Re: Latest IE patch breaking non username:password@encoded websites?
Yes they broke basic auth in a URL. I am uncertain as to why it was necessary to remove this functionality. Bryan - Original Message - From: "Herman Harless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "nanog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 11:26 AM Subject: Latest IE patch breaking non username:[EMAIL PROTECTED] websites? > > We're starting to take complaints from folks who have installed the > latest IE patch about various broken website functionality. The > complaints are not related to folks trying to use the username:password@ > functionality that was removed by the patch. > > Is anyone taking similar calls / seeing similar issues? > > Herman Harless > Director, Advanced Data Network Engineering and Operations > NTELOS, Inc. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >
Re: Bandwidth Control Question
Title: Bandwidth Control Question Why not simply use configuration option Cisco gives you to set your DS3 to 6 meg dsu bandwidth X Dan, your suggestion will unncessarily tax his equipment. Bryan - Original Message - From: Dan Ellis To: Claydon, Tom ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 9:32 AM Subject: RE: Bandwidth Control Question Tom, My suggestion is to enable the full DS3 and have each router traffic-shape to 6M on the neighboring interfaces. Rate-limit on the input of your router to disallow the customer from sending you more than the limit. Remember that for the most part rate-limiting polices, where traffic shaping performs more buffering and shaping. Thats why you should use the combo of a shape on the sender side and a police on your side to protect. --Dan -- Daniel Ellis, CTO, PenTeleData (610)826-9293 "The only way to predict the future is to invent it." --Alan Kay -Original Message-From: Claydon, Tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:26 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: Bandwidth Control Question Hello, A customer of ours in the next building would like 6M of Internet bandwidth from us, so we would wire a DS3 between the two buildings for connectivity. The question is: how to we control the amount of bandwidth that we give them? Could we use rate limiting to contain the bandwdith to 6M, our would we need to get external IDSU's to do that? Note: we have a Cisco 7206VXR router on our end. The customer has a Cisco 7513. Thanks, = TC -- Tom Claydon, IT/ATM Network Engineer Dobson Telephone Company phone: (405) 391-8201 cell: (405) 834-0341
RE: Abuse Departments
Yes, I agree with everyone, in a distributed environment many things are possible. Perhaps I should have read the entire thread rather than responding to a single message. Bryan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matthew Sullivan Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 5:16 PM Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Abuse Departments Bryan Heitman wrote: >Would you perhaps have more underlying problems if a "script kiddie" on a >dialup can attack you in such a way to impact your service? > > > Yeah? See: http://www.irbs.net/internet/nanog/0308/1463.html / Mat
Re: Abuse Departments
Would you perhaps have more underlying problems if a "script kiddie" on a dialup can attack you in such a way to impact your service? Bryan - Original Message - From: "Brian Bruns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Matthew S. Hallacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 10:20 AM Subject: Re: Abuse Departments > > - Original Message - > From: "Matthew S. Hallacy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:18 AM > Subject: Re: Abuse Departments > > > > Most places will take care of abuse issues if they get to the right > person, > > but some places simply won't wake up their network admin at 11:00 on a > saturday > > night because some script kiddie's DSL is getting attacked by another > > script kiddie on IRC. > > > > > Watch yourself poptix - you don't have such a squeaky clean past either. > > Point is this. If your network/servers are being used in an attack against > someone else, you can be held responsible if you do not act in a timely > manner. > > This "script kiddie's DSL" is actually a shared setup with several servers > on the end of it and a firewall. What happens to it also affects me and my > customers. When my customers go down, I get complaints. > > Now, if your network was attacking mine from a comprimised box, and you > failed to act in a timely fashion, regardless if its a DSL or a T1 or a > dialup for that matter, I'd either sue you myself for allowing the attack to > continue, or give my customers your info and let THEM sue you for it. >
microsoft.com
Several networks I have talked to are reporting they can't get to www.microsoft.com Has the virus began? anyone? Bryan
AT&T NYC
Anyone seeing any problems with ATT in new york? Best regards, Bryan Heitman Interland, Inc.
problems with 701
anyone know what is going on over at uu? seeing problems all over... > 3 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms 216.79.187.254 > 4 <10 ms10 ms <10 ms 172.25.57.5 > 5 <10 ms10 ms <10 ms 205.152.37.184 > 6 <10 ms10 ms10 ms 500.POS2-0.GW11.ATL5.ALTER.NET > [157.130.76.97] > 710 ms10 ms <10 ms 0.so-2-1-0.XL2.ATL5.ALTER.NET > [152.63.85.38] > 8 <10 ms10 ms10 ms POS7-0.BR2.ATL5.ALTER.NET [152.63.82.193] > 9 *** Request timed out. > 10 * * * Request timed out. Best regards, Bryan Heitman Interland, Inc.
ATT
Anyone seeing any problems with ATT in LAX? I have ATT colo in Mesa, AZ with some routing problems... Best regards, Bryan Heitman Interland, Inc.
