The implication would look at the terminal characteristics and enable as
required.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 23 Sep 2023, at 08:33, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
>> On 9/22/23 1:54 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> Telnet sessions where often initiated from half duplex terminals. Pushing
>> that flow c
On 9/22/23 1:54 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Telnet sessions where often initiated from half duplex terminals. Pushing
that flow control across the network helped those users.
I'm still confused. Did it require the telnet users to actually take
action? Like they'd manually need to enter the GA
> We are using Okta's RADIUS service for 2fa to network gear currently,
> but looking to switch to tacacs+ for many reasons. Would prefer to
> implement tacacs+ with two-factor if possible.
tac_plus-ng from https://www.pro-bono-publico.de/projects/tac_plus-ng.html has
LDAP and PAM backends, amo
Telnet sessions where often initiated from half duplex terminals. Pushing
that flow control across the network helped those users.
--
Mark Andrews
> On 23 Sep 2023, at 06:25, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>
>> On 9/22/23 9:42 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>>> On 9/21/23 17:04, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 9/22/23 9:42 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On 9/21/23 17:04, Michael Thomas wrote:
When I wrote my first implementation of telnet ages ago, i was both
amused and annoyed about the go-ahead option. Obviously patterned
after audio meat-space protocols, but I was never convinced it wasn't
a solut
Curious about this as well.
We are using Okta's RADIUS service for 2fa to network gear currently, but
looking to switch to tacacs+ for many reasons. Would prefer to implement
tacacs+ with two-factor if possible.
From: NANOG on behalf of Kevin Burke via
NANOG
Is anyone using two factor authentication for network devices?
Getting ready to re-do our authentication infrastructure and was curious if
this is common. We are noticing a lot of Active Directory based two factor
solutions as well as some TACACS solutions that have already been mentioned
that
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global
IPv4 Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
UKNOF, TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bg
On 9/21/23 17:04, Michael Thomas wrote:
When I wrote my first implementation of telnet ages ago, i was both
amused and annoyed about the go-ahead option. Obviously patterned after
audio meat-space protocols, but I was never convinced it wasn't a
solution in search of a problem. I wonder if CDM
Hi Dave,
You did not tell: is it interactive? Because we could use big buffers and
convert jitter to latency (some STBs have sub-second buffers).
Then jitter would effectively become Zero (more precise: not a problem), and we
deal only with latency consequences.
Hence, your question is not about
10 matches
Mail list logo
