On Wed, 25 Jul 2007, Carlos Friacas wrote:
We'll probably run out of v4 addresses sooner than 2 byte ASN,
No.
however, globally it seems more pieces of the puzzle are in place for
the latter revolution.
Depends on what you define as in place but I would disagree that
world is ready to
Was this message sent because one or more members of mail admin
team expressed their own opinion and wanted thread to end or because
others (presumably more then one person to act on it) have complained?
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think at this point, everything that could
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, matthew zeier wrote:
John Curran wrote:
Best of luck with it; load-balancers aren't generally hiding
in ISP's backbones and it hasn't been major revenue for
the traditional router crowd. Net result is there hasn't
been much IPv6 attention in that market...
I suppose,
Radius can and should report both on and off times, look into your
configuration. As far as 1st of the month, consider it virtually
closed open at midnight on 30th/31st in accounting. Example how
to do it could be to write a script that when processes radius log
at the end of the month and
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why doesn't IANA operate a whois server?
In fact they do operate whois server at whois.iana.org.
However that has domain data for .arpa and .int and not IPv4 whois
data which IANA has historically provided using flat file pointer
while having RIR
it refers
to and if the block should or should not still be in use I don't know.
Unfortunately all of this does not mean you should allow (or deny) traffic
from 7.0.0.0/8, but it also does not mean that if you do see any traffic
that its necessarily unauthorized.
william(at)elan.net wrote
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007, David Conrad wrote:
Hi,
On Apr 14, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Rob Thomas wrote:
We checked with IANA, ARIN, and the US DoD regarding 7.0.0.0/8. We were
told that this netblock should not see the light of day,
Right. Packets sourced out of 7.0.0.0/8 should never be seen on
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Huizinga, Rene wrote:
BTW, on the same line what's going on with 180.190.0.0/16 actually ?
It's within the 176.0.0.0/5 registered as Bogon.
Is it a typo (thai-po ? :P ) from an Asian guy (AS24003 originated) or did I
miss something lately...? :P
I already dealt with
Anybody know if 7.0.0.0/8 is or is not allocated to DoD?
The data at IANA and ARIN is kind-of confusing...
---
7.1.1.0/24 ## AS1239 : SPRINTLINK : Sprint
7.0.0.0 - 7.255.255.255 ## Bogon (unallocated) ip range
On Sun, 8 Apr 2007, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 11:24 -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
On Mar 28, 2007, at 11:08 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
completewhois has lists in various forms of bogon and hijacked
networks.
http://completewhois.com
On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Sun, 2007-04-08 at 21:59 -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Stupid bug but its not reproduceable every time and with little impact
(ok it does open small window for abuse) except size of file (correct
size of is about 117-120k).
Stupid bugs
On Sat, 7 Apr 2007, Fergie wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Rich Kulawiec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. There's nothing indiscriminate about it.
I often block /24's and larger because I'm holding the *network* operators
responsible for what comes out of their
of every one of those subblocks did
not lead to any results.
Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
william(at)elan.net
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 5:58 PM
To: Fergie
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Abuse procedures
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Fergie wrote:
Amen.
The Registry policies, as they stand today, enable criminals.
Registry or Registrar?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Fergie wrote:
Amen.
The Registry policies, as they stand today, enable criminals.
Registry or Registrar?
Good question.
It is my understanding that the various domain registries answer
to ICANN policy -- if ICANN policy allows them to operate in a manner
which is
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, Steve Atkins wrote:
I'm prepared to concede, despite your previous history, that there
may well be an actual issue (as there are an awful lot of hideously ugly
corners with both DNS the protocol and domain reigsitration the
policy), but you're being incredibly bad at
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Tony Finch wrote:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Ken Simpson wrote:
What is particularly missing IMHO is a spoofed-BGP-route blacklist.
Anyone making any progress on that sort of thing?
completewhois has lists in various forms of bogon and hijacked networks.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
What open-source or low-budget tools are operators using for SLA
monitoring when the reports (current state and historical) should be
available to customers ?
Please define SLA in terms of monitoring.
- 99.x% availability (defined by packet
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, virendra rode // wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
What open-source or low-budget tools are operators using for SLA
monitoring when the reports (current state and historical
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
What open-source or low-budget tools are operators using for SLA
monitoring when the reports (current state and historical) should be
available to customers ?
