Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
Kevin Oberman wrote: From: Stephen Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] I wasnt specifically thinking of reclamation of space, I was noting a couple of things: - that less than 50% of the v4 space is currently routed. scarcity will presumably cause these non-routed blocks to be: :- used and routes :- reclaimed and reassigned :- sold on Some of it, but a large part of the missing space belongs to the US Government, mostly the military. It is very much in use and is routed carefully such that it does not show up in the public Internet. There's another set of missing space, here. It seems to be the elephant in the room. While I can't (or won't) speak to the routing issues mentioned in the thread, I wonder that no one has brought up all the legacy space that is held by a few large conglomerates. No, I'm not talking about ATT, here. I refer to the early days, when class B networks were handed out like penny candy, and when organizations could get class C space equivalent to a class B. When Company A has, say, 5 or 6 of those, and then acquires Company B, and then C and D, and all of them have that same allotment, it becomes a non-trivial amount of space. If there's really only 5 or 6 big companies, where there used to be 50 or so, we are suddenly talking about a non-trivial amount of space. Unfortunately, there's no good way to make them give it up. When you can see that they could easily make do with a single /8 (or less), it's rather sad that we don't have a mechanism in place that punishes for greed, and rewards for surrender of unused (or at least completely unnecessary) space. I only know about the industry I came from, of course, and I suspect that the lion's share of over-allocation is in it. I rather doubt that such things as banking, which came late to the table, have that characteristic. I know it's not a permanent answer, but it seems that (unlike the black space over on milnet et al) there's a temporary reprieve to exhaustion in there somewhere. -- The more sand has escaped from the hourglass of our life, the clearer we should see through it. Niccolo Machiavelli
Re: meeting in the Dominican Republic
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...It would be most interesting to compare the attendance from Seattle and Vancouver between the Toronto meeting and NANOGs 32 and 29 in Reston and Chicago. We know there is a distance effect, but did the border crossing appear to have a measurable impact? I would bet that it would be more interesting, and more meaningful, if you had more than one Canada city in that mix. I would happily attend a meeting in Vancouver, CA, but barely considered the one in Toronto. I'm very excited that the next one is in Bellevue. Unless it's opposite some event that has previous demands on my time, I'll be there. Same is true with Albuquerque. Travel time and inconvenience is significant to me, far more than cost (I found the ticket costs to DR to be quite reasonable). On the other hand, there are people I know that would be overjoyed to have the opportunity to speak out about the particular problems of the area's islands, which, by the way, are home to some of the finest coffee beans on the planet. Really, what can this hurt? At worst, you'll have lower attendance. The same people who always show, will be there. They might complain, but they'll still be there. At best, you'll include members of your constituency that are as distant from your regular venues as the Dominican Republic is from me. It's got a nice, settled, tourist-driven economy, hotels and food are reasonable and pleasant, and it's some place new. -- Any commercial institution that is serious about protecting their customers from phishing will stop sending mail marked up with HTML.
Re: meeting in the Dominican Republic
Joe Abley wrote: Can I suggest that the most practical approach to deal with the question at hand is not to dwell on geopolitics, but instead to address the original question: would attending a meeting in the Dominican Republic involve undue hardship to the community, or perhaps be difficult to manage for some other reason (e.g. corporate travel policy)? On the one hand, I have to say that if it's my own money, it's not going to happen. It's just too far away (for me). Not considering the plane fare, though, I don't think it's necessarily a bad suggestion. I *do* wonder where all the attendees will be coming from (the local ones, I mean). I know how shockingly impoverished Jamaica is, and we can't even talk about Haiti. I know far less about the Dominican Republic, other than that it's far better off than either of the other two. So far I've heard one person suggest that they would have trouble obtaining corporate approval to travel, two people saying that they'd expect no such problem, and one person strongly in favour of warm locations for winter meetings. That doesn't give us much to go on. This is an interesting question. Considering the unrest in neighboring Haiti, I'd be more inclined to at least consider it, depending on *where* in the nice, peaceful Dominican Republic we were talking about. https://www.osac.gov/Reports/index.cfm?display=regionregion=3 Close to Haiti? Bad. https://www.osac.gov/Regions/country.cfm?country=99 The DR itself is no different in problems than, say, Los Angeles (and probably safer that some of it). It would probably be lovely. It's a big island. Where exactly are you talking about? -- Any commercial institution that is serious about protecting their customers from phishing will stop sending mail marked up with HTML.
Re: How do you quantify goodness in an email message?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: [snip] Sure, but not really my point. In fact, sadly enough, the merit majordomo does not even allow the which command, and that is just plain dumb. Stupid. Silly. Upon reflection, I regret that comment. Perhaps I might have phrased it differently, had I reflected a bit more. I don't understand the reason for the which command being disabled, but my comment was not appropriate. -- Any commercial institution that is serious about protecting their customers from phishing will stop sending mail marked up with HTML.
