Re: US transit providers with slightly better than average International connectivity?
Before we flame Sargun for posting useless non sense, I figured I would throw my opinions in. I have seen great international results with some of the carriers you currently have, but if you are adding a fourth which areas are you looking to benefit most? Transatlantic/transpacific? I would suggest VZ Biz for both, but if you are focusing on transpacific routes PCCW, NTT, and ANC offer great pacific routes. Transatlantic: Telia, Interoute, or KPN Qwest (which may just be KPN now). Good luck, Josh On 8/13/07, Sargun Dhillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Drew Weaver wrote: Howdy, I know with the trans-atlantic and trans-pacific connectivity being what it is these days that getting reliable (i.e. low latency 200, low packet loss 5% total round-trip) to countries such as AE and others is kind of a shot in the dark. However, I wanted to ping the list and see if anyone has had 'better luck/worse luck' with particular transit providers. We're currently utilizing Time Warner Telecom, Level3, and Global Crossing as our transit partners and we're shopping for a fourth at this time, we would really like to find a transit provider with 'better' international presence. Any suggestions based on experience? Thanks, -Drew As a test point let's try: 212.58.224.131 That's the BBC. Posting traceroutes would be the best. Here is mine from internap: core1.t6-1-bbnet1.sje.pnap.net 0.0% 2895 2.1 21.3 1.9 1671. 101.6 xe-1-3.r02.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 1.7% 2895 2.1 25.7 2.0 1301. 92.6 xe-1-2.r03.snjsca04.us.bb.gin.ntt.net 0.8% 2895 2.2 25.5 2.0 1764. 108.7 sjo-bb1-link.telia.net 0.0% 2895 2.3 15.3 2.1 1680. 109.5 nyk-bb1-link.telia.net 0.2% 2895 73.8 86.1 73.7 1596. 101.4 ldn-bb1-pos7-1-0.telia.net 0.0% 2895 143.1 155.5 141.8 1551. 100.4 ldn-bb1-link.telia.net ldn-bb1-link.telia.net 9. ldn-b1-pos3-0.telia.net 0.0% 2895 144.9 163.2 141.8 1470. 99.8 ldn-b1-link.telia.net 10. siemens-118436-ldn-b1.c.telia.net 0.0% 2895 144.8 165.2 141.9 1470. 106.4 11. 212.58.238.153 0.1% 2895 143.3 157.7 141.9 1386. 97.5 12. rdirwww-vip.thdo.bbc.co.uk 0.1% 2895 146.3 156.0 141.8 1636. 99.4 -- Sargun Dhillon deCarta [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.decarta.com
OT - NY Giants tickets 9/11
To get your friday going to a good roll: I realize this is extremely off topic, but considering the discussion the past couple days I wanted to give this up. I have two tickets for the September 11th (Opening Game) for the NY Giants Vs the AZ Cardinals at Giants Stadium. Section: 137 Row: 9 Seat: 11 12 I will not be able to make it to the game due to the hurricane (I am going down to help relief efforts) so to keep this on topic and get to the point. the first person to openly post the correct last word on page iii of the CCNA Self Study CCNA Into Exam Certification Guide by Wendell Odom (ISBN: 1-58720-094-5) gets the tickets, you pay for shipping. Preferably to a good giants fan :) -- Joshua Brady
Re: OT - NY Giants tickets 9/11
Nope but close enough. it was USA On 9/2/05, Michael Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last word is resellers ... Followed by (9908R) If you are not counting fine print, the last word is Venezuela -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joshua Brady Sent: Friday, September 02, 2005 11:39 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT - NY Giants tickets 9/11 To get your friday going to a good roll: I realize this is extremely off topic, but considering the discussion the past couple days I wanted to give this up. I have two tickets for the September 11th (Opening Game) for the NY Giants Vs the AZ Cardinals at Giants Stadium. Section: 137 Row: 9 Seat: 11 12 I will not be able to make it to the game due to the hurricane (I am going down to help relief efforts) so to keep this on topic and get to the point. the first person to openly post the correct last word on page iii of the CCNA Self Study CCNA Into Exam Certification Guide by Wendell Odom (ISBN: 1-58720-094-5) gets the tickets, you pay for shipping. Preferably to a good giants fan :) -- Joshua Brady -- Joshua Brady
