As an intellectual exercise, I think this is interesting and worth the
effort. As an actual implementation, I think it's more effective to block
DNS traffic to the affected subnets. Let the breakage occur, and then let
the end users get their broken machines fixed rather than let them continue
Use 'netstat -ao' to see which process(es) they are associated with.
Then use a sniffer to see what actual traffic they carry.
Jason
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Glen Kent glen.k...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I see that i have multiple TCP sessions established with facebook.
They come up even
My limited understanding and experience with port-channels is that the
member port configurations need to match the port channel
configuration, at least with respect to 'switchport mode trunk',
'switchport trunk encapsulation' and 'switchport trunk allowed vlan'.
This is between a 6500 and a
Except that this just shifts the burden of trust on to DNSSEC, which also
necessitates a central authority of 'trust'. Unless there's an explicitly
more secure way of storing DNSSEC private keys, this just moves the bullseye
from CAs to DNSSEC signers.
Jason
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:30 AM,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:57 AM, CJ cjinfant...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey all,
Is there any reason to run IS-IS over OSPF in the SP core? Currently, we
are running IS-IS but we are redesigning our core and now would be a good
time to switch. I would like to switch to OSPF, mostly because of
Don't tell me you didn't see the name of the list when you subscribed:
Naturally, All Nuts Over Guns
?
Jason
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Mike Rae mike@sjrb.ca wrote:
Hi All :
How is this an operational related discussion ?
Perhaps it can be taken to more appropriate forum.
6 matches
Mail list logo
