[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hrmm
How many of you realize who Bill Manning is ?
While you are at it, go flame Vinton Cerf... I am sure he
will learn from you, too..
/signalnoise
That said, I admit I probably hesitate a bit longer before flaming
Dr. Cerf. :) If you've ever met them both, you would understand why.
I have, on more than one occasion. My old address was @onecall.net
Perhaps you saw our cars in the Indy 500 ?
Vint does present
Todd Vierling wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Matthew Crocker wrote:
I'm curious where in your contract you think Cogent guaranteed you
connectivity to Level 3?
My original contract was with NTT/Verio which Cogent purchased last year when
Verio nuked their Boston POP. I'm having the
Richard Irving wrote:
/lurk Maybe not, the depeering L3 is involved in is sort of like
blackmail,
we can all thank the indicted ex-CEO of WorldCom, Bernie Ebbers,
for the modern peering There can only be one rule set.
Because you were there at the time Ebbers was going around? Do you
vijay gill wrote:
There can only be *one* ! - WorldCom chant, Circa 1995.
WorldCom didn't know what IP SFI was in 95. Perhaps you mean UUNET/MFS?
Or, perhaps I mean Alternet, eh ?
- A Rose by any other name
vijay gill wrote:
Brzzzt! lost both points.
My prior email was [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charter Nanog member.
8-)
Then perhaps you'd know better than to think that Bernie knew what
peering even was? Apparently not.
Yada-Yada.
*DO* try to be less vitriolic, TIA..
Those of you who know
Sean Butler wrote:
There can only be *one* ! - WorldCom chant, Circa 1995.
WorldCom didn't know what IP SFI was in 95. Perhaps you
mean UUNET/MFS?
Or, perhaps I mean Alternet, eh ?
- A Rose by any other name
Or if you change 1995 above to 1997, which was when UUNET 1st
Pendergrass, Greg wrote:
Well, they already eat into your profits.
In Nibbles, or in Bytes ?
:P
-Original Message-
From: Wayne E. Bouchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 April 2005 22:34
To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Cisco to merge with Nabisco
David Barak wrote:
snip
For crying out loud - this is UTAH, not the moon: the
people there are just like people everywhere. Yeah,
they tend to be a bit more socially conservative than
the libertarian-leaning NANOG membership is used to,
but it's not like they've got 2 heads and three arms -
if
Scott Weeks wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
:
: Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would
: require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed
: pornographic and could also target e-mail providers
: and search engines.
:
:
Bill Woodcock wrote:
The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider
may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult
content registry.
Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer.
It's also voluntary on the
pashdown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote:
snip
This bill is a waste of time and money. It also does further damage to the
Utah tech industry, portraying it as an idiotic backwater.
The finger isn't pointing at the -Techs- being the illiterates,
but the
Roy Engehausen wrote:
You missed a very important line in the article:
Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable
access to sites on the list or face felony charges.
In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to opt-in
to a filter. Doesn't sound
Don't panic ?
;)
Lou Katz wrote:
Is there anything that us folks out in the peanut gallery can
do to help, other than locally serving the panix.net zone
for panix.com?
ren wrote:
Dear NANOG Program Committee,
Request: May we please have a presentation by Renesys on today's AS9121
incident at the Seattle NANOG 15-17 May 2005?
soapbox
So... remember the previously posted comment that
most router melt downs are from human error ?
Prophetic, isn't it ?
It
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
snip good stuff for space
The infection rate among all computers is abysmal. It just happens to
be higher among computers with AV and/or firewalls. AV/Firewalls don't
seem to be making people safer from trojans, spyware,
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the percentage
of link failures over router failures is much, much higher.
- ferg
I'll go out on a limb and suggest...
you weren't working in BGP during 1995-1998.
:P
(Or RIP in 1992-1993, DVMRP in 1997-1999:)
--
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Overall, fat fingers account for the larger percentage
of all outages.
Send that man a C-gar!
