RE: Co-lo best practices on IP allocations
One more thought: If the company is a SPAM or other less than popular type, I would keep a watch on SPAM-L and spamhaus.org Look for you IP block.. Some networks flat out put IP Access lists to block ranges for SPAM/.. J >-Original Message- >From: Daniel Abbey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:57 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Co-lo best practices on IP allocations > > > >Are there any suggestions/ideas on best practices when it >comes to co-lo >allocation of addresses to its customers? Is there any site >that may have >some pointers? The dilemma is whether to charge or no to >charge separate for >the IPs. Should it be a cause built into their overall >contract? Any ideas? > >
nanog@merit.edu
Anybody here seeing problems with AS7018 ? Thanks German -- "The man who fights for his ideals is the man who is alive." --CERVANTES author of DON QUIJOTE
69/8 revisited
We were just allocated a /17 out of 69/8. With all off the recent traffic on 69/8 reachability problems, I asked ARIN if the allocation could come from a different block. Their answer was basically that 69/8 (only) is where they are allocating from and that "from reading NANOG, it appears that much of the problem has been resolved." I haven't seen any updated information that 69/8 is now working for people. Is everyone just quiet about it, or have filters actually been updated making this a non-issue? Thanks, Rick
RE: OpenSSL
lol - I promise in future to read to the bottom of messages. In fact if I didn't top post I would have noticed, but that's a different can of worms 8-) Matt. -Original Message- From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 March 2003 17:52 To: Matt Ryan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OpenSSL Note the smiley 10 lines down. You have been had. Pete - Original Message - From: "Matt Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Petri Helenius'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:58 PM Subject: RE: OpenSSL MPLS (on its own) gives you jack-squat in terms of delay and jitter. All the clever queuing can do it for you - but then it can for IP (because its the same thing!). Matt. -Original Message- From: Petri Helenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 March 2003 15:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OpenSSL > > While the timing attack is the attack against the SSL server, it is my > reading of the paper that the attacks' success largely depends on ability to > tightly control the time it takes to communicate with a service using SSL. > Currently, such control is rather difficult to achive on links other than > ethernet. > Doesn´t MPLS provide consistent delay and minimal jitter and thus SSL servers connected to MPLS networks are more suspectible to attack? :-) Pete -- Live Life in Broadband www.telewest.co.uk The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail may not represent those of the company. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any computer. ==
Re: 69/8 revisited
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 09:42:46AM -0800, Rick Ernst wrote: > We were just allocated a /17 out of 69/8. With all off the recent traffic on > 69/8 reachability problems, I asked ARIN if the allocation could come from a > different block. > > Their answer was basically that 69/8 (only) is where they are allocating from > and that "from reading NANOG, it appears that much of the problem has been > resolved." > > I haven't seen any updated information that 69/8 is now working for people. > Is everyone just quiet about it, or have filters actually been updated making > this a non-issue? i'm in the midst of writting a brief article about 69/8 reachability that i inted to post on /. and as a result hopefully it will become a more publically visible issue as places like news.google pick up /. articles. If you have a server that is in 69/8 that you want referenced by it, perhaps a test machine saying "your network appears to be working ok" that you want listed let me know. I also am going to allow people to submit urls for a "wall of shame" that still show 69/8 (amongst others) as something to block. obviously we won't accept messages to mailing lists that are older but anyones current "use these filters to help secure your network" pages should get listed. I encourage people who find networks that are blocking 69/8 that you get them to fix to ask them if they continue to use such filtering to subscribe to Rob's bogon-announce list that is hosted on my machine. http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/bogon-announce - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED] clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, German Martinez wrote: > > Anybody here seeing problems with AS7018 ? > I peer with AT&T's hosting AS, AS4264, which uses AS7018 for all of its transit- not seeing any issues from here. What've you got going on? C.
