for those of us who are trying to provide dual stack services, how the
heck do we get v6 glue added to the gtlds? specifically, i want to add
v6 glue for psg.com and rip.psg.com in the com zone.
similarly for the root, as rip.psg.com serves some tlds.
randy
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Gadi Evron wrote:
Yes, I still believe these ISP distributed machines called broadband
routers are a network operators issue. But not all may agree on that.
What specifications can consumer electronics stores and ISPs include in th
On 1/17/08, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Wow, as far as I can tell, you've pretty much condemned most firewall
> software and devices then, because I'm really not aware of any serious
> ones that will successfully implement rules such as "allow from
> 123.45.67.0/24" via DNS. Besides
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:15:30 CST, Joe Greco said:
> > make this a killer. That could include things such as firewall rules/ACL's,
> > recursion DNS server addresses, VPN adapters, VoIP equipment with stacks too
> > stupid to do DNS, etc.
>
> I'll admit that fixing up /etc/resolv.conf and whate
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Bill Woodcock wrote:
Patrik, Kurtis, et al organized a few NordNOGs; I think there were three
of them, but it didn't seem to get much traction outside of Sweden, and
I think they got tired of being the only ones pushing it forward.
SOF, Swedish Operator Forum meets a 4-5
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 17:35:30 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:29:37 GMT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said:
>
> > You don't always want to rely on the DNS for things like firewalls
> > and ACLs. DNS responses can be spoofed, the servers may not be
> > available, etc. (For some r
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:29:37 GMT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said:
> You don't always want to rely on the DNS for things like firewalls and
> ACLs. DNS responses can be spoofed, the servers may not be available,
> etc. (For some reason, I'm assuming that DNSsec isn't being used...)
Been there, done t
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> Note that Scandinavia doesn't have anything formal network operator
> meeting either, even though it's a very active area.
Patrik, Kurtis, et al organized a few NordNOGs; I think there were three
of them, but it didn't seem to get much t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a customer that's trying to do something I've never seen before,
and I'm trying to help him set it up.
They have a 2811 set up with a VPN using a GRE tunnel. We have that up
and running to the other end ok. However, the customer wants to control
which RFC 1918
All of the arguments of whether AT&T should do it or would do
it aside, my guesses are that it is either (a) the people he is
talking to really don't understand him, (b) do understand
but don't know how to get it done, or (c) AT&T only does
things like that for customers buying such-and-such level
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:45:24 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:15:30 CST, Joe Greco said:
> > make this a killer. That could include things such as firewall
> > rules/ACL's, recursion DNS server addresses, VPN adapters, VoIP
> > equipment with stacks too stupid to do DNS, e
I have a customer that's trying to do something I've never seen before,
and I'm trying to help him set it up.
They have a 2811 set up with a VPN using a GRE tunnel. We have that up
and running to the other end ok. However, the customer wants to control
which RFC 1918 10.x space he assigns to e
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:15:30 CST, Joe Greco said:
> make this a killer. That could include things such as firewall rules/ACL's,
> recursion DNS server addresses, VPN adapters, VoIP equipment with stacks too
> stupid to do DNS, etc.
I'll admit that fixing up /etc/resolv.conf and whatever the Windo
Leo is referring to RFC 2270. Providers can get an ASN to use for
customers who want to be multihomed only to them. It's likely ATT has
such an ASN that you could use.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2270.txt
--Heather
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Heather Schiller
Customer Security
IP Address Ma
On 16-Jan-2008, at 07:09, Rod Beck wrote:
6. I am not aware of any Dutch per se ISP conferences although that
market is certainly quite vibrant. I am also disappointed to see the
Canadians and Irish have next to nothing despite Ireland being the
European base of operations for Google, Mic
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Gadi Evron wrote:
Props to Jeff Chan who I saw it from.
Yes, I still believe these ISP distributed machines called broadband routers
are a network operators issue. But not all may agree on that.
I doubt many ISP security or customer care folks are fans of UPnP.
The dist
> "Not Exactly".. there is a court case (MAI Systems Corp. vs Peak
> Computer Inc
> 991 F.2d 511) holding that copying from storage media into
> computer ram *IS*
> actionable copyright infringement. A specific exemption was written into
> the copyright statutes for computer _programs_ (but *NO
On Jan 16, 2008, at 4:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote:
2. What's the technical terminology for the request for AT&T to
simply
start advertising our netblock called? I'm wondering if they're not
understanding our request.
According to the cached copy of AT&T's bgp4policy.doc at:
http://www.one
On Jan 17, 2008 12:13 PM, Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Once again shortly after posting a message to NANOG a fairly
> significant dictionary attack using Earthlink's mail servers fired up.
>
> The same thing happened around Nov 30th (I posted about it here.)
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
> P.S. if your network is all in one cage, it can't be that difficult
> to just renumber it all into AT&T address space.
Oh, come on, let's not be naive. It's perfectly possible to have a common
situation where it would be exceedingly difficult to do this. Anything
that gets wired in by IP addr
Tony Li wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote:
>> Anyway, it's all getting (for us) pretty complicated. We're a fairly
>> small firm and just want an Ethernet handoff with our IP block on it.
>> Sprint didn't blink at the request, but AT&T... We're getting a good
>> rate from
All you can say is...* **Caveat emptor.**
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 2. What's the technical terminology for the request for AT&T
>> to simply start advertising our netblock called? I'm
>> wondering if they're not understanding our request.
>>
>
> You hit the nail on the head with that
> 2. What's the technical terminology for the request for AT&T
> to simply start advertising our netblock called? I'm
> wondering if they're not understanding our request.
You hit the nail on the head with that question. It's called a
purchase order request. You bought vanilla Internet acces
Rod Beck wrote:
>I am also disappointed to see the
>Canadians and Irish have next to nothing despite Ireland being the
>European base of operations for Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Yahoo.
the Canadians tend to keep things quiet, as all their good ideas are taken
by the Americans (ie. light b
On 16 Jan 2008, at 14:08, Joe Provo wrote:
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:44:00PM +0100, Phil Regnauld wrote:
[snip]
Also missed Middle East Network Operators Group (MENOG):
http://www.menog.net/
Better still would be some links to aggregate lists:
- http://www.nanog.org/orgs.html
- http://ww
25 matches
Mail list logo
