H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Dave Hart wrote:
>> You might want to spend a little time curling up with RFC 3484,
>> "Default Address Selection for IPv6"
>>
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3484.txt
>>
>> With RFC 3484 support, getaddrinfo sorts its results so that
>> applications processinig the resu
Dave Hart wrote:
>
> You might want to spend a little time curling up with RFC 3484,
> "Default Address Selection for IPv6"
>
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3484.txt
>
> With RFC 3484 support, getaddrinfo sorts its results so that
> applications processinig the results in order follow the se
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> wrote in
> message news:jzqtl.5203$lc7.2...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Martin Burnicki wrote:
> [...]
>>> We did't ever have any problems using the DNS servers of our ISPs.
>>
>> At the time, mine was using servers in the USA (from the UK) and via
>
Danny Mayer wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> Martin,
>>
>> When I was involved in this, some years ago now, each site had its
>> own DNS servers, and those spoke to a central company-wide DNS
>> server. The connection to the ISP was central, and not per-site.
>>
>> I suppose that, like NTP,
David J Taylor wrote:
> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> David,
>>
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>> []
I've been using Comcast for five or six years now without a problem!
YMMV.
>>>
>>> There have been a few problems with my ISP, hence I moved to a 3rd
>>> party.
>>
>>
Rob wrote:
> Danny Mayer wrote:
>> Have you ever tested this? Tests show that this is almost never the case
>> and the time saved is so small you will never notice the difference.
>
> I certainly won't take anything you post as a fact, be it only because you
> write in such negative tone and pret
Danny Mayer wrote:
> Have you ever tested this? Tests show that this is almost never the case
> and the time saved is so small you will never notice the difference.
I certainly won't take anything you post as a fact, be it only because you
write in such negative tone and pretend to know everythin
"David J Taylor"
wrote in message news:jzqtl.5203$lc7.2...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Martin Burnicki wrote:
[...]
>> We did't ever have any problems using the DNS servers of our ISPs.
>
> At the time, mine was using servers in the USA (from the UK) and via
> non-reciprocal paths. Even now, i
David J Taylor wrote:
> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Martin Burnicki wrote:
However, if several local subnets needed to resolve "microsoft.com"
then each one would have to ask the root servers the first time.
>>> Wouldn't you have one or two central DNS servers for
Rob wrote:
> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> IMHO DNS is not like NTP in the sense that is just *starts* sending queries
>> for domains which have not yet been resolved to the root DNS servers and
>> then are redirected/go on down to the authoritative DNS for that domain,
>> whereas NTP would stuck with
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> David,
>
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> []
>>> I've been using Comcast for five or six years now without a problem!
>>> YMMV.
>> There have been a few problems with my ISP, hence I moved to a 3rd party.
>
> We did't ever have any problems using th
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>>> However, if several local subnets needed to resolve "microsoft.com"
>>> then each one would have to ask the root servers the first time.
>>
>> Wouldn't you have one or two central DNS servers for both subnets?
>
> Sorry, I
David J Taylor wrote:
> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> However, if several local subnets needed to resolve "microsoft.com"
>> then each one would have to ask the root servers the first time.
>
> Wouldn't you have one or two central DNS servers for both subnets?
Sorry, I've been not specific enough her
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> David,
>
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> []
>>> I've been using Comcast for five or six years now without a problem!
>>> YMMV.
>>
>> There have been a few problems with my ISP, hence I moved to a 3rd
>> party.
>
> We did't ever have any problems usin
Rob wrote:
> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> IMHO DNS is not like NTP in the sense that is just *starts* sending
>> queries for domains which have not yet been resolved to the root DNS
>> servers and then are redirected/go on down to the authoritative DNS for
>> that domain, whereas NTP would stuck with
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> IMHO DNS is not like NTP in the sense that is just *starts* sending queries
> for domains which have not yet been resolved to the root DNS servers and
> then are redirected/go on down to the authoritative DNS for that domain,
> whereas NTP would stuck with the top level se
David,
David J Taylor wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> []
>> I've been using Comcast for five or six years now without a problem!
>> YMMV.
>
> There have been a few problems with my ISP, hence I moved to a 3rd party.
We did't ever have any problems using the DNS servers of our ISPs.
[...]