Re: Throwing out the NANOG AUP
Simon Lyall wrote: On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, William B. Norton wrote: I wish we had a metric for the community value of the nanog list... How about a survey of the mailing list members to see what they think? I'd suggest that this idea, while seemingly a simple answer, neglects the purposes of this group. There are plenty of people on this list who should have absolutely no say in how it is governed, no say in the content, and so on. Lest you think that I refer simply to those that are not strictly North American in their interest, I can assure you that it is not my point. For various reasons, there are certain types of people subscribed to the list who can be said to be interested in network operations from a different perspective than you'd expect. There's any number of media representatives, from CNN through various online zines. How quickly does it hit the news when someone on the list starts proclaiming that they sky is falling, in some new and interesting way? There's a raft of bad guys, of varying persuasions. I am absolutely sure of this, since I see the signs and discussions of doings on nanog in other various areas where such folk hang out. It is, after all, what I do (I'm just not evil, is all). There are any number of interested parties, such as one Simon Lyall, aka [EMAIL PROTECTED] , that might choose a different direction than, say, one Randy Bush (and I preface this statement, yet again, by stating that I am not intending to pick on either Simon or Randy). We can get an idea of what people do and don't like about this list, what stuff they think should be kept or removed etc. There are 10,000 odd people on the list and only a couple of dozen ever post to these threads. This is true in every single mailing list I've ever been on. There's always mostly lurkers. It's just the way of things. -- Any commercial institution that is serious about protecting their customers from phishing will stop sending mail marked up with HTML.
Re: Polling the NANOG List
Ron Muir wrote: Simon J. Lyall wrote: How about a survey of the mailing list members to see what they think? Considering that this is a mailing list to supplement the NANOG meetings how about if we restrict the poll participants to people who have attended a NANOG in the last 12 months! To be pedantic, it would be more appropriate to say 24 months, but yes, you're right. -- Any commercial institution that is serious about protecting their customers from phishing will stop sending mail marked up with HTML.
Re: Throwing out the NANOG AUP
Simon Lyall wrote: On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...Request that all such periodic postings (Aggregates, bots, etc.) be posted as short summary messages with URL's pointing to the data. The meat of the message should be in the first 20-25 lines, similar to the way you have to write executive summaries. Ask the repetitive posters of stuff (which often goes to multiple lists) to revise their postings to fit this model. How about a monthly ( twice-monthly maybe) post listing them all and where to find them? I'd humbly ask that they continue to be sent to the list (at least the three I care about). Email is forever (for me, at least), and I can look at it off line, if desired. Grep is my friend. I'd rather not have to keep track of more web sites, when the Friday Three contain so much useful information. There may also be those that care about the botnet postings. I note that these also occur at some measured interval, but since I delete them, I don't remember the frequency, other than that it is no longer annoying. Are there other automated postings than those four? -- Any commercial institution that is serious about protecting their customers from phishing will stop sending mail marked up with HTML.
Re: Is there another NANOG somewhere?
Martin Hannigan wrote: there's Full Disclosure (another place where I have Gadi kill filed), Are you sure this isn't your own personal issue? yes It actually preserves some sanity. FD is so full of noise that I just read it via gmail. I long ago quit having it arrive here, where I'd pay attention to it right away. Some of what arrives there is useful, while most of it is just noise. I'd hate to have to filter that real time. The usual sycophants are going to start another off topic thread on the usefulness of this on the IETF list, so let's be clear, I'm referencing, not trying to start an IETF discussion. I'm on another list where there's something similar, except that it notes original content vs quoted, html/rich text vs plaintext, and other amusing choices. Nothing wrong with a public, generic, announcement of s/n ratios. It's always the same people. Always. The balance should shift to the hammer for a few months to bring back some equilibrium. -- Any commercial institution that is serious about protecting their customers from phishing will stop sending mail marked up with HTML.
Re: who was the last legit spammer?
