> > i suggest you go back to the mail to which you responded obscenely
> > vilifying the poster who was specifically saying he worried about his
> > host before bcp38. that was specifically the subject.
>
> "host" in that context was his router, which makes your comment make
> less sense. (havin
On Sep 11, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Having no hosts, I can't do much about that other than ...
i suggest you go back to the mail to which you responded obscenely
vilifying the poster who was specifically saying he worried about his
host before bcp38. that was specifically the subje
>> normally i would have just hit delete. but your ad hominem attack on
>> the messenger need a response.
>>
>> the reality of life is that he is correct in that "attack traffic comes
>> from legitimate IP sources anyway."
>>
>> therefore, your first duty should be to keep your hosts from joining
On Sep 7, 2008, at 12:18 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
normally i would have just hit delete. but your ad hominem attack on
the messenger need a response.
the reality of life is that he is correct in that "attack traffic
comes
from legitimate IP sources anyway."
therefore, your first duty should be
On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:22 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
On that you'll have to speak for yourself. We have it on every
customer port ;-)
Now that is interesting. Can you share a bit about you
rimplementation hardships, costs, customer complaints, etc?
One customer complaint. Found the customer wa
Jo Rhett wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
>> Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box (cp-policer/control
>> plane filtering) is far more important IMO than implementing BCP38
>> when much
>> of attack traffic comes from legitimate IP sources anyway (see botnets).
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Greg Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Paul, would you be able to demonstrate this problem? I'd like to see
> it so that we can investigate and fix it.
>
> You are correct that the first generation of E-Series hardware (EtherScale)
> had little control plane
>> So, we all support BCP38 and nothing really changed from the last
>> time we all had this discussion about why most of us don't use it.
>
>
>On that you'll have to speak for yourself. We have it on every
>customer port ;-)
I hope you *also* have it on your NOC and everywhere else
Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Seriously though, everyone should take care of their own end first.
The problem is Jo doesn't seem to be in the loopon attacks from recent
years, but I am unsure he would change his mind if he was/
Nice going, Gadi -- let's insul
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
I apologize for making an incorrect assumption and apparently insulting
you.
My assumption was based on the threading in the email I replied to, as what
you write here conpletely contradicts what was written there
On Sep 4, 2008, at 2:56 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
I apologize for making an incorrect assumption and apparently
insulting you.
My assumption was based on the threading in the email I replied to,
as what you write here conpletely contradicts what was written there.
Yeah, I think the threading was
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Seriously though, everyone should take care of their own end first. The
problem is Jo doesn't seem to be in the loopon attacks from recent years,
but I am unsure he would change his mind if he was/
Nice going,
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box (cp-policer/
control
plane filtering) is far more important IMO th
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Seriously though, everyone should take care of their own end first.
The problem is Jo doesn't seem to be in the loopon attacks from
recent years, but I am unsure he would change his mind if he was/
Nice going, Gadi -- let's insult someone who d
On Sep 4, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box (cp-policer/
control
plane filtering) is far more important IMO than implementing BCP38
when much
of attack tra
> Sorry for the confusion.
^
>
> Yes, I am a BCP38 evangelist. I apologize if it came across wrong.
^^^
OK, Patrick is setting an example. Could we all do likewise and
get back to a civil conversation?
> TTFN,
> patrick
Kudos for a good example.
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box (cp-policer/control
plane filtering) is far more important IMO than implementing BCP38 when
much
of attack traffic comes from legitimate IP sources anyway (se
On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 01:14:20PM -0400, Paul Wall wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, but nonsense statements such as these burn the blood. Sure, yes,
>> protecting yourself is so much more important than protecting anyone else.
>>
>> Anyone
On Sep 4, 2008, at 1:12 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
Patrick, it would appear that you are insulting me by your choice of
quotes but from content one would assume you agree with me. Perhaps
next time quote the idiot that said attacks BCP38 would stop don't
happen any more?
(top posted because the
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:14 AM, james wrote:
> > OK, I'm an asshole. I'm sure BCP38 can prove to be
> > useful I guess being an asshole is not so bad given that
> > I have plenty of company.
>
>
> It is unfortunately true that you do have lots of company.
> If I could get away with dropping all
On Sep 4, 2008, at 1:14 PM, james wrote:
On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box
(cp-policer/ control
plane filtering) is far more important IMO than
implementing BCP38 when much
of attack traffic comes from legitimate IP sources
any
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:14 AM, james wrote:
OK, I'm an asshole. I'm sure BCP38 can prove to be useful
I guess being an asshole is not so bad given that I have
plenty of company.
It is unfortunately true that you do have lots of company. If I could
get away with dropping all routes from people
On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:14 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm sorry, but nonsense statements such as these burn the blood.
Sure, yes,
protecting yourself is so much more important than protecting
anyone else.
Anyone else want to sta
Patrick, it would appear that you are insulting me by your choice of
quotes but from content one would assume you agree with me. Perhaps
next time quote the idiot that said attacks BCP38 would stop don't
happen any more?
(top posted because the thread is already confused)
On Sep 4, 2008, a
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 12:45 PM, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but nonsense statements such as these burn the blood. Sure, yes,
> protecting yourself is so much more important than protecting anyone else.
>
> Anyone else want to stand up and join the "I am an asshole" club?
uRP
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, James Jun wrote:
> > Indeed... In today's internet, protecting your own box
> > (cp-policer/ control
> > plane filtering) is far more important IMO than
> > implementing BCP38 when much
> > of attack traffic comes from legitimate IP sources
> > anyway (see botnets
On Sep 4, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Jo Rhett wrote:
Count you which way? You seem to agree with me. Everyone should be
doing both, not discounting BCP38 because they aren't seeing an
attack right now.
No one sees attacks that BCP38 would stop?
Wow, I thought things like the Kaminsky bug were bi
Count you which way? You seem to agree with me. Everyone should be
doing both, not discounting BCP38 because they aren't seeing an attack
right now.
On Sep 4, 2008, at 9:50 AM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote:
Count me in.
There is no reason to limit our defenses to the one thing that we
think
>
> I'm sorry, but nonsense statements such as these burn the blood.
> Sure, yes, protecting yourself is so much more important than
> protecting anyone else.
Indeed it is important. And we were discussing about the fact that Force10
does not even offer this critical feature.
>
> Anyone else w
Count me in.
There is no reason to limit our defenses to the one thing that we
think is important at one instance in time... attackers change and
adapt and multimodal defense is simply good policy.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM,
30 matches
Mail list logo
