Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 19:11:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A collegue smartbits tested a 1GHz pc, with a full feed and 250k
simoultaneons flows it managed around 250kpps. This also with freebsd
and device polling. It sounds to me like a software based machine can
be plenty fast with
LD> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 16:18:28 +1000
LD> From: Lincoln Dale
LD> [without having looked at Imagestream in any way, shape or form..]
LD>
LD> it would be _unlikely_ that any router vendor that wants to support >OC3
LD> could do so with the 'standard' (non-modified) linux IP stack. if they ar
TV> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:20:25 -0400 (EDT)
TV> From: Todd Vierling
TV> That's why SLAs exist.
I thought SLAs existed to comfort nontechnical people into signing
contracts, then denying credits via careful weasel words when the time
comes for the customer to collect. Or maybe I'm just cyn
RB> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:43:54 -0600 (CST)
RB> From: Robert Bonomi
RB> Re-coding to eliminate all 'possible' buffer overflow situations is a *big*
RB> job. The required field-length checking for every multi-byte copy/move
RB> operation does have a significant negative impact on performance,
RB> Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 11:03:44 -0600 (CST)
RB> From: Robert Bonomi
RB> "Upgrades" or 'fixes' that cause a machine to run noticably _slower_ than
RB> the 'down-rev' machine are a really good way to alienate customers.
Especially
RB> thosw whose machines are running at nearly 100% capacity b
CO> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 14:57:58 -0600 (CST)
CO> From: Chris Owen
CO> However, I do think Akamai would be better off getting their issues with
CO> their replacement boxes straightened out. I agree that we get value for
CO> having the boxes on our network (and so do they lets not forget).
*sh
SMB> Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 23:04:52 -0500
SMB> From: Steven M. Bellovin
SMB> A-V companies are in the business of analyzing viruses. They should
SMB> *know* how a particular virus behaves.
The cynical would say they _do_ know, and "accidental" backscatter is a
way to advertise their products
DO> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 16:26:16 -0800
DO> From: Douglas Otis
DO> I know of no cases where a malware related DSN would be generated by our
Good.
DO> products, nevertheless, DSNs are not Unsolicited Bulk Email.
Huh? I get NDRs for mail that "I" sent. I do not want those NDRs. I
did not r
DO> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:15:00 -0800
DO> From: Douglas Otis
DO> > Perhaps DSNs should be sent to the original recipient, not the purported
DO> > sender. RFC-compliant? No. Ridiculous? Less so than pestering a
DO> > random third party. Let the intended recipient communicate OOB or
DO> > m
DO> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:02:51 -0800
DO> From: Douglas Otis
DO> > H. BATV-triggered bounces. Virus triggers forged bounce which in
DO> > turn triggers "your DSN was misguided" bounce. Perhaps the bandwidth
DO> > growth of the '90s will continue. ;-)
DO>
DO> BATV should not trigger any
MS> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 22:54:24 +1100
MS> From: Matthew Sullivan
MS> RFC 2821 states explicitly that once the receiving server has issued a 250
MS> Ok to the end-of-data command, the receiving server has accepted
MS> responsibility for either delivering the message or notifying the sender
MS
DO> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 15:08:49 -0800
DO> From: Douglas Otis
DO> This is a third-party acting in good faith, albeit performing a check better
DO> done within the session. In your view, there is less concern about delivery
DO> integrity, and so related DSNs should be tossed. Being done within
JM> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:45:09 -0500
JM> From: Jeff McAdams
JM> And, at that, only after extracting regulatory concessions at both the
JM> state and federal levels basically giving them their monopoly back to
JM> give them "incentive" to half-*ssed roll out that DSL that is, itself, a
JM> me
Perhaps transit networks should receive 16-bit ASNs. Leaf networks
would use { a special ASN | I'm still brainstorming | who knows } and
carry an "available upstreams" BGP tag for each upstream.
Metrics are calculated for each transit AS. Those metrics are then
combined with for each leaf ASN.
