No attachments to the ml, but I gotcha covered ;)
https://web.archive.org/web/20200109210214/https://noia.network/technology
--
Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com
pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:39 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> I'm
I'm attaching the original pic in case they will replace it.
The true knowledge would then be preserved!
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, 11:05 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> This is the deadliest IPv6 packet structure infographics I've ever seen in
> my life.
>
>
Looks like my RIPE IPv6 trainings have done me no good. I'm definitely
going to complain.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, 11:17 PM Matthew Petach wrote:
>
> Whoa...
>
> So IPv6 is just a segment routing wrapper around IPv4.
>
> !insert mandatory "I know kung fu" meme <-- here
>
> ^_^
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 9,
Whoa...
So IPv6 is just a segment routing wrapper around IPv4.
!insert mandatory "I know kung fu" meme <-- here
^_^
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:07 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> This is the deadliest IPv6 packet structure infographics I've ever seen in
> my life.
>
>
This is the deadliest IPv6 packet structure infographics I've ever seen in
my life.
https://noia.network/assets/concept-basics.jpg
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020, 7:29 PM Aistis Zenkevičius wrote:
> So, a bit like this then: https://noia.network/technology
>
> -Aistis
>
>
> -Original Message-
>
Interested in this new fangled 'concensus' protocol .
ok not really. :)
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 12:00 PM Matt Corallo wrote:
> lol no that’s even worse. “We put routing on the blockchain to make it
> secure and scalable the two things blockchains generally aren’t, now
> please buy our
lol no that’s even worse. “We put routing on the blockchain to make it secure
and scalable the two things blockchains generally aren’t, now please buy
our token “.
> On Jan 9, 2020, at 11:28, Aistis Zenkevičius wrote:
>
> So, a bit like this then: https://noia.network/technology
>
>
"noia" is Italian for boredom ... maybe these folks want to spice up life a
little :D
On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 5:28 PM Aistis Zenkevičius
wrote:
> So, a bit like this then: https://noia.network/technology
>
> -Aistis
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of Phil Pishioneri
>
So, a bit like this then: https://noia.network/technology
-Aistis
-Original Message-
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Phil Pishioneri
Sent: 2019 m. spalio 4 d., penktadienis 22:52
To: NANOG list
Subject: "Using Cloud Resources to Dramatically Improve Internet Routing"
[Came up in some digest
On 10/21/19 4:41 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
I'm not someone qualified, but I'll regurgitate what I've distilled from past
conversations with those who are.:-)
Presuming your key is strong enough, it may be infeasible to break it in a time
that's of interest to the parties involved. The primary
> On Oct 21, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> On 10/21/19 3:37 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
>> BGP over ipsec works fine. But that said, it's mostly done with pre-shared
>> keys.
>
> Is anybody actually doing it in practice?
Absolutely. In the SP sector? Less clear.
>> The ugly
This was one thing I highlighted to the people telling me how I secure my
network wrong. If it's HTTP and you lose a few clients maybe they don't care.
If it's BGP I have one client and I care a lot and that session dropping can be
gigs to tbps of traffic.
Sent from my iCar
> On Oct 21,
> On Oct 21, 2019, at 3:25 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
>
> On 10/21/19 11:30 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>> Why cannot one just put the MD5 authenticated connection inside a TLS
>> connection? What is the advantage to be gained by replacing the
>> authentication mechanism with weaker
On 10/21/19 3:37 PM, Jeffrey Haas wrote:
> BGP over ipsec works fine. But that said, it's mostly done with pre-shared
> keys.
Is anybody actually doing it in practice? Every transit and peering document
I've ever seen just talks about TCP-MD5 (if it talks about authentication at
all).
>
On 10/21/2019 1:25 PM, Brandon Martin wrote:
Wouldn't ipsec be a "cleaner" solution to this (buginess of implementations and
difficulty of configuration aside)? It would also solve the TCP-RST injection issues that TCP-MD5
was intended to resolve. You can use null encryption with ESP or even
On 10/21/19 11:30 AM, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> Why cannot one just put the MD5 authenticated connection inside a TLS
> connection? What is the advantage to be gained by replacing the
> authentication mechanism with weaker certificate authentication method
> available with TLS?
Self-issued
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019, at 17:30, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> Why do you need to do anything? TLS is Transport Layer Security and
> it's sole purpose is to protect communications from eavesdropping or
> modification by wiretappers on/in the line between points A and B. MD5
> in BGP is used for
>On 21/10/19 6:30 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Yes, and I really like Julien's proposal. It even looks pretty
>> complete. There are just a few details missing around how to make the
>> MD5 => TLS transition smooth.
