When I lived in Oklahoma, the mantra of the locals was "if you don't
like the weather, wait five minutes." As a member of a Boy Scout troop
in the northern part of the Sooner State, we were told, repeatedly, to
expect anything from broiling to deep freeze on our campouts.
One such outing was
Before I re-invent the wheel, has anyone come up with blackhole route
specifications for netplan in Ubuntu servers? Such a capability would
perform the egress blocking for an edge server.
The table of blackhole routes I would set up:
IPv4
Address block Scope Description
0.0.0.0
Not every uplink service implements BCP38. When putting up servers
connected more-or-less directly to the Internet through these uplinks,
it would be nice if the servers themselves were able to implement
ingress and egress filtering according to BCP38. (Sorry about the typo
in the subject lin
On 6/8/21 2:38 PM, Fran via NANOG wrote:
Hey,
to my knowledge there is no IPv6 equivalent for
net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_filter.
Therefore I use netfilter to do the RP filtering for both address families.
ip(6)tables -t raw -I PREROUTING -m rpfilter --invert -j DROP
Using the raw tables less reso
First, I know this isn't the right place to propose this; need a pointer
to where to propose an outlandish idea.
PROBLEM: IPv6 support is still in its birthing pangs. I see a problem
that limits deployment of IPv6 fully: reverse PTR records in the
".in6.arpa." zones.
(Now that I think abo
On 7/19/21 5:41 AM, Feldman, Mark wrote:
What you propose is not outlandish; some ISPs have been dual stack
and providing some combination of these services for years. They
already provide IPv6 ip6.arpa delegations should their business
customers want them. Some even provide at least a /56 so c
There is power backup and then there is power backup.
The former is a small power pack (batteries, supercapacitors, whatever)
that will allow the microcell to weather a short blackout or brownout.
We are talking seconds, to bridge switching transits. To be useful in a
deployment, such a holdo
On 3/8/20 9:59 AM, Damian Menscher via NANOG wrote:
In the robocall case, there*is* something the end user can do to fight the
abuse: answer every call, and keep them on the line as long as possible.
They are paying for connected calls, for the connection duration, and for
the humans to scam peo
On 3/8/20 4:00 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
As I've said before what would likely work is if every time one of us
(in the US anyhow) got a junk call we immediately called our
congressional and/or senate office(s) and simply said "just got
another junk call! (optionally add description.)"
Doesn'
On 4/29/20 8:41 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
Is there any reason to have a root-enabled (or any) ssh server
exposed to the bare Internet? Any at all? Can you name one? I can’t.
That’s basically pilot error.
Remember HeartBleed? That didn't require a rout-enabled SSH server. It
didn't require SSH s
On 4/29/20 9:24 AM, Mukund Sivaraman wrote:
If there's a lock on my door, and someone tries to pick it, you can call
me at fault for having a lock on my door facing outside all you
want. But the thief picking it has no business doing so, and will be
guilty of a crime if caught.
This is a good s
On 4/29/20 9:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
My routers have ACLs, but my servers for the most part do not.
I'm not trying to argue, but...what servers do you have that don't have
sysadmin-definable firewalls and tun-able knobs? My edge routers are
Linux boxes (CentOS 8 for the one I'm now buildi
On 6/17/20 8:29 AM, Clinton Work wrote:
I'm struggling to determine which CDN owns the servers in CenturyLink prefix
8.240.0.0/12. During the Call of Duty Season 4 update on June 11th from 06:00
UTC until 08:30 UTC, we had 240 Gbps of traffic steaming into our network from
CenturyLink prefix
On 9/3/21 6:54 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
Everyone that I know who spends most of their time writing code can't
get enough screens :-).
Size matters, too. For example, I have a 54" screen. My record is
twelve open (tiled) code windows. Usually, I have three or four code
windows and a LibreWrite
In the data centers I've worked in over the decades, those Big Red
Buttons would activate a normally-closed contactor in a breaker panel.
