***: fink has joined #arpnetworks
schmir has joined #arpnetworks
ziyourenxiang has joined #arpnetworks
fink has quit IRC (Quit: fink)
ziyourenxiang has quit IRC (Quit: ziyourenxiang)
ziyourenxiang has joined #arpnetworks
schmir has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
schmir has joined #arpnetworks
nesta has joined #arpnetworks
ziyourenxiang has quit IRC (Quit: ziyourenxiang)
bob^^ has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
schmir has quit IRC (*.net *.split)
bsdguy has quit IRC (*.net *.split)
shatt has quit IRC (*.net *.split)
koan has quit IRC (*.net *.split)
schmir has joined #arpnetworks
bsdguy has joined #arpnetworks
shatt has joined #arpnetworks
koan has joined #arpnetworks
bob^^ has joined #arpnetworks
heavysixer has quit IRC (Quit: heavysixer)
robotarmy has joined #arpnetworks
heavysixer has joined #arpnetworks
ChanServ sets mode: +o heavysixer
cubelogic has joined #arpnetworks
schmir has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
heavysixer has quit IRC (Quit: heavysixer)
heavysixer has joined #arpnetworks
ChanServ sets mode: +o heavysixer
bharatak has joined #arpnetworks bharatak: ipv6 - so i configured my firewall to let inet6 in, i can see the system listening on tcp6, i verified from another host that ipv6 works, did i miss anything?
I need to add AAAA records and watch the logs jpalmer: well, we can't really answer that until you let us know what you expected to happen, and what actually happened?
depending on the context, you may need to configure applications or services to USE that IPv6. bharatak: ha - i'll just give it a go, basically web/email
i can see the ports listening.. i'll just go for it jdoe: jpalmer: (delayed response) fair enough, I'm assuming that if you control the primary you control the secondary as well, and wouldn't do something as silly as to have them running different software.
otherwise it's your own fault, you know? ;)
(re: backup mxes) jpalmer: jdoe: poor assumption ;) years ago it was common practice to contract with another entity. many places essentially traded bacup MX services. jdoe: then they get everything that's coming to them.
I guess what I'm saying is it's as easy or as troublesome as you make it :P jpalmer: in this day and age, there are very few *good* reasons to run a secondary MX jdoe: and yet they're exactly the same as they ever were...
load balancing, redundancy/availabiilty, ... jpalmer: yep all things I've heard before, and believed for a long time. bharatak: ah - my dns provider is having troubles - no creating AAAA record for me :( jpalmer: believe me, I spent a long time defending the "backup MX" theory. arguing exactly the same things you are now. it took a while before I realized that those reasons are bogus, and not "good" bharatak: i've noticed that while my primary mx is up i just get spam from the backup jpalmer: in the days of multi-homed connections, BGP announcements, hardware load balancing, and proper mail clusters.. the above ideas are simply.. excuses.
bharatak: which dns provider? bharatak: zoneedit jpalmer: bharatak: ahh, I used them a while back, they are decent enough. bharatak: multi-homed connections, bgp are great- but overkill for my small needs (5 mailboxes) jpalmer: I currently use he.net's free dns service.. but zoneedit wasn't too bad. never saw an issue where I couldn't update records. might be a fluke. bharatak: well - i guess a vps at arpnetworks is also overkill - but hell it's fun
they are migrating their front end - seems others are also having trouble logging in. new web-app jdoe: jpalmer: lol. explain to me how a mail cluster is significantly different from multiple mx records... jpalmer: bharatak: sure. but with 5 users, a backup MX is also probably overkill. RFC compliant mailservers will retry if your MX is down temporarily. so you don't lose anything jdoe: jpalmer: bonus points if you can explain how it cuts down on maintenance in any way ;)
jpalmer: no, but your primary may remain down for some time. bharatak: i should check out he.net, I'm thinking of getting a ipv6 tunnel for my cable modem anyway jdoe: jpalmer: suppose I was on that arp box that was getting ddosed
jpalmer: or if hardware failed
who knows how long I might be down? jpalmer: jdoe: I think you started this conversation (again) after I explained how it can potentially reduce maintenance. I'm not much interested in circular discussions jdoe: if you did I wasn't part of the conversation, I joined because I saw "backup mx = bad" jpalmer: you even commented on the backup MX having the same software. so, I know you saw it. jdoe: er, I said there was no significant problem with maintaining a backup mx.
