This 100-line document contains 62% of what you need to know to avoid
annoying 10,000 people in your email to the NANOG list. It also contains
pointers to another 23%. Please take 5 minutes to read it before
you post [again].
General Information
===
About NANOG:http://
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
After some lab work we have established that the source of the invalid
AS4_PATHs discussed in [1] is likely a non compliant implementation of
RFC4893 (AS4) in some versions of Juniper JunOS.
We have observed the following behaviour with both JunOS 9.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 02:45:12PM +0100, Sebastian Ganschow wrote:
> we're seeing that we're getting about 2/3 fewer spam since friday.
(a) This is probably better on the mailop list, subscribe via
mailop-requ...@mailop.org.
(b) No discernable trend at any of my listening posts over the past w
One of your secondary MXs went down? I dont see any lower levels. But
some bots hit a backup MX first.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Sebastian Ganschow
wrote:
> Hi nanog,
>
> we're seeing that we're getting about 2/3 fewer spam since friday.
>
> Even blacklist hits are declining.
>
> Does any
Hi nanog,
we're seeing that we're getting about 2/3 fewer spam since friday.
Even blacklist hits are declining.
Does anyone has an explanation?
Regards
Sebastian
Jonathan Oddy wrote:
dangerous, and should be avoided at all costs (where this leaves Cisco
shops who have been given 32 bit AS numbers by their RIR is somewhat
unpleasant to consider.) It must be emphasized that this is due to no
Suddenly makes one wonder if it would have been easier to take b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I was indeed aware of the OpenBGPD discussion and patch, and I'm glad it
has been worked around in what I believe to be a sensible way, however I
disagree with the comment in the code that states that the standard does
not specify how to handle this s
7 matches
Mail list logo
