On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Kee Hinckley wrote:
Which leads me to my operational question.
If you know that someone wants to cut your cables. What defense do you
have? Is there any practical way to monitor and protect an oceanic
cable? Are there ways to build them that would make them less
discove
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Michael Holstein wrote:
The problem is the inability of the physical media in TWC's case (coax) to
support multiple simultaneous users. They've held off infrastructure
upgrades to the point where they really can't of
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
[...]
If you're doing things on the Internet, instead of the physical world,
topological distance is presumably of much greater interest than whatever
geographic proximity may coincidentally obtain
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Rod Beck wrote:
On Wednesday 24 October 2007 05:36, Henry Yen wrote:
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 09:20:49AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
Why are no major us builders installing FTTH today? Greenfield should
be the easiest, and major builders like Pulte, Centex and the like
sho
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Joe Greco wrote:
It's arrogant to fix brokenness? Because I'm certainly there. In my
experience, if you don't bother to address problems, they're very likely
to remain, especially when money is involved on the opposite side.
There's a big difference between fixing broken
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Mike Tancsa wrote:
> Multihoming is great for when there is a total outage. In the case of
> Cogent on Monday, it wasnt "down"... In this case, there is only so much
> you can do to influence how packets come back at you as BGP doesnt know
> anything about a "lossy" or slo
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Zach White wrote:
At some point our networks have to remain useful. If they can be shut
down for hours or days at a time are they really secure?
The first question to ask in designing something is what you're trying to
accomplish.
This is a mailing list of network oper
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Mike Tancsa wrote:
Bell uses Cogent in a large way. The second traceroute was from an IP in
their AS (577) out. I am prepending out Cogent, but Bell does everything it
can not to use Teleglobe so I am having problems influencing their routes to
come back that way. They
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Paul Vixie wrote:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/12/1236231
http://www.thelocal.se/7869/20070712/
For those who haven't followed the links, the story is that Peter's
mother, a first-time computer user, now has a 40 Gb/s Internet connection
to her house. It i
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 10:27 -0400, Roderick S. Beck wrote:
So none of the customers on that well known system have any ring
protection at this point nor will they during the next two weeks.
[...]
Oh, there *is* no "*other* other side"? That must
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Tim Franklin wrote:
The case that gets a bit murky for me is genuinely multi-national entities.
In *theory* that ought to be what .com is for, but registering yourcompany.cc
for every country where you have an operating entity looks sort of legit.
Why only sort of?
To a
;m following my own advice here, largely due not having changed
my mailing list configurations after a period of unstable employment a few
years ago.
-Steve Gibbard
Network Architect
Packet Clearing House
www.pch.net
Speaking for myself, not for my employer, and not for any NANOG-related
committees I've been on in the past.
If you actually want to do this, you've got four choices:
- Policy route, as mentioned below.
- Get the customer their own connection to Cogent.
- Have a border router that only talks to Cogent and doesn't receive full
routes from your core, and connect the customer directly to that.
- Do some
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
Remember though that the dynamics of the system need to assume that
individual clients will be selfish, and even though it might be in the
interests of the network as a whole to choose local peers, if you can get
faster *throughput* (not round-trip respon
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006, Roland Dobbins wrote:
In the U.S. and Canada, the expectation has been set to an assumption of
'unlimited' bandwidth consumption for a fixed price in the consumer market.
AT&T WorldNet helped popularize that model early-on (you can thank or curse
Tom Evslin for that, acco
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Deepak Jain wrote:
An easy way around this is to be consistent about your transit and peering
arrangements across locations. If your anycast network has transit from a
network in one location, get transit from them in your other locations, and
let hot potato routing do
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, John Kristoff wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 09:38:10 -0800
matthew zeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are there any practical issues with announcing the same route behind
different ASNs?
This is known as Multiple Origin AS of which you should be able to
find plenty of discus
On Mon, 23 Oct 2006, Nick Thompson wrote:
It seems as though at this point there is little need for security to
maintain control of the ID, again which could possibly leave it open to
various activities already mentioned by some others.
