On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
NANOG-L is unique. There isn't anything else devoted to issues for truly
large networks, and the providers that manage the distance between them. When
I see Cisco (or Juniper, or Extreme) announcements about a vulnerability,
those are useful. Nonsense
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
NANOG-L is unique. There isn't anything else devoted to issues for truly
large networks, and the providers that manage the distance between them.
When I see Cisco (or Juniper, or Extreme) announcements about a
vulnerability, those are useful. Nonsense about Solaris 10
Subject: Re: Solaris telnet vuln solutions digest and network risks
This post appears to have been written for another mailing
list (where it is
probably on-topic). Why did you repost it to NANOG-L?
Do you know of any network operators who have no Solaris boxes at all
used in the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Joseph Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Well this is off topic.
If you don't have the partnerships mentioned, then it rapidly becomes an
operational issue when the police raid your premises at 5am and take
away all the servers, because they suspect they
Security of DNS servers is an issue for network operators, thus pertaining to
NANOG on-topics. This article shows a security-officer view of the recent DNS
attacks.
Despite well-publicized attacks on domain name servers in 2000 and 2001,
evidence suggests that many companies simply have not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you know of any network operators who have no Solaris boxes at all
used in the management of some part of their network? Seems to me that
it is very common for network operators to use Solaris boxes to manage
their networks. And while they may have ACLs to
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you know of any network operators who have no Solaris boxes at all
used in the management of some part of their network? Seems to me that
it is very common for network operators to use Solaris boxes to manage
MARLON BORBA wrote:
Security of DNS servers is an issue for network operators, thus pertaining to
NANOG on-topics. This article shows a security-officer view of the recent DNS
attacks.
Despite well-publicized attacks on domain name servers in 2000 and 2001, evidence
suggests that many
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 09:20:38AM -0200,
MARLON BORBA [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 21 lines which said:
Security of DNS servers is an issue for network operators, thus
pertaining to NANOG on-topics. This article shows a security-officer
view of the recent DNS attacks.
It may be
I agree with Gadi. Everything which affects Internet stability (e.g. DNS
denial-of-service attacks) deserves attention of network operators. IMHO
it's time to think about a new NANOG AUP.
If, as Gadi says, not all of us can handle all that an ISP would
care, all of us (network operators,
I agree with Gadi. Everything which affects Internet
stability (e.g. DNS
denial-of-service attacks) deserves attention of network
operators. IMHO
it's time to think about a new NANOG AUP.
Back in the beginning of December, I posted a message:
On 14-Feb-2007, at 09:59, MARLON BORBA wrote:
I agree with Gadi. Everything which affects Internet stability
(e.g. DNS
denial-of-service attacks) deserves attention of network operators.
IMHO
it's time to think about a new NANOG AUP.
The NANOG charter says that the people responsible
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephane Bortzmeyer) writes:
It may be on-topic but it is full of FUD, mistakes and blatant
b...t. Certainly not the recommended reading for the sysadmin.
i think you're being way to kind here.
The best stupid sentence is the one asking firewalls in front of the
DNS
On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 18:01 +, Paul Vixie wrote:
the rest of the article is equally horrific in its maltreatment
and ignorance of facts.
It's an article in a CxO type magazine did anyone really expect
anything better?
-Jim P.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
mea culpa, mea maxima culpa :-(
my intention, when suggested that reading, was to get your attention about that
recent attack which targeted DNS top-level servers and to listen your opinions.
i promise not to post porn, ops, FUD material to nanog again.
Abraços,
Marlon Borba, CISSP,
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, MARLON BORBA wrote:
my intention, when suggested that reading, was to get your attention
about that recent attack which targeted DNS top-level servers and to
i thought it was actually covered on-list... during the event, no?
listen your opinions. i promise not to post
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 04:22:44PM -0200, MARLON BORBA wrote:
mea culpa, mea maxima culpa :-(
my intention, when suggested that reading, was to get your attention about
that recent attack which targeted DNS top-level servers and to listen your
opinions.
i promise not to post porn, ops,
On 14-Feb-2007, at 13:38, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007, MARLON BORBA wrote:
my intention, when suggested that reading, was to get your attention
about that recent attack which targeted DNS top-level servers and to
i thought it was actually covered on-list... during the
I don't think it was especially covered on this list (you are no
doubt thinking of other lists). There was a lightning talk about it
in Toronto, for which slides can be found in the usual place.
or I was thinking 'nanog meeting' not 'nanog list' :( oh well.
Carl Karsten wrote:
Hi list,
I just read over: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/joel.pdf because I
am on the PyCon ( http://us.pycon.org ) team and last year the hotel
supplied wifi for the 600 attendees was a disaster (they probably were
not expecting every single one to have and use a
On Feb 14, 2007, at 3:49 PM, Carl Karsten wrote:
Carl Karsten wrote:
Hi list,
I just read over: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/joel.pdf
because I am on the PyCon ( http://us.pycon.org ) team and last
year the hotel supplied wifi for the 600 attendees was a disaster
(they probably
On 1/23/07, Perry Lorier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We did have a lot of problems with devices that didn't have a web
browser (so had to ask us to add their macs manually, there were 11
people who had this that aren't accounted above). Mostly voip phones,
but it's amazing how many people have
Hello- I'm looking for anyone that can send me some suggestions based on
experience with a wireless network.
My problem:
It is possible with our current wireless network that a situation could arise
where the IP address pool for a specific service location could be exhausted
due to Windows
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Chris L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
listen your opinions. i promise not to post porn, ops, FUD material to
nanog again.
no one said anything about porn...
-
router porn? Ohh, I never thought
There are a few fairly easy things to do.
1. Don't do what most hotel networks do and think that simply sticking
lots of $50 linksys routers into various rooms randomly does the
trick. Use good, commercial grade APs that can handle 150+
simultaneous associations, and dont roll over and die
On 2/14/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. Isolate the wireless network from the main conference network /
backbone so that critical stuff (streaming content for workshop and
other presentations, the rego system etc) gets bandwidth allocated to
it just fine, without it being
26 matches
Mail list logo
