There are erbium doped raman lasers with output of up to 10 watts
continuous wave, they are (obviously) class 4 devices and are considered
hazardous.
3r and 3b emitters shouldn't be directly exposed to the eye, and carry
an appropriate warnings. the 10-80km stuff should all be 1 or 1m and
does't
Deepak Jain wrote:
> Does anyone *use* any eye protection (other that not looking at the
> light, turning off the light etc) -- I mean like protective goggles,
> etc, when doing simple things like adding/removing patch cables from an
> SMF patch panel.
There are osha requirements and ansi stand
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Stephen Kratzer wrote:
>
>> And, they have no plans to support IPv6.
>
> Ouch!
>
> I hope this is a non-starter for a lot of folks.
read the rest of the thread...
joel
> Steve
Pair of Ubuquiti power station 2 or 5 bridges, 5 would be preferable,
under $200 per end.
http://www.ubnt.com/downloads/ps5_datasheet.pdf
Peter Boone wrote:
> Hi NANOG,
>
> I'm looking for some equipment recommendations for a wireless bridge between
> two locations approximately 500-800 meters a
> Jason Gurtz wrote:
>
>> Are you sure there's not a moisture problem in the antennae cabling? Get
>> an SWR meter that can handle the 2.4 GHz range and make sure that SWR is
>> very low (approaching 1:1 but certainly less than 2:1). Hook up the
>> meter
>> in-line at the AP. Test this after ev
Peter Boone wrote:
> - Get a unit with radio/antenna integrated, PoE from inside the building
> (outdoor rated cat5, shielded I assume),
Actually shielding doesn't matter so much and it requires that the rj45
connector and socket be similarly sheilded to be effective, the salient
points are: uv s
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
>> sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be anonymous in
>> hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from self-important people
>> who wear formal clothes.
>>
>> folk who learn this the
and a pair of 60ghz mm wave part 15 radios.
joel
Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> Also for this kind of link, 60 GHz gear is often cheaper and easier to deal
>> with, so what I would recommend.
>
> I'd also take a look at 60GHz, check http://www.bridgewave.com/,
> I believe they ha
Zartash Uzmi wrote:
> Can you say why precisely the cost of Ethernet is low compared to other
> viable alternatives?
Becuase there's a lot of it?
Gigabit ethernet ports cost less than 9600bps terminal server ports.
Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> I'm looking for new core routers for a small ISP and having a hard time
> finding something appropriate and reasonably priced. We don't have
> huge traffic levels (<1Gb) and are mostly running Ethernet interfaces to
> upstreams rather than legacy interfaces (when did OC
eciated.
No ears enclosing clue will be reached via normal channels at ~950E
on a
Sunday, but this is clearly a problem needing addressing,
resolution, action
and, who knows - suit?
Thanks in advance all for insight, comments,
-jamie
--
Joel Esler
http://www.joelesler.net
http://www.twi
sane legal forum. (I*A*AL)
This ISN'T the first time this has happened.
Exactly.
Now you see the problem ?
--
Joel Esler
http://www.joelesler.net
http://www.twitter.com/joelesler
[m]
Roland Dobbins wrote:
>
> On Aug 8, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Luke S Crawford wrote:
>
>> 2. is there a standard way to push a null-route on the attackers
>> source IP upstream?
>
> Sure - if you apply loose-check uRPF (and/or strict-check, when you can
> do so) on Cisco or Juniper routers, you can c
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> The only question I have is a context switch. Why Mogadishu? Do the (sea)
> pirates need more capacity to manage their ship hijacking business?
Because ethiopia is the effectively land-locked economic power in the
neighborhood and it needs diverse landing sites. Also I
pos oc-768
pre standard 40G lr4
4 in 1 40 gig mux
100gig 10 in 1 mux with some very tight engineering tolerances
probably others
Mike Callahan wrote:
> Just out of curriousity, what type of equipment is used to terminate circuits
> of this capacity? My experience stops at the 10GB mark.
>
> Th
William Herrin wrote:
> The future looks a lot like the past but with more blinking lights.
