So who's the third-party for the little guy that aggregates abuse reports?
I know we consume Spamcop reports which works very well for us. I'm not
sure who feeds them data. Ideally I would like to be able to submit data to
them in an automated fashion, but the spam appliance I have doesn't have
Piecing together the information I've learned over time, is it possible that
VeriSign handles some of that for Verizon?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Deepak Jain
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 6:37 PM
To: David Coulson
Cc: David
Ross:
It seems like you're saying that there's no law when it comes to internet
best-practices, and that's true, there's very little legislated. But
there's a lots of best practices out there that are definitely worth
following. Unfortunately business decisions don't always align themselves
Sounds like the obvious thing to tell customers complaining about their
e-mail not getting to Yahoo! is to tell them that Yahoo! doesn't want it.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Edward B. DREGER
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 2:44 PM
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Bandwidth issues in the Sprint network
http://e2epi.internet2.edu/network-performance-toolkit/network-performance-t
oolkit.iso
Frank Bulk wrote:
Does anyone know of bootable Linux CD with iperf
Good idea, but the other side doesn't have a Cisco box.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 11:02 AM
To: Michael Holstein
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Bandwidth issues in the Sprint network
Does anyone know of bootable Linux CD with iperf on it?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Gonnason
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:05 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Bandwidth issues in the Sprint network
On Tue, Apr 8,
We have an test server inside our network that we have customers test again.
We tell customers that we can only control our network -- beyond our
upstream routers it's best-effort only.
That said, if there is a real performance issue upstream we do our best to
assist or point the customer in the
Alex's point is that 5x density does not mean that the infrastructure costs
are less than 5x. At a certain point in time there is a rate of return
lower than 1.
We're so stuck thinking that costs are primarily related to square feet, but
with powering and cooling costs being the primary
There are also companies with whom you can contract for this service. It's
my understanding that if you have a problem they will help you mitigate it.
I'm not sure if they require some specific DDoS gear or if they are able to
take advantage of their customer's gear to address the issue. In any
So perhaps the question isn't so much how many kW's I can pack into a 42U
rack, but for the data center designer, what's the best price point if real
estate is not a significant issue. Or to say it another way, what kW
density per rack will give me the lowest priced capital and operating cost
Thanks for the spelling it out in more detail. One point I failed to make
was that as power consumption and heat/sq.ft increases, the cost to
dissipate that heat appears to reach a cost/performance curve which then
swings up dramatically. There appears to be a sweet spot where it's cheaper
to
Felix:
There's still a routing look at above.net, as documented by others and the
other listserv you posted this on (cisco-nsp?).
1276 ms73 ms79 ms chp-brdr-01.inet.qwest.net [205.171.139.150]
1378 ms77 ms75 ms so-4-1-0.mpr2.ord7.us.above.net
[64.125.12.149]
14
Joel:
Besides the CM and CMTS itself, can the CPE attached to the CM use IPv6 if
the CMTS has the right code to handle IPv6-based DHCP relay? To be clear,
even if the CMTS doesn't have DOCSIS 3.0 support? Standing from a distance,
I don't see why IPv6 on the routing piece of the CMTS has to
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where the instructor
stated that there are SOHO routers that natively support IPv6, pointing to
Asia specifically.
Do Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, etc. have such software for the
the network was new?
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Frank Bulk - iNAME [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Those ACLs were added when I came on board. Again, only one complaint in 3+
years.
Do you mean they were already there when you arrived, or do you
routers?
Yes, there are many. Take a look at www.ipv6-to-standard.org
Regards,
Jordi
De: Frank Bulk - iNAME [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:06:24 -0500
Para: nanog@merit.edu
Asunto: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially
Looks like there's some kind of wiki here, too:
http://www.getipv6.info/index.php/Broadband_CPE
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Bulk - iNAME
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:06 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 on SOHO
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Bulk - iNAME
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:06 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IPv6 on SOHO routers?
Slightly off-topic, but tangentially related that I'll dare to ask.
I'm attending an Emerging Communications course where
Those ACLs were added when I came on board. Again, only one complaint in 3+
years.
