nanog mailing list archives
Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks)
From: Adam Rothschild <asr () asr org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:42:02 -0500
On 2003-03-11-21:01:00, JC Dill <nanog () vo cnchost com> wrote:
[...](Note to Mr. Dill, this is not intended to pick on you specifically, it's just a convenient place to butt in)Ahem. It's _MS._ Dill, thank you.
Please post with a gender-specific name if you want to take offense when mis-identified.
Sure you can. You just need content unimportant enough that no one (the end users on a network that is still blocking 69/8, AND the networks that put up the sacrificial target host on a 69/8 IP) is truly hurt if the connection fails, but important enough that the failure will lead to the broken networks being fixed and clue being distributed.
How do I configure my routers and web servers for that?
I'm suggesting that Google explain why they are doing this on a page linked off their homepage. If this is done, people ARE going to notice, and ARE going to find out why. When it is widely publicised, it WILL be noticed even more.
Last I checked, Google was a for-profit business, not a charity house. I'm not sure how doing something that will make them look dumb, and cost them in valuable ad revenue, etc is in their best interests. Perhaps you could fill me in here.
p.s. Please don't cc me on replies, or on replies to replies, etc.
We have seen time after time that the propagation delays on the NANOG list, most likely resultant from sub-optimal postfix/majordomo configuration and/or an overloaded box, make it unsuitable for realtime communications. With this in mind, I have taken the liberty of cc'ing you in my reply, despite your request to the contrary. If duplicate messages cluttering your inbox are causing you much grief, prehaps it's time to read up on message filtering using procmail, formail, and friends. Regards, -a
Current thread:
- Re: 69/8...this sucks, (continued)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Randy Bush (Mar 12)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Andy Dills (Mar 12)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Peter E. Fry (Mar 12)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Andy Dills (Mar 12)
- Re: 69/8...this sucks Charles Sprickman (Mar 11)
- Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) JC Dill (Mar 11)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Richard A Steenbergen (Mar 11)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) wireworks (Mar 11)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) JC Dill (Mar 11)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Richard A Steenbergen (Mar 11)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Adam Rothschild (Mar 11)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) Greg Maxwell (Mar 12)
- Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks) JC Dill (Mar 12)
- gender and nanog Randy Bush (Mar 12)
- route filtering in large networks Andy Dills (Mar 12)
- Re: route filtering in large networks Richard A Steenbergen (Mar 12)
- Re: route filtering in large networks Jack Bates (Mar 12)
- RE: route filtering in large networks Michael K. Smith (Mar 12)
- Re: route filtering in large networks Jack Bates (Mar 12)
- Re: route filtering in large networks Peter E. Fry (Mar 12)
- Re: route filtering in large networks Christopher L. Morrow (Mar 12)