Yep. Add it to the list of IRS scams, fake arrest warrants, credit repair, free
vacations, etc. The rate of calls has increased dramatically in the past year,
especially with the "neighborhood scam" where they spoof their CLID to a local
area code and prefix + through and blast you
og.org] On Behalf Of Sean Pedersen
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:39 PM
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: RE: Proof of ownership; when someone demands you remove a prefix
>
>This is more or less the situation we're in. We contacted the customer and
>they informed us the matter is
This is more or less the situation we're in. We contacted the customer and they
informed us the matter is in dispute with the RIR and that their customer (the
assignee) is in the process of resolving the issue. We have to allow them time
to accomplish this. I've asked for additional information
In this case we defaulted to trusting our customer and their LOA over a
stranger on the Internet and asked our customer to review the request.
Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily mean a stranger on the Internet isn't
the actual assignee. A means to definitively prove "ownership" from a
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Sean Pedersen <spedersen.li...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We recently received a demand to stop announcing a "fraudulent" prefix. Is
> > there an industry best practice when handling these kind of requests? Do
We recently received a demand to stop announcing a "fraudulent" prefix. Is
there an industry best practice when handling these kind of requests? Do you
have personal or company-specific preferences or requirements? To the best
of my knowledge, we've rarely, if ever, received such a request. This
Cisco's PSIRT:
https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-
sa-20171016-wpa
Some fixes appear to be available, or will be soon.
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Sent: Monday, October 16,
Quick note to thank everyone for their input. So far everything that has been
suggested publicly and privately has been right in line with what were already
putting on paper so this provided some great feedback and confirmation that
we’re going in the right direction.
We were recently approached by a company that does security consulting. Some
of the functions they perform include discovery scans, penetration testing,
bulk e-mail generation (phishing, malware, etc.), hosting fake botnets -
basically, they'd be generating a lot of bad network traffic. Targeted
Been there, got the t-shirt ...
VXLAN was not designed to be a direct replacement for L2VPN. It was built to
scale L2 broadcast domains. With Cisco, L2 control protocols like STP are
not supported. Can't speak for other vendors. So what someone would
typically expect from EoMPLS and L2 protocol
the company.
It’s definitely on our internal roadmap, though.
From: Michael Krygeris [mailto:m...@krygerism.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2017 9:35 AM
To: Lee Howard <l...@asgard.org>; Luke Guillory <lguill...@reservetele.com>;
Sean Pedersen <spedersen.li...@gmail.com>; nanog
I went back a few years in the archives and found a few odd references, but
not much discussion. I'm curious what some other approaches are to
usage-based billing, both the practice of generating/correlating data and
the billing itself.
We bill based on use/95th percentile and our system is
Yeah - look for bundles if possible. I know it cut about 3/4 of the cost off of
an NCS5K that we were looking at in a ASR9K satellite config.
Also, if you're doing satellite on the 9000V, I believe support for that
feature is going away in a future version of IOS-XR. Double-check w/ your
13 matches
Mail list logo