And customers wonder why I shudder when they tell me that they plug in their
Win9x computers directly into their cable modem. I can't imagine how much
worse it would be if I didn't block the SMB ports.
Frank
We have a two-dozen line long ACL applied to our CMTS and BRAS blocking
Windows and virus ports and have never had a complaint or a problem. We
do have a more sophisticated residential or large-biz customers ask, but
only once has our ACL been the source of a problem and it's only because the
Those using Google for SMTP can still use their ISP's SMTP servers for
outbound
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ang
Kah Yik
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 7:40 PM
To: Andy Dills
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Customer-facing
Foster'; Dave Pooser; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Customer-facing ACLs
Frank Bulk wrote:
The last few spam incidents I measured an outflow of about 2 messages per
second. Does anyone know how aggressive Telnet and SSH scanning is? Even
if it was greater, it's my guess there are many more hosts
on with the scans.
Clearly there's some variation in the scanning methods.
Justin
Frank Bulk wrote:
The last few spam incidents I measured an outflow of about 2 messages per
second. Does anyone know how aggressive Telnet and SSH scanning is? Even
if it was greater, it's my guess there are many
Same concerns here. Glad to know we're not alone.
I think a transition to blocking outbound SMTP (except for one's own e-mail
servers) would benefit from an education campaign, but perhaps the pain
level is small enough that it can implemented without. One could start
doing a subnet block a
The last few spam incidents I measured an outflow of about 2 messages per
second. Does anyone know how aggressive Telnet and SSH scanning is? Even
if it was greater, it's my guess there are many more hosts spewing spam than
there are running abusive telnet and SSH scans.
Frank
-Original
For power conservation the units might automatically shut down data
services.
Frank
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Diaz
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Power outages in Florida
Being
I found this section of a Telephony Online article interesting:
Though networking trends point toward an evolution
to mesh networks, nationwide carrier networks
currently lack the physical diversity that would
help carriers realize the benefits of true mesh
Hear-hear: most of our customer's e-mail problems are resolved when we turn
off in the in and outbound scanning offered by their favorite AV vendor. =)
I bet we've had more support calls about e-mail scanning than the number of
viruses that feature has ever trapped for them.
And another
Ah, that old-age problem of designing redundancy to cover one failure, but
not two.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Justin Shore
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:41 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Level3 in the Midwest is
We've figured our customer base ranges between 8 to 12 kbps/customer.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Alastair Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:09 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Lessons from the AU model
Mark Newton
.
Do you disagree?
-R.
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:21:08
To:[EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
Which of the telecom
Is this story relevant?
Undersea cable to slash Aust broadband costs
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2objectid=10486793
They seem have the sales angle all locked up.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Matthew
You're right, the major cost isn't the bandwidth (at least the in the U.S.),
but the current technologies (cable modem, DSL, and wireless) are thoroughly
asymmetric, and high upstreams kill the performance of the first and third.
In the shorter-term, it's cheaper to find some way to minimize
21, 2008 4:47 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
You're right, the major cost isn't the bandwidth (at least the in the
U.S.),
but the current technologies (cable modem, DSL
Which of the telecom service providers is moaning about being a provider?
This conversation started with Time Warner's metered trial, and they aren't
doing it in response to people complaining -- I'm pretty sure there was a
financial/marketing motive here.
There are some subscribers who complain
Except if the cable companies want to get rid of the 5% of heavy users, they
can't raise the prices for that 5% and recover their costs. The MSOs want
it win-win: they'll bring prices for metered access slightly lower than
unlimited access, making it attractive for a large segment of the user
Funny, I saw nothing on Qwest's stat site, either:
http://stat.qwest.net/statqwest/perfRptIndex.jsp
http://stat.qwest.net/index_flash.html
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff
Shultz
Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2008 12:16 AM
To:
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:07 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
Except that upstreams are not at 27 Mbps
(http://i.cmpnet.com/commsdesign/csd/2002/jun02/imedia-fig1.gif
I'm not aware of MSOs configuring their upstreams to attain rates for 9 and
27 Mbps for version 1 and 2, respectively. The numbers you quote are the
theoretical max, not the deployed values.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael
of downstream to
upstream ports.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 5:41 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
I'm
Geo:
That's an over-simplification. Some access technologies have different
modulations for downstream and upstream.
i.e. if a:b and a=b, and c:d and cd, a+bc+d.
