Canadian and US laws are similar. But I'll leave it up to the lawyers to
figure it all out, happily I'm no where near this, but it being a small
industry here, I suspect I have friends that are dealing with some crap
right now
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Mike A wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 201
Just to add to the noise I think batman wears a black mask/helmet, but
I've never considered it a mask. I didn't look at the details on this, but
did L3 sink the routes at their border or did they expressly announce the
route to sink it?
-jim
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Randy Bush wrot
To many pieces to answer on a weekend on NANOG, but those of us that work
in the DDoS space the last number of years have seen huge growth in the
application layer attacks. This does not mean a decrease in volumetric
attack, just that now you have to worry about both and lots of each. FW's
while t
While I don't think any ISP "wants DDoS" to make $$, I do based on
experience believe that business cases have to be made for everything.
With the prices pay for BW in most of the world now, ( or the last number
of years) its going to be VERY hard to get anyone to allocated time/$$ or
energy to do
ttacks
> >
> > The idea of restricting access to a certain content during an attack on
> > the
> > "trusted networks" only will make all interested ISPs be more "trusted"
> >
> > Ramy
> >
> > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Christo
Based on the number of "certified" people I've interviewed over the last
20yr, my default view lines up with Jared's 100%
On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Mike Hale
wrote:
> We need a pool on what percentage of readers just googled traceroute.
> On Jun 5, 2015 6:28 PM, wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jun 201
I remember you asking me who Jon was :) I have since added to my list of
interview questions... sad but the number of people with clue is declining
not increasing.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
> Back in 2000 at Amazon, HR somehow decided to have me do the phone
> intervie
There is a good reason there aren't LOTS of "good" neteng in the 30-35 or
under 30 range with lots of experience. Its call the hell we went though
for a while after 2000 working in this industry. Many of us lost jobs and
couldn't find new ones. I know talented folks that had to go to delivering
People from Big telcom should never reply to mailing lists from work
addresses unless specifically allowed, which I suspect TATA doesn't either,
based on some direct, buy old knowledge :)
Filtering has been a community issue since my days @ MCI being AS3561,
often discussed not often enough acted
meetings/abstract?id=459
>
> :-)
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 11:53 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
>
>> People from Big telcom should never reply to mailing lists from work
>> addresses unless specifically allowed, which I suspect TATA doesn't
>> either,
>> based on some d
Its mostly marketing, a number of years ago I worked for a cable co, we
knew if we increased BW X we'd see a Y speed increase in usage. We also
has done the math on several future generations of upgrades, so we'd know
if "phone company" increases to A we'd move to B. I know the guy that did
the m
I'd give it another 20 yrs of v4, v6 addressing and all those letters are
to hard for us old folk, we'll find ways to make it make it work :)
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson
wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015, Rafael Possamai wrote:
>
> How long do you think it will take to compl
If anyone offers to "test" your DDoS devices across a network that you do
not 100% own, you are risking legal issues.
If they offer to test it across your own network, make sure you have in
writing from you upper management that they understand the risk and approve
it.
If you choose to do it anyw
Botnets to help with peering ratio's could be a new business model? :)
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Neil Harris
> wrote:
> > On 22/06/13 13:08, Matthew Petach wrote:
> >> That's easily solved by padding the ACK to 1500 bytes as w
I'm not going to even ask or look at who is accepting /26's
-jim
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Paul Rolland wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:56:02 -0600
> Michael McConnell wrote:
>
> > As the IPv4 space get smaller and smaller, does anyone think we'll see a
> > time when /25's w
I could support any of these services myself, and have guys that work me
that can as well, but none of these are my core business, and my investors
REALLY prefer me focusing on my core business, I suspect most of us have
shareholders, investors, owners that feel the same way. I struggled with
idea
At iMCI (pre-Worldcom) we had scripts that would build all our ATM VC's
for a 400node mesh, would take all night to run :)
-jim
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Avi Freedman wrote:
>
> No, people never use *flow controllers* for anything.
>
> People have been doing SDN since before Google wa
Paul,
I agree this is a problem, but its been a problem since at least 1994 (
my first exposure ) and I suspect longer, the issue is east we capacity in
Canada is very $$, pushing traffic from Toronto east to points south to get
it to Vancouver is much more cost effective.
-jim
On Sat, Sep 7
I've recently pushed a "large" BSD box to a load of over 300, for more then
an hour, while under test, some things slowed a little, but she kept on
working!
-jim
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> Totally agree that a routing box should be standalone for tons of reasons.
>
There are many ways a backdoor could be used in a properly secured system.