My impression is that the requirement to leave ID at the
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Joe Abley wrote:
There are several proposed charter amendments up for vote in St Louis. You'll
see a summary of them here:
http://www.nanog.org/charter/
There's one change pending to that summary, which is to break out the three
options in proposal 2006-03 so that they
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006, Chris Jester wrote:
Also, what about ARINS hardcore attitude making it near impossible
to aquire ip space, even when you justify it's use? I have had
nightmares myself as well as MANY of my collegues share similar experiences.
I am having an issue right now with a UNIVERSI
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Owen DeLong wrote:
I think my previous post may have touched on a more global issue.
Given the number of such posts I have seen over time, and, my
experiences trying to report problems to other ISPs in the past, it
seems to me that a high percentage of ISPs, especially th
I'm not a list moderator either, anymore. I spent enough time moderating
the NANOG list to get thoroughly disgusted with those who need babysitters
to supervise them in a professional forum. I'm sure the current group of
volunteer moderators would appreciate some common sense and common
cou
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Martin Hannigan wrote:
And there are many, with many TLD's.
(rough counts)
provider/tld's
UDNS 48
ISC 19
PCH 8
PSG 23
ICANN 4
UUNET 61
RIPE 87
DEC 10
NIC.FR 71
Note: There is cross servicing of TLDs counted above.
Some numbers may seem low since there seems to be some b
On Tue, 16 May 2006, David Hubbard wrote:
So I'm looking at a company who offers anycasted DNS;
how do I tell if it's really anycasted? Just hop on
different route servers to see if I can find different
AS paths and then do traceroutes to see if they suggest
the packets are not ending in the s
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files. I'll attempt to
clarify: If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why can't X
number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root domain names
without a TLD.
Examples:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Elijah Savage wrote:
Any validatity to this and if so I am suprised that our team has got no calls
on not be able to get to certain websites.
http://webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=477562
Casting blame may be a fun exercise. Listening to others cast blame gets
o
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jan 2006, Wil Schultz wrote:
Apparently they have lost two authoritative servers. ETA is unknown.
You forgot to mention that they only have two authoritative servers for
most of their domains...
I didn't look at this while it was ha
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
To me, this seems likely to lead to massive consumer dissatisfaction, and a
disaster of the
magnitude of the recent Sony CD root exploit fiasco.
Typical Pareto distribution models for usage mean that no matter
how popular "tier 1" sites are, a subs
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
We are considering to add a covering prefix announced from global nodes
relatively quickly. This should solve the particular problem and we
cannot (yet) see any problems it would create. But this is more complex
than the current state and thus bring
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, J. Oquendo wrote:
Now that I had time to marinate weird ideas even further, this is how my
previous idea `could` work for all parties. Of course those making
financial decisions would likely hate this idea since it would somehow
manage to "hurt" their business in their eyes
t 05:07 p.m. 04/10/2005 -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
I'm attempting to come up with a list of all the top level domain DNS
servers that are anycasted. I already know about the anycast clouds run by
PCH, Neustar, Verisign, DENIC, and UltraDNS, and .mx appears from
traceroutes to be anycast
I'm attempting to come up with a list of all the top level domain DNS
servers that are anycasted. I already know about the anycast clouds run
by PCH, Neustar, Verisign, DENIC, and UltraDNS, and .mx appears from
traceroutes to be anycasted as well.
(I know about the anycasted root servers as
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Robert Boyle wrote:
At 10:39 PM 9/27/2005, you wrote:
Actually, I think you've got it backwards. .us and all of the other
country-specific TLDs are the last vestiges of nationalism. The
Internet is only the second piece of truly global infrastructure. As
a key component
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Peter Dambier wrote:
Evren Demirkan wrote:
Ok So what,
I am located in Turkiye..Can Any one simplify the whole stuff in plain
English?
