[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Best Practices of wide-area diagnosis, anyone?
I'd be interested in a discussion of this as well. To answer a slightly
different question, I usually point the "ping and traceroute" geeks to
Karl's wonderful treatise on the subject:
http://www.iwl.com/Resources/Papers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm looking for a product or script that will let us generate
> a network map for use in conjunction with Nagios. We have
> all of the parent/child dependencies defined in a SQL table,
> as well as the current status, but I can only find programs
> that will create a li
> The URL
>
> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
>
> now leads to the following message:
>
> "Linux Journal Is Currently Unavailable Due to a Denial of
> Service (DoS) Attack Sorry for any inconvenience."
>
> That's intriguing ...
Translation: "Linux Journal has been linked to by Slash
>> The other 1/3rd are actual spam, but legitimately forwarded as the
>> user requested from a personal or business domain to an AOL account.
>> Any server in the path gets tagged as a spam source.
>
> Actually only the server that connected to AOL and relayed
> the mail into them. I have this
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:08:42 EST, Nils Ketelsen said:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>>> What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers
>>> with large roaming user populations to support RFC2476/Port 587?
>>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:51:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> There seem to be many who feel there is no overwhelming reason to
>> support 587. I can certainly see that point of view, but I guess my
>> question is what reasons do those of you with that viewpoint have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:02:20PM -0700, Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 17:14 -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>> If supporting one port is y hours of time and headache, then two
>>> ports is closer to y*2 than y (some might argue y-squared). 587 ha
Joe Maimon wrote:
> We need 587 because trusted authentication in SMTP does not
> transit with the message. So there is no way to require
> authenticated email only from all systems that would be worth
> a damn.
Local delivery only unless authenticated isn't worth a damn? Is this
really that d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>> We need 587 because trusted authentication in SMTP does not transit
>> with the message. So there is no way to require authenticated email
>> only from all systems that would be worth a damn.
>
> Local delivery only unless authenticated isn't wor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:56:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> Sorry, I misread that. But I still fail to see how 587 changes that.
>> Trojans, viruses, etc. etc. etc. can still exploit the authentication
>> system regardless of what port it operates on. Different por
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
>
>
>> Yeah, I forgot about the regulation thing. I suppose I'd give the
>> ISP a call first, but I'd expect it to be working within a few
>> hours. But now that cable modem providers themselves are providing
>> VoIP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> however, since BIND9 is compatible with BIND8 and BIND4, and with
>> microsoft's DNS, and with virtually every other DNS in the world
>> except for "tinydns",
>
> Err, "compatible" because it detects them and then does the
> right thing, and uses the traditional protoc
Are you referring to Windows 2000 Service Pack 3 or MSSQL Service Pack 3?
If MSSQL Service Pack 3, approximately when would you guesstimate the patch
was installed?
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Drew Weaver
Sent: Saturday, Januar
Sorry to bother the whole list with this...could someone involved in
routing at Qwest ping me offlist?
Thanks,
Andrew
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 3:04 PM
> To: Fisher, Shawn; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: SLA Tool
>
>
> JFFNMS (http://www.jffnms.org) seems to have a decent SLA
> configuration. Been working for us in a limi
Particularly of interest would be "established standards" for "Class A
Datacenter" specifically relating to the physical plant -- Power,
cooling, physical security, etc. I think we can all agree in general on
N+1 everything, and we can go round and round again on what exactly
constitutes "Tier-1
>> > So, my question for NANOG is how does one go about attracting the
>> > attention of law enforcement when your network is under attack?
How
>> > does the target of such an attack get a large network provider
who's
>> > customers are part of the attack to pay attention? Is media
>> > atten
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So rather than finish the testing they wanted to do, they rushed it
> out? Hmmm. Sounds a little scary to me
The way the SANS folks have been going into hysterics over the
vulnerability I'd say there was considerable pressure to get it out the
door as soon as hum
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This morning we have started receive an abundance of spam
> from Wiltel customers, pointing boldly back to websites
> hosted in Wiltel space.
