Re: Google wants to be your Internet
Our REA has been reading the meter via the copper running to our house for several years now. Took them less than 2 years to realize a savings. (And since it's a co-op, that means the price goes down :) ) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:18:09 CST, Brandon Galbraith said: Why don't utilities strike deals with celluar providers to push data back to HQ over the cellular network at low utilization times (how many people use GPRS in the dead of night?). Especially in rural areas (where physically reading meters sucks the most due to long inter-house distances), you have no guarantee of good cellular coverage. The electric company *can* however assume they have copper connectivity to the meter by definition
Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?
It won't be long before the telco's respond by offering DSL at the same speed/price. I've heard (but don't *know*) that SBC is selling 6 down and 1 up in Houston and Dallas for $35. We're doing a fair business selling accelerated dial up for $15. Its surprising how many folks don't want broadband. You don't need 4mb down to read your email. And once you get outside of the city limits there's a good sized market that can't get any type of broadband, especially cable. We may decline some, but I don't think that ISP's are going away anytime soon. Bob Martin Matt Bazan wrote: why in the world would anyone want to purchase dsl from a private reseller when i can get 4mb down 384 up from comcast for $25? think you dsl resellers out there are doomed. in fact, just a matter of time before most of you isps are down the toilet. im reminded of the mom and pop grocery store phenomenon that has now been replaced by the kohls, ap, whole foods etc. of course there will always be niche markets but this is less applicable for a pure commodity like bandwidth. yeah, i suppose you'll say something about value added services and such and you may have a point but i doubt that will keep the ship afloat for long.
Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?
That sums it up nicely. Bob Martin Joe Maimon wrote: -snip- Its hardly a foregone conclusion. As it stands, the largest cause of broadband market aggregation is the erosion of fair access provisions and a sleeping(drunk?)-at-the-wheel FCC. Joe
Re: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587?
dons ISP hat We get sick of blocking ports. We're little guys. About 10,000 users. Yesterday, we blocked 11025 connections either inbound to addresses that aren't mail servers, or outbound from addresses that aren't supposed to be mail servers. This is a case of those that know a little too much praying on those that don't know quite enough with those that don't have enough of anything trying to stop it from happening. I can't flame you. I fully agree with you. But until I can find a way to stop the Big Bad Wolf from huffing and puffing, the house will be made of bricks, and the door will be locked. Bob Martin Erik wrote: I just get sick of providers blocking traffic...their job is to PASS TRAFFIC. There must be a better solution, but laziness is getting the better of us all, as usual. We've had so many problems with IP Providers blocking various IP PROTOCOLS that we've just ended up forcing all of our users to use VPN tunnels for everything...except when the providers block that!!! Then we're just screwed. Anyways, just my two cents... Please don't flame me, I'm just a lowly network guy:) - Erik -Original Message- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 8:00 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Why do so few mail providers support Port 587? Although RFC2476 was published in December 1998, its amazing how few mail providers support the Message Submission protocol for e-mail on Port 587. Even odder, some mail providers use other ports such as 26 or 2525, but not the RFC recommended Port 587 for remote authenticated mail access for users. Large mail providers like AOL, GMAIL and Yahoo support authenticated mail on port 587; and some also support Port 465 for legacy SMTP/SSL. But a lot of universities and smaller mail providers don't. They still use SMTP Port 25 for roaming users. With ATT, Earthlink, COX, Netzero and other ISPs filtering port 25 for years, I would have thought most mail providers would have started supporting Port 587 by now. What can be done to encourage universities and other mail providers with large roaming user populations to support RFC2476/Port 587? What can be done to encourage the mail client software programers (i.e. Outlook, Eudora, etc) to make Port 587 the default (or at least the first try) and let the user change it back to port 25 (or automatically fallback) if they are still using a legacy mail server. Sendmail now includes Port 587, although some people disagree how its done. But Exchange and other mail servers are still difficult for system administrators to configure Port 587 (if it doesn't say click here for Port 587 during the Windows installer, its too complicated).
Re: Time to check the rate limits on your mail servers
We've been doing this on postfix for some time now. Michael Loftis wrote: --On Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:42 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you let your customers send an unlimited number of emails per day? Per hour? Per minute? If so, then why? Because there are *NO* packages available that offer limiting. Free or commercial.
Re: Port 25 filters - how many here deploy them bidirectionally?
After this post, we did some real digging. The timing of the ever lower levels of spew from our dial up pool coincides with the blocking of the MS NetBios ports, and the implementation of full outbound email scanning (both AV and spam). By full scanning, I mean we treat all email as untrusted, regardles of where it originates. We've evidently made it harder to turn the boxen into zombies, and time and entropy have started to clean up the ones that where there. b Bob Martin wrote: We really don't know what to make of it. Either the spammers have modified their code so that they don't waste their time trying to spew from blocked machines, or we've been very lucky of late. I hope it's the former, but suspect it's the latter. Bob Subhi S Hashwa wrote: Sunday, January 9, 2005, 4:17:27 PM, Bob Martin wrote: This may or may not be related, but we have seen a sharp decline in spam attempts from our dial up pool since Sept 2004. Intersting. with the spam on the increase, do you think spammers are 'ignoring' your customer base? or is there other factors involved ?
Re: Port 25 filters - how many here deploy them bidirectionally?