Please define SLA in terms of monitoring.
Looking at NANOG archives, NAGIOS is the
Speaking of bogons and more practical daily operation issues, perhaps
you guys can help reaching the fine folks at AS7643 or maybe their
upstream provider can be kind enough to filter out the following:
BGP routing table entry for 123.0.0.0/8, version 14613827
Paths: (1 available, best #1, not
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007, Martin Hannigan wrote:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg45167.html is
about volume.
for me, it's not the volume, per se. it is the shameless and (should
be) embarrassing self-promotion, the copying and reposting of others'
ideas and work, ... and
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Joseph Jackson wrote:
My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and
everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will
release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will
have to pay for also.
You mean like
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007, Mark Boolootian wrote:
I see a reference in the response to RTG. RTG's claim to fame looks like
speed.
In comparison to RRDTOOL-based applications, RTG stores raw values rather
than cooked averages, allowing for a great deal more flexibility in analysis.
And you aren't
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Travis H. wrote:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 06:41:19AM -0800, Lucy Lynch wrote:
sensor nets anyone?
The bridge-monitoring stuff sounds a lot like SCADA.
//drift
IIRC, someone representing the electrical companies approached
someone representing network providers,
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007, Berkman, Scott wrote:
NMS Software should not be placed in the public domain/internet. By the
time anyone who would like to attack Cacti itself can access the server
and malform an HTTP request to run this attack, then can also go see
your entire topology and access your
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's not just incorrect data. The design of the
system used by completewhois is flawed at the core.
No more so that other systems that rely on automation
with some human involvement but see below as I generally
agree with what you meant.
They
I need to find utility for testing of application debugging issue that
can replay captured ip traffic, something similar to description at:
http://tcpreplay.synfin.net/trac/wiki/flowreplay
Basicly what I want is to capture data for several hours on the server
(preferably with tcpdump) and
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Allan Houston wrote:
Florian Lohoff wrote:
Hi *,
in august IANA handed 77/8 78/8 79/8 to RIPE which started handing out
those ranges 2 months ago.
We (Telefonica Deutschland AS6805) are seeing a lot of reachability
problems
most likely caused by not updated bogon
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Completewhois email server is down right now and needs to be rebuilt.
what no backup MX? now postmaster/abuse/root working emails at that
domain? did you put the domain also on 'rfc ignorant
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 19:56 +0200, Petri Helenius wrote:
Has anyone figured out a remote but lawful way to repair zombie machines?
Very interesting question. I personally believe that OS EULAs and ISP
ToS guidelines provide for an ISP or an OS mfg
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, matthew zeier wrote:
Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
different ASNs?
Shortly I'll have two seperate sites (EU, US) announcing their own space
behind their own ASNs but have a desire to anycast a particular network out
of both
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Don wrote:
Has anyone put together a centralized system where you can send in a list of
attacking bots, let it automatically sort by allocation, and then let it
notify the appropriate admin with a list of [potentially] compromised hosts?
mynetwatchman [1] comes to mind
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Kevin Loch wrote:
Randy Bush wrote:
- 'Canonical representation of 4-byte AS numbers '
draft-michaelson-4byte-as-representation-01.txt as an Informational
RFC
and what is good or bad about this representation? seems simple to me.
and having one notation seems
Anybody more familiar with setup at AOL - is this true?
If so you're going to do disservice to the community as in practice
this will cause lots of places to go to per-ip virtual hosting and
more ip usage from hosting companies like it was 5-7 years ago when
browsers did not yet support
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Mark Kent [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think this is an important point to make because of my interaction
with small.net. When I pointed out the timeouts they said that it was
because they don't announce the router IP addresses, which
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Randy Bush wrote:
Call me naive, but could somebody enlighten me as to what tangible benefit
filtering out bogon space actually achieves? It strikes me that it causes
more headaches than it solves.
the theory is that it means you have no route to send responses back to
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, david raistrick wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006, kloch wrote:
http://www.arin.net/registration/templates/v6-end-user.txt
An org that already has IPv4 space from ARIN will find it trivial to
complete.
I wonder how well this would apply to orgs with pre-ARIN allocations,
I need to implement a sort-of failover-loadbalancing where systems
would receive gateway address from at least two routers (including
metric preference if possible). This needs to be done so that no special
additional config is required on routers for each new system and for
each system all
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:35 AM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Any suggestion as to what IGP protocol is best for this scenario?