OD> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:45:17 -0800
OD> From: Owen DeLong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
OD> I think the original proposal was to still go with 32 bit ASNs, but, adapt
OD> a range of 32 bit ASNs for the assignment to "NON-TRANSIT" ASNs leaving
OD> the entire 16 bit range reserved for "TRANSIT" ASNs.
OD> Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 18:09:48 -0800
OD> From: Owen DeLong
OD> I think all the meaningful parties have already pretty much agreed on
OD> 32bit ASNs in BGP4. I think that will be coded in the routers well before
OD> any attribute-based thing for 32bit ASNs is. As such, I don't see much
OD>
IvB> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2004 12:17:22 +0100
IvB> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
IvB> So now people have to renumber their AS when they start selling
IvB> transit? Not such a great idea...
Yeah. They'll have to tell their upstreams "here's our new ASN". No
downstreams will be affected -- by definitio
IvB> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:55:04 +0100
IvB> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
IvB> Well, then you're in luck as BGP is highly optimized in this
IvB> regard: it doesn't use the Dijkstra or SPF algorithm. BGP is pretty
IvB> much a distance vector routing protocol.
D'oh. Pardon the round of public stu
TR> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:33:44 -0800
TR> From: Tony Rall
TR> The better solution is to ensure that PMTUD works correctly for your
TR> network, and get on the case of any correspondent or provider for
TR> which it doesn't.
"But $investment_firm is a big company whose site I must access."
E
Greetings,
I seek comments/feedback/URLs over what IMHO is an elementary issue, but
one in which I'm having little luck seeing eye-to-eye with another
provider. They have a couple 6500s for edge agg, yet are hesitant to
allow downstreams [with multiple border routers] to establish multiple
BGP
CLM> Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:14:29 + (GMT)
CLM> From: Christopher L. Morrow
CLM> i think, based on Eddy's previous message (the original for this)
CLM> it seems like he almost wants 'shadow link' capability. Given that
Correct. I've received enough questions that I'm tired of clarifying
sb> Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 10:14:55 +1100 (EST)
sb> From: snort bsd
sb> are authentication packets between routers and radius
sb> servers encrypted or clear-text?
Let's try Google before NANOG, please.
rfc radius authentication protocol
is a good first attempt.
FWIW, I find it useful
GE> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:14:40 +0200
GE> From: Gadi Evron
GE> heck, I don't see how SMTP auth would help, either. They have local
GE> access to the machine.
"User joe6pack is pumping out 100k messages/day. That can't possibly be
valid; let's disable his -- and only his -- SMTP access. He
GE> Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 17:54:28 +0200
GE> From: Gadi Evron
GE> They now evolved, and are using user-credentials and ISP-servers. This
GE> evolution means that their capabilities are severely decreased, at least
GE> potentially.
This means that it's 1998 again. Direct-to-MX spam was an evolu
JJ> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:41:34 -0800 (PST)
JJ> From: Joel Jaeggli
JJ> > How about using SMTP AUTH and verifying the envelope MAIL FROM to match
JJ> > the actual user authenticating?
JJ>
JJ> that doesn't work if you have more than one email address.
The words "overreaching" and "fallacious" c
JF> Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:37:29 -0500
JF> From: Jason Frisvold
JF> Ouch .. Then spammers may start using a From: matching the SMTP auth
JF> user, and effectively joe-jobbing the user.. Ick..
Exactly. The user then loses mail sending ability, but other services
remain functional.
Eddy
--
TV> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:53:07 -0500 (EST)
TV> From: Todd Vierling
TV> The only way to be sure is via cryptographic signature. Barring that level
False. You imply that a crypto signature is a perfect guarantee, and
that nothing else can provide equal assurance.
TV> of immediate traceabil
AL> Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 13:11:11 -0600
AL> From: Adi Linden
AL> Now that we have established a "trust chain" an verify the sending user we
AL> have an easy way (shuffling through mail logs is by no means easy in my
AL> books) for support people to address SPAM complaints.
