(taking something from the EFF Thread earlier and making it more relevant)
I'm sure most of the network operators here have at some time or another
dealt with a DMCA, Subpoena or a CD order.
That being said, has having dealt with those issues lessened your
interest in dealing with free speech
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steven Champeon wrote:
John Gilmore runs a well-known open relay at toad.com, and for some
reason thinks that free, anonymous speech is important enough to let
spammers drown it out through sheer volume.
Someone famous said something about paying a high price for free
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, Steven Champeon wrote:
And this affects those of us with not-so-old, not-so-slow machines how?
By the fact that there is no way in hell that he could relay a large
amount of spam...
The bottom line is that Gilmore, and the EFF, have taken a very soft
stance on spam,
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Jeff Rosowski wrote:
The Corning, FreeLink Optical Transport System looked pretty good as well
if you have the money for it. Handles most weather, with the exception of
fog.
Using FSO in San Francisco is almost impossible :)
There are way too many foggy days, I've
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Layer 8.
- ferg
Sounds more like a burrito than the internet...
On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Daniel Golding wrote:
It has become trendy, in some circles,
performance/congestion/non-deterministic nature/lack of security/insert
issue here. After firmly denouncing the Internet, the company or
individual then touts their product, which will fix/replace/augment the
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
Yawn. If the sender domain isn't forged, the mail isn't spam
is incredibly stupid logic.
No Kidding!
I suppose the next big news article will be that spammers also prefer
forging domains that lack SPF records. (Will miracles never cease?)
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Michel Py wrote:
Matthew McGehrin wrote:
Tell her to kiss my white ass.
Be careful what you wish for. This is exactly what politicians do for a
living, and some happen to have a strong enough tongue to rip you a new
one.
Remeber she's from the PRK too!
A grade a
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
Can't wait until more routers start to incorporate inline optical
power readings in show interface commands the way Procket did :-)
Don't SFPs provide this sort of optical digital diagnostics?
Apparently the CRS-1 supports this, as well as a few
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Drew Weaver wrote:
Does anyone know of a solution that offers precise methods of
tracking bandwidth utilizations at the per Megabyte or Gigabyte level and
not at the rate of transfer level?
I've used a tool called IOG, which works to some extent, but it looks
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Lately, I am getting more and more spam coming via postini.com. See below:
Received: from source ([206.190.38.111]) by exprod5mx128.postini.com
([12.158.34.245]) with SMTP; Fri, 30 Jul 2004 04:40:47 CDT
More than likely, the mail is being sent to
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, David Lesher wrote:
http://www.havenco.com/
Havenco is a shell of what it once was, and about 75-90% of what it says
on the website isn't true anymore which is sad.
If you're really keen on former british millitary installations turned
colo, there's a company that sells
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Jeff Cole wrote:
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
Reliance Infocomm is installing 80,000 km of fiber in India. I wonder if
they have any tiger stories.
Oh no. You find lions only in Kenya
Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!
Err wait, which way to OZ again?
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Patrick Muldoon wrote:
At my last job while working at an earthstation in Texas where I had some
equipment, I looked up from the raised floor and found myself staring at a
scorpion. Being that I am from the Northeast where we don't seem to have
those things, it pretty
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote:
China's New Generation Of Ipv9 Network Technology Ready
July 2, 2004
http://www.chinatechnews.com/index.php?action=showtype=newsid=1405
Interesting development
So far, China is the only country in the world that has consolidated
domain names, IP
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Richard Welty wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Tom (UnitedLayer) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The big deal is that spam complaining/etc is not operational content, and
there are several other lists to handle that sort of thing.
but then, individuals get 1
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Jon R. Kibler wrote:
I seldom post here because the couple of times I have followed-up to
correct wrong statements in nanog regarding Spamhaus, such as the
above, I have each time been told by nanog's admin that I will be
removed from the nanog list if I respond to
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
At 04:00 PM 6/24/2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
[ Operations content: ] Do you know of any ISP's null routing AS701?
ISPs? Not of the top of my head. I know several businesses who have, and a
great many people who have blocked UUNet space from sending
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But most people are happy with things the way they are. They love SPAM
because it gives them something to complain about and get emotional
about.
