On Thursday 12 March 2009 03:06:05 am Bill Blackford wrote:
> Incidentally, I am using 7300/7200 based units with G1 RP
> and found that at 200M they start seeing 50% CPU load
> which is why I'm looking to go to the next step.
Be sure to optimize your configuration before you upgrade.
Depending
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Peter Beckman wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
>
>> In our neighbourhood, we don't have a high crime rate. Despite that,
>> if we saw someone walking from house to house, trying doorknobs, we'd
>> call the cops. The fact that everyone has locks on t
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
> > In our neighbourhood, we don't have a high crime rate. Despite that,
> > if we saw someone walking from house to house, trying doorknobs, we'd
> > call the cops. The fact that everyone has locks on their doors does
> > not make it all right for someone
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Joe Greco wrote:
In our neighbourhood, we don't have a high crime rate. Despite that,
if we saw someone walking from house to house, trying doorknobs, we'd
call the cops. The fact that everyone has locks on their doors does
not make it all right for someone to go around fr
Joe Greco wrote:
A quick scan of the reverse mapping for your address space in DNS reveals
that you have basically your entire network on public addresses. No wonder
you're worried about portscans when the printer down the hall and the
receptionists machine are sitting on public addresses. I th
> A quick scan of the reverse mapping for your address space in DNS reveals
> that you have basically your entire network on public addresses. No wonder
> you're worried about portscans when the printer down the hall and the
> receptionists machine are sitting on public addresses. I think you are
Make sure that the new 10 GiGE line cards are not in your plans if you
choose the SUP32. This holds for some of the other copper and fiber line
cards where line card buffer capacity may be critical to effective
throughput. Some new line cards only connect to the 720 Gig backplane.
-Original M
Bill,
As far as pricing for refurbished Cisco Supervisor Engines the 3BXL is
selling for around $7500 whereas the WS-SUP32-10GE-3B $5500, WS-SUP32-GE-3B
$2500...
Best regards,
Larry E. Stites
Northern California Networks, Inc.
LIC# 2004 SR KH 100-484111
Nevada City, CA 95959
on 3/11/09 10
I have found that Cisco IPSLA is heavily used in the MSO/Service
Provider Space. Juniper has equivalent functionality via RPM.
Rich
-Original Message-
From: Saqib Ilyas [mailto:msa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 6:12 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Network SLA
I mus
William Allen Simpson wrote:
Port scanning is rather common, and shouldn't be considered "attacking" --
unless it's taking a significant amount of bandwidth.
Attempting to gain unauthorised access to a computing system is a crime in
most countries. Port scanning is a tool used to gain unauthor
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009, Bill Blackford wrote:
> Thank you to everyone who offered advice. I thinks it's clearer what my path
> should be.
>
> Incidentally, I am using 7300/7200 based units with G1 RP and found that at
> 200M they start seeing 50% CPU load which is why I'm looking to go to the
> n
Thank you to everyone who offered advice. I thinks it's clearer what my path
should be.
Incidentally, I am using 7300/7200 based units with G1 RP and found that at
200M they start seeing 50% CPU load which is why I'm looking to go to the next
step.
Again, thanks to all
-b
-Original Messa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
> RFC 3514? :-)
Ah, but if it was just that easy...
The choice of "evil" for a table name was not random, of course! I do
appreciate that the pf syntax makes for such entertaining configuration
snippets. I have yet to pen a f
Actually let me amend that and say 3800's as far as inexpensive
routers. They are basically NPE400 class devices, with alot of memory
and sufficient to handle the full table. Other router devices like
7200's etc will work fine as well.
On Mar 11, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Brian Feeny wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Bill Blackford wrote:
I'm trying to evaluate a lower-cost alternative to the 720-3bxl.
I'm only pushing a few hundred megs of traffic, exchanging a few routes with
less than 20 peers and don't see the need for a 720's worth of throughput in
the near future.
Can the 32 han
Honestly, my advise is don't handle full tables in switches unless you
want to use 3bxl. Use routers, any old ISR can do 1GB memory or so
and handle the table just fine, and run you a fraction of the cost.
Keep internal routes, defaults, etc in the switching core.
