On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
>
> Not for nothing, but there's so much time wasted with all these diversified
> spam systems.
>
> I've been reading about Barry Shein's proposals and I have to say I am on board
> with a centralized -single- system based on his young, but intellig
Not for nothing, but there's so much time wasted with all these diversified
spam systems.
I've been reading about Barry Shein's proposals and I have to say I am on board
with a centralized -single- system based on his young, but intelligent, model.
http://www.internetweek.com/breakingNews/INW20
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, blitz wrote:
>
> Anyone having trouble getting to/ know of any issues with spamcop.net today?
>
> They seemed to have dropped off the radar from me...
>
> No pings
> No traceroute
>
> but they still show registered at 216.127.43.89
>
laptop ~]$ t 216.127.43.89 80
Trying 216
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 09:41:21PM -0500, blitz wrote:
> Anyone having trouble getting to/ know of any issues with spamcop.net today?
>
> They seemed to have dropped off the radar from me...
>
> No pings
> No traceroute
>
> but they still show registered at 216.127.43.89
One of my customers
Anyone having trouble getting to/ know of any issues with spamcop.net today?
They seemed to have dropped off the radar from me...
No pings
No traceroute
but they still show registered at 216.127.43.89
Tnx
Marc
macronet.net
JB> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:45:37 -0600
JB> From: Jack Bates
JB> Personally, I think ARIN handling routing information is an
JB> excellent idea. It has to be separate from SWIP though, as
U it's nice to be able to change routing information in a
timely fashion without needing intensiv
I know when we separated Concert from iMCI we where using the filters on
them, and they IMO would have been a peer, but then again Concert sould have
been a special case either way.
-Jim
-Original Message-
From: Danny McPherson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:5
Not that this is concerned with any network equipment or network
operations per say, but I'm sure that alot of you do run sendmail.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Internet Security Systems Security Brief
March 3, 2002
Remote Sendmail Header Processing Vulnerability
Synopsis:
ISS X-Force h
On maandag, maa 3, 2003, at 18:41 Europe/Amsterdam,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what is not functioning properly?
Determining who is authorized to announce a certain block of IP
address
space.
no protocol is going to help with this problem. its a
social engineering issue, not a t
> On maandag, maa 3, 2003, at 17:30 Europe/Amsterdam,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> So not functioning properly is preferable to depending on a tempting
> >> target for proper functioning?
>
> > what is not functioning properly?
>
> Determining who is authorized to announce a certain b
Honestly people, to summarize all this...
Legislation is not the correct "knee jerk" response to
technical challenges... Lawyers and Politicians
just -think- it is
Perhaps related to perceiving themselves as important
to the problem, eh ? And, that also happens to create
a situation wher
I need to order some Qwest circuits. Is there an ISP account group? Can
someone recommend a good account manager to work with?
Thanks,
Joe
> For example, take a naive approach: your router crashes. It comes back
> up. It receives 130,000 prefixes that it needs to validate. For each
> prefix, your router must do an LDAP query.
Then take a smarter approach: your router crashes. It comes back up and
your network management system
Yes, at iMCI (we) had our own registry, MCI-RR, but we only used it
(in addition to data from the other IRRs) to generate customer prefix
filters, not peers.
Cable & Wireless still uses the RR, now know as CW-RR.
-danny
> As I remember and I could be wrong, its been a few years now, when I w
As I remember and I could be wrong, its been a few years now, when I worked
for iMCI we did and we moved over to C&W we still did.
-Jim
-Original Message-
From: Danny McPherson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:48 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who uses R
On maandag, maa 3, 2003, at 17:30 Europe/Amsterdam,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So not functioning properly is preferable to depending on a tempting
target for proper functioning?
what is not functioning properly?
Determining who is authorized to announce a certain block of IP address
space.
I'm looking for a contact @Nordnet France, concerning a DNS problem. I have
tried all ways to contact you... but unfortunatly I cant escalade over the
1st level support which doesnt understand my problem.
Please contact me off-list.
Thanks,
P.
>
> On maandag, maa 3, 2003, at 16:44 Europe/Amsterdam,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > tool in the generic sense. too many things that depend on
> > LDAP for proper functioning -will- make LDAP a tempting
> > target.
>
> So not functioning properly is preferable to depending on a
On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 06:52 AM, Kuhtz, Christian wrote:
Why not?
Well, it depends on what you want to use LDAP for.
For example, take a naive approach: your router crashes. It comes back
up. It receives 130,000 prefixes that it needs to validate. For each
prefix, your router must do a
I'd like to stop this argument now by saying you are both right.
