> In part the problem was 'legal' (versus technical)...the folks involved
> in the working list from MS...technical people, offered ongoing
> reassurance that the as-yet-unpublished patent apps were benign, that
Folks,
For all the reasons already cited in this thread, it's clear that legal
co
On 08/06/05, Tony Finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think the lack of standard APIs is a problem: it seems to me that
> the various MTA authors have been reasonably keen to support the various
> nascent specifications, especially if they have a reasonably good
> reference implementatio
I did notice A low number on the index at
http://www.internettrafficreport.com/namerica.htm
-Henry
--- Joel Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
> >I think that these things are operational and
> belong here. Its'
> >the level that ras is talking about and the
> content. Saying
--- "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not the *best* solution, but it's probably the
> least worst.
>
"Least worst" could describe pretty much everything
about how we do networking today, so count me in the
chorus of folks who consider outages completely
on-topic.
David
On 6/8/2005 12:37 AM, John Levine wrote:
> I am all in favor of sender authentication, if it's real sender
> authentication.
I don't disagree with anything you said, and I certainly agree with your
closing sentiment.
Having said that, SPF and Sender-ID are useful as another hammer in the
bag-o
Just a reminder that nominations for the three open NANOG Program
Committee positions are due by Friday!
- Forwarded message from Steve Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Steve Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 18:24:06 -0700
Subject: Open nominati
Today at 19:12 (-), Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
[snip]
"Top executives of major telecom equipment makers say
beefing up security and reliability on service provider
networks is necessary to protect customers and is a
matter of national s
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 06:30:50PM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> What's the matter with simply using the mailing list?
> Don't reinvent the wheel.
For precisely that reason, I, personally, am on your side.
It's not the *best* solution, but it's probably the least worst.
Cheers,
-- jr
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 02:35:42PM -0400, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> > Well, that's fine, at the transport layer, but I think more an
> > application layer solution is called for.
> >
> > Something akin to news.announce.important on Usenet?
>
> How about [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oddly, that's my approa
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> [snip]
>
> "Top executives of major telecom equipment makers say
> beefing up security and reliability on service provider
> networks is necessary to protect customers and is a
> matter of national security."
>
> [snip]
>
> http://www.networkwo
I've been out of the hands-on config game for a while, so certain portions
of my clue is rusting. I knew the MSFC and the SUP both had their own
ideas about how things were supposed to go, but (especially with IOS
running on switches) wasn't 100% on the configuration behaviour. I can
look at
> "Bill" == Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bill> Configured to export v5 flows, cat6509 running IOS is sourcing
Bill> 95% v7, and 5% v5. Anyone seen this kind of behaviour?
You don't mention what version of IOS or what supervisor/PFC version
in the cat.
With 12.1 at least, the MSFC
Head's up...
- ferg
[snip]
"Top executives of major telecom equipment makers say
beefing up security and reliability on service provider
networks is necessary to protect customers and is a
matter of national security."
[snip]
http://www.networkworld.com/edge/news/2005/060805-supercomm-securi
It seems like it's taking more time to discuss it than it actually
would take to create a nanog-outage list.
Maybe it's not being done because doing so would be threatening to a
lot of people.
Having a large sounding board for outages will make it very difficult
for larger providers to cov
Thanks for the emails, y'all very quickly confirmed my theories and I'm
starting an argument with the network guys about it. Thanks again!
- billn
Ask the folks at the NYSE. ;-)
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163703141
- ferg
-- "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The Internet needs a PA system.
>
> There is this sparsely deployed technology called multicast which
> would work for this
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Jay R. Ashworth
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 2:25 PM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Outage queries and notices (was Re: GBLX congestion in
> Dallas area)
>
[ SNIP ]
> Well, that's fine, at the
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:22:02PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
The Internet needs a PA system.
There is this sparsely deployed technology called multicast which would
work for this application.
Well, that's fine, at the tra
What's the matter with simply using the mailing list?
Don't reinvent the wheel.
- ferg
-- "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >The Internet needs a PA system.
>
> There is this sparsely deployed technology called multicast which would
> work for this application.
Well, that's
On Jun 8, 2005, at 2:22 PM, Petri Helenius wrote:
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
The Internet needs a PA system.
There is this sparsely deployed technology called multicast which
would work for this application.