I unfortunately have to agree there.
There's a large portion of the internet who has nothing better to
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
This is, in fact (for you nanae watchers), the reason that most of them
get canceled by us FASTER... Sadly, non-payment is often a quicker and
easier method to term a customer than 'abuse', less checks since there
is no 'percieved revenue' :(
A
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Ben Browning wrote:
you mean the phone companies we do business with?
No, I mean the internet. (Hence, ISPs). Your product, in the context of
this discussion anyways, is access to the internet. When the actions of a
downstream damage that product(IE more and more
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Joe Abley wrote:
I suggest an extensive late-night BOF in San Francisco in the bar to
discuss the mechanics of adding MD5 keys to all your sessions in 48
hours.
Zeitgeist at 7pm or the Toronado at 9pm?
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm, if someone (except masochists and security vendiors) still hosts
efnet... I can only send them my condoleences.
I saw sthe same dialogs 6 years ago. Nothing changes.
What about undernet?
Thats even worse :)
A customer wants us to
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Jay Hennigan wrote:
Is it just me that they don't like?
Nope, they got me too.
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Jay Hennigan wrote:
Is it just me that they don't like?
I've seen one or two other reports.
Seems like a good opportunity for a round of Wild Speculation.
Cisco is under spam attack
Cisco has closed their website because Vendor J made
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
And that is the net effect, because every attempt to take an item
off-list results in something like the following.
I can not really figure out what the problem is.
You're on SPEWS eh?
Apparently there's some PGE problem, and a possible electrical fire. It
appears that 501 2nd street is on Generator, and several other businesses
on federal and 2nd streets are out of power. Bryant street appears to have
spotty power in the area.
Anyone else know anything about this?
---
Tom
ok, power is back on.
There's a big stinky charred mess in the street, but nothing too horrible.
This is in San Francisco for those of you that missed that heh.
On Mon, 15 Mar 2004, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
Apparently there's some PGE problem, and a possible electrical fire. It
appears
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I find that most admins that decides on RBL lists are well educated about
what lists they choose to use are (the end-users are however not always
well informed about it and that is where most of the complaints are
coming from).
The fact that
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Will an employee of the Equinix corporation please contact me off-list?
This is regarding equipment delivery issues at 350 E. Cermak.
Wow...
Package-loss on the automobile superhighway?
On 8 Feb 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
In this past year's tour of my friends and family, I've taken to removing
their antivirus software at the same time I remove their spyware, and I've
taken to installing Mozilla (with its IMAP client) as a way to keep the
machine from having any dependency on
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004, Alexander Hagen wrote:
The PA-2FE-TX is about 1600.00- better to get a second PA-FE-TX with
second VIP2-50
Now why is the CX-FEIP-2TX so much cheaper than the PA-2FE-TX ?
I believe because the CX-FEIP-2TX is a full length card.
The PA-2FE-TX also isn't able to handle
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spammers are not stupid.
I would suggest a statement of All spammers are not stupid instead of
the above. Some spammers are quite dumb/naive, some are middle of the
road, some are very smart and organized. Just like any other profession,
there is
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
In any case, no matter how many resources or black boxes you have, you
cannot guarantee good performance on the 'Net. Too many people
involved over which you have no control. Even if you had control, BGP
is not the right tool to exert such
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Donovan Hill wrote:
Extreme i-plattform is currently destination ip based with inital cache
lookup. (guess this is flow based)
I guess I just don't understand the architecture. What I really don't
understand is _why_ you'd bother with flow-based architecture over
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Jim Devane wrote:
Are these devices able to effectively address the need?
Sugar pills effectively address the needs of a great many ailments when
given to people who believe that they will work. And
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I don't know if they're doing the same thing in Cali or not (they probably
are, since all the radio stations are owned by the same 2 companies),
Yeah, NPR and CBS, both monopolistic empires with the same viewpoint :)
but here in NoVA land
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
Not all L3-switches are flow-based; prefix-based ones should do just fine.
Can people add/correct this initial list ?
Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500 with Sup1(A)
Prefix-based: Foundry with JetCore modules, Cisco
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Florian Weimer wrote:
Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
Buying GSR's is probably the right replacement for 7500's if you want to
stick with Cisco.
But be careful when buying the linecards. Not all of them have
comparable forwarding performance to the 7500 if you do something
On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, bcm wrote:
But where to go? The Cisco GSR platform seems a logical choice, but
their new 7600 series units are attractive for their cost.
7600's have all the craptacularity of 6500 switches, because thats what
they are, I would reccomend against them.
Buying GSR's is
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, John Obi wrote:
when will we see the FBI, and other local police in
the other countries send the script kiddies to the
JAILL so we can use the internet without too much
pain?
I use InternetIbuprofen(tm), it allows me to use the internet pain free
all day long!
BTW, do
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003, Richard Irving wrote:
Worse still, as the US found (prior to law changes, post Darpa years),
prosecuting Script Kiddies is counter productive.. you take the
brightest most inquisitive minds of our time, and ruin their future...
I'm not sure I'd say that the skript
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake Claydon, Tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yep. There's plenty of fiber between the two buildings, so we may go that
route. Anyone know if there's any easy way to limit bandwidth on the
PA-POS-OC3 adapters?
PA-POS-OC3MM$6000/card
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, John Kinsella wrote:
Another suggestion, although I'd be surprised to see it...anybody got
a shot from under PBI's datacenter floor when it was at 2nd and Folsom
in SF (across 2nd from SNFC21)?
Heh, its actually in SF21 now.
I got to see it a few months ago, I believe I
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Mike Tomasura wrote:
Did anyone else see this?
http://www.secunia.com/internet_explorer_address_bar_spoofing_test
OMG! Holes in internet explorer?!?!!?
Seriously... There's a reason I use Mozilla instead...
I think that most people with clue will realize that every time he
mentions or posts something thats about 50-90% innacurate, he damages his
own credibility anyways.
A lot of the stuff I've seen in regard to this issue is almost comical,
and I wonder who picked on him so badly that he decided to
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S. Note to other - this thread may have happened because of recent
thread on layer42 on inet-access mail list. While I generally answer
accusations, I'm not the one who starts such threads and do not think its
approriate for nanog mail list, so
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unless you like playing whack-a-mole, you need a smarter hammer, not a
bigger one.
Email peering *IS* a smarter hammer. If all the cluefull email
administrators would set up peering agreements with each other
and exchange contact information,
and not
tell them, especially when contact information is clearly available
everywhere. We've got e-mail, various phones, and INOC-DBA, so its not
that hard to get ahold of us :)
---
Tom UnitedLayer
Office: 415-294-4111
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
A reasonable reaction to protect own-turf is to plug up holes as
you identify the local end of it and wait to see if anybody cares
about it after the fire-fight.
So block a /30, not a /24
The likelyhood of being able to contact anybody
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003, james wrote:
To me the important thing is at least trying to notify.
So the clueless miss out. Tuff. Those of us that care would like to know
there is a problem, so we can solve it.
Thank you James, thats my point exactly :)
The people who care or have a clue will have
to be contacted
with information about why we were blocked.
UL is very responsive to abuse issues, so this is a little concerning.
Please contact me or the NOC.
Thank You
---
Tom UnitedLayer
Office: 415-294-4111
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
If the guy is asking for DNSBLs to use, and you have some good ones in
mind, help him, I'd say.
Here Here Suresh, you're on the money!
If they (BT) really have that big of a problem, one could look at this as
a sign that they want to see what
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Paul S. Brown wrote:
Does anybody have any experience with the MD400/MD450 appliances?
Good/bad/indifferent
Bad and expensive.
Would you recommend them for high volume VISP mail hosting? (around 600k
domains)
Check out IronPort.
They've done a lot of wild stuff to make
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
For commercial ware - Ironport is good.
Yah, thats been my experience, its probably the only commercial solution
I'd buy.