> Seriously, I'm pretty nuts when it comes to networking. My basement is
> AS11875, multihomed with about 35mbps of bandwidth. If I can't imagine
> how *I* would use more than 16 subnets then it's a safe b
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> jim deleskie wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I disagree. I much prefer f
Olsen, Jason wrote:
> Howdy all,
> What I'm left thinking is that it would have been great if we'd had a
> snapshot of our core routing table as it stood hours or even days prior
> to this event occurring, so that I could compare it with our current
> "broken" state, so the team could have seen
Peter Beckman wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>> What a load of rubbish. How is ARIN or any RIR/LIR supposed to
>> know the intent of use?
>
> Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
> are good?
>
> Because the cost of determining who is
Benjamin Billon wrote:
>
>> Why don't we just blacklist everything and only whitelist those we know
>> are good?
>>
>>> Note we all could start using IPv6 and avoid this problem altogether.
>>
> Yeah. When ISP will start receiving SMTP traffic in IPv6, they could
> start to accept whiteliste
Frank Bulk wrote:
> With scarcity of IPv4 addresses, organizations are more desperate than ever
> to receive an allocation.
Factual evidence that pi allocation is in fact hard to obtain would be
required to support that statement. The fact of the matter is if you
have a legitimate application cong
ate business does not have. The problems becomes, how the
raising the legitimacy bar more effectively discriminates against
legitimate entities then crimnal one's.
If a discriminatory measure were for example to raise the bar for new
entrants that, by it's nature represents an In
Got to stop using classful addressing terminology... It's only been 16
or so years and you're not referring to:
192.0.0.0/5
Snake-oil salesmen abound in this space. More to the point, any
technique used to sculpt pank-rank scores on a systematic basis is
likely to result in a countervailing adjus
r one of the people with the pgp signing dots since they mostly
know the score.
While printouts will probably be available at the sessions, feel free to
add your key to the keyring right up to the time of the last keysigning
event.
Thanks
Joel
Brian Johnson wrote:
> So a customer with a single PC hooked up to their broad-band connection would
> be given 2^64 addresses?
No, that's a single subnet, typically they should be assigned more than
that.
> I realize that this is future proofing, but OMG! That’s the IPv4 Internet^2
> for a s
Tim Durack wrote:
> Thing is, I'm an end user site. I need more that a /48, but probably
> less than a /32. Seeing as how we have an AS and PI, PA isn't going to
> cut it. What am I supposed to do? ARIN suggested creative subnetting.
> We pushed back and got a /41. If IPv6 doesn't scratch an itch,
Scott Howard wrote:
> So you're saying that if I put in an 8Mbps ADSL1 connection, then I'm going
> to get a guaranteed 8Mbps point-to-point back to the exchange, regardless of
> the quality of my phone line, or the distance from the exchange?
>
> (I'm not saying that the article is right, b
Michael Peddemors wrote:
> On October 12, 2009, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>> In summary: HE has worked tirelessly and mostly thanklessly to promote
>> v6. They have done more to bring v6 to the forefront than any other
>> network. But at the end of day, despite HE's valiant effort on v6, v6
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> Worse, the problem is being made worse at an alarming rate. MPLS
>> VPN's are quicky replacing frame relay, ATM, and leased line circuits
>> adding MPLS lables and VPN/VRF routes to edge routers. Various
>> RIR's are pushing "PI for all" in IPv6 bas
Chris Adams wrote:
> I guess I'm missing something; what in section 3 is this referring to?
> I can understand /64 or /126 (or maybe /124 if you were going to
> delegate reverse DNS?), but why /112 and "16 bits for node identifiers"
> on a point-to-point link?
It falls on a 16 bit boundry and is t
tions, feel free to contact me via email or
corner one of the people with the pgp signing dots since they mostly
know the score.
While printouts will probably be available at the sessions, feel free to
add your key to the keyring right up to the time of the last keysigning
event.
Thanks
last session with some form of government issued
photo ID.
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me via email or
corner one of the people with the pgp signing dots since they mostly
know the score.