Re: 69/8 revisited
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Rick Ernst wrote: > Their answer was basically that 69/8 (only) is where they are allocating from > and that "from reading NANOG, it appears that much of the problem has been > resolved." I wonder what they based that ASSumption on? The thread just sort of died...and now you've revived it. > I haven't seen any updated information that 69/8 is now working for people. > Is everyone just quiet about it, or have filters actually been updated making > this a non-issue? I've been busy with other things, so I haven't been able to spend as much time on my 69/8 reachability project as I did the first few days. I still have a list of about 700 destinations reachable from 209.208/17 but not from 69/8. That's down from about 1000 when I did the first ping sweep. I know I've personally gotten half a dozen or so networks to update their filtering. I've also had several messages apparently go ignored (1 week with no response and no filter update), two of which are US military /16's. A bunch of the remaining affected networks are in other countries where I'm afraid language is going to be a barrier. This issue will likely never be entirely resolved. Just hope your customers don't care about reaching the remaining affected networks. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route System Administrator| therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: 69/8 revisited
I've definitely noticed the steady decline in complaints in reachability. I think though at some point it will be resolved, after all all the other blocks got squared away it seems, or is that an incorrect assumption? - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Rick Ernst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:26 AM Subject: Re: 69/8 revisited > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Rick Ernst wrote: > > > Their answer was basically that 69/8 (only) is where they are allocating from > > and that "from reading NANOG, it appears that much of the problem has been > > resolved." > > I wonder what they based that ASSumption on? > > The thread just sort of died...and now you've revived it. > > > I haven't seen any updated information that 69/8 is now working for people. > > Is everyone just quiet about it, or have filters actually been updated making > > this a non-issue? > > I've been busy with other things, so I haven't been able to spend as much > time on my 69/8 reachability project as I did the first few days. I still > have a list of about 700 destinations reachable from 209.208/17 but not > from 69/8. That's down from about 1000 when I did the first ping sweep. > I know I've personally gotten half a dozen or so networks to update their > filtering. I've also had several messages apparently go ignored (1 week > with no response and no filter update), two of which are US military > /16's. > > A bunch of the remaining affected networks are in other countries where > I'm afraid language is going to be a barrier. This issue will likely > never be entirely resolved. Just hope your customers don't care about > reaching the remaining affected networks. > > -- > Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route > System Administrator| therefore you are > Atlantic Net| > _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_ > >
Re: 69/8 revisited
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Scott Granados wrote: > I've definitely noticed the steady decline in complaints in reachability. I > think though at some point it will be resolved, after all all the other > blocks got squared away it seems, or is that an incorrect assumption? I'd bet they're not all resolved...just mostly to the point that nobody cares. Does anyone have a traceroute web page from another (not 69/8) block that recently went from reserved to RIR allocated? I'd be interesting to see how many of the 69/8 unreachable IPs are unreachable from other reserved->RIR allocated blocks. By the end of the week, I expect to have a system setup (big system with lots of available bandwidth) where people can do simultaneous traceroutes from 69 and !69 IPs and see the results side by side. I've got this now on my workstation and have included a link to it in most of the filter update request messages I've sent, but I don't want all of nanog (much less /.) hitting my workstation. I also plan to put the reachability database on that system and make the unreachable IPs viewable. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route System Administrator| therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Draft client notice for 69/8 problems
