> I just realized that many automatically put emails with the subject
> line of "Spoofer Report for NANOG" in the trash, so I changed it.
>
> Is that for real or a spoof itself? If it's real I know a buncha
> guys that will help. ;)
This is real:
Hi Vincent,
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 10:36:03AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> This work is quite interesting. I see you have also a page to build
> regex from router names for each operator. Did you already work on
> extracting city names/US states? This would be quite helpful as well.
I haven't
Hi NANOG
To support Internet topology analysis efforts, we have been working on
an algorithm to detect AS numbers inside hostnames (PTR records) for
router interfaces, and automatically build regular expressions
(regexes) to extract them. Specifically, we are looking at operators
who embed the
as things with ISP domain
> names last in use in the year 2002.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 6:15 AM Matthew Luckie wrote:
>
> > Hi NANOG,
> >
> > To support Internet topology analysis efforts, I have been working on
> > an algorithm to automat
Hi NANOG,
To support Internet topology analysis efforts, I have been working on
an algorithm to automatically detect router names inside hostnames
(PTR records) for router interfaces, and build regular expressions
(regexes) to extract them. By "router name" inside the hostname, I
mean a
To my knowledge this is the meeting network.
https://spoofer.caida.org/recent_tests.php?as_include=19230
Your interpretation of the results is congruent with mine. If you look
through the history of tests you can see SAV is usually deployed on the
network during the meeting.
This is true of
Hi,
The CAIDA Spoofer project has been collecting and publicly sharing
data on the deployment of source address validation since March 2016.
We've built up a reasonably large install-base of the open-source
client, and receive tests from 400-500 unique IPs per day. We're
posting reports with
> This doesn't seem quite like it is BCP38 and more like this is
> BCP84, but it only talks about use of ACLs in section 2.1 without
> providing any examples. Given that it is also 13 years old I thought
> there might be fresher information out there.
section 2.1 is about permitting packets from
Since about a week or so it's become impossible to reach wp.com content
over IPv6.
IPv4 content does work fine, using the IPv6 literal returns a 404 which
is small enough to fit in a smaller 1480 byte MTU.
I have another test site that has a clean 1500 byte mtu and I can fetch
the
relationship with examples as to why it was
inferred the way it was, but we have not yet got that far yet.
Thanks,
Matthew Luckie
CAIDA
IPv6 paths that are the same as an IPv4-level path are correlated with
better IPv6 performance according to: Assessing IPv6 Through Web
Access - A Measurement Study and Its Findings
http://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers/602/
At the Feb NANOG I gave a lightning talk on trends involving
What's really needed is a service that looks up a given web page
over IPv6 from behind a 1280 byte MTU link and reports if all the
elements load or not. It dumps a list of elements with success/fail.
This would be useful to send the idiots that block ICMPv6 PTB yet
send packets bigger than
.
We would appreciate it if anyone who is willing to provide us with their
AS number and the number of their providers, would email this
information to m...@caida.org.
Matthew Luckie
CAIDA.
p.s. It would be great if you could also tell us who your providers are.
1) My goal is to store the traffic may be fore ever, and analyze it in
the future for security related incidents detected by ids/ips.
Take a look at Building a Time Machine for Efficient Recording and
Retrieval of High-Volume Network Traffic
14 matches
Mail list logo
