On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:21:46PM -0800, Harri Makela wrote:
> Hi There
> 
> I am constantly getting these log messages for last few days:-
> 
> sshd[21015]: Failed password for root from X.X.103.152 port 21067 ssh2
> sshd[21016]: Received disconnect from X.X.103.152: 11: Normal Shutdown, Thank 
> you for playing
> 
> 
> Are these indicating any brute-force attack ?Thanks
> HM

Most likely, yes.

Dermot

> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, 26 February 2014, 21:15, "juniper-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net" 
> <juniper-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>  
> Send juniper-nsp mailing list submissions to
>     juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>     https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>     juniper-nsp-requ...@puck.nether.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>     juniper-nsp-ow...@puck.nether.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of juniper-nsp digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor" (ryanL)
>    2. Re: proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor" (Phil Shafer)
>    3. Re: proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor" (Eric Van Tol)
>    4. Re: proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor" (Jerry Dent)
>    5. Re: proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor" (Brent Sweeny)
>    6. Re: proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
>       (Fernando Garcia Fernandez)
>    7. Re: proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor" (ryanL)
>    8. Re: proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
>       (Jonas Frey (Probe Networks))
>    9. Re: proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor" (sth...@nethelp.no)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:22:51 -0500
> From: ryanL <ryan.lan...@gmail.com>
> To: p...@juniper.net
> Cc: Juniper for Network Service Providers
>     <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
> Message-ID:
>     <cak_-tsayrdjhuatsnbokn2nrkcrjjgb3zwtr_cljizkuxcx...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> it's a nice-to-have, maybe? but this sounds more like an opportunity for
> you to sell some JNCIA courses. i mean, how long has junos been around now?
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Phil Shafer <p...@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> > Juniper users,
> >
> > We've been asked to make a change the "clear bgp neighbor" command
> > to make the neighbor or "all" argument mandatory.  The root cause
> > is the severe impact of "clear bgp neighbor" and the increasing
> > accidental use of this command without a specific neighbor.
> >
> > In general, we avoid changing commands to add mandatory arguments,
> > but my feeling is that the impact and severity of this specific
> > command makes this an acceptable occasion for such a change.
> >
> > I'm looking for feedback about this change.  My working assumption
> > is that "clear bgp neighbor" is a sufficiently rare command and
> > would not be used in automation/scripts, so the impact of making
> > the neighbor/all argument mandatory would be minimal.  Is this
> > assumption accurate?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >  Phil
> >
> > [I've set reply-to to myself to avoid impacting the list]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:44:42 -0500
> From: Phil Shafer <p...@juniper.net>
> To: ryanL <ryan.lan...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Juniper for Network Service Providers
>     <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
> Message-ID: <201402261844.s1qiiggl031...@idle.juniper.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain
> 
> ryanL writes:
> >it's a nice-to-have, maybe? but this sounds more like an opportunity for
> >you to sell some JNCIA courses. i mean, how long has junos been around now?
> 
> Not selling anything; just trying to solve a problem multiple
> customers have reported and escalated.  I'm a software developer,
> working on the UI code (CLI, MGD, configuration, XML API, scripting)
> for 17+ years.
> 
> JUNOS 3.0 (the first release with the ui code) shipped during the
> summer of 1998, IIRC.
> 
> Thanks,
> Phil
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:24:21 -0500
> From: Eric Van Tol <e...@atlantech.net>
> To: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
> Message-ID:
>     <2C05E949E19A9146AF7BDF9D44085B865F70CC1FB1@exchange.aoihq.local>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> > it's a nice-to-have, maybe? but this sounds more like an opportunity for
> > you to sell some JNCIA courses. i mean, how long has junos been around
> > now?
> 
> Confusing comment, since this enhancement isn't about CLI inexperience.  It 
> doesn't matter how long Junos has been around or how experienced someone is, 
> it's still too incredibly easy to hit 'Enter' too soon and clear all your BGP 
> neighbors by accident.
> 
> I don't see a problem with adding the requirement 'all'.
> 
> -evt
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:29:18 -0600
> From: Jerry Dent <effinjd...@gmail.com>
> To: Eric Van Tol <e...@atlantech.net>
> Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
> Message-ID:
>     <CADUFW=wkyvha1jlwjjrwqkhlrootrpaggrwqtzw_vjlai33...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Just add a line "Reset all bgp sessions? [Y/N]" for confirmation.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Eric Van Tol <e...@atlantech.net> wrote:
> 
> > > it's a nice-to-have, maybe? but this sounds more like an opportunity for
> > > you to sell some JNCIA courses. i mean, how long has junos been around
> > > now?
> >
> > Confusing comment, since this enhancement isn't about CLI inexperience.
> >  It doesn't matter how long Junos has been around or how experienced
> > someone is, it's still too incredibly easy to hit 'Enter' too soon and
> > clear all your BGP neighbors by accident.
> >
> > I don't see a problem with adding the requirement 'all'.
> >
> > -evt
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:04:54 -0800
> From: Brent Sweeny <swe...@indiana.edu>
> To: p...@juniper.net, Juniper for Network Service Providers
>     <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
> Message-ID: <530e3ad6.2010...@indiana.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> Phil, I think what you propose sounds like a reasonable and
> appropriately-scoped response to a real problem.
>   Brent Sweeny
