Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> First of all about prevention, I'm not at all sure about this being
> covered by existing router security planning / BCP.
> I don't believe most operators reflash their routers periodically, nor
> check existing images (particularly because the tools for this
> integrity
Gadi Evron wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Dragos Ruiu wrote:
>>
>>> First of all about prevention, I'm not at all sure about this being
>>> covered by existing router security planning / BCP.
>>> I don't believe most operato
Dorn Hetzel wrote:
There is a really huge difference in the ease with which payment from a
credit card can be reversed if fraudulent, and the amount of effort
necessary to reverse a wire transfer. I won't go so far as to say that
reversing a wire transfer is impossible, but I would claim it's man
A Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577
www.otaotr.com <http://www.otaotr.com> | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff | Fax: 914-460-4139
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 9:
Barry Shein wrote:
On May 29, 2008 at 06:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Jaeggli) wrote:
> Dorn Hetzel wrote:
> > Yeah, there was a day when anyone could buy a pickup truck full of
> > ammonium nitrate fertilizer from a random feed store and not attract any
> > attention a
is not a prima facie reason not to do something. Large
successful parts of our economy as well as the basic human condition are
devoted to the business of managing opportunity vs risk and the
mitigation of the later where possible.
On May 29, 2008 at 11:10 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Jaeggli) wr
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
___
NANOG mailing
using criteria based on the NANOG mailing list AUP) and choose 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
Sean Donelan wrote:
But my actual question, which I neglected to include, Is Net-26 still
seeing queries to the 26.0.0.73 root after 18 years?
26/8 doesn't appear in the routing table. so unless it's getting queries
from inside the dod all those packets should fall on the floor the first
tim
Chris Marlatt wrote:
Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
It's not free, but at a recent trade show I did see what appeared to
be an
affordable unit from Apposite Technologies (apposite-tech.com). And
there's
always PacketStorm.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Mike Lyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Joe Greco wrote:
Speaking of cables and veering off towards cable-making, I was wondering
what people thought of the so-called "EZ RJ45" stuff. One of the hazards
of doing long-term cut-to-length wiring is that if a crimp really goes
wrong, you might mess up your artistic work or need to re-cut
Netfortius wrote:
Has anybody used (and been successful at) a bit-torrent-like agent for fast
distribution of LEGAL software (install programs of large-DVD size), across
multiple sites, all over the globe, with bad WAN connectivity? I have read a
couple of references online (e.g.
http://torren
Frank Bulk - iNAME wrote:
When I hear "cloud services" I think "in the network" even though it appears
all these cloud services perform their work at a data center as an
outsourced service.
Is there a vendor that makes a product that perform spam/malware filtering
literally in the network, i.e.
that point you're basically filtering by ip again, you
can do that with a bgp community. That's not really smtp filtering anymore.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 2:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PRO
As long TLS usage is low, examining TCP port
25 traffic would likely be effective without redirecting SMTP traffic and
making it effective for all customers downstream.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 4:06 PM
To: [EMAIL
Fernando Gont wrote:
Hello, folks,
Quite a few times it has been mentioned to me that some peering
agreements require support for the IPv4 source routing options. I was
wondering whether this is still the case for some ISPs, or it is not the
case anymore.
I haven't observed it in the recent
those prefixes all have ripe route object with origin AS 20922
all the routes I see for a given prefix look like the following:
2914 1299 12301 8696 20922 54271
129.250.0.171 from 129.250.0.171 (129.250.0.12)
Origin IGP, metric 1, localpref 100, valid, external
Community: 2914:
x27;t figured out that an open bgp peer isn't a great idea! :)
Scott
-----Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 1:36 PM
To: Marshall Eubanks
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: AS 54271
those prefixes all have ripe route object with origin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds like he's used to used IRC, not mailing lists.
There used to be an IRC channel where a lot of NANOG
folks hung out. Anyone care to publicize the channel
name and which IRC network carries it?