To think otherwise is a huge mistake. I can think of several ways, if
tasked and given the resources of a large gov't that I would attack this
problem. To assume that those tasked and focused only this type of
solution a
You might read it that way, I read it as looking for a sales droid
recommendation. I'm sure Comcast has more then one.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> --- car...@race.com wrote:
>
> Looking for a sales contact for Comcast enterprise/carrier services for
>
>
> --Origin
Military reply doesn't have to mean bombs and guns. There is nothing
keeping it form mean offensive cyber counter attacks. This would mean
manage the battlefields :)
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
> On 6/9/10 12:50 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>>
>> What any of this has to do
Thanks Matt!
-jim
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> *heh* OK, watching the web logs this morning while taking
> notes, I saw a bunch of people trying to grab day 2 already. ^_^;
>
> So, given there seems to be some demand, I'm posting the
> first half of today's notes a
This tread is starting to sound less and less operational, or maybe
I'm just old and jaded and its to out to care. You wonder if maybe
his legal dept or own moral views felt its wasn't worth the risk of
some joker doing something "BAD" with the info so that the FBI could
get involved.
On Mon, J
CIP went with BT (Concert) I still clearly remember the very long
concall when we separated it from it BIPP connections. :)
-jim
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Chris Boyd wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 1:13 PM, John Lee wrote:
>
>> MCI bought MFS-Datanet because MCI had the customers and MFS-D
+1 north eastern north america
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM, andrew.wallace <
andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Completely down again (UK).
>
>
>
>
>
>
WOW full of yourself much. Many of us use gmail and others to manage the
load of mail we received from various lists. I doubt we anyone needs
your sympathies,
Good luck getting assistance from the list in the future, but I doubt you
need it, you see to be able to do everything on your own.
-jim
If you can do a business case to support replacing routers every 3years you
doing much better then most. IMO a router should last 5 yrs on the book,
but I expect to get more life then then from it. You core today
is tomorrow's edge. I've seen more then one network with 10 yo kit still
being used
Not only do we create "less usable" v4 address space, if these guys
had a clue, and what ever you think of them with $$ envolved clue will
be found... they will just add more IP's from diffrent block, further
'wasting' IP space.
-jim
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Martin Hannigan
wrote:
> >Fro
I agree we should all be telling the FCC that broadband is fiber to
the home. If we spend all kinds of $$ to build a 1.5M/s connection to
homes, it's outdated before we even finish.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> If it's about stimulus money, I'm in favor of saying that br
Having worked for rather large MSO in past I can tell you the issue
with this that the cost man power and engineering time to go back and
replace today with 3-5 forward technology is mostly like more then
delta between copper and fiber today.
-jim
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Richard Bennett
And 640k is enough. When I started in this game 15 or so yrs back the
'backbone' in Canada was a 56k figure 8 loop, running frame relay. We
moved to T1 a yr or so later. Buy the time I left Canada to work for
internetMCI a yr later, we're @ DS3's in Canada. Technology evolves
quickly. Just beca
Why should I person be disadvantage from another in the same country,
maybe its the Canadian in me, but isn't there something in the
founding documents of the US that define's all men as being equal. I
though it was Orewell that made some more equal then others. :)
-jim
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8
Wrong analogy, you have no way to use all 6 lanes @ once. The highway
is an aggregation device not access method. Unless you have 6 lanes
into your driveway :)
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, jim deleskie said:
>> Why should I person be dis
Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP
are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are
not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who in turn twist
more dials causing other changes.. rinse, wash and repeat. But like
Randy said who am I
Agree'd :)
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Here is the problem as I see it. Sure some % fo the people using BGP
>> are bright nuff to use some upstreams communities, but sadly many are
>> not. So this ends up breaking one or more networks, who in turn twist
>> more dials c
There is no need to attack the attacking computers.. this would be a
mostly useless process and you'd always miss some. if the 'attacks'
could not be filtered the 'external' to that nations links would be
'cut' the internet would be segmented and would could all go back to
our regularly planed day
Jared,
Fine which makes it an interesting data point and something to look
at after lunch when I'm not doing something else kinda issue. Not
something I'm going to treat as a P1 and drop everything work or real
life related for. I'm not say it shouldn't be looked it, just that in
the grand schem
Announcing a smaller bit of one of you block is fine, more then that
most everyone I know does it or has done and is commonly accepted.
Breaking up someone else' s block and making that announcement even if
its to modify traffic between 2 peered networks is typically not
looked as proper. Modify y
I'm afraid of the answer to that question
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:25 PM, Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008, jim deleskie wrote:
>> Announcing a smaller bit of one of you block is fine, more then that
>> most everyone I know does it o
True but I can still believe in a warm and fuzzy internet if I try
really hard Then my cell phone rings and back to the real world.
-jim
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 22:41, "jim deleskie" <[E
asn't just been opened but blown apart.