Matthew Black wrote: Jon Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Travis H. wrote: Hey, was discussing something from the long distant past recently. Specifically it was my memory of the last legitimate spamhaus... Legit spammer? Perhaps you're thinking of Sanford Wallace's cyberpromo and AGIS? http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/9710/msg00018.html Kanter Seagal's Green Card spam? I think they were the first wide-spread spam. Anyone recall the year/date? I'm thinking 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canter__Siegel (April 12, 1994) Perhaps you are thinking of Clarence L Thomas IV, who posted the day after the Northridge quake (also in 1994), with a post about the coming end of the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup_spam -- I will put Chaos into fourteen lines And keep him there; and let him thence escape If he be lucky... Edna St. Vincent Millay
Whatever happened to The Cidr Report?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This report has been generated at Fri Nov 10 21:40:01 2006 AEST. Okay, am I the only one who misses this being posted to the list? Yes, I know that I can go to the site for the report, but it just suddenly vanished (at least to me), without warning. Was I the only one still reading it from the mailing list? Was there an announcement, and I just missed it? Please see http://www.cidr-report.org for the full report Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog@merit.edu Private replies okay, but I bet I'm not the only one for whom it just suddenly vanished. I like my stuff in plain text when I can get it; the web site is nice, but I'm not point and clicky type. -- The Eighties:I tried being reasonable once. I didn't like it. Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't teach eight cats to pull a sled. Stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Re: The IESG Approved the Expansion of the AS Number Registry
Roland Dobbins wrote: On Dec 1, 2006, at 4:50 AM, Andy Davidson wrote: RIPE will be accepting requests for 32-bit ASNs from 1/1/07, according to an email to ncc-services two weeks ago. Is there any possibility we can now get a block of ASNs set aside for documentation purposes, akin to example.com and/or the TEST network? A block of ASNs for this purpose would be very helpful for folks writing docs, would reduce the possibility of 'cut-and-paste hijacking', and would also allow more accurate documentation (many products and tools have special handling for the designated private ASNs which make documentation difficult). This is an excellent idea, but please do not select the first block after 16 bit numbers are up (can you say buffer overflow?). Something random, in the middle, would be better. -- The weaker the data available upon which to base one's conclusion, the greater the precision which should be quoted in order to give the data authenticity. Norman Augustine
Re: Collocation Access
Alex Rubenstein wrote: Craig Holland wrote: Is this some new trend or have I just gotten lucky in the past? Wouldn't someone like ATT be better served by giving their employees some company issued ID that they can submit to secure facilities? I know it wouldn't be government issued, but would at least be a step in the right direction. I'm a little surprised by all this, truthfully. I *know* that ATT has to work inside certain facilities that are government run, and they are *required* to provide government issued ID, company issued ID, and social security number (really!) at a minimum. They must also state whether or not they are a US citizen, and if not, what country they hold citizenship in. I am shocked that the ATT employee did not have an ATT ID. In our facilities, we require all visiting telcos to produce company identification, and between telcove/level 3, Verizon, MCI, and several others, we have never had an issue. I'd be a bit more suspicious that he didn't have ATT ID. Me too. In my former life, I was involved with such requirements (but only at what the fedgov lovingly refers to as contractor sites), and we always had the alternative for anyone objecting to our requirements for ID. No problem. They could just sit in the lobby (or outside) and wait. I used to object to our method of gathering social security numbers (since it was on a form that anyone adding a name could see), but I can tell you that it was much more onerous than your standard telco. -- This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. William Shakespeare
Re: Blogger.com posts still fails when posting to the NANOG list!
Jeroen Massar wrote: Apparently there is still some silly [f|s]oul who has to forward NANOG to blogger and blogger still doesn't handle multipart/signed and thus very nicely and totally anonymously reports that it fails. I think it's a larger issue. I don't post often, and just got a bounce from blogger. Could the blogger folks, who are seemingly uncontactable, please please please with sugar and strawbarries and whipcream on top include at least for what address this message is getting gatewayed for so that the subscription can be yanked from the NANOG list? Of course a full header trail would be even more useful. Blogger does not accept multipart/signed files. It isn't just multipart. Mine was innocent of such, and so only got a vin ordinaire error. Blogger could not process your message at this time. Error code: 6.FC02F1 Original message: [and so on] Full message and header available to mail admins, but I suspect it won't help. -- This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man. William Shakespeare
Re: [Fwd: Important ICANN Notice Regarding Your Domain Name(s)]
Jeremy Chadwick wrote: I receive these sorts-of notices from our OpenSRS-based registrar numerous times a year (usually once a month, for multiple domains). It may have something to do with the fact that I refuse to comply with ICANN's mandatory regulation demanding legitimate public contact information in WHOIS records. This reason is almost guaranteed. I'd been watching this thread with some mild curiosity, since I have never received such a notification, for any domain. All my data is accurate (nothing is hidden, everything is there). Interesting. I had no idea that anyone ever really checked, or cared, but apparently they do. -- In April 1951, Galaxy published C.M. Kornbluth's The Marching Morons. The intervening years have proven Kornbluth right. --Valdis Kletnieks
International phone numbers (was Re: AOL Non-Lameness)
Judicious clipping; hope I kept the right attributions... Ian Mason wrote: On 2 Oct 2006, at 23:39, Rick Kunkel wrote: I had users that appeared to be getting their email blocked seemingly because in their sigs, they write their phone number that stupid IP-Address-Wannabe method, like: 206.555.1212 As an aside, is this something that's the norm in other places, like commas instead of periods for decimals in other countries? I'd hate to sound critical if it was. Normal practice in France; Belgium too I think. It's normal in a lot of places. When you start to add in country codes, I suspect it's easier to type number dot number rather than plus number parenthesis number parenthesis number hyphen number and so on. I converted all my phone list numbers to that format long ago. It's just cleaner. Never thought about whether it was cool, or not. Cool is not on my radar. -- In April 1951, Galaxy published C.M. Kornbluth's The Marching Morons. The intervening years have proven Kornbluth right. --Valdis Kletnieks
Re: Outages mailing list
Alexander Harrowell wrote: Presumably, if you find you can't reach the outages list because their listserv has had an outage, you just come up on NANOG like before? Please, let's not do this one again. I can't imagine what this profits anyone. Let this be the last post, resist the temptation to put in your two cents worth, and just let it be. -- Creating consternation around boundary conditions and then proposing artificial self-serving compromises is one of the oldest games there is on mailing lists, going back pretty much to the invention of Usenet.