This is more of a cisco-nsp question, but probably OSPF, as it's supported
by the routing daemons on most *NIXes out
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Scott Weeks wrote:
- Original Message Follows -
From: Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Le 2006-09-12 à 15:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
a écrit :
It makes me wonder just how much space like that there
is out there artifically increasing IP scarcity.
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
How much, though, is used, but not routed publically?
---
TOTAL FOR IPV4 BLOCKS:
Allocated: 9302367 (/24 blocks) - 63%
Not Allocated: 5377697 (/24 blocks) - 37%
Currently Routed: 6183529 (/24 blocks) - 42%
Not Routed
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Fergie wrote:
Ack: X-Originating-From should be mandatory.
Far better to use a Received: header stating HTTP in the with protocol
field. (And the IANA registry should be updated to include that as one of
the standard values.)
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Tony Finch wrote:
Far better to use a Received: header stating HTTP in the with
protocol field. (And the IANA registry should be updated to include
that as one of the standard values
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
You need to have protocol to map it from. HTTP is not a protocol but
type of transport of initial email submission data to a submission
server.
Really?!
Yes. Since we're talking text messaging protocols
On Fri, 8 Sep 2006, Mark Kent wrote:
Joe McGuckin typed:
2) Why does ARIN believe that it can ignore a court order?
Maybe because ARIN wasn't a party to the original proceedings
that generated that order?
Let's say you're eating lunch one day, minding your own business,
and a sheriff
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, David Lesher wrote:
FYI:
I see discussion on DSLReports that Earthlink is deploying a
Sitefinder-ish DNS scheme. It bounces people to a barefruit.com
that then sprays ads back at you.
Doesn't surprise me that Earthlink has been bought off yet again
to break dns for
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote:
william In the way you describe it any spam filter is bad any spam
william filter manufacturer should go to jail...
Manufacturer? No. It is perfectly permissible for a recipient to run
a filter over his own mail if he wishes.
An RBL is in
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
This is also why I took the time to create:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-msullivan-dnsop-generic-naming-schemes-00.txt
The reason I do not like RDNS naming scheme is because it forces
one particular policy as part of
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Michael Nicks wrote:
themselves and their obviously broken practices. We should not have to jump
through hoops to satisfy your requirements.
We were hit by the requirement to include the word static in our DNS names
to
In the way you describe it any spam filter is bad any spam filter
manufacturer should go to jail...
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Allan Poindexter wrote:
Todd There are simple solutions to this. They do work in spite of
Todd the moanings of the few who have been mistakenly blocked.
So it is OK so
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Matthew Sullivan wrote:
Brian Boles wrote:
Can someone from SORBS contact me offlist if they are on here
My most recent allocation from ARIN turned out to be dirty IP's, and I'm
having trouble getting them removed following the steps on their website
(no action on
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Rick Wesson wrote:
Parked:
A domain hosted by a middle-man for the sole purpose of generating
revenue from pay-per-click advertising. Characterized by having no
content of value.
this needs to be no original content of value
BTW - for those who are still wondering
. But in my opinion
this still qualifies domain as parked because common use of
parked domain term has to do with content of its website and does
not imply that domain is or is not being used in some unique way for
email or some other traffic.
william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 Aug 2006, Rick
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Alex Rubenstein wrote:
more like 154,000,000 BTU, /12000 or 12,798 tons.
Well, the bigger problem here is that a watt is a measure of
power (engergy/time) and a BTU is a unit of energy. There is no
dimensionless conversion factor between the two.
Huh?
A Watt has no
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Will Hargrave wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
I think you're mistaken about the server being off-line, since I can see
it just fine from many places. The RIPE NCC dnsmon tool can also see it
from its various probes:
I did (and
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I'm not. Consensus usually comes after the party, not before.
I guess you've never been to IETF ...
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006, Randy Bush wrote:
what is the security policy that isc plans to use over the
content of the isc dlv registry? and how will the dvl trust
key roll-over and revocation be handled?
if the above can not be very clearly answered (by isc?), then this
proposal is
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, a little background..
My CTO made my stomach curdle today when he announced that he wanted to
do away with all our cisco [routers] and instead use Linux/zebra boxen.