In other words, you're denying the reality that people download a 3 to 4
times more than they upload and penalizing every in trying
I
would call disproportionate ratios.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 11:22 AM
To: nanog list
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote
: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Frank Bulk wrote:
Interesting, because we have a whole college attached of 10/100/1000
users,
and they still have a 3:1 ratio of downloading to uploading. Of course,
that might be because the school is rate-limiting P2P traffic. That
further
You're right, I shouldn't let the access technologies define the services I
offer, but I have to deal with the equipment I have today. Although that
equipment doesn't easily support a 1:1 product offering, I can tell you that
all the decisions we're making in regards to upgrades and replacements
Without being totally conspiratorial, do you think the network engineers at
these service providers know that that their residential subscribers' PCs
and links aren't tuned for high speeds, and so can feel fairly confident in
selling these speeds knowing they won't be used?
Frank
-Original
...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Bulk - iNAME
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 8:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...
Without being totally conspiratorial, do you think
Thanks. Slide 8 of your PDF shows that what an ISP would see in a P2P heavy
environment is that after the automatic application of Windows Updates a
drop in traffic should be seen because the P2P desktop applications don't
automatically restart after their PC reboots.
I guess that means that if
I'm looking to do some custom monitoring of a system and the contracted NOC
only supports pings, SNMP queries, and SNMP traps. My first choice was to
send an e-mail and have their system ingest it, but that's not possible, and
the first two aren't an option, which means I'm looking to send them
I found their NOC line:
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg01583.html
Their business tech support line is 888-698-4357, they might be able to
direct you to the right person.
Also: http://kb.earthlink.net/case.asp?article=89393
I know it's lame, but as a last resort you might also want
Rather than go after distilled water via reverse osmosis, I think a carbon
filter would be a good place to start.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean
Donelan
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:39 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject:
Are you talking about Wi-Fi? I believe IBM's connection manager can do
that.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Raymond L. Corbin
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:12 PM
To: nanog
Subject: Running Application when Network Connection
To be clear, should one be white listing *all* the addresses suggested in
RFC 2142?
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe
Greco
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:30 AM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re:
sure something can be
arranged.
(you are welcome to come look at it, but I would think would want to
actually
peek under the hood and see some stuff in real time, etc. ) March 13-16 in
Chicago.
Carl K
Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Frank Bulk wrote:
I would have disagree with your point on centralized
: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 7:46 AM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: large-scale wireless [was: cpu needed to NAT 45mbs]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Frank Bulk) wrote:
If you're going with Extricom you don't need to worry about channel
planning
beyond adding more channel blankets
, make sure your front line support staff
(you DO have a helptable, right?) has the ability to update drivers on
PCs without requiring wireless connectivity. An ethernet cable should
work just fine :)
--Casey
Jeff Kell wrote:
Frank Bulk wrote:
Foundry OEMs from Meru, which also uses a single
I would have disagree with your point on centralized AP controllers --
almost all the vendors have some form of high availability, and Trapeze's
offering, new (and may not yet be G.A) purports to be almost entirely
seamless in its load sharing and failover support.
Now that dual-band radios in
I believe it's been said here many times before, but when in public venues,
the only way to be sure about anything in regards to traffic filtering and
manipulation is to VPN into your corporate network and bypass all that.
Unfortuanately, it makes streaming the latest episode of Heroes a little
There's a large installed based of asymmetric speed internet access links.
Considering that even BPON and GPON solutions are designed for asymmetric
use, too, it's going to take a fiber-based Active Ethernet solution to
transform access links to change the residential experience to something
Ah, but the reality is that you *think* you're paying for something, but the
operator never really intended to deliver it to you.
If anything, we need better full-disclosure, preferably voluntarily, and if
not that way, legislatively required.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Are you thinking of scavenger on the upload or download? Because it's just
upload, it's only the subscriber's provider that needs to concern themselves
with their maintaining the tags -- they will do the necessary traffic
engineering to ensure it's not 'damaging' the upstream of their other
The key thing is that it can't be too complicated for the subscriber. What
you've described is already too difficult for the masses to consume.