Note that I'm ignorin
JH> Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:18:53 -
JH> From: Jørgen Hovland
JH> A cryptographic signature would be a perfect guarantee as it can be
JH> used for direct identification and authorisation if you were
No, it's not direct. You trust whoever signed the key.
Note that I agree PGP key signing is
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:04:21 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleprint/2664/-1/315/
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.418:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll031.xml
Apologies for the OT.
Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick
Can AOL's "this is spam" feedback loop be abused with a single person
responding to a single message many, many times? Inquiring minds want
to know.
Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-c
All,
Thanks for the many on- and off-list replies. Things begin to make a
bit more sense.
We recently began hosting a list with several AOL subscribers, and this
week's complaint volume is five times what it was last week. With one
complaint per ~4 AOL subscribers (who are but 4.6% of the tot
> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 13:46:20 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I see the same thing. At least 2/3rds are spam forwarded along as
> described above. I have to give some credit to AOL WRT handling that
> type of situation -- they're much better than MSN/Hotmail who do not
> have a whitelist
JM> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:17:24 -0500
JM> From: Joe Maimon
JM> To blocklist all servers in the path or just the most recent one is
JM> a local decision
Want to DoS someone? Have fun with bogus "Received:" headers in actual
junk mail. Developing heuristics to try detecting this is interesti
MR> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:53:14 -0500
MR> From: Mark Radabaugh
MR> As that is apparently not the case I have seriously considered as a
MR> matter of policy refusing to install mail forwards to AOL customers.
Or give users a choice between filtered forward and no forward.
Eddy
--
Everquick
jm> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:25:48 -0800 (PST)
jm> From: just me
jm> What are you, stupid? The spammers have drone armies of machines
jm> with completely compromised operating systems. What makes you think
jm> that their mail credentials will be hard to obtain?
Internal users: With AUTH - corr
jm> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:13:04 -0800 (PST)
jm> From: just me
jm> Internal users: With AUTH - correlate message with authenticated user,
jm> then forbid mail transmission for them only. I'd rather do that than
jm> slog through RADIUS logs. But, hey, maybe if I had more free time...
SD> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:24:16 -0500 (EST)
SD> From: Sean Donelan
SD> Sigh, if even the network professionals have difficulty understanding
SD> how things work, what hope is there for the rest of the users.
Funny you should say that. I frequently comment that the average
"service provider"
MH> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:17:01 -0500
MH> From: Martin Hannigan
MH> Blocking by SP ip addr + asking for user cash = operational problem
MH> for SP
It could be an interesting way to make a few bucks. ;-)
Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger,
ML> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:00:58 -0700
ML> From: Michael Loftis
ML> RADB charges for ability to register and update.
AltDB is, well, an alternative RR.
Eddy
--
Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulti
NB> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:33:49 +0100
NB> From: Niels Bakker
NB> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward B. Dreger) [Wed 16 Mar 2005, 02:04 CET]:
NB> > It could be an interesting way to make a few bucks. ;-)
NB>
NB> Try it and report back? Until then I think this thread is welcom
PJH> Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:44:34 -0800
PJH> From: Peter John Hill
PJH> configure a loopback interface on your dns servers and advertise a
PJH> route to that loopback address to your connected routers...
We've used this approach for several years. It works very well.
Eddy
--
Everquick Inte
BN> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:51:54 -0700 (PDT)
BN> From: Bill Nash
BN> > See http://www.iadl.org/sorbs/sorbs-story.html
BN>
BN> In short, what's your point?
SORBS lists Dean. I suspect this makes him angry.
BN> If you have substantial evidence that information collected by SORBS
BN> has bee
DA> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 16:13:22 -0400 (EDT)
DA> From: Dean Anderson
DA> And it violates RFC 1546, as previously explained.
