Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Shon Elliott wrote: > > Chris, > > Have you even read any of the other posts on here. I fade in and out > > I have been talking about > spoofed packets in this thread multiple times. man engrish > > I do know what it is. I would appreciate you not making stupid

New IPv6 interview: Google on ipv6.google.com

Lorenzo Colitti, network engineer at Google, discusses the implementation of IPv6, which resulted in the launch of ipv6.google.com. He talks about the feedback they have received, future plans for making Google services available over IPv6 and what advice he would give to other companies.

RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

Appears to be up from here - I'm in suburban Chicago. traceroute to img.4chan.org (207.126.64.181), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 172.31.129.1 (172.31.129.1) 0.602 ms 1.383 ms 1.638 ms 2 172.31.128.1 (172.31.128.1) 7.337 ms 10.254 ms 10.638 ms 3 192.168.0.1 (192.168.0.1) 17.694 ms 1

Re: questionable email filtering policies?

> > BT outsources all of their mail to Yahoo. It actually works pretty well, > > either POP or web mail. > > so far btopenworld.com looks like bullet proof phishing drop boxes, based > on yahoo's cluefree response. How about writing to Bruce Schneier and explaining the problem? He's Chief Secur

Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

I posted it on Twitter. And I was talking with John at the time. We're observing the information that is coming in, but it's hard to verify something like that when: A) We haven't heard from our contacts at AT&T. B) The only information we are seeing "confirming" it is on open mailing

Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, jamie wrote: If any ISP of mine filtered my (where my = brick-and-mortar-corp) access to any destination because of another customer (there are *always* technical solutions to problems you describe, the one you implemented wouldn't even make my list), you'd have one less cus

[NANOG-announce] NANOG Election Time line 2009

Hello NANOGers! Per the charter (http://nanog.org/governance/charter/), we are approaching the annual NANOG election and appointment time. In addition to the series of "call for nominations" messages at the opening of each period, we thought to send an overview and time line ahead of the actual

Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, William Pitcock wrote: It is widely known that AT&T loves censorship. They love censorship because it is profitable for them to love censorship, and this isn't the first time they have enmasse blocked access to a website they didn't like. This has nothing at all to do with

Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

Because most of the net libertarians insist that they should do whatever they want and everyone else should help cater to them. Liberty for me but not for thee. On 7/27/09, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, William Pitcock wrote: > >> It is widely known that AT&T loves censorship. They lo

Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

On Jul 27, 2009, at 10:04 AM, John C. A. Bambenek wrote: Because most of the net libertarians insist that they should do whatever they want and everyone else should help cater to them. Liberty for me but not for thee. I am very much of the "my network, my rules" camp. As soon as att pays bac

RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

I"m not a lawyer, but I think that the argument goes something like this... The common carriers want to be indemnified from the content they carry. In other words, the phone company doesn't want to be held liable for the Evil Plot planned over their phone lines. The price they pay for indemnifi

Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

On Jul 27, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Hiers, David wrote: I"m not a lawyer, but I think that the argument goes something like this... The common carriers want to be indemnified from the content they carry. In other words, the phone company doesn't want to be held liable for the Evil Plot planned

finding open resolvers

Hi folks, We're interested in finding open resolvers and reporting on them. There is already a list specific to dns-ops, so I'll just point you there if this topic is of interest. I recommend follow ups go there or privately. Thank you,

Re: Recommendations for Hong Kong datacenter, and a sanity check for my geopolitical conclusions ?

My take on this would be that DNS especially, and the volume of mail that can be handled via a few 1 and 2u servers, are pretty easy to duplicate. As such, I suspect you're overthinking some of the risk management pieces. In any of the places you mentioned, you're more likely to have random acc

RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I know how ISPs are regulated in the US. The actual framework is the FCC's "Internet Policy Statement," to wit: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-151A1.pdf . To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected

Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

Richard Bennett wrote: > > In the case of the ISPs and carriers who blocked access to 4chan for a while > Sunday, since that was done in accordance with DDOS mitigation, there's not > any issue as far as the FCC is concerned, but that hasn't prevented the > usual parties from complaining about cen

RE: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

Corporate PR staffs don't generally work on Sunday, but when AT&T came into the office today they drafted this statement: http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26970 "Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addre