The scavenger class, as has been described in other postings, is probably
the simplest way to implement things. Let the application developers
Here's timely article: KDDI says 900k target for fibre users 'difficult'
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=20215email=html
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Andersen
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2007 9:21 PM
I wonder how quickly applications and network gear would implement QoS
support if the major ISPs offered their subscribers two queues: a default
queue, which handled regular internet traffic but squashed P2P, and then a
separate queue that allowed P2P to flow uninhibited for an extra $5/month,
7:16 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: BitTorrent swarms have a deadly bite on broadband nets
On 10/22/2007 at 3:02 PM, Frank Bulk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder how quickly applications and network gear would implement
QoS support if the major ISPs offered their subscribers two queues
Here's a few downstream/upstream numbers and ratios:
ADSL2+: 24/1.5 = 16:1 (sans Annex.M)
DOCSIS 1.1: 38/9 = 4.2:1 (best case up and downstream modulations and
carrier widths)
BPON: 622/155 = 4:1
GPON: 2488/1244 = 2:1
Only the first is non-shared, so that even though the ratio is
With PCMM (PacketCable Multimedia,
http://www.cedmagazine.com/out-of-the-lab-into-the-wild.aspx) support it's
possible to dynamically adjust service flows, as has been done with
Comcast's Powerboost. There also appears to be support for flow
prioritization.
Regards,
Frank
-Original
I don't see how this Oversi caching solution will work with today's HFC
deployments -- the demodulation happens in the CMTS, not in the field. And
if we're talking about de-coupling the RF from the CMTS, which is what is
happening with M-CMTSes
:17PM -0500, Frank Bulk
wrote:
The reality is that copper-based internet access technologies: dial-up,
DSL,
and cable modems have made the design-based trade off that there is
substantially more downstream than upstream. With North American
DOCSIS-based cable modem deployments
Have you tried this form?
http://www.comcastsupport.com/Forms/NET/blockedprovider.asp
Frank
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Raymond L. Corbin
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:30 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Any Comcast Mail/Sysadmins?
Hey,
I'm
You're right, they've shuffled things around.
Try this form:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/mail/yahoomail/postmaster/defer.html
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Justin Wilson
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 8:55 AM
Here is a TeleGeography news article worth a quick read:
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=19783email=html
It appears that that article assumes that capacity will not be increased by
WDM products...have those that been applied on those links already reached
the cables'
Make sense what you said, I'm just pretty sure that eventually they'll come
up with a way to put 100 to 500 waves on it.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Rod Beck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 1:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
There's a difference between folding a ring or pushing out a spoke to feed a
few customers and providing connectivity to a town.
I think building a SONET ring, or any kind of redundancy, has more to do
with a rural telco's commitment to it's customers than the bottom line.
Remember, the building
Duke runs both Cisco's distributed and autonomous APs, I believe. Kevin's
report on EDUCAUSE mentioned autonomous APs, but with details as hazy as
they are right now, I don't dare say whether one system or another caused or
received the problem.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
If you look at Kevin's example traces on the EDUCAUSE WIRELESS-LAN listserv
you'll see that the ARP packets are in fact unicast.
Iljitsch's point about the fact that iPhones remain on while crossing
wireless switch boundaries is exactly dead on. If you read the security
advisory you'll see that
Please provide a pingable IP address on each block so that we can check.
Thanks,
Frank
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:09 PM
To: 'nanog@merit.edu'
Subject: IP Block 99/8
Hi,
I am Shai from Rogers Cable Inc. ISP in Canada. We have IP block
99.x.x.x assigned to our
server, and then block destination port 25 on the cable modem. For
alternative access technologies, block destination port 25 on the access
gear or core routers/firewalls.
Regards,
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:48 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc
it
would save their abuse department in the long run.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:10 PM
To: 'nanog@merit.edu'
Subject: Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 07:44:59AM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
Comcast is known to emit
Comcast is known to emit lots of abuse -- are you blocking all their
networks today?