:)
lurk
-M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is huge! I guess Cisco delivered a dump trunk full of hundos to
Tony's house. :)
That, or they finally got the nail out of the door, from
his last resignation.
:P
-- Original message --
Rolo Tomassi wrote:
Hi all,
Please forgive the simplistic nature of the query..
Basically my company is multi-homed with 2 different providers in the
UK, and advertising a /18. Now some colleaguges in another part of the
world want to break that /18 into two /19's and advertise one /19 and we
, they would be running different ASN's.
Anything else hurts.
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 12:56:13PM -0500, Richard Irving wrote:
Rolo Tomassi wrote:
Hi all,
Please forgive the simplistic nature of the query..
Basically my company is multi-homed with 2 different providers in the
UK, and advertising
Should be interesting.
:)
Matthew McGehrin wrote:
- Original Message - Date: September 27, 2004 3:18:34 PM EDT
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1324
ICANN Oversight and Security of Internet Root Servers and the Domain
Name System (DNS)
Communications Hearing
Deepak Jain wrote:
If direct connecting != peering then definitely.
Maybe we need to say differentiate between:
- Connected transit
- Remote transit
- Connected peering
- Remote peering
And agree that, by default,
transit ~= remote transit
peering ~= direct peering
Without getting too
Joe Abley wrote:
On 30 Dec 2003, at 11:07, John Obi wrote:
when will we see the FBI, and other local police in
the other countries send the script kiddies to the
JAILL so we can use the internet without too much
pain?
You're asking how long it might take for every government in every
single
Oh...
Had to take a potshot, didn't we ?
FWIW, we are near filled now, and
we managed to Keep the Faith...
Alex Yuriev wrote:
http://new.onecall.net/timages/dsxcabling.jpg
http://new.onecall.net/timages/cat5patch.jpg
Isn't it amazing how clean cabling in nearly empty collos and mmrs looks?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that you've educated the world about messy cabling jobs that should _not_ be done,
perhaps you or someone else should now post _CLEAN_ cabling jobs that everyone should
follow examples of :-)
http://new.onecall.net/timages/dsxcabling.jpg
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
Richard Irving wrote:
http://new.onecall.net/timages/cat5patch.jpg
Is that one really Cat. 5 compliant? (Tails out of the sheath look
too long one some of them.)
Routine Spin Downs created that (extended) Telco standard, we just
carried it over to Data
Sharif Torpis wrote:
uh-oh, what's this?
http://new.onecall.net/timages/wanrack.jpg
Hehehe.. :}
The -old- building, and Telecom WAN room, circa early 1990's,
late 1980's, and a bank of auto-ops from before the time
when there was such a thing as a 1U server.
new.onecall.net is
I seem to recall someone doing a paper on
ICMP and traceroute -at times-, as not always being indicative of
actual network performance...
Does anyone remember who, or where,
that link is ?
Thanks in Advance.
:)
Vadim Antonov wrote:
The only problem - they have no clue about the profession they're
recruiting for and tend to judge applicants not by them saying reasonable
things but by their self-assuredness and by keywords in resume.
And Statistics show, the less knowledgeable you are in this
field, the
John Ferriby wrote:
I'm really surprised to hear the assertion that people are
leaving unfirewalled Exchange servers out on the net.
Is this actually common?/shudders...
I don't think that the small shops know any better. It's
a matter of education, and in most of the cases I've seen
the
If you are at an exchange, we can do the old days
type usenet peering...
We (operators) used to have a full mesh along the core
prior to Cidera
Much of that is disassembled
It will now probably be re-assembled.
(Heavens knows I am FWIW. :)
Anyone interested , private
Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello Whoever ,
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
manufacturer assigned macs are guaranteed to be globally unique.
A specific enterprise reconfiguring the mac is akin to an enterprise
using RFC1918
* sigh *
s/there/their/
s/mps/mbs/
s/:)/:}/
8-)
Richard Irving wrote:
Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote:
Hello Whoever ,
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
manufacturer assigned macs are guaranteed to be globally unique.
