On 6/11/2014 11:13 PM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
No luck from here.
weather.gov resolves as 204.227.127.201 for me, and I have no routes
for that IP.
Likewise here, and we have various views.
UTC-Border#show ip route 204.227.127.201
% Network not in table
BGP path falls back to default
On 5/6/2014 11:39 AM, Drew Weaver wrote:
Hi all,
I am wondering if maybe we should make some kind of concerted effort to
remind folks about the IPv4 routing table inching closer and closer to the
512K route mark.
We are at about 94/95% right now of 512K.
For most of us, the 512K route
On 4/29/2014 2:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If everyone who had 30+ inaggregable IPv4 prefixes replaced them with 1 (or
even 3) IPv6 prefixes…
As a bonus, we could get rid of NAT, too. ;-)
/me ducks (but you know I had to say it)
Yeah, just when we thought Slammer / Blaster / Nachi / Welchia
On 4/29/2014 11:37 PM, TheIpv6guy . wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
On 4/29/2014 2:06 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
If everyone who had 30+ inaggregable IPv4 prefixes replaced them with 1 (or
even 3) IPv6 prefixes…
As a bonus, we could get rid of NAT, too
On 4/18/2014 9:53 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Apr 19, 2014, at 1:20 AM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:
There isn't much a firewall can do to break it.
As someone who sees firewalls break the Internet all the time for those whose
packets have the misfortune to traverse one, I must
On 4/18/2014 10:10 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Apr 19, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
It's how we provide access control.
Firewalls 'access control'.
Firewalls are one (generally, very poor and grossly misused) way of providing
access control. They're often wedged
On 4/12/2014 8:55 PM, Harry Hoffman wrote:
Didn't Cisco already release a bunch of updates related to Anyconnect and
heartbleed?
There were AnyConnect for iOS (little i, not big I) issues with
heartbleed, but everything else has been mostly phone and UCS related.
IOS XE is affected if you have
On 4/9/2014 5:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 17:15:59 -0400, William Herrin said:
Meh. This just means list software will have to rewrite the From
header to From: John Levine nanog@nanog.org and rely on the
Reply-To header for anybody who wants to send a message
On 4/9/2014 6:11 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:49:27PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is named explicitly as a recipient in the RFC822
header. Anything To: somelist@somehost does
On 4/9/2014 7:22 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 4/9/2014 5:11 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 05:49:27PM -0400, Jeff Kell wrote:
The most sane out-of-mind response should only be sent *if* the
out-of-mind person is named explicitly as a recipient in the RFC822
On 4/5/2014 2:32 AM, Andrew D Kirch wrote:
So, if there's more than 4 billion ants... what are they going to do?
Who knows, but they'll definitely need IPv6 :)
Jeff
So we're somewhat safe until the fast food burger grills and fries
cookers advance to level-3 routing? Or Daquiri blenders get their own
ASNs?
Bad enough that professional folks can goof to this extent, but
scarier still that the Internet of Everything seems to progress
without bounds...
Jeff
On 3/26/2014 12:28 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
According to the Ace of Spades HQ blog:
IPv6 would allow every atom on the surface of the earth to have its
own IP address, with enough spare to do Earth 100+ times.
Not with a /64 minimum allocation per customer :)
Jeff
On 3/26/2014 12:33 AM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
On 3/25/2014 11:18 PM, John Levine wrote:
3. Arguing about IPv6 in the context of requirements upon SMTP
connections is playing that uncomfortable game with
ones own combat boots. And not particularly productive.
If you can figure out how to do
On 3/20/2014 7:32 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Then there is this whole matter of end-to-end connectivity. Just
because your WAN device links up at 8 Megabits, does not mean you have
been guaranteed 8 Mbits end-to-end.
Have run into this one more times that I care to count. We're running
very
On 2/14/2014 9:07 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
Indeed -- I'm not in the business of bit-shipping these days, so I
can't endorse or advocate any particular method of blocking spoofed IP
packets in your gear.
If you're dead-end, a basic ACL that permits ONLY your prefixes on
egress, and blocks your
On 2/2/2014 4:03 PM, Bryan Tong wrote:
These cables are most commonly known as Direct Attach Copper SFP+
The big issue appears to be that these are not always consistently
functional crossing vendor lines (sometimes product lines within the
same vendor). There does not appear to be any
(snip)
I doubt that anything /24 will ever be eligible as a portable
provider independent block. If within a provider, you can slice and
dice as you wish.
