On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 05:09:15PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
Mobile-IP devices are all about bringing the Internet to your pocket. That
doesn't mean just the web! The web is UI optimized for a desktop machine.
Who knows what specific applications might be developed for a user
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:44:28PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
At 01:20 AM 5/2/2002 -0700, Scott Francis wrote:
The average customer buying a web-enabled phone doesn't need a
publicly-routeable IP. I challenge anybody to demonstrate why a cell phone
needs a public IP. It's a PHONE, not a
On Thu, May 02, 2002 at 04:56:40PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[snip]
I'm not buying a phone I can't run ssh from. End of story. My current phone
does all that and more. Why step back into the dark ages of analog-type
services?
The average customer doesn't even know what telnet is,
do you think fufme (http://www.fu-fme.com/) would work well over nat? :
--
Tomas Daniska
systems engineer
Tronet Computer Networks
Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia
tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199
A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by
A NAT'd cell phone
wont, cant ever, respond to an unsolicited connection request.
A NAT is not a firewall.
A firewall is not a NAT.
Some vendors bundle firewall functionality with NAT functionality, just as
some vendors bundle SNA with IP.
Please stop perpetuating the myth that a
as a coauthor of rfc2136, my curiousity is always
piqued when spammers use the technology. can i get
private forwards of other similar messages? (see
below.)
(and yes, i'll also be in touch with level3, who
serves 166.90.15.236, from whence this message came.)
(time was, anyone who could use
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:46:45AM -0700, Paul Vixie wrote:
(time was, anyone who could use postfix and php would
also know better than to spam, or at least, to spam *me*.
grump grumble.)
If you feel like you don't have enough spam, I'd be happy to let you have
some of mine. :)
--
Not me, but I am getting an awful lot of emails from this one person, to
my nanog address lately:
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: (qmail 21586 invoked from network); 3 May 2002 03:09:28 -
Received: from unknown (HELO sohu.com) (203.240.184.78)
by
no spam. But I just took apart an IRC controlled botnet
that used their service.
(The trojan was a basic 'floodnet' binary and was distributed
via email... )
--
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Join http://www.DShield.org
Distributed Intrusion Detection
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:29:32AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 03 May 2002 00:12:34 PDT, Scott Francis said:
Your phone can surf porn? Maybe the technology revolution has finally arriv=
ed
after all ...
No, it's still in the dancing bear stage. There's the question of
In the referenced message, Eric Gauthier said:
snip
Another limitation that we've found with uRPF is that it doesn't
live well with multihomed systems (i.e. a host with two NIC's - each on
a different subnet) because of the way most OS'es handle their
default gateways. For anyone who is
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Scott Francis wrote:
that is an excellent idea. I know one thing I would LOVE to have is a search
engine that can answer my question, Where can I find a coffee house
{optionally: with 802.11b} open after midnight during the week in Los
Angeles {optionally: the Valley}?
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 12:11:33PM -0700, Rowland, Alan D wrote:
You would think the phone companies who already have most of the necessary
resources, i.e. the yellow pages/directory listings, would be all over this
idea as a way to sell thier device/generate even more listing revenue.
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Stephen Griffin wrote:
for single-homed customers, simple uRPF
for multihomed customers, acl exceptions based upon their registered
IRR-policy, since the customer should already be registering in the IRR
you have a list of all networks reachable via the customer,
Has anyone used /31 mask addresses on their network?
Toan
On Fri May 03, 2002 at 04:24:16PM -0400, Toan Do wrote:
Has anyone used /31 mask addresses on their network?
Yes, works fine (on an all Cisco network).
We're starting to use /31's on internal links. Links to third parties
are still /30's, as most other people are still wary.
Simon
--
Simon
Hi Simon,
What IOS are you using /31s with ?
André
- Original Message -
From: Simon Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Toan Do [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: /31 mask address
On Fri May 03, 2002 at 04:24:16PM -0400, Toan Do wrote:
On Fri May 03, 2002 at 10:30:05PM +0200, Andre Chapuis wrote:
What IOS are you using /31s with ?
Typically 12.0(x)S on GSR and VXR (where x is 10ish upwards)
Simon
--
Simon Lockhart | Tel: +44 (0)1737 839676
Internet Engineering Manager | Fax: +44 (0)1737
Andre Chapuis wrote:
For what purpose can this be used? Can a point to point link function
with this subnet mask? It would be ok if the requirement for a network
and broadcast IP were removed.
Regards,
Mannu
Hi Simon,
What IOS are you using /31s with ?
André
- Original Message
Do you really need broadcasts on your p2p links ? I do not..
André
- Original Message -
From: Manolo Hernandez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Andre Chapuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: /31 mask address
Andre Chapuis wrote:
For
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Paul Vixie
Sent: May 3, 2002 11:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet?
as a coauthor of rfc2136, my curiousity is always
piqued when spammers use
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Paul Vixie
Sent: May 3, 2002 5:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: anybody else been spammed by no-ip.com yet?
I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly
in the email
Simon Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri May 03, 2002 at 10:30:05PM +0200, Andre Chapuis wrote:
What IOS are you using /31s with ?
Typically 12.0(x)S on GSR and VXR (where x is 10ish upwards)
Not all 12.1(x)y does this properly, even if it was compiled over a
year after that RFC
At 05:25 PM 5/3/2002 +0100, you wrote:
I got some of these a few weeks ago. I believe these test messages are sent
to find the non-deliverables in their mailing list. Right after I got these
test messages, they started sending quite a bit of spam. I filtered
sohu.com and it went away.