Thanks
Joel
afternoon general session is done now.
Joe Maimon wrote:
> Or is it just me?
>
> None seem to come up now.
>
On wireless networks you can note the mac address of the rouge server
and dissociate it from the wireless network, this is rather similar to
what we did on switches prior to dhcp protection, it is reactive but it
certainly can be automatic.
Some controller based wireless systems have ips or nac fu
Brian Johnson wrote:
>> Last time I checked, and this may have changed, the limit in Linux was
>> around 4096.
>
> So in this circumstance you could route a /116 to the server. COOL!
These days what we might at one point have refered to as a host or
server may actually be a hardware container wi
Steve Bertrand wrote:
> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 08:09:40PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
>>> I am AS14270. BGP with me... its been two years... you've got to have an
>>> engineer who can set up a session by now, no?
>> Sounds like someone needs to send you a copy of "
The juniper pr event at the nyse actually contained some not
unreasonable information on their new silicon.
starts about 25 minutes in (silly registration required)...
http://www.thenewnetworkishere.com/simulcast.html
stood
that many if not most localized community signaling uses would remain
localized in terms of their documentation and use.
joel
jim deleskie 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 man
Jack Bates wrote:
> Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>>
>> A standardized set means it can be cooked into documentation, training,
>> and potentially even products.
>>
>
> Communities (except the standardized well known ones) are extremely
> diverse. For those tha
Joe Maimon wrote:
>
> I dont know if communities is really the best thing to keep overloading
> this way. Whats wrong with dedicating a new attribute for automating
> policy?
Well there's always flowspec, as an example...
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:11:15 PST, Mike said:
>> Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the
>> Internet and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet
>> of the future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network
>
How about unused and/or private/local diffserve code points?
Ron Bonica wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I would love to see the IETF OPSEC WG publish a document on the pros and
> cons of filtering optioned packets.
>
> Would anybody on this list be willing to author an Internet Draft?
>
>
observed in nanog presentations that settlement
free providers by their nature miss a few prefixes that well connected
transit purchasing ISPs carry.
If business requirements for reachability necessitate multi-homing then
carrying the tables if probably also a requirement.
joel
> Cheers,
>
> Stef
>
>
Tony Patti wrote:
> I presume this CNN article falls within the "Internet operational and
> technical issues" (especially security) criteria of the NANOG AUP,
> in terms of "operat[ing] an Internet connected network",
> especially where Chertoff refers to " like an anti-aircraft weapon, shoot
> d
Thank you,
it is appreciated.
Joel
MAWATARI Masataka wrote:
> Dear NANOG Colleagues,
>
>
> We have updated JANOG (Japan Network Operators' Group) English wiki
> page.
>
>
> Recent additions include presentation titles and abstracts for the
> JANOG22 m
In order to double on schedule from the point where it hit 250k routes
the rate of prefix growth needs to be on the order of 2k prefixes a week...
I'm operating under the assumption that I'm going to need 500k dfz fib
entries around mid 2010 which oddly is about inline with where we
thought we'd b
Scott Weeks wrote:
> Ok, I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking of one company in a
> non-US country with some assets in the US (but most not) and being
> held to US regulations network-wide. How would you stop the traffic
> that was not following US regulations from hitting the US?
Ask ISPs
Michael Sinatra wrote:
> On 11/18/08 9:26 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:02 PM, Nathan Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I wish them good luck in reaching the DNS root servers.
>>> They are in "critical infrastructure" space, which is a single /32
>>> with
>>
>>
Just to agree, I am in Columbia, MD as well, and am unaffected.
J
On Nov 19, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Steven Fischer wrote:
looks like a single breakBaltimore is about 36.4 miles north of
Washington, and Laurel is about 16.25 miles north of Washington, with
Baltimore being about 20 miles north of
David Curran wrote:
> Can anyone provide direction (anecdotal or otherwise) on the use of Quagga
> in a virtual environment for route servers?
I run it in a real environment on a virtual machine (as a route
reflector)...