A specific
Please people, of all the great feedback these joe jobbed
addresses are receiving, from the anti-virus software...
it really wouldn't hurt to include the -=IP=- (and possibly headers)
of the system that contacted your server.
Rather than simply complain, it would allow us to track
down,
Oh I don't know.
Many here do a pretty good impression
of that unique combination of skills
prior to that first cup of coffee
:P
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:45:46 EDT, Claire Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
How catty. We all start somewhere, or have you forgotten?
So, you don't like the smell of fried chicken ?
We keep an old overclocked 486-33, with a quadrupler
around, making it run at about 100mhz.. for just this purpose...
Complete the Chicken ritual, at Midnight, of course.
Unprotect port 25, let alt.freak know...
Route all mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have this brilliantly simple idea that somehow everyone forgets, while
they tout all the new advanced stuff. Do not introduce yet another name
for filtering that works only in some cases. Fix the filtering code so we
can filter *anything* at *any packet rate* on *any
Just to continue the discussion of the RIAA
oriented Laws, and how they seem to supersede
American Constitutional rights
Haven't these people heard of Multi-User
Systems ?
Excerpt:
Senator: Trash illegal downloaders' PCs
IMHO:
No more, or less, than SMTP.
It is -that- simple.
(Of course, SMTP is how China got
Nuclear Secrets out of America :( )
FWIW: This is more tempestuous reactions at High Levels,
that would normally have been laughed off.
Except P2P's are annoying the Recording Industry execs,
and
Precedent, Randy, Precedent !
UUnet and few others a long time ago had a differing definition of
peering that most of us thought, at the time...
But were so BIG, we accepted their routes, anyway.
* shrug *
A secret black list is a real bugger if:
No one is allowed to mention it exists.
Adam McKenna wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 05:25:35PM -0500, Richard Irving wrote:
It isn't exactly completely RFC compliant, but, it is only a -=Request=-, eh ?
It is in fact required that an MTA fall back to the A record for a domain if
an MX record does not exist. See RFC 2821
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Was this ultimately an Akamai issue?
I had a hard time
getting to Fox News Today,
as well.
:)
.Richard.
[This was actually just a posting test,
please ignore... :) ]
http://www.pravda.ru/
Anyone else seeing DNS issues today?
Gerardo Gregory wrote:
snip
Since then I have learned that some MTA's will look for an A record if it
cannot find an MX record and use the A record instead.
Once upon a time that was near all Micr0$loth did...
Is this acceptable (in a best case scenario) as a correct method?
It isn't
How do like this recent rounds of bureaucrats attempting
to make lawsh-r-m ?
A: IMHO:This should be officially declared,
out of their jurisdiction.
of such small municipalities... it is sort of like having a
Nurse make the judgment call during a delicate heart surgery.
It takes a
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, blitz wrote:
If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are
At 15:09 3/28/03 +0100, you wrote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595
Uhm, I don't think you can blame the legislators for this one. Almost
identical
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said:
Sean Donelan wrote:
identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect
an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation.
Now, -that's- using your noodle
Nathan E Norman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:07:24PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said:
Sean Donelan wrote:
identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect
an outside influence was involved
I think this is bringing it back on topic,
Ms. Harris
Ejay Hire wrote:
Methinks what they are aiming for is trying to prevent spammers from hiding their
origin using open relays/open proxies/stealthware.
Agreed, However:
The Highway to Hell is paved with Good intentions.
Another interesting point of Roberts Rules of
Procedure for Internet Operational Protocols,
so to speak... COPA has been struck down again.
Your AUP's may have to be updated. ;)
[Sorry NSP-SEC's for being redundant.. :*, shh...]
Injunction against Enforcement of COPA,
March 6, 2003.
Honestly people, to summarize all this...