When pushed, the contactor would open, and turn off all the circults in
said breaker panel. Not affected are lights, convenience outlets, door
locks, and ot
ord created for Host name you would > like that IP address pointed to
>
Thanks
Michael AT&T Prov-DNS
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Satchell
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2021 5:42 PM
To: DNSUpdates cB
Subject: Need IPv6 PTR record for my IPv6 mail server
Here is the record
On 9/18/21 8:58 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
I haven’t tried the PTR thing yet, but I do have a small business client that has
AT&T business internet and they were able to get a static /56 (For some reason,
AT&T refused to do a /48, but we did push them on it.)
When I checked, there were NO options
On 9/18/21 11:20 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
Mark Andrews wrote:
> There is nothing at the protocol level stopping AT&T offering a
> similar level of service.
Setting up reverse DNS lookup for 16B address is annoying,
which may stop AT&T offering it.
How many mail servers are on the Internet t
On 3/18/19 11:17 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> I am not sure that there is any other way that a lone outsider can or
> could engage either OVH or DigitalOcean in a way that would actually
> cause either company to take action on the issues I've reported on.
> Complaints from ordinary Internet en
On 4/3/19 3:32 PM, brutal8z via NANOG wrote:
> I've not seen any mention of this here, so it might be off-topic, if so,
> sorry in advance. If you use GPS for time synchronization, this might be
> important.The Juniper ACX500 series and the Cisco 819 both have an
> embedded GPS receivers, for examp
On 4/24/19 7:24 AM, Tom Beecher wrote:
> This is why, in my opinion, people should avoid modem/router combo units
> whenever possible. Any information/configuration entered into such a device
> could be accessible to the MSO (intentionally or otherwise) , as is
> happening here. I'm sure they would
On 4/24/19 9:32 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:
>>
>> "than the relatively low risk of a database compromise leading to a
>> miscreant getting ahold of their wireless password and using their access
>> point as free wifi."
>>
>
> And this is the thing, not only does someone have to 'hack' the database,
>
One word of caution when using a low-priced NTP appliance: your network
activity could overwhelm the TCP/IP stack of the poor thing, especially
if you want to sync your entire shop to it. In the case of the networks
I set up, I set up a VLAN specific to the NTP appliance and to the two
servers tha
On 5/13/19 12:11 PM, dan...@pyranah.com wrote:
> Does anyone have contacts at Charter (Spectrum) and Cox? For some reason,
> our IP has been blocked by them and our customers are unable to send email
> via their charter/cox accounts. Thanks
Would you be talking about port 25/tcp outbound? Lots o
On 6/25/19 2:25 AM, Katie Holly wrote:
> Disclaimer: As much as I dislike Cloudflare (I used to complain about
> them a lot on Twitter), this is something I am absolutely agreeing with
> them. Verizon failed to do the most basic of network security, and it
> will happen again, and again, and again.
On 6/26/19 2:17 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:
>
> --- s...@donelan.com wrote:
> From: Sean Donelan
>
> If they come up with a better idea, that's great. I'll
> take good ideas from anywere.
In my experience, "design by committee" is most successful when one or
two people take the bull by the horns
Are we having another BGP problem this morning?
On 7/22/19 12:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> 1. A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those
> addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle
> them.
Not to mention all the legacy devices that barely do IPv4 at all, and
know nothing about IPv6. Legacy dev
On 7/27/19 2:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> something is broken on the nanog list. usually we have this discussion
> twice a year. this time it may have been a couple of years gap. what
> broke?
44/8. Sucked up all the oxygen.
On 7/31/19 12:04 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 16:36:08 -, Richard Williams via NANOG said:
>
>> To contact AWS SES about spam or abuse the correct email address is
>> ab...@amazonaws.com
>
> You know that, and I know that, but why doesn't the person at AWS whose job it
On 7/31/19 1:28 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-07-31 at 23:13 +0300, Scott Christopher wrote:
>>
>> Because it will get spammed if publicly listed in WHOIS.
>
> I will take that at *least* as ironic as you meant it.
I don't know about your network, but I have five role mail accounts,
On 8/3/19 9:15 PM, John Curran wrote:
> As I have noted previously, I have zero doubt in the enforceability
> of the ARIN registration services agreements in this regard – so
> please carefully consider proposed policy both from the overall
> community benefit being sought, and from the implication
On 8/9/19 4:03 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> ...apparently Amazon has become a public utility
> now?