Nanog: Below is a draft of a letter that we will be sending to clients who experience 69.0.0.0/8 connectivity problems. I am making it available to help those ISPs that are confronted by clients with connectivity issues due to assigning them 69.0.0.0/8 addresses. It can be adapted to suit an ISP's specific needs. I welcome commments and advice. (I know I'm gonna hate myself for saying that around here ;^) Matt __ http://www.invision.net/ ___ Matthew E. Martini, PEInVision.com, Inc. (631) 543-1000 x104 Chief Technology Officer [EMAIL PROTECTED](631) 864-8896 Fax ___pgp_ ___ NOTICE REGUARDING NETWORK REACHABLITY ___ Dear Customer: This document discusses problems connecting to/from your site over the Internet due to outdated filtering by your ISP or IT Department. It will give a high level explanation of the problem and offer a solution. It will then discuss the issue in detail at a technical level sufficient for network administrators to fix the problem. 's Customer Service will work with you to help your ISP/IT Department resolve these issues. You can contact us at tech-support@ or (555) 555- x555. Problem Description ___ Certain computers cannot reach and/or be reached by other computers on the Internet. Symptoms of this would be the inability to go to certain web sites, or the inability to send/receive email from certain sites. The cause of this is outdated IP filters on routers and/or firewalls. These filters are put into place by network administrators to prevent malicious use of unallocated IP addresses. However, the list of allocated addresses changes over time and so the filters must be updated to avoid blocking legitimate, albeit newly valid IP addresses. Every few months a new block of IP addresses are released by the IP registries to ISPs and then in turn to end users. The IP block 69.0.0.0/8 was allocated to ARIN as a usable block in August 2002. Before this time these addresses were unallocated and invalid for use on the Internet. Network administrators before this time may have filtered this block of IPs, along with all of the other unallocated blocks, in their routers and firewalls. If these filters were not updated since August 2002, they would improperly filter traffic to and from these addresses and thus cause the connectivity problems you are experiencing. Recommended Solution The solution is rather a simple one. All that has to be done is to update these router and firewall filters to allow the 69.0.0.0/8 block of addresses. This is usually a matter of a fairly simple configuration change that can be accomplished by your Network Administrators, IT Department, or ISP. Finding the correct person to implement these changes can be somewhat more challenging than the problem itself. Customer Service can help you track down the place where the filtering is taking place. It may be taking place at your ISP's boundary, or a corporate firewall. Once the place is identified you can then have the responsible party make the changes. Once again will be there to explain the technical details of this issue. Please let us know if we can assist in any way to help you fix this problem. Action Items for Network Administrators and ISPs ___ Please update your BGP ingress filters and firewall rules to allow 69.0.0.0/8 routes and traffic as these addresses became valid IPs allocated by ARIN in August 2002. Please contact tech-support@ for assistance. Detailed Explanation The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) allocates Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space to Registries including ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC. These registries in turn allocate address space to ISPs who in-turn allocate addresses for end-users. This is documented in RFC 1466. See: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space All of the addresses that are not allocated by the above process should never appear in the Internet routing table. These unallocated addresses are dubbed "Bogons". A packet routed over the public Internet should never have a source address in a bogon range. These are commonly found as the source addresses of DDoS attacks. As such a network administrator may filter these IP addresses from their routing tables and block them from entering their network via firewall rules. This behavior is actually encouraged because it helps to limit Denial of Service attacks. However, these filters must be kept up to date to avoid filtering newly released and valid IPs. The IANA allocations change fairly often, sometimes in as little as every four months. Administrators who elect to engage in strict f
nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, German Martinez wrote: > Anybody here seeing problems with AS7018 ? Folks have been reporting various weird problems with AS7018 for the last 2-3 weeks. It seems to affect some types of packets, but not other types of packets (i.e. you can ping or get some web pages, but not other web pages). If you report it to AT&T, they seem to get it fixed; but then the problems re-appear a few days later. I'm guessing that packet size is relevant, but I haven't spent much time trying to troubleshoot it.
