Going off on something of a tangent, I'd be really curious what sort
of efforts OpenDNS are making/will need to make in order to limit
their servers' utility as a relay for amplification attacks (which
I'm listening to a discussion on at IETF as I type).
I've found that the reserving the right to nullroute an offending host's
IP address for repeated spam offenses is a good intermediate step
between simple notifications and contract/circuit termination. It lets
the customer know you mean business while still preserving the
customer's account
I would expect some sort of confirmation that Level3 has allocated
the block to them - if there is no swip or RADB object, the customer
should request that Level3 create one (or both). If Level3 cannot do
either (unlikely) I'd request direct contact from Level3 confirming
the allocation.
Madison River, a regional cable provider in North Carolina, did it
last March and got fined by the FCC for its trouble:
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/60405195
-C
On Apr 13, 2006, at 9:16 PM, Alain Hebert wrote:
Eric Germann wrote:
Except when an ISP blocks Vonage completely, then
One thing to note here is that while VoIP flows are low volume on a
bits-per-second basis, they push substantially more packets per
kilobit than other traffic types - as much as 50pps per 82Kbps flow.
And I have seen cases of older line cards approaching their pps
limits when handling
The problem is that generally, things have to get *really* bad before
people will switch to a more secure infrastructure...it's all about
costs, and the cost of staying with a less secure platform must
substantially exceed the cost of switching before it's considered a
reasonable response. It
Maybe I'm missing something, but the core issue is that the NO-
EXPORT'ed anycast instance has a higher localpref inside the AS it's
being advertised to, and as such supressing the non-NO_EXPORT'ed
prefix. The exportable prefix gets suppressed at a point on the
network such that the
Said the flowerpot: Oh no, not again...
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DEL2TO7.htm?
campaign_id=apn_tech_downchan=tc
-C
This post is very OT, but I think events warrant the protocol
violation this time. If you're in New Orleans, I'm sure the health of
the local internet infrastructure becomes secondary to getting your
ass above sea level...
Looks like a lot of people are going to lose everything in this
I did see an article a few days ago (can't find the url now) claiming that
Sprint is planning on focusing purely on wireless and spinning off their
traditional telco/internet operations. I fully expect the spun-off
company to be acquired shortly thereafter (paging Dick Notebaert...)
-C
On
Probably to avoid the snafus of the early @Home rollouts, when at least
one person was accused of stealing cable because the field tech
installed her cable modem without an RF filter...
http://www.joabj.com/Balt/CableRobbing.html
-C
On Apr 18, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Andy Johnson wrote:
Alex
Apologies for the late reply, but T-Mobile's US GPRS network hands out
RFC1918 space as well.
-C
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:40:12PM -0700, Scott Call wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Philip Matthews wrote:
A number of IETF documents(*) state that there are some service providers
that place
I think running two separate computers is a wee bit of overkill...
A better solution would be a NIC with a built-in SI firewall...manageable from a host
app, but physically separate from the OS running on the PC.
-C
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:49:37PM +0300, Petri Helenius wrote:
[EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 May 2004 11:38:33 EDT, Chris Woodfield said:
A better solution would be a NIC with a built-in SI firewall...manageable from a
host
app, but physically separate from the OS running on the PC.
Gaak. No. ;)
What's the point of a firewall, if the first piece
called a Snapgear card :)
-- Jonathan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Chris Woodfield
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 12:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Petri Helenius; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Worms versus
At the ISP level, there's nothing inherently wrong with this, IMO; AOL and MSN do it
already, as does Microsoft. If your customers don't like it, they are capable
of voting with their checkbooks, particularly with dial service; with cable and
DSL, the waters are a bit muddier because a cable
Can someone make sure that a proper supply of torches and pickaxes is requisitioned
for
the excusrsion to Boca Raton?
-C
- Forwarded message from Carol Wadsworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
Envelope-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivery-date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:50:11 -0500
Delivered-To: [EMAIL
So...correct me if I'm wrong here...does this mean that the registry services
operations and the GTLD maintenance operations for .com/.net will be owned by
different companies?
Isn't that what we wanted all along?
-C
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 10:58:11AM -0400, Adam C. Greenfield wrote:
Yea,
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:18:49AM -0500, Gerardo Gregory wrote:
The only way I have gotten them to make BGP changes was through their
qwestsource website, and filling out their form.
https://qwestsource.net/qwestsource/workTemplate.jsp
hope it helpsgood luck!
s/helps/works
Didn't most of us just do that a couple weeks ago?
-C
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 04:03:12PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rebooting the Internet once a month might prevent future problems.
Power off, count to ten, then restart...Proactive Management!?
Jack
pgp0.pgp
Description:
Making a telemarketing call to a cellphone is already illegal. I think it's under the
same law that forbids junk faxes.
-C
On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:53:32PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Andy Dills wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Patrick wrote:
Can anyone reach
Dude, where's the core?
(ducks)
-C
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 04:27:46PM -0700, Brent Van Dussen wrote:
The latest (april 2002) Skitter data shows sprint being slightly closer to
the internet core than qwest.
Check it out:
That's why you configure two. :)
-C
looking a lot better than configuring 4 more BGP sessions. I've heard
some people recommend a route-reflector, but that would mean if the
route-reflector goes down you're screwed.
-Ralph
msg04911/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
That's why you make sure that any incidents where max-prefix is tripped is
caught by a syslog watcher and brought to the immediate attention of whoever's
sitting in your NOC. Honestly, if all you're dealing with is customer BGP
session, I would propose that 90% of them don't advertise more
Well, the biggest offender in this respect by far was @home, and you know what
happened to THEM...
-C
On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:55:08PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
[ On Friday, June 7, 2002 at 10:26:53 (+0100), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: ]
Subject: Re: Bogon list
RFC1918 does not break
The problem here is that other types of probes raise IDS alarms on way too many
networks - the next-best method is to probe HTTP ports, but we don't want to
have to pull down thousands of web pages just to get performance stats. So,
they send a SYN, wait for the ACK, record the latency and
Um, wha?
There are providers that will do one-way billing (charging less per Mb/s
in one direction than the other), but the majority of usage-based transit
services are sold without regard to which directino the highest traffic
goes.
Now peering, that's a different story. Peering partners,
I think the main point here isn't the fact that the poster's routing was, in fact,
not set up properly; it was the fact that he was unable to get a live body at Qwest
to check it out.
-C
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 06:24:53PM -0500, Daniel Golding wrote:
I suppose. Except it's not even certain
I'm presuming that Exodus is planning to get the transit they need after this
depeering via CW's peering points? If so, this makes a certain amount of sense - no
need to maintain separate peering circuits; this is probably just a step in the
eventual assimilation of Exodus' IP backbone into
From the sound of things, it seems that CW might have been better off migrating
AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)
I am assuming that the reasons it's not happening like this are much more political
than technical.
-C
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:18:04AM -0800, Bill Woodcock
30 matches
Mail list logo