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
On 8/6/05, Tony Li [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i opine that some features are innovation and others not. i.e., x.25 support on modern kit seems a not innovative and a waste of resources i would rather see applied elsewhere. Who said the user end needs to support a tap being done? They can just force ISP's to log everything at the headend. Your phone doesn't need a specialized device to tap it right now does it; cell phones either; the FBI can call the NSA anytime they want without a tap order and get them to trigger ECHELON when your voice is apparant on any line. -- Joshua Brady
Re: 'Whois protection service'
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:26:00 +1300 (NZDT), Mark Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks. Hello Mark, Don't post a lot here but i'm figuring you folks will know more about this than my local NOG... Glad to have you on NANOG. When investigating a host that spammed me today, I noted that when I whois'd the domain that the mailserver involved has forward/reverse dns pair for, the domain whois information comes up as follows: Found crsnic referral to whois.enom.com. Registration Service Provided By: Registerfly.com Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit: http://www.RegisterFly.com Domain name: xmux.com Registrant Contact: RegisterFly.com - Ref# 14155933 Whois Protection Service - ProtectFly.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) I'm unsure how appropriate it is to post anything more specific in the open forum, but i've never seen this before. Whats the deal with hiding a domain name owners true identity? Is this not simply yet another protect-the-spammers mechanism? It will probably be called off-topic, flamed and dragged through the mud, yet to answer your question. It is fully legit, yet it does have its bad sides. I use it personally to keep prank callers from calling me directly. [EMAIL PROTECTED] /]$ whois somsworld.com [Querying whois.internic.net] [Redirected to whois.godaddy.com] [Querying whois.godaddy.com] [whois.godaddy.com] Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States Registered through: GoDaddy.com Domain Name: SOMSWORLD.COM Created on: 25-Aug-04 Expires on: 25-Aug-05 Last Updated on: 18-Jan-05 Administrative Contact: Private, Registration [EMAIL PROTECTED] Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- Technical Contact: Private, Registration [EMAIL PROTECTED] Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Fax -- Domain servers in listed order: NS1.HITMANIT.COM NS2.HITMANIT.COM I followed up the chain - the authoritive DNS servers for the domain in question are hosts within a different domain, and this also has the same protection engaged Is this old hat or something new? Is this still conformant to standard .com/net registrant rules and regs? (here in .nz, the registry information is required to be current and valid, and i've never seen a Registrar pass itself off as the owner of a domain before (at least in any legitimate situation)) It is all current information, and valid. I have gotten letters passed through to me from godaddy. Its a perfectly legit situation. Yet in your case it may not be, and it may be used to hide the person. Thanks in advance, Mark. -- Joshua Brady
Re: Association of Trustworthy Roots?