Legislation is not the correct knee jerk response to
technical challenges... Lawyers and Politicians
just -think- it is
Perhaps related to perceiving themselves as important
to the problem, eh ? And, that also happens to create
a situation where
There is NO legal advice in this post.
Jack Bates wrote:(SNIPO)
Should we outlaw a potentially beneficial practice due to its abuse by
criminals?
Okay. What happens if you make a mistake and overload one of my devices
costing my company money.
That is usually a civil issue, not
In this case, your door being unlocked cannot cause me harm. However, an
unlocked proxy can. Legit probes are an attempt to mitigate network
abuse, not increase it. If there was a sanctioned body who was trusted to
scan for such things, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But there's not, so
Len Rose wrote:
Scanning is always a precursor to an attack, or to determine if any obvious
methodology can be used to attack. At least that's how it has been
historically viewed.
See my other post. MAPS assists users in closing their innocent
relay capable systems. And, FWIW, pro-active
Joe St Sauver wrote:
There is NO legal advice in this post. Really!
In Oregon, see ORS 164.377(4):
Any person who knowingly and without authorization uses, accesses or
attempts to access any computer, computer system, computer network, or any
computer software, program, documentation or
E.B. Dreger wrote:
Actually, when one leaves honeypots and/or tarpits, getting
probed can be rather fun...
Second this !
:D
Did you ever hear of the guy who wrote a C based 'bot trap
and brought down both a big name search engine mining bot,
and a providers (major) Unix server ?
conf t
router warning you cannot configure a router
with this one
Martin Hannigan wrote:
I have my duct tape and plastic, but haven't applied it to the
windows.
I hear it is more effective, if you wrap the plastic
around your head, and seal it with the duck tape
Never had a
Vadim Antonov wrote:
Caution this won't program a router:
The police can then put down the rabid computer,
permanently.
Good in theory... in practice police has more important things to do. Like
catching pot smokers.
Not -=too=- much problem soon, thanks to the USA Patriot act.
In
They took the _medical records_ of _half a million_ US _soldiers_ and
their families.
Regardless of the identity-theft aspect, it's hard to imagine them not
seeing a lucrative aftermarket for that batch of data.
And just think, courtesy the USA Patriot act, next time it won't
just be
The -real- challenge is to create a system -capable- of monitoring
the entire internet Today there isn't enough horsepower to
accomplish such a thing, except by exception to the rule,
rather than the rule.
In analogy: We can adjust the flows of the Hoover
(remember him ?) Damn, we cannot
Freud, your slip is showing ?
:P
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
Richard Irving [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In analogy: We can adjust the flows of the Hoover
(remember him ?) Damn, we cannot however stop to count
damn is an expletive, dam is a noun
Wayne E. Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:12:43AM -0500, David Lesher wrote:
But it is good for a laugh.
Or a cry.
:) :* :(
FWIW, One American Government Legislative body,
all full of itself, had all but passed an act
requiring the value of PI to be legislated to 3,
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Cough!
Sure, or they could ask carriers to tap lines for them silently... in fact
they can do that today with a court order.
Nope. USA Patriot Act, No Court Order Needed.
:(
Civil Liberties for Tax Refunds, Takers ? :P
A COO I know is actually
I thought we agreed, no politics
or, =functional= public disruption strategies!
:D
.Richard.
==
A historic moment, the very first head of homeland security,
makes a patriotic speech at a GOP convention:
Hrmmm... Is anyone else having trouble loading this page ?
The trace looks good, must be the content and my browser ?
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11361c=130
Thanks in Advance.
.Richard.
:cointelpro:
First they came for the democrats, I didn't care, as I wasn't one...
Those
Subject: RE: Trouble loading page
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:39:00 -0600
From: Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Richard Irving [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks, that fixed it!
Dohh!
:}
Hrmm... Al-Quaida is the one selling FUD all over America ?
I can't decide if it is actually Al Quaida,
the current Political Regime, or simply newspaper reporters
making the news with a common modus aperandi. (FUD)
Remember, Great stories don't happen,
reporters -make- great
Don't laugh too hard at this stored energy idea...
