Hi,
Does anybody know how/if I can force cisco router to consider ospf route
(I'll consider other igp protocol if its possible) from particular source
to be prefereble over connected and locally-entered static routes. This is
needed for failover project I'm doing. Please note that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
From: E.B. Dreger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ML No, it isn't, as is doing buf_t[x] rather than pointer
True. I just like having a struct so I may pass a single
variable in function calls instead of a whole mess of them.
The problem is not pointers,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anybody know how/if I can force cisco router to consider ospf route
(I'll consider other igp protocol if its possible) from particular source
to be prefereble over connected and locally-entered static routes. This is
needed for failover
Does anybody know how/if I can force cisco router to consider ospf route
(I'll consider other igp protocol if its possible) from particular source
to be prefereble over connected and locally-entered static routes. This is
needed for failover project I'm doing. Please note that especially big
PS: Worm? Virus? Who wrote this up concisely first?
Shockwave Rider by John Brunner
Is it still in print, I wonder?
--Michael Dillon
at Thursday, January 30, 2003 12:01 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say:
But this worm required external access to an internal server (SQL
Servers are not front-end ones); even with a bad or no patch
management system, this simply wouldn't happen on a properly
configured
You don't say whether you're using Cisco, but recent IOSes have no trouble
with huge configurations. You may have to use 'service compress-config'.
Just stay with some specific items on large configurations though. Don´t for
example dream of large access lists or your box will crash and burn.
I have received information on router utilizations, some routers it
seems may have held up better then others. That information is
useful. But I am working on some optical exchange point/optical metro
designs and this might have a dramatic impact if one considers things
like OBGP, Uni
Depending on the scale of what you are trying to accomplish, you can also
change the prefix length of the route. If you have a local static route
that is a /20, you can route two /21's in OSPF. Most of the suggestions I
have seen are options, but other mechanisms should be used because the
From: Simon Waters
40 years of experience says it is unreasonable to expect the programmer to
get it right 100% of the time.
A modern server or Desktop OS is measured in hundreds of millions of lines
of code, what is an acceptable error rate per line of code?
Perhaps I'm missing it, but is
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS: Worm? Virus? Who wrote this up concisely first?
Shockwave Rider by John Brunner
Is it still in print, I wonder?
most recent edition was in the early 90's.
--Michael Dillon
--
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Mike Bernico [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, by accepting routes from CPE you create a huge security
vulnerability
for your customers, and other parties. This practice was understood
as a
very bad network engineering for decades.
Is there someplace I can find
David Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With the rapid onset of an attack such as the one sat morning. Models
I have show that not only would the spare capacity been utilized
quickly but that in a tiered (colored) customer system. That the lower
service level customers (lead colored, silver
Since nobody has given the correct information about the PIN on the card I
will give a very brief description.
There are two types of PIN, natural and customer selected.
The natural PIN is computed from the number on the card. The computation
involves one way crypto keys. I don't remember the
FYI this is completely incorrect.
I have changed my PIN with both my PayPal debit card as well as my First
Union/Wachovia card numerous times without a single contact with a physical
bank.
See: http://www.wachovia.com/helpcenter/page/0,,2372_2705,00.html
To store the PIN on a card, whether
I would guess that PayPal is bit younger then 4 years, so some banks have
change the process since I was last involved with it.
For you information the ATM's of 15 years ago and the ATM's of 4[*] years
ago used the same process to deal with encryption. It was done by a black
box manufactured by
There has been some confusion about the naming of the new .org whois for
port 43 service. As noted now on our web site, and also in other posts,
it can be found at:
whois.publicinterestregistry.net
In addition, you will find a web-based whois at:
http://www.pir.org/whois/
There have also
Before you jump to the conclusion that you could just steal the black
box from the ATM and have access, but if you till it, it forgets all the
keys. Also during normal operation two separate people have to enter
two parts of the key. This way no single bank employee has access to
both
The following comment was made privately, yet since it may be of
interest to others, I am posting the question and noting that we have
gone ahead and done this.
Regards,
Bruce Beckwith
Public Interest Registry
There has been some confusion about the naming of the new .org whois
for
port 43
Please note that this is an issue that ICANN is addressing. PIR is
working with the staff at ICANN to assist in any way necessary.
Regards,
Bruce Beckwith
Public Interest Registry
) There has been some confusion about the naming of the new .org whois
for
) port 43 service. As noted now on
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 10:39:17AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
IIRC, MS's patches has been digitally signed by MS, and their patching
system checks these sign silently. So, they will claim that
compromised route info and/or DNS spoofing does not affect their
correctness.
Though, I'm not
Folks,
The Ops community and the IETF Email community appear to have different
views about appropriate methods for email posting. The difference
frequently means that an effort to post a new message from a network
with a firewall, to a remote SMTP, is blocked by the outbound firewall.
Blocking
At 05:46 PM 1/30/2003 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
Blocking outbound SMTP (port 25) is supported by the Ops community as a
spam-suppression mechanism. Ops support for this blockage appears to be
deeply and broadly held.
A large chunk of the spam I am seeing these days are due to exploitable
From: Dave Crocker
The goal is to obtain a coherent recommendation that is acceptable to
the Ops and the Email communities.
Email communities? You can't even get people to do proper reverse or secure
open relays. A large section of the 'net isn't RFC compliant. Most servers
are privately
It's a rare day when I differ with Dave over mail standards, so
something's weird.
Dave Crocker wrote:
Some current choices:
Email standards provide for posting of email to the usual port 25 or to
port 773 for the newer submit service. (Submit is a clone of SMTP that
operates on a different
At 10:25 PM 1/30/2003, Eliot Lear wrote:
It's a rare day when I differ with Dave over mail standards, so
something's weird.
Dave Crocker wrote:
Some current choices:
Email standards provide for posting of email to the usual port 25 or to
port 773 for the newer submit service. (Submit is a
Actually, I think that was the point of the dynamic provisioning
ability. The UNI 1.0 protocol or the previous ODSI, were to allow
the routers to provision their own capacity. The tests in the real
world done actually worked although I still believe they are under
NDA.
The point was to
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 15:39, Krzysztof Adamski wrote:
Based on this you can see that re-encoding is needed when you change the
PIN number, most ATM will do that re-encoding. So unless things have
changed in the last 4 years since I worked with this, you can not change
your PIN over the phone
Eliot,
Thursday, January 30, 2003, 7:25:05 PM, you wrote:
EL The submission port, according to IANA is 587.
Sorry about that detail. I searched the IANA port assignment file for
'submit' rather than 'submission'.
Luckily, the error does not affect the core concern I am raising.
EL I'm not a
David Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
was to pay for what you used when you used it. The biggest
technical factor was how the heck do you bill it.
Actually I'd think the biggest technical factor would be the trained
monkey that would sit at the switch and do OIR of line cards on the
router as
Who has the biggest wall of big screen monitors?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3409-2003Jan30.html
At 6:54 + 1/31/03, Vijay Gill wrote:
David Diaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
was to pay for what you used when you used it. The biggest
technical factor was how the heck do you bill it.
Actually I'd think the biggest technical factor would be the trained
monkey that would sit at the
32 matches
Mail list logo
