Subject:
|
Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Dec 2000 20:38:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
461 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Eric Joslin writes:
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Tracing the route to 63.217.235.34
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Tracing the route to lugnet.com (209.68.63.236)
Here's something else I noticed:
Bricksmiths.com doesn't reverse resolve. I fed the Looking Glass the IP
address for both sites, and it automagickally knew that 209.68.63.236 was
lugnet.com, but it didn't know that 63.217.235.34 was bricksmiths.com. Not for
nothing, but that indicates somewhat less than complete DNS hosting. I don't
think reverse resolution in and of itself is going to cause jump.cgi to take
longer to resolve a domain, but who knows what else isn't done that could speed
things up.
Ok. That's enough. This is getting too much like real work.
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "jump.cgi" considered harmful ? (1)
|
| (...) No, that is the transatlantic jump from London to DC. Tyson's Corners is further down, the naming convention is [port].[routertype].....Alter.Net TCO=Tyson's Corners, Va. (...) Ooof, well, out of sheer curiousity, I did the following 6 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
36 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