Evren Demirkan
Hi Evren Demirkan,
there has been for about one year a turkish root-server:
l.public-root.com
That server did not
Extensive troubleshooting of somebody else's mail server seems a bit
off-topic for the NANOG list. That's the sort of thing that, once the
problem has been pointed out, will need to be fixed by people internal to
the organization that runs the mail server.
-Steve
NANOG list administration g
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Todd Underwood wrote:
interesting discussion. at least we're talking about networking now.
:-)
wrt sean's comment, the only thing i can think he means by 'partition'
is that the networks may have power may be in some routing table but
just not the routing table of any of
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, Israel, David B. wrote:
Richard A Steenbergen wrote on Friday, September 09, 2005 11:57 AM:
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 11:44:05AM -0400, Drew Linsalata wrote:
Looks like 26210 is originating the prefixes and Telefonica is
happily
passing them along to the world, at leas
s will the list administrators.
Thanks,
Steve Gibbard
NANOG List Administration Group
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005, Crist Clark wrote:
As best I can tell from ARIN documents, ISP still are supposed to SWIP
or use Rwhois for subassignments of /29 and greater. However, is this
still widely practiced these days? Especially among smaller ISPs?
I know the privacy pros and cons, so I don't se
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
I'll file that comment where it belongs -- in file 13.
If a major catastrophe, albeit more human than network-related
(although lots of network-related issues here, too), isn't on-topic,
than I fail to see what is.
The danger here is that if
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Dave Stewart wrote:
Y'know... I do have to wonder whether Internet access is nearly as important
as power and communications (traditional comms, such as the PTSN).
Granted, it'll be interesting to see how things shake out - but I just can't
buy that getting the Internet
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, I wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Now for comments in that admirable institution, the Indian press.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1211092.cms
Two things -
The move will help bring down the cost of accessing Internet in
India
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Now for comments in that admirable institution, the Indian press.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1211092.cms
Two things -
The move will help bring down the cost of accessing Internet in
India, where the clone root servers ha
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005, Lewis Butler wrote:
And what does every country ahead of the US have in common? Tiny
populations.
And what does every country but one have in common? Very small area. The
US has states that are larger than 10 of the 11 countries ahead of use,
COMBINED.
I didn't say
This is a mailing list for the wrong sort of network for this question,
but...
If anybody knows who to talk to at the former ATT Wireless part of
Cingular about a cell site that's been rejecting calls for the last six
weeks, can you please contact me off list?
Cingular's "Technical Assista
How to get your customers to use the right dial-up number is presumably on
topic for NANOG. I know that when I worked for a dial-up ISP many years
ago, it was frequently a big issue for our customers.
However, the more general topic of how to dial a phone call in various
parts of North Amer
I don't know all that much about commercial VOIP service or GPS, but it
seems to me I've just read lots and lots of messages citing weird cases
where locating a VOIP phone won't work well as evidence that the whole
idea is a failure, while none of those cases appear to have much to do
with th
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
But Steve appeared to be suggesting that there was no reasonable way to
*avoid* problems -- and that's clearly not the case. If I misinterpreted
Steve, no doubt he'll correct me. But there are two fairly prominent,
I don't think that was what I said
On Mon, 4 Jul 2005, Mark Andrews wrote:
Some of our customer complaint they could not visit
back to their web site, which use chinese domain name.
I google the net and found some one recommend to use
public-root.com servers in hint file.
I found domain name like xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d could
no
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
Ultimately, the SC is elected to represent the membership and
carry out it's will and that should be uniformly actionable
across the board in order for the SC to be taken seriously
by the group and by Merit.
I'm not sure what you mean here.
It me
On Thu, 16 Jun 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If the BGP peering side of the business can sort out all of
this stuff, then why can't the email side of the business do
the same, or perhaps, do even better?
It's not comparable, as has been explained several times to you.
Perhaps you have nev
stodes?..