Sean, That's the asymmetric problem with identity theft. Companies seem to make it easier to steal the identity (24x7 transfers with 10 minute zone file updates) than to correct the theft (only open Monday-Friday, find the right department, fill out multiple forms, wait 2 weeks, etc). That just makes it hard to do business period, you need to make it harder for a user to verify who they are. Such as a secret password and a faxed in authorization form or choose your level of security. I agree rules and processes are important. Instead of calling it circumvention, I would call it a robust exception handling process. Both the intial process of protecting your identity, as well as the exception handling process in the event it is compromised, should be available for both my home domain as well as well-known companies like MS, AOL and ATT. It should be as hard to steal my domain as it is to steal AOL.COM. Yes, it should be equally as hard to steal your domain as it would be to steal AOL, MS, ATT, MCI or any of the larger world-wide traffic holders Unfortunately, there is very little I can do to prevent a Registry/Registrar from giving my identity away without my permission. Theres alot you can do, you can always complain. More complaints to your registrar about security end up with alot more results. So try that out. -- Joshua Brady
Re: $50,000 reward for Verizon cable cutter
Your not giving customers enough credit, your a customer yourself arn't you? Do you know how to cut those cables? Would anyone else on the list who isn't a disgruntled verizon employee? On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 22:26:04 -0500, Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Disgruntled customers don't know how to cut X hundred pair cables. --- Martin Hannigan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verisign, Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nanog@merit.edu nanog@merit.edu Sent: Fri Jan 14 19:10:35 2005 Subject: Re: $50,000 reward for Verizon cable cutter Sean Donelan wrote: Verizon is offering a $50,000 reward for information about several acts of cut cables in the last couple of months. At least three lines were cut in the last week. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/13/verizon_ seeking_information_about_cable_cutter/ With a power saw? Goodness, that sounds noisy in the middle of the night. I'd have thought a low tech ax would do the job. :-) Probably a disgruntled customer, with cable bundles that repair says were supposed to be replaced 12 years ago, but engineering says isn't in the budget (like my SBC/Ameritech neighborhood in Ann Arbor). Sigh, not enough criminal instinct here. -- William Allen Simpson Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 -- Joshua Brady
Re: Unflattering comments about ISPs and DDOS
Or why don't they just create the $0 flash video or html step by step instructions? Why doesn't the dummy series create Comcast for dummies, as they have for AOL users. On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 21:45:30 -0500, D. Campbell MacInnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: reconfigure their mail programs to point at Comcast's servers, and each phone call to the help desk costs $9. And they couldn't spend say: $1.00 per CD with a vb script or instructions on doing this $100.00 (far fetched price) to have an interactive step-by-step flash video created to show their customers $1000.00 (far fetched price) to set up some VXML based number with a Press 1 to RTFM... Press 2 to RTFM again Even at an uber high charge (800/866 toll) of say $4.00 per call, they could still implement the changes save tons of money, and tons of aspirin when their headaches go away. Maybe someone here can draft up a $10,000,000.00 pitch it to them become an instant millionaire and save Comcast some money at the same time. Speaking as someone who has run a (admittedly small) help/support desk, I can say in no uncertain terms that you would be astounded at the number of customers who will ignore every single one of these solutions and fight their way through to a live person simply because that couldn't possibly have anything to do with MY problem. Not saying Comcast is right to not do it (though I'm also not saying they SHOULD do it), but I am saying that their figures, while likely somewhat inflated, probably aren't nearly as inflated as some might think they are. ++ D. Campbell MacInnes -- Joshua Brady
Susan's superior?
Susan, Since you yourself have neglected and ignored my requests via email, and phone; I am now asking if the list has contact information on Susan Harris' supervisor at MERIT. Chances are, I will be censored for this and banned almost immediatly, so off-list replies are greatly helpful. Or anyone who can maybe point me in the right direction. Best Regards, Joshua Brady
Re: FBI bust DDoS 'Mafia'
