Hi Gadi,
I took the effort and looked into the other postings of some of the guys.
I guess they are only keyword or sender envoked bots.
I have never seen any positive postings from them.
Kind regards
Peter and Karin
Gadi Evron wrote:
On Sat, 23 Sep 2006, John Underhill wrote:
-Moderated
On 24 Sep 2006, at 04:00, Gadi Evron wrote:
[...]
With thousands of sites on every server and virtual machines
everywhere,
all it takes is one insecure web application such as xxxBB or PHPxx
for
the server to be remote accessed, and for a remote connect-back
shell to
be installed. The
Basically, there is a crowd that says only network related stuff, say,
trasnit ISP's (as an example, not to say them alone) would be interested
in, is on topic.
Others say there are other issues which are oprations related and
of interest to them. We are split.
A compromise has now been
Does anybody have details about a power outage at Telehouse North today?
The first routing issues that reflected the issue appeared around
13:00BST, but I don't have any details about the cause.
cheers!
==
A cat spends
Gadi Evron wrote:
A compromise has now been suggested (by me). The only thing both sides
agree on is that in fact, the replies and flame wars on what is on topic
or isn't, and who should speak of what, are disruptive.
Agreed.
How about we, for now, only change one thing about NANOG - the
Does anybody have details about a power outage at Telehouse North today?
There was no power to a fair proportion of it for around 5 minutes
at approx 12:50BST
brandon
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
Does anybody have details about a power outage at Telehouse North today?
There was no power to a fair proportion of it for around 5 minutes
at approx 12:50BST
brandon
I have been just made aware on the nanog-futures list that outages
One of the biggest issues with the list as I've seen from time to time from my
perspective, is the definition of operations. So on a quick breakdown of the
logical definition of NANOG, I derive Operations of the North American
Network. The problem with this stems from far too many bastardizing
After recent events, may I propose the ultimate NANOG thread..NANOG User: MessageRichard A Steenbergen: Can we keep this off-topic crap off NANOG?Gadi Evron: That message is deeply relevant to us all. I can't
understand what your porblme is.Sean Donelan: Fascinating, User. I suppose ISSUE would be
This inspired me: http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2006/04/07/4991
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow: I think you have a point, Sean, but can you try
not to engage with this? ISSUE is definitely off topic.
I don't think I've ever asked if something was off-topic on nanog...
(and 'chris' is fine, no one but my mom calls
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Kent wrote:
A smaller North American network provider, with a modest North
American backbone, numbers their internal routers on public IP space
that they do not announce to the world.
One of the largest North American network providers
virendra rode wrote:
This is yet another reason one shouldn't rely on pings traceroutes to
perform reachability analysis.
So, you're in the traceroute is not important camp?
(you'll note that in my email I did ask whether we think
traceroute is important)
Mark Smith wrote:
The
On Sep 24, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Mark Kent wrote:
Remember, we're not talking about RFC1918 space,
where there is a BCP that says we should filter it at the edge.
We're talking about public IP space, that just doesn't happen to be
announced outside of a particular AS.
If the intent is to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mark Kent wrote:
virendra rode wrote:
This is yet another reason one shouldn't rely on pings traceroutes to
perform reachability analysis.
So, you're in the traceroute is not important camp?
(you'll note that in my email I did ask whether we
[Can we all have a moment of silence for a useful, interesting, and
on-topic post?]
On Sep 24, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Mark Kent wrote:
A smaller North American network provider, with a modest North
American backbone, numbers their internal routers on public IP space
that they do not announce to
Creating consternation around boundary conditions and then
proposing artificial self-serving compromises is one of the oldest
games there is on mailing lists, going back pretty much to the
invention of Usenet. At the risk of playing a small role in this
instance, as a longtime lurker I simply
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Fred Heutte wrote:
Creating consternation around boundary conditions and then
proposing artificial self-serving compromises is one of the oldest
games there is on mailing lists, going back pretty much to the
invention of Usenet. At the risk of playing a small role in
18 matches
Mail list logo
