Sean,
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 07:56:05AM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>
> Cool, who has an OC-192 firewall on their control elements? What is
> a control element, is that the same as a router or is that a signaling
> gateway?
Hmm...gotta say it (again). Of course oc192/10ge firewalls are no
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 09:41:55AM -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric Brandwine writes:
>
> >
> >Firewalls are good things for general purpose networks. When you've
> >got a bunch of clueless employees, all using Windows shares, NFS, and
> >all sorts of n
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 03:04:00PM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> ...For a backbone filtering is another story entirely. Filtering
> backbone equipment for it's protection is also a completely different
> topic...
Filtering on the backbone is exactly what I mean. Clueful backbone
prov
On Fri, Mar 08, 2002 at 04:48:49AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
> ...I don't think I can put it any more clearly. There has got
> to be a push from the USERS of this equipment (not just one user, all
> users) to get line rate, full packet filtering capability on ALL
> interfaces on EVER
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 10:00:02AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > what are the more basic problems you're trying to fix?
>
> I'd like to be able to publish DNS records announcing my domain's *outbound*
> mail servers, with nice abbreviated forms to say "they're the same as my
> inbou
Some ISPs charge for actual bits carried (peak usage, actual count,
whatever) in addition to or instead of per port/circuit charges.
Do any ISPs charge based on the number of announcements a customer
advertises?
If downstream advertisements became mainly smaller prefixes (say /24)
that were no
Fundamentally, you can implement an allocation/assignment policy
that optimizes utilization at the cost of aggregation or a policy
that optimizes aggregation at the cost of utilization. The challenge
is to find a reasonable solution in the middle of those extremes.
-ron
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 05:18:52PM -0800, Scott Granados wrote:
>
> Anyone hear of aol not allowing in 69.0.0.0/8 addresses. It was just
> claimed to me but I thought that seemed highly unlikely.
no.
-ron
Van/Cengiz/Kedar,
Questions that missed the cutoff at the end of your preso:
Most operators have some per-peer inbound policies. Since the
next hop adjacency may move around due to chaning primaries,
where do you configure the policy ? (all routers?)
Also, some of those polices include modifyi
Hmm...I've called one of their 800's before and had an
option to select "3" to complain (er I mean talk to someone)
about their website. Maybe you can reach someone who
knows someone with a clue that way...
-ron
On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 02:59:05PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I suspect AOL and Earthlink run their own DNSBLs primarily for the second
> reason. How would you convince them to trust and give up control to a
> central authority?
>
> Even if IANA were to create or bless some existing DN
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:07:18AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Can you elaborate on why?
>
> You can use a central DNSBL without giving up total control. Shortly
> after I configured servers to use a DNSBL for the first time, I recognized
> the need for a local DNSWL and have continue
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:38:53PM -0400, Gary Attard wrote:
>
>Anyone notice any issues that began today regarding AOL blocking mail
>servers?
Would they happen to be mail servers that are sending spam?
-ron
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 06:11:23PM -0400, Brian Bruns wrote:
>
> This might be helpful to people setting up ACLs and the like:
>
> http://webmaster.info.aol.com/proxyinfo.html
I think the point that Mike was making is that RFC1918
space is 172.16.0.0/20 not a /8.
-ron
On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 04:48:11PM -0700, Andy Ellifson wrote:
>
> Actually a /12. But the value of 172.16.0.0 0.15.255.255 has been
> burned into my head for some reason...
yup... s/20/12/ typo...thanks Andy
-ron
On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 07:10:27AM +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Ray Wong wrote:
>
> > I'm starting to figure that, given the delays, there's been enough damage
> > done that 204.89.224/24 will never be able to get off the blocking lists
> > anyway, so perhaps I'll turn i
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 08:47:21PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>
> Randy Bush [2/29/2004 7:53 PM] :
> >just say no to html
>
> and to top posting and fullquoting all the ugly, malformed microsoft
> html [1] as well, I hope? :)
urlview and lynx are your firends...
-ron
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 01:54:36PM -0500, Ron da Silva wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 08:47:21PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> >
> > Randy Bush [2/29/2004 7:53 PM] :
> > >just say no to html
> >
> > and to top posting and fullquoting all the
Anyone from Verizon on this list care to reply directly?
thanks,
-ron
On 10/5/07 5:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And before anyone accuses me of sounding overly critical
>> towards the AU ISP's, let me point out that we've dropped the
>> ball in a major way here in the United States, as well.
>
> We've dropped the ball in any place where
On 10/22/07 2:01 AM, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could someone who knows DOCSIS 3.0 (perhaps these are general
> DOCSIS questions) enlighten me (and others?) by responding to a few things
> I have been thinking about.
>
> Let's say cable provider is worried about aggregate u
Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...can anyone
else here provide some insight into the reachability testing provided for
this allocation given to Randy from ARIN?
Thanks,
-ron
-- Forwarded Message
From: "da Silva, Ronald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 200
On 5/1/07 7:19 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent directly to him...
>
> Probably because you have a 12+ line .sig full of lawyer-speak.
Both practices arguably ingenious or idiotic...
> Randy's MUA automatically deletes email sent dire
On 5/2/07 2:58 PM, "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I gotta admit it's a really big .sig that's utterly useless. It *IS* being
> disseminated, distributed and copied and on a global basis. It's "unlawful"
> in what country? No one's going to delete all copies. Blah, blah, blah...
I'
I see not a lot has changed on egg^H^H^Hnanog. I'll forward to [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
to see where that goes (only useful reply). Thanks for the entertainment!
:-) -ron
-
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner
Cable proprietary infor
25 matches
Mail list logo