Who cares? You've railed against SMTP+AUTH because it's not a
"standard". Why do you give a rat's rump about 1546?
DA> Well, PPLB isn't the end of the world. But PPL
> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:00:48 -0400
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> What you seem to be missing is that the *really* smart people will be prepared
> for it when it actually gets here - and will take advantage of it's lack of
> arrival in the meantime.
Na the code in my lab and the work-i
DA> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 00:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
DA> From: Dean Anderson
DA> But for the record, you misrepresent my SMTP AUTH claims:
Someone needs to put down the crackpipe. At least do a Google search or
three to find out what I really say before putting words in my mouth.
e.g., I specificall
DA> Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 21:09:50 -0400 (EDT)
DA> From: Dean Anderson
DA> > http://www.merit.edu/mail/archives/nanog/199-11/msg00263.html
DA> > http://www.merit.edu/mail/archives/nanog/199-11/msg00289.html
DA>
DA> Neither of these links actually work. But it is "Draft Standard". That is
s,199,
PWG> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 18:03:12 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore
PWG> NB [translation, "operational content"]: Akamai does not use any
PWG> anycast for HTTP. I am not at all certain why Paul is telling us
PWG> this is a bad idea, since we don't do it. Then again, we might in
PWG> the fut
PWG> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 21:58:37 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore
PWG> Just to make life fun, there is the whole "anycast a bunch of name
PWG> servers, each with different zone files pointing at local HTTP
PWG> servers". Since the "anycast" portion is over UDP, it avoids a lot
PWG> of the
TV> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 22:21:45 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
TV> From: Todd Vierling
[ trimming CC list before it grows too long ]
TV> And last time I checked -- on this list, mind you -- it certainly
TV> was not. Cf. people trying to run and hide, or lash out at me for
TV> complaining, wh
PWG> Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 23:56:48 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W. Gilmore
PWG> I was just talking about people setting up anycast name servers, each
PWG> of which pointed at a different HTTP server (or other service), to
PWG> spread load. In many cases, the two servers are the same.
Ah, okay... w
TF> Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 10:48:56 +0100
TF> From: Tony Finch
TF> Why would anyone use an anycast address as a client? Wouldn't it be
TF> simpler to make all client connections from the machine's unicast address?
Maybe, maybe not.
Take an anycast DNS provider that AXFR/IXFRs zones from its cust
w> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:39:54 -0700 (PDT)
w> From: "william(at)elan.net"
w> http://www.completewhois.com/statistics/data/ips-bycountry/rirstats/
See also:
.zz.countries.nerd.dk
IN A lookups return 127.0.x.x, where x.x is a two-octet representation
of the ISO 3166 numeric country
RB> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 14:40:47 +0100
RB> From: Randy Bush
[ trimming CC list ]
RB> considering that we have fellow isps dumping horrifying garbage in
RB> the rib, it's amusing how we attack a seemingly well-run very small
RB> experiment.
Bears would rather attack fish than wolverines.
Co
GC> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 15:58:06 -0400
GC> From: Gordon Cook
GC> I published a two month issue last weekend with the bottom
GC> line conclusion that there can be no telecom recovery as
GC> long as the industry relies solely on the best effort
GC> business model which I believe is not economic
MC> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 14:26:01 -0400
MC> From: Matthew Crocker
MC> The PSTN does guarantee a certain service level, latency,
MC> call completion etc.
As do many Internet providers. (s/call completion/packet loss/)
MC> Latency & Jitter are very important when dealing with sound &
MC> vid
GC> Date: Sat, 29 May 2004 16:53:17 -0400
GC> From: Gordon Cook
GC> The point I am making in my report is NOT that the best
GC> effort network has technology problems but rather that it has
GC> ECONOMIC PROBLEMS. That it might support 2 or 3 players not
GC> 2 or 3 HUNDRED.
Best effort is cheap
MP> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 09:26:27 -0700
MP> From: Michel Py
MP> Woulda, shoulda. If it is so simple, how come not everyone
MP> does it?