Brian
On Mar 11, 2009
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009, Bill Blackford wrote:
> Can the 32 handle a full table?
Start here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/cisco-...@puck.nether.net/msg12492.html
adrian
Anyone have any experience with SUP32? Please contact me off list.
I'm trying to evaluate a lower-cost alternative to the 720-3bxl.
I'm only pushing a few hundred megs of traffic, exchanging a few routes with
less than 20 peers and don't see the need for a 720's worth of throughput in
the near f
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Alec Berry wrote:
> block in log quick from to any label "evil"
RFC 3514? :-)
--
Jeremy L. Gaddis
http://evilrouters.net/
Yes and no.
Yes, in that it does best path selection, no in that it does not use BGP, since
low cost assumes DSL or cable, over which I've never seen BGP deployed. This
class of device assumes an appliance at each end. Performance data is
collected, compression and load balancing techniques a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Lewis wrote:
> If port scans really bother you, then you should setup a system to detect
> them, and regularly rebuild ACLs/null route lists/etc. to stop them in
> near real time. AFAIK, Cisco sells such a product, as do other network
> vendor
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Marcus Reid wrote:
MR> A quick scan of the reverse mapping for your address space in DNS reveals
MR> that you have basically your entire network on public addresses. No wonder
MR> you're worried about portscans when the printer down the hall and the
MR> receptionists machine
On 11 Mar 2009, at 11:53, Marcus Reid wrote:
A quick scan of the reverse mapping for your address space in DNS
reveals
that you have basically your entire network on public addresses.
It's indeed nice to see people deploying networks the way there were
supposed to be built, for once.
Ni
Hope you did that scan from covad. Lol. *ducks*
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:55:43AM -0400, Brett Charbeneau wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
>
> WAS> While I applaud your taking security seriously, and your active
> monitoring
> WAS> of your resources, other folks might be handling huge numbers of
> Conficker,
> WAS>
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:42:40 -0300
Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> Covad telling you they don't keep logs is different from them not
> really having the logs... but, if they really don't keep logs, they
> are posing a risk that FBI or DHS might not be happy with. The feds
> will probably be more persuasive
Covad telling you they don't keep logs is different from them not
really having the logs... but, if they really don't keep logs, they
are posing a risk that FBI or DHS might not be happy with. The feds
will probably be more persuasive than you, so maybe hinting them about
this situation may change
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:28:33 -0400
Joe Abley wrote:
>
> On 11-Mar-2009, at 10:03, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> > but what's the point in getting lawyers involved?
>
> It might convince some pointy-haired person at covad to review the
> policies and procedures on the abuse desk, maybe.
>
> > Whateve
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, William Allen Simpson wrote:
WAS> While I applaud your taking security seriously, and your active monitoring
WAS> of your resources, other folks might be handling huge numbers of Conficker,
WAS> Mebroot, and Torpig infections these days. So, they might be rather busy.
Brett Charbeneau wrote:
I've been nudging an operator at Covad about a handful of hosts from
his DHCP pool that have been attacking - relentlessly port scanning -
our assets.
Port scanning is rather common, and shouldn't be considered "attacking" --
unless it's taking a significant amount
On 11-Mar-2009, at 10:03, Jon Lewis wrote:
but what's the point in getting lawyers involved?
It might convince some pointy-haired person at covad to review the
policies and procedures on the abuse desk, maybe.
Whatever access isn't supposed to be open should be filtered.
If you can dem
On Wed, 11 Mar 2009, Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
I think your next step is your lawyer. Put all your missives, your
email, your phone conversations, your logs, your auditing results, your
detection troubleshooting and sleuthing trails etc. in a folder, create
a one page summary including any dama
I think your next step is your lawyer. Put all your missives, your
email, your phone conversations, your logs, your auditing results, your
detection troubleshooting and sleuthing trails etc. in a folder, create
a one page summary including any damages you feel might have been caused
(e.g. time, e
I've been nudging an operator at Covad about a handful of hosts from his
DHCP pool that have been attacking - relentlessly port scanning - our assets.
I've been informed by this individual that there's "no way" to determine which
customer had that address at the times I list in my logs - even t
34 matches
Mail list logo
