On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Brett Watson br...@the-watsons.org wrote:
I'm not able to get my fingers or thumbs to randomly (seemingly)
select approximately 15% of all prefixes, originate those, modify
filters so I can do so, and also somehow divert it to another router
that doesn't have
Hanlon's razor?
On Dec 1, 2010 6:43 PM, Brett Watson br...@the-watsons.org wrote:
On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
sometimes I love to pull your chain... :) I agree though that folks
won't publish this data (in general) directly, for whatever reason.
Also, right '15% of
At the very least you might want to review:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/11/chinas-18-minute-mystery.shtml
Renesys provides one data point but there are others that clearly show
traffic routed *through* China (meaning they did indeed
originate/hijack, and then pass data on to the original
Dear Randy;
On Dec 1, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
At the very least you might want to review:
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2010/11/chinas-18-minute-mystery.shtml
Renesys provides one data point but there are others that clearly show
traffic routed *through* China (meaning they did
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
as usual i see no traffic measurements in the renesys note. i see
inference of traffic based on some control plane measurements. and, has
been shown, such inferences are highly suspect.
it's fairly clear though that you won't
it's fairly clear though that you won't get traffic information
without looking at the interconnects between the offending parties
yep
conspiracy-hatalso, you won't get the traffic stats from the
offending parties/conspiracy-hat
and how much traffic data does google publish?
or iij or
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
conspiracy-hatalso, you won't get the traffic stats from the
offending parties/conspiracy-hat
and how much traffic data does google publish?
or iij or ntt? oops! cho, fukuda, esaki, kato [0] did show real
traffic data from
On Dec 1, 2010, at 4:17 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
sometimes I love to pull your chain... :) I agree though that folks
won't publish this data (in general) directly, for whatever reason.
Also, right '15% of traffic' really should have been '15% of routes*'
Agreed, I should have been more
On Nov 17, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Bob Poortinga wrote:
My concern is that this report will be presented to the US Congress without
being refuted by experts in the know.
My request is that someone with some gravitas please issue a press release
setting the facts straight on this matter. I have
This is starting to be picked up by mainstream media, but was was first
reported here (I believe):
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=249
Cyber Experts Have Proof That China Has Hijacked U.S.-Based Internet Traffic
For 18 minutes in April, China.s
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:45:14 -0500, Bob Poortinga
bobp+na...@webster.tsc.com wrote:
This is starting to be picked up by mainstream media, but was was first
reported here (I believe):
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=249
Cyber Experts Have Proof That
Anyone want to give me a quote for an AmericaFree.TV report ? Off-list, please.
Regards
Marshall
On Nov 17, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Ryan Rawdon wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:45:14 -0500, Bob Poortinga
bobp+na...@webster.tsc.com wrote:
This is starting to be picked up by mainstream media, but
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:45:14 -0500
Bob Poortinga bobp+na...@webster.tsc.com wrote:
This article, which quotes Dmitri Alperovitch of McAfee, is full of
false data as far as I can tell. I assert that much less than 15%,
probably on the order of 1% to 2% (much less in the US) was actually
13 matches
Mail list logo
