On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Glen Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unlike the Youtube outage where PTA had issued a directive asking all
> ISPs to block Youtube - What is the reason most often cited for such
> mishaps? The reason i ask this is because the ISPs that
> "inadvertently" hijac
7018 is still seeing announcements from 6461,
and the Oregon Routeviews server route-views.routeviews.org also sees
many announcements
from different ISPs seeing it announced from 6461.
The whois entry for Above.net lists the NOC as
RTechHandle: NOC41-ORG-ARIN
RTechName: AboveNet NOC
R
More productively, there are real concerns with the cable routing
around India and Pakistan. Connections across Egypt have geographical
constraints that are probably more significant than the political
ones, but having most of the connectivity into western India going
into Mumbai and not Cochin o
On Feb 1, 2008 2:37 PM, Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (either that, or the backhoe operators' union has decided there's
> > better money to be made on water than on land.)
Guys named Bubba can get fishing licenses just as easily as backhoe
drivers' licenses.
One of my customer
There's the somewhat trivial efficiency that if you're willing to
accept asymmetric routing, you spend a lot less time tweaking your
networks than if you insist on symmetry, and the more significant
issue that the network will usually be more resilient and reliable
(though slightly less predictabl
Normally these requests are looking for somebody who's operational and
has a clue, and therefore aren't intended for me (:-), but IMHO
they're_really_ not a problem.
They're almost always short, and have Subject: lines that indicate
what they're about, so it's easy to skip over them based on the
S
When Verisign hijacked the wildcard DNS space for .com/.net, they
encoded the Evil Bit in the response by putting Sitefinder's IP
address as the IP address. In theory you could interpret that as
damage and route around it, or at least build ACLs to block any
traffic to that IP address except for
On 10/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That brings up an interesing point. My biggest fear was that one of my
> other customers could possible be closer to me that the ISP that provides
> the primary link and it would cause them to favor the backup link because of
> AS path.
On 10/4/07, Hex Star <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it that the US has ISP's with either no quotas or obscenely high ones
> while countries like Australia have ISP's with ~12gb quotas?
> Is there some kind of added cost running a non US ISP?
One early US cable modem company started propagat
On 9/21/07, Deepak Jain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, when I see "Location of Maintenance: France" and a 5 minute
> outage for a protected SONET service on a supposedly redundant, high
> quality International voice/data network... well, let's just say I'm not
> impressed -- on 36 hrs notic
On 8/26/07, Jason LeBlanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> More on point for this thread, I always have new vendors bring in fiber
> maps and show me their paths. Images of the intended path specified on
> the map are part of the contract, including verbage regarding failover
> paths. Once I know wh
> > On 8/15/07, Barry Shein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I am not sure tasting is criminal or fraud.
...
> Well, not all of us agree that these ad-only pages are particularly a
> problem. They're certainly not necessarily criminal or fraudulent
> except by some stretch.
There are differe
On 8/18/07, Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you see what the GAO found when they audited the US-VISIT network?
> The summary is at
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202260.html?hpid=sec-nation;
> the full report is at http://www.gao.gov/
On 6/5/07, Roger Marquis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you proposing that every company use publicly routable address
space? How about the ones that don't qualify for a /19 and so are
dependent on addresses owned by their upstream?
This discussion evolved from an IPv6 discussion, so there's
On 5/30/07, Michal Krsek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Few weeks ago I had interesting discussion with *unnamed* Google VIP. His
answer has been:
"Google engineers doesn't see need to spend money on building IPv6
infrastructure.
You, as user, can motivate them by sending request supporting this id
One of my customers comments that he doesn't care about jumbograms of
9K or 4K - what he really wants is to be sure the networks support
MTUs of at least 1600-1700 bytes, so that various combinations of
IPSEC, UDP-padding, PPPoE, etc. don't break the real 1500-byte packets
underneath.
> Is there something he's not telling us?
Wasn't Paul also in that movie with Kevin Bacon?
Thanks; Bill
Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far.
And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
On 11/13/06, chuck goolsbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It pisses me off to no end when a sales guy comes to me with a
request from a customer for a /20 for a half-rack of web servers. The
justification ALWAYS comes down to this inane "search engine
optimization" pipe dream. =\
No, no, it's abs
Possible approach for small.net - ok, you know that big.net will drop
any packets sourced from x.x.x.x if there's no route there (loose uRPF
for downstream ISPs like small.net, strict uRPF for end-users.) So
give them a route. Either give them a route on one of your direct
interfaces to them, a
Call me naive, but could somebody enlighten me as to what tangible
benefit filtering out bogon space actually achieves? It strikes me
that it causes more headaches than it solves.
All packets arriving from bogon space have the "evil bit" set.
There's nobody there you want to talk to, and there
On 9/6/06, Stephen Sprunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Telling half my family members they have to go get Gmail so they can
email the other half of my family members is ridiculous. Too bad
Comcast has a monopoly (or, where a duopoly, the competition is just as
incompetent) so they have no incenti
On 5/11/06, Robert Bonomi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere
> else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there.
And _that_ is *precisely* "why not".
There have been at least three generations of proposals for
Even if you decide you don't need to use a formal RFP process to make
your purchasing decision from the dozens of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3
ISPs that can handle your locations, you might want to do a draft of
an RFP to identify what requirements are important to you and what
requirements are less
I used to have a customer who were in the forestry business. They had
a hundred miles or so of railroad down South that went from one of
their sawmills to places that had lots of trees, and ran some telecom
cables along them. Where they had bridges, the cables would hang
underneath the bridges.
I'm not operationally involved at AT&T, but what I've been told is that we track
5-minute samples in both directions, and do the 95th% calculation on
all the samples,
as opposed to tracking 95% of inbound-only or outbound-only or
max(in,out) samples.