>At least for those systems that run on Linux (which is most all of the
>major's
On 21/10/19 6:30 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Christopher Morrow writes:
>
>> isn't julien's idea more akin to DOT then DOH ?
>
> Yes, and I really like Julien's proposal. It even looks pretty
> complete. There are just a few details missing around how to make the
> MD5 => TLS transition
Christopher Morrow writes:
> isn't julien's idea more akin to DOT then DOH ?
Yes, and I really like Julien's proposal. It even looks pretty
complete. There are just a few details missing around how to make the
MD5 => TLS transition smooth.
Sorry for any confusion caused by an attempt to make
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:10 AM Bjørn Mork wrote:
>
> Julien Goodwin writes:
> > On 20/10/19 11:08 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> >> Hank Nussbacher writes:
> >>> On 07/10/2019 17:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:52:26PM -0400,
> Phil Pishioneri wrote
> a
On Sunday, 20 October, 2019 06:08, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>Hank Nussbacher writes:
>> Centralized Internet routing - sounds like DoH for BGP.
>Great idea! Why don't we just run BGP over HTTPS? Everyone already has
>a browser, so we can get rid of all these expensive routers.
>The future is BoH
Julien Goodwin writes:
> On 20/10/19 11:08 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Hank Nussbacher writes:
>>> On 07/10/2019 17:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:52:26PM -0400,
Phil Pishioneri wrote
a message of 9 lines which said:
> Using Cloud Resources to
On 20/10/19 11:08 pm, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Hank Nussbacher writes:
>> On 07/10/2019 17:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:52:26PM -0400,
>>> Phil Pishioneri wrote
>>> a message of 9 lines which said:
>>>
Using Cloud Resources to Dramatically Improve Internet
Von: na...@radu-adrian.feurdean.net
Gesendet: 20. Oktober 2019 12:45
An: nanog@nanog.org
Betreff: Re: "Using Cloud Resources to Dramatically Improve Internet Routing"
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, at 16:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Executive summary: it's SDN for BGP. Centralizing Int
Hank Nussbacher writes:
> On 07/10/2019 17:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:52:26PM -0400,
>> Phil Pishioneri wrote
>> a message of 9 lines which said:
>>
>>> Using Cloud Resources to Dramatically Improve Internet Routing
>>> UMass Amherst researchers to use
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019, at 16:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Executive summary: it's SDN for BGP. Centralizing Internet routing,
> what could go wrong? (As the authors say, "One reason is there is no
> single entity that has a big picture of what is going on, no
> manager". I wonder who will be
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:02:30 +0200, Warren Kumari said:
> I haven't found the actual work that is being referenced here, and I
> *am* quite skeptical based upon the title / premise -- but, I suspect
> (well, hope) that this is just another instance of complex technical
> material being munged by
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 4:45 PM Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:52:26PM -0400,
> Phil Pishioneri wrote
> a message of 9 lines which said:
>
> > Using Cloud Resources to Dramatically Improve Internet Routing
> > UMass Amherst researchers to use cloud-based ‘logically
Feel that this is more down the line of RFC 7511, no? ;-)
—Dennis
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 07:25 J. Hellenthal via NANOG
wrote:
> See RFC 1149 & 2549
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> J. Hellenthal
>
> The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says
> a lot about anticipated traffic
See RFC 1149 & 2549
;-)
--
J. Hellenthal
The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
> On Oct 7, 2019, at 11:29, Keith Medcalf wrote:
>
>
>> On Monday, 7 October, 2019 08:55, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct
On Monday, 7 October, 2019 08:55, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:42:11PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> Otherwise, an impressive amount of WTF. My favorite: "while
>> communication by servers ___on the ground___ might take hundreds of
>> milliseconds, in the cloud the
On 07/10/2019 17:42, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:52:26PM -0400,
Phil Pishioneri wrote
a message of 9 lines which said:
Using Cloud Resources to Dramatically Improve Internet Routing
UMass Amherst researchers to use cloud-based ‘logically centralized
control’
He adds that while communication by servers on
the ground might take hundreds of milliseconds,
in the cloud the same operation may take only
one millisecond from one machine to another.
Its orders of magnitude faster, and in the
cloud we can easily afford more bandwidth
resources, too.
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:42:11PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> Otherwise, an impressive amount of WTF. My favorite: "while
> communication by servers ___on the ground___ might take hundreds of
> milliseconds, in the cloud the same operation may take only one
> millisecond from one machine
On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 03:52:26PM -0400,
Phil Pishioneri wrote
a message of 9 lines which said:
> Using Cloud Resources to Dramatically Improve Internet Routing
> UMass Amherst researchers to use cloud-based ‘logically centralized
> control’
Executive summary: it's SDN for BGP. Centralizing
36 matches
Mail list logo