--Michael Dillon
from the nanog mailing list...
From: "Tim Brown" <>
Paul Francis wrote:
Gang,
I have submitted an internet-draft to the IDR group on virtual aggregation
(VA) (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-francis-idr-intra-va-00.txt).
This draft suggests a few changes to routers that allow operators to control
the size of their FIBs, shrinking them b
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Software switched routers have little pressure on fib limitions. For a
certain class of application the software switched edge router is in a
much better position to accommodate fib growth than a device with a
fixed sized cam.
I
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Not saying that they couldn't benefit from it, however on one hand we
have a device with a 36Mbit cam on the other, one with 2GB of ram, which
one fills up first?
Well, the actual data point you should look at is "16
that approach has
real benefits extending the useful life of a given platform, but there's
very little about the current situation that is unexpected, or intractable.
Are there any folks for whom this statement isn't working?
PF
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:52:56 PDT, Zed Usser said:
There's been some discussion on the list regarding software routers
The performance of "software routers" has always had a hardware component.
Basically, for the vast majority of them, take your PCI bus bandwidth,
coun
Warren Kumari wrote:
On Jul 29, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Darryl Dunkin wrote:
Hubs sure are fun...
This might be a stupid question, but where can one get small hubs these
days? All of the common commodity (eg: 4 port Netgear) "hubs" these
days are actually switches.
What I am looking for is:
this same behavior from Level3?
(It seems that the larger a telecom company gets, the more they want
to act like a scum-sucking ILEC.)
--Patrick
--
Joel Esler
http://blog.joelesler.net
http://www.dearcupertino.com
[m]
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
Was looking over 1918 again, and for the record I have only run into one
network that follows:
"If two (or more) organizations follow the address allocation
specified in this document and then later wish to establish IP
connectivity with each other, then there
172.16/12 use?
--p
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:21 AM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
*randomly* from th
riginal Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:36 PM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
Darden, Patrick S. wrote:
Most organizations that would be doing this would n
oks like it will continue to work ok for some time...
--p
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 1:31 PM
To: Darden, Patrick S.
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: was bogon filters, now "Brief Segue on 1918"
That's co
You've been forwarded.
J
On Aug 6, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Alan Halachmi wrote:
Would someone from Verizon please contact me? Or, if you know of a
technical contact for Verizon, please pass it along. Thanks.
Best,
Alan
--
Joel Esler
http://blog.joelesler.net
Text sent too at&t customers appear ok from tmob or via @txt.att.net...
I'm experiencing ~10 minute delays on texts originating on at&t handsets.
joelja
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Is anyone else seeing issues with multiple copies and delayed
originals for SMSes on the AT&T network? I've been s
like 10 bucks). A search of enterprise paging
> in AT&T's stuff gives you the info on TAP, as well as the various internet
> protocol's supported (which I prefer with TAP as fallback).
>
> Jack
>
>
--
--Joel Esler
ISC Incident Handler
http://www.joelesler.net
William Pitcock wrote:
Hi,
We're looking at using Mikrotik's RouterOS for some some sort of
software routing solution as part of our network in combination with
supervised layer3 switching doing most likely some sort of limited BGP.
Does anyone else here run it? Is it any good? Is it better tha
erience.
In David Newman's test of 10G edge switches
(http://www.networkworld.com/reviews/2008/032408-switch-test.html)
Force10 elected not to participate, which is often telling.
jms
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
ipv6 addresses, or a dnssec toolkit? I'm sure your peers would
love to hear about any of the above.
Other topics are encouraged and invited.
thanks
joel
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> At 09:40 PM 27-08-08 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I beg to differ. What will change is a serious uptick in the number of
> prefixes (279K) in the routing tables as everyone rushes to deaggregate
> to /24 size. A year ago we were at 230K, how much you wanna bet we
Paul Wall wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 2008, at 12:26 AM, Paul Wall wrote:
>>> Routing n*GE at line rate isn't difficult these days, even with all
>>> 64-byte packets and other "DoS" conditions.