Jeff
On 12/30/2013 8:16 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
There's a reason why there's huge efforts to put RA guard in switches, and do
cryptographic RA's.
These are two admissions that the status quo does not work for many
folks, but for some reason these two solutions get pushed over a simple
DHCP router
On 12/30/2013 11:06 PM, [AP] NANOG wrote:
As I was going through reading all these replies, the one thing that
continued to poke at me was the requirement of the signed binaries and
microcode. The same goes for many of the Cisco binaries, without direct
assistance, which is unclear at this
On 12/9/2013 12:48 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
A 3270 that took 5 seconds of delay and then *snapped* the entire screen
up at once was perceived as faster than a 9600 tty that painted the same
entire screen in about a second and a half or so. Don't remember who it
was either, but likely Bell
You can stick a splice in a manhole. You don't want a patch panel
or cross-connect in that sort of environment, keep that housed inside,
somewhere.
Jeff
On 11/13/2013 7:53 PM, Thomas wrote:
Usually it would spliced outside at the manhole where the fiber meet to go in
the building. Depends
On 11/12/2013 1:12 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Mike mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com wrote:
It appears that some of my subscribers DSL modems (which are acting as nat
routers) have had their dns settings hijacked and presumably for serving ads
or some such
As others have pointed out, PBR ...
* Is a fragile configuration. You're typically forcing next-hop without
a [direct] failover option,
* Often incurs a penalty (hardware cycles, conflicting feature sets, or
outright punting to software),
* Doesn't naturally load-balance (you pick the source
On 9/26/2013 6:53 AM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
What flavor of multimode fiber are you dealing with? The answer and
the distance you can run becomes substantially more important at 10G.
Hopefully you're at least dealing with OM3. OM1/OM2 imposes distance
limitations and you'll likely need
On 9/23/2013 9:36 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
So then all the networks that have done $things to BitTorrent to
demote it to second-rate traffic will suddenly have a bunch of very
angry Apple fans whose downloads are mysteriously having issues.
Just ask the Blizzard fans (World of Warcraft) about this
On 9/19/2013 5:29 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
So you understand things aren't always metro e.. That's what I was trying to
say. I still have a coupler.. ;)
Original message
From: Fred Reimer frei...@freimer.org
Actually, I started out with a 300 baud acoustic modem. You
On 8/17/2013 7:14 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
Hacker will love SDN ...
Yes. Traditional SDN is big, flat layer-2 network with global
mac-address resolution, and a big fat Java applet managing the adjacency
tables.
What could *possibly* go wrong?
Jeff
On 8/14/2013 9:24 PM, Zachary McGibbon wrote:
It seems this started around 8am this morning and it was a macromedia tcp
flash stream on port 1935.
Wait until they throw some OctoShape P2P streaming video at you...
Jeff
On 7/30/2013 10:55 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jared Geiger ja...@compuwizz.net
We are seeing that all our customers in the Brighthouse Orlando, FL market
that would make outbound connections on TCP port 3306 suddenly can't
connect to us now. This happened
On 7/13/2013 10:15 PM, Jima wrote:
On 2013-07-13 14:44, Bill Woodcock wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/09/xmission-isp-customers-privacy-nsa
I can happily state that XMission is my home ISP, with UTOPIA
(city-involved fiber optic provider) as the local loop. (Really, who
On 7/14/2013 3:37 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
I would imagine this cheap rural fiber showed up after the RUS
stimulus? A former employer (GCI, in Anchorage Alaska) received quite
a bit of money in the form of a grant/loan for a rural fiber network
(I think they may have received the largest of
On 7/14/2013 9:08 PM, Jima wrote:
XMission does offer 1000/1000, as well; I seem to recall the price is
something like $300/mo. For us, the problem was more finding remote
sites that can push data rates anywhere near one's own limit (as it's
enough of a problem at 100mbit), making the price
On 6/30/2013 12:34 PM, Glen Kent wrote:
Under what scenarios do providers install egress ACLs which could say for
eg.
