On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Geoff Huston wrote:
There is a draft draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-10.txt- it is a draft because
under the current IETF procedures there needs to be 2 independent
implementations of the specification, and at the moment only Redback's
BGP has implemented this. Once there is a 2
At 08:15 PM 1/08/2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Geoff Huston wrote:
> So - to NANOG at large - if you want your vendor to include 4-Byte AS
support
> in their BGP code anytime soon, in order to avoid some last minute
panic in a
> couple of years hence, then it would appea
Thanks
On 1 Aug 2005, at 06:15, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Geoff Huston wrote:
So - to NANOG at large - if you want your vendor to include 4-Byte AS
support
in their BGP code anytime soon, in order to avoid some last minute
panic in a
couple of years hence, then it would appear
fred, seeing as there is not now, and likely never will be fixed
versions for many of our routers (25xx, 17xx, ..., and i can't
find a path up from my 7200 k4p-mz.120-25.4.S on the web site),
your logic tells us that cisco will never announce. i am sure
this is not what you intend.
randy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anyone who uses the argument of inter-domain routing that are not
seen by
any data collectors on the Internet should be pointed at RFC1930
and told
to renumber their private ASNs.
Just because public route collectors can't see use of an ASN
Guy Coslado (GC0111) wrote:
Excuse me, I'm not really fluent in english, so this sentence is not
clear for me :
On 1 Aug 2005 at 11:47, Fred Baker wrote:
We aren't very impressed by people that expose the industry to
danger.
It means they give a s**t for us, their customers.
Are you
Folks, let's end this thread - 'nuff said.
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> The poor guy/gal at the other end of the line will need a really good
> answer. Does anyone here have one?
to avoid being technical i guess the only answer would be to say this is a
private service offered to tiscali users and is not available to any non
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Geoff Huston wrote:
> So - to NANOG at large - if you want your vendor to include 4-Byte AS support
> in their BGP code anytime soon, in order to avoid some last minute panic in a
> couple of years hence, then it would appear that you should talk to them now
> and say clearly
At 11:47 AM +0200 2005-08-01, Fred Baker wrote:
We very much try to work with people that are willing to work with us.
We aren't very impressed by people that expose the industry to danger.
Here's the fundamental problem. You guys say that you're willing
to work with people. But on the
Cisco, are you listening?
Cisco is in fact listening. Cisco, like other companies, generally
does not release security notices until enough information exists to
allow customers to make a reasonable determination as to whether or
not they are at risk and how to mitigate possible risk.
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 09:17:58AM +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> On 31.07 17:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > we did that (move a root) in the CIDR /8 experiment.
> > we could do it for this too :)
>
> one root name server: yes
> the root name servers: no, definitely not
>
>
> "www.really-cool.alt. Now fix your systems so I can access it"
>
> The poor guy/gal at the other end of the line will need a really good
> answer.
"Looks like your friend has been duped by some domain hijackers/phishers
exploiting a DNS security hole. We've kept you safe from that perhaps
you
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
> No one ever said the Internet wasn't chock full of contradictions.
> One one hand, we have what some are now calling "Cisco gate":
> http://news.com.com/Hackers+rally+behind+Cisco+flaw+finder/2100-1002_3-5812044.html
Alder then blasted Cisco fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:45:29 CDT, "John Palmer (NANOG Acct)" said:
>> "... As a result of this agreement, Tiscali will offer to its subscribers
>> across Europe the access to the entire World Wide Web, including the new
>> alternative domain names.
>
> I can see it now.
On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Piotr KUCHARSKI wrote:
> > I took pictures of the slides but may have missed one or two. Grab them
> > here: http://164.106.251.250/docs/netsec/defcon13/7-27-05.zip
Looks like its already gone. ISS/Cisco threat?
> PS I took the liberty of mirroring it at 42.pl/lynn/
Let u
On 31.07 17:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> we did that (move a root) in the CIDR /8 experiment.
> we could do it for this too :)
one root name server: yes
the root name servers: no, definitely not
Daniel
PS: Ony as soon as implementations are available of course ! ;-(
18 matches
Mail list logo
