>From a networking perspective though (in a multi-homed environment)... this
>really should be handled by using IGRP and AS numbers. In a situation where
>the link is bouncing, there may be sporadic packets getting though the link.
>IE the DNS gets back 1.1.1.1 but on the next packet its down ag
In article ,
Blake Hudson wrote:
> Phil Mayers wrote the following on 11/14/2013 2:39 AM:
> > I think there are better solutions than publishing an enormous list of
> > A/ records, personally, and I think it's good that browser
> > manufacturers aren't blasting out 6 SYNs every time someon
Phil Mayers wrote the following on 11/14/2013 2:39 AM:
On 13/11/13 22:21, Carl Byington wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
number of timeouts before the browser ca
On 13/11/13 22:21, Carl Byington wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
number of timeouts before the browser can give them an error message.
Well, the browser *could*
In message <661ca5ab225cad04bdcc3831c6964...@tux.org>, Joseph S D Yao writes:
> On 2013-11-13 16:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
> ...
> > RFC 1123 (October 1989) applies to all applications on all hosts.
> > Note "SHOULD" and "until".
> ...
>
>
> Mark, I've always read "SHOULD" here as more of a plaint
On 2013-11-13 16:44, Mark Andrews wrote:
...
RFC 1123 (October 1989) applies to all applications on all hosts.
Note "SHOULD" and "until".
...
Mark, I've always read "SHOULD" here as more of a plaintive hope than
anything else. People have certainly felt free to ignore it. Yes, that
makes t
In message , Barry Mar
golin writes:
> In article ,
> Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > No, there is no such requirement. The browsers are just BROKEN if
> > they don't try all the offered addresses. All browsers we were
> > written after RFC 1123 was published.
>
> That attitude should probably be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 16:49 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> It means that users will have to wait for an arbitrary
> number of timeouts before the browser can give them an error message.
Well, the browser *could* of course give a message like "I have t
In article ,
Mark Andrews wrote:
> No, there is no such requirement. The browsers are just BROKEN if
> they don't try all the offered addresses. All browsers we were
> written after RFC 1123 was published.
That attitude should probably be moderated when interactive applications
are involved.
In message , Joseph S D Yao writes:
> On 2013-11-13 00:16, Manish Rane wrote:
> ...
> > 6.Assume if ISP1 goes down, client coming on ISP1 would never be able
> > to reach; hence as per DNS protocol will try for another link and
> > come
> > on ISP2 and then probably get an IP address of Link 2 i.
On 2013-11-13 00:16, Manish Rane wrote:
...
6.Assume if ISP1 goes down, client coming on ISP1 would never be able
to reach; hence as per DNS protocol will try for another link and
come
on ISP2 and then probably get an IP address of Link 2 i.e. 2.2.2.2.
...
I'm not sure about your DNS setup,
11 matches
Mail list logo
