On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
So much for any sort of journalistic ethic, fact checking, or, unbiased
reporting.
Schneier isn't a journalist or reporter; He's a security vendor.
- mark
--
Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL
And you're a network engineer. What's your point?
- ferg
-- Mark Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
So much for any sort of journalistic ethic, fact checking, or, unbiased
reporting.
Schneier isn't a journalist or reporter;
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 06:06:22AM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
-- Mark Newton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
So much for any sort of journalistic ethic, fact checking, or, unbiased
reporting.
Schneier isn't a
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's absurd. I expect my water delivery company not to add
polutants in transit. I expect my water production company to provide
clean water.
er.. bad analogy warning... please take a sample of tap water to
Hi,
maybe this is an OLD topic, but the problem is what
is security? or how to define a secure internet
access service . E.g. should ISP respond for managing
application transmitted across its backbone? if so,
how to define standard appliation model while
keeping internet a flexible platform?
Maybe you should checkout some performance measurement numbers/papers
from ACM (www.acm.org) which should help answer some of your questions.
having been an acm member since '67, i am aware of the volume published.
give me a specific cite, please.
Hi,
we want to collect statistics in our backbone
networks.
Is there any good method to this? is there any product
for this ?
Joe
_
Do You Yahoo!?
http://cn.rd.yahoo.com/mail_cn/tag/10m/*http://cn.mail.yahoo.com/event/10m.html
On April 26, 2005 11:36 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's absurd. I expect my water delivery company not to add
polutants in transit. I expect my water production company to provide
clean water.
er.. bad
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:39:09PM -0400,
Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 22 lines which said:
From the thread (certainly not a scientific sampling), many people
seem to be filtering port 53 TCP to their name servers.
Again, a non-scientific sampling but AFNIC (.fr
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 07:01:47PM +,
Christopher L. Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 29 lines which said:
Even after I imagine that folks left the filters in place either
'because' or 'I don't run router acls' or 'laziness'
[Warning, operational content.]
Remember that
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 03:04:25PM -0400,
Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 46 lines which said:
I am interested in how many name servers - caching or authoritative
- are filtering incoming and/or outgoing TCP port 53.
For authoritative name servers of TLD, you can
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:13:16AM -0700, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
On April 26, 2005 11:36 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's absurd. I expect my water delivery company not to add
polutants in transit. I expect my water
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
an independent lab for analysis... and find out just what the
water company is putting into your water.
Actually that _is_ a bad analogy.
According to my sister (who works in that area as a regional water
expert), tap-water is held to
Assuming your walls, roofs and floors have the same level of protection,
and you need windows then this product is a good fit.
Certain British institutions I have been involved with in the past don't
bother with windows and the walls are faraday cages (internal ones as
well!).
--
Martin
On 4/26/05, Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:18:08PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote:
Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is.
If your ISP has congested links you should complain and
Ferg, you asked for it.
I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love
to know how ISP operations folk feel about this.
Links here:
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1162720
Schneier has a profound interest in the ISPs being forced to buy his
(or his competitors) security gear to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (william(at)elan.net) wrote:
According to my sister (who works in that area as a regional water
expert), tap-water is held to higher standards than bottled water.
In Canada at least... ymmv.
Yeah, gotta to clean it up from pollutants [spam, ddos], add antibacterial
Prepare for the inevitable.
- ferg
The inevitable:
Cellular Phone emergency call handling in Germany
Well its 110 not 911, but tabernak its just the same nonsense.
Aerea Deathvalley between Heppenheim (Hessen) and
Laudenbach (Baden-Wuertemberg). The two towns are some 5 KM,
less
Hmm, the onses who block everything and cut wires off send 0 spam. So what?
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Golding [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Adam Jacob Muller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Nanog Mailing list nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 2:50 PM
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
Do all of Comcast's markets block port 25? Is there a correlation between
spam volume and the ones that do (or don't)?
In any event the malware is already ahead of port 25 blocking and is
leveraging ISP smarthosting. SMTP-Auth is the pill to ease this
Steve Sobol allegedly replied to my reply with:
What were the router ACLs doing that the DNS server ACLs weren't/couldn't?
