On Mar 27, 2014 3:03 PM, "John Curran" wrote:
>
> And I would welcome discussion of how ARIN (and nanog) can be more like
RIPE - that is very much up to this community and its participation far
more than ARIN..
>
> /John
>
How about we fold ARIN into RIPE? Why not? I agree with all of Randy's
poi
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 09:05:54 PM Cb B wrote:
>
>> i would say the more appropriate place for this policy is
>> the printer, not a firewall. For example, maybe a
>> printer should only be ULA or LLA by default
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Philip Dorr wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2014 1:11 PM, "Mark Tinka" wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, March 23, 2014 06:57:26 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>> > I was at work last week and because I have IPv6 at both
>> > ends I could just log into the machines at home as
>> > easily a
On Mar 22, 2014 2:32 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
>
> Oh btw, how many ipv4s are you hording with zero justification to keep
> them? I was unpopular during apricot for not liking the idea of no
> liability leasing of v4. I don't like this artificial v4 situation
> every eyeball network creat
On Mar 22, 2014 12:08 AM, "Bryan Socha" wrote:
>
> As someone growing in the end of ipv4, its all fake.Sure, the rirs
will
> run out, but that's boring.Don't believe the fake auction sites.
> Fair price of IP at the end is $1 for bad Rep $2 for barely used, $3 for
no
> spam and $4 for lega
would be really
>>>> cool
>>>> if peering exchanges could police ntp on their connected members.
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 22, 2014, at 8:05, "Paul Ferguson"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNE
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2014, at 08:47, Saku Ytti wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised MinimaLT and QUIC have have not put transport area people in
>> high gear towards standardization of new PKI based L4 protocol, I think its
>> elegant solution to many practica
On Feb 22, 2014 5:30 AM, "Damian Menscher" wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Cb B wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Damian Menscher
wrote:
>> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Jared Mauch
wrote:
>> > You may also want to look
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Damian Menscher wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 20, 2014, at 3:51 PM, John Weekes wrote:
>> > On 2/20/2014 12:41 PM, Edward Roels wrote:
>> >> Curious if anyone else thinks filtering out NTP packets above a certain
>> >>
Good write up, includes name and shame for AT&T Wireless, IIJ, OVH,
DTAG and others
http://blog.cloudflare.com/technical-details-behind-a-400gbps-ntp-amplification-ddos-attack
Standard plug for http://openntpproject.org/ and
http://openresolverproject.org/ and bcp38 , please fix/help.
For those
On Feb 3, 2014 10:23 AM, "Paul Ferguson" wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 2/2/2014 2:17 PM, Cb B wrote:
>
> > And, i agree bcp38 would help but that was published 14 years ago.
>
> But what? Are you somehow implying t
On Feb 2, 2014 7:41 PM, "Larry Sheldon" wrote:
>
> On 2/2/2014 9:17 PM, ryang...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I'd hate to think that NetOps would be so heavy handed in blocking
>> all of UDP, as this would essentially halt quite a bit of audio/video
>> traffic. That being said, there's still quite the n
On Feb 2, 2014 2:54 PM, "Matthew Petach" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Cb B wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 2014 8:35 AM, "Jonathan Towne" wrote:
> > >
> > > The provider has kindly acknowledged that there is an issue, and are
> >
On Feb 2, 2014 8:35 AM, "Jonathan Towne" wrote:
>
> The provider has kindly acknowledged that there is an issue, and are
> working on a resolution. Heads up, it may be more than just my region.
>
And not just your provider, everyone is dealing with UDP amp attacks.
These UDP based amp attacks a
On Jan 16, 2014 5:10 PM, "Mark Andrews" wrote:
>
>
> In message <
caaawwbvjkeok-ydweqd4cowj9qaatbc8mkqwnxrsud55+h9...@mail.gmail.com>
> , Jimmy Hess writes:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >
> > > We don't need to change transport, we don't need to port knock. We
> > >
On Jan 16, 2014 10:16 AM, "Saku Ytti" wrote:
>
> On (2014-01-16 09:19 -0800), Cb B wrote:
>
> > I hope QUIC does not stay on UDP, as it may find itself cut off at the
> > legs.
>
> Any new L4 would need to support both flavours, over UDP and native. Over
UDP
&
On Jan 16, 2014 9:31 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 09:19:44AM -0800, Cb B wrote:
> > I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but in my network, IPv4
> > UDP is overstaying it's welcome. Just like IPv4 ICMP in 2001 - 2003,
its
On Jan 16, 2014 9:08 AM, "Andrew Sullivan" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 11:48:56AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> >
> > I totally agree... I was actually joking in my last note :( sorry for
> > not adding the ":)" as requisite in email.
>
> I'm sorry my humour is now so impaired from rea
x27;t" do this.
>
+1. Rfc5963 needs to update that guidance. Set next hop self loopback0 and
done
CB
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
> On Jan 14, 2014, at 21:22 , Christopher Morrow
wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Cb B wrote:
> >> On Jan 14, 2
On Jan 14, 2014 6:01 PM, "Eric A Louie" wrote:
>
> I have a connection to a peering fabric and I'm not distributing the
peering fabric routes into my network.
>
> I see three options
> 1. redistribute into my igp (OSPF)
>
> 2. configure ibgp and route them within that infrastructure. All the
defa
20 matches
Mail list logo
