Hi again,
I continue to work on fixing the problem, but no success so far. Is there any
way to use client port number without enabling use source ip??
-Original Message-
From: Anil KARADAG [mailto:akara...@netas.com.tr]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To: Pui Edylie; Paul
Maybe you did not understand my message. I know what you say. However:
I see a message from a list as a message-from-a-list , not as a
forwarded-message-from-a-list-user. Because: How can a user authorize someone
to send a message on behalf of his/her name (by sending an email). This should
Have you configured RNAT yet? Might tidy up your SIP problem. Do you need
the servers to see the client's source port, or is your issue that SIP
response traffic is not on the port the client expects?
Give the guide to setting up RNAT here a try -
My aim is forwarding all sip packages from netscaler snip:client port number to
backend server ip: backend server port. I tried the following scenarios;
- use source ip is enabled, use proxy port is set no
o Result: we see client port as source port but no SNIP for source
Hi Anil,
The command is for the service or servicegroup and it is:
set service name -useproxyport (NO|YES)
Paul
On Apr 1, 2014, at 1:38, Anil KARADAG akara...@netas.com.tr wrote:
My aim is forwarding all sip packages from netscaler snip:client port number
to backend server ip: backend
Hi all,
Do you often find yourself in need of a simple calculator, and all you have
available to you is a Brocade or Cisco IOS router? No longer will you
experience the horror and dread of mental arithmetics. The route-map calculator
is here!
Brocade :
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014, Job Snijders wrote:
Do you often find yourself in need of a simple calculator, and all you
have available to you is a Brocade or Cisco IOS router? No longer will
you experience the horror and dread of mental arithmetics. The route-map
calculator is here!
Is this meant
Hi all,
I'm looking for a Microsoft mail contact, specifically for MTAs in
2a01:111:f400::/48 address space. Please contact me off-list.
Thanks,
Casey
Replied Off-list
Mehmet
On Apr 1, 2014, at 10:53, Casey Deccio ca...@deccio.net wrote:
Hi all,
I'm looking for a Microsoft mail contact, specifically for MTAs in
2a01:111:f400::/48 address space. Please contact me off-list.
Thanks,
Casey
Hi All -
The Cisco PSIRT has been sending IOS Security Advisories to the NANOG mailing
list for well over a decade. We started this process a long time ago at the
request of the list’s then-membership and haven’t been asked to change since.
Admittedly, vulnerability
Given that probably 80+% (a guess, but I'd be really surprised at a lower
figure) of all internet traffic crosses at least one Cisco device somewhere,
I think it would be a huge disservice to discontinue sending these emails.
10 to 15 emails per year isn't much overhead, compared to seemingly
On Tue, 01 Apr 2014 15:24:32 -0400, Chuck Church said:
Given that probably 80+% (a guess, but I'd be really surprised at a lower
figure) of all internet traffic crosses at least one Cisco device somewhere,
I think it would be a huge disservice to discontinue sending these emails.
Actually, the
--- ckoss...@cisco.com wrote:
From: Clay Kossmeyer ckoss...@cisco.com
[...] we’re happy to discontinue sending to the NANOG list directly.
--
Instead of discontinuing them how about one email that contains
all the details, rather than one
The Cisco PSIRT has been sending IOS Security Advisories to
the NANOG mailing list for well over a decade
Thank you, much appreciated
Given that there are a number of forums that more directly
address either Cisco-specific issues or are specific to
vulnerability announcements, were happy
On Tue, 1 Apr 2014, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
The Cisco PSIRT has been sending IOS Security Advisories to
the NANOG mailing list for well over a decade
Thank you, much appreciated
Given that there are a number of forums that more directly
address either Cisco-specific issues or are specific
On 04/01/2014 11:44 AM, Clay Kossmeyer wrote:
Hi All -
The Cisco PSIRT has been sending IOS Security Advisories to the NANOG mailing
list for well over a decade. We started this process a long time ago at the
request of the list’s then-membership and haven’t been asked to change since.
Job,
Fun! More generally, BGP has the same computing power as a Turing Machine:
Marco Chiesa, Luca Cittadini, Guiseppe Di Battista, Laurent Vanbever, and
Stefano Vissicchio
Using routers to build logic circuits: How powerful is BGP? (ICNP'13)
From: Clay Kossmeyer ckoss...@cisco.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
Cc: Clay Seaman-Kossmeyer (ckossmey) ckoss...@cisco.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2014 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Software SSL VPN Denial of
Service Vulnerability
Hi All -
The Cisco PSIRT has been
Hi Paul,
I use Netscaler 10.1, and “use proxy port” option depends on “use source ip”. I
don’t understand why I cannot set no for proxy port without enabling source ip.
Its very bad solution for that.
From: Paul Bertain [mailto:p...@bertain.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 4:58 PM
To: Anil
19 matches
Mail list logo