>
> OrgAbuseHandle: WAC18-ARIN
> OrgAbuseName: Wiltel Abuse Contact
> OrgAbusePhone: +1-918-547-2000
> OrgAbuseEmail: [EMAIL
> At 7:03 PM -0400 6/14/06, Matt Buford wrote:
> >There is also strong demand among web hosting customers to scatter
> >sites across multiple /24's due to search engine optimization.
>
> I hear this line of thinking often, but to me it sounds like
> bulls^X^X^X^X^X... um, "folklore". When our
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I don't know what your problem is, but you're not making things any
>>> better by refusing to fix listings that aren't incorrect or, in some
>>> cases, never were.
>
> IMHO, it's not about making things 'better' - we don't expect
> NANOG'ers to be any more altruistic
3) What's wrong with
treating assignments like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them?
There's plenty of precedent for this:
Mineral
rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum.
If a given
commodity is truly scarce, nothing works as good as the free mark
>>> 3) What's wrong with treating assignments
like property and setting up a market to buy and sell them? There's plenty of
precedent for this:
>>> Mineral
rights, mining claims, Oil and gas leases, radio spectrum.
>>> If a given commodity is truly scarce,
nothing works as good as the f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Once this subject took off on nanog, I have been
> oversaturated with people trying to "sell" me ip space. I
> have had offers for several /16's for 10,000.00 each that are
> no longer in use by the companies who "own" lol them.
It seems to me that this nicely illus
Rodney Joffe wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2007, at 10:55 PM, Paul Reubens wrote:
>
>> How do you engineer around enterprise and ISP recursors that don't
>> honor TTL, instead caching DNS records for a week or more?
>>
>
> In my "little" bit of research and experience over the last 10 years
> in this fiel
I've had a steady trickle of reachability complaints coming from Road Runner
users over the course of the day today. I started seeing wackiness about
7:30AM Eastern this morning when a VPN tunnel into a Road Runner customer
dropped off. It seems as if the problems have stabilized over the last h
Joe Greco wrote:
>> Technically the user can use the connection to it's maximum
>> theoretical speed as much as they like, however, if an ISP has a
>> quota set at 12G/month, it just means that the cost is passed along
>> to them when they exceed it.
>
> And that seems like a bit of the handwavi
William Herrin wrote:
> Right now we rely on ARIN and the RIRs to artificially suppress the
> growth of the prefix count and with it the availability of PI space.
> This is a Really Bad Thing on so many levels, but absent a viable
> market-based solution to the problem, authority-based rationing i
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Feb 1, 2008 2:25 PM, Ahmed Maged (amaged) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Does look normal to me" is far from a global conspiracy theory.
>>
>>
>> Thank you for the translation but I think you got it wrong.
>>
>
>
> I agree, there should be a sanity chec
Scott McGrath wrote:
> If we do not help the newbies how will they ever become clued. I can
> certainly remember when I did not know a bit from a byte.
I agree, but I question if NANOG is the appropriate medium for such help. I
tend to (maybe mistakenly) assume a working knowledge of basic mul
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:15:06 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> mailing list. Isn't this akin to posting to a profesional
>> mathematics forum asking for help with your Algebra?
>
> In 1943 he (Einstein) answered a little girl who had difficulties in
> school with math
> We're seeing a number of issues with WorldNIC nameservers failing
> from multiple points on our network this morning and was wondering if
> anyone was seeing similar problems.
>
> We're seeing issues with:
> ns47.worldnic.com (domain: cpurocket.com)
> ns48.worldnic.com (domain: cpurocket.c
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 09:26:13AM -0500, Robert Boyle wrote:
>>>
>>> At 09:23 AM 11/9/2006, you wrote:
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006, Robert Boyle wrote:
> You should also create a bogons list for your BGP routes which you
> a
Sean Donelan wrote:
> Several US Providers are very happy to sell 1Gbps and even 10Gbps to
> anyone in major (i.e. NFL/top 30) cities, but not at $14.95/month.
Sure, as long as you're willing to fork over the cash for CPE capable of
handling OC-XX linecards. The service cost is hardly the onl
Warren Kumari wrote:
> On May 2, 2007, at 2:58 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> 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 l
35 matches
Mail list logo