1. Allow all IP traffic out on an interface foo if its coming from source
IP x.x.x.x/y
2. Drop all other IP traffic out on this interface.
If you're an end node, it's BCP to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/28/2013 10:56 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
If you're willing to do without modern features, you should be able to pick
up a ton of gear that does
all this for dirt cheap. A 7513 with channelized DS-3 cards is still
quite spiffy for terminating
On 6/20/2013 10:26 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
Many things aren't as obvious as you state above. Take for example routing
table growth. There's going to be a big boom in selling routers (or turning
off full routes) when folks devices melt at 512k routes in the coming years.
Indeed. We're
On 6/17/2013 10:32 PM, George Herbert wrote:
Also, what are reliability and redundancy requirements.
10 gigs of bare naked fiber is one thing, but if you need extra paths
redundancy, figure that out now and specify.
Is this latency, bandwidth, both? Mission critical, business critical,
Better still, http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1996-09-07/
Jeff
On 6/13/2013 6:41 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Phil Fagan philfa...@gmail.com wrote:
fast Perl
haha :) that's cute.
On 6/12/2013 7:59 PM, Mike Hale wrote:
It would make sense. It's a friggin' sick syslog analyzer. Expensive
as hell, but awesome.
Compare it to most any other SIEM (ArcSight?) and it's a bargain.
But still, yeah.
Jeff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 6/6/2013 9:22 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jun 2013 21:12:35 -0400, Robert Mathews (OSIA) said:
On 6/6/2013 7:35 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
[ . ] Happily, none of the companies listed are transport
networks:
Could you be
OK, here's a wild guess from left-field. Well, at least from left-field
where I made at least one game-saving catch :)
We had a similar case some years back, but it was a ramp-up in overall
traffic we were looking at. If you're looking at latency, it could be
related to traffic (do you have
On 5/10/2013 9:56 AM, Jerimiah Cole wrote:
On 05/08/2013 09:21 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
Ciena/Cyan/etc are way over our non-existant budget... what is the
going recommendation to throw say 4-8 lambdas over a dark pair without
breaking the bank? :)
I've used http://www.omnitron-systems.com
Apologies if this is a dumb newbie question, but this is one area of
networking where I remain a virgin :)
We have a local loop fiber to a regional fiber hut that has served us
well for several years. It's carrying a 1550nm ER 10G circuit at the
moment, but we're looking at another one, possibly
On 5/1/2013 7:57 PM, Mark Gauvin wrote:
Zip ties have no reason to be in a dc grr
They have their place, but decidedly not in data center racks where
**nothing** is permanent/fixed very long :)
Jeff
We are looking into doing cableTV/HFC distribution on campus, and fiber
runs for HFC typically run APC connectors to avoid reflectance on the
analog HFC signal where it is significant. We we're looking at
converting some existing data UPC to APC for existing runs, and on the
new ones either do a
On 4/1/2013 10:15 PM, Eric Adler wrote:
Make sure you don't miss the QoS implementation of RFC 2549 (and make sure
that you're ready to implement RFC 6214). You'll be highly satisfied with
the results (presuming you and your packets end up in one of the higher
quality classes).
I'd also
On 3/28/2013 7:49 PM, Saku Ytti wrote:
On (2013-03-28 23:45 +), Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
In fact, what makes it easier is that uRPF can be part of the template that
can be universally applied to every edge port.
There is incredible amount of L3 interfaces in the last mile, old ghetto
On 2/26/2013 10:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
In fact, many of the hotels that have solved this intelligently have
simply placed DSLAMs in the phone room and run DSL to each room with a
relatively inexpensive (especially when you buy 500 of them at a time)
DSL modem in each room. Some also have
On 2/26/2013 11:35 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
I don't spend a lot of time in a lot of hotels, but every hardwire I
have seen with my own personal eyeballs was indeed DSL. Cheers, -- jra
Hrmm... Ramada Inn, Okaloosa Island resort outside Fort Walton Beach
(kinda your neighborhood Jay) two years
On 2/11/2013 11:05 PM, Tim Durack wrote:
Multicast is dead. Feel free to disagree. :-) Tim:
Multicast is a vendor selling point, as you essentially need a coherent
end-to-end solution to get it to work PROPERLY. Of course if it does
not work PROPERLY, it will still largely work, albeit
This has been a fascinating discussion :) While we don't quite qualify
as a small city, we do have quite a dispersion of coverage across our
residence halls and general campus. There is an ongoing RFP process to
build out our own CATV distribution (or more generally, to avoid the
resident CATV
On 1/17/2013 6:50 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Vonage will, in most cases fail through CGN as will Skype, Xbox-360,
and many of the other IM clients.