>>>
>>> Linksys, D-Link, SMC, etc are able
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 12:58:53PM -0400, Nicholas Suan wrote:
>> On Sep 3, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>>> You're forgetting that 587 *is authenticated, always*.
>> I'm not sure how that makes much of a difference since the usual spam
>> vector is malware t
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:50:15PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>> I see in http://www.onesc.net/communities/as3356/ that L3 doesn't permit
>> customers to multihome the 4/8 space that they inherited from BBN, via
>> GTE, etc, ad nauseum...
>>
>> and I'm curious whether an
Randy Bush wrote:
>> It has been routinely observed in nanog presentations that settlement
>> free providers by their nature miss a few prefixes that well connected
>> transit purchasing ISPs carry.
>
> just trying to understand what you mean,
>
> o no transit-free provider actually has all (
Owen DeLong wrote:
> I've never seen anyone use AH vs. ESP.
OSPFv3?
> I've always used ESP and so has
> every other IPSEC implementation I've seen anyone do.
>
> Owen
>
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Jack Kohn wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Interesting discussion on the utility of Authentication Heade
Bill Fehring wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 20:48, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I've never seen anyone use AH vs. ESP.
>> OSPFv3?
>
> Maybe I'm asking a dumb question, but why would one prefer AH over ESP
> for OSPFv3?
Header
cards and tokens are a proxy for the use of a certificate authentication
system...
You can in fact do certificate auth without the use of cards or tokens
or mix and match physical tokens and other private key storage depending
on need with the same authentication backend (typically ldap).
Since t
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:50:54 EST, Brad Laue said:
>> maintained. I'm unclear as to why mail administrators don't work more
>> proactively with things like SenderID and SPF, as these seem to be far
>> more maintainable in the long-run than an ever-growing list of
Justin Shore wrote:
> Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>> At 18:29 24/11/2009 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> > RIS Routing History for AS1712 since 2001:
>>>
>>> on what date was AS1712 assigned to the current RIPE holder?
>>
>> Based on:
>> ftp://ftp.ripe.net/pub/stats/ripencc/delegated-ripencc-latest
>> it
Wade Peacock wrote:
> We had a discussion today about IPv6 today. During our open thinking the
> topic of client equipment came up.
> We all commented that we have not seen any consumer grade IPv6 enable
> internet gateways (routers/firewalls), a kin to the ever popular Linksys
> 54G series, DLin
Kain, Becki (B.) wrote:
> No kiddng. I must be the only one who is getting tired of seeing Google
> take over literally everything.
Nobody as far as I can tell has a Monoploy on bad ideas...
joel
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:35 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> It's why I run an ssh server on 443 somewhere -- and as needed, I ssh-tunnel
>> http to a squid proxy, smtp, and as many IMAP/SSL connections as I really
>> need...
>
> Same here. It's the most reliable way to break out of a hotel jail.
F
On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:18 PM, Lou Katz wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 09:48:25PM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 6:00 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 7, 2009, at 5:29 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>>
> Will be interesting to see if ISPs respond to a large scale t
at you need to write in a way that makes
> it easier for your reader to read: use real sentences with real
> capital letters at the beginnings of them, and do try to spell as many
> words right as you can muster.
>
> So mind your manners, learn to communicate better, stop insulting your
> readers, and then come back and contribute your intellect to [this]
> mailing list. If you keep acting like a jerk I'm going to wake
> up some morning, yawn, make a cup of tea, and then vaporize your
> mailbox. Sometimes we supremely powerful technocrats just have a bad
> day.
>
> --- End of Forwarded Message
>
>
This is a great email, it belongs on countless blogs. Written back then,
still relevant now.
J
--
Joel Esler | 302-223-5974 | gtalk: jes...@sourcefire.com
Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2009, at 4:56 PM, Michael Loftis wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --On Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:23 PM -0800 Mehmet Akcin
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Would you consider Juniper SSG5 as a Consumer Grade router?