Its a complete platform - Hardware, OS, Software
Also, Ironport is supporting some sort of Bonded Sender program, so that
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, W.D. McKinney wrote:
We are using Barracuda Networks instead, but it's also a complete
platform with hardware, OS, and software. So far it's doing the job very
well, and we are one week into our trial so far.
Any idea what OS its based on?
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
The traffic is too short and bursty to be of any benefit, even when you
can successfully filter it so that no other operations are impacted.
I think that would be the biggest trick in order to even ratios - keep
other services unaffected.
I
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Deepak Jain wrote:
Maybe I am exceptionally naive, but are DDOSes *REALLY* that consistent
between providers to affect month-over-month or quarterly ratios?
I know a webhoster/provider who consistently takes in 1Mpps DOS attacks,
and I'm presuming that the 95th percentile
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi folks,
I am looking for some advice on how to place the peer/transit circuits
on the edge routers.
Would like to find the best practice that would provide enough diversity
without having an operation nightmare. e.g. putting peer and transit
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, E.B. Dreger wrote:
SR What brand of switch is this guy selling? And what is he
SR smoking? Sure would be interesting to find out :)
Maybe the Yankee Group is a subsidiary of Ncatal Ventures.
That was my thought.
Its Dood, Where's my Core? all over again!
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be more clear, I'm specifically referring to Gigabit Ethernet
Converters and not SFPs for POS or SONET. So, to reprhase, where in
your network topology, are you using Gigabit Ethernet, specifically GE
interfaces using GBICS?
I think you
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
Care to share what was going on? Was it really censorship or something more
mundane and less offensive?
It was actually about 100Mbps of DOS...
Joe took care of it :)
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, John Kristoff wrote:
This has been seen elsewhere too and contacting someone at chinanet
has been difficult.
I actually found two helpful individuals via posting to this list.
They both spoke english, and helped me out in finding out what was going
on.
China telecom has
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Northern California, would mean SF Bay Area or not?
The Bay Area is NorCal...
Or did you mean real Northern part of California (i.e. around Shasta)?
I believe the technical term is boonies but thats a minor detail :)
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
I can understand how a virus like Welchia can affect a flow-based
architecture like Extremes. I was under the impression that CEF enabled
Cisco gear wouldnt have this problem, but Cisco has instructions on their
webpage on how deal with it and
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Michel Py wrote:
Aren't most of the 6500 blades the same as the 7600 ones anyway? Between
these two IMHO we are looking at a blurry distinction between a router
with very good switching capabilities and a L3 switch with very good
routing capabilities.
Does the 7600 have
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Simon Lockhart wrote:
Does the 7600 have the same BGP Scanner problem as the 6509 does?
I've still yet to see anything that suggests that the difference between
the 7600 and the 6500 is more than just a paint job and a marketting job.
Whee! Even more of a reason not to
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you could expand on the BGP scanner problems - we haven't seen
them all the time we've been running 6500 native with full routes (about
1.5 years now).
BGP Scanner taking up close to 100% of CPU on a box periodically.
GSR doesn't seem to do
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Steve Francis wrote:
Doesn't happen here with MSFC2/SupII.
Maybe just MSFC1's that are subject to that.
That is possible, but I didn't see it on a 7500 till I started taking more
than 1 full table.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Shazad - eServers wrote:
How are these for CORE SWITCHES (distribution) compared to BigIron and the
CISCO 6509?
From what I have heard and reports they are very solid switches.
As long as you only use them for switching, they're fine :)
For routing, I wouldn't touch em
I got two contacts on this, looks like the situation is resolved.
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
Anyone got a clueful contact over there?
Getting 100Mbps or so of dos from over there and I'd rather not just
blackhole the /16
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
Gomes' position truly bothers me if a registry, given that it meets
the formal definition of a technical monopoly, is planning around
competitive advantage.
I think its definately a sign that the verisign hegemony over domain
registration needs
On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Matt Larson wrote:
VeriSign was directed by ICANN to suspend the Site Finder service by
0100 UTC on Sunday, October 5. We requested an extension from ICANN
to give more notice to the community but were denied.
You don't need an extension, we wanted it to go away as fast
73 matches
Mail list logo