Not
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Paul Vixie wrote:
I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
have some secret admirer who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
and no-ip.com emailed you to confirm
At 02:59 PM 5/3/2002 -0700, Simon Higgs wrote:
At 05:25 PM 5/3/2002 +0100, you wrote:
I got some of these a few weeks ago. I believe these test messages are
sent to find the non-deliverables in their mailing list. Right after I got
these test messages, they started sending quite a bit of
hmmm, as long as you allow directed broadcast on the interfaces... it
should work...
On 3 May 2002 at 16:24, Toan Do wrote:
Has anyone used /31 mask addresses on their network?
Toan
--
Miguel Mata-Cardona
Intercom El Salvador
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyone have a good NOC contact for DEC, AS33? I checked Jared's NOC page
and I don't see them listed.
Reply off list if preferred.
Thanks,
Dave
... I'm not sure entirely what the big deal with spam is. Honestly sure
I get it like everyone else, in some of my accounts more than others
... I have a delete key ...
in the time between when you sent the above, and when i read it, the
following messages were added to my mailbox:
1+
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:27:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Granados [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I realize this statement I'm about to make is going to open a huge...
can o worms but ... and hoefully everyone knows I mean this in the most
friendly responsible way ever but I'm not sure entirely what
Hello folks,
We're undergoing a ddos attack on one of our machines. Its quite
manageable so far - 28 source IPs, many of them cable modems. But its
the first we've ever suffered, and before we get too deep in, I'd
appreciate pointers to the appropriate law enforcement parties to
contact so we
Picture it as a fellow stopping by every night and filling your home
mailbox with horse manure...I'm sure you'll get a feeling for how most of
us regard it.
A) it wastes bandwidth
B) It wastes our time
C) It's the litter of an otherwise clean Internet.
D) It's a method of placing the costs
Reporting Security Incidents (PSIRT Advisories)
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/sec_incident_response.shtml#Incidents
If you are under active security attack or believe that you are about to be
attacked, contact the Cisco Technical Assistance Center at +1 408 526 7209
or +1 800 553 2447 or
Actually, I can agree entirely with this point and it makes sense.
Having direct mail in the snailmail world cost tens of cents each
certainly would tend to force the originator to go through more effort
to insure its sent to and hopefully read by someone who will then buy
what they are
Well the costs you mentioned with aol seem high but I suppose are
possible. Being a parent however and having three children who do use
the net extensively I see your point about the content they receive but
of course the ultimate responsibility for what they are exposed to on
the net lies
uWell I tend to always error on the side of free expression verses
making something illegal and I definitely disagree with the statement
that its a clean internet otherwise but just like non electronic space
there are many differing standards and shades of things something I
actually think
I do agree here that using fake addressing and so on is really bad on
many levels. I know on one of the networks I was involved in recently
we had a customer who was a spammer and I pulled his services very
quickly, some might even say to quickly. I also realize that even
though I
when you find it, send it to me :)
- jared
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:00:11PM -0700, David McGaugh wrote:
Anyone have a good NOC contact for DEC, AS33? I checked Jared's NOC page
and I don't see them listed.
Reply off list if preferred.
Thanks,
Dave
--
Jared Mauch
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 05:08:44PM -0400, Vivien M. wrote:
[snip]
I hate to sound like the big idiot here, but what exactly in the email
you received indicates no-ip.com spammed? It looks to me like you just
have some secret admirer who thought you wanted a no-ip.com account,
and
... not only does it cost usually very little to receive these messages ...
even if i granted to a third party the right to determine the value of my
time, which i don't, the fact is that an hour or more of my time per day is
too high a price to pay to receive these messages, by _any_
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
If I haven't made my point, this is it... NO ONE. NO BODY!
would be so lame or STUPID as to do something so assinine without
checking with me first. Anyone who did so was NOT someone with my
best interest in mind and certainly not a
Anyone have a good NOC contact for DEC, AS33? I checked Jared's NOC page
and I don't see them listed.
when you find it, send it to me :)
you need number 6.
in order, as33 was maintained by:
1. brian reid
2. richard johnsson
3. me
4. stephen stuart
5. drew kramer
number six is
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 09:41:36PM -0400, PS wrote:
On Fri, 3 May 2002, Michael H. Warfield wrote:
If I haven't made my point, this is it... NO ONE. NO BODY!
would be so lame or STUPID as to do something so assinine without
checking with me first. Anyone who did so was NOT
Do you mind sharing with us the 4 things that exists only in DoS packets ?
Rubens Kuhl Jr.
- Original Message -
They CAN filter on anything in the headers, it's just a matter of
convincing them that the specific filter you want is something they should
add to their software
Jason described uRPF in Loose Check mode. This check to see if the source
exist in the FIB. It cuts out some of the garbage while providing you a tool
to do a remote-triggered (via BGP ) drop tool. Think of uRPF as a tool to do
source based black hole filtering.
uRPF Strict Mode is the
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 08:13:52PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Picture it as a fellow stopping by every night and filling your home
mailbox with horse manure...I'm sure you'll get a feeling for how most of
us regard it.
A) it wastes bandwidth
B) It wastes our time
C) It's the
I'm curious on this extra traffic data, since I'm somewhat involved with
antispam website, it'd be interesting to get the statistics and post it to
explain others how bad spam is for internet not only in annoyance but in
actual extra costs and wasted traffic.
Do you have data on approximate
On Fri, May 03, 2002 at 11:14:19PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to publicly shame eBay, who decided
to fire one of their engineers for disclosing their proprietary methods
for defending against DoS in the recent NANOG thread.
The only
48 matches
Mail list logo