>>>
>>> They do IPv6 and they are pretty good in general, and cheap as
Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> UPnP is a bad idea that (fortunately) doesn't apply to IPv6 anyway.
>>>
>>> You don't need UPnP if you'r not doing NAT.
>>
>> wishful thinking.
>>
>> you're likely to still have a staeful firewall and in the consumer space
>> someone is likely to want to punch holes in it.
Paolo Lucente wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:09:32PM -0600, James Hess wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Jonny Martin wrote:
>> ..
>>> modified if need be - to achieve this. ?Mixing billing with the reachability
>>> information signalled through BGP just doesn't seem like a good id
so can open-wrt and you can run it on something like:
http://www.ubnt.com/products/rspro.php
which is a lot more flexible than a consumer ap and the price starts at
about $80 before you add radios.
Michael Holstein wrote:
>> I am consulting with a new player in the internet field and I am
>> loo
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>
>> Should US based networks be willing to route RIPE "ASSIGNED PA" space
>> customers provide?
Are any of your customers multinationals?
> this is an interesting question, which when I worked for an ISP I
> alw
George Bonser wrote:
> We have decided to initiate the process of becoming IPv6 capable. We
> have requested and received a block of addresses which, after reading
> some of the discussion here, I fear may be too small to suit our needs
> (a /48). To better understand how to proceed and in an a
Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:58:47AM -0500, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> no real arguement, but... 'please provide some set of workable
>> solutions'
>
> The set of workable solutions at this point looks something like
> "null routes, firewall rules, blacklist entries" -- in
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:00:28PM -0800, Marty Anstey wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Just wondering if anyone has had any experience with IPv6 training courses.
>
> A quick search turns up a few results on the subject, but it would be
> handy to hear if anyone has any firsthand experiences or recommend
Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 11:13:24AM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote:
>> I know nothing of how to do this on a Catalyst; for PCs, my own guess
>> is that you're looking far too high-end. If the issue is relaying to
>> the outside, I suspect that a small, dedicated Soekris
you might take a look at route-views6.routeviews.org
last I looked it had 22 neighbors.
you can either telnet to it (it's quagga) or look in the archived ribs here:
http://archive.routeviews.org/route-views6/bgpdata/
Michael K. Smith - Adhost wrote:
> Hello Everyone:
>
> I am requesting the as
s providing "default"
> > security for the folks who won't change the default password.
>
> The MyFi apparently does this. According to
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/07/technology/personaltech/07pogue.html"The
> network password is printed right there on the bottom of the MiFi
> itself."
>
>
At least it's not "".
But yes, my Mifi *had* the password on the bottom.
--
Joel Esler
ooking for TCP bits, but the main difference that stateful
firewalls add is watching the TCP state machine. Sequence number
watching is a bonus, something you can enable on some firewalls, but
most of the common ones don't do it by default.
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road,
bill from home wrote:
> All,
>This thread certainly has been educational, and has changed my
> perception of what an appropriate outward facing architecture should be.
> But seldom do I have the luxury of designing this from scratch, and also
> the networks I administer are "small business's"
Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2010, at 9:02 PM, bill from home wrote:
>
>> And maybe there is no way to tell, but I feel I need to ask the question.
>
> Situationally-dependent; the only way to really tell, not just theorize, is
> to test the firewall to destruction during a maintenance w
Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2010, at 7:52 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>
>> see my post in the subject, a reasonably complete performance
>> report for the device is a useful place to start.
>
> The problem is that one can't trust the stated vendor perform
Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Some NDA's require that you must state your intent for each
> communication that should be covered by the NDA. As much as everyone
> would like to believe these are wothless, they are not. Applying them
> globally to your email protects your legal rights. It is also
> inn
On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>> You don't like the law, don't do biz in that country. But blatantly
>> breaking a law is bad joo-joo.
>
> OT.