>
> I look forward with bemusement to the PUC
> tariff filings for AWS pricing. ^_^;;
Don't scoff too hard. How do you think that telephone service became a
utility? Utilities didn't grow on tree
On 8/13/19 3:10 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
> With a global company, there's no such thing
> as a local natural monopoly in play; how would
> you assign oversight to a global entity? Which
> "public" would be the ones being protected?
> The city of Seattle, WA, where Amazon is
> headquartered? The
This is for any Google admin on this list:
When you receive a SERVFAIL from a name server listed as authoritative
for a given domain, how long is that negative look-up cached?
When you receive a SERVFAIL from the root servers, how long is that
negative lookup cached?
Does Google follow RFC 2308?
On 9/2/19 4:40 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> May the world come to an end if someone dares to have an independent
> thought or shares original information that can't be backed up by at
> least 50 crosschecked references.
Actually, independent thought or original information is welcome to
anyone with
On 9/19/19 2:47 AM, Elad Cohen wrote:
> It is not related to nefarious activity as you wrote, FDCServers
> policy is to stop routing any ranges which is in Spamhaus SBL (no
> matter what), due to the phear from Spamhaus to list all of
> FDCServers ranges in SBL, which was told to us in a documented
On 9/19/19 2:47 AM, Elad Cohen wrote:
> It is not related to nefarious activity as you wrote, FDCServers
> policy is to stop routing any ranges which is in Spamhaus SBL (no
> matter what), due to the phear from Spamhaus to list all of
> FDCServers ranges in SBL, which was told to us in a documented
On 10/2/19 9:33 AM, Antonios Chariton wrote:
> Dear list,
> First of all, let me apologize if this post is not allowed by the
> list. To my best interpretation of the guidelines [1] it is allowed, but
> may be in a gray area due to rule #7.
>
> I would like to propose the following thought experim
Is anyone working on an update to include IPv6?
On 10/2/19 9:51 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> What part of BCP-38 do you think needs to be updated to support IPv6?
>
> Changing the examples to use IPv6 documentation prefixes instead of IPv4
> documentation prefixes?
For a start, *add* IPv6 examples in parallel with the IPv4 examples. As
RFCs are
On 10/3/19 8:42 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 3, 2019, at 9:51 AM, Stephen Satchell wrote:
>>
>> Someone else mentioned that "IPv6 has been around for 25 years, and why
>> is it taking so long for everyone to adopt it?" I present as evi
On 10/3/19 8:22 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> Speaking as v6ops chair and the editor of record for 1812.
> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs kind of fell apart; it was intended to be
> an 1812-like document and adopted as such, but many of the
> "requirements" that came out of it were specific to the author'
On 10/3/19 2:07 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Now IPv6 examples are nice but getting several 1000’s people to read draft
> that
> just add addresses in the range 2001:DB8::/32 instead of 11.0.0.0/8,
> 12.0.0.0/8
> and 204.69.207.0/24, then to get the RFC editor to publish it is quite frankly
> is a w
On 10/3/19 10:13 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> There is one thing in 1122/1123 and 1812 that is not in those kinds
> of documents that I miss; that is essentially "why". Going through
> 1122/1123 and 1812, you'll ind several sections that say "we require
> X", and follow that with a "discussion" section
On 10/7/19 4:37 AM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 03:03:45 -0400, Rob McEwen said:
>> Likewise for spam filtering - spam filtering would be knocked back to
>> the stone ages if IPv4 disappeared overnight. IPv6 is a spam sender's
>> dream come true, since IPv6 DNSBLs are practically
On 10/7/19 9:08 AM, Mike wrote:
> I am wondering if perhaps this is due to some kind of (known?)
> bug in the embedded dns cache/client in the client satellite modem, or
> if there is another plausible explanation I am not seeing. It compounds
> my problem slightly since I have to continue r
On 10/10/19 8:46 PM, Javier J wrote:
> I have an alternative view. the more generators are running, the more
> trucks semt to refuel the tanks, the more moving parts, the more likely an
> accident is prone to happen somewhere. It's thr same reason you turn your
> vehicles engine off when you fill u
On 10/11/19 8:01 AM, Ethan O'Toole wrote:
>> request went all the way to the Court. The reason for access? They ran
>> the electronics on bottled propane (NOT mains power AC) and they needed
>> to swap full tanks for the empties. This was several months into my
>> stint on that site.