I hate to really comment on this as wellbut this is old news...the SecurityFocus report was released a few days ago and anyone who has actually gotten info from the Southern District of Ohio on the evidence could easily show that this is more than just a innocent man made to look guilty sort of case, Paul Ashley (ArGG) was the owner of FooNET / CIT Hosting and he ran all of this right in front of many of our faces on IRC and I know I personally as well as many others have been hit by not directly from him but his counter-parts...Joshua Schichtel (EMP, CIT-Joshua) and Lee Walker (sorCe) I never did get to find out who Jonathan Hall (Rain) was and I suppose that is a good thing as the two above caused enough damage...Joshua Schichtel probably the most...and the ways they are doing this also highly effects our responsabilities to keep our customers machines clean, firewalled and virtually not there in the face of the internet...I wish the great firewall of china actually started filtering this DoS as it does many other things...lets just start with spam. As far as civil liberties go...this was a treasonist act where when you commit treason (If your a citizen such as a couple who are down there were) you loose all rights, I don't care if your now forced to live in solitary confinement for 100 years while you wait for your trial. And those who arn't citizens carried out terrorist attacks and are now PoW's (Hmmm was Al Quida ever at the Geneva Convention..don't think so, so they get no rights either) the PoW's are actually treated better than they would ever be in the home countries. Lets just go ahead and change the pre-amble right now to read Life, liberty and the persuit of all who threaten it because I am not backing down to give civil rights and liberties to terrorists...hell where were our rights when they decided to attack us? Joshua Brady On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 01:52:06 -0700, Thornton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes America defiantly isn't what it used to be or what it was meant to be. However Guantanamo isn't America. Some of them are starting to be tried now too. Sklyarov is on bail. Although I think its time he either be tried or for them to drop it. But as far America, things need to be changed to restore our civil rights and other injustices that are going on here. On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 01:29, Pekka Savola wrote: I shouldn't be feeding a troll but in case this was serious.. On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Ricardo Rick Gonzalez wrote: No comments, check the url http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/08/27/ddos_mafia_busted/ I'm happy some of these criminals sent to jail! You know, here in America, we have this concept called innocent until proven guilty. What country are you from? The America is not what it used to be. Welcome to the 21st century. Have those guys rotting at Guantanamo been proven guilty? What was the deal with Sklyarov (http://www.freesklyarov.org/)? Etc. Thornton Cierra Group www.cierragroup.com Efficient Licensing and Consulting
Re: Specialty Technical Publishers
As I have seen the past few days, Susan seems to think quite a bit is off topic...my personal perception of NANOG is it is a group of network operators which talk about many things including but not limited to those of the network operations stand point, I have even been told that discussing email was off-topic and when has email not been a core part of the network? I am all for Matt talking about the litigation of this case, its a quite common thing now in the wonderful world of the internet, so does that now not fall under rules? Josh On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:46:49 -0700, Matt Ghali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:57:46 -0700, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah... But, the problem here is you registered godengatevw.com and haywardvw.com. They'd have a much harder time fending off an en pro per motion for summary dismissal if you had registered domains like godengatevwsucks.com and haywardvwsucks.com. Because you registered domains that directly use their trademarks without clear indication that they are used without permission for commentary, you are in a legal gray-area (gray is the expensive color in the legal world). If you used those domains to sell cars, you'd be in a legal black area and you could simply settle the suit and understand that you were wrong. If you had registered names that clearly weren't their names, but, commentary on them, you'd be pretty much in the white zone from what attorneys have told me. You still might get sued, and, it still might cost you some to defend it, but, you might get away with a simple en pro per motion for summary dismissal on the grounds that you were making fair comment. Of