On 13-01-21 01:19, Matt Palmer wrote:
> Things that require me to worry (more) about scalability are out, as are
> things that annoy a larger percentage of my userbase than cookies (at least
> with cookies, I can say "you're not accepting cookies, please turn them on",
> whereas with randomly resu
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 06:33:33PM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 1/18/13, Matt Palmer wrote:
> > Primarily abuse prevention. If I can get a few thousand people to do
> > something resource-heavy (or otherwise abusive, such as send an e-mail
> > somewhere) within a short period of time, I can cons
On 1/20/13, Warren Bailey wrote:
[snip]
> want to play ball, they take what you give with a smile. I would be
> curious to see what would happen if a lawful intercept request came
> through and the service provider refused to process it. I have been a
The LEAs might be flexible in how they are wi
I have yet to see a lot of networks in TRUE compliance with CALEA
requirements. Most of the time, it's some intermediate box that is doing a
netflow-esque imports from routers that net/j/xyzflow normally. The only
issue I/we ever ran into was how to in fact process the LEA request for an
actual CAL
I agree with the TTP taking the IP traffic. They simply re-package it
for the LEA.
It's up to the LEA to take the traffic flow or not. If it's a true CALEA
warrant, not a normal wire tap, the defense could argue they did not
follow protocol.
Justin
-Original Message
Our Trusted Third Party (TTP) asked us to IP Traffic Export. As others
commented in this forum, the LEAs is not looking for SPs to replace their
entire networks to create an ideal CALEA-compliant environment. It's my
understanding that LEA will take a Cisco IP Traffic Export flow.
Frank
-Or
I don't see any mention of CALEA. A traffic dump won't satisfy a CALEA
warrant.
Justin
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk
Date: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:31 PM
To: 'Warren Bailey' , Byron Hooper
,
Subject: RE: CALEA options for small/midsize ISPs
>Another option is
Another option is the IP traffic export option.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t4/feature/guide/gt_rawip.html
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Warren Bailey [mailto:wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 6:34 PM
To: Byron Hooper; nanog@nanog.o
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Byron Hooper wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> My company is looking at updating our CALEA set up. Our network has
> changed appreciably since our initial rollout and I am looking at utilizing
> Cisco's Lawful Intercept. I'm wondering what people are using as "Mediator
> D
We used Cisco for lawful intercept.. Their mibs are wanky and at the time only
the 7206 was support for the LI functionality. Food for thought.
>From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
Original message
From: Byron Hooper
Date: 01/20/2013 3:00 PM
Are you looking at a Mediation box because you are doing VOIP?
Other than Cisco I am familiar with DeepSweep.
I have heard of Verint, Utimaco, and Pine Digital. However, no 1st hand
knowledge or anything other than passing. :-)
Justin
--
Justin Wilson
Aol & Yah
I'd stay clear of the 34s
On Jan 18, 2013 11:56 PM, "Julien Goodwin" wrote:
> Another (somewhat cheaper) Juniper option if you meet its limits is the
> EX[34]200's which now do GRE in hardware:
>
>
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.1/topics/concept/gre-tunnel-services.html
>
> On 19
IGMP packets are sent with TTL=1. Is the tunnel interface on the router
enabled for PIM?
Tom
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 5:11 AM, Brian Christopher Raaen <
mailing-li...@brianraaen.com> wrote:
> Just a quick note. I do have multicast enabled on the server gre1
> interface. A tshark capture shows t
Hello All,
My company is looking at updating our CALEA set up. Our network has
changed appreciably since our initial rollout and I am looking at utilizing
Cisco's Lawful Intercept. I'm wondering what people are using as "Mediator
Devices", aka what the Cisco routers are sending the Lawful Interc
On Jan 20, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 03:54:37PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>> Storing any state server-side is a really bad idea for scalability and
>>> reliability.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Doing that - in
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 03:54:37PM -0800, George Herbert wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2013, at 7:52 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 09:41:41AM +0100, . wrote:
> >> On 17 January 2013 23:38, Matt Palmer wrote:
> >> ..
> >>> By the way, if anyone *does* know of a good and reliable way to
On Jan 20, 2013, at 12:23 AM, "Keith Medcalf" wrote:
>
>> Just an FYI...
>>
>> Every version of Windows since Windows 2000 (sans Windows Me) has had
>> the DNS Client service which maintained this caching function. This was
>> by design due to the massive dependency on DNS resolution which Ac
Look for H3C or HP A series they do gre in hardware (I saw 5820 do 4Gbps
without a problem )
Nitzan
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Julien Goodwin wrote:
> Another (somewhat cheaper) Juniper option if you meet its limits is the
> EX[34]200's which now do GRE in hardware:
>
>
> http://www.junip
18 matches
Mail list logo