Re: NANOG Spam?
Jim Popovitch wrote: William Allen Simpson wrote: The spammers have figured out how to bypass the NANOG members-only posting, in this case by pretending to be John Fraizer and sending directly to trapdoor. On our public list servers we now require admin approval of all new subscriptions as well as email verificationPerhaps these are some ideas for the NANOG mailinglist admins to implement. Or not. I expect that we've seen only the tip of the iceberg on people who will now post one I'm here, please don't moderate me post. NANOG has how many readers? For those who may have misread Jim's post, he was talking about *another* mailing list, not this one, on the moderation method mentioned. No sign that this is in effect on nanog. -- No matter how much you want to try and spin it, MySpace is the Paris Hilton of the internet. (http://www.digg.com/users/ArcaneDevice)
re: NANOG Spam?
Joe Johnson wrote: Am I the only one to get this email? Headers say merit.edu sent it. I have NANOG whitelisted, though, so it came to my mailbox. You do realize that by including the whole email, that anyone who had it blocked, will not have seen your message either. I have multiple spam filtering, and that message was trapped at my first line of defense. Only because I have the habit of grepping From headers, did I see your message... What was funny is that you got a higher score with spamassassin than the original spam did;-) -- No matter how much you want to try and spin it, MySpace is the Paris Hilton of the internet. (http://www.digg.com/users/ArcaneDevice)
Re: wrt joao damas' DLV talk on wednesday
Paul Vixie wrote: [some other stuff] on the other hand i really would rather talk about DLV than meeting manners. I'd like to hear about DLV. For example, Randy Bush asked (twice) the following: my question was a bit simpler. what is the security policy that isc plans to use over the content of the isc dlv registry? and how will the dvl trust key roll-over and revocation be handled? I would also like to understand the security policy, and to hear how DLV at ISC will handle key roll-over and revocation. as providing a tld key registry is tantamount to emulating the root key responsibilities of the iana, potential users should be rather concerned. -- ...any language that actually pays attention to white space is the spawn of pure oozing black evil from the 29th layer of the deepest hell imaginable --Phil Dibowitz, on Python
Re: Is your ISP Influenza-ready?
Joseph S D Yao wrote: On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 08:29:10PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: According to the wikipedia's quote of WHO the weighted average mortality rate, which would be across 50 human cases, is 66% in 2006, and 56% across all 194 cases reported since 2004. Is there a report which extrapolates the UNREPORTED cases and estimates the mortality rate from that? [And does anyone have any basis on which to make these guesses?] Let's extrapolate from an event that I know of, and remember. In 1976, a particularly dangerous strain of flu, Victoria, was the influenza du jour. As in most strains, there were two versions: Victoria-B, where your life sucked for a few days, and then you got on with it, and Victoria-A, which was life threatening, and BTW, yet another bird flu entry. I'm not going to post a bunch of links, but if you want entertainment (or validation) influenza victoria 1976 in Google will give you hours of interesting data. I had the A strain, and was gravely ill. My lungs are scarred as though I had had tuberculosis, and I'm grateful that was the only damage. In just the area I lived in, there were multiple deaths reported. The outbreaks were localized, but quite dramatic in those geographical areas where it took off. I don't mean to add to the hysteria, but I also would prefer that you not discount it. Much will depend on your local area, on whether people are tightly clustered (NYC, LA), or thinly populated (Wyoming, North Dakota). -- You can't have in a democracy various groups with arms - you have to have the state with a monopoly on power, Condoleeza Rice, the US secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to Baghdad yesterday. ...No Comment
Open Letter to D-Link about their NTP vandalism
Well, this is at least marginally on topic, and I think it deserves a wider audience. It is written by Poul-Henning Kamp (the affected party). Please read it. http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/dlink/ It ends with the following: Didn't something like this happen before? Yes, D-Link is not the first vendor to make a hash of the NTP protocol. Some years back NetGear products blasted University of Wisconsin off the net. I have repeatedly pointed D-Link's lawyer at this case. Fortunately, in my case it is not that bad. The NetGear incident caused the NTP protocol designers to add a kiss of death option to the Latest (S)NTP standard but D-Links devices does not respect that option. I have tried. -- You can't have in a democracy various groups with arms - you have to have the state with a monopoly on power, Condoleeza Rice, the US secretary of state, said at the end of her two-day visit to Baghdad yesterday. ...No Comment
Re: Gmail weirdness?
