On Mar 21, 2010, at 9:52 PM, Alex Lanstein wrote:
There is, by the way, no relief from this due to events like the
recent bust of the Mariposa botnet (13M systems);
>
> The public numbers advertised were 13M _IPs_ connecting to a sinkhole over
> more than a month's time. When I've had
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:37:09 -, James Bensley said:
> On 19 March 2010 14:19, wrote:
> You *do* realize that
> > there's an estimated 140,000,000 bots on the net, right
>
> As many as that? Thats 1 in 12 according to
That was Vint Cerf's number as of 2007 or so. He dropped that estimate at
>>>
>>>From: Rich Kulawiec [...@gsp.org]
>>>Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:43 PM
>>>To: nanog@nanog.org
>>>Subject: Re: NSP-SEC
>>>
>>>There is, by the way, no relief from this due to events like the
>>>recent bust of the Mariposa botnet (13M systems);
The p
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 09:37:09PM +, James Bensley wrote:
> On 19 March 2010 14:19, wrote:
> You *do* realize that
> > there's an estimated 140,000,000 bots on the net, right
>
> As many as that? Thats 1 in 12 according to
> http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
I think that estima
www.ronan-online.com/forsale.html
On Mar 21, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
Hello everyone,
This might be slightly off topic, but I am shutting down a large
network, and selling off the assets.
Information is @ www.ronan-online/forsale.html
I will be adding items to the list as they co
Hello everyone,
This might be slightly off topic, but I am shutting down a large
network, and selling off the assets.
Information is @ www.ronan-online/forsale.html
I will be adding items to the list as they come offline, as well as
the location of each asset.
Email me with any questions or of
On 19 March 2010 14:19, wrote:
You *do* realize that
> there's an estimated 140,000,000 bots on the net, right
As many as that? Thats 1 in 12 according to
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm. Lets be honest, I don't
follow the world wide bot crisis because as your figure suggests, its
ju
Guillaume FORTAINE wrote:
> On 03/20/2010 09:12 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
>>
>> 2. Show you are responsive and responsible in handling issues in your
>> own back yard.
>>
>
> http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ENEl1xrgXNwJ:https://ow.feide.no/_media/geantcampus:s5.2-flows_at_mu.pdf%3Fid%3Dgeantc
On 03/20/2010 09:12 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
2. Show you are responsive and responsible in handling issues in your
own back yard.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ENEl1xrgXNwJ:https://ow.feide.no/_media/geantcampus:s5.2-flows_at_mu.pdf%3Fid%3Dgeantcampus%253Anetw_monitoring_oct_2009%2
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 05:10:04PM -0700, Mike wrote:
> With all due respect and acknowledgment of the tremendous contributions of
> ISC and you yourself Mr. Hankins, I have to comment that failover in
> isc-dhcp is broken by design because it requires the amount of handholding
> and operator th
>>> It sounds like this range was just recently assigned -- is there any
>>> document (RFC?) or source I could look through to learn more about
>>> this, and/or provide evidence to my client
http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jaren
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> ---
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:48:52 -0600
Tom Ammon wrote:
> RFC1918 is a good place to start ;)
>
Most of the issues in
"Deprecating Site Local Addresses"
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3879.txt
identified in IPv6 Site-Local addressing also apply to
duplicated/overlapping IPv4 addressing.
> On
12 matches
Mail list logo
