Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

discuss - Re: [opennic-discuss] Tier2 naming scheme...

discuss AT

Subject: Discuss mailing list

List archive

Re: [opennic-discuss] Tier2 naming scheme...

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Zach Gibbens <infocop411 AT>
  • To: discuss AT
  • Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] Tier2 naming scheme...
  • Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:39:27 -0500
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Mr91DacX8dNKPxcSn3ijI1QrYDxeNvMfyF8TZpxdiIccnJ89B2PyMj679crm6XaaH2 8mLXjFcgtdyb2j4YDYh6rDdq+oCWwEdB3PiY6yFxsMyDSaAGDpPUSMbnLjMpd18CV6lN M4d87YW9Zxby1s+cS5P3DU1GYBlkbDU4QmcAk=
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-id: <>

For paired servers (servers with both ipv4 and ipv6) I was thinking of
adding that, but if a server is only ipv4 or ipv6, leave that out.
to show that they are paired, as an example


or is there a downside I'm overlooking in this?

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Brian Koontz <brian AT> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:08:25PM -0500, Zach Gibbens wrote:
>> true, but not everybody is ipv6 enabled, however it's not too hard for
>> a tunnel, it'd be another layer of checks and balances
>> not to mention your reports cite the hostname, so it'd be something to
>> clean up the reports a little too,
>> I've not heard anything outright against renaming the servers into the
>> new scheme, so I'll start work on changing over to
>> nsX.ipvX.[CC].dns.opennic.glue next week (give some time for further
>> comments)
> How about we don't include the ipvX string for ipv4 hosts...just ipv6?
> And yes, I agree: If no further comments are warranted, onward through
> the fog!
>  --Brian
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss AT

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page