Mark Owen wrote: On 2/10/06, Mark Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Particularly, we're seeing gmail deliver multiple instances of a message from a gmail subscriber to a mailing list server... Well, doubled instances, yes. Multiple instances, no. http://www.linux.net.nz/pipermail/nzlug/2006-February/003398.html I read this, and it sounds like you're talking about the duplicate message problem, which I've noted on multiple lists, for, oh, six months, maybe a year. Gmails website didn't list any suitable NOC-type contact addresses, nor are there any on the NOC list site. As a subscriber that interacts on multiple lists, as well as the occasional personal e-mail I'll send out to friends and family, no one has ever reported that they are receiving multiple instances of my e-mails. I have also never received multiple e-mails from other gmail users directly or through a list. I've seen just exactly this problem on many of the mailing lists that I'm on (although it's only been two copies, not multiple copies). I've seen surmises that suggest it *is* a proxying problem. In these cases, where I've been interested to examine the headers, the message ID is always the same; proxies are always different (i.e. Google/Gmail is the one choosing to send it out twice). I believe that this may have been reported to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (the only address that I know of that you may report this type of thing to). It may be an oddity of the mailing list software itself. I have never heard of an instance where an interchange between a gmail user and a single person, or persons, created more than one copy. It also seems to me that when I've seen this error, it has been on a list using either Majordomo or Mailman. I've not seen it on any other lists. It does not appear to be related to the size of the list's subscribers, since one of the lists I've seen this on averages about 200 members, and another is in the thousands. Just another data point. -- It is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving, it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. Thomas Paine
Re: Did anyone else notice the CAIDA skitter poster in the background of George Bush's speech at the NSA?
Barry Greene (bgreene) wrote: [moved comment to bottom; top posting bad] From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [also hate outlook] At 06:02 PM 2/5/2006, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: Joe McGuckin wrote: http://tinyurl.com/doy6r Um... (noticed on other lists, by the way) http://securitywizardry.com/radar.htm The *entire* point of that, was to make it clear that everything you saw was *manufactured*, that the NSA (and other agencies) are _not_ going to have data up on a screen that pertains to _anything_ during a photo op, with a bunch of reporters and politicos. I like the skitter chart, but at the Vegas NANOG, Barry Greene disclaimed it and said it was out of date. I hope the NSA is using up to date data. It would be horrific if they weren't. My bet is that they have more up to date data. Maybe now the US Gov can open their pocket book and pay for Skitter? :-) Well, as I'd said first time around, it was probably just an image that was a part of the overall construction. Amusing to look at, but I doubt whether you can take anything you see there as reality. -- Everyone picks and chooses, an infinite number of times a day. - David Phalen, One For the Road, in Analog, March 2001
Re: Did anyone else notice the CAIDA skitter poster in the background of George Bush's speech at the NSA?
Joe McGuckin wrote: http://tinyurl.com/doy6r Um... (noticed on other lists, by the way) http://securitywizardry.com/radar.htm -- Everyone picks and chooses, an infinite number of times a day. - David Phalen, One For the Road, in Analog, March 2001
Re: oh k can you see
Sam Crooks wrote:
Pardon my stupidity, but could someone point to a good explanation of
Anycast (vs uni, broad and multi...)?
{mutter, mumble, google is your friend}
http://www.google.com/search?hl=enie=ISO-8859-1q=anycast+definition
--
There are two ways, my friend, that you can be rich in life.
One is to make a lot of money and the other is to have few needs.