The ACLs were doing it for the entire server network. Since I prefer
my job as a router-rat over everything else I do, I find it easiest
to use the biggest hammer
On 4/27/05, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any event the malware is already ahead of port 25 blocking and is
leveraging ISP smarthosting. SMTP-Auth is the pill to ease this pain/
Really smtp-auth will solve it? or do most windows mua's cache your
password?
They sure do cache
Local telco concerned about voip eating into their revenues, and wants
to push through legislation or something? :)
On 4/27/05, Joe Shen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
we want to collect statistics in our backbone
networks.
Is there any good method to this? is there any product
for this ?
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Jerry Pasker wrote:
I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love to know how ISP
operations folk feel about this.
It means 10 different things to 10 different people. The article was
yep, and the danger is you agree with the article and some
Sound about right?
No, not at all.
I'm not advocating a wild west every man for himself, but, I think that
solving end-node oriented problems at the transport layer is equally
absurd.
It's like expecting to be able to throw crude oil into a tanker at
one end and demanding that the trucker deliver
I was referring to the article which contained the schneier quote, not
schneier. The article was written by someone at least pretending to be
a journalist, and, was put out as news, not editorial or advertising.
As such, it should be held to the standard that should apply to news.
Instead, it was
--On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 6:36 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's absurd. I expect my water delivery company not to add
polutants in transit. I expect my water production company to provide
clean water.
er.. bad
On 4/27/05, Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i do think we have an obligation to try to keep the net clean to a certain
degree, think anti-ddos wg's etc but providing full security for all users is
unrealistic. there seems to be some moves to offering partial security and
this
--On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:39 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:13:16AM -0700, Dragos Ruiu wrote:
On April 26, 2005 11:36 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think it's absurd. I expect my water delivery
Missing here is a critical part of the analogy - if it's to apply to the
internet, we have to assume that the contaminants we are speaking of are put
back INTO the system from the end user, just just delivered in one direction.
Rare, I would assume, is the ability of a water end user to put
I'm not advocating a wild west every man for himself, but, I think that
solving end-node oriented problems at the transport layer is equally
absurd.
That's not what was being suggested. The article suggested
that ISPs, the providers of the transport layer service,
should consider branching
faster than ADSL and removes the telco for last-mile considerations.
http://www.notes.co.il/benbasat/10991.asp
--bill
Thing is, protecting them from themselves and their own stupidity is
also the thing that most everyone else needs, too.
Do you really want an internet where everything has to run over ports
80 and 443 because those are all that's left that ISPs don't filter?
They should be filtered,
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, most water transit companies are also the water supply company,
Water supply comes from rivers, lakes, etc. While water company take
water from those sources, they do not produce it and just take what they
can get, clean it up and then deliver around
--On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 3:50 -0700 william(at)elan.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, most water transit companies are also the water supply company,
Water supply comes from rivers, lakes, etc. While water company take
water from those sources, they
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love
to know how ISP operations folk feel about this.
Of course Bruce Schneider is going to allocate ISP's handling security so
he can sell them more of his crappy Counterpane
I understand that, but opinions being what they are, everyone
is certainly entitled to have one of their own.
Placing value on those opinions is an exercise left to the
reader.
And not everyone's opinions are constructed to to simply
allow financial benefit -- somethimes it is just a simple
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Oh, please.
If you think that the Internet should remain an every man
for himself, wild wild west, Ok Corral, situation (not my
words, mind you), then you better get with the powers that
will steam-roll all of us if we let it -- money
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Schneier has a profound interest in the ISPs being forced to buy his
(or his competitors) security gear to fulfill the customers' dreams
of a clean Internet connection. Pretty biased, if you don't mind.
Err...
What gear? Last I
None -- when you disconnect [correct, block, whatever]
abusive end-systems in your administrative domain. Act
locally, think globally.
In fact, an ISP in AUS just did this last week...
- ferg
Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much functionality are we going to destroy before we
clean it up from pollutants [spam, ddos], add antibacterial
[antivirus] agents,
;) My hotel confirmation for NANOG 34 was marked as spam.
