Re: Update of RFC 2606 based on the recent ICANN changes ?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 02:13:47PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:01:30PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:38:28PM -0700, Ted Faber wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 01:32:10PM -0700, moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > If you can cite verifiable evidence that even a single case that works
> > > > reliably now, will cease to work, I'll concede that there is at least
> >     ^^^^^^^^
> > > > a hint of merit to your argument.   e.g. an actual email address or
> > > > URL that uses a single-label domain name.
> > > 
> > > zod:~$ ping hk
> > > PING hk (203.119.2.28): 56 data bytes
> > > 64 bytes from 203.119.2.28: icmp_seq=0 ttl=243 time=183.582 ms
> > 
> > % ping hk.
> > PING hk (203.119.2.28) 56(84) bytes of data.
> > 64 bytes from www.hkdnr.hk (203.119.2.28): icmp_seq=1 ttl=238 time=265 ms
> > 64 bytes from www.hkdnr.hk (203.119.2.28): icmp_seq=2 ttl=238 time=265 ms
> > 
> > Not very reliably, I think.  :-)

Sorry, I cut and paste the wrong example.  What I had meant to cut and
paste:

5% ping hk
PING hk.ibm.com (9.190.250.244) 56(84) bytes of data.
...

							- Ted
_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]