Dave Hart wrote:
> On Mar 9, 8:36 pm, r...@panix.com (Rod Dorman) wrote:
>
>>One thing you would gain is lack of any help in 'correcting' typos in
>>domain names. I don't know if Comcast does it but there have been
>>several instances where ISPs assumed you were using a browser and
>>returned some
On Mar 9, 8:36 pm, r...@panix.com (Rod Dorman) wrote:
> One thing you would gain is lack of any help in 'correcting' typos in
> domain names. I don't know if Comcast does it but there have been
> several instances where ISPs assumed you were using a browser and
> returned something other than a NXD
In article <49b560c7.7080...@comcast.net>,
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>Rod Dorman wrote:
>> In article <3yednarq2tfixsjunz2dnuvz_r3in...@giganews.com>,
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>> ...
>>> I could set up my own DNS server but what would be the point? A hosts
>>> file provides the addresses
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
[]
> I've been using Comcast for five or six years now without a problem!
> YMMV.
There have been a few problems with my ISP, hence I moved to a 3rd party.
> I could set up my own DNS server but what would be the point? A hosts
> file provides the addresses of the node
Rod Dorman wrote:
> In article <3yednarq2tfixsjunz2dnuvz_r3in...@giganews.com>,
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> ...
>> I could set up my own DNS server but what would be the point? A hosts
>> file provides the addresses of the nodes on my RFC-1918 private network.
>> The rest of the world, I wo
David J Taylor wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> []
>> Where, other than your ISP, would you go for DNS? If you are a home
>> user what choices do you have? If you are responsible for a
>> multi-user site it may make sense to operate your own DNS? I'm
>> working from a two-user site and using
Danny Mayer wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>>> You are dependent on the ISP's DNS being up and able to respond. Since
>>> you can make the queries yourself why bother with their DNS? If there's
>>> no connectivity all queries will fail. I'm not sure how the idea of
>>> going to one's ISP for
In article <3yednarq2tfixsjunz2dnuvz_r3in...@giganews.com>,
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> ...
>I could set up my own DNS server but what would be the point? A hosts
>file provides the addresses of the nodes on my RFC-1918 private network.
>The rest of the world, I would have to get from Comcast
Dave Hart wrote:
> On Mar 9, 12:08 pm, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
>> DNS cannot remove records returned to the requestor.
>
> Certainly not if it's going to be standards compliant, but Martin is
> clever enough to hack BIND to filter s if he so desires, I'm
> sure.
Maybe, but I'm not
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> You are dependent on the ISP's DNS being up and able to respond. Since
>> you can make the queries yourself why bother with their DNS? If there's
>> no connectivity all queries will fail. I'm not sure how the idea of
>> going to one's ISP for DNS service got started bu
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
[]
> Where, other than your ISP, would you go for DNS? If you are a home
> user what choices do you have? If you are responsible for a
> multi-user site it may make sense to operate your own DNS? I'm
> working from a two-user site and using my ISP's DNS. I'm paying
> C
Danny Mayer wrote:
> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> Danny,
>>
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>> Martin Burnicki wrote:
Rob wrote:
> Steve Kostecke wrote:
>>> But it has two IPv4 addresses. Under the address 204.152.184.138 it
>>> works OK.
>> That's our off-site back-up.
> Well, in DNS
On Mar 9, 2:05 pm, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
> As far as I am aware there is no way to change the list of addresses
> returned via any available knobs so how are site policies involved? You
> cannot change getaddrinfo() unless you implement your own and there is
> no purpose to doing so. T
Dave Hart wrote:
> On Mar 9, 12:08 pm, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
>> Dave Hart wrote:
>>> On Mar 9, 3:47 am, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
> [...] platform
> and site policies come into play
getaddrinfo() which is used by all newer apps returns both I
On Mar 9, 12:08 pm, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
> Dave Hart wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 3:47 am, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
> >> Dave Hart wrote:
> >>> [...] platform
> >>> and site policies come into play
> >> getaddrinfo() which is used by all newer apps returns both IPv4 and IPv6
> >> un
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Danny,
>
> Danny Mayer wrote:
>> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>>> Rob wrote:
Steve Kostecke wrote:
>> But it has two IPv4 addresses. Under the address 204.152.184.138 it
>> works OK.
> That's our off-site back-up.
Well, in DNS it says:
www.ntp.org has
Dave Hart wrote:
> On Mar 9, 3:47 am, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
>> Dave Hart wrote:
>>> That's a bit misleading. At the protocol level the queries are often
>>> distinct, asking for A or records. type=any will return both but
>>> is not typically used in apps. At the app level, if
Danny,
Danny Mayer wrote:
> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>>> Steve Kostecke wrote:
> But it has two IPv4 addresses. Under the address 204.152.184.138 it
> works OK.