It's modern layered security: "We don't have to worry about that
here. Another layer will take care of it."
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everqu
JS> Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 14:26:01 -0700
JS> From: Jeff Shultz
JS> I wonder if they asked the people using Telnet if they were
JS> using over the internet - or inside a corporate intranet,
JS> shielded from the outside?
Good to know that malicious things are always on the other side
of the rout
DS> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:56:55 -0400
DS> From: Daniel Senie
DS> Cisco 26xx, 36xx routers at least, current 12.3 IOS, no ssh
DS> support in the basic loads that I can find. Telnet is the
DS> only way in other than the console port.
Correct. One must shell out more money for a bigger featur
SD> Date: Sat, 5 Jun 2004 04:49:21 -0400 (EDT)
SD> From: Sean Donelan
SD> That's less than $400 per defective motherboard. Your paper
SD> estimates it would cost more than double to replace a
SD> scrambled BIOS.
Definitely sounds high, especially considering the cheap end with
socketed a DIPP
> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:39:57 +0100
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Consider the case of a staff member lounging in the backyard on
> a lazy Saturday afternoon with their iBook. They have an 802.11
> wireless LAN at home so they telnet to their Linux box in the
> kitchen and run SSH to the router
JF> Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:31:59 -0400
JF> From: Jason Frisvold
JF> I don't see why they can't roll it into every ios that runs
JF> on a router capable of ssh. Ssh and sshd on my linux system
JF> barely break 500k compiled... And there's a TON of
JF> functionality in there that isn't required
JO> Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 00:07:48 -0700 (PDT)
JO> From: John Obi
JO> Are we part of the Today's Internet mess?
JO> http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3365491
Considering some of the nanog-l threads, I suspect many a
computer criminal reads, chuckles something about "Keystone
Cops"
AL> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:57:21 -0500 (CDT)
AL> From: Adi Linden
AL> Who do you suppose pays for the abuse department staff? Those
AL> are operational costs passed on to all customers.
Unless one does nothing, in which case the cost goes to the rest
of the world. I'd rather take on a handfu
RB> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 16:26:13 -0700
RB> From: Randy Bush
RB> hitler, ashcroft, blair, delong, rumsfeld, hussain, bush
RB> (the other one:-), sharon, putin, mugabe, salazar, ...
Godwin is dead.
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. -
Apologies for forking yet another thread from one which I myself
have been largely ignoring. AFAICT, though, most posts have
shown little interest in combining different approaches:
* Provide a "default" sandbox.
* Allow unrestricted access -- perhaps after a quiz, perhaps when
a user activat
GR> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:47:49 -0400
GR> From: George Roettger
GR> Customers are the priority, not everyone else on the net.
Bad karma. At the risk of adding another analogy, look at the
countries that refuse to join the global economy. Unless a
network is ready to be self-sufficient, pla
GR> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:02:33 -0400
GR> From: George Roettger
GR> I don't know if you've noticed, but the internet is based on
GR> an economy now, it's not a free resource provided by
GR> foundations and higher education. Without customers it shuts
GR> down.
I don't know if you've noticed
GR> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:47:49 -0400
GR> From: George Roettger
GR> Virus infections are a day to day occurance, not some
And being the status quo justifies something how?
GR> critical emergency DOS condition and they should be handled
GR> with concern but not panic. Customers are the prio
Scratch the comments about telephone CPE not being hacked and
rolling up big bills. Interesting timing considering the recent
circlej^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthreads re who's responsible for what.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns5111
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.ne
PV> Date: 18 Jun 2004 05:58:00 +
PV> From: Paul Vixie
PV> Paul Vixie is an existing provider of competitive services for
PV> registry operations, including providing TLD domain name hosting
PV> services for ccTLDs and gTLDs, and a competitor of VeriSign for
PV>
EBD> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:16:07 + (GMT)
EBD> From: Edward B. Dreger
EBD> I'm missing something. By what stretch of whose imagination
EBD> does root nameserver operations compete with a registrar?