William Sloane Coffin, Letters to a Young Doubter
Reallocation of IPv4 space (was Re: IPv6 news)
Brandon Ross wrote: On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [IPv4 commodity trading] That's exactly the change I've been advocating for years. Instead of continuing with this socialistic concept that IP space is somehow owned by everyone, we should, instead, give title for IP space and allow those titles to be bought and sold freely. Classic economics teaches of the tragedy of the commons. I can't think of too many things that look more like a commons than the current IP space. IRL, I work for a very large company that controls a significant fraction of legacy Class B networks. Most of this control is due to multiple acquisitions and mergers. I would posit that the whole place could be run out of one /16, and the rest of it turned back in, or sold off, so that it could be reused, and delay the exhaustion. By my own best estimates, 50% of the allocated space today is wasted in one way or another, either it is used inefficiently by staticly addressing things that don't need to be static, hoarded to prevent organizations from having to make additional requests to an RIR, or legacy assignments where the orgs that have them have no incentive to give them up. Well, I doubt very much that I'd ever agree that static addresses are inefficient, but legacy assignments need to be readdressed. Until there is economic advantage in surrendering space, or disadvantage in keeping it, this will not change. I suspect that most of the organizations that have large legacy spaces give no more than passing thought to such things. If they thought that they were holding capital assets, on the other hand, they'd be in the market for selling within weeks. I've tried on my own to persuade folk into the surrender of IP space, and the immediate response is Why should we? That was two acquisitions ago; the answer (from them) hasn't changed. To my knowledge, it is the equivalent space of 35 legacy Class B networks. You do the math. -- There are two ways, my friend, that you can be rich in life. One is to make a lot of money and the other is to have few needs. William Sloane Coffin, Letters to a Young Doubter
Re: OT: Cisco.com password reset.
Kim Onnel wrote: On 8/3/05, Joe Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I got an email that my CCO account's password was reset last night... People claim that accounts were compromised, thats why they are resetting them all, looks like Lynn's friends have made their moves for revenge. You know, don't start down this road. I don't think this is the appropriate place for that sort of statement, and I don't think you need to put Mr. Lynn in that group. I don't care what you think about his actions, but what you're implying is rude, and it implies things about him that (I don't believe) are true. Please, keep it on track, or take it off line. -- Shame on Cisco. Shame on ISS.
Re: djbdns: An alternative to BIND
Roger Marquis wrote:
You need only count the lines of code needed by the daemon/s
servicing requests. That is, IMO, bind's only major failing. Too
much code, too many little used features (nobody I know needs or
wants rndc), and no way to compile without them. If you read Bruce
Schneier, as every developer should, you know how important that
Amount of code is.
While I don't disagree about lines of code, in general, I will remind you
that nobody and everyone are not sets that you may speak for. I like
rndc (although I preferred ndc). I've been using BIND since BIND 4.{mumble}
(currently at BIND 9 for those machines I retain responsibility for), and
I'd surely rather have all of BIND's little idiosyncrasies that to deal
with AD (now *there's* a nightmare).
--
Open source should be about giving away things voluntarily. When
you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's
stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with
taking.-- Larry Wall
Re: FW: The worst abuse e-mail ever, sverige.net
I was just going to stay out of this, but I can't... Steven Champeon wrote: on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Lars-Johan Liman wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Congrats. Ask your ISP for non-generic rDNS, in your domain, so I know where to send the abuse reports. I did. Reverse *what*? So explain it to them in words of two syllables or less, where possible. I recommend using I am finding a new eye ess pee. There's plenty of them out there that will welcome you, as well. When I call tech support, I never get the nonsense about rebooting my machine to fix things. In fact, I usually have someone on the line who has heard of Slackware and OpenBSD. You get what you pay for. Because that's how things are today. You're a 1-in-50-million chance, as far as I can tell from my mail server. With that attitude you're never going to improve things ... /My/ attitude? You're the one giving your money to a bunch of incompetents. You know, it's just not that hard. I have what is termed Business Class SDSL, which may be pricier than the average geek wants to pay, but so what? If you want to be treated as _not one of the crowd_ of random clueless users, you need to differentiate yourself in a way that is simple for others, _not for yourself_. I have friends who have only one dedicated IP, but it's from an ISP that takes reverse seriously, and that will happily delegate to them, if desired. It isn't everyone else's responsibility to cater to you, if you can't get even the simplest stuff (rdns) fixed. Oh, and mine isn't delegated to me, but I don't worry about it, since it has a nice rdns that I'm find with (and I like the anonymity when I browse elsewhere). -- You've confused equality of opportunity for equality of outcomes, and have seriously confused justice with equality. -- Woodchuck
Please *stop* with the GMAIL invites