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: .. and if it has been tried, have you noticed any issues with this? We have been doing bidirectional port 25 filtering for sometime now. We have not seen this behavior, nor anything like it. -snip- Two posts about this in several months - but still, enough of a trend for me to wonder how widespread this behavior is. If it works, it will become very wide spread before long. This may or may not be related, but we have seen a sharp decline in spam attempts from our dial up pool since Sept 2004. Bob Martin
Re: Port 25 filters - how many here deploy them bidirectionally?
We really don't know what to make of it. Either the spammers have modified their code so that they don't waste their time trying to spew from blocked machines, or we've been very lucky of late. I hope it's the former, but suspect it's the latter. Bob Subhi S Hashwa wrote: Sunday, January 9, 2005, 4:17:27 PM, Bob Martin wrote: This may or may not be related, but we have seen a sharp decline in spam attempts from our dial up pool since Sept 2004. Intersting. with the spam on the increase, do you think spammers are 'ignoring' your customer base? or is there other factors involved ?
Interesting DNS problem.
I've just been hired to fix problems at a small ISP. One of their customers has listed several nameservers with a single IP. I didn't know this was possible. I thought there was a 1 to 1 relationship with nameserver names/addresses. I'm trying to figure out if this is or will be a problem. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Bob Martin Connected to whois.internic.net. Escape character is '^]'. nameserver 63.151.3.248 Whois Server Version 1.3 Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. NS3.ELPASOTRUCK.NET NS2.ANGELOFREIGHTLINER.NET NS2.ELPASOTRUCK.NET NS2.WACOFREIGHTLINER.NET NS2.TEMPLEFREIGHTLINER.NET NS2.LONESTARFL.COM NS2.FARMINGTONFREIGHTLINER.NET NS3.FARMINGTONFREIGHTLINER.NET NS2.ELPASOSELECT.NET NS2.BRYANFREIGHTLINER.NET NS2.WFFREIGHTLINER.NET NS3.ABILENEFREIGHTLINER.NET NS3.ABQFREIGHTLINER.NET DOWNTOWN.INU.NET
Re: Microsoft suing spammers....Tilting at windmills?
Sometimes the only way to stop evil is not with good... You must confront it with a different kind of evil. David Twohy - The Chronicles of Riddick Bob Owen DeLong wrote: It makes one wonder if an entity with as deep pockets and adept legal staff might actually make an impact on spammers, or if they are simply tilting at windmills. Either way, it's a good thing. It takes resources away from Micr0$0ft's other legal pursuits which can't possibly be a bad thing. It might actually have an impact on spammers (which also can't possibly be a bad thing). For once, I see this as a win-win proposition. Owen
Re: Has postini been taken over?
This won't work for resold ports, but we used to do all of our [dialup] filtering on the NAS. We could still do so with our TC1000's, but it's much simpler to do it with radius if you have multiple ISP's using the same box. Bob Martin Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Christopher L. Morrow wrote: 'fantasy mail' is what we call this :( It's a pain and you have to port25 filter in AND out :( that must have been a nightmare especially with a large provider of dialup pops for a whole lot of ISPs .. not as much as the filtering as keeping track of the holes you punched in the filters so that customers of an isp leasing pops from you can relay out through their own isp's servers. radius profile based filters, sorry I should have been more clear about that. is there a doc for this somewhere online? i know at least some isps who would appreciate being spoonfed a howto for this, right down to copy and paste cisco acls ... it's mostly radius stuff, though I'm sure someone could put simple examples together.
Verisign vs. ICANN
Anything I/we can do to help the cause? Bob Martin Quoted from different thread: (note that verisign has amended their complaint against icann (since the court dismissed the first one) and i'm now named as a co-conspirator. if you reply to this message, there's a good chance of your e-mail appearing in court filings at some point.) -- Paul Vixie
Re: What HTTP exploit?
The real irony is that it doesn't bother Apache running on NT :) In all fairness, somewhere along the line there was a patch for this. All my Apache servers do is put "request failed: URI too long" in the error log. Even without the fix it really wasn't anything more than a nuisance. Killing off one child process had no effect on valid sessions or the parent process. Bob Martin Mike Nice wrote: It seems to be another stupid Microsoft Exploit that just causes annoyance for Unix Boxes. The only side effect is they fill my dmesg logs with signal 11's from apache crashing. Am I the only one that sees the irony that Apache seg faults from an attack aimed at Msoft?!
Re: Open Source BGP Route Optimization?
This should help http://www.bgp4.as/tools Olivier Bonaventure wrote: Noel, Does anybody happen to know of any open source project working on a BGP route optimizer like what Route Science or Internap or the likes have commercially? The TOTEM project (see http://totem.info.ucl.ac.be/ ) is building a set of open source traffic engineering tools. Our focus is currently on tools that can allow ISPs to engineer/capacity plan their network by : - tuning BGP configuration - tuning IGP weights - establishing intra- and inter-domain MPLS tunnels The TOTEM toolbox will evolve over a three years period and the first version will be available this fall from the project web site. Concerning BGP, the project has already developped a tool called C-BGP (http://cbgp.info.ucl.ac.be) that can be used to simulate the behavior of BGP in large networks. C-BGP supports a configuration language similar to current routers and we have used it to simulated networks with 10.000 routers. We are currently using CBGP to perform what-if analysis to evaluate the impact of link, router and peering failures in transit networks. We are interested in discussing with ISPs who would like to use/test such an opensource traffic engineering toolbox on ther network. Best regards, Olivier Bonaventure
List of dynamic IP's
Does anyone know of a list of dynamic IP's by ISP? I'm looking for something akin to this list from AOL http://postmaster.info.aol.com/info/servers.html TIA Bob Martin
