On Aug 8, 2007, at 2:11 AM, David Schwartz wrote:
On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:33 PM, Donald Stahl wrote:
If you don't like the rules- then change the damned protocol. Stop
just doing whatever you want and then complaining when other people
disagree with you.
I think this last part is the key.
R
Forgive my broken formatting, but LookOut, it's Microsoft! Is what we
use, period.
I have a question related to what you posted below, and it's a pretty
simple one:
How is answering a query on TCP/53 any MORE dangerous than answering it
on UDP/53? Really. I'd like to know how one of these secu
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:33:56 EDT, "Patrick W. Gilmore" said:
> Paying $10 and registering a domain IN NOW WAY means I promised a
> bazillion people anything.
>
> What happened to: "You can run your network however you want"?
You're totally welcome to run your own network backbone as IPv6-only
On Wed, Aug 08, 2007, Jamie Bowden wrote:
>
> Forgive my broken formatting, but LookOut, it's Microsoft! Is what we
> use, period.
>
> I have a question related to what you posted below, and it's a pretty
> simple one:
>
> How is answering a query on TCP/53 any MORE dangerous than answering it
On 8-Aug-2007, at 11:59, Jamie Bowden wrote:
I have a question related to what you posted below, and it's a pretty
simple one:
How is answering a query on TCP/53 any MORE dangerous than
answering it
on UDP/53? Really. I'd like to know how one of these security
nitwits
justifies it. It
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> they *already* don't answer with the txt records if you try to do a
> 'dig aol.com any' because that 512 and the 497 returned on a 'dig aol.com mx'
> won't fit in one 512-byte packet.
Wrong! You're probably not getting the txt records because you d
On Aug 8, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Jamie Bowden wrote:
How is answering a query on TCP/53 any MORE dangerous than
answering it
on UDP/53? Really. I'd like to know how one of these security
nitwits
justifies it. It's the SAME piece of software answering the query
either way.
How many bytes of s
> Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:32:21 -0600
> From: "Jason J. W. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > The answer is simple- because they are supposed to be allowed. By
> disallowing
> > them you are breaking the agreed upon rules for the protocol. Before
> > long it becomes impossible to implement new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
No idea -- maybe just a hiccup?
- From my office in San Jose:
%traceroute www.cisco.com
Tracing route to www.cisco.com [198.133.219.25]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
[snip]
7 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms so-3-0-0.mpr2.sjc7.us.above.net
[64.125.30.1
Anyone have a contact for sbc?
They are preventing me from getting to cisco.com
P:\>tracert cisco.com
Tracing route to cisco.com [198.133.219.25]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms 10.5.7.254
2<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms 209.10.21.253
328 ms28 ms28 ms
Im seeing issues at sbc as well
P:\>tracert cisco.com
Tracing route to cisco.com [198.133.219.25]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms 10.5.7.254
2<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms 209.10.21.253
328 ms28 ms28 ms 209.10.9.37
428 ms27 ms27 ms 209.10
Ditto. We've had a few folks contact the Internet Storm Center about this.
First report came in at 2 pm ET.
Marc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Ferguson
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:17 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Probl
Now that you have mentioned it I am having problems reaching Cisco from Sprint
as well and Time Warner Telecom.
- Original Message -
From: Paul Ferguson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 8, 2007 2:17:29 PM GMT-0500 Auto-Detected
Subject: Problems with either
See Paul's previous email I do not think it was just SBC becuase I was having
problems on my Sprint link as well as my time warner telecom link. It is
resolved for me nowe though.
- Original Message -
From: Christian Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, August
A brief look at routeviews shows www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25)
originating from AS109 (Cisco) and transiting via AS7132 (AT&T/SBC) and
AS7018 (AT&T). Thus I suspect this is an issue with AS109 (Cisco) and
not with their providers. Though, I do feel wrong using the plural
"providers" in this case
Useless also from Sprint (via AT&T in the middle) & Cogent - Dies at the
pbi.net address.
Koch, Christian wrote:
Im seeing issues at sbc as well
P:\>tracert cisco.com
Tracing route to cisco.com [198.133.219.25]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1<1 ms<1 ms<1 ms 10.5.7.254
2<1
Same from comcast in NJ, through att as well
christian$ traceroute cisco.com
traceroute to cisco.com (198.133.219.25), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 c-3-0-ubr02.tomsriver.nj.panjde.comcast.net (73.187.160.1) 10.146
ms 8.465 ms 7.789 ms
2 ge-6-3-sr01.tomsriver.nj.panjde.comcast.net (68.86.
Just confirmed w/ Cisco, apparently there was a power outage in San Jose
Regards,
--
Christian J. Koch
Network Engineer
Quality Technology Services
Direct: 212.334.8551
Mobile: 646.300.3387
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Key Fingerprint: A8F1 2265 DD05 EC8C 2F3C 1556 51B1 F193 D2DA DED3
-Original M
I can't speak for Cisco or Cisco IT, but as evidenced by this email,
at least part of our connectivity is up.
No doubt someone official is looking at it as we speak. (I'll just
lurk Nanog to get the skinny)..
A brief look at routeviews shows www.cisco.com (198.133.219.25)
originating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Ferguson wrote:
> No idea -- maybe just a hiccup?
>
No, the outage is real and affecting network and systems for internal and
external services.
- --
=
bep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using G
Yep; when I sent my previous note, AS109 was still originating routes.
But packets seemed to die at the border router. Now I'm also seeing
routes via AS701 (UU/Verizon Biz) and AS1239 (Sprint) as well as AT&T,
but still no connectivity.
A few moments ago I was getting a response from the www.cis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Koch, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just confirmed w/ Cisco, apparently there was a power outage in San Jose
I'm only a few blocks from Cisco, and we have two data centers in
the immediate San Jose area -- first _I've_ heard of any po
Yeah , same here
Regards,
-Original Message-
From: Paul Ferguson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:35 PM
To: Koch, Christian
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: SBC Issues/Contact?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Koch, Christian" <[EMAIL PR
http://infiltrated.net/ciscoOutage.jpg
--
J. Oquendo
"Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta"
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF684C42E
sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Michael Airhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I can't speak for Cisco or Cisco IT, but as evidenced by this email,
at least part of our connectivity is up.
>
>No doubt someone official is looking at it as we speak. (I'll just
lurk Nanog to get
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
All things being equal (which they're usually not) you could use the ACK
response time of the TCP handshake if they've got TCP DNS resolution
available. Though again most don't for security reasons...
Then most are incredibly stupid.
Several anti DoS u
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9029698
> "We have traced the cause of the issue to an accident during maintenance of a
> San Jose data center that resulted in a power outage in that facility," the
> spokeswoman said.
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNE
> Cisco's problem seems to be have been resolved.
>
> Also see:
>
> http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/08/update_ciscocom_site.html
>
> Thanks to everyone for their verification. :-)
>
I heard, from incredibly unreliable sources, that Cisco was
testing a new router that included a flywh
28 matches
Mail list logo