Re: scope of the 69/8 problem
This discussion falls into a pattern we've seen before: 1) Operators doing the right thing experience a problem created by operators doing the wrong thing. 2) It is not possible to isolate the pain to only the operators doing the wrong thing. 3) The only way to solve the problem is to raise the level of pain across the board so as to force those ultimately causeing the pain to self-marginalize. 4) No one is willing to accept any pain they don't absolutely _have_ to even if it would save them pain in the future 5) Therefore the islands of pain remain indefinately, but as long as I'm not affected, I don't care. The above can be applied to: 1) filtering of 69/8 2) excessive deaggregation of routes 3) RPF 4) Use of RFC1918 in ways which violate RFC1918 (packets crossing enterprise boundaries) 5) Actually using .0 and .255 for networks with masks which allow this. 6) IPv6 7) Multicast 8) etc To bring back around to the issue of 69/8, yes, the only way to solve the problem is to bring a set of "important" things into that network. No one who controls any "important" thing would actually do such a thing. So those folks in 69/8 will likely go out of business, or find ways around their problem which will likely involve other "bad operator" activity, continuing to advance our problems indefinately and in new and interesting ways.
nanog@merit.edu
On Wednesday, Mar 19, 2003, at 12:28 America/Phoenix, Sean Donelan wrote: On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, German Martinez wrote: Anybody here seeing problems with AS7018 ? ... ... If you report it to AT&T, they seem to get it fixed; but then the problems re-appear a few days later. I'm guessing that packet size is relevant, but I haven't spent much time trying to troubleshoot it. isn't at&t heavily MPLSed? maybe something to do with mpls tunnels, or diff-serv marking?
nanog@merit.edu
If someone can identify what you are actually seeing, I'll check into it. If you are experiencing drops or slow traces, only through the core, there is an issue with excessive de-prioritization of ICMP control message with a particular router type (vendcor) in the core. End to end data flow has not seemed to be affected but trace and ping core latencies are looking very wierd. I've been asking customers to use trace only for path detail and to use end to end ping for any performance data. Yes, the core is MPLS enabled. Diffserv acted on only at the edges though. Michelle Michelle Truman CCIE # 8098 Principal Technical Consultant AT&T Solutions Center mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] VO: 651-998-0949 w 612-376-5137 -Original Message- From: brett watson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Problems with AT&T On Wednesday, Mar 19, 2003, at 12:28 America/Phoenix, Sean Donelan wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, German Martinez wrote: >> Anybody here seeing problems with AS7018 ? > > ... ... > If you report it to AT&T, they seem to get it fixed; but then > the problems re-appear a few days later. I'm guessing that packet size > is relevant, but I haven't spent much time trying to troubleshoot it. isn't at&t heavily MPLSed? maybe something to do with mpls tunnels, or diff-serv marking?
Re: 69/8 revisited
Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Scott Granados wrote: > I'd bet they're not all resolved...just mostly to the point that nobody > cares. Does anyone have a traceroute web page from another (not 69/8) > block that recently went from reserved to RIR allocated? I'd be > interesting to see how many of the 69/8 unreachable IPs are unreachable > from other reserved->RIR allocated blocks. I'm wondering if there's something special about 69/8... I can't recall this sort of discussion for 61/8 through 68/8, at least after CIDR in the former Class A space was initially validated. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Re: 69/8 revisited
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > I'm wondering if there's something special about 69/8... I can't recall > this sort of discussion for 61/8 through 68/8, at least after CIDR in the > former Class A space was initially validated. For a very interesting comparison, do groups.google.com searches for 69.0.0.0/8 and then for 61.0.0.0/8. While the first is several pages of hits saying to block 69.0.0.0/8 as a bogon, all the links for 61.0.0.0/8 seem to suggest blocking that /8 due to spam. -- Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route System Administrator| therefore you are Atlantic Net| _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_
Re: Co-lo best practices on IP allocations
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Andy Dills wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Daniel Abbey wrote: > > > > > Are there any suggestions/ideas on best practices when it comes to co-lo > > allocation of addresses to its customers? Is there any site that may have > > some pointers? The dilemma is whether to charge or no to charge separate for > > the IPs. Should it be a cause built into their overall contract? Any ideas? > > [...] > > But only give them what they can justify, unless they are potentially a > huge revenue customer, to who you would give whatever they want (within > reason). I would be extremely cautious about following that advice. It's pretty simple to get more IP addresses from ARIN if you follow their processes, do your allocations according to their guidelines, and keep good documentation. Those who don't follow the ARIN guidelines tend to run into a lot of trouble when it comes time to get more IP addresses, especially when the customers for whom they ignore the guidelines stand out as their really big allocations. As far as whether to charge goes, that's really a business decision rather than an operational one. Arin charges somewhere between 60 cents and a tenth of a cent per IP address, depending on how big you are. The process of obtaining the IP address blocks costs you something, as does processing the paperwork associated with the justifications, setting up and maintaining the routing, and so forth. Meanwhile, you're also charging your customers for various other services. You may or may not be making a sufficient amount to cover your costs in dealing with IP address allocation, and you may or may not be in a situation where your customers would be willing to pay you more. -Steve -- Steve Gibbard Steve Gibbard Consulting -- IP network consulting services Office: 510 528-1263 Cell: 415 717-7842 http://www.gibcons.com/
NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word
http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home, the state's anti-terror czar says. ...