We are a small company, so naturally penny pinching is the primary
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006, Mikisa Richard wrote:
Can't be sure what they did, but I received an e-mail asking me to check
on my connectivity to them and well, it worked.
Presumably they're double-natting. I had to do that once for Y2K
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Sean Donelan wrote:
Regardless of the numbers, I think we are currently stuck in a very
nasty spot
1. Reduce the cost of fixing/protecting a computer
2. or increase the losses from compromised computers
Either way, the consumer will eventually end up
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Richard Mikisa wrote:
Well, the noise helped some. We now have connectivity to fastweb net.
How was that achieved if their users still are within 41/8 locally?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall
that we actually HAD a hostname file
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10may06.htm
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400
From: David Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ip@v2.listbox.com
Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain
Begin forwarded message:
As reported in:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: May 10, 2006 6:59:52 PM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] AOL Starts to Charge for Receiving eMail, DearAOL
responds
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Note: Posted on the behalf
On Thu, 11 May 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 EDT, Alain Hebert said:
If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
The problem is that it's a TLD, not .xxx.us. What
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news to spammers :) but based on
bluesecurity's tactics I can make a guess about attitude of their
people and its such that DoS attack on them will only cause them
more determination to continue and I suspect to
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
At 11:15 AM 5/3/2006, John Levine wrote:
Uh. Who let the Frog out?
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/internet/0,70798-0.html?tw=rss
.technology
It's all explained here:
http://weblog.johnlevine.com/2006/05/03
And this just hit wires with
On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, John Palmer (NANOG Acct) wrote:
Google Adsense has been down for several hours now. This is the interface that
partners use to manage
their advertising settings.
And this is reported on nanog because...?
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Jon Lewis wrote:
Slightly?
I think they are going to add EPP Status fields.
A sample of the revised output is included at the end of this message.
Domain Name: VERISIGN.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Roland Dobbins wrote:
Given the manifold difficulties we're facing today as a result of these two
design decisions (#2 is a 'hidden' reason behind untold amounts of capex and
opex being spent in frustratingly nonproductive ways), perhaps it is time to
consider declaring
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think that is overly pessimistic. I would say that SHIM6 _MAY_
Yes, I am well aware of 32bit ASNs. However, some things to consider:
1. Just because ASNs are 32 bits doesn't mean we'll instantly
issue all 4 billion of them. The
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
My thinking was that its a big waste of memory (in the global bgp table) to
announce every IPv6 route in full in particular for cases when its
sub-allocation and aggregate is already being announced.
Yes, it would be cool if the routers or
From: Michael Geist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: February 28, 2006 9:24:09 AM EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: China To Launch Alternate Country Code Domains
Dave,
China is preparing to launch what appears to be an alternate root.
Starting tomorrow, they will establish four country-code
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Estes, Paul wrote:
We have recently noticed a deluge of DNS requests for ANY ANY records
They are trying to abuse similar holes that caused most of us add
no ip redirects and no ip directed broadcast to routers, but this
time its about dns
of x.p.ctrc.cc. The requests
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, David Meyer wrote:
One of the first things I ever learned from Yakov (at the
first IETF I ever attended):
Addressing can follow topology or topology can follow
addressing. Choose one.
So which one was it when you guys were
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Gadi Evron wrote:
As originally sent to the registrars list by Rick Wesson...
Through 2005, the reg-ops (Registrar Operations) mailing list which was
established after the first Panix incident, was working by trial and error,
learning from past mistakes, formalizing
Sorry for last message that was supposed to be offline - forgot to remove
list address.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Tony Hain wrote:
A thought I had on the plane last night about the disconnect between the
NANOG and IETF community which leaves protocol development to run open-loop.
[Hm, what happened last night that I missed]
I rather thought today's talk (last one in morning) by
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Richard Cox wrote:
Another thing I want to do is to show the number of RBL
(Spamhaus, etc) listed IPs per AS.
That sounds useful. As would be the possibility to block access to
sites that are so listed (in the same way that software installation
by unauthorised sites
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
And when ISP A buys access from ISP B for purpose of getting to ISP C is
that peering or transit?