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 7:43 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 09:50:34PM +, Fergie
like a good idea, but I'm guessing few network operators
do that for their customer networks, whether that's due to lack of
centralization or cost.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:49 PM
To: 'nanog@merit.edu'
Subject: RE: Abuse procedures... Reality
That's been my entire point. Network operators who properly SWIP don't get
credit for going through the legwork by other networks that apply
quasi-arbitrary bit masks to their blocks.
As I said before, if you're going to block a /24, why not do it right and
block *all* the IPs in their ASN?
While you have your friend's ear, ask him why they maintain a spam policy of
blocking complete /24's when:
a) the space has been divided into multiple sub-blocks and assigned to
different companies, all well-documented and queryable in ARIN
b) there have been repeated pleas to whitelist a certain
: Saturday, April 07, 2007 2:08 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Cc: Frank Bulk
Subject: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007, Frank Bulk wrote:
While you have your friend's ear, ask him why they maintain a spam policy
of
blocking complete /24's when:
a) the space has been divided
One of the reasons that registrars are slow to take down sites that are paid
with a credit card is because there is little financial incentive to do
sothey've lost money it already, why have a department whose priority is
speed if you can hire a person to do it at their own pace and minimize
On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 02:31:25PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
I understand your frustration and appreciate your efforts to contact the
sources of abuse, but why indiscriminately block a larger range of IPs
than
what is necessary?
1. There's nothing indiscriminate about it.
I often
If they're properly SWIPed why punish the ISP for networks they don't even
operate, that obviously belong to their business customers? And if the
granular blocking is effectively shutting down the abuse from that
sub-allocated block, didn't the network operator succeed in protecting
themselves?
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 5:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
Frank Bulk wrote:
[[Attribution deleted by Frank Bulk]]
Neither I nor J. Oquendo nor anyone else are required to
spend our time, our
That sounds like a very reasonable perspective and generally the route I
follow both as a operator and as someone who works with others.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: william(at)elan.net [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 6:23 PM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: nanog
@merit.edu
Subject: RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
From: Frank Bulk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:20:59 -0500
If they can't hold the outbound abuse down to a minimum, then
I guess I'll have to make up for their negligence
it, block *all*
the IPs associated to the 'bad' ISP. Then at least you're consistent,
otherwise expanding to a /24 is just a half (or 1%) job or laziness.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 10:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Abuse procedures
What about a worldwide clearing house where all registrars must submit their
domains for some basic verification?
Naming: For phishing reasons. I think detection of possible trademark
violations would be too contentious.
Contact info: It's fine to use a proxy to hide true ownership to the
: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: On-going Internet Emergency and Domain Names
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 11:09 -0500, Frank Bulk wrote:
On
Sat, 31 Mar 2007 07:46:47 -0700,
Douglas Otis wrote:
Even when bad actors can be identified, a reporting lag of 12 to 24
hours
Don't confuse USF with ICC. It's USF that you're contributing to directly
on your telephone bill and ICC through your long distance payments (which
relates to the att case).
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy
Davidson
Sent:
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: SaidCom disconnected by Level 3 (former Telcove property)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Frank Bulk wrote:
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/articlePrint.cfm?id=1310151
Is this a normal thing for Level 3 to do, cut off small, responsive
providers?
Frank
In regards to gold-plating, it makes a difference if it's average-schedule
or cost-company. If it's the latter, then yes, all actual costs are
including in building the rate base.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 6:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/articlePrint.cfm?id=1310151
Is this a normal thing for Level 3 to do, cut off small, responsive
providers?
Frank
Could you please clarify that comment? USF has made it possible for us to
serve DSL to almost every customer in our exchanges.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: Frank Bulk
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:50 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: [funsec] Not so fast, broadband providers tell
While the hotel cannot prevent you from using Wi-Fi, but they could:
a) restrict you from attaching equipment to their internet connection
(unless you contracted for that and the contract didn't restrict
attachments) or electrical outlets
b) ask you to leave and charge you for trespassing if you
We found out last Thursday we were blocking that range (our customer base is
across the state line from this Midcon). Our upstream internet provider,
who manages the BGP side of things, had had their automated Bogon update
process stalled since last fall. =)
Frank
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