>   Indiana University
> 
> On 2/26/2014 7:36 AM, Phil Shafer wrote:
> > Juniper users,
> > 
> > We've been asked to make a change the "clear bgp neighbor" command
> > to make the neighbor or "all" argument mandatory.  The root cause
> > is the severe impact of "clear bgp neighbor" and the increasing
> > accidental use of this command without a specific neighbor.
> > 
> > In general, we avoid changing commands to add mandatory arguments,
> > but my feeling is that the impact and severity of this specific
> > command makes this an acceptable occasion for such a change.
> > 
> > I'm looking for feedback about this change.  My working assumption
> > is that "clear bgp neighbor" is a sufficiently rare command and
> > would not be used in automation/scripts, so the impact of making
> > the neighbor/all argument mandatory would be minimal.  Is this
> > assumption accurate?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> >  Phil
> > 
> > [I've set reply-to to myself to avoid impacting the list]
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:04:54 +0100
> From: Fernando Garcia Fernandez <lis...@cutre.net>
> To: Eric Van Tol <e...@atlantech.net>
> Cc: "juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
> Message-ID: <ca92bfd8-e457-4aee-8fd7-c0771fcd9...@cutre.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> 
> +1 to include the ?all? option.
> 
> In fact, coming from the IOS world, it amused me when I discovered that there 
> was no ?*? or ?all? option to clear all neighbors.
> 
> 
> El 26/02/2014, a las 20:24, Eric Van Tol <e...@atlantech.net> escribi?:
> 
> >> it's a nice-to-have, maybe? but this sounds more like an opportunity for
> >> you to sell some JNCIA courses. i mean, how long has junos been around
> >> now?
> > 
> > Confusing comment, since this enhancement isn't about CLI inexperience.  It 
> > doesn't matter how long Junos has been around or how experienced someone 
> > is, it's still too incredibly easy to hit 'Enter' too soon and clear all 
> > your BGP neighbors by accident.
> > 
> > I don't see a problem with adding the requirement 'all'.
> > 
> > -evt
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:25:00 -0500
> From: ryanL <ryan.lan...@gmail.com>
> To: Phil Shafer <p...@juniper.net>
> Cc: Juniper for Network Service Providers
>     <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
> Message-ID:
>     <cak_-tsajcgxr6n3-aq7w6frmz61fh+w8y30x0fhkzslzy8e...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> yeah, i'm not slagging. just seems like poor training for newbie noc
> engineers or something. this is a pretty rookie error, in my view, but i've
> been around almost as long as you have ;-)
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Phil Shafer <p...@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> > ryanL writes:
> > >it's a nice-to-have, maybe? but this sounds more like an opportunity for
> > >you to sell some JNCIA courses. i mean, how long has junos been around
> > now?
> >
> > Not selling anything; just trying to solve a problem multiple
> > customers have reported and escalated.  I'm a software developer,
> > working on the UI code (CLI, MGD, configuration, XML API, scripting)
> > for 17+ years.
> >
> > JUNOS 3.0 (the first release with the ui code) shipped during the
> > summer of 1998, IIRC.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >  Phil
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 21:37:20 +0100
> From: "Jonas Frey (Probe Networks)" <j...@probe-networks.de>
> To: p...@juniper.net
> Cc: Juniper for Network Service Providers
>     <juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
> Message-ID: <1393447040.4974.178.camel@wks02>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> +1 for the "all" requirement
> 
> Am Mittwoch, den 26.02.2014, 10:36 -0500 schrieb Phil Shafer:
> > Juniper users,
> > 
> > We've been asked to make a change the "clear bgp neighbor" command
> > to make the neighbor or "all" argument mandatory.  The root cause
> > is the severe impact of "clear bgp neighbor" and the increasing
> > accidental use of this command without a specific neighbor.
> > 
> > In general, we avoid changing commands to add mandatory arguments,
> > but my feeling is that the impact and severity of this specific
> > command makes this an acceptable occasion for such a change.
> > 
> > I'm looking for feedback about this change.  My working assumption
> > is that "clear bgp neighbor" is a sufficiently rare command and
> > would not be used in automation/scripts, so the impact of making
> > the neighbor/all argument mandatory would be minimal.  Is this
> > assumption accurate?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> >  Phil
> > 
> > [I've set reply-to to myself to avoid impacting the list]
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 198 bytes
> Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
> URL: 
> <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20140226/ad7a1719/attachment-0001.sig>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:10:50 +0100 (CET)
> From: sth...@nethelp.no
> To: p...@juniper.net
> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] proposed changes to "clear bgp neighbor"
> Message-ID: <20140226.221050.71112673.sth...@nethelp.no>
> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> > We've been asked to make a change the "clear bgp neighbor" command
> > to make the neighbor or "all" argument mandatory.  The root cause
> > is the severe impact of "clear bgp neighbor" and the increasing
> > accidental use of this command without a specific neighbor.
> > 
> > In general, we avoid changing commands to add mandatory arguments,
> > but my feeling is that the impact and severity of this specific
> > command makes this an acceptable occasion for such a change.
> > 
> > I'm looking for feedback about this change.  My working assumption
> > is that "clear bgp neighbor" is a sufficiently rare command and
> > would not be used in automation/scripts, so the impact of making
> > the neighbor/all argument mandatory would be minimal.  Is this
> > assumption accurate?
> 
> For us, yes. Fully support the idea of requiring an "all" argument.
> 
> Steinar Haug, AS 2116
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list
> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of juniper-nsp Digest, Vol 135, Issue 29
> ********************************************
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 

_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp

Reply via email to