I thought it was generally accepted that peering is the exhange of routes
that are not re-sent
I think some of the people here may want to read this new RFC:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4367.txt
RFC 4367
Title: What\'s in a Name: False
Assumptions about DNS Names
Author: J. Rosenberg, Ed.,
IAB
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
I think some of the people here may want to read this new RFC:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4367.txt
Small comment - its probably not the people here that need to read it but
people at http://www.icann.org
But then again it doesnt
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:
different definitions. If you say transit is peering, just not by our
definitions, then you're into 1984 territory.
So what exactly is definition of transit that does not make it peering?
And when ISP A buys access from ISP B for purpose of getting
All these explanations can only go so far as to show that ConEd
and its upstreams may have had these prefixes as something that is
allowed (due to previous transit relationships) to be annnounced.
However presumably all these were transit arrangements with ConEd
and ip blocks would have
I'm not sure how on-topic this is/was, but considering long thread
and different opinions that were expressed before, I believe some
here may want to have additional information I recently read:
http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/phish_aacgebeeje_hc/
The article author talked to both
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
It's now been 2.5 business days since Panix was taken out. Do we know
what the root cause was? It's hard to engineer a solution until we
know what the problem was.
Is it really that hard to engineer this solution? We do have several of
them
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Gadi Evron wrote:
Martin Hannigan wrote:
Admins: Clearly, a personal attack and I'd like the AUP enforced
please.
Clearly, exactly what you've been trying to get me to do for a long time, to
get me off NANOG, well... I finally decided to comply.
Admins: I will
Maybe I'm ignorant, but isn't there [cc]tld operations mail list somewhere?
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006, Gustavo Lozano wrote:
At 10:42 AM 1/22/2006 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
any cctld ops seeing unusual traffic in the last hours?
Nope at .mx.
Gustavo
randy
gus
Can there be a confirmation of this? I see no such MOTD at
http://www.panix.com/panix/help/Announcements/
and my connection to panix is fine and route I see is 166.84.0.0/17
with origin in 2033. I also checked at routeviews.org and similarly
all their peers see origin in in 2033. Is there some
FYI:
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:59:15 +0200
From: Ernest, B.M (AfriNIC - ZA) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: AfriNIC Discuss afrinic-discuss@afrinic.net
To: afrinic-discuss@afrinic.net
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], afnog@afnog.org
Subject: [afrinic-discuss] AfriNIC
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Joe McGuckin wrote:
Richard,
On the other hand , I'm not comfortable with the idea that an organization
that provides network infrastructure services under the aegis of the US
Government could unilaterally revoke those services for something that is
not illegal.
It
Did you notice that it was class ANY and not type ANY that Paul noted?
I've never ever heard of it being used anywhere
As for ANY query type, what do you think will happen when you query with
ANY to a host in a domain that is not in your local dns server cache?
And btw if it is in your
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
It seems to me that if someone else chooses to insert 32- or 128-bit integers
of their choice into their zone files, then there's properly very little I
can or should be able to do about it. But that's just me.
So I'm sure you would not mind (and would
Actually, and fairly recently, this IS a default password in IOS. New
out-of-box 28xx series routers have cisco/cisco installed as the default
password with privilege 15 (full access). This is a recent development.
This is hardly only cisco's problem. Most office routers I've dealt with
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Jay Hennigan wrote:
What should really be done (BCP for manufactures ???) is have default
password based on unit's serial number. Since most routers provide this
information (i.e. its preset on the chip's eprom) I don't understand
why its so hard to just create simple
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:
No data, but I thought I should add...RFC 3330 Special-Use IPv4 Addresses
lists the obvious stuff. I just went through an exercise in de-bogonizing
and needed that reference. [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3330.txt]
Be careful though. It lists
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
Thank you for your suggestions.
* william elan net:
For those doing similar exercise, you might want to look at rephrased
version of rfc330 listed blocks:
http://www.completewhois.com/iana-ipv4-specialuse.txt
You should move 192.88.99.0/24 from
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Edward Lewis wrote:
At 20:28 +0100 1/11/06, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Martin Hannigan:
You should move 192.88.99.0/24 from SPECIAL to YES (although you
shouldn't see source addresses from that prefix, no matter what the
folks at bit.nl think). 169.254.0.0/16 should
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
You should move 192.88.99.0/24 from SPECIAL to YES (although you
shouldn't see source addresses from that prefix, no matter what the
folks at bit.nl think). 169.254.0.0/16 should be NO (otherwise it
wouldn't be link-local).
I think you just
1 - 100 of 371 matches
Mail list logo