> Please don't say "joo-joo" every time the TechCrunch folks see that
> they get diarrhea
That is a horrible name for a product. J
Steven Bellovin wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Barry Shein wrote:
>
>> There seem to be a lot of misconceptions about RFID tags. I'm hardly
>> an expert but I do know this much:
>>
>> RFID tags are generic, you don't put data into them unique to your
>> application.
Not true, the simples
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:31:44 +0100, Anthony Uk said:
>
>> "Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the
>> attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights
>> activists. "
>
>> I have orders of magnitude fewer users than gma
Tim Durack wrote:
> Replace all the routers on the Internet with stateful firewalls. What happens?
the same thing that happened with flow-cached routers, they melt, you go
out of business, the end.
Ricky Beam wrote:
> But it's not all bad. It's assigned to APNIC, so a lot of people will
> gladly continue blocking it.
>
Yeah cause seriously, who does business in Asia or the Pacifc...
Anton Kapela wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>> I thought there was some other group that had been squatting in 1/8,
>> something about radio and peer to peer...but not AnoNet (at least that name
>> was totally unfamiliar)...but this was all I could find with a quic
Daniel Senie wrote:
> On Jan 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:
>
>> For me, the entire debate boils down to this question.
>>
>> What should the objective be, decades or centuries?
>
> If centuries, how many planets and moons will the address space
> cover? (If we as a species manages to
iptables -A INPUT -m recent --update --seconds 60 --hitcount 5 --name
SSH --rsource -j DROP
iptables -A INPUT -m recent --set --name SSH --rsource -j ACCEPT
also enforce either strong passwords or require no passwords (e.g. keys
only) and everything should be cool.
Bobby Mac wrote:
> Hola Nanog:
Richard Barnes wrote:
> What I've heard is that the driver is IPv4 exhaustion: Comcast is
> starting to have enough subscribers that it can't address them all out
> of 10/8 -- ~millions of subscribers, each with >1 IP address (e.g.,
> for user data / control of the cable box).
What do you meaning
Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Nick Hilliard (nick) writes:
>> There is a FAQ entry for ipv6 support in ipplan:
>>
>>> One feature request that comes up from time to time is IPv6. Adding IPv6
>>> support will require major effort but has such a limited audience.
>>> Ironically the only people that ever req
roperty is probably transitive in that the overall quality of the
ipv4 unicast space is declining...
The way to reduce the entropy in a system is to pump more energy in,
there's always the question however of whether that's even worth it or not.
joel
Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
> He
er intend to route the space
> publicly. (Such a thing does exist..)
>
> +1 volunteering to sink traffic for 1.1.1.0/24
>
> --heather
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joe...@bogus.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:09 AM
> To:
For stuff where the boxes were expected to go both directions, there are
anvil flight cases in appropiate sizes which I've used with great
success. These days I having been using pelican cases, either 1560 1630
or 1650 depending on size.
Andrew Konkol wrote:
> Gurus,
>
> Where I work we ship our
I have gig copper ran all over my house. Handy for large file
transfers. I have fios as well, and wish it was faster. (yes, all I
know is it's a setting, it costs them nothing more)
--
Joel Esler
302-223-5974
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2010, at 8:02 PM, "Luan Nguyen"
David Hubbard wrote:
> Residential computers with enough bandwidth to DoS
> hosting providers; that should be fun. Maybe it will
> encourage the incumbant ISP's to start offering users
> meaningful bgp communities since they won't be able
> to keep up with the abuse reports.
Residential custome
James Hess wrote:
> For now.. with 1gigabit residential connections, BCP 38 OUGHT to be
> Google's answer. If Google handles that properly, they _should_
> make it mandatory that all traffic from residential customers be
> filtered, in all cases, in order to only forward packets with
> t
3com nj1000 3com nj90 etc.