Thankfully, the ISP let it through anyway.
It would be nice if the ISPs protected me from bad stuff on the
Internet - but why are they to be held to a
Finally -- an analogy I can relate to. ;-)
As an aside, perhaps if we worked on making the Internet
safer, as opposed to strictly safe, we might make some
progress. You know -- baby steps.
And Big Pond is my hero. :-)
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/0,261791,39188135,00.htm
-
I have heard rumors that SD has been having persistent switch
problems with their switches at PAIX (Palo Alto), and I was kind of
wondering if anyone actually cared?
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 8:13 AM -0400 2005-04-27, Greg Boehnlein wrote:
As for security, intelligent ISPs will be monitoring their network and
will have sensors in place to alert them to abnormal traffic (NetFlow,
Snort, SNMP Traps, Log watchers) patterns and take
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On 4/27/05, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In any event the malware is already ahead of port 25 blocking and is
leveraging ISP smarthosting. SMTP-Auth is the pill to ease this pain/
Really smtp-auth will solve it? or do most windows mua's cache your
password?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/25/hushmail_dns_attack/
Surfers trying to visit the web site of popular secure email service
Hushmail were redirected to a false site early Sunday following a
hacking attack. Hush Communications said hackers changed Hushmail's
DNS records after
Not quite the same thing,
it looks as though they just changed the DNS records and didn't
change the actual ownership of the domain.
It also seems to have been resolved quite quickly. I wonder how much
of this is due to increased awareness
following the panix.com issue, and how much is due to
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 05:50:11PM -0400, Daniel Golding wrote:
Do all of Comcast's markets block port 25?
Not yet.
And Big Pond is my hero. :-)
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/0,261791,39188135,00.htm
I'm not sure I'd break my arm trying to pat them on the back yet. They
have a ways to go in SMTP filtering their users so that when they are
infected with trojans, they aren't abused to send
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:31:42 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
But with smtp auth, the infected user is stamped in the email headers,
and all over my MTA logs, when a bot that hijacks his PC starts
spamming.
Of course, the same ISPs that will use the ID in the email headers are,
by and
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fergie (Paul
Ferguson) writes:
I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love
to know how ISP operations folk feel about this.
Links here:
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1162720
At a recent forum at Fordham Law School, Susan Crawford -- an attorney,
On 4/27/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, the same ISPs that will use the ID in the email headers are,
by and large, the same ones that already know how to match the IP in the
headers to their radius/tacacs/etc logs
With a great deal less effort.
When you are
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Strangely, for all the FUD in the above paragraph, I'm just not buying it.
The internet, as near as I can tell, is functioning today at least as well
as it ever has in my 20+ years of experience working with it.
You must not have used it much in those
Hello,
Anyone from Cox Communications reading this list? If so, please contact
me off-list regarding a routing issue on your network. Thank you!
on Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 03:19:04AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, most water transit companies are also the water supply company, but,
in my analogy, and, in some areas, as a matter of fact, they are not the
same. The chemical tampering of which you speak is done by the water
supply company
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Local telco concerned about voip eating into their revenues, and wants
to push through legislation or something? :)
Or somebody who would like to provision adequate bandwidth to
accommodate for services on the rise?
Not everybody is installed with the evil bit
Steve Casner's paper, which you cited, and Sue Moon's paper at
http://an.kaist.ac.kr/~sbmoon/paper/infocom2004.pdf, both report very
limited variation in delay within the ISP network. Sue's paper goes on
to describe points of variation on the order of ten and 100 ms in some
detail as
You sure about that? ;-)
http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/2005/04/57-evil-43-good.html
- ferg
-- Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Local telco concerned about voip eating into their revenues, and wants
to push through legislation or something? :)
Or
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 11:08:42AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
Malicious packets now account for a significant percentage of all ip
traffic.