Trust me, anyone that has a gmail account now has invites. They're a dime a dozen, and it only comes across as spam, in my book. If you want to play the game of who's in, and who isn't, I suggest you go play on orkut, where there's still a pretense of exclusivity. Please consider the charter of the list when you post these things. Some of us read multiple mailing lists, and this sort of thing just adds to the noise. We now return to our regularly scheduled SPF flame fests. -- I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all. (Alexis de Toqueville)
Re: DNS with Akamai
joe wrote: Anyone noticing issues with Akamai and their DNS stuff? Just wondering because I'm seeing strange responses regarding www.foxnews.com, in that one of the Cnames a20.g.akamai.com is changing every 20 seconds, and sometimes no response at all. It's really too soon to tell, but there is certainly something out there aimed right at the root servers. I saw a post from someone on full disclosure claiming that there was a 0-day exploit against bind (although the version wasn't named). There was huge activity for about four hours, but it leveled off about 20-30 minutes ago. I'm still analyzing earlier ethereal dumps, and logs, looking for the injection, or other evidence. Some of this would probably explain any anomalies you see at akamai. -- ...because as an industry we've tried to make security seem easier than it actually is. We want to make it like driving a car when it's more like flying an airplane. Chris Brenton (at 08:22 -0400 19 Apr 2004 on NANOG)
Re: Points on your Internet driver's license (was RE: Even you can
[edited to fix top posting; snipped for bandwidth] John Curran wrote: At 4:50 PM + 6/13/04, Paul Vixie wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Owen DeLong) writes: Perhaps what is needed is a reporting agency, similar to the credit reporting agencies, where ISPs can register chronic problem-customers. Eventually, your internet credit rating deteriorates to the point that no ISP will offer you service. ... the reason the above analogy fails to hold ... is that credit reporting agencies have an established standard for what bad is -- days overdue on payments. True enough, but there is even a more important point on credit agencies, one I suspect applies here as well. Credit agencies can show that you have good to excellent credit, and they certainly show many of those that don't, but they cannot protect against anyone who is willing to break the law. Identity theft is all about masquerading as someone with good credit (spoofing). Actually, credit agencies don't have a single standard for what bad is; they are obligated to only keep factual data (as can be best determined) in the files. When you cause a credit report to be checked, one or more algorithms are used to score your credit, but the algorithm used is up to the particular inquirer and credit bureau. In addition, they are known to keep inaccurate data, and it is HARD to correct inaccurate data (think various DNS/Email blacklists here). They also don't have all the data. Do you rent or lease an apartment? Whether or not you pay on time is not sent in. Evictions may or may not be sent in. They're called Credit bureaus for a reason. The data they keep is narrow. It's not that hard to make this one work for spammers, but you need some key pieces to all be in place: It'll be very hard, and there's no good business model for doing so. If you're proposing yet another SORBS or MAPS, please don't. Otherwise, you have to decide how someone can profit from maintaining this data. I don't know about the others, but I can GUARANTEE that the profit margin within Experian (formely known as TRW) is very, very, very slim. If it's slim for someone successful, how do you propose that the business model for this will work? ... Spammers already figured out that some ISPs do DB credit checks, and have gotten very good at appearing as a new startup a week later. Absolutely. Just like criminals visit graveyards and county records, spammers and other miscreants are happy to create new, fake identification, and don't really care if they have to keep doing it. The real problem, is how to you make the business model of spamming unproductive? -- Life at university, with its intellectual and inconclusive discussions at a postgraduate level is on the whole a bad training for the real world. Only men of very strong character surmount this handicap. (Paul Chambers)
Re: Counter DoS
Pendergrass, Greg wrote: I can see now that it's only a matter of time before some nut writes The Art of War in the Internet. I read the whitepaper, it goes on a lot about how defensive policies are ineffective but doesn't really say why active response has never been tried: Ask, and ye shall receive. http://btobsearch.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2XH986JPUEbtob=Yisbn=1581128576TXT=Yitm=1 I thought that someone mentioned that Mr. Forno was reputed to be on staff with these folk. Their proposition is a terrible idea and their rules of engagement would be funny instead of frightening if it wasn't serious I note that he also has a title from last year, which seems applicable here: Weapons of Mass Delusion (ISBN 15896X) I will point out that I cannot take seriously a company (Symbiot) that depends on a shockwave plugin to put up a web page. Pity that they came out so aggressively; it might have been an interesting product. Hype can kill as well as sell. -- It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine only I set my mind in motion.
Re: Anti-spam System Idea
Tim Thorpe wrote: Seeing as this system would directly impact network operators (the NO in naNOg) I must disagree. Go right ahead and disagree, however: http://www.nanog.org/listfaq.html If Merit's staff feels otherwise then I sincerely apologize and will of course move the discussion, I will limit the out of context chatter to a minimum however. Merit's staff DOES feel otherwise; it's just been the weekend and all, or you'd have heard from Susan by now. Oh, and PUH-LEEZE -- trim your posts. I deleted a bazillion lines of unnecessary cruft from this.