course, they could charge libel, in which case, you'd have to defend yourself and prove that everything said was factual. Actually, their original broad injunction against me, obtained before I even had a chance to secure counsel, was easily overturned by us in an order to show cause hearing. Your perception is incorrect. It does not matter what domain name I legitimately register, my speech is protected regardless. The only time they would have a legitimate cause for grievance were if I went afoul of the lanham act by using initial interest confusion to divert their customers for my own profit. I really lucked out and found some excellent legal representation to sort out these issues for me- including the lawyer representing the People Eating Tasty Animals in their case against PETA. Incedentally, it turns out that neither of their business names are registered trademarks. Did they ask you to hand over the domains (demand letter) and you refused, or did they go straight to litigation? Straight to litigation. I was informed that they were first aware of the sites by their lawyer, who demanded I take down any content, or see them in court. Partially. Although, you might still be able to characterize this as a SLAPP suit. It's a stretch, but, might be worth a try. I believe that entitles you to a certain amount of relief and some special handling of your side of the case to make it easier for the little guy to fend off injustice inflicted by the big guy. Unfortunately, a case has to be very clear cut and frivolous to qualify as a possible SLAPP. In other words, it has to be a strong possibility for a summary judgement before it even gets to judicial arbitration. That's unfortunate, because a SLAPP judgement would have allowed me to countersue for legal fees. Anyway, this is way off NANOG topic, so, if you want to continue the discussion, let's take it off the list before Susan tries to string me up. It seems there's others interested in the subject, and its a situation that a lot of folks on the list could easily find themselves in. At the very least, I'd like to be in the list archives offering assistance and advice to anyone in the future in the same trouble. matto -- Joshua Brady
Re: BANANOG [Re: Specialty Technical Publishers]
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 21:04:57 +0100, Per Gregers Bilse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 20, 1:07pm, Joshua Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: been a core part of the network? I am all for Matt talking about the litigation of this case, its a quite common thing now in the wonderful world of the internet, so does that now not fall under rules? The point is that NANOG is supposed to focus on network operational issues (and by implication also issues of architecture and engineering); issues of a tangential or personal interest water down the contents, whether or not they are important for the Internet and/or your business. Including cashflow, litigation, world peace, and falling asteroids. Sure understood there, however...NANOG is a discussion list which I believe needs to focus on more than just the strict network operational issues. (a user on AS12345 is announcing my IP's can someone purdy please go smack him and make him stop), such as we do at the NANOG confrences, discuss everything in and around the network operations field, which deals with cashflow, litigation, world peace if your an ISP in say iraq or afghanistan right now, and falling asteroids headed to your satellites or your datacenters or god forbid your CEO's Porsche. The reason for trying to maintain focus is simple: few people deeply involved in core Internet issues have the time to sift through heaps of interesting discussion that has no relevance for their work. In the end, everybody who might make a difference will have written NANOG off and simply not take part. This has to a large extent already happened, but it would be good not to make the situation worse. Then I guess the solution is simple...don't sift through it. Everything eventually evolves from the original reason it was created and we can't just sit around and not conform to that. There used to be a mailing list called com-priv, the original purpose being discussion about commercialisation and privatisation of the Internet. Maybe NANOG/Merit as a group/organisation should revive it, and discuss non-technical matters on that? Business Associated NANOG (BANANOG) discussion would be much happier on a separate list. Could even sit on a Merit server I guess, it would simply shift traffic from one list to another. I suppose, but then we get the complaints of Grrr *grumble* I have to sign up for another mailing list just to discuss issues which can easily be discussed in one location? but if you can get Merit to create a BANANOG I guess we can see how it goes. In the meantime, a tried and tested relevance test for NANOG is very simple: How do I configure my router for that? Step 1: Kick the router out of the rack. Step 2: Bring in big lumberjacks to beat the router until it conforms, if it conforms skip to step 5, if not go on to step 3. Step 3: Hire someone who didn't have to ask that question. Step 4: Get a roll of duct tape and gently slide the router back into place. Step 5: Plug router in and enjoy! Best, -- Per -- Joshua Brady