As a data point:
An unused, never before used or even just announced /21 currently draws
an average of 112pps und 70kbit/s, translating to about 1GB (1
I have heard rumors that SD has been having persistent switch
problems with their switches at PAIX (Palo Alto), and I was kind of
wondering if anyone actually cared?
well, they've sure been having fun up at the six in seattle
randy
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
We owe to our customers, and we owe it to ourselves, so let's
just stop finding excise to side-step the issue.
So are you saying that managed security services are not avaialble for
paying consumers in USA?
Pete
Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do ISPs owe this to their customers.
They don't. (I would argue that they owe it to the rest of the Internet, but
that argument is tangential to this discussion.)
However, I'd like to add an additional data point:
Those of us in .us have undoubtedly
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Petri Helenius wrote:
We owe to our customers, and we owe it to ourselves, so let's
just stop finding excise to side-step the issue.
So are you saying that managed security services are not avaialble for paying
consumers in USA?
I think the debate is if default should be
At 01:39 PM 4/27/2005, you wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fergie
(Paul
Ferguson) writes:
I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love
to know how ISP operations folk feel about this.
Links here:
http://www.vnunet.com/news/1162720
At a recent forum at Fordham Law
Of course there are.
What I'm saying is that too many providers do nothing,
regardless of whether it is a managed (read: paid) service,
or not.
- ferg
-- Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We owe to our customers, and we owe it to ourselves, so let's
just stop finding excise to
Thank you, Steve, for a very articulate rational post. :-)
- ferg
-- Steve Sobol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
Anyone who thinks AOL is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts,
please speak up now...
[FX: sound of crickets chirping]
Yup. That's what I thought.
Not having to
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
:
: On 4/20/05, Suresh Ramasubramanian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/
:
: That's a must read article, I'd say.
:
: Followup article by Paul Wilson -
:
I have no problem with disconnecting known abusers. However, there's
lots of other actions implied in the ISP responsibility described
that are things like filtering port 25, blocking NetBIOS, etc.
Some ISPs do this.
I'm all for having an AUP and/or TOS that allows you to disconnect
abusers.
We know that almost all users are too stupid to know what they really
need or how to get it, and that they need to be protected from their own
stupidity -- as well as protecting the rest of the world from their
stupidity.
Not only do I not know this, I find it to be patently false.
Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this
information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU
while they're making their choice of how to proceed with IP address
allocation.
and arguments were presented to bolton that his cuban/syrian/... agenda
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Sobol writes:
And I'd argue that Owen's attitude is appropriate for transit and
business-class connections[0] - but if you're talking about a consumer ISP,
that's different. If the Big Four[1] US cable companies followed AOL's lead,
we'd see a huge drop in
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 13:39 -0400, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
snip
At a recent forum at Fordham Law School, Susan Crawford -- an attorney,
not a network operator -- expressed it very well: if we make ISPs into
police, we're all in the ghetto.
Bruce is a smart guy, and a good friend of mine,
--On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 11:08 AM -0700 Dan Hollis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
Strangely, for all the FUD in the above paragraph, I'm just not buying
it. The internet, as near as I can tell, is functioning today at least
as well as it ever has in
I think the problem isn't with dirty water arriving from the water
company, it's the fact that so many end users are allowing raw sewage to
be poured into /other people's water/, and some ISPs don't feel
compelled to do anything to save other ISPs from their users'
pollutants.
I agree
At Wed Apr 27 15:04:46 2005, Steve Sobol wrote:
[1] Soon to be Big Three, but currently Comcast, Time Warner, Charter, and
Adelphia.
---
Adelphia is #5, you forgot Cox (#3).
-MH
W. Mark Herrick, Jr.
Director - Data and Network Security - Adelphia Communications
5619 DTC Parkway, Greenwood
Is VoIP? Of course not. But, it does brings the dicussion
full circle
- ferg
-- Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is, for example, p2p abuse? After all, it uses up bandwidth.
--
Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
Engineering Architecture for the Internet
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
to source is still the big gap. imiho, from the ops perspective,
only sally's ecn has made any useful approach. sadly, we may be
able to judge the actual demand for e2e qos by ecn's very slow
deployment. i think this is unfortunate, as ecn is pretty
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Owen DeLong wrote:
From that perspective, in my experience, things are better today than they
ever have been.