>> Not all
The following list is what I'm thinking of using for blocking traffic
between an edge router acting as a firewall and an ISP/upstream. This
table is limited to address blocks only; TCP/UDP port filtering, and IP
protocol filtering, is a separate discussion. This is for an
implementation of BCP-38
On 10/13/19 9:08 AM, Florian Brandstetter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> sorry - but why would you want to block Teredo?
I know nothing about Terendo tunneling.
> In computer networking, Teredo is a transition technology that gives
> full IPv6 connectivity for IPv6-capable hosts that are on the IPv4
> Interne
After reviewing the comments from people on NANOG and some other
locations, I have updated my list of routes to blackhole. The
information at the end of this contribution is taken from the
RHEL/CentOS NetworkManager dispatcher.d source file, which I use to
install and remove the blackhole routes w
On 10/22/19 10:11 PM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
> The explicit nature of RFC 6598 is on purpose so that there is no chance
> that it will conflict with RFC 1918. This is important because it means
> that RFC 6598 can /safely/ be used for Carrier Grade NAT by ISPs without
> any fear of conflict
On 10/23/19 8:18 AM, Grant Taylor via NANOG wrote:
> I suspect things like NetworkManager are somewhat at a disadvantage in
> that they are inherently machine local and don't have visibility beyond
> the directly attached network segments. As such, they can't /safely/
> filter something that may b
Routing loop
> 11.|-- 129.250.24.196 0.0% 1 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 0.0
> 12.|-- 129.250.130.2540.0% 1 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 0.0
> 13.|-- 129.250.130.2530.0% 1 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.4 0.0
> 14.|-- 129.250.130.2540.0% 1
CAVAET: I don't have a dog in this hunt.
On 11/13/19 6:46 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
This is silly off-topic. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t
stay here, according to NANOG guidelines.
https://www.nanog.org/resources/usage-guidelines/ >
https://www.nanog.org/bylaws/
"The NANOG mailing
On 12/5/19 6:02 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
(I also admit having no idea what percentage of the intermediate routers in the
ISP's networks have gotten de-bloating code.
For SP-grade routers, there isn't "code" that needs to be added to
combat buffer bloat. All an admin has to do is cut back o
I (and another programmer, now at Amazon) migrated our automation from
TCL/Expect to Python/pexpect. I've had to write code for those portions
of Expect that didn't carry over into pexpect.
I also had to build a framework that allowed me to do rule-based
programming in the same flavor as Expe
On 12/25/19 6:29 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Yes, this is exactly right. My point here isn't to assign blame, but to
ask what the hell we're going to do about it. Trying to score political
points is disgusting.
Do you live in California? Do you have your business in California?
Take a look at
On 12/26/19 10:55 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Here in California, you're going to need a lot more than 8 hours. We had
one that lasted 3 days, followed by about 8 hours of power, followed by
2 days of no power. If this is the new normal, and I'm afraid that it
is, that's probably going to require
On 07/28/2016 10:17 AM, J. Oquendo wrote:
While many are chanting: #NetworkLivesMatter, I have yet
to see, read, or hear about any network provider being
the first to set precedence by either de-peering, or
blocking traffic from Cloudflare. There is a lot of
keyboard posturing: "I am mad and I am
On 08/29/2016 08:55 AM, Jason Lee wrote:
NANOG Community,
I was curious how various players in this industry handle abuse complaints.
I'm drafting a policy for the service provider I'm working for about
handing of complaints registered against customer IP space. In this example
I have a customer
Would someone at Charter Communications who is on this list indicate the
roll-out schedule for IPv6 to business customers using cable modems as
opposed to fiber links?
On 09/17/2016 02:43 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
My experiences were back in the days of washing-machine class disc
drives and they were a 4-hour fire-wall away, but I don't remember them
being impacted. (I can't believe that I was allowed to conduct a test
with them running, but I don't remember shu
On 09/25/2016 07:32 AM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
From: "Jay Farrell via NANOG"
> And of course Brian Krebs has a thing or two to say, not the least is which
> to push for BCP38 (good luck with that, right?).
