On 2012-06-28 02:27, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> I am urgently trying to find Geoff but it appears he has left Telstra:
> : host pit-mail.telstra.net[203.50.40.14] said: 550 5.1.1
> ... User unknown (in reply to RCPT TO command)
>
> Sorry for using the list but I don't know how else to find him.
wow, the sh*t is really hitting the fan over there..
/this/ has got to be a record - I've never seen this before.. yikes.
-snip-
20115
Origin IGP, localpref 100, external, atomic-aggregate
...
Dampinfo: penalty 10766, flapped 99 times in 03:14:17, reuse in
00:03:03
...
(suppressed d
On 27 June 2012 09:50, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>(specially for a Web site written in
> PHP)?
>
We software makers have a problem, when a customer ask for a
application, often theres a wen project that already do it ( for the
most part is a round peg on a round hole). So a natural solution is
On 28 Jun 2012, at 08:05, Tei wrote:
> On 27 June 2012 09:50, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> (specially for a Web site written in
>> PHP)?
>>
>
> We software makers have a problem, when a customer ask for a
> application, often theres a wen project that already do it ( for the
> most part is a
On 28 June 2012 14:48, Arturo Servin wrote:
...
>
> Think about sql injection, they are not only to specific platforms but
> to general bad programming practices.
If you are already a good programmer, writing code that is safe
against sql inyections is trivial. So is not a real problem,
On 6/28/2012 6:05 AM, Tei wrote:
If you use these project that already do 99% of what the customer
need, plus a 120% the customer not need (and perhaps don't want). The
code quality will be normally be good, with **horrible** exceptions.
But sooner or later, (weeks) there will be exploits for
All,
I'm trying to understand why a Vyatta 6.4 collection of routers is carping
about the following as martian routes:
113.107.174.14
27.73.1.159
94.248.215.60
95.26.105.161
They don't look like they fall in the traditional martian space.I also
wondered if they were addresses without a rev
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Eric Germann wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm trying to understand why a Vyatta 6.4 collection of routers is carping
> about the following as martian routes:
>
> 113.107.174.14
> 27.73.1.159
> 94.248.215.60
> 95.26.105.161
>
> They don't look like they fall in the traditio
Well, I did when I checked them shortly after I saw the log messages.
Wondering now if the routes for those bounced and in the "middle" of the
bounce, they're considered martian.
Thanks!
EKG
-Original Message-
From: William Pitcock [mailto:neno...@systeminplace.net]
Sent: Thursday, J
Hi,
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Eric Germann wrote:
> Well, I did when I checked them shortly after I saw the log messages.
>
> Wondering now if the routes for those bounced and in the "middle" of the
> bounce, they're considered martian.
Yes, that sounds reasonable. Anything that is retur
Hi,
Would anyone happen to know a contact at ATT wireless that would be able to
help diagnose a DNS issue? we are seeing the DNS record for boston.com
intermittantly resolve to the wrong IP address, but I am having trouble
getting through to the correct people through normal support.
Thanks
Mik
I wish you the best of luck.
While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of problems with people trying to
VPN in as the same IP range is used by me.
Why the
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM, PC wrote:
> Why they don't use public IP space belonging to them for DNS servers, I do
> not know.
they have the same addresses used in multiple VRF's? so much simpler
for them to manage...
I'm sure they use carrier grade NAT, yes.
However, nothing would prevent them from using a unique public IP assigned
to them for their DNS servers like others do.
Using RFC1918 space for a routed destination of an ISP service (DNS) is
particularly problematic for many VPN client configurations wi
The other day, I looked carefully at my auth.log (Xubuntu 11.04) and discovered
many lines
of the form:
Jun 28 13:13:54 localhost sshd[12654]: Bad protocol version
identification '\200F\001\003\001' from 94.252.177.159
In the past day, I have recorded about 20,000 unique IP addresses used
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM, PC wrote:
> I'm sure they use carrier grade NAT, yes.
I'm sure it's not 'carrier grade', but it does play one on tv...
> However, nothing would prevent them from using a unique public IP assigned
> to them for their DNS servers like others do.
sure. they could d
On Jun 28, 2012, at 4:31 PM, Lou Katz wrote:
> The other day, I looked carefully at my auth.log (Xubuntu 11.04) and
> discovered many lines
> of the form:
>
> Jun 28 13:13:54 localhost sshd[12654]: Bad protocol version
> identification '\200F\001\003\001' from 94.252.177.159
>
> In the p
On 2012-06-28 23:31, Lou Katz wrote:
The other day, I looked carefully at my auth.log (Xubuntu 11.04) and
discovered many lines
of the form:
Jun 28 13:13:54 localhost sshd[12654]: Bad protocol version
identification '\200F\001\003\001' from 94.252.177.159
In the past day, I have recorded
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> of course, but you aren't supposed to be doing that on their network
> anyway... so says the nice man from sprint 4 nanogs ago.
That, and if you are tunneling in, it's good practice to forward over
any DNS traffic as well (or all, depen
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM, PC wrote:
> While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
> RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
> datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of problems with people trying to
> VPN in as the same IP range
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:35 PM, PC wrote:
>
>> While you're at it, I've been also trying to complain about them using
>> RFC1918 (172.16.) address space for the DNS servers they assign to their
>> datacard subscribers. Causes all sorts of pr
On Jun 28, 2012, at 10:35 PM, Joel Maslak wrote:
> Which is why enterprises generally shouldn't use RFC1918 IPs for
> servers when clients are located on networks not controlled by the
> same entity. Servers that serve multiple administration domains (such
> as VPN users on AT&T - or on some r
FWIW, server move is complete which should mean the end of outages, feel
free to email me or supp...@peeringdb.com with any outstanding issues.
On Jun 15, 2012 2:08 AM, "Ethern Lin" wrote:
> web site is down but traceroute is ok.
>
>Packets
> Pi
Hi,
I am looking for Cisco IOS command to block specific ICMPv6 message type
and code. For example how to block only code 1 (communication with
destination administratively prohibited) of message type 1 (destination
unreachable). All other code will be permited.
deny icmp any any type 1 code
On 6/28/12, Roman wrote:
> Hi,
> unreachable). All other code will be permited.
> In my router I can see these:
>
> Router(config-ipv6-acl)#deny icmp any any destination-unreachable ?
...
destination-unreachable in this case pertains to type #1 code #3
try
deny icmp any any no-admin
or
deny icm
25 matches
Mail list logo