We back up ~2500 Kva with a -=Flywheel=- System!
(And Generator)
CAT-UPS, don't leave home without it. :)
Yesterday's Ludicrous Fiction is Tomorrow's Reality!
blitz wrote:
One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water
they came for the dissidents, and I didn't care,
as, I wasn't a dissident...
Vadim Antonov wrote:
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Richard Irving wrote:
To Paraphrase the -OLD- KGB:
Quick Comrade, we will protect you, sign here
What ? You want to be Safe, Comrade, don't you ?
s/Comrade
Warning , this post won't configure a router.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:36:54 -0500 David Diaz wrote:
People seem to prefer cost of quality at this time.
Good
Fast
Cheap
Honey, part of our success is that I don't accept the above. Sooner
or later, you will have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yup, I am a CEO.
1-900-psy-kick
Call now, Mon, we're a waiting for ya!
I am also (still) one of the most experienced
and best educated IP engineers around.
And humble, too. :\
[Said to a list where Van Jacobson and Vixie have been known to lurk]
Pardon the interruption of White noise on the channel..
But, if anyone clueful at JUNO.COM is abroad,
please contact me offline.
I now return you to the usual.
Thanks In Advance!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a bet with my boss that Booz Allen Hamilton will file for chapter 11 before
Equinix.
You lose.
Sal Sabella
Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
This crossed my desk, thought someone might find it
relevant.. (I am not sure who wrote it... ;)
router conf t
#
REMAINING U.S. CEOs MAKE A BREAK FOR IT
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:28:04 -0600
REMAINING U.S. CEOs MAKE A BREAK FOR IT
Band of Roving Chief Executives Spotted Miles from
Paul Vixie wrote:
Space SNIP
knowing that the
pain can be transformed from can't exchange traffic pain into must
pay money pain tends to reinforce this perception.
Imagine that. :\
when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention
has always resulted. even when
Daniel Golding wrote:
A vague sense of unfairness or unhappyness is the worst of reasons to
regulate an industry.
- Daniel Golding
How about an industry being the origin of the 3 largest recorded
fraud/bankruptcies in American History ?
Deepak Jain wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Richard Irving
Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:15 PM
To: Daniel Golding
Cc: Paul Vixie; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy
How about an industry being
And Just think,
The perpetrator of this fraud was the guiding light
for the American Internet fair peering practices policy.
Imagine that.
Now, someone explain how an internet provider convinced congress that
it didn't really have to carry an -internet customers- packet from one
side
Yeah
OK... I am going to break an NDA and disclose
( Drum roll please.)
The -=Secret=- Formula for There can only be ONE!
[Label A:]
Pull back peering from adjacent competitors
Thus Forcing smaller competitors into Financial Difficulty
(Due to lack of
a little older,
and things settle down.
And, more often than not, are awarded honorary degrees for
the result of their work while riding the wave.
Like I said -lead- the pack.
LURK
Is the above meta tag broken, or what ?
Robert Beverly wrote:
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:17:11AM -0500, Richard
If you hadn't clipped this, it would have been a non-issue:
LURK
Is the above meta tag broken, or what ?
:P
Petr M. Swedock wrote:
GAAH! #!$H$%#@!X!
This discussion has left the operational and entered the realm of
baleful minutia and noxious ego-gratification. Please stop, or
take
/lurk
Yeah!
This PC and Internet revolution was founded by men with Advanced
Degree's from Prominent Ivy League Colleges...
Like Bill Gates...
Oh No, wait...
:O
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote:
If you ever want to become a team leader, or a
Unfortunately, we received complaints -downstream-.
If the gentleman involved had been even a little cooperative,
we would even help remove a valid offender.
Rock - US -Hard Place
I need my morning coffee.
TIA.
Mark Radabaugh wrote:
Were it not referenced by
83 matches
Mail list logo