Apologies for replying to my own post. I just had a [sinister]
tho
PV> Date: 18 Jun 2004 16:44:41 +
PV> From: Paul Vixie
PV> i think they mean ns-ext.isc.org (or its old name, ns-ext.vix.com),
PV> which offers "TLD hosting" without fee to about 60 domains:
[ snip ]
PV> if it's not that, then perhaps they're just smoking crack.
Still a bit of a stretch. T
PV> Date: 18 Jun 2004 17:25:08 +
PV> From: Paul Vixie
PV> my employer was a bidder for .ORG, and gives away EPP
PV> software ("ISC OpenReg"), so there's some overlap with the
PV> registry/registrar community that verisign might be thinking
PV> of.
I don't know about OpenReg, and can't commen
JN> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 12:56:11 -0600
JN> From: John Neiberger
JN> Postini's patent issue (do a Google search to get more info)
JN> is suspicious, and _possibly_ indicative of a slimy tactic.
It does look pretty ridiculous. ETRN, formail, procmail, Web-
based UIs, etc. have been around far
RW> Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:35:06 -0400 (EDT)
RW> From: Richard Welty
RW> i had a customer once who had, for no reason they could
RW> ever clearly explain, arbitrarily used ericson's IP space for
RW> their own internal network.
Only one customer? There are a couple "consulting" firms in
parti
Is it just me, or are more sites breaking pmtud these days? It's
getting tempting to hack up ietf-pmtud-method support even before
it becomes standard...
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting
DG> Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 20:04:38 -0700
DG> From: Darrell Greenwood
[ editted for brevity ]
DG> The 5 day course can be boiled down really to one concept
DG> that can be taught in 5 minutes... "binary search".
Every half-decent programmer knows O(log(N)) is one's friend
unless the scalar coef
PWG> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 15:04:59 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W Gilmore
PWG> If the blacklist is only for sites which are weeks, or even
PWG> a couple days old, that probably would remove most of the
PWG> objections. (I _think_ - I have not considered all the
PWG> ramifications, but it sounds li
AR> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 23:42:26 -0400 (Eastern Standard Time)
AR> From: Alex Rubenstein
AR> The action is taking place in the Superior Court of State New
AR> Jersey.
If the Court considers it a state matter, and lacks the ability
to regulate interstate commerce, does that mean out-of-state I
VJB> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:33:28 -0400
VJB> From: Vincent J. Bono
VJB> I think one avenue of approach will be to see if ARIN would
VJB> grant you another contiguous block to replace not just what
VJB> the customer got but the entire block they have polluted.
I thought of that, too. However,
SB> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:34:03 +0200
SB> From: Sabri Berisha
[ editted ]
SB> As for the netblock: I just did a quick scan and here is what
SB> I found:
SB> I'm not sure wether or not 64.21.1.0/24 is the disputed
SB> netblock, but this seems the only more specific without
SB> AS8001 in the
JL> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
JL> From: Jon Lewis
JL> If someone figures out the IP block in question let me know.
I don't know the rogue netblock, but
http://www.fixedorbit.com/cgi-bin/cgirange.exe?ASN=8001
may prove insightful. I believe there are people who track
DB> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 20:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
DB> From: David Barak
DB> I've gotta say - this is a new one for me. I'm used
[ snip ]
DB> --- Jason Silverglate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I find this part interesting and ironic. See: "Can a customer
take..." thread.
Eddy
--
EverQuick Inter
MP> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 22:08:58 -0700
MP> From: Michel Py
MP> I can clearly see the "ironic" part of it, but would you mind
MP> developing what the "interesting" part is? I fail to see it.
NAC/Pegasus case being discussed on NANOG-L... then NANOG-L
subscriber receives a bounce from Pegasus.
