feedback I'm getting.
Pf
> "Eddie" == Eddie
The problem with your survey is that there’s no option to answer “it depends”.
Hard yes or no answers aren’t realistic to the questions you’re asking because
the context,
security parameters, sensitivity, and other parameters about the network all
factor into a
decision whether to run or not
Subject: Re: a detour DANE, was A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS
Hijacking Date: Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 08:47:19AM + Quoting Mike Meredith
(mike.mered...@port.ac.uk):
> On 27 Feb 2019 13:07:09 -0500, "John Levine" may have
> written:
> > The IETF one says that nobody used type 99, and
Subject: Re: a detour DANE, was A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS
Hijacking Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 07:59:49PM -0800 Quoting Seth Mattinen
(se...@rollernet.us):
> On 2/27/19 7:02 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> > I have proposed many times to just move domain WHOIS data into a new
> >
Hello,
having a bit of a debate in my team about turning on LLDP and/or CDP.
I would appreciate if you could spend a minute answering this
survey so I have some numbers to back up my reasoning, or to accept
defeat.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/TH3WCWP
Feel free to cross-post to other
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 19:59:49 -0800, Seth Mattinen may
have written:
> We kind of have that with RP records. But does anyone do it?
I used to before various IPAM vendors claimed it was deprecated; I've still
got legacy code that queries for it (and the TXT equivalent) as well as the
new gooey
On 27 Feb 2019 13:07:09 -0500, "John Levine" may have
written:
> The IETF one says that nobody used type 99, and some of the few
> implementations we saw were broken, so we deprecated it.
And just after I'd finished adding in all the SPF records too, so I had to
turn around and take all them out
11 matches
Mail list logo