It barely works for any application. I hesitate to think how well it
work work
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 09:22:02PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >The Internet needs a PA system.
>
> There is this sparsely deployed technology called multicast which would
> work for this application.
Well, that's fine, at the transport layer, but I think more an
app
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
The Internet needs a PA system.
There is this sparsely deployed technology called multicast which would
work for this application.
Pete
Configured to export v5 flows, cat6509 running IOS is sourcing 95% v7, and
5% v5. Anyone seen this kind of behaviour?
- billn
Hi. Apologies in advance for the OT. Would like any input/experiences
regarding Paetec as a provider, especially in relation to domestic MPLS
services.
Please respond off-list.
Thanks in advance,
Mike Donahue
WATG
Not exactly operationally relevent, but interesting nonetheless.
- ferg
>From a Reuters newswire article appearing in CNN/Money:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/08/news/international/broadband.reut/index.htm
[snip]
More Europeans than Americans had a broadband Internet
connection in the first q
Wasn't there a lot of turmoil within the IETF last year
on sender authentication because Microsoft was trying to
push it's own sender ID authetication mechasnisms as a
draft standard?
In part the problem was 'legal' (versus technical)...the folks involved
in the working list from MS...techni
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> On 08/06/05, J.D. Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > We can't have reliable reputation until we know who the mail is
> > coming from -- so reliable identity is a necessary first step.
>
> What the doctor ordered seems to be s
[ SNIP ]
>I think that these things are operational and belong here. Its'
>the level that ras is talking about and the content. Saying
>MCI has a massive fiber cut impacting 230 Congress IX vs.
>GBLX is not doing what I demand are very different types of
>outage posts.
My original post to the
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Daniel Golding writes:
>
>
>Reputation is a missing element in all sender authentications schemes and
>will (likely) be solved separately.
>
>No approach is perfect, but building closer to a solution is preferred over
>sitting on our hands and debating, which (histo
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Pete Templin
> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 10:51 AM
> To: Jay R. Ashworth
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Outage queries and notices (was Re: GBLX congestion in
> Dallas area)
>
[ SNIP ]
>
> O
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
From down here, like Dave, at the relative bottom of the food chain, I
must agree with him and Steve, though I do understand Richard's
concerns there, and they're valid ones.
The Internet needs a PA system.
Problem is, the people who are equipped to talk, and, by and l
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
You miss the point. Reputation is already widely being used today - every
blocklist is a reputation system
Strike that point. Not every blocklist is reputation system, though the
most widely used ones like SBL, SORBS, SPAMCOP are all like that.
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 06:40:10PM -0400, Dave Stewart wrote:
> At 06:12 PM 6/7/2005, you wrote:
> >If we started posting about every fiber cut of every carrier anywhere in
> >North America every time it happened there wouldn't be any room left on
> >this list for talking about spam, senderid, DNS
On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Daniel Golding wrote:
Reputation is a missing element in all sender authentications schemes and
will (likely) be solved separately.
No approach is perfect, but building closer to a solution is preferred over
sitting on our hands and debating, which (historically) seems to
Reputation is a missing element in all sender authentications schemes and
will (likely) be solved separately.
No approach is perfect, but building closer to a solution is preferred over
sitting on our hands and debating, which (historically) seems to be the
IETF's approach.
- Dan
On 6/8/05 12:
nanog-outage@ ? ? ?
On 6/8/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My concern would be that by openly encouraging people to send in more
> > reports of or inquiries about outages, we are going to see a lot more
> > noise from unqualified folks wanting to "be cool". I personally do
If anyone knows of someone from Packet8/8x8, or if you're a Packet8
engineer please contact me offlist.
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
J. Oquendo
GPG Key ID 0x97B43D89
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x97B43D89
To conquer the enemy without resorting to
> My concern would be that by openly encouraging people to send in more
> reports of or inquiries about outages, we are going to see a lot more
> noise from unqualified folks wanting to "be cool". I personally don't
want
> to hear about it every time someone wants to vendor bash ("@#$%^&ing GX
> As prices fall, so does level of service. NANOGers all know
> providing uninterruptible power in the current evolving networks is
> hard as the communications infrastructure continues to decentralize.
> Providing non stop power for long term power failures with generators
> scattered all ov
39 matches
Mail list logo