RE: 69/8 revisited
look at the location too... 61/8 is APNIC and 69 ARIN.. J >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 5:02 PM >To: Stephen Sprunk >Cc: Scott Granados; Rick Ernst; North American Noise and Off-topic >Gripes >Subject: Re: 69/8 revisited > > > >On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > >> I'm wondering if there's something special about 69/8... I >can't recall >> this sort of discussion for 61/8 through 68/8, at least >after CIDR in the >> former Class A space was initially validated. > >For a very interesting comparison, do groups.google.com searches for >69.0.0.0/8 and then for 61.0.0.0/8. While the first is >several pages of >hits saying to block 69.0.0.0/8 as a bogon, all the links for >61.0.0.0/8 >seem to suggest blocking that /8 due to spam. > >-- > Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED]| I route > System Administrator| therefore you are > Atlantic Net| >_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_ > >
Re: NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm > > If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in > the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by > authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside > your home, the state's anti-terror czar says. > > ... "You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are required to be out. No different than if you had a state of emergency with a snowstorm." Except that in a snow storm, I can go out if I want to, and not face criminal liability. Are they planning to at least go through the farce of declaring martial law first? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word
> be out. No different than if you had a state of emergency with a > snowstorm." > > > Except that in a snow storm, I can go out if I want to, and not face criminal > liability. Are they planning to at least go through the farce of declaring > martial law first? Are you kidding me? Of course not. That might give the ACLU ammunition. It might give the gun toting, meat eaters an excuse -ed - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word
Deepak Jain wrote: > > Seems like a pretty steep step between "Orange" and "Red". > > Are other states taking this position? > I hope Oklahoma doesn't (highly doubtful). I'd be ordered to the CO and forced to stay there and make sure the network kept running. no transportation != no work. -- -Jack
Re: NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word
There's only thing worse than government full of idiots: government full of scared idiots. --vadim On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, J.A. Terranson wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Jeff Wasilko wrote: > > > http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm > > > > If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in > > the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by > > authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside > > your home, the state's anti-terror czar says. > > > > ... > > "You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are required to > be out. No different than if you had a state of emergency with a > snowstorm." > > > Except that in a snow storm, I can go out if I want to, and not face criminal > liability. Are they planning to at least go through the farce of declaring > martial law first? > >
Re: Your message to ""
Hmmm. Would have thought turning off a nanog subscription would be considered on the list of things to do when closing an email account. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Your message to the National Science Foundation is being returned to > you because the address (sgoldste) is no longer valid. A copy of > your message is attached. > > The person you addressed is no longer at the Foundation, and the > Postmaster has no forwarding information. For more information, > please call our Information Center at 703-292-5111, or by email at: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -Jack
Re: NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word
> There's only thing worse than government full of idiots: government > full of scared idiots. Depends on who they are afraid of. If they fear the people, perfect and all the better. If they fear $random_third_party at the cost of the people, very bad. -ed - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Initial network impacts post-US attack 3/19/03
Some major new web sites such as CNN.COM, MSNBC.COM, etc have dropped most advertisements from their main web pages. CNN.COM has switched to its "breaking news" format with a truncated main page. I have not had any difficulty reaching any major US news web site. Matrix and Keynote public graphs show normal latency, drops, etc. BGP, ASN data sources show normal number of prefixes, announcements, withdrawals. AT&T and Cable&Wireless public network statistic pages show almost all major links within normal levels. However, tonight I am not able to reach the few Iraq servers I know about. The servers were reachable on Monday, but I wasn't keeping constant track of those servers. So I don't know when I could no longer reach them. This may just be normal network flakiness, the Iraqi networks aren't very reliable on a normal day.
