On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
What's rDNS for the ip address(es) assigned to you?
I don't know about him, but, on my ADSL connection, it is controlled
by my nameservers:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
10.159.192.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ns.rop.edu.
10.159.192.in-addr.arpa.
Ah, but *you* wouldn't get blocked. You maintain your own rDNS and
presumably have enough clue to not make the rDNS look like a pool of
dynamic residential IPs that aren't terribly important. To wit:
Um, that's not what I thought this discussion was about. I thought this
discussion was about ISPs
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 02:16:36AM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
Any IP that a provider allows servers on should have
distinctive, non-dynamic-looking DNS (and preferably be in a separate
netblock from the dynamically-assigned IPs).
What the hell is a non-dynamic-looking DNS? Sure, if
On 27-apr-2005, at 20:08, Dan Hollis wrote:
I can definitely say
worms, trojans, spam, phishing, ddos, and other attacks is up several
orders of magnitude in those 20 years. Malicious packets now
account for
a significant percentage of all ip traffic. Eventually I expect
malicious
packets will
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
In the thread about ns*.worldnic.com, many people were complaining
about DNS responses/queries on TCP port 53.
At least one DoS mitigation box uses TCP53 to protect name servers.
Personally I thought this was a pretty slick trick, but it appears to
have
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 08:52:04PM +,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 49 lines which said:
the only entities that can be members are nations/governments.
This is no longer true (for several years). Corporations (Sector
members) can now join (ITU is the only UN
--On 28 April 2005 10:47 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is no longer true (for several years). Corporations (Sector
members) can now join (ITU is the only UN organization which does
that). See
http://www.itu.int/cgi-bin/htsh/mm/scripts/mm.list?_search=SEC
I think Bill
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
The problem is that the maliciousness of packets or email is largely
in the eye of the beholder. How do you propose ISPs determine which
packets the receiver wants to receive, and which they don't want to
receive? (At Mpps rates, of
On 4/28/2005 05:00, Alex Bligh allegedly wrote:
I think Bill is actually correct. ITU is a treaty organization. Only
members of the UN (i.e. countries). ITU-T (and ITU-R, ITU-D) are sector
organizations that telcos can join (AIUI the difference having arisen
when a meaningful difference arose
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dan Hollis
To: Owen DeLong
Subject: Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
You must not have used it much in those 20 years. I can
definitely say worms, trojans, spam, phishing, ddos, and
--On 28 April 2005 07:06 -0400 Scott W Brim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Bill is actually correct. ITU is a treaty organization. Only
members of the UN (i.e. countries). ITU-T (and ITU-R, ITU-D) are sector
organizations that telcos can join (AIUI the difference having arisen
when a meaningful
Hey, if you've got customes willing to shell out for that, then more
power to you. However, I'm not (and won't be) one of those customers.
I'm willing to take responsibility for protecting my systems and choosing
what traffic I do and don't want. I don't want someone else doing it
for me.
As somebody who picked a DSL provider specifically because it allows me to
run any kind of server I want, I'm not highly in favor of blocking
traffic from broadband users and killing the end-to-end principle that
makes the Internet work,
When I sign up for an internet account, does the fine
On 28-apr-2005, at 15:53, Adi Linden wrote:
Hey, if you've got customes willing to shell out for that, then more
power to you. However, I'm not (and won't be) one of those
customers.
I'm willing to take responsibility for protecting my systems and
choosing
what traffic I do and don't want. I
On 28-apr-2005, at 16:01, Adi Linden wrote:
When I sign up for an internet account, does the fine print say
that I am
to accept all garbage pouring out of the RJ-45...? Why should it be
the
recipients job to filter all incoming traffic?
Because by definition the recipient is the party who
And how exactly does that translate to the online world?
It doesn't. There is none or very little punishment for lawlessness and
missbehaviour in the online world.
Despite the safety and environmental regulations and the fact that
you have to have a driver's license and insurance (at least
And what about garbage pouring out of RJ-11 sockets?
Hmmm... so because we have garbage coming out of the RJ-11 we might as
well have garbage coming out of the RJ-45, too? 4 wires vs. 8 wires,
twices the garabe out of the RJ-45.
So I do I obtain your permission to send you a packet?
