Well,
Some HP unixes, and documentation, still uses 192.1.1.x.
Hey free publicity for BBN.
I have a client still using 192.1.10/24 just because of it. Been 4
years and they still won't change it :(
-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX In
Which part? The allocation of the addresses or the security model (section
2, 4 & 5)?
Note: Very few system, network, or security professionals have even read
anything besides section 3, the private address allocation. Could be why
we have some many compromises --- just saying.
Joe Klein
"inve
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 5:14 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Steve Feldman wrote:
>>
>> I have a vague recollection of parts of 192.168.0.0/16 being used as default
>> addresses on early Sun systems. If that's actually true, it might explain
>> that choice.
>
>
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG, IRNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.
Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@li
On 05/10/2017 07:40, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> Does anyone have a pointer to an *authoritative* source on why
>
> 10/8
> 172.16/12 and
> 192.168/16
>
> were the ranges chosen to enshrine in the RFC? ...
The RFC explains the reason why we chose three ranges from "Class A,B &
C" respectively: CIDR h
On 05/10/2017 13:28, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> The answer seems to be "no, Jon's not answering his email anymore".
>
> jon was not a big supporter of rfc1918
If I recall correctly not one of the authors was a "big supporter". Some
things are not full of beauty and glory; yet they have to be done.
I r
Interesting you call sections 2,4,5 a security model when section 6 explicitly
states "Security issues are not addressed in this memo.”
Sections 2, 4, and 5 are motivational and design considerations. Using RFC1918
space is not and should not be considered a security practice.
/Ryan
Ryan Harde
Is anyone successfully deploying ISE 2.X? I’m six months into it on about
10,000 endpoints and it seems like it’s a highly challenged product. I’d love
to hear your experiences on or off-list. Thanks in advance.
As would I. We are going to start a project that is replacing ACS 5.7 with ISE
2.X
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Christopher J. Wolff
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 2:41 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Cisco ISE
Is anyone successfully deployi
Proceed with extreme caution. You may want to have that end of life ACS
deployment bake for another six months. You will want to have the highest
level of Cisco engineering engaged should you choose to go this direction.
On Oct 6, 2017, at 3:48 PM, Mann, Jason mailto:jam...@mt.gov>>
wrote:
A
Any particular part of the product giving you trouble or just the migration to
the product itself ?
Running 5.7 here a multi-vendor endpoint environment using both TACACS+ &
RADIUS for device administration and have been curious about the pain I may or
may not have ahead of me...
In addition to government and carriers working on the large-scale
infrastructure to restore telecommunications in Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands and other Caribbean islands; I've found the following
non-government organizations with people on the ground in the disaster
areas working on commun
I have not ound the official announcements, but the press is reporting
that the FCC has granted Google rights to fly 30 of its "Loon" high
altitude ballons to provide cellular cervice in Puerto Rico for up to 6
months.
(From my readings, there are glorified relays of ground based signals
(which I
On Fri, 2017-10-06 at 20:41 +, Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
> Is anyone successfully deploying ISE 2.X? I’m six months into it on
> about 10,000 endpoints and it seems like it’s a highly challenged
> product. I’d love to hear your experiences on or off-list. Thanks
> in advance.
ISE is chall
There are other products out there that give more successful results much
quicker and with much less effort.
While I won’t spam the list with things, I’d be happy to share my experience
off-list if desired.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: NANOG on behalf of Smoot Carl-Mitchell
Date:
15 matches
Mail list logo