Re: Initial network impacts post-US attack 3/19/03
I've noticed a small upswing in traffic over the last hour or two, and not to the usual "midnight browsing frenzy" locations. CNN, Yahoo, MSN, etc., all seem to be responding as usual (CNN had more latency at noon. Go figure.) As for sites in Iraq... I feel for the poor tech who pulled "cable rat" duty this week on whatever colo/CO facilities they have. or had. :-( - Original Message - From: "Sean Donelan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 11:03 PM Subject: Initial network impacts post-US attack 3/19/03 > > Some major new web sites such as CNN.COM, MSNBC.COM, etc have dropped most > advertisements from their main web pages. CNN.COM has switched to its > "breaking news" format with a truncated main page. > > I have not had any difficulty reaching any major US news web site. Matrix > and Keynote public graphs show normal latency, drops, etc. BGP, ASN data > sources show normal number of prefixes, announcements, withdrawals. > > AT&T and Cable&Wireless public network statistic pages show almost all > major links within normal levels. > > However, tonight I am not able to reach the few Iraq servers I know about. > The servers were reachable on Monday, but I wasn't keeping constant track > of those servers. So I don't know when I could no longer reach them. This > may just be normal network flakiness, the Iraqi networks aren't very > reliable on a normal day. >
Re: Initial network impacts post-US attack 3/19/03
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 12:03:13AM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: > > However, tonight I am not able to reach the few Iraq servers I know > about. The servers were reachable on Monday, but I wasn't keeping > constant track of those servers. So I don't know when I could no longer > reach them. This may just be normal network flakiness, the Iraqi > networks aren't very reliable on a normal day. http://www.seastrom.com/www.centcom.mil/galleries/leaflets/Images/izd-009.jpg US Backhoe Operators - Your country needs you. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
RE: NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word
> > http://www.southjerseynews.com/issues/march/m031603e.htm > > > > If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in > > the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by > > authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside > > your home, the state's anti-terror czar says. > > > > ... > > "You literally are staying home, is what happens, unless you are > required to > be out. No different than if you had a state of emergency with a > snowstorm." > > > Except that in a snow storm, I can go out if I want to, and not > face criminal > liability. Are they planning to at least go through the farce of > declaring > martial law first? > Seems like a pretty steep step between "Orange" and "Red". Are other states taking this position? Deepak Jain AiNET
RE: NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word
> Seems like a pretty steep step between "Orange" and "Red". > > Are other states taking this position? As an amateur radio op in the bay area, I've been involved with local OES, specifically in the SF Bay Area. San Francisco's stance, apparently mimed by the State of CA is that "we'll change what we do as the situation itself changes". In other words react, rather than proact. This is about 2 hour old info from the head of Emergency Services in SF. -ed - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word
Yes, the State of insanity. LOL Cheers, -Joe - Original Message - From: "Deepak Jain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "J.A. Terranson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jeff Wasilko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:52 PM Subject: RE: NJ: Red alert? Stay home, await word > > > > Except that in a snow storm, I can go out if I want to, and not > > face criminal > > liability. Are they planning to at least go through the farce of > > declaring > > martial law first? > > > > Seems like a pretty steep step between "Orange" and "Red". > > Are other states taking this position? > > Deepak Jain > AiNET