Re: scanning e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]
Hey guys, don't put all of this on Patrick, he didn't even say thatrelax a bit it was from a Lou at Metron...read http://www.metron.com -- Joshua Brady
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
I believe Lou here is scanning customers email accounts to block them from GMail usage: www.metron.com does that not defeat his whole purpose to prove a point here? Time to blacklist metron they seem to be scanning users emails without there prior consent! Josh On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:18:07 -0500 (CDT), Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 19 12:43:05 2004 Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 10:39:43 -0700 From: Lou Katz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 10:13:29PM -0700, Jonathan Nichols wrote: Joshua Brady wrote: I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist. You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com accounts already. :P Because G-mail scans INCOMING mail without the sender's consent, we will NEVER have a G-mail account and have considered blocking them. Are you seriously considering blocking _everybody's_ mail? In today's world practically *everybody* scans incoming mail. Spam, viruses, scams, bogus bounce messages, etc., etc., ad nauseum. have a G-mail account and have considered blocking them. We actively discourage our clients from using this service. Do you similarly discourage the use of ATT WorldNet, MSN, Yahoo, Earthlink, Hotmail, AOL, Earthlink, Panix, Flashnet, Netscape.net, RCN, Corecomm, Comcast, Cogent, RoadRunner, Cox, Adelphia, etc. ? *EVERY*ONE* of those providers also scans all INCOMING mail. *Without* the sender's consent. Do you do any anti-spam and/or anti-virus scanning of *your* incoming mail? Why does it seem like the description 'two-faced' applies to your attitude? If you want to let a service scan YOUR mail, it is your perogative, but you cannot give them permission to scan MY mail to you. And, just BTW, legally, _yes_ I *can* give a third-party permission to scan any/all of my incoming mail, including yours. And you, the sender, do =not= have anything to say about the matter. LEGAL FACT: I can hire _anybody_ to read my mail, on my behalf, 'annotate' it for me, and provide me with the 'marked up' copy, *without* violating any of your 'intellectual property rights' (e.g., copyright). You have absolutely no say in the matter, whatsoever. And it doesn't matter whether the 'mail' in question is postal mail, or 'e-mail'. The law is _exactly_ the same. *ANYTHING* that _I_ can legally do with/to my incoming mail, I can hire an 'agent' (someone acting 'at my direction', and 'on my behalf') to do. Now, if that person I hired were to give copies of my incoming mail to _someone_else_ (other than myself), *then*and*only*then* would you have a cause for action against someone. If that person distributed those copies _at_my_direction_, they would be immune; your 'cause for action' would be against _me_. OTOH, if they did it *without* my permission, then and =only= then, would you have cause for action against _them_. Of course, if _I_ were to do that self-same thing -- give copies of incoming mail to 'someone else', then *I* would be liable to the sender for those acts.
Re: scanning e-mail [WAS: 3 Free Gmail invites]
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 13:06:24 -0700 (PDT), Erik Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey guys, don't put all of this on Patrick, he didn't even say thatrelax a bit it was from a Lou at Metron...read http://www.metron.com I was just agreeing with Patrick :) It got posted a bit too late sorry -- Joshua Brady
OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Josh Brady
Re: OT - 3 Free Gmail invites
All gone
Re: Steven J Sobol sjsobol@JustThe.net wanted to be a
*wonders if the repeated mailings fall under the virginia spam law* Josh On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 21:57:30 -0700 (PDT), TAHOEZBOXMAN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steven J Sobol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wanted to be a fireman, but found out that the firetruck shoots out water, not fire. This turned him into a faggot loving prick. Now Steven J Sobol makes his living on being a usenet troll for hire. THIS IS A BIG PLONK TAHOEZBOXMAN
Re: Quick question.