Not sure about Vonage, but Skype, Xbox, and just about everything else
imaginable (other than hosting a server) works just fine over NAT with
Not sure how widespread their leakage may be, but Dreamhost just
hijacked one of my prefixes...
Possible Prefix Hijack (Code: 10)
Your prefix:
, Network Operations*
kenneth.mc...@dreamhost.com
Ph: 818-447-2589
www.dreamhost.com
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote:
Not sure how widespread their leakage may be, but Dreamhost just
hijacked one of my prefixes
On 1/9/2013 11:41 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
$GENERATE, as someone else pointed out, solves that problem for you?
(Does it scale for IPv6? I can't recall - but surely this could be
scripted too.)
No. A /64 has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses. Even if you
had machines that supported
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/2/2013 10:31 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 12:10:55 -0800, George Herbert said:
Google is setting a higher bar here, which may be sufficient to deter
a lot of bots and script kiddies for the next few years, but it's
On 12/27/2012 1:26 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Dec 27, 2012, at 13:19 , randal k na...@data102.com wrote:
(We move ~1.4gbps to Netflix, and are thus not a candidate for
peering. And they have no POP close.)
Why don't you ask Netflix? And why not ask them for kit to put on-net?
On 12/14/2012 11:11 PM, eric-l...@truenet.com wrote:
It's been about 2 years in since I've heard about the concept, and honestly
I'm about ready to jump into test environments at my house. My questions
are pretty basic, what distro would you recommend for a controller, and
should I start by
Looking for some guidance/references on the use of UPC versus APC terminations
on fiber
cabling. Traditionally we have done all of our fiber plant targeting data
usage with
UPC connectors. We are also looking at proposals for fiber distribution plant
for
video, and the possibility of using
On 11/13/2012 6:42 PM, Tom Morris wrote:
Sorry to say, I've used them and had them eat themselves. They just
die mysteriously and let out lots of smoke when they do. When they do,
however, they leave behind a perfectly good set of batteries. I'd
recommend looking elsewhere... Does
On 4/26/2012 5:44 PM, Andrew Latham wrote:
Yes its a major problem for the users unknowingly infected. To them
it will look like their Internet connection is down. Expect ISPs to
field lots of support calls.
And what about the millions of users unknowingly infected with
something else ??
An IP-based whitelist is pretty much doomed from the start. Many
vendors use content delivery networks and that is too large and volatile
to chase.
We have had some success in captive portal environments with DNS
manipulation, allowing only certain domains to resolve, and redirecting
everything
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/3/2012 10:34 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 07:04:52 PST, JoeSox said:
Go with 'Technical Support' unless you want to take all sorts of calls
with end users wanting help on operational training issues.
THIS DOES
On 3/3/2012 10:57 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Especially if a human answers promptly without a horrible accent...
Jeff
Like a heavy Southern Drawl ?
Oh yeah, y'all :)
The major point was a human answering, at least my home ISP (Charter)
has this unbearable voice response... in annoyingly
On 3/3/2012 11:48 AM, Faisal Imtiaz wrote:
Touche!
Being in South Florida, (heavy Latin Spanish accents) and having
customers in Alabama, Tennessee (Heavy Southern accents) etc, we have
had to Tune our ears as well as our Accents, including carefully
choosing our words...
Yes, it
How about splitting up a heavy stream (10G) into components (1G) to run through
an
inline device and reassemble the pieces back to an aggregate afterward?
TippingPoint makes a core controller box for this but it's pretty hideously
expensive.
Could do it with two 6500s but that's pretty
On 2/18/2012 4:32 PM, Everett Batey wrote:
facebook.com DNS not found 20120218 2125 UTC
Is there any outage information for DNS for facebook.com / www.facebook.com
?
Oops! Google Chrome could not find www.facebook.com
I have had two reports of can't get to facebook from campus today, not
On 2/18/2012 11:41 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Dumb terminals are sometimes very smart.