> Thanks
>
I have received reports of some strangeness going on with Google on
Comcast's networks today as well.
Joel
On Dec 8, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Matthew Elmore allegedly wrote:
No response at all for recursive queries
The servers I was using (can't find the IPs at the moment..) I
believ
I just posted an article about this on the Internet Storm Center, I
have reports pouring in there as well.
Joel
(http://isc.sans.org)
On Dec 19, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian allegedly wrote:
If you can't read this email, please go to
:http://www.orange.com/en_EN/
k for Sourcefire. We make Snort.
--
Joel Esler
http://www.joelesler.net
[m]
communicating with peer network
operators to coordinate response and related topics within the sphere of
ip hijacking response.
Thanks and Looking forward to seeing you all in Santo Domingo.
Joel
, feel free to contact me via email or
corner one of the people with the pgp signing dots since they mostly
know the score.
While printouts will probably be available at the sessions, feel free to
add your key to the keyring right up to the time of the last keysigning
event.
Thanks
Joel
JF Mezei wrote:
> Northern communities in Canada's arctic rely exclusively on satellite
> for voice/data.
>
> Not a lot of data flowing comparatively, but it is their only option so
> it is more of a "mission critical" thing than a backup.
Also high latitudes are problematic as far as your link b
contact me via email.
Feel free to add your key to the keyring right up to the time of the
last keysigning event.
Thanks
Joel
Deric Kwok wrote:
> Hi
>
> I would like to ask your professional experience about switch throughput
>
> I have Gig Switchs eg: H P3400 /3500, cisco c4 948../ dlink
> In their spec, they said that it can handles Gig
> So far, I couldn't see their ports are used up over 200M in mrtg graph
> when I
Eliot Lear wrote:
> On 2/8/09 3:24 AM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
>> Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume
>> that virtually all cell phones will eventually have an IP address almost
>> all the time.
>
> The numbers I keep seeing for so-called "smartphones" in the pre
Exactly.
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Eliot Lear wrote:
> > On 2/8/09 3:24 AM, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> >> Sure, smart phones are becoming more popular. It's reasonable to assume
> >> that virtually all cell phones will eventually have a
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:25:40 +0900, Randy Bush said:
>>> Not quite..
>>> 2^96 = 79228162514264337593543950336
>>> 2^128-2^32 = 340282366920938463463374607427473244160
>> not quite. let's posit 42 devices on the average lan segment
>> (ymmv).
>>
>> 42*(2^
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Owned by an ISP? It isn't much different than it is now.
>
> As long as you are multi-homed you can get a small allocation (/48),
> APNIC and ARIN have procedures for this.
>
> Yes, you have to pay for it, but the addresses will be yours, unlike
> the RFC1918 ranges which
Dale W. Carder wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:
>> On 19/02/2009, at 9:53 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me repeat, none of these solutions are secure. The IPv4/DHCP model
>>> is ROBUST, the RA/DHCPv6 model is NOT.
>>
>> The point I am making is that the solution is
Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009, Tony Hain wrote:
>
>> No, the decision was to not blindly import all the excess crap from IPv4. If
>> anyone has a reason to have a DHCPv6 option, all they need to do is specify
>> it. The fact that the *nog community stopped participating in the IETF ha
Leo Bicknell wrote:
> I can't think of a single working
> group chair/co-chair that's ever presented at NANOG and asked for
> feedback.
Then were busy staring at your laptop and not watching the program.
> If the IETF wants this to be a two way street actions would
> speak louder than words.
In
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Blackford wrote:
>
>> In scaling upward. How would a linux router even if a kernel guru were
>> to tweak and compile an optimized build, compare to a 7600/RSP720CXL
>> or a Juniper PIC in ASIC? At some point packets/sec becomes a
>> li
Jason Lewis wrote:
> This brings up something I've been thinking about. Are there any free
> services that let you submit an IP and get traces back from multiple
> geographic locations?
>
> There are plenty of internet measurement projects, but none of them seem
> to let you do a live trace and g
Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 27/03/2009 15:26, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>> AFAIK you have to have native peering with them to be part of the
>> pilot. At least, you did when we signed up. They may have relaxed
>> that since.
