:
: A simple "these statements are untrue, please contact me off list for the
: truth" is hardly unreasonable.
:
:
:
Unfortunately a restriction such as that on this list defeats the atmosphere of
openness and education for those who may be reading, but not necessarily
posting to the list. Educat
> > So what I was curious about is would there be interest in a BGP feed
> > (like the DNSBLs used to be) to null route known malicious sites like
> > that?
i dunno much about this new-fangled "DNSBL" thing you speak of, but the
original MAPS RBL is still alive and well and available by BGP. t
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Richard Welty wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 10:50:12 -0700 (PDT) "Tom (UnitedLayer)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The big deal is that spam complaining/etc is not operational content, and
> > there are several other lists to handle that sort of thing.
>
> but then, individ
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Paul Jakma wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
do with it, even to the point of rejecting routes within 240.0.0.0/4 when
they come in over BGP. (Which an MacOSX box running Zebra will happily
provide.)
Class D you mean surely?
sigh, i cant read, you did m
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9975753%255E1702,00.html
-Henry
--- Scott Call <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Happy Sunday nanogers...
>
> I was doing some follow up reading on the
> "js.scob.trojan", the latest
> "hole big enough to drive a truck through" exploit
> for Intern
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
If you want to have some real fun, try configuring some class E
addresses. Windows of course won't have it, and Cisco also doesn't
want anything to do with it, even to the point of rejecting routes
within 240.0.0.0/4 when they come in over BGP. (W
On 27-jun-04, at 16:12, Peter Corlett wrote:
I currently have a few .255/32s with Cisco and Foundry products and
have various windows/linux/OSX machines that access them without
problems..
Well, I'd expect Linux and OSX to do the right thing. It just seems to
be Windows that makes a complete sow's
On 27-jun-04, at 20:17, Scott Call wrote:
On the the things the article mentioned is that ISP/NSPs are shutting
off access to the web site in russia where the malware is being
downloaded from.
Now we've done this in the past when a known target of a DDOS was
upcoming or a known website hosted p
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> Hi Jon,
> I currently have a few .255/32s with Cisco and Foundry products and have
> various windows/linux/OSX machines that access them without problems..
I'm pretty confident this is a classful/classless bug in 12.1T. I just
got into the custom
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Scott Call wrote:
>
> Happy Sunday nanogers...
>
> I was doing some follow up reading on the "js.scob.trojan", the latest
> "hole big enough to drive a truck through" exploit for Internet Explorer.
>
> On the the things the article mentioned is that ISP/NSPs are shutting of
Happy Sunday nanogers...
I was doing some follow up reading on the "js.scob.trojan", the latest
"hole big enough to drive a truck through" exploit for Internet Explorer.
On the the things the article mentioned is that ISP/NSPs are shutting off
access to the web site in russia where the malware i
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Peter Corlett wrote:
>
> Stephen J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > I currently have a few .255/32s with Cisco and Foundry products and
> > have various windows/linux/OSX machines that access them without
> > problems..
>
> Well, I'd expect Linux and OSX to d
Stephen J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> I currently have a few .255/32s with Cisco and Foundry products and
> have various windows/linux/OSX machines that access them without
> problems..
Well, I'd expect Linux and OSX to do the right thing. It just seems to
be Windows that makes a c
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Tony Li wrote:
>
> > The .255 address is very likely to be a broadcast address from a
> > netblock of /24 or longer. I would suspect that folks are wary of
> > accepting packets from a broadcast address as that could easily be a
>
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 12:32:40AM +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> Various people I've asked about this have said they wouldn't use the .0
> or .255 addresses themselves, though couldn't present any concrete info
> about why not; my experience above would seem to suggest a reason not to
> use th
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 07:41:17PM -0400, Chris Ranch wrote:
> I see traffic from this last IP address octet all the time from
> prefixes of length less than /24. Use of these host id's when the
> prefix length is greater than or equal to /24 is illegal. So if
> that's your case, I'd suggest not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's kind of stupid when you have to tell fellow workers trying to get
a certification "This isn't real life, you just have to learn it for
the exam. In real life we use CIDR."
You don´t have to take the CCNA stuff if you go for CCIE directly.
Pete
> This is what happens when your educational system continues to teach
> classful routing as anything other than a HISTORICAL FOOTNOTE
> *coughCiscocough*.
Yes, it sure would be nice if Cisco would revise some of their CCNA
course material and exams. Plenty of classful stuff still left there,
I
18 matches
Mail list logo
