Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks)

Wed Mar 12 02:42:02 UTC 2003

On 2003-03-11-21:01:00, JC Dill <nanog at 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