(this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
----
Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 415 717-7842 (cell) http://www.gibbard.org/~scg
+1 510 528-1035 (home)
On Wed, 25 May 2005, Tony Li wrote:
I know all the issues up there are real, since I've occasionally heard
about them happening. I understand the devastating consequences of
somebody finding a sufficiently well connected unfiltered BGP session
and using it to announce some important prefixes.
On Mon, 23 May 2005, Tony Li wrote:
Which is EXACTLY why we need to remember that we are NOT trying to come
up with the perfect solution. We have operational issues *TODAY* that
we are trying to address.
- We have people (admittedly accidentally) advertising prefixes that
they do not own and
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Scott Weeks wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Richard wrote:
: type of routers. Our routers normally run at 35% CPU. What sucks is that the
: traffic volume doesn't have to be very high to bring down the router.
That's because it's the number of packets per time period that it can't
ha
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005, Robert M. Enger wrote:
Steinar:
There is a large body of work from competent and well known researchers
that assert the claim. I certainly lack standing to question their
results.
Empirically, download speeds to home are nearly cut in half (18Mbps)
from sources that are su
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
oh well, I tried to stay quiet :) Probably the PPLB problem isn't quite as
simple as: "you have pplb you can't do anycast". I'd imagine that you have
to have some substantial difference in the paths that the PPLB follows,
yes? like links to differin
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our recursive name service, using anycast servers, is setup with 3
name servers at 3 different physical locations, with each server
connected to a router at the same physical location. Each server
handles two different anycast addresses. There is no per-
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
For many folks too the falling price they buy transit for just means
they are being forced to take that off their product sell prices so they
dont actually make any more profit.. in which case there is no advantage
to buying below cost services.
To q
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Bill Nash wrote:
Some readers are tackling problems on a day to day basis that are old hat
for the seasoned NANOG denizens, and are bereft of the major benefit nanog
provides (conversation with peers) because some of those problems have
been argued to death and are now taboo. I
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 11:28:00AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
in depeering. However, dealing with Cogent on peering matters is
incredibly unpleasant. I can understand networks and peering
coordinators feeling that it just isn't worth it.
Just for the record, I've dealt with Cogent's peering
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Vandy Hamidi wrote:
I definitely want 100% of traffic going towards the Primary Site during
normal operation.
LocalPref/MED can be controlled by community strings with my direct
peers. As you said, I'm paying them for the service, but how will the
advertisement behave after it
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Vandy Hamidi wrote:
All,
We're an ASP and are considering adding a secondary Backup Datacenter
(BDC) in the US to protect our web presence.
My goal is to ensure automatic failover of my Primary DC's (IP) traffic
to the BDC in the event of a catastrophic failure of the PDC.
I'm c
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Steve Sobol wrote:
Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I find this to be entertaining, since as a VOIP consumer, I'm reimbursing
my ISP for the cost of the traffic as part of my monthly tithe.
Not proportional to the potential cost of providing the service.
I have no idea what
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Jamie Norwood wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:33:49 -0800, Alexei Roudnev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Heard of a little thing called 'spam'?
So what? You can use your car as a weapon; should we prohibit you from car
driving?
No, but if your car doesn't have seat belts, we don't l
G Pavan Kumar wrote:
I have been working on characterizing the internet hierarchy.
I noticed that 27% of the total possible tier-2 provider node pairs are
unreachable i.e., they dont have any tier-1 node connecting them nor a
direct peering link between them.
Multihoming can be used as
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence,
> that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the
> operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done
> right now. Case in point.
Can IS
ice is silly, wrong headed,
> ill informed and results in unintended consequences. But you cannot argue
> that it is government censorship.
>
> +-
> + Dave Dennis
> + Seattle, WA
> + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> + http://www.dmdennis.com
> +-------
ead has not been
> about spam. For the most part it has dealt with
> technical operational issues of email services
> and therefore it is right on track for this list.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
--------
nistration The nanog-l will be administered
> > and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee.
