## On 2004-05-13 21:43 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
Any bets on what will be rediscovered next? Some CERT will realize that
if a DDoS uses RFC1918 source addresses, it will be hard to track down the
misbehaving sources? ;)
No - then someone would have to re-invent backscatter
This report has been generated at Fri May 14 21:43:28 2004 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table
Rafi Sadowsky writes on 5/14/2004 11:28 PM:
## On 2004-05-13 21:43 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
Any bets on what will be rediscovered next? Some CERT will realize that
if a DDoS uses RFC1918 source addresses, it will be hard to track down the
misbehaving sources? ;)
No - then someone
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:21:39AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Original Message
New flaw takes Wi-Fi off the air
. . .
AusCERT senior security analyst Jamie Gillespie does not anticipate the
wide exploitation of the vulnerability.
I can think of one
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
And someone would then start another thread about BCP 38 on nanog ...
funny how several threads turn into a thread about spoofed source
address filtering in no time at all :)
Let the record reflect the fact that it was not I who did that this
time. I forgot where
I can think of one application - the next time I'm presenting at
a conference where everyone has their heads buried in their
laptops, I know what I'll be running on my machine at the podium
;)
what keeps the cows in the pasture is the quality of the grass not
the height of the fence.
randy
Randy Bush writes on 5/14/2004 7:13 PM:
I can think of one application - the next time I'm presenting at
a conference where everyone has their heads buried in their
laptops, I know what I'll be running on my machine at the podium
;)
what keeps the cows in the pasture is the quality of the grass
what keeps the cows in the pasture is the quality of the grass
not the height of the fence.
You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
i am greatly cheered by non-listening competitors.
we have actually watched nanog/ietf/... traffic levels, and one
can clearly tell when
Folks,
Richard Cox and I participated in an anti-spam workshop in China last
month. A copy of our trip report is at:
http://brandenburg.com/reports/200404-isc-trip-report.htm
d/
--
Dave Crocker mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brandenburg InternetWorking http://www.brandenburg.com
Topics to be discussed: ENUM, TRIP, Voice Peering, QOS, BGP, SIP, VOIP
Transit/Trunking, .tel, Inter-Asterisk Exchange (IAX), the ITU and anything
else that may effect interconnection of VOIP and packet voice.
This is a mailing list for voice folks, peering people, network engineers,
and even
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes:
Open exchange of ideas is the goal!
Please feel free to forward this announcement freely.
Post message:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
could you put the list someplace else? i don't accept e-mail from yahoo here,
since they
could you put the list someplace else?
in process
is Paul is volunteering to host this (perhaps on peering.com)?
At 06:49 PM 5/14/2004 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes:
Open exchange of ideas is the goal!
Please feel free to forward this announcement freely.
Post message:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe:
is Paul is volunteering to host this
i guess so, yes, since i'd like to be able to participate in it.
(perhaps on peering.com)?
peering.com belongs to the old day job. if we needed a mailing
list created, i'd be asking the current day job if they can do it.
I think Dan has multiple offers at this point. Dan, new addr? :)
Regards,
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
http://www.verisign.com/
-Original Message-
On Fri, 14 May 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes:
Open exchange of ideas is the goal!
Please feel free to forward this announcement freely.
Post message:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
could you put the list someplace else?
On 5/14/04 2:49 PM, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Golding) writes:
Open exchange of ideas is the goal!
Please feel free to forward this announcement freely.
Post message:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
could you put the list
On 5/14/04 3:04 PM, Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Dan has multiple offers at this point. Dan, new addr? :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Regards,
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018
[EMAIL PROTECTED] The new list address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and the archives will be
ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/
http://psg.com/lists/voip-peering
but the archives won't settle properly until there has been
traffic
randy
- Original Message -
From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can think of one application - the next time I'm presenting at a conference where
everyone has their heads buried in their
laptops, I know what I'll be running on my machine at the podium ;)
Bill.
Wayback before laptops, an
Hello Fellow NANOG'ers,
I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable? The
company that I work for developed a piece of technology which, through
rate-limit statements, allow customers to buy/sell bandwidth on
demand. Now, I was thinking: Why can't we take this technology
Yes, but part of the software is a billing component which tells you
*exactly* how much bandwidth you've used and what the total cost of the
bandwidth is. You can also set a budget limit in the application which
would not allow the bandwidth purchased to exceed $x.