DG> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:57:55 -0400
DG> From: Daniel Golding
DG> Its funny, you always see people asking about peering link
DG> sizes or locations on RFP's, but they never ask about peering
DG> utilization or packet loss. The former is both NDA and
DG> meaningless - the latter is terribly i
CLM> Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 04:18:07 + (GMT)
CLM> From: Christopher L. Morrow
[ editted for brevity -- some punctuation/wording modified ]
CLM> So, I thought of it like this. Rodney/Centergate/UltraDNS
CLM> knows:
[ snip enumeration ]
CLM> [and] should know almost exactly when they have
PWG> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 01:00:35 -0400
PWG> From: Patrick W Gilmore
PWG> Any particular reason you would worry about public peering
PWG> points these days?
ANES, perhaps? Those who finally found old NANOG-L and i-a
archives have decided public peering is bad.
H let's see cheap,
RAS> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 02:07:06 -0400
RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen
RAS> What is with people in this industry, who latch onto an idea
RAS> and won't let go? If someone was talking about 80286 based
RAS> machines in 2004 we would all be in utter disbelief, but you
RAS> can still routinely f
PGB> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:28:10 +0100
PGB> From: Per Gregers Bilse
PGB> At least the previous outage (a couple of weeks ago) had
PGB> nothing to do with anycast, I was getting NXDOMAIN replies
PGB> back, and no kind of fallback or non-anycast deployment
PGB> would have helped.
Moreover, it w
JW> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 11:22:34 -0400
JW> From: Jeff Wasilko
JW> On Sat, Jul 03, 2004 at 06:45:44AM -0700, Bill Woodcock wrote:
JW> >
JW> > Uh, how much additional down-time did you want? Rolling
JW> > the clock back a decade isn't going to make things
JW> > _better_.
JW>
JW> Why do you say t
> Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2004 13:40:56 +
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> perhaps on two counts...
>
> ) the gtld-servers.net machines are anycast.
> ) F is not unique, they are just a whole lot more vocal
> about their anycasting.
You're not the only one to correct me and say
DW> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 11:42:32 -0400
DW> From: Drew Weaver
DW> I thought you could do either 45Mbps in, 45Mbps out, or a mix
DW> of both, not 45Mbps In, and 45Mbps out at the same time
DW> (90mbps)..
No no no. DSx circuits are full duplex.
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick
SJW> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 16:25:28 +0100 (BST)
SJW> From: Stephen J. Wilcox
SJW> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Drew Weaver wrote:
SJW>
SJW> DW> We have 1 DS-3, that if we get close to 45Mbps IN/OUT
SJW> DW> the other direction will be completely unusable.
Calculated on what time interval? If that's a f
PC> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 17:43:24 + (UTC)
PC> From: Peter Corlett
PC> The underlying link should be doing both 45Mb/s in and 45Mb/s
PC> out at the same time.
Errr? Most providers can only dream of 1:1 ratios.
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman &
> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 14:45:44 -0500
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Finally, "dsx" does not stand for full duplex, as someone
DSx = DS0/DS1/DS3 (using "x" as wildcard). Not to be confused
with uppercase "X".
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger
RB> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 15:59:10 -0700
RB> From: Randy Bush
RB> EBD> No no no. DSx circuits are full duplex.
RB> ^ usually
True. I meant to state that TX traffic doesn't come at the
expense of RX traffic, and that a talker needn't wait to ensure
the other end is l
BP> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2004 19:02:23 -0500
BP> From: Bubba Parker
Try going to www.isp-bgp.com and subscribing to that list. It
sounds like you want more description than what NANOG would
consider useful signal...
BP> OK, I've got one DS3 from one provider, and a T1 from
They won't balance well
RKJ> Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:43:50 -0300
RKJ> From: Rubens Kuhl Jr.
RKJ> Try booting into safe mode before running software to detect
RKJ> or remove spyware; some of them fight to survive if they are
Also use msconfig to disable non-critical extras. Some of us
have manually ripped out ActiveX
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
