RE: quietly....
And that has nothing to do with whether a protocol is a peer protocol or not. IP is a peer-to-peer protocol. As SMTP is implemented over IP, it is also a peer-to-peer protocol. In IP, all hosts/nodes are peers. That you may wish that this were not the case and thereby impose completely arbitrary paper based controls does not in any way change the fact that IP is a peer to peer protocol and that all IP hosts/nodes are peers on the network. Your paper based controls are just as effective in turning an IP host/node into a non-peer host/node as is holding up a copy of a restraining order preventing Johhny X from hitting you in the face in front of Johhny's fist just before he breaks your nose. That you believe that your paper controls have any effect on reality is saddening. Just because someone writes a bit of paper saying that the moon is made of green cheese does not make it so. Writing on a bit of paper that IP is not a peer-peer protocol does not make it so. If your security is based on such wishful thinking and self-delusion, you really ought to invest in some technical controls that are reality-based and stop with the paper-compliance-tiger as it provides no useful benefit whatsoever. --- () ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -Original Message- From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mh...@ox.com] Sent: Thursday, 03 February, 2011 16:41 To: Matthew Palmer; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: quietly SMTP is definitely not a p2p protocol in most corporate environments. In ours, all email (even ones that you would think should be host2host) go to a central smarthost that processes the mail, and archive it for compliance. All internal to external and external to internal email is tightly controlled and only goes through a very specific route. Again, big difference between a univerisity or ISP environment and a corporate one. -Original Message- From: Matthew Palmer [mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org] Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 4:00 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: quietly On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 03:20:25PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: On Thursday, February 03, 2011 02:28:32 pm valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: The only reason FTP works through a NAT is because the NAT has already been hacked up to further mangle the data stream to make up for the mangling it does. FTP is a in essence a peer-to-peer protocol, as both ends initiate TCP streams. I know that's nitpicking, but it is true. So is SMTP, by the same token. Aptly demonstrating why the term P2P is so mind-alteringly stupid. - Matt
OT: Anyone have PDF Manual for Nortel/BayStack 425-24T Switch
Does anyone happen to have PDF Manuals (not the sales literature, but the switch software command references) for this switch? We have one in a production network and know nothing about it nor how to manage it. Nortel does not make any of the manuals available anymore, at least not in the interwebs (that I can find) nor does googling turn up anything very useful. Any help would be appreciated. If nothing can be found this will probably be discarded and replaced with appropriately supported product. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming ... #include shrinkwrap-disclaimer.h
Thanks for the Info! (was: Anyone have PDF Manual for Nortel/BayStack 425-24T Switch)
Thanks for the reply's. A User Guide was forwarded which should enable access to this switch. On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:33:40 -0500, kmedc...@dessus.com kmedc...@dessus.com wrote: Does anyone happen to have PDF Manuals (not the sales literature, but the switch software command references) for this switch? We have one in a production network and know nothing about it nor how to manage it. Nortel does not make any of the manuals available anymore, at least not in the interwebs (that I can find) nor does googling turn up anything very useful. Any help would be appreciated. If nothing can be found this will probably be discarded and replaced with appropriately supported product. #include shrinkwrap-disclaimer.h
RE: wikileaks unreachable
Uh... huh? Just so we are all straight and clear - wikileaks hit is not a 'Distributed' DoS, its a simple DoS - I dont use intermediaries or botnets. Sun Nov 16 - 15:28 EST That would be just about 2 weeks ago. Actually, the last time November 16th fell on a Sunday would have been in 2008. So fifty-four weeks ago ... -- () ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org
RE: Introducing draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming
Cisco's expression of a MAC address is wrong anyway. Correct notation for a MAC address is separating each byte with a colon. Doesn't matter... It's widespread and Cisco isn't the only one to use it. Just for my own edification, who else besides Cisco do you know who uses that notation for MAC addresses? I want some convincing before I'll accept the claim that it's widespread. Windows displays macs as dash separated hexified bytes (ie, 12-34-56-78-90-AB) which is incorrect. Given how widespread and pervasive the Microsoft Windows Virus is, I'd call this widespread and pervasive.
RE: pls help about mtu setting again
1472 is the maximum ICMP payload size for standard Ethernet. 1480 fails because, well, it is 1472. -- () ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -Original Message- From: Deric Kwok [mailto:deric.kwok2...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 23 June, 2010 12:53 To: nanog list Subject: pls help about mtu setting again Hi Thank you for your reply about DSL mtu Now I have question about internet cable connection. ls it same as DSL? I tested it in my friend cable connection. 1470 is fine but 1480 is problem. Why it needs header in cable connection also? C:\Documents and Settings\dericping yahoo.com -f -l 1470 Pinging yahoo.com [98.137.149.56] with 1470 bytes of data: Reply from 98.137.149.56: bytes=1470 time=96ms TTL=50 Reply from 98.137.149.56: bytes=1470 time=91ms TTL=50 Reply from 98.137.149.56: bytes=1470 time=92ms TTL=50 Reply from 98.137.149.56: bytes=1470 time=89ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 98.137.149.56: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 89ms, Maximum = 96ms, Average = 92ms C:\Documents and Settings\dericping yahoo.com -f -l 1480 Pinging yahoo.com [98.137.149.56] with 1480 bytes of data: Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set. Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set. Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set. Packet needs to be fragmented but DF set. Ping statistics for 98.137.149.56: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss), Thank you for your help
