On 29/03/2018, 00:22, Andy Litzinger wrote:
>
>> The root cause is that the our prefix is not being adequately
>> re-distributed globally by the regional ISP. This is unexpected and we are
>> working through this with them now.
Hi, Andy —
Are you failing to advertise it, or are they filter
+1 for Route Explorer
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29/03/2018, 00:22, Andy Litzinger
> wrote:
> >
> >> The root cause is that the our prefix is not being adequately
> >> re-distributed globally by the regional ISP. This is unexpected and we
> are
> >> wor
There is also Lenny :
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLduL71_GKzHHk4hLga0nOGWrXlhl-i_3g
And here is our paper on using chatbots against voice spam:
https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2017/technical-sessions/presentation/sahin
It seems the future of voice spam will be the chatbots talki
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:19 PM Shawn L via NANOG wrote:
>
> Honestly, most carriers I've talked to are fed up as well, and just want
> to find a way to make it stop. As some one said, it's exactly like BCP38
> --- the carriers that care keep their clients from spoofing caller id,
> etc. The on
If the scam caller is spoofing the numbers then I am not quite sure how
T-Mobile can implement the block without blocking the legit owner of the
number. The way to correct this as an industry is for them to inspect the
caller-id coming in from their customer and if that customer does not own th
Steve,
Any customer with a PBX has a valid reason to pass CLI that isn't theirs if
they are passing through a call.
Regards,
Dovid
Original Message
From: snasl...@medline.com
Sent: April 5, 2018 10:03
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Are any of you starting to get AI robocalls?
If the
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Dovid Bender wrote:
> Any customer with a PBX has a valid reason to pass CLI that isn't theirs if
> they are passing through a call.
Hi Dovid,
For example, Vonage implementing Simultaneous Ring, you want to see
the original caller id on your cell phone, not your
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:20:29AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> For example, Vonage implementing Simultaneous Ring, you want to see
> the original caller id on your cell phone, not your vonage number even
> though Vonage is bridging the call to your cell phone.
>
> More, the PBX may have trunks
On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 07:55 -0700, Brian Kantor wrote:
> So the logical conclusion is that caller ID is useless as an
> anti-vspam measure and the situation is hopeless, so the only
> solution is to not personally answer the phone at all -- let voice
> mail take a message.
Pretty much. We've rece
We've been using DHCP-PD with Sophos SG/XG on a couple Comcast connections
and it works fine. It will even go through all your firewall objects and
automatically change the IPv6 prefix from the old to new if the prefix from
PD changes.
--
Adam Kennedy, Network & Systems Engineer
adamkenn...@watc
I've used pfSense (BSD firewall) in a dual stack setup. Not all features
are at parity with v4 (the captive portal doesn't support v6, for
example), but the core features of stateful firewall, DHCPv6, etc seemed
to work without any fuss.
Joe Klein wrote on 4/2/2018 5:58 PM:
> All,
>
> At security
Hi Andy,
The root cause was they regional ISP was failing to advertise my prefix
due to a mistake in their export policy. While I'm glad we were able to
figure out the issue I'm generally more interested in figuring out a way
that I can programmatically monitor that my ISPs are providing me with
There are plenty of ways to handle that.
There are P-asserted identities that can be passed with the call in addition to
the CLID. In SIP, there is also call history data that can give you all of the
PBX hops identified.
If a customer with a PBX wants to forward calls back into the PSTN then t
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 11:12 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-04-05 at 07:55 -0700, Brian Kantor wrote:
>
> > So the logical conclusion is that caller ID is useless as an
> > anti-vspam measure and the situation is hopeless, so the only
> > solution is to not personally answer the phone at all --
Really?? I was looking to install and use as a vm to test with and everything I
was reading said it was not implemented and was not on the horizon.
Only version I found from Sophos that was capable was the old Astaro version. I
may have to take a second look.
Do you have any links to the config
I’ve been using PfSense @ home dual-stack on Cox for a year or two. As far as I
can tell any IPv6 problems are Cox issues.
On Apr 5, 2018, at 12:12 PM, Blake Hudson
mailto:bl...@ispn.net>> wrote:
I've used pfSense (BSD firewall) in a dual stack setup. Not all features
are at parity with v4 (th
I've worked at a telco for 15 years and I can say this problem is not
going away anytime soon. The issue is the SS7 network that carriers use
inherently trusts calls from long distance trunks without verification...
I've analyzed incoming spoofed calls from our STP and they all come from
foreign p
Hi Bjørn
Never realised of such compression on answered. Is this is something well
documented? Curious.
Thanks for sharing.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 1:30 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> At first I thought they had disabled compression:
>
> bjorn@miraculix:~$ dig . ns @1.1.1.1|grep SIZE
> ;; MSG SIZ
I have cases open with both Cisco and Juniper on this, but wanted to see if
anyone else had seen an issue like this because support has no idea.
I have a Juniper QFX 5100 Core running in Virtual Chassis mode with 4
switches. I have 4 separate stacks of Cisco 3750 switches with 2x1GB
uplinks bound
I don't see any issue with the snippet of the config you provided for the
"Firewall Port". Is there a chance that the port ge-0/0/67 is referenced
somewhere else in the Juniper config that when applying your trunk setup is
causing issues?
Just throw that out off the top of my head and not reall
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:58 PM Joseph Jenkins
wrote:
> Mar 14 07:11:33: %PM-4-ERR_DISABLE: channel-misconfig (STP) error detected
> on Po17, putting Po17 in err-disable state
>
We have to do this on all of our Cisco Port-channels that lead to Brocade
ICX switches:
no spanning-tree etherchannel g
No there isn't, but from what I am getting responses both onlist and off
list is to just run this on the Cisco switches:
no spanning-tree etherchannel guard misconfig
and that should resolve the issue.
Thanks Everyone.
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Robert Webb wrote:
> I don't see any issue
I am kind of confused by your configuration. If the Cisco side is configured
as LACP trunk, then the Juniper side also needs to be configured as LACP
trunks. Spanning-tree would be getting confused because the Cisco is treating
the LACP trunk as a single interface for purposes of spanning-tree
It really does not resolve anything it just allows a bad configuration to work.
The guard is there so that if one side is configured as a channel and the
other side is not, the channel gets shut down. Allowing it to remain up can
cause a BPDU loop. Your spanning tree is trying to tell you som
Steve let me clarify the config I am applying has nothing to do with an
LACP trunk or any of my existing LACP trunks. It is a completely different
configuration on a completely different interface, the only similarity is
that I am trying to configure a trunk interface on the Juniper side for
multip
This are also no new vlans being used at all. They are all already existing
on the switches involved and nothing is being added. In fact what makes
this even weirder is that I already have that exact same port configuration
running on port 1/0/67 of the Juniper and it doesn't cause me any issues
no
Got it. Do any of those trunks add a new VLAN to the switch that was not
active before? If so, that would cause a BPDU over all trunks that allow that
VLAN. Even if the port is not up yet, by adding the VLAN to ANY trunk you are
implying that it should be active on ALL trunks that are not VLA
Yes.. Check 4.1.4 of https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt
> On Apr 5, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
>
> Hi Bjørn
>
>
> Never realised of such compression on answered. Is this is something well
> documented? Curious.
>
>
Anurag Bhatia writes:
> Never realised of such compression on answered. Is this is something well
> documented? Curious.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035#section-4.1.4
Bjørn
29 matches
Mail list logo
