Ben Butler wrote:
if anyone had a view on what would happen if I managed to source an
SDRAM of 512MB / 1GB of the same specification as the 256MB Cisco
compatible memory that you use in an 7200 NPE225. Cisco say the maximum
ram for that NPE is a pitiful 256MB, I am sure the memory
Jeroen Massar wrote:
2 - Replace network elements with IPv6 compatible network elements and S/W
On a per-link basis, start with tunnels where needed, go native later on
or rather directly when possible. Most Cisco's can be upgraded to
support IPv6, JunOS supports it too, though they now
Drew Weaver wrote:
Howdy, I am not sure if this is the proper place, if not
I've noticed you guys know what to do so I'll put the fire retardant
suit on now. Recently due to growth we have seen an influx of
different and interesting types of characters ending up on our
network.
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
In the thread about ns*.worldnic.com, many people were complaining
about DNS responses/queries on TCP port 53.
At least one DoS mitigation box uses TCP53 to protect name servers.
Personally I thought this was a pretty slick trick, but it appears to
have
John Palmer wrote:
You do know that I was joking, don't you??
Sorry, I didn't know that NANOG has a humor filter on it.
There are too many completely stupid ideas implemented, to know whether
someone is joking, when suggesting a configuration like this.
And there are too many people implementing
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 05:13:35PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:54:23 EST, Nils Ketelsen said:
An interesting theory. What is the substantial difference? For
me the security implications of allowing the user to bypass our
mailsystem on port 25 and allowing
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 03:25:39PM +0100, Frank Louwers wrote:
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:18:19AM -0500, Nils Ketelsen wrote:
2. Port 587 Mailservers only make sense, when other Providers block
port 25. My point is: If my ISP blocks any outgoing port, he is no longer
an ISP I will buy
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 03:10:42PM +0100, JP Velders wrote:
From a security stance (well - partly ;D) I always like to emphasize
that in The Real World port 25 is for traffic between MTA's *and*
submission of mails to the local MTA. So to reduce the chance of one
of my users abusing an Open
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:02:20PM -0700, Smoot Carl-Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 17:14 -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
If supporting one port is y hours of time and headache, then two ports
is closer to y*2 than y (some might argue y-squared). 587 has some
validity for providers of
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 11:36:40PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, OK. If you know for a *fact* that your users *never* roam, and you
have sufficiently good control of your IP addresses that you can always safely
decide if a given connection is inside or outside and allow them to relay
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
Although RFC2476 was published in December 1998, its amazing
how few mail providers support the Message Submission protocol
for e-mail on Port 587. Even odder, some mail providers
use other ports such as 26 or 2525, but not the
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:20:33PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 16:08:42 EST, Nils Ketelsen said:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers
with large roaming user populations
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 04:51:50PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There seem to be many who feel there is no overwhelming reason to
support 587. I can certainly see that point of view, but I guess my
question is what reasons do those of you with that viewpoint have *not*
to implement it?
On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 12:26:55PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:16:41 EST, Jason Frisvold said:
Agreed. And depending on your service, there are different ports
worth blocking. For residential users, I can't see a reason to not
block something like Netbios.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 02:48:55PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
Nils Ketelsen wrote:
I still have no clue what is causing this, but I am pretty clueless when
it comes to Windows PCs anyway, and as you might have guessed: The PCs
making these connections are windows machines.
http
We see a lot of requests of the following format in our proxy logs:
1105979310.010 240001 10.3.12.211 TCP_MISS/504
1458 GET http://84.120.14.236:25204/2005/1/17/11/23/32/ - NONE/- text/html
1105979314.020 240009 10.3.12.211 TCP_MISS/504
1458 GET http://67.171.84.104:25238/2005/1/17/11/23/41/ -
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 07:44:37PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
Nils Ketelsen wrote:
We see a lot of requests of the following format in our proxy logs:
1105979310.010 240001 10.3.12.211 TCP_MISS/504
1458 GET http://84.120.14.236:25204/2005/1/17/11/23/32/ - NONE/- text/html
1105979314.020
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:14:35AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But as article specifically mentions sending during the night and
registration next morning that does seem to indicate eweek found out
about no whois but with already registered domain, i.e. see
Could they simply be
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 12:23:48PM +0800, Joe Shen wrote:
Hi,
is there any recommended method to measure overall
network availability?