Andrey Khomyakov wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Does anyone know of anything like a small, but managed in wall switch? I
> have an area where the business needs to deploy more thin client kiosks than
> I have data drops and it's impossible to add more due to how the walls on
>
anyone on this list that I'm wrong, by the
way...
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1.comhttp://www.opus1.com/jms
forgot to paste the URL.
http://www.opus1.com/www/whitepapers/reputationserviceswp.pdf
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
j...@opus1.comhttp://www.opus1.com/jms
Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 2/20/2010 11:53 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>> So we've looked at it from 2 different aspects, and in both cases, the
>> RFC says you shouldn't be bouncing spam to where it came from.
>
> Small nit, which is germane to the whole discussion; "...the RFC says
>
ugh to supply everything you need is big enough to
> take everything you have."
>
> Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs, the Titanic by professionals.
>
> Requiescas in pace o email
> Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
> Eppure si rinfresca
>
> ICBM Targeting Informatio
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
>
>> I am sure the various carriers faced with the onset of Local Number
>> Portability and WLNP in this part of the world would have been happy to
>> escape with only forwarding phone calls for 3 months.
>>
>> Alas, such was not the
Johnny Eriksson wrote:
> Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> Quick! Somebody propose a snail-mail portability bill. When a renter
>> changes to a different landlord, his snail-mail address will be optionally
>> his to take along, "just like" what is proposed for ISP clients.
>
> No, a complete street
Why does there need to be blame? Diagnose the problem, fix the problem, move
on with life. Someone made a mistake, learn from it, move on.
--
Joel Esler
joel.es...@me.com
http://www.joelesler.net
On Tuesday, February 23, 2010, at 05:13PM, wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Feb 2010 11:27:21 -1000, N
On 02/26/2010 03:10 PM, Paul Bosworth wrote:
> I think a lot of people often forget that ISPs are actually
> businesses trying to turn a profit.
Bearing in mind that the facilities that exist in much of the rural
united states are actually there because we collectively payed for them
rather than
On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 27/02/2010 04:04, Phil Regnauld wrote:
>> I'm not saying that political incentives (carrot & stick) or government
>> regulations in the line of "implement IPv6 before X/Y or else..." have
>> had any effect, except maybe in Japan:
>
Modula the lack of pd, I found the ipv6 support for the dir-825 (along
with the other things it does well) to be rather decent. If people need
gig-e simultaneous dual band abgn home routers for ~$130 you should
check the thing out.
On 02/27/2010 08:59 AM, Frank Bulk wrote:
> Heard from a D-Link pr
Tony Finch wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On 02/27/2010 03:49 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Japanese government did two things:
>>>
>>> - tax incentivise ipv6 compliance
>>> - make mean
On 03/01/2010 09:04 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 3/1/2010 9:55 AM, Adam Waite wrote:
>>
>>> Hm, I was under the impression that ARPANET was a government run
>>> network...
>>>
>>>
>> Not since 1992..what you're looking for these days is NIPRnet and
>> SIPRnet, and ESnet, etc, etc, etc.
>
On 03/01/2010 05:34 PM, Akyol, Bora A wrote:
> Michael
>
> I think for the people in the situation you are describing, the best bet
> would be
> one of the wireless technologies. Someone on the thread mentioned LTE (which
> should
> be coming out in a couple years time), and to that we can add W
On 03/04/2010 10:52 AM, Thomas Magill wrote:
> 2. Longer than /24 prefixes in global BGP table. The most obvious
> answer is that some hardware may not handle it... How is that hardware
> going to handle an IP6 table then? I have had several occasions where
> functionally I needed to adver
n expect behavioral change to
occur.
denial
anger
bargaining
depression
acceptance
decide which step you're on...
joel
>> Why do we expect this?
>
> David,
>
> Well, I don't know that "we" do, but Joel made a remarkable assertion
> that non-aggregable assignments to end users, the ones still needed
> for multihoming, would go down under IPv6.
A couple of months ago my then employer we
901 - 1000 of 1185 matches
Mail list logo