>
> According to a Google IPv6 talk I attended yesterday, they don't intend
> t
David Edwards wrote:
> At 12:55 PM 4/9/2009, you wrote:
>> >From the news coverage it appears to be in the general area of
>> http://cow.org/r/?545c
>>
>> -r
>
> Interesting. The report I got from a vendor was that it is Above.net
> with a fiber cut in Redwood City which is affecting a circuit
cables.
Internet lawyering is a different mailing list...
joel
> The cost to fix all pintos' gas tanks was only $11 per car unit and
> it was gambled, though they lost it was cheeper then the lawsuits,
> I'm betting the while fewer units, its order of magnatitudes more
> then
Jo¢ wrote:
>
> I'm confussed, but please pardon the ignorance.
> All the data centers we have are at minimum keys to access
> data areas. Not that every area of fiber should have such, but
> at least should they? Manhole covers "can" be keyed. For those of
> you arguing that this is not enough
Roger Marquis wrote:
>> Why didn't the "man in the street" pharmacy have its own backup plans?
>
> I assume they, as most of us, believed the government was taking care of
> the country's critical infrastructure. Interesting how well this
> illustrates the growing importance of the Internet vis-
I agree 100 percent The clipboard makes it official...
--Original Message--
From: Jamie Bowden
To: Andy Ringsmuth
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Outside plant protection, fiber cuts, interwebz down oh noes!
Sent: Apr 13, 2009 9:07 AM
You forgot the clip board. Without the clip boar
It all comes down to money... It will cost them lots of it to get power and
some type of readers installed to monitor manhole access... There has always
been a lack of security on the telco side, this incident just brings it to
light... In my town many of the verizon fios boxes are not locked an
On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Robert Glover wrote:
This bears investigating. I live 3 blocks away. Looks like I'm
going on a stroll after work tonight.
Bobby Glover
Director of Information Services
South Valley Interet (AS4307)
- Original Message - From: "Roy"
To: "nanog"
Sent: Mo
Hopefully none of these customers had service and protect ckts that went
down... I would be pissed as a ceo if that happen to my company. Hopefully
level3's new service offering is 1...@percent redundant as stated
The new service offerings include: - Protected Wavelengths: Level 3 now
provide
I am 100 percent with you on this. Some techs arrive to our data center with no
tools and they have the same response I just thought it was a simple install. I
know they have different levels for techs but you should not have to wait
another couple of days to complete a install. They should se
Bad cable?... What trouble shooting steps have been done?
--Original Message--
From: chandrashakher pawar
To: na...@merit.edu
Subject: downloading speed
Sent: Apr 17, 2009 5:23 PM
Dear Group member,
We are level one ISP. one of my customer is connected to fast ethernet.
His link speed 100
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> If the effort that will go into administering this went instead
> into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being
> used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit.
I use comcast space for abusive operations. I believe they charge me $40
a month for the priv
Jack Bates wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> In v6ops CPE requirements are being discussed so in the future, it
>> should be possible to buy a $50 home router and hook it up to your
>> broadband service or get a cable/DSL modem from your provider and the
>> IPv6 will be routed without requi
Lincoln Dale wrote:
>> I asked this question to a couple of folks:
>>
>> "at the current churn rate/ration, at what size doe the FIB need to
>> be before it will not converge?"
>>
>> and got these answers:
>>
>> - jabber log -
>> a fine question, has been asked many
John Paul Morrison wrote:
> Can't any network problem can be solved by adding another layer of
> indirection?
>
> Don't all the various nodes in a system simply "disappear" when another
> technology comes along to organize, replace and manage the problem
> differently? With iBGP there's been conf
e pgp signing dots since they mostly
know the score.
While printouts will probably be available feel free to add your key to
the keyring right up to the time of the last keysigning event.
thanks
joel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora -
e the
best ones to be presented.
Use of slides is optional. All slides must be in PDF or Powerpoint
format, and will be loaded in advance onto the speaker laptop on
the podium.