-- Jonathan
J.J.Bailey
On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:22:03 EDT, Jonathan M. Slivko [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for
what they use - it would be a much better system for allowing people who
Questions? Comments? Suggestions?
Who pays for a DDoS attack, or
To answer your question, in our colo evironment, incomming traffic is
free and not measured for billing purposes (but I assume this will be
different on the ISP platform).
As far as being slashdotted, if it does happen - then your agent from
our application will watch - and adhere to - the
Mailing list for QoS discussions has been created. This is multi-vendor
list accelerating the adoption of IP products and services that benefit
from QoS capabilities.
This list is intended to aid anyone deploying QoS solutions. Feel free
to spread the word.
Many thanks to Jared Mauch in
In an application where you pay-as-you-go with hard limits, the site
stops responding under the slashdotted activity. The limit protects the
ISP and the customer from a dispute, and the customer decides whether to
rethink their hard limits or the popularity of their content.
DJ
Jonathan M.
Woops Almost forgot to answer the most important question:
And the biggie for you is: How do you handle these issues on a low
margin? ;)
Well, to answer that question, it really doesn't take that much work for
us, as we would only be licensing our technology to the ISP, we wouldn't
be
Agreed.
-- Jonathan
Deepak Jain wrote:
In an application where you pay-as-you-go with hard limits, the site
stops responding under the slashdotted activity. The limit protects the
ISP and the customer from a dispute, and the customer decides whether to
rethink their hard limits or the
Well - you could, to save costs, put a T3 (or multiple T3's) into a
specific area that you want to serve and then distribute it from there
via Ethernet. This is what we're currently doing with a
residential/commercial building.
-- Jonathan
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 05:22 PM 5/14/2004, you
Also, you could also take the approach of wiring a whole building for
Internet connectivity through that model, like Intellispace does.
-- Jonathan
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 05:22 PM 5/14/2004, you wrote:
Hello Fellow NANOG'ers,
I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable?
On Fri, 14 May 2004, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable?
Okay, so basically, I'm in complete sympathy with you, because I would
_like_ the overhead cost of an unutilized local loop to be zero.
Unfortunately, that's not the case
For an idea to catch on, it often helps for there to be a clear benefit to
doing things the new way rather than the old way (or at least, it needs
some good marketing...).
In this case, it's not clear to me where the benefit is. A lot of the
cost of residential connections is in support, and in
At 06:19 PM 5/14/2004, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
Bill - I'm not saying dedicate a whole T1 to a single customer, i'm saying
share a T1 or T3 among many customers in a small geographic area, but let
each customer have fair use of the T1/T3.
BTW, we have been doing this for the last 6 years in a
Steve,
As for your point of the major cost for an ISP would be support. That is
where I beg to differ, in my own experience working for this company on
this project, it has required very little time to do actual support work
to the end-user, provided that the Internet connection actually
James,
I'd rather keep paying more for unmetered service rather than pay by the
byte. I can host a popular site for a couple months, download a few cds,
upgrade all of my machines, without having to worry about explaining to
my wife why my monthly bill has doubled or tripled.
For $850 a month, I
Rob,
What's your cost on managing the bandwidth? You're basically creating
on-demand frame circuits, and balancing them is tricky (actually,
deciding on an oversubscription ratio is easy, dealing with the
customers is the tricky part!) on a low-margin basis. Of course, if
you're a BofH or a
On Fri, 14 May 2004, Daniel Golding wrote:
Topics to be discussed: ENUM, TRIP, Voice Peering, QOS, BGP, SIP, VOIP
Transit/Trunking, .tel, Inter-Asterisk Exchange (IAX), the ITU and anything
else that may effect interconnection of VOIP and packet voice.
Cool!
x
This is a mailing list for
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan M. Slivko) [Sat 15 May 2004, 01:27 CEST]:
Actually, our model doesn't allow for oversubscription as it's a
committed (meaning you have the bandwidth that you purchased guaranteed
to you), dynamic rate.
Ah, falling into the same trap MAE-East-ATM (and -West-)
At 06:04 PM 5/14/2004, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
Well - you could, to save costs, put a T3 (or multiple T3's) into a
specific area that you want to serve and then distribute it from there via
Ethernet. This is what we're currently doing with a residential/commercial
building.
Ah, so you're
39 matches
Mail list logo