>
>
> > William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > Please, the interim-moderators should moderate, and the
> > bylaws drafters should draft, and they should
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > First, the NANOG list will now be moderated by a volunteer group that
> > includes Marty Hannigan, Steve Gibbard, and Chris Malayter. Many thanks
> > to these folks for taking on this role in upholding the list's AUP.
> Leavi
Ok. I think at this point we all know there are problems with the domain
transfer process. I suspect we can further agree that, as with many
serious problems, there were probably multiple contributing factors here.
I'd like to suggest that getting into a public screaming match or trying
to esta
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> Out of band management isn't telnetting from your desktop to
> the serial port.
>
> Mgmt and surveillance is the Bellcore standard for out of band.
> It means your M/S is not riding your customer or public networks, and
> it's physically seperate. Ye
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
> CLM> From: Christopher L. Morrow
> CLM> as a start, dropping HSRP and just managing 2 BGP peers from both
> CLM> ends one with metric 0 and one with metric 10 toward his ISP should
> CLM> satisfy all parties requirements. It should be a 'standard' con
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> As for TCP, it would be very useful if someone were to run the
> following experiment:
> +---+
> |router2|
> +---+
> / \
> +--+
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> I got some messages from people who weren't exactly clear on how
> anycast works and fails. So let me try to explain...
Nice try.
> Anycast is now deployed for a significant number of root and gtld
> servers. Before anycast, most of those ser
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> Having just two addresses is the main problem, the fact that they're
> also anycast just makes it even worse under certain circumstances.
How does anycast make it worse?
-Steve
On Mon, 13 Dec 2004, Simon Waters wrote:
> Inspection suggests that the anycast announcements in the UK were
> pointing to a server that wasn't accepting email.
>
> I believe here the problem is using anycast, and not providing a backup
> system not using anycast. The previous case I'm aware of w
On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Janet Sullivan wrote:
> I'm confused. You never try to contact the owners of a domain which
> appears to be the source of abuse, but insist that domains can't be
> anonymous?
All rhetoric aside, this appears to be a question of what it means to have
a domain.
Once upon a t
ou undermine your own case here. Let the anonymous senders create and
> post keys via public servers then encrypt their messages with those
> keys. Authentication is not the same as encryption or identification,
> nor do any of them necessarily compromise anonymity or demand
> unaccountability in sending mail.
>
> Anyway, the bottom line is that I no longer pay the EFF to fight on
> the side of my enemies. All else boils down to "my network, my rules"
> and "it'd be great if we all had the same rules and could talk to all
> the other networks".
>
> --
> join us! http://hesketh.com/about/careers/web_designer.html join us!
> hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2554 w: http://hesketh.com
> join us! http://hesketh.com/about/careers/account_manager.htmljoin us!
>
Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 415 717-7842 (cell) http://www.gibbard.org/~scg
+1 510 528-1035 (home)
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, Rodney Joffe wrote:
> You are absolutely right in suggesting that .foo has to get its act
> together. You may even tell your users that. But you'll be telling
> every single one of them, because every single one of them is going to
> attempt to resolve .foo domain names during
obably won't post an immediate summary to the list, but I should have
a paper on the subject written by Mid-October.
Thanks,
Steve Gibbard
Packet Clearing House
On Sun, 4 Jul 2004, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Go back and think about the purpose of an exchange: it's an economic
> optimization over transit. It's the value-add that lets someone who buys
> transit sell a service that's of greater value yet lesser cost than what
> they buy. Now, what's an excha
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, James wrote:
> okay people, this is ridiculous.
>
> if you want real-time DOS mitigation, cooperation between ASNs, may I
> introduce you all to:
>
> http://www.pch.net/inoc-dba/
As in most other situations, there's value to having multiple tools.
Different tools are more u
I suspect most of us who are failing to feel Mr. Sheldon's pain on this
just fail to understand the burden that's been placed on him by this
problem.