That's our off-site back-up.
>>> Well, in DNS it says:
>>> www.ntp.org has address 128.4.35.16
>>> www.ntp.org
Dave Hart wrote:
> On Mar 9, 3:47 am, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
>> Dave Hart wrote:
[...]
>> > This may indeed be the best option for your configuration. I wouldn't
>> > call it a good solution, though. Your machines should be able to
>> > handle seeing records via IPv4-accessible D
On Mar 9, 3:47 am, ma...@ntp.org (Danny Mayer) wrote:
> Dave Hart wrote:
> > That's a bit misleading. At the protocol level the queries are often
> > distinct, asking for A or records. type=any will return both but
> > is not typically used in apps. At the app level, if the app looks up
> >
Dave Hart wrote:
> On Mar 5, 10:14, Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> The IPv4 address is used only after the IPv6 address has timed out, even
>> though (as far as I understand it) the DNS server first returns an IPv4
>> address, then an IPv6 address:
>>
>> # host support.ntp.org
>> support.ntp.org has ad
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> Steve Kostecke wrote:
But it has two IPv4 addresses. Under the address 204.152.184.138 it
works OK.
>>> That's our off-site back-up.
>> Well, in DNS it says:
>> www.ntp.org has address 128.4.35.16
>> www.ntp.org has address 204.152.184.138
>> www.nt
Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> It sounds like you use a disconnected IPv6 network alongside a
>> connected RFC1918 v4 network internally. I wonder if you could get by
>> using only link-local addresses for your internal IPv6 network? I
>> believe that would solve the problem because your stack would
Dave Hart wrote:
> On Mar 5, 10:14, Martin Burnicki wrote:
>>
>> The IPv4 address is used only after the IPv6 address has timed out, even
>> though (as far as I understand it) the DNS server first returns an IPv4
>> address, then an IPv6 address:
>>
>> # host support.ntp.org
>> support.ntp.org has
John Hasler wrote:
> Martin writes:
>> Our intranet is behind a NAT router which only has IPv4 connection to our
>> ISP. If both an IPv4 and IPv6 address for a host on the internet is
>> returned then applications may try to connect via IPv6 first, which fails
>> in this case.
>
> Are you using I
Martin writes:
> Our intranet is behind a NAT router which only has IPv4 connection to our
> ISP. If both an IPv4 and IPv6 address for a host on the internet is
> returned then applications may try to connect via IPv6 first, which fails
> in this case.
Are you using IPv6 internally? If not, why n
On Mar 5, 10:14, Martin Burnicki wrote:
>
> The IPv4 address is used only after the IPv6 address has timed out, even
> though (as far as I understand it) the DNS server first returns an IPv4
> address, then an IPv6 address:
>
> # host support.ntp.org
> support.ntp.org has address 204.152.184.138
>
Rob wrote:
> Steve Kostecke wrote:
>>> But it has two IPv4 addresses. Under the address 204.152.184.138 it
>>> works OK.
>>
>> That's our off-site back-up.
>
> Well, in DNS it says:
> www.ntp.org has address 128.4.35.16
> www.ntp.org has address 204.152.184.138
> www.ntp.org has IPv6 address 2001
Harlan,
I never made the DNS request myself, but I might have rubberstamped a
request from you without looking closely at it. My fault, not yours.
We have had this discussion before, so let me repeat the rules. The home
page for ntp.org lives here and nowhere else (but, see below). The
softwar
>>> In article <49ae9672.7080...@udel.edu>, mi...@udel.edu (David Mills) writes:
David> Rob, The only, and I repeat only, DNS entry I ever submitted was for
David> 128.4. Any other entry in the database must be due to an intruder.
Dave,
Uh, no.
www.ntp.org is a mirrored splash page that points
On 2009-03-03, Rob wrote:
> The 128.4 address is working again.
Please contact me by e-mail as soon as possible.
--
Steve Kostecke
NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://list
Rob,
The only, and I repeat only, DNS entry I ever submitted was for 128.4.
Any other entry in the database must be due to an intruder.
Dave
Rob wrote:
>David Mills wrote:
>
>
>>Rob,
>>
>>The only address supported here are on 128.4.
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>
>
>The 128.4 address is working again
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
[]
> I ran into this when a Norton Anti-Virus site would not let me renew
> my license. Short of sending them snail-mail there was NO way to let
> them know their site was badly broken!
