... we lost Jon.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.txt
--- djahanda...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Darius Jahandarie
Either way, in the US at least, it's not legal to port scan random
machines on the internet, so this was a rather useless exercise. (And
--
Want to re-write that section or should I re
Roland,
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 15, 2012, at 7:47 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
> I know all about the forwarding capabilities of modern general-purpose CPUs,
> ring-buffers, et. al. I know what is possible, and what isn't possible. And
> please, no more from the Vyatta crowd, et. al. - t
Perhaps the following?
AfriNIC
ARIN
APNIC
LACNIC
RIPE
Regards,
Jay
On 16/10/2012, at 1:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> ok. i'll bite. what the heck is this meant to support? i thought the
>>> rirs were moving from five TALs to one.
>>
>> Randy, we have an operational need to separate the exi
On Oct 16, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Ryan Malayter wrote:
> 10G+ forwarding with minimum packet sizes is possible on a single core using
> optimized kernels (see Intel DPDK and PF_RING DNA).
Of course it isn't. You can *approach* 10gb/sec with multiple cores and
minimum packet sizes, granted.
> You
>> ok. i'll bite. what the heck is this meant to support? i thought the
>> rirs were moving from five TALs to one.
>
> Randy, we have an operational need to separate the existing single TAL
> into its discrete components for each source, so we can have production
> certificates for each source
On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:02 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
> Hopefully, you have hardware-based edge devices, not just software-based
> devices and (awful) stateful firewalls - the days of software-based devices
> on the Internet were over years ago.
Software forwarding is usually only a probl
On 16/10/2012, at 11:09 AM, David Conrad wrote:
> George,
>
> On Oct 15, 2012, at 8:44 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
>> Once there is a global trust anchor, you can validate the 5 APNIC operating
>> CA under a single root, single TAL. Until then, an APNIC TAL is necessary.
>
> So, just to be c
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> A full scan needs just 0.5 TB of data per TCP port, so "roll your own"
> is definitely an option. But I expect that any halfway decent hosting
> provider will start asking questions after the first billion packets
> or so, and at least over
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> This solution - the "don't care" solution - almost fails the
> negligence test for certain security regimes including PCI (credit
> cards) and possibly SOX for retail data locations (and HIPPA for
> hospitals / medical locations, etc).
>
Of
George,
On Oct 15, 2012, at 8:44 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> Once there is a global trust anchor, you can validate the 5 APNIC operating
> CA under a single root, single TAL. Until then, an APNIC TAL is necessary.
So, just to be clear, the lack of a single TAL is due to inaction on the part
On 16/10/2012, at 4:15 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> APNIC will be switching to a new RPKI 'split' trust anchor system on
>> the 25th of October. This change is needed to align APNIC administered
>> resources with their allocation hierarchy. These resources will also
>> be certified under each respon
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Sean Harlow wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe because he has 130 sites and 130 truck rolls is not cheap. Also
>> company policy says no.
>>
>>
> You are correct that deploying to a number of sites isn't cheap, but the
> a
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
> Jonathan stated that they have health data on the network and only company
> issued devices are allowed. I would suggest to him that he inventory the
> equipment via MAC address (I'm guessing that it's mostly standard issue
> stuff that would
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Sean Harlow wrote:
>
> You are correct that deploying to a number of sites isn't cheap, but the
> actual relevant question is how does this cost compare to the cost of the
> original request to detect these things. In this case almost all forms of
> detection/pre
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Joe Hamelin wrote:
>
> Maybe because he has 130 sites and 130 truck rolls is not cheap. Also
> company policy says no.
>
>
You are correct that deploying to a number of sites isn't cheap, but the
actual relevant question is how does this cost compare to the cost
Are there somewhat reputable service providers for Internet-wide TCP
port scans? What's the typical rate per TCP port? (I'm interested in
rather obscure services whose identification may need additional
probing, and this data is unlikely on file already.)
A full scan needs just 0.5 TB of data pe
On Oct 15, 2012, at 1:08 PM, chris wrote:
> I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain hosted
> @netsol for a significant amount of time now (several days) only and
> getting a vague error from the remote side:
Note that mail delivery issues to NetSol have been discussed over the
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 07:41:01PM +0200, Kasper Adel wrote:
> I have never used any CLI other than Cisco so i am curious what useful and
> creative knobs and bolts are available for other network appliance Vendors.
Junos OS has:
- Multi-level hierarchical configuration with absolute or relative
I'm thinking crappy monitoring tools.
Josh
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM, chris wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Mike A wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:08:10PM -0400, chris wrote:
> >> I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain hosted
> >> @netsol for a significa
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Mike A wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:08:10PM -0400, chris wrote:
>> I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain hosted
>> @netsol for a significant amount of time now (several days) only and
>> getting a vague error from the remote side:
>>
>> in
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:08:10PM -0400, chris wrote:
> I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain hosted
> @netsol for a significant amount of time now (several days) only and
> getting a vague error from the remote side:
>
> inbound.xxx.com.netsolmail.net [206.188.198.64]: 451 4.3
> APNIC will be switching to a new RPKI 'split' trust anchor system on
> the 25th of October. This change is needed to align APNIC administered
> resources with their allocation hierarchy. These resources will also
> be certified under each responsible parent registry at the appropriate
> time.
> .
I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain hosted
@netsol for a significant amount of time now (several days) only and
getting a vague error from the remote side:
inbound.xxx.com.netsolmail.net [206.188.198.64]: 451 4.3.2 Please try
again later
I have tried the support channels refe
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Roy wrote:
>
>
> Why not give them wireless Internet access only? That will keep all the
> smartphone users happy.
>
>
Maybe because he has 130 sites and 130 truck rolls is not cheap. Also
company policy says no.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474
Why not give them wireless Internet access only? That will keep all the
smartphone users happy.
On 10/15/2012 8:12 AM, Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Well, quite frankly they have the tools they need. Our remote sites do not
have any devices that require wireless. They don't have company-issued
l
Well, quite frankly they have the tools they need. Our remote sites do not
have any devices that require wireless. They don't have company-issued
laptops, and personal laptops are not allowed. The policy is on the books
but it isn't my department to make sure people know about it and follow it.
Our
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:11:00 +1100, Karl Auer said:
> No-one has said this yet, so I will - why are people working around your
> normal network policies? This is often a sign of something lacking that
> people need in their daily work. You can often reduce this sort of
> "innocent thievery" down t
28 matches
Mail list logo