As an occasional poster to this and other lists, I sometimes get a few
duplicate replies, which, being sent directly to me, end up in my regular
ma
A paper based on a presentation I did at the PAIX peering forum in
December is here: http://www.stevegibbard.com/ddos-talk.htm
I should probably update it a bit, but that may not happen any time soon.
Slides from another presentation at the same conference are here:
http://www.prostructure.com/c
>>
> >> --
> >> Jonathan M. Slivko
> >> Network Operations Center
> >> Invisible Hand Networks, Inc.
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> 1-866-MERKATO (USA)
> >> 1-812-355-5908 (Intl)
> >> <http://www.invisiblehand.net>
>
> --
> Jonathan M. Slivko
> Network Operations Center
> Invisible Hand Networks, Inc.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 1-866-MERKATO (USA)
> 1-812-355-5908 (Intl)
> <http://www.invisiblehand.net>
>
Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 415 717-7842 (cell) http://www.gibbard.org/~scg
+1 510 528-1035 (home)
Last week I sent out some numbers on MD5 proliferation among Packet
Clearing House's peers, did some speculation about what this meant for the
rest of the Net, and asked for numbers from other sources. At PCH, we had
12% of sessions configured as MD5. We had been responding to requests
from peer
have been
actively contacting peers to ask for MD5 configuration have been getting,
as well as whether other networks that have not been being proactive about
this have been seeing contact rates similar to ours.
-Steve Gibbard
Packet Clearing House
> it or the receiver would not have wanted to receive it if either had had a
> chance to have the appropriate human or humans investiage the transaction in
> full detail.
>
> Traffic you are duped into sending by traffic you wish you hadn't received
> or cannot
If a few of you can stop being so pedantic for a second, the definition
looks pretty easy to me: traffic unlikely to be wanted by the recipient.
Presumably, if it's being sent that means somebody wanted to send it, so
the senders' desires are a pretty meaningless metric.
The harder pieces are goi
Reading this thread, it looks to me like everybody's discussing the "one
true router" for doing BGP, without regard to any other requirements that
may exist in this situation.
Being able to take a full BGP table in a Cisco is simply a matter of
having enough memory. We're using 1760s as the curr
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Steve Francis wrote:
> I'm looking for a better (preferably open source) way to track change
> plans, event resolutions, etc.
>
> e.g. an easy way to dig up what the changes that occured on a system
> were for, who did them, etc.
> Obviously rancid et al shows us what changed
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If you are asking for stateful filtering for a firewall that sees only
> one-way conversation, it does not exist and cannot exist, by definition.
On a purely theoretical level, I'll disagree.
A stateful inspection firewall needs to know about the p
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Pendergrass, Greg wrote:
> I think how reliable the internet needs to be depends on what you want to
> use it for: if you want to call an ambulance you DON'T use the internet, if
> you want to transfer money from one account to another you DO use the
> internet. In other word
as sad, etc.).
> > >
> > >And if the problem could happen to another network tomorrow but could be
> > >prevented or patched, wouldn't inquiring minds want to know? Your life
> > >might be more interesting when the fit hits the shan if you have the
> > >same
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
[Regarding somebody's registration of nanog.us]
> I can't tell you who to talk to over at NS, but since you all have latest
> bind, and are cluefull on the VGRS wildcard hack, you all can limit the
> effect that the "nanog" has i
domain names if their bill doesn't get
paid, but apparrently only if nobody beats them to it.
-Steve
----
Steve Gibbard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1 510 528-1035 http://www.gibbard.org/~scg
unning out to be impossible. I then took over, explained the situation
to people at ARIN, submitted an entirely new application showing exactly
what they were using and nothing more. I made a phone call to clarify
some points after getting a response from ARIN asking for more
information, and
ng a couple months ago that asking about
serial ports is a good way to get laughed at by computer sales people.
"Don't you know serial is dead?" they kept asking.
-Steve
--------
Steve Gibbard
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
