* Joel jaeggli (joe...@bogus.com) wrote:
> On 11/29/12 23:18 , Joakim Aronius wrote:
>
> > I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that
> > we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies
> > like child pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free
On 2012-12-02 22:44, Michael Painter wrote:
Joel jaeggli wrote:
The internet is potentially quite a useful tool for getting your message
out so long as using it isn't holding a gun to your own head. While we
site here with the convenient idea of some legal arbitrage which allows
me to do somet
Joel jaeggli wrote:
The internet is potentially quite a useful tool for getting your message
out so long as using it isn't holding a gun to your own head. While we
site here with the convenient idea of some legal arbitrage which allows
me to do something which isn't illegal in my own domain to
On 11/29/12 23:18 , Joakim Aronius wrote:
> I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that
> we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies
> like child pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass
> just by using Tor. I dont think it should b
On 12/2/2012 5:28 PM, Adrian Farrel wrote:
Far be it from me to get involved in a private pissing match, but...
Owen wrote:
Perhaps we should ask IETF/IANA to allocate a group of protocol numbers
to "the wild west". A protocol-number equivalent of RFC-1918 or private ASNs.
You can use these fo
On Dec 2, 2012, at 5:18 AM, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote:
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 20:20:51 -0500
> From: ML
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: When an ISP should run their own IRR for customers
> Message-ID: <50baacf3.4040...@kenweb.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-88
Far be it from me to get involved in a private pissing match, but...
Owen wrote:
> Perhaps we should ask IETF/IANA to allocate a group of protocol numbers
> to "the wild west". A protocol-number equivalent of RFC-1918 or private ASNs.
> You can use these for whatever you want, but so can anyone e
Adding IPv6 support isn't like adding most new features. It doesn't
give most people something extra. It doesn't "enhance the experience".
It is insurance for when the CGN is deployed by the ISP or when the
ISP goes IPv6 only and like most insurance you don't know when you
will needed and you wi
> "Everything you need to know" except for how to actually accomplish this
> task in the real world.
>
> In order to accomplish this in the real world using present-day software
> development methodologies you would need to do a few more things:
> - Generate some user stories that explain why the I
On 12/01/2012 11:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
ps. I work for a division of my employer that does not yet have IPv6 support in
its rather popular consumer software product. Demand for IPv6 from our rather
large customer base is, at present, essentially nonexistent, and other things
would be way ab
On 12/1/2012 11:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, but unlike Skype, most popular applications have competitors and
whichever competitor provides the better user experience will cut the
others off from a meaningful proportion of their customers. Owen
I think you're assuming some magic that lets o
If all you need is initial mitigation against fairly basic flood type attack
vectors, then the Radware and a host of other similar appliances, should do the
job. I know Radware is in the stack of a few very successful DDoS mitigation
services. But if you intend to offer a premium DDoS mitigation
I think one error being made here is discussing the culpability of law
enforcement per se.
That's like blaming the UPS delivery person because something you
bought from Amazon was misleading. Or praising him/her because it was
great.
One way of asserting authority over any property is making ver
Checkout Radware Defense Pro. It offers some very innovative approaches to
network and application attack mitigation. I particularly like the NBA and
real time signatures.
James Braunegg wrote:
>Dear Nanog
>
>
>
>I would like to start a discussion on network security DDOS hardware
>appl
Dear Nanog
I would like to start a discussion on network security DDOS hardware
appliances, mainly compairing the Arbor Pravail APS device vs the nsFocus
ADS6020 device as I am looking at investing in such a product and would love to
hear some industry feedback, reviews, information and from
>
> ps. I work for a division of my employer that does not yet have IPv6 support
> in its rather popular consumer software product. Demand for IPv6 from our
> rather large customer base is, at present, essentially nonexistent, and other
> things would be way above it in the stack-ranked backlog
16 matches
Mail list logo
