--- v.jo...@networkingunlimited.com wrote:
From: Vincent C Jones
> --- br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
> From: Bryan Fields
>
> I would love a world where engineering was consulted by marketing :(
> -
>
> WAKE UP You're dreaming out loud... >;-)
NAT444 alone is not enough.
You will need to deploy it along with 6rd or DS-lite.
Whilst you still have global v4, use it. The best is to deploy
dual-stack, but that won't last for too long.
Regards,
as-
On 1 Sep 2011, at 15:36, Serge Vautour wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Th
> --- br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
> From: Bryan Fields
>
> I would love a world where engineering was consulted by marketing :(
> -
>
> WAKE UP You're dreaming out loud... >;-)
Not necessarily...I've been in computer networking going on 40 yea
On 9/5/2011 22:39, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Joel jaeggli"
>
>> having customers that want to use your service is rarely a bad thing.
>
> Ask a chief engineer at a national wireless carrier who told his
> administrative
> bosses that selling "unlimited" wirele
--- br...@bryanfields.net wrote:
From: Bryan Fields
I would love a world where engineering was consulted by marketing :(
-
WAKE UP You're dreaming out loud... >;-)
scott
...and the 's are back! And port 80 responds.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [mailto:frnk...@iname.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 5:03 PM
To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
Subject: RE: IPv6 version of www.qwest.com/www.centurylink.com has been down
for 10 days
Charter.com h
On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:32:57 PDT, Everett Batey said:
> If you can offer any lead(s) to service providers who may subsidize /
> partially subsidize adult handicapped for internet service in LA County CA,
> please, advise me on or off net.
I can't help with the query as phrased - but would you also
I stand corrected.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 6, 2011, at 2:19 PM, "Dylan Ebner" wrote:
> it does. The older 87x only had a 4 port. The new 89x are the replacement for
> the 181x series.
>
> Dylan
> -Original Message-
> From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
> Sent: Tuesday,
Arrgghhh
This reminds me of the WebNFS attack. Which is why Sun aborted
WebNFS's public launch, after I pointed it out during its Solaris 2.6
early access program.
Never run a volume-multiplying service on UDP if you can help it,
exposed to the outside world, without serious in-band source
v
it does. The older 87x only had a 4 port. The new 89x are the replacement for
the 181x series.
Dylan
-Original Message-
From: Seth Mattinen [mailto:se...@rollernet.us]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 1:17 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Point to MultiPoint VPN w/qos
On 9/6/11 11
On 9/6/11 11:10 AM, Brant I. Stevens wrote:
> I'd say the 89x platform is the way to go if 8 ports weren't needed. Correct
> me if i am wrong...
>
I believe the 89x have a built-in 8 port switch plus 2 WAN Ethernet.
~Seth
I'd say the 89x platform is the way to go if 8 ports weren't needed. Correct
me if i am wrong...
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 6, 2011, at 1:34 PM, "Garrett Skjelstad" wrote:
> Yes, but look in 891s at the remotes, the 19xx are too expensive for only 4
> devices Just my 2c
>
> Sent from my i
IFRC, the 19xx and 18xx are slower than the new 89x series. We are
transitioning away from 18xx because of limitations on the platform that the
89x doesn't have. When the 18xx came out a few years ago they were amazing, the
new 89x are even better.
Dylan
-Original Message-
From:
Yes, but look in 891s at the remotes, the 19xx are too expensive for only 4
devices Just my 2c
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 6, 2011, at 10:22, "Ryan Finnesey" wrote:
> DMVPN would only work with 100% cisco hardware right?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brant I. Stevens [mailto:bra
DMVPN would only work with 100% cisco hardware right?
-Original Message-
From: Brant I. Stevens [mailto:bra...@networking-architecture.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 10:26 AM
To: Brandon Kim; positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com; nanog group
Subject: Re: Point to MultiPoint VPN w/qos
Correct. But it works very well and is really simple to build and
manage. We use 8xx routers on our spokes, very cheap.
On 09/06/2011 01:22 PM, Ryan Finnesey wrote:
DMVPN would only work with 100% cisco hardware right?
-Original Message-
From: Brant I. Stevens [mailto:bra...@networki
Recently (last month) Ryan Gordon (the person responsible for porting COD to
Linux) released a patch for cod4 servers to address this specific issue.
Here is the announcement and a link to the original email as well. The
discussion also indicated that all of the Quake III based games suffered
fro
CheckPoint Series 80 has 10 ports.
