> Hint: even IPs not pingable from the Internet are being used. Not
> everyone is an ISP/Webhoster ... with public services.
I thought that was why we have RFC1918 ?
>>Otherwise, as Suresh notes, the only way to eliminate human error completely
>>is
>>to eliminate the presence of humans in the activity.
and,hence by reference.
>> Automated config deployment / provisioning.
That's the funniest thing I've read all day... ;-)
A little pessimistic rant.
Don't think anyone has mentioned this yet, so I will
All this debate over the pros and cons of firewalls brings the words "Jericho
Forum" to mind.and their "principles for de-perimeterization (perimeter
erosion)"
http://www.opengroup.org/jericho/
Just my 2 worth !
Some things just don't active/active nicely on a budget.
> Sure, because of inefficient legacy design choices.
Roland,
I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
Budget is very much an issue when choosing between active/active and
active/passive. Nothing to do with "inefficient legacy
(by the way before the accusations start flying of spamming , no I don't
work for Zeus or have any incentive to mention their name... just happen to
know their product)
to whoever said ...
>F5's if you like commercial solutions
F5s if you like expensive commercial solutions .
Those with a less bulging wallet may wish to speak to the guys at Zeus
Technology (http://www.zeus.com/) who have a lot of experience in the area and
a more reasonable price tag.
C
Tell me about it .. "failover test what failover test" ;-)
- Original Message
From: William Herrin
To: gb10hkzo-na...@yahoo.co.uk
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, 3 June, 2009 16:05:15
Subject: Re: Facility wide DR/Continuity
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:53 AM, wrote:
> -
As with all things, there's no "right answer" . a lot of it depends on
three things :
- what you are hoping to achieve
- what your budget is
- what you have at your disposal in terms of numbers of qualified staff
available to both implement and support the chosen solution
That's the main b
On the subject of DNS GSLB, there's a fairly well known article on the subject
that anyone considering implementing it should read at least once :)
http://www.tenereillo.com/GSLBPageOfShame.htm
and part 2
http://www.tenereillo.com/GSLBPageOfShameII.htm
Yes it was written in 2004. But all t
Hi,
I have not been following this thread too closely, but I spotted the last
poster talking about a database backend to DNS.
There are some interesting thoughts on the matter in a Nominet Blog Post here :
http://blog.nominet.org.uk/tech/2008/06/02/nameservers-and-very-large-zones/
On Wed, 27 May 2009 09:48:39 -0400, wrote:
> Actually, I was thinking to myself yesterday that the email world is going to
> be awfully
> fun when IPv6 sets in and we're all running mail servers with nice long
> records such as
> fc00:836b:4917::a180:4179.
> You do realize DNS queri
> fc00:836b:4917::a180:4179
And yes, before anyone points out, I just realised I posted an abbreviated
example. :)
Mark,
> A EDNS referral from the root servers to the COM servers
> already exceeded 512 bytes. The world hasn't fallen over.
Actually, I was thinking to myself yesterday that the email world is going to
be awfully
fun when IPv6 sets in and we're all running mail servers with nice long
re
Hi,
> I thought i'd give you a quick response (and welcome to NANOG) :).
Thanks.
I can't believe that I've already received three very interesting responses in
just over an hour !
I've been quietly lurking on NANOG for a while, just plucked up the courage to
post . and might now even fin
Hello all,
First, I hope this is not off-topic for NANOG, please be gentle with me as this
is my first post.
I
would be most interested to hear NANOG theories on the variety of MX
record practices out there, namely, how come there seem to be so many
ways employed to achieve the same goal ? Do
15 matches
Mail list logo