>
> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2016/09/the-democratization-of-censorship/
Well, given ho
Is this an accurate thumbnail summary of BCP38 (ignoring for the moment
the issues of multi-home), or is there something I missed?
The basic philosophy of BCP38 boils down to two axioms:
Don't let the "bad stuff" into your router
Don't let the "bad stuff" leave your router
On 09/26/2016 07:11 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
No -- BCP38 only prescribes filtering outbound to ensure that no
packets leave your network with IP source addresses which are not
from within your legitimate allocation.
So, to beat that horse to a fare-thee-well, to be BCP38 compliant I
need, on e
I think some pretty good information has surfaced, that would be
WONDERFUL to have on that site.
I'm trying to come up with a simple picture that embraces all the
comments I've seen thus far on the definition of BCP38. The example
scenario I'm about to paint may be over-simplified -- but I like to
start simple.
Given a single local inside network with:
* multiple uplink providers (typi
Does anyone know if any upstream and tiered internet providers include
in their connection contracts a mandatory requirement that all
directly-connected routers be in compliance with BCP38?
Does anyone know if large ISPs like Comcast, Charter, or AT&T have put
in place internal policies requir
"BCP38 applies only to egress filtering"
INCORRECT.
The title of the update to BCP38/RFC2827, BCP84/RFC2074, exposes the
balderdash on its face. That title? "Ingress Filtering for Multihomed
Networks." Oops. This is a short snipping from the Introduction:
RFC 2827 recommends that ISPs p
On 09/28/2016 12:33 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
It's not just consumers that need to understand this. Manufacturers of
Things are right now on a steep learning curve. Consider that
thermostat, for just a moment. In The Gold Old Days, before it had a
network interface, the manufacturer cared about a
On 10/01/2016 06:39 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
You *can* do BCP38 egress filtering on your network, but that filter
would *be in control of the Bad Guys* whom we're trying to kill off.
I don't see how you arrive at this conclusion. For an aggregating
router, the Bad Guys(tm) don't get anywher
In thinking over the last DDos involving IoT devices, I think we don't
have a good technical solution to the problem. Cutting off people with
defective devices they they don't understand, and have little control
over, is an action that makes sense, but hurts the innocent. "Hey,
Grandma, did y
On 10/05/2016 09:46 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
> Can we please not get the government ( who's gov ) involved. I fully agree
> that it will not only not help, but will make some things worse. This is
> why we can't have nice things.
I would be in favor of your pleas if you would accompany it with you
On 10/09/2016 07:31 AM, Mel Beckman wrote:
> remote RF temperature sensor hub for home, the GW-1000U.
> ...
> The device accepts TCP connections on 22, 80, and 443. Theoretically
> I can't see why it ever needs ongoing inbound connections, so this
> seems to be a security concession made by the ma
On 10/22/2016 05:34 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> "taken all necessary steps to insure that none of the numerous specific types
> of CCVT thingies that Krebs and others identified"
>
> Serious question... how?
>
Network operators can only do so much. By the time traffic enters into
an ISP's traf
That's what VPNs are for.
On 10/22/2016 10:04 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
> It is also likely the desired use case. In my office I like to be able to
> login when needed when on the road, when the alarm company calls me at 2am
> for a false alarm so I don't have to get someone else out of bed to have
On 10/23/2016 04:19 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> I guess that's just an example of what somebody else already noted here,
> i.e. that providers don't care to spend the time and/or effort and/or
> money necessary to actually -do- anything about compromised boxes, and
> anyway, they don't want to
On 10/23/2016 07:02 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On October 23, 2016 at 6:52:05 PM, Stephen Satchell (l...@satchell.net) wrote:
> So, bottom line, nothing is going to happen until the cost to those
> negligent provides rises so high as to affect profits. Period.
> Yep. Or government
For the last couple of weeks, every single abuse mail I've tried to send
to networks in a very short list of countries has bounced back with
"mailbox exceeds quota". I take this to mean that there isn't someone
actively reading, acting on, and deleting e-mail from abuse@.
So my new rule is this:
On 10/27/2016 01:30 PM, J wrote:
> I'm in the camp of not replying to every report.