Well, yeah, unless you're ever in one of those spots where you need to
xmodem an IOS image...
(Makes you appreciate those newfangled ones that can mount USB drives ...)
Jeff
On 2/17/2012 12:00 PM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
If the TV went on the blink (they all did then), you opened up the
back, looked for fried components, and if one of the resistors was
smoking, you soldered in a replacement. Or you took the tubes down to
the local drugstore and tested them.
Wow...
Direct phone number of a 2nd level TAC that speaks English and doesn't
read from a transcript :)
Lots of good mentions, I might add two...
(1) Snap-on multitool plier (or linesman equivalent), combination
plier/diags/various screwdrivers, etc.
(2) Universal power brick
On the last one above, I
On 2/17/2012 6:32 PM, Aled Morris wrote:
Though wax string is nicer.
http://www.repsole.com/ProductGroup.asp?PGID=254
Or in less static environments, velcro ties, e.g.,
http://www.cabletiesandmore.com/velcro.php
Jeff
On 2/16/2012 8:17 AM, Ray Soucy wrote:
I've found starting off with some history on Ethernet (Maine loves Bob
Metcalfe) becomes a very solid base for understanding; how Ethernet
today is very different; starting with hubs, bridges, collisions, and
those problems, then introducing modern
Or a security vendor, or a security publication... the whole top ten
delivered as ten individual clicks with pay-per-view banner ads on each
page and a bazillion tracker cookies arrgh.
Jeff
On 2/16/2012 5:26 AM, Chris Campbell wrote:
This isn't so much a list of misconceptions
(1) Block all ICMP (obviously some are required for normal operations,
unreachables, pMTU too large/DF set, etc).
(2) Block certain ports (blindly, w/o at least established) taking out
legitimate ephemeral port usage.
(3) Local uRPF is unnecesary (or source spoofing mitigation in general)
(4)
Heck, even Klingon made it to the private UTF-8 registry,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_writing_systems
:)
Jeff
There used to be the old programming benchmark of how large a program
(in lines, as well as compiled bytes) it took to say Hello, world.
The 21st century benchmark might now well be the size of a Hello,
world e-mail.
Or a web page with a similar statement.
Jeff
On 2/10/2012 6:46 PM, Rich
On 12/29/2011 8:12 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
Well I'd like to be able to plug in the cable router and the DSL
router at home and have it all just work.
Well, that's not too far removed from the plugged-in laptop with the
wireless still active. Toss-up which one wins default route.
What would
On 12/14/2011 3:37 PM, Keegan Holley wrote:
Single mode just has a smaller core size for the smaller beam emitted by
laser vs. LED. it works although I've never done it outside of a lab (MM
is cheaper). As for the distance it theory that should come down to the
optics and your transmit
On 11/14/2011 4:21 PM, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
For the common good it doesn't matter if the NAT is good guys are
right or the NAT is useless guys are right, as they both fail to
decrease the numbers of their opposing parts. We must get IPv6 done
for both of them.
Hehehe... depending on your ISPs
On 11/13/2011 4:27 PM, Phil Regnauld wrote:
That's not exactly correct. NAT doesn't imply firewalling/filtering.
To illustrate this to customers, I've mounted attacks/scans on hosts
behind NAT devices, from the interconnect network immediately outside:
if you can point a route with the ext ip
On 11/2/2011 9:58 PM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:
I guess ten years of watching RIRs and users de-bogon new /8s didn't
teach you why those Cymru examples are more dangerous than they are good.
If you follow all the CYMRU examples and subscribe to the BGP bogon
feed, that isn't an issue...
Jeff
On 11/1/2011 7:05 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
Is there anything perhaps protecting or intercepting the data on its way to
the server, perhaps an Arbor device of some type of load balancer?
This type of behavior is quite common when protecting web assets to eliminate
zombies and such, but its
On 10/26/2011 10:57 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Aftab Siddiqui
aftab.siddi...@gmail.comwrote:
Blocking port/25 is a common practice (!= best practice) for home
users/consumers because it makes life a bit simpler in educating the end
user.
And it's not just 25.
On 8/12/2011 8:29 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
So what's in NANOGers home networks/compute centers? :)
Surprisingly minimalistic - a Linksys cablemodem and a Belkin Play wireless
router, both from Best Buy, a Dell Latitude laptop from work, and a PS/3.