*) LDAP is a protocol, not an implementation. The back-end can be
anything... even monkeys with pencil and paper.
*) Michael's point about doing things differently and hopefully in a
better way does not hinge on technology... it
> It has to be separate from SWIP though, as rwhois servers don't issue
SWIP.
This is basically where I started thinking about LDAP. If rwhois doesn't
do the job, then we could either fix/enhance rwhois or move to something
else. Anyone who has ever delved into the internals of rwhoisd knows w
On maandag, maa 3, 2003, at 16:44 Europe/Amsterdam,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tool in the generic sense. too many things that depend on
LDAP for proper functioning -will- make LDAP a tempting
target.
So not functioning properly is preferable to depending on a tempting
targ
>
>
> > Too many features layered on a single tool. Haq the tool
> > and the dependencies will cripple your service offering.
>
> LDAP is not a tool, it is a protocol that can be used by many tools to
> communicate in the same way that many servers (BIND, NSD, DJBDNS, MS-DNS,
> QuickDNS) can
From: "Avi Freedman"
> : Why don't SWIP forms include Origin-AS?
>
> Ahem. Origin-AS(s) - plural. Agreed - mildly. Of course, SWIP isn't
> updated when delegation info changes, so origin AS(s) would get just as
> stale as contact info.
>
If networks are filtering based on SWIP information, it
> Too many features layered on a single tool. Haq the tool
> and the dependencies will cripple your service offering.
LDAP is not a tool, it is a protocol that can be used by many tools to
communicate in the same way that many servers (BIND, NSD, DJBDNS, MS-DNS,
QuickDNS) can use the DNS protoc
On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Very subtle, David. As it happens, somebody asked only last week if
> they could take up the project again. For those who think mapping
> filters to route objects is nigh trivial, there is a significant
> difference between network assignees and rout
> > I believe that LDAP can be the core of this toolset.
> Why not put everything into a MySQL db? :)
Arrgghhh!!! he yells running and screaming in horror...
Of all the example products you could have chosen to represent database
software, why on earth did you choose this abomination. Is it a
I'm thrilled to hear that that project is being picked
up again. The long-term benefits (IMO) are worth the
non-trivial amount of effort required to make a
functioning solution.
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Very subtle, David. As it happens, somebody asked
> only last week if
> they could ta
Too many features layered on a single tool. Haq the tool
and the dependencies will cripple your service offering.
Now I don't want to say that you can't do this on your own,
I am uncomfortable with such tactics being promoted as the
one true way th
Very subtle, David. As it happens, somebody asked only last week if
they could take up the project again. For those who think mapping
filters to route objects is nigh trivial, there is a significant
difference between network assignees and routes. Tracking assignments,
ASNs, customer routing po
Why not? Can you be more specific as to why you think that LDAP is not
suitable?
Thanks,
Christian
> I believe that LDAP can be the core of this toolset.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
Why not put everything into a MySQL db? :)
LDAP is a fine tool but it was not designed to do so
> I believe that LDAP can be the core of this toolset.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
Why not put everything into a MySQL db? :)
LDAP is a fine tool but it was not designed to do some
of the things that other tools do. We are not yet at the
point where all we have t
Good point, Sean. The problem is the business process and the risk to the
process, vs. the cost to fix it.
Jim
-Original Message-
From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 7:25 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: BGP to doom us all
On Fri, 28 F
From: "Avi Freedman"
>
> "Router CPUs average 50%, and S-BG adds 10%" (paraphrase)
> Average is somewhat less relevant than common peaks.
> GSRs and 7500s and 7200s all get up there at 90+% on the real Internet.
>
I agree. I'm have a tricked 7200 managing 3 peers. Normal traffic
utilization rate
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:53:51AM +,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 55 lines which said:
> Yes there are other ways and I suggest that the optimal choice of protocol
> for publishing this information is LDAP, not DNS.
...
> Next step is to get ISPs to replace t
> I like the idea of people being able to START on the authentication
> datbase of ownership/announcement in a distributed fashion, but
> perhaps there are other ways (perhaps DNS-based) of getting there
> as well...
Yes there are other ways and I suggest that the optimal choice of protocol
for
Pete,
Since I do NOT believe in "Security through Obscurity" as
effective, I name every address and publish both A and PTR views
of this relationship. This applies to all network-addressable entities.
CNAME records may be added to taste.
Naming should facilitate maintenance of good network oper
37 matches
Mail list logo