I was in that camp, too, when I was mail admin for a web host company.
I wanted to spend my time fixing the flood, without having to take the
time to reply.
I figure the best reply is when the spamming stops. I h
I've been following the discussion with quite a bit of interest. What
had become crystal clear to me is that nobody here has been looking at
the problem from the perspective of the manufacturer, particularly how
they actually get product to marked. A la "Dilbert".
The engineer's credo: "Why bui
On 10/27/2016 05:36 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> If you get a SMTP reject, then call the the Abuse POC of the organization you
> need to report abuse from.
Not when the mailbox-full bounce is from a network in China, or India,
or Pakistan, or Russia. Or a couple of other countries that seem to be
On 10/28/2016 04:32 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> It's not the RIR's job. They already provide the framework for
> ISP's to do the job of policing route announcements themselves.
> ISP's just need to use that framework.
Link to documentation on how to use that framework?
On 10/28/2016 10:14 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> Thus far the goal just seems to be mayhem.
Thus far, the goal on the part of the botnet opearators is to make
money. The goal of the CUSTOMERS of the botnet operators? Who knows?
I've been seeing a lot of rejections in my logs for 2323/tcp. According
to the Storm Center, this is what the Mirai botnet scanner uses to look
for other target devices.
Is it worthwhile to report sightings to the appropriate abuse addresses?
(That assumes there *is* an abuse address associated
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370963
Just a reminder that I have a feature request outstanding with Red Hat
to add support for BCP38, as well as measures for certain protocol-based
amplification reflection attacks. My intent for making the suggestion
is to stiffen firewalld(8) in R
On 12/19/2016 11:39 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> Break out the popcorn.
>
> http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article121673402.html
>
"A bill pre-filed this month by state Rep. Bill Chumley would require
sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other
devices that
On 04/25/2018 07:10 AM, ke...@contoocook.net wrote:
Well, personally for me, I use secret registration because I was tired of all
the spam I got. Spammers scrape whois data for email addresses. I not trying to
hide my identity on the web, I just don't like spam. I'm not some dark evil
force.
C
I've worked with APC, Synaccess, and a couple other brands of power
controllers. One constant: the IP stack implementations tend to be a
bit fragile. This is not restricted to power controllers; I have a GPS
NTP appliance that is affected by the same sorts of things.
I'll stick with APC and
On 04/30/2018 10:05 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
In particular, if at all possible, do not use the AP9606 era cards with the
APCs. They are 10BaseT and take fragile to a whole new level. I usually
have to manually force the port to 10 on the
On 05/08/2018 07:12 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
I made a Facebook group for xLEC-related things.
(Not useful for those of us not on Facebook.)
In other words, status quo ante?
On 05/08/2018 10:16 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
Then don't participate and move on?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Satchell&q
On 05/15/2018 02:34 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 01:47:50PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
TL;DR = Don't use HTML email [snip]
That's enough right there. HTML markup in email is used exclusively
by three kinds of people: (1) ignorant newbies who don't know any
better
In a related note, I received a note from my registrar this morning
telling me that, per current ICANN rules, I need to verify all the
personal identifying information for the domains I control.
1. I checked WHOIS for all my domains, and they point to the proxy
service that my registrar offer
On 05/18/2018 04:20 AM, Tom Hill wrote:
On 17/05/18 14:24, Mike Hammett wrote:
There's some industry hard-on with having a few ginormous routers instead of
many smaller ones.
"Industry hard-on", ITYM "Greedy vendors".
I think this view (both versions) are a little over the top. "Never
att
On 05/23/2018 09:09 AM, Anne P. Mitchell Esq. wrote:
Also, don't forget the private right of action. Anyone can file
anything in the U.S. courts... you may get it dismissed (although
then again you may not) but either way, it's going to be time and
money out of your pocket fighting it. MUCH be
On 05/27/2018 12:54 PM, niels=na...@bakker.net wrote:
> You have this the wrong way around. You'll need permission to store
> their IP address in logs that you keep and to inform third parties about
> their visits to your site. And that is because that information belongs
> to the visitor, not to
This is really off-topic for NANOG. Is there a better place where this
discussion can be found?
1 - 100 of 292 matches
Mail list logo