I think there is a Juniper option as well.
-Hammer-
"I was a normal American nerd"
-Jack Herer
On 09/06/2011 09:36 AM, Seth Mos wrote:
On 6-9-2011 15:49, Positively Optimistic wrote:
Greetings
Does anyone have a suggestion for a single piece of hardware
On 6-9-2011 15:49, Positively Optimistic wrote:
Greetings
Does anyone have a suggestion for a single piece of hardware that would
support 8 or less Ethernet interfaces and the two vpn tunnels ?
Single piece of hardware, no. If 2, then yes.
A PCengines Alix 2D3 with pfSense/m0n0wall and Open
I would go with Cisco's DMVPN, and its multiple endpoint offerings. A
19xx router sounds like it would meet your needs for the remotes.
Spoke-to-Spoke tunnels are created on-demand, can use dynamic routing, and
it supports multicast for things like Music on Hold, etc.
Contact me offline and I ca
Yes, a SonicWALL NSA 240 has 8 interfaces built in
This sounds like a very fun project
> Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 08:49:13 -0500
> Subject: Point to MultiPoint VPN w/qos
> From: positivelyoptimis...@gmail.com
> To: nanog@nanog.org
>
> Greetings
>
> We have acquired a new client that has
Greetings
We have acquired a new client that has 98 remote endpoints. At each site
there is a need for 4 ip telephones and two vpn tunnels back to
two separate datacenters. (1 voice, 1 citrix farm). The sites don't talk
to each other, just to the two data centers.
Does anyone have a suggestio
Call of Duty is apparently using the same flawed protocol as Quake III
servers, so you can think of it as an amplification attack. (I wish I'd
forgotten all about this stuff)
You send "\xff\xff\xff\xffgetstatus\n" in a UDP packet with a spoofed
source, and the server responds with everything
Looking around, I believe the issue is that the IP has ended up on a
master game list, so we are now getting the queries directed at US.
For anyone interested, there seems to be some info here:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1670090
With the packet capture I have and th
On Tuesday 06 Sep 2011 09:14:26 Greg Chalmers wrote:
> Could be legitimate CoD servers responding to a spoofed query?
My first thought looking at the packet dump. Interesting that some poor
sap's hotmail address is embedded in it.
> How much
> traffic are you talking about out of curiosity?
>
>
On Monday 05 Sep 2011 15:53:38 Owen DeLong wrote:
> This is true in terms of whether you care or not, but, if one just
looks at whether it changes the content of the FIB or not, changing
which arbitrary tie breaker you use likely changes the contents of the
FIB in at least some cases.
>
> The k
Could be legitimate CoD servers responding to a spoofed query? How much
traffic are you talking about out of curiosity?
Regards
Greg
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 6:03 PM, BH wrote:
> On 6/09/2011 4:00 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> > I've seen DDoS traffic on UDP/80 as far back as 2002
> Hi Roland,
>
via gogo6 tunnel box (http://gogo6.com/) from my UK location
( not tested other tunnels nor native)
$ telnet -6 www.savvis.com 80
Trying 2001:460:100:1000::37...
Connected to www.savvis.net.
$ ping6 www.savvis.com
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2001:5c0:1110:8000:217:f2ff:fee6:ab79 -->
2001:460:100:1
On 6/09/2011 4:00 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> I've seen DDoS traffic on UDP/80 as far back as 2002
Hi Roland,
I should be a bit more clear sorry, I too have frequently seen attacks
on 80/udp but mainly as a source (eg. compromised hosting accounts)
rather than the destination. I didn't in the pa
i have seen many udp/80 floods as well... pretty common.
John van Oppen
Spectrum Networks / AS11404
From: Dobbins, Roland [rdobb...@arbor.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 1:00 AM
To: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: DDoS - CoD?
On Sep 6, 2011, at 2:53 PM, BH wrote:
> Has anyone seen similar traffic before? I
I've seen DDoS traffic on UDP/80 as far back as 2002 - the miscreants often
don't know a lot about TCP/IP, and if something happens to work once, they
incorporate it into their attack tool defaults and keep using
Hi all,
I am wondering if anyone has seen a large DDoS before, specifically on
port 80 UDP with data that seems to be relating to Call of Duty 4. I did
a quick packet capture, and the payload looks like this:
14:50:42.716247 IP Y1.YY.YY.YY.28960 > XX.XX.XX.XX.80: UDP, length 499
0x:
32 matches
Mail list logo