-jim
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:55 AM, Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * jim deleskie:
>
>> Announcing a smaller bit of one of you block is fine, more then that
>> most everyone I know does it or has done and is commo
The S series runs the same FTOS as the C and E series, as of a number
of months ago. The only exception is the 2410, ie all 10G ports L2
only.
-jim
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Greg VILLAIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Another thing to
This is an awesome thread... in the 18mts I tested F10 vs Juniper vs
Cisco I need see my Cisco sales rep push this hard :)
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Bottom line, in a few years, everyone carrying fu
I've recently seen Cisco, loose an approx ~$1MM deal at an all Cisco
shop to Force10 Cisco wouldn't better mid 40's discount.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Rubens Kuhl Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> And 60 points off Cisco is possible, even for small shops with some
>> negotiating abilit
What Roland said, I've seen people do this, no rules in place, still
was able to kill the box (firewall) with a single CPU server.
-jim
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:04 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 4:25 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
>
>> Use a robust firewall such as a Netscreen in fr
Border/Core/Access is great thinking when your a sales rep for a
vendor that sells under power kit. No reason for it any more.
-jim
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- st...@ibctech.ca wrote:
> From: Steve Bertrand
>
> layered. My thinking is that my 'upstream' connec
I've done it much larger then small networks. Dependency is much more
related to gear used then network size.
-jim
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
>
> --- deles...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: jim deleskie
>
>
> Border/Core/Access is great thinking w
Of course all designs are limited to the budget you have to build the
network :)
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.02.17 19:41, jim deleskie wrote:
>> Border/Core/Access is great thinking when your a sales rep for a
>> vendor that sells under power
Absolutely. I've worked on networks where I'm was amazed on someday
we held it all together, but that is truly when you learn the most.
-jim
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:46 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
> On 2010.02.17 20:45, jim deleskie wrote:
>> Of course all designs are limite
If I leave all boxes checked to send mail/notices/app requests to
everyone in my list, or if I give FB my gmail password to pull all my
contacts and send them an invite, its pure @ my request, sure FB is
happy I do it, but it is no way spam. Its like calling 5 ICMP packets
a DDoS.
-jim
On Thu, M
I'm not going to both on this thread anymore.. waste of time. Sorry
for the bulk mail/spam generated by my replies to nanog.
I'll stop feeding the trolls now.
-jim
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:16:25PM -0400, jim deleskie w
Thats funny, not sure if Cisco sells one or not but back in the day, I
worked @ Avici, and we did in fact have a special jack used to move
the chassis around :)
-jim
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Meuse wrote:
> Paul Ferguson expunged (fergdawgs...@gmail.com):
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED
I'm betting more then a few of use free mail accts to keep this
separate from our work mail. If your really having that much issue,
config your mail server to drop it yourself or unsub
Seriously
-jim yes posted from gmail acct.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
> Is
I'm a real life user, I know the difference and I could careless about
v6. most anything I want I is on v4 and will still be there long
after ( when ever it is) we run out of v4 addresses. If I'm on a
content provider and I'm putting something new online I want everyone
to see, they will find aw
Must resist urge to bash v6... must start weekend... must turn off
computer for my own good.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Charles N Wyble
wrote:
> Hmmm... it is 2pm on a Friday afternoon. I guess it's the appropriate time
> for this thread.
>
> *grabs popcorn and sits back to watch the fu
Just like 640k or memory :)
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> IPv6 as effectively reindroduced classful addressing.
>
> but it's not gonna be a problem this time, right? after all,
> 32^h^h128^h^h^h64 bits is more than we will ever need, right?
>
> randy
>
>
I'm old but maybe not old nuff to know if this was discussed before or
not, but I've been asking people last few months why we don't just do
something like this. don't even need to get rid of BGP, just add some
extension, we see ok to add extensions to BGP to do other things, this
makes at least if
n an RFC? Or, has someone done so for this
> already?
>
> - Original Message ----- From: "jim deleskie"
> To:
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 9:17 PM
> Subject: Re: legacy /8
>
>
> I'm old but maybe not old nuff to know if this was discussed before or
Not sure the IETF looked at it or not, but personally I'm one of those
people that has never accepted a solution just because, its the only
option there. I haven't always won my battles, but never just give in
:)
-jim
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Jim Burwell wrote:
> On 4/2/2010 19:13, Geor
road yet. If we do though, this is the kind of input
we'd need.
-jim
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 5:08 AM, James Hess wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:17 PM, jim deleskie wrote:
>> not, but I've been asking people last few months why we don't just do
>> something lik
I've seen duplicate addresses in the wild in the past, I assume there
is some amount of reuse, even though they are suppose to be unique.
-jim
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 11:53 AM, A.B. Jr. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Lots of traffic recently about 64 bits being too short or too long.
>
> What about mac address
101 - 162 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