... because the software is (assuming you're not a glutton for punishment) the same. jpalmer: and I maintain that such an assumption cannot be made globally.
here is the bottom line. if you want a backup MX, use it. it makes no difference to me. I maintain that there are very few practical and real-world reasons to actually do so. So, *I* will not run a backup MX. jdoe: yeah but you're saying "don't use a backup mx, use this alternative method which is functionally equivalent"
and that makes no sense.
you don't get to say "YOU MIGHT NOT BE RUNNING THE SAME MTA ON THE BACKUP" if your proposed solution involves setting up a cluster running whatever you want. jpalmer: what alternative did I say to use instead? please, feel free to put words in my mouth. jdoe: you're the one suggesting a cluster, bgp etc.
sorry, this is getting antagonistic. Ignore me. jpalmer: "in the days of" is by no means my telling you to use those technologies. I feel that you might be trying to skew a conversation to "win" when no such claim was made. jdoe: I feel you might be doing the same when there's a clear implication by "in the days of" that you are suggesting they make an alternative (whether you personally use them or not) jpalmer: we'll have to agree to disagree. use them if you want. I won't. I see almost no point in them. jdoe: sounds good. ***: lucky has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
lucky has joined #arpnetworks
robotarmy has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection) whitefang: LS
anyone else having network issues with their VPS? jpalmer: whitefang: not I whitefang: I'm getting a good 60+ms higher latency to it than I normally do. jpalmer: maybe your host is experiencing high traffic flow for some reason? whitefang: latency to everywhere else from where I am is normal vcs: nope
all normal here
odd, what VPS are you on ***: vcs has quit IRC (Read error: Operation timed out)
vcs has joined #arpnetworks vcs: think there was just a route hiccup
not sure ***: DDevine has joined #arpnetworks whitefang: kvm14 vcs: im on 13
didn't notice anything till that routing hiccup jpalmer: I'm on 13 as well.
I didn't have a routing hiccup vcs: hmmm
maybe i have my config messed up somewhere -: vcs needs to dig vcs: lol jpalmer: I'd say, if it only happened once, I wouldn't worry about it too much vcs: well, it looked like em0 threw an error
maybe virtual hardware issue specific to OpenBSD
i just upgraded to 4.8
might have something to do with it whitefang: I think my ISP may be taking a bit of a dump. vcs: same here actually whitefang: although it looks like it might just be the route from here to my VPS.
I think its PCCW Global that's taking the dumb
dump vcs: lol whitefang: ping -t ge2-5.br01.sea01.pccwbtn.net
dropping packets like crazy jpalmer: well, to be fair. many routers put icmp in a lowwer priority queue, and will drop them when the traffic load gets high. it's not *necesarily* indicitive of a problem. (though, it's certainly suspect) vcs: ping -t ge2-5.br01.sea01.pccwbtn.net
errr whitefang: errr vcs: i cant even resolve that host
lol whitefang: 63.216.14.157
is the IP vcs: if that means anything whitefang: but that's the host between me and my VPS that's adding like 70ms latency more than usual; vcs: im getting between 80-300MS whitefang: normally I'm like 40ms away from my VPS
now I'm like 120ms with 600ms spikes vcs: yeah
im seeing that pinging you from my home connection
and arp networks
so i dont think its a problem with arp whitefang: well 63.216.14.157 is the router that's adding the delay
Ping statistics for 63.216.14.157:
Packets: Sent = 259, Received = 241, Lost = 18 (6% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 85ms, Maximum = 372ms, Average = 94ms
that address is usually like 10ms from me at most
and packet loss even prioritizing ICMP lower is no excuse for 6% loss vcs: yeah ***: islandfo1 is now known as islandfox
cubelogic has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
ziyourenxiang has joined #arpnetworks
robotarmy has joined #arpnetworks
ziyourenxiang has quit IRC (Quit: ziyourenxiang)
robotarmy has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)
robotarmy has joined #arpnetworks
heavysixer has quit IRC (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
DDevine has quit IRC (Remote host closed the connection)