The problem is, that most people have no definition when they
consider their network available. And without that definition it
seems impossible to
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:32:24PM +, Sam Stickland wrote:
Since IPSEC is an integral part of IPv6 won't this have an affect on the
deep packet inspection firewalls? Is this type of inspection expected to
work in IPv6?
Well it will work as good as the Virus-Scanning on Firewalls,
when
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 08:41:37AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
Uhh, I'd say there are a thousand or two such ISPs in the world.
That's not insignificant. It isn't useful to be stingy when
allocating prefixes to ISPs which _might_ end up needing more than a
/32 for their customer /48
On Sat, Nov 27, 2004 at 06:25:52PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
While IPv6 is still IP, it's not just IPv4 with bigger addresses. We
have 128 bits, so we should make good use of them. One way to do this
is to make all subnets and 99% of end-user assignements the same size.
Yes, this
On Thu, Nov 25, 2004 at 10:27:45AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Which kind of makes the point, that they deserve the /32 and any
organization that has at least quite a number of employees can thus get
one. If you are too small, then you are simply: too small.
Compare it too the following:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2004 at 11:34:07AM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
That's right. If you need internet access, you need it to be faster than
16 kbps.
Who said the only purpose of IP was to connect to the Internet? 16kbps is
the lowest I've seen only because that's the smallest you can buy
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 07:40:52PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Who said the only purpose of IP was to connect to the Internet?
Not me. But if you don't connect to the internet you don't contribute
to the global routing table so there is no issue. :-)
The point is, that these
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 01:44:50AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
And yes, I think all the workstations WILL need to do DHCP and not
use stateless autoconfig. Workstations are being managed by IT
departments, and they do want to be able to SSH to them all and have
DNS forward/reverse mapping.
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 05:18:49PM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
There are a number of good and reasonable uses for RFC1918 addresses. Just
assume a individual/business/corporate LAN with client/server applications
and statically configured ip numbering. RFC1918 addresses are perfect. NAT
allows
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 03:00:04AM +, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
In today's networks, printers do NOT need global addresses.
let me make sure i understand this. in order not to have to
pay for the address space for a my enterprise's printers,
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 02:25:00PM -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
More to the point, it seems to me the working group is highly
enterprise focused, and seems to want to give enterprises what
they (think) they want with little concern for how it impacts the
global Internet.
Well, thinking about
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:52:51PM -0400, Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy wrote:
Sorry, this is somewhat OT.
Also Sorry, but I think the question itself is completely flawed.
I'm looking for information on energy consumption vs percent utilization.
In other words if your datacenter consumes
On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 07:54:09PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Assuming I wanted to go about setting up an NNTP server, how would I go
about getting and maintaining the feeds? There's no central authority
AFAIK, but does anyone have any knowledge as to relative price and/or
On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 08:13:41AM -0400, Rick Lowery wrote:
If someone owns their own /20 which they received from Arin back
in the day and they want to subnet and use part of it (/24) in Europe.
Would their be any problems if the wanted to advertise the North
American issued space from a
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 09:35:01PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
If you are not a LIR (and do not plan to become one): Do not even bother
trying. PI-Address space does not exist. Multihoming for non-LIRs is still
an open issue.
last I
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 09:58:03AM -0700, Philip Lavine wrote:
Does anyone know the best way to get a IPV6 address
block from ARIN. How can I assure that ARIN will honor
my request?
http://www.arin.net/policy/ipv6_policy.html
If you are not a LIR (and do not plan to become one): Do not
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 02:17:45AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
Does anyone know of a way to send SMS messages without an internet
connection?
You have been pointed to the Cell phone solutions already (I'd recommend a
Siemens in this case, as it uses AT-commands for
everything ... extremely easy
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 05:56:14PM +0100, Pendergrass, Greg wrote:
Some say it's a new version of mydoom:
http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?isc=d46940064182f61f40ca333bc3c2f439
And it seems google has updated the filter a little. Now
searches for email+domainname seem to fail. The filter for
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 01:14:05PM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:27:43 -0400 Hannigan, Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why would the other side(new provider) violate ARIN policy and route the
space? The court order doesn't apply to ARIN, or the new
provider. I'd say
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:51:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone had any good/bad experiences with the PacketSeeker or
PacketShaper product ? (http://www.packeteer.com/). It looks like a good
sub-$10,000 traffic monitor that will allow you to see all Layers of
traffic utilization
On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 06:48:06PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Department of Justice on Wednesday lashed out at
Internet telephony, saying the fast-growing technology could foster
drug trafficking, organized crime and terrorism.
But the change is real. I don't
39 matches
Mail list logo