(I used to have more gear, but it
On 8/5/2011 8:53 PM, Brielle wrote:
Until they start MitM the ssl traffic, fake certs and all. Didn't a certain
repressive regime already do this tactic with facebook or some other major
site?
Marketscore did (via installing root certs in the victim's machines),
and as far as I know, still
On 6/19/2011 9:24 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
i think we have to just discourage lookups of single-token names, universally.
Not to mention the folks of the Redmond persuasion with their
additionally ambiguous \\hostname single names.
(In the absence of a configured search domain, Windows won't even
On 6/12/2011 11:44 AM, Matthew Palmer wrote:
I don't believe we were talking about DHCPv6, we were talking about SLAAC.
And I *still* think it's a better idea for the client to be registering
itself in DNS; the host knows what domain(s) it should be part of, and hence
which names refer to
On 6/10/2011 7:43 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote:
I wonder, what's wrong with dialup through ISDN? You get speed that is
about the same as low end broadband I'd say. And I think it'd be
available at these locations where DSL is not.
Well, it was available. I had one ~15 years ago, and a Cisco 801
Now getting We’re sorry, the Netflix website and the ability to
instantly watch movies are both temporarily unavailable. out of Charter.
Campus getting same routed via 1239 209 2906.
Jeff
On 3/12/2011 10:02 AM, John Levine wrote:
Anyone have a list of MUAs that actually support RFC 2369 with
subscription management widgets in the GUI? Surely someone has written
one but I can't seem to find any documentation to that effect.
Alpine, which has what must be the cruddiest GUI on the
On 3/11/2011 8:24 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
--- b...@herrin.us wrote:
From: William Herrin b...@herrin.us
No, it isn't. Contrary to mailing list best practices, NANOG
unsubscribe information is stubbornly stashed in the email headers
--
That's a
On 2/28/2011 8:44 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Feb 28, 2011, at 8:40 PM, Jim Gettys wrote:
Again, having a permanently known identifier being broadcast all the time is
a potentially a serious security/safety issue.
We already have this with MAC addresses, unless folks bother to periodically
On 2/27/2011 11:53 PM, Franck Martin wrote:
No, when I first played with IPv6 only network, I found out that RD was
silly, it gives an IP adddress but no DNS, and you have to rely on IPv4 to do
that. silly, so my understanding is then people saw the mistake, and added
some DNS resolution...
On 2/27/2011 9:00 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Do you have a smartphone? Blackberry? iPhone? Android?
Do you use it as a technical tool in your work, either for accessing
devices or testing connectivity -- or something else?
I have a Droid2 with the WiFi Analyzer freebie app by Kevin Yuan.
On 2/11/2011 11:28 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
My apologies for the error, it will actually be a 32 digit system, and
we're switching to base-16, so all phones will have to be replaced
with phones supporting 0-9A-F.
Well, they already do, you just need a military phone or a linesman's
handset to get
On 2/3/2011 2:11 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
Was TCP/IP this bad back in 1983, folks?
Yeah. Only real hosts on the network, and you had to be a real root user to
bind a
listening port 1024 :-)
Now a 5-year-old with a freakin' phone can do it.
Jeff
On 2/2/2011 2:42 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
The only other charitable conclusion I can draw is Somebody hasn't spent time
chasing down people with misconfigured laptops on the wireless who are
squawking
RA's for 2002:
There's a *big* operational difference between all authorized and
On 1/27/2011 2:43 PM, david raistrick wrote:
here's the original quote (which a friend had pasted to me):
Web developers have tried to compensate for this problem by creating IPv6 --
a system
that recognizes six-digit IP addresses rather than four-digit ones.
And as replied privately to
On 1/12/2011 2:57 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
Try this at home, with/without NAT:
1. Buy a new PC with Windows installed
2. Install all security patches needed since the OS was installed
Without NAT, you're unpatched PC will get infected in less than 1 minute.
Wrong.
Repeat the experiment with
On 1/10/2011 3:20 PM, Greg Whynott wrote:
HP probably was the most helpful vendor i've dealt with in relation to
solving/providing inter vendor interoperability solutions. they have PDF
booklets on many things we would run into during work. for example,
setting up STP between Cisco and
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