>
> I installed a competing product (freeware) and have not had any
> problems with it
David J Taylor wrote:
> Steve Kostecke wrote:
> []
>> The canonnical address for contacting the individuals responsible for
>> the operation of any web-site is webmas...@thedomain. One does not
>> need to see a web-page to learn this.
>
> Steve, I'm delighted to hear that ntp.org still conform to
Steve Kostecke wrote:
[]
> The canonnical address for contacting the individuals responsible for
> the operation of any web-site is webmas...@thedomain. One does not
> need to see a web-page to learn this.
Steve, I'm delighted to hear that ntp.org still conform to this
convention, but very many W
>>> In article , Rob
>>> writes:
Rob> David Mills wrote:
>> Rob,
>>
>> The only address supported here are on 128.4.
>>
>> Dave
Rob> The 128.4 address is working again. However, when you think it is the
Rob> only address supported, you need to update the DNS. A DNS query for
Rob> www.ntp.o
On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
> A practice I abhor, to be honest. If I read something in a newsgroup, I
> expect a response in a newsgroup, not some personal e-mail, although the
> newsreader I use does allow simultaneous posting to a newsgroup and a
> direct e-mail.
Once again, you'
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> I did not "complain", I asked whether what I was seeing was correct,
>> and some others confirmed this.
>
> Quibling over which word I used misses the point.
To me there is a distinct difference between reporting something and
as
On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
> Steve Kostecke wrote: []
>
>> I reported the problem using the correct channels and it was
>> resolved.
>>
>> You're very lucky that I read the news-group before starting to work
>> this morning; I don't always do so. If I had not I would not have
>> seen yo
David Mills wrote:
> Rob,
>
> The only address supported here are on 128.4.
>
> Dave
The 128.4 address is working again.
However, when you think it is the only address supported, you need to
update the DNS.
A DNS query for www.ntp.org returns the 204.152.184.138 address as well.
Maybe this was n
Steve Kostecke wrote:
[]
> I reported the problem using the correct channels and it was resolved.
>
> You're very lucky that I read the news-group before starting to work
> this morning; I don't always do so. If I had not I would not have seen
> your complaint for many hours, possibly not until ton
On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
> 128.4.35.16 is the address I'm seeing.
Something on your end is not working correctly. Both addresses are in
DNS (open, or otherwise) and others have reported that their browsers
are using, or failing over to, the non 128 address.
> The tracert is
> faili
Rob,
The only address supported here are on 128.4.
Dave
Rob wrote:
>David J Taylor wrote:
>
>
>>Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>
http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet
Explorer Is this correc
On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
> Guess I will wait for OpenDNS to become updated...
http://www.opendns.com/support/article/197 lists the OpenDNS nameserver
addresses.
$ host www.ntp.org 208.67.220.220
www.ntp.org A 128.4.35.16
www.ntp.org A 204.152.184.
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Guess I will wait for OpenDNS to become updated...
>
> http://www.opendns.com/support/article/197 lists the OpenDNS
> nameserver addresses.
>
> $ host www.ntp.org 208.67.220.220
> www.ntp.org A 128.4.35.16
> www.nt
On 2009-03-03, Rob wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Tracing route to www.ntp.org [128.4.35.16]
>
> That IP address is dead.
The system is running (I just checked) and apache is responding on the
localhost. It has likely been firewalled off from the w
Steve Kostecke wrote:
>> But it has two IPv4 addresses. Under the address 204.152.184.138 it
>> works OK.
>
> That's our off-site back-up.
Well, in DNS it says:
www.ntp.org has address 128.4.35.16
www.ntp.org has address 204.152.184.138
www.ntp.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::23
So apparently
Rob wrote:
> David J Taylor
> wrote:
>> Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet
Explorer Is this correct?
>>>
>>> No, it works here, now (20 minutes after your post).
>>>
>>> Terje
>>
Blank for me too.
"Richard B.
Gilbert"
David J Taylor wrote:
> http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet Explorer
>
> Is this correct?
It works for me!
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
David J Taylor wrote:
> Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet
>>> Explorer Is this correct?
>>
>> No, it works here, now (20 minutes after your post).
>>
>> Terje
>
> Thanks, Terje. Still bl
Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet
>> Explorer Is this correct?
>
> No, it works here, now (20 minutes after your post).
>
> Terje
Thanks, Terje. Still blank here. I'm using OpenDNS server
David J Taylor wrote:
> http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet Explorer
>
> Is this correct?
No, it works here, now (20 minutes after your post).
Terje
--
-
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet Explorer
Is this correct?
Thanks,
David
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
71 matches
Mail list logo