The only thing I've seen in the past 20 years which has made any positive
impact on overall internet reliability is BGP dampening. In all other
cases its gotten
In a message written on Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 07:41:52AM +0530, Suresh
Ramasubramanian wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/article/1045_0_1_0_C/
That's a must read article, I'd say.
If you're interested in these issues I strongly encourage you to
read and be involved in your local RIR and/or the
The only thing I've seen in the past 20 years which has made any positive
impact on overall internet reliability is BGP dampening. In all other
cases its gotten worse as networks are ground to dust by daily DDOS
attacks. You can read daily about sites xyz or networks xyz being
unreachable
Daniel Roesen wrote:
I hope to find the time to do some capturing and analysis of this
traffic. If anyone here has experience with that I'd be happy to hear
from them... don't want to waste time doing something others already
did... :-)
Sure, what would you like to know?
Pete
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
: Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this
: information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU
: while they're making their choice of how to proceed with IP address
: allocation.
:
: and arguments were
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
Of course there are.
What I'm saying is that too many providers do nothing,
regardless of whether it is a managed (read: paid) service,
or not.
So why don't the market economy work and solve the problem? Because
there is no tax on pollution?
Pete
- ferg
-- Petri
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:41:07AM -1000, Scott Weeks wrote:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
: Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this
: information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU
: while they're making their choice of
That's a good question.
- ferg
-- Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I'm saying is that too many providers do nothing,
regardless of whether it is a managed (read: paid) service,
or not.
So why don't the market economy work and solve the problem? Because
there is no tax on
* Dan Hollis:
And there are so many IWF that applying enough cluebats to clear the path
for ECN is going to take enormous effort.
ECN favors non-conformant endpoints. Therefore, it won't help you in
the long run if the congestion is on a path which is shared by
multiple customers. Popular
On 27 Apr 2005, at 06:07, Owen DeLong wrote:
ISPs transport packets. That's what they do. That's what most
consumers
pay them to do. I haven't actually seen a lot of consumers asking for
protected internet. I've seen lots of marketing hype pushing it, but,
very little actual consumer demand.
I was just wondering why they'd chose to do it the national
allocation way when good arguments are presented that it'd only
disrupt things.
because that is what they know from the telco numbering plan. and
it lets them play the this should be run by governments plan, the
folk from whom they
Steve Sobol wrote:
And I'd argue that Owen's attitude is appropriate for transit and
business-class connections[0] - but if you're talking about a consumer ISP,
that's different. If the Big Four[1] US cable companies followed AOL's lead,
we'd see a huge drop in malware incidents and zombies.
On 4/27/05, Owen DeLong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was referring to the article which contained the schneier quote, not
schneier. The article was written by someone at least pretending to be
a journalist, and, was put out as news, not editorial or advertising.
As such, it should be held to
No, it's not for legislation. In fact, we're planning
to collect information on how people use internet as
Voice carrier and the Voice communication quality they
got.
By this way, it could be evaluated that what's the
possible best way of resource provisioning how NGN
voice traffic should be
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Jerry Pasker wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow allegedly wrote:
This, it seems, was an unfortunate side effect (as I pointed out earlier)
of legacy software and legacy config... if I had to guess.
You guess wrong. See the above. And don't pass judgement. (am I
being
Bill Stewart wrote:
You could solve 90% of the problems that you perceive are being caused
by unrestricted
cable modem users by using blocklists to ignore traffic from them.
Which would be great if cable/DSL providers offered some insight into which of
their netblocks should be blocked and which
On 4/28/05, Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Probably, I'll have to research through the ITU site to find out this
information, but surely these arguments have been presented to the ITU
while they're making their choice of how to proceed with IP address
allocation. Does anyone have a
What's rDNS for the ip address(es) assigned to you?
I don't know about him, but, on my ADSL connection, it is controlled
by my nameservers:
;; ANSWER SECTION:
10.159.192.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ns.rop.edu.
10.159.192.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ns.delong.sj.ca.us.
I'm not
95 matches
Mail list logo