On Sat, 31 Jul 2004 23:10:09 -0700, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexei Roudnev wrote: (but we still like old and cheap 2x1Ggz servers, able to do 99% of all tasks). Barely worth it anymore, these days you can find an Intel Server Chassis SR2300 and Intel Server Board SE7501WV2 (SCSI) for $1,500; it's a 2U dual-Xeon dual-channel DDR with 6 hot-swap scsi bays. I have to say that I get impatient when I work on anything that does not have dual-channel DDR; it does not take much time to get used to it :-( PS. I like E-bay; last example - our collegues spend a long negotiations and settle price for Cisco switches with a good discount; 10 seconds e-bay search revealed exactly the same systems in original boxes (unopened) 10% cheaper -:) Hear, hear. And since it's new, no re-licensing issues. Hardware costs nothing these days: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=73321item=571185 5935rd=1 Maybe that's what I'll ask Santa this year: a BFR^H^H^H GSR to replace my home router. shameless plug Looking for someone to provide an OC-12 to my home for $100/mo so I can test the router mentioned above. Oh, I also need this, don't I? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=162item=51126654 63rd=1 /shameless plug Called Cogent? There prices arn't that low but pretty close, and if you find a nice sales guy you may be able to wiggle some of it out of him. Michel. Josh
US Extradition rights (was Re: Spamhaus Exposed)
- Original Message - From: Dave Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Email List: nanog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 9:53 AM Subject: Re: Spamhaus Exposed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, the US gov't is Satan going after innocent hackers in Wales? No, but the US government is apparently now allowed to arrest and extradite a child from the UK without having to show a judge good cause - which is *not* true in reverse, or for any other country. Up until recently, the US authorities would have had to make a case for extradition and/or arrest to a UK judge before the local plod would even be informed that there was an interest in the kid Yes, its a worrying development. No, it isn't particularly evil (just more evidence the american government thinks their laws should apply worldwide) or even marginally on-topic for Nanog. The Child you speak of caused destruction over a network, the same applied for the 2 hackers here who were sent over without even questioning the UK. If the US Government is Satan then I suppose I am going to hell, because I sure as hell support it. Josh Brady
Re: So, What Now, NANOG? Was: Request response [important]
- Original Message - From: Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Brian Bruns [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Susan Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 11:11 AM Subject: So, What Now, NANOG? Was: Request response [important] On 3/17/04 9:51 PM, Brian Bruns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erm, something is definately up tonight. Message is below, for those of you who didn't want to touch this message. I can't get to the site listed in the message, so I have no idea what its trying to deliver exactly. Anyone care to comment? Ok, so what's the answer to this? We can sit around all day analyzing these emails. It doesn't matter where they came from or who compromised which hosts - at this point, that's immaterial. At some point in the Internet's development, we could have had the FBI kick down the door of this guy and cart him away, and NANOG is safe once again. Not anymore - even if this guy is reachable, there will be five others tomorrow, and ten others next week. I'm sure this is all over IRC by now. These issues, combined with the ever worsening S:N ratio on this list are destroying it. Some of the folks who have long been mainstays of the NANOG community don't even read it anymore. Its time to figure out what to do about this, employing a proactive stance. The answer is not start a new mailing list. Names have power, as they say, and NANOG has the juice. So, a few simple proposals for people to chew over... 1) Turn on list moderation and recruit a corp of volunteer moderators. The FAQ volunteers did a good job, BTW. Dave Farber's IP list (not Internet Protocol, its Interesting People), is a good example of a low volume moderated list. I vote for number 1 and volunteer my self to help moderate this hell hole err list. If folks fear attack or retribution, please forward your comments to me and I'll anonimyze them before posting. Thanks! -- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group Joshua Brady
Fw: Packet Kiddies Invade NANOG
- Original Message - From: Joshua Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 6:44 PM Subject: Re: Packet Kiddies Invade NANOG rant Greg, Let me spell it out crystal clear so you can understand. Are you, or are you not, the Gregory Taylor referenced in the URL's I sent below? Even if he is, what you did and said was slanderous, beyond a normal NANOG flamewar. Albert P. (signing his real name so Susan won't remove him from the list) Oh please do Susan what he did was already illegal. Albert P. /rant Can you take this off-list so we don't have to hear a play school convo? Thanks, Josh
Re: Fw: Packet Kiddies Invade NANOG
I was talking more along the lines of disclosing personal information without permission, slander is another one as well... Josh - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Joshua Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2004 9:48 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Packet Kiddies Invade NANOG
Steadfast Networks
I suppose since I will not be allowed to express my self in the IRC channel I will fire it off in here: I am not nor have not ever been affiliated besides an email account with Steadfast Networks/NoZone I am not Nick Cantalo Neo Internet Services is NOT and has NEVER been affiliated with Steadfast networks I do not sell ip blocks nor do I hijack them. kill -9 rant Joshua Brady Neo Internet Services
Counter DoS
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39148215,00.htm Comments?