By
Mark Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 02:16:36AM -0400, Steven J. Sobol wrote:
Any IP that a provider allows servers on should have
distinctive, non-dynamic-looking DNS (and preferably be in a separate
netblock from the dynamically-assigned IPs).
What the
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:10:54 +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum said:
And where in the packet does it show that the packet comes from
someone who has said permission?
Well, if you didn't have permission, you're probably up to no good
and should be setting the appropriate bits as per RFC3514
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:38:00 +0930, Mark Newton said:
Just wait'll we start getting unicode DNS names in non-English alphabets.
Perhaps then you can tell what to look for in a string of Kanji symbols
which might be suggestive of the concept of static.
We may not even have to wait that long,
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:01:26 CDT, Adi Linden said:
When my PC grabs an IP address, I'd expect to see zero traffic from the
world unless I make a request for content. Only then should I see traffic
and only the content I requested.
Remember - the RST packet is there so you can tell the other
On 27 Apr 2005, at 17:51, Pakojo Samm wrote:
Give me a *clear* unobstructed line (that stays up) at
the cheapest price please.
Your attitude is very much the norm, however your requirements on
connectivity are more stringent. All customers want unobstructed access
and, we as an ISP, want to
On 28-apr-2005, at 16:21, Adi Linden wrote:
So I do I obtain your permission to send you a packet?
By replying to my request.
So ask your ISP to NAT you. (Most people do this themselves but you
seem to feel filtering out unwanted packets isn't something you want
to do.) You won't receive any
It will be interesting to see how this develops.
BT to offer six classes of service
http://www.techworld.com/networking/news/index.cfm?newsid=3574
- ferg
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ferg's tech blog:
A rather important turn of events.
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=33733
- ferg
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
So, like ICANN, governements and big corporations are represented at
the ITU. Like ICANN, ordinary users are excluded.
I think groups like the Non-Commercial Users Constituency
(http://gnso.icann.org/non-commercial/) and the At Large Advisory Committee
Additionally:
BT picks partners for network upgrade
http://news.com.com/BT+picks+partners+for+21st+Century+Network/2100-1037_3-5688447.html
- ferg
-- Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It will be interesting to see how this develops.
BT to offer six classes of service
On 28-apr-2005, at 19:20, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
wrote:
I think the non-commercial users constituency would agree ordinary
users are excluded.
Well, I only ever attended one ICANN meeting but it did strike me
that the attendees were very concerned about getting regular
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:45:15AM -0400, Jay Patel wrote:
I have heard rumors that SD has been having persistent switch
problems with their switches at PAIX (Palo Alto), and I was kind of
wondering if anyone actually cared?
Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a
In a message written on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a rather
unfortunate (for them) sign that PAIX is no longer relevant when it comes
to critical backbone infrastructures.
That, or a sign
Adi Linden wrote:
Its not up to the ISP to determine outbound malicious traffic, but its up
to the ISP to respond in a timely manner to complaints. Many (most?) do not.
If they did their support costs would explode. It is block the customer,
educate the customer why they were blocked,
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050428/39757635.html
The Federal Security Service proposes setting new rules for Internet
providers so that it could prevent the spread of extremist ideas, track
down illegal online operations, and get access to databases with mobile
telephone subscribers' details
- Original Message -
From: Robert Beverly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 22:21
Subject: Internet email performance study
Hi,
(we previously posted this on the e2e mail list; apologies if you are
reading it for the second
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:21:07PM +0300, aljuhani wrote:
Another possiblity is that the domains you are monitoring are on dynamic IP
addresses that changes all the time and the gap when they become
non-responsive
could be due to delay in updating the DNS roots with new IP address.
Also
Correct... Measuring reliability in terms of what's around that isn't
success
is not a valid method of measurment. One must measure the success rate.
Does anyone really believe that they are more likely to encounter a timeout
or connection drop today than 5, 10, 15, or even 20 years ago?
I
Hmmm... when you're driving on a public street there is certain safety
equipment you are required to have and use. You're paying more for your
vehicle because of seatbelts, airbags and all the other things that are
supposed to lessen the impact of an accident. Even if you're an expert
driver,
When I sign up for an internet account, does the fine print say that I am
to accept all garbage pouring out of the RJ-45...? Why should it be the
recipients job to filter all incoming traffic?