Thanks
Joel
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Todd Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> y'all,
>>
>> just to remind everyone:
>
> ..that we never heard back from you as to why there is no IPV6 content
> in the program in Brooklyn? :-)
Not sure how you get ipv6 on your cable plant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> NNTP, the historical firehose protocol, just floods it out
> to everyone who hasn't seen it yet but actually, the consumers of
> an NNTP feed have been set up statically in advance. And this static
> setup does include knowledge of ISP's network topology, and knowledge
>
Marc Manthey wrote:
>>> i am not a math genious and i am talking about for example serving
>>>
>>> 10.000 unicast streams and
>>> 10.000 multicast streams
>>>
>>> would the multicast streams more efficient or lets say , would you
>>> need more machines to server 10.000 unicast streams ?
>
>
> he
The freebsd dummynet driver is all about latency simulation...
http://www.scalabledesign.com/articles/dummynet.html
linux has a netem which can do the same thing
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Net:Netem
joelja
Mike Lyon wrote:
> So I want to mimic some latency in a test network for DB repl
Sean Figgins wrote:
>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Mike Leber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Since nobody mentioned it yet, there are now less than 1000 days projected
>>> until IPv4 exhaustion:
>
> No worries, the Internet is going to end in 2010, and the world ends on
> December 21, 2012
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Sat, 3 May 2008, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>> back office software
>> ip and dns management software
>> provisioning tools
>> cpe
>> measurement and monitoring and billing
>>
>> and, of course, backbone and aggregation equipment that can actually
>> handle real ipv6 traffi
William Warren wrote:
> That also doesn't take into account how many /8's are being hoarded by
> organizations that don't need even 25% of that space.
which one's would those be?
legacy class A address space just isn't that big...
> Geoff Huston wrote:
>> Mike Leber wrote:
>>> Since nobody ment
Tomas L. Byrnes wrote:
> IPv4 has enough addresses for every computer on Earth, and then some.
There are approximately 3.4 billion or a little less usable ip
addresses. there are 3.3 billion mobile phone users buying approximately
400,000 ip capable devices a day. That's a single industy,
notw
Notwithstanding that fact that keepalives are a huge issue for tiny
battery powered devices. There's a false economy in assuming those
packets wouldn't have to be sent with IPV6...
Marc Manthey wrote:
> evening all ,
>
> found an related article about the power consumtion saving in ip6.
>
Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> After all, Microsoft must have a reason to block all icmp. Or?
>
>> However, in that case the only workable course of action would be TO
>> DISABLE PATH MTU DISCOVERY!
>>
>> You can't have your cake and eat it too.
>
> B
questions, feel free to contact me via email or
corner one of the people with the pgp signing dots since they mostly
know the score.
While printouts will probably be available at the sessions, feel free to
add your key to the keyring right up to the time of the last keysigning
event.
thanks
joel
Kai Chen wrote:
> Hi, here is a quick question.
> 1. Beside public peering in IXP and private peering between two dedicated
> ASes, are there any other interconnection models in the current Internet?
There is the model where all partcipants peer through agency of 3rd
party. That tends to be looke
Deepak Jain wrote:
> Are there any good (published) BCPs for building out Municipal WiFi
> networks? Particularly in the security/authentication/scaling areas?
http://wndw.net/
> Thanks in advance,
>
> DJ
>
> ___
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG@nanog.or
Gadi Evron wrote:
>> The question isn't IF routers have security vunerabilities
>
> Nope, the question is not about if routers have security vulnerabilities.
> The question is how operators and organizations can defend their routers
> against rootkits, and cisco's practices.
>
The existence pr
Mark Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 09:34:19 -0500
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 04:47:02PM +0930, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
>>> I'm sure it'll be good for a number of security providers to hawk their
>>> wares.
>>>
>>> If the way of running this isn't out in the wi
ction? I'm sure your
colleagues would appreciate a view from the the trenches on what tools
get used.
Thanks
Joel
___
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
801 - 900 of 1185 matches
Mail list logo