On 2/27/06, Jo Rhett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
I looked at some of these models back in ~2000, but the dotcom boom
ended and I didn't get laid off from my day job, so I didn't go
trolling for venture capitalists, and my employer sold off their cable
companies - since then, the market economics have changed a lot, and
routers have started to su
I've also heard a variety of comments about difficulties in getting
Cisco MLPPP working in MPLS environments, mostly in the past year when
our product development people weren't buried in more serious problems
(:--) I've got the vague impression that it was more buggy for N>2
than N=2. There are
On 11/12/05, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Google is calling their offering "basic Internet access" and "premium
> service." Is "basic Internet access" different than "internet access?"
> Google doesn't really define what they mean by these terms.
The article in the Palo Alto Daily N
Media traffic volumes are generally not visible, because they're from
endpoint to endpoint, so unless you've got really detailed monitoring
(which the original poster said they didn't), you're not going to see
traffic between two phones in the same building, or traffic between
buildings that don't
Back in the mid-80s, when some people at Bell Labs were trying to get
the rest of us there onto the DNS bandwagon, there were some people
who didn't like it. Pike and Weinberger put out deep theoretical
papers like The Hideous Name on relative vs. absolute names and the
effects of syntax (availa
>
> In re-applying for whitelisting, I do see that AOL requires a
> minimum of 100 emails/month to maintain a whitelist entry. This
> is new to me, and would be worth nothing for others who may be
> adding or removing servers.
Sounds like an obvious motivation for any big mailing list vendor to
> > How are people making the case for IPv6 with [VOIP]?
> > With G.711 and 20ms voice samples, with IPv4 you get:
If you're running G.711, you've decided that network bandwidth isn't a
problem for your application. Percentage of overhead doesn't really
matter - it's total overhead bandwidth com
On 7/12/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > They found a third of calls in the 10 minutes before the crash were made on
> > cellphones.
> And the *other* 2/3rd of the calls were made on what, exactly?
>
> A land line just before departure, followed by a crash less than 10 minute
Tunneling IP over DNS - Dan Kaminsky's ozymandns project.
One source of really strange DNS packets I've seen is Dan Kaminsky's
experiments with tunneling IP over DNS , which he presented at
Codecon, Defcon, and other places. Dan has often done Really Twisted
Things With Packets, and once you've
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 h
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 zombie
> > Well, PPLB isn't the end of the world. But PPLB is coming, and the smart
> > people will be prepared for it. They dumb people, well, they're dumb.
> > What can be expected from dumb people?
There are a variety of things that don't like PPLB, notably IPSEC.
One problem is that if packet lengt
> PPPoEoL2TPoIPSECoLANEoIPV6oRFC1149.
What a bunch of mean nasty ugly stuff.
My Sonic.net connection is simply rfc1483 (IP packets on an ATM PVC
with a standard SNAP header), and I think that's probably what SBC is
delivering them.
AT&T's business SDSL and IDSL circuits also work that way
On 4/14/05, Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,261744,39188319,00.htm
> Disconnecting six compromised personal computers on Tuesday evening eased
> the difficulties caused by bogus requests which clogged BigPond's domain
> name servers (DNS), slow
On 4/14/05, Dan Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We have 4 DS3s and an OC3 which SBC provides to us via a Nortel mux that
> they placed on our premise. The OC3 we have now is hooked up to their
> ATM network to connect up some other high speed sites. On the actual
> bill for that OC3 it sho
On 4/14/05, Stephen J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you'll never get better redundancy than having more than one carrier.
One carrier can often tell if two circuits they're providing you are
on the same route,
and can develop processes for building circuits that are not
only instal
Cisco's web site has a Miercom report
http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/products/ps5854/c1244/cdccont_0900aecd8017382b.pdf
that tested a bidirectional UDP flow between two 10/100 ports, with
big IP packets,
firewall and NAT running and logging turned on, and they got 130 Mbps.
Yo
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:16:14 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Analogies suck, but look at (for example) Norton AntiVirus. You pay
> for a year of virus definition updates. Then when the year runs out,
> Symantec is not going to give you a single new virus definition eve
They did sue 300 spammers, so it's possible that some of them are still around,
either as individual proprietors or as corporate entities, but they're
only responsible for
their individual spamming totals, not the whole billion.
Most of the billion dollars was in two big awards, and the other numb
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:54:03 +, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a customer of chello.be has been repeating a dns dynamic update against my
> zone every four minutes since october 20. chello's abuse reporting channel
> is no doubt full of spam reports. their noc no doubt doesn't care
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:32:15 -0700, Bill Garrison
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Calling SBC provided me with a rather clueless person telling me all
> about ATM, Frame Relay and other options I don't want.
> To his credit, I believe I may have been defining what I want incorrectly.
> Since both a
part of their company,
but all I really know about it is that cable companies have a history
of doing funky things,
particularly with NAT, which is one of many reasons I use DSL at home
instead of cable modems. And this posting is strictly my private
speculation, not my employer's.
Bill Stewart
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 15:06:17 -0400, James Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Pardon for my possibly ill informed interjection. I was under the
> impression that the current wind was blowing towards filtering outbound
> port 25 traffic while allowing outbound authenticated port 587 traffic?
>
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 10:35:36 -0400, Eric Germann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I would to see (and have never researched in depth) is a way to apply
> the blackhole routes on a community to port basis (i.e. we set up a specific
> BGP community to filter mail, and that community goes to a route
AT&T spun off AT&T Wireless a couple of years ago, and the spinoff is
renting the brand name and the Death Star logo, and probably buys a
bunch of network and telco service from AT&T but is otherwise
unconnected. As a stockholder of the spinoff company, I'm
disappointed though not surprised that
50 matches
Mail list logo