No... You should, for an appropriate fee, be able to find an ISP that will
filter whatever you
If they did their support costs would explode. It is block the customer,
educate the customer why they were blocked, exterminate the customers PC,
unblock the customer. No doubt there'll be a repeat of the same in short
time.
On a cost basis, it should be:
+ block the
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 23:42, Robert Beverly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..snip
Yes, our SMTP greetings are valid and up to spec. Again, it's the
non-deterministic loss that we're most concerned about. If there
were a problem with the SMTP exchange, we would see our emails
always rejected (for
On 28 Apr 2005, at 00:55, Owen DeLong wrote:
Who are you to decide that there is no damage to blocking residential
customers?
The customer makes the decision when they subscribe to a service whether
or not filtered service will meet their needs. Who are you to decide that
unfiltered
Hi.
Sorry there was a mistake in my previous post
the subnet listed is 218.0.0.0/8 is not yours.
thanks
aljuhani
- Original Message -
From: aljuhani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 00:53
Subject: Re: Internet email performance study
On Thu, Apr
At 04:17 PM 4/28/2005, you wrote:
Hmmm... when you're driving on a public street there is certain safety
equipment you are required to have and use. You're paying more for your
vehicle because of seatbelts, airbags and all the other things that are
supposed to lessen the impact of an accident.
aljuhani wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 23:42, Robert Beverly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..snip
Yes, our SMTP greetings are valid and up to spec. Again, it's the
non-deterministic loss that we're most concerned about. If there
were a problem with the SMTP exchange, we would see our emails
always
--On Thursday, April 28, 2005 12:18 PM -0400 James Baldwin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28 Apr 2005, at 11:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would seem that relocating the costs of doing extra (filtering, etc)
*should* be passed on to the people who necessitated the extra
handling by
Someone should show them some of the 802.11 based cellular-like SIP
phones and ask them how exactly they plan to get good geolocation data
for 911 on those and the soft-phone in my laptop.
Who exactly will I be talking to when I dial 911 from an internet cafe
in Puerto Vallarta through my Virgina
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, John Dupuy wrote:
But this analogy breaks down on so many levels, so I recommend not using it.
The street system is a government controlled monopoly and...well lets not use
this analogy.
If you really want some analogy for Internet independent of the telecom
sector or
In my own opinion, I would not expect a transit provider to filter
anything other than my BGP announcements. However, I would expect my ISP
to filter a possible worm infection port(s), as it would completely
saturate my lowly-end-user datapipe if they did not, making network
access worthless,
That's a good suggestion. :-)
There's another article today on Advanced IP Pipleine that
openswith the statement:
So far, new FCC chairman Kevin Martin isn't long on
solutions -- in fact, he's becoming part of the problem.
http://www.advancedippipeline.com/161601652
I prefer to remain
On 29-apr-2005, at 0:17, Owen DeLong wrote:
Someone should show them some of the 802.11 based cellular-like SIP
phones and ask them how exactly they plan to get good geolocation data
for 911 on those and the soft-phone in my laptop.
Who exactly will I be talking to when I dial 911 from an
Brad Knowles wrote:
At 3:05 PM -0700 2005-04-28, Crist Clark wrote:
http://www.albury.net.au/netstatus/derouted.html
No, it doesn't. Please read their paper. In the paper and as he stated
again in the response above, their definition of a loss requires the
message to be delivered successfully
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 02:11:40PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
In a message written on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a rather
unfortunate (for them) sign that PAIX is no longer relevant when it
Slashdotted
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/28/1938239
A few good arguments there
On 4/28/05, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A rather important turn of events.
http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=33733
- ferg
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
You're absolutely right. I submit that if the US government wants
location information for VoIP 911 calls, they should create an
infrastructure that allows people to determine their location. Your
example shows that this infrastructure should also be available outside
the US. Maybe a
There should be compulsory registration of mobile phone users with
Internet connectivity.
does this mean that someone who does not use a mobile phone, normally, must
register before borrowing one to make a single call?
(you said user, not instrument, so i'm assuming the answer is yes.)
54 matches
Mail list logo
