At 10:27 AM 14-02-05 +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
Well said. At NANOG you get the clueful people cuz they at least knew to
come. That is a start. But there are hundreds of ISPs out there who don't
have a clue. RIPE realized this without having to do a membership poll and
rightly so, goes and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hank Nussbacher) wrote:
Duh! No suprise there. ARIN just gives IP space and only offers some
measly online training:
http://www.arin.net/library/training/index.html
RIPE on the other hand, has 3-6 course a month, throughout Europe:
Ketil Froyn wrote:
http://www.albany.edu/~ja6447/hacked_bots8.txt
Isn't it a good idea to collect the IP addresses rather than the ptr
name? For instance, if I were an evil person in control of the ptr
record of my own IP, I could easily make the name something like
1-2-3-4.dsl.verizon.net, and
Hank and Warren are right on. I have seen several ISPs (one of which has been
around a long time) who don't even understand the basics of CIDR routing or why
they should aggregate their announcements. This same group are the ones who
are not subscribed to this mailing list and don't go to
PTR records are just as pointless as A records...
in a secured DNS heirarchy, this is less of an issue
We are not quite there yet, are we?
since you have to spoof the entire delegation chain.
so either trust the DNS (both forward and reverse)
or not. For
Adam Jacob Muller wrote:
Not possible with most modern IRCD's since they check forward and
reverse dns.
So for example if your address is:
1.2.3.4
and that resolves to:
1-2-3-4.dsl.verizon.net
the ircd make sure that:
1-2-3-4.dsl.verizon.net
resolves back to
1.2.3.4
it's a simple
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:29 +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
Isn't it a good idea to collect the IP addresses rather than the ptr
name? For instance, if I were an evil person in control of the ptr
record of my own IP, I could easily make the name something like
1-2-3-4.dsl.verizon.net, and if
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too.
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=1802e=2u=/washpost/2005021
4/ts_washpost/a22085_2005feb13
--
Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663
VeriSign, Inc.
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 12:50:17 +, Ketil Froyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 11:29 +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
Isn't it a good idea to collect the IP addresses rather than the ptr
name? For instance, if I were an evil person in control of the ptr
record of my own IP, I
From: Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too.
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B.
VerizUUtal?
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host
I wouldn't collect the contents of an A record, if that's what you mean.
I meant that it would be better to collect the IP of whoever is
connected to the irc server directly, eliminating the entire, possibly
misleading, step of DNS lookups. Faking that IP is more difficult.
Agreed.
I always
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Hank Nussbacher
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:26 AM
To: Philip Smith
Cc: Nanog
Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
At 10:27 AM 14-02-05 +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
Well said. At NANOG you get the
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jim Popovitch wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17506-2005Feb11.html
(registration required)
Registration is not required if you copypaste the above URL into Google
and then click the URL returned in the search results. ;-) Same trick
works for
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too.
What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :)
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B.
I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large
Worldcom is/used to be and
Yes, this includes the former Digex Web Hosting employees (from a former
Digex employee...) It does not include the former Digex Leased
Line/Intermedia staff - those that still exist.
McLean
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:22:36 -0800 (PST)
From: william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too.
What, don't you like UUVeriNET even better? :)
Verizon wins
On Feb 14, 2005, at 2:31 PM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:22:36 -0800 (PST)
From: william(at)elan.net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
I was set on QUUest or UUQwest for the new name, too.
What, don't you like UUVeriNET
Hi List,
Cisco currently provides 8 lambdas for CWDM and we have a 10 lambda
mux/de-mux system we want to make use of over a single fibre (5 data
channels). The 1430 and 1450nm lambdas are dark and I was wondering if
there are any 3rd party vendors out there that have produced Cisco
compatible
From: Aaron Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:52:46 -0800
To: 'nanog list' nanog@merit.edu
Subject: 3rd Party Cisco CWDM GBICs?
Hi List,
Cisco currently provides 8 lambdas for CWDM and we have a 10 lambda
mux/de-mux system we want to make use of over a single fibre
You can always use http://www.bugmenot.com/ as well.
irwin
From: Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:22:21 -0500 (EST)
To: Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Break-In At SAIC Risks ID Theft
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Hi all,
Does anybody know if Level3 is performing Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding on
it's interfaces with it's customers?
Did anybody have problems with this fact (if so)?
We have a multihoming customer, and we found out that packets sent to Level3
sourced with IP blocks winning over other
On 14.02.2005 20:52 Aaron Thomas wrote
Hi List,
Cisco currently provides 8 lambdas for CWDM and we have a 10 lambda
mux/de-mux system we want to make use of over a single fibre (5 data
channels). The 1430 and 1450nm lambdas are dark and I was wondering if
there are any 3rd party vendors out there
Based on the experience with the CIDR Police project
(http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/cidr.html), you can encourge operators to
aggregate. My observation during that time was that operators:
- Didn't know they had a problem.
- Didn't know how to set up an aggregation policy
- Had no one paying
$ ftp ftp.radb.net
Connected to ftp.radb.net (198.108.1.48).
421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection
$ ftp ftp.merit.edu
Connected to ftp.merit.edu (198.108.1.48).
421 Service not available, remote server has closed connection
- billn
Works for me. Are you sure you are not coming from a PTR/A record mismatch ?
smarthost1# host 66.235.194.37
37.194.235.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain name pointer ds194-37.ipowerweb.com
smarthost1# host ds194-37.ipowerweb.com
Host not found.
smarthost1#
smarthost1# host -tns ipowerweb.com
ipowerweb.com
Quite possibly, didn't even occur to me to check from that host. Donkey
shins for the clue by four.
- billn
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Mike Tancsa wrote:
Works for me. Are you sure you are not coming from a PTR/A record mismatch
?
smarthost1# host 66.235.194.37
37.194.235.66.IN-ADDR.ARPA domain
One more request for the group.
Looking for some contacts off list who would be willing to discuss supplying
some IDS data. Ideal candidates for this research would have the following
characteristics:
1. Have a fairly visible network that draws appreciable attempts.
2. Have an IDS
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B.
I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large
Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS,
WCOM, etc. BTW - did this include Digex as well?
But
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Jon Lewis wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Verizon wins the battle for MCI, pays 7B.
I'm not financier, but this price seems rather low considering how large
Worldcom is/used to be and that it includes all former UUNET, MCI, MFS,
WCOM,
At 11:45 PM 2/14/2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
uhm, thats the '70 billing departments' ... or so said the SEC's info
about how many billing systems were 'integrated' during the
bernie-dynastic-times.
I remember reading in IT Week or Infoweek or some other trade rag that they
had over 2400
Jerry Pasker wrote:
Until there's deep shame, or real financial incentive to not being
listed as a member of the dirty 30, nothing is going to happen in terms
of aggregation.
I sometimes wonder if this list is seen as some sort of hit parade of
potential peers and if that is the case then
I have a 3640 that while booting up gives the errors below at the console,
Console Errors:
_
C3600 processor with 65536 Kbytes of main memory
Main memory is configured to 64 bit mode with parity disabled
unknown flash deþ
System Bootstrap, Version 11.1(7)AX [kuong (7)AX], EARLY
32 matches
Mail list logo