Re: Automated Network Abuse Reporting
Jason Lixfeld wrote: ...Has there been development of some sort of intelligent unix land app that can understand Cisco syslog output, find the abuse departments of the sourcing networks and send them off a nice little FYI? With rare exceptions, I'd say don't bother, even if you do come up with such a thing. I've actually sent off two in the past week, which is my normal total for the month (any month). One was to a machine that was agressively testing identd (and starting to annoy me) on every machine in my netblock (it's little, but it's mine). The other was more interesting. A tool that had been used to attack imap servers earlier this year has apparently been modified to hit FTP instead. The common bond is the user name lizdy, which is only one of the multiple of names attempted. If you're curious, hit google with the words (lizdy ftp), and you'll come up with a few machines already hit by it. One of the machines that hit was an NT machine in a block that had an actual abuse dept, and I thought the owner would probably want to know. I got a nice response back, and I'd bet that it was probably taken care of. The others were also owned, but out of networks where I know that they just won't care. Pity there's no way to let the owner of the machine know, but that's just life. A nice little FYI will just be adding to the brownian motion of the internet as we know it today. On those rare cases where you have the time, and are sure of the target, of course, send something off. Just please don't automate it. Oh, and I no longer have an internet facing FTP server (that tool hits about 200-400 times in less than 5 seconds...really abusive). -- Open source should be about giving away things voluntarily. When you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking.-- Larry Wall
Re: Extreme spam testing
Chris Brenton wrote: Greets again all, I noticed something kind of interesting when I made my last post to NANOG. I can understand people wanting to do spam checking, but IMHO this is a bit excessive and inconsiderate. I'm guessing njabl.org is doing this to everyone who posts to the list, so I thought others might want to know about it in case they have not noticed it in their own logs. BTW, if you are curious about the spammers_waste_oxygen portion, that was grabbed off my SMTP banner. Yep, and see below. *** Dec 22 08:21:50 mailgate sendmail[492]: hBMDLnHS000492: before-reporting-as-abuse-please-see-www.njabl.org [209.208.0.15] did not issue MAIL/EXPN/VRFY/ETRN during connection to MTA Dec 22 08:21:50 mailgate sendmail[495]: hBMDLoHS000495: ruleset=check_rcpt, arg1=[EMAIL PROTECTED], relay=rt.njabl.org [209.208.0.15], reject=550 5.7.1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]... Relaying Um, welcome to the world of spam nazis. I hate spammers. I loathe and despise them. I hate njabl even more. The last time I called their ISP to complain, I was assured that I must have done something to deserve the aggressive testing. Well, nope, I didn't, and I don't. They just did it again, and by it, I mean that they hit every machine in my little netblock (I suppose the last post to nanog did it). If they were just picking on the machine I posted from, it'd annoy me, but I'd get over it. Why they feel the need to abuse machines that I've NEVER sent email from, to anywhere, is beyond me. Sure, I recognize that I'm in a block frequented by clueless wonders (i.e. DSL), but it isn't dynamic, I've had it for a while now, and it's never been implicated during the time I've had it. In addition, I think that a post to nanog should not get such treatment. Isn't it bad enough that posting to the Full Disclosure mailing list has added to my spam level by a thousand percent? Sigh. -- Open source should be about giving away things voluntarily. When you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking.-- Larry Wall
Re: IANA down?
David Lesher wrote: http://www.iana.org It appears so from here...and other places.. It's you, or something in between. FYI, a traceroute dies at about Los Nettos, in SoCal (at 207.151.118.18), and I know that they don't ordinarily block ICMP... -- Open source should be about giving away things voluntarily. When you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking.-- Larry Wall
Re: IANA down?
Sorry about the cc, but it may also be that the problem is in socal, since my reply to you hasn't shown up yet. Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: David Lesher wrote: http://www.iana.org It appears so from here...and other places.. It's you, or something in between. FYI, a traceroute dies at about Los Nettos, in SoCal (at 207.151.118.18), and I know that they don't ordinarily block ICMP... While I know that they don't usually, it sure appears that packets are choking up at ISI (aka Los Nettos). 13 lngw2-isi-1-pos.ln.net (130.152.80.29) 57.185 ms 57.138 ms 56.183 ms 14 207.151.118.18 (207.151.118.18) 209.292 ms 61.909 ms 61.79 ms 15 * * * 16 * * * 17 * * 207.151.118.18 (207.151.118.18) 61.191 ms 18 207.151.118.18 (207.151.118.18) 61.368 ms * * 19 207.151.118.18 (207.151.118.18) 61.957 ms * * 20 * * * Oops. -- Open source should be about giving away things voluntarily. When you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking.-- Larry Wall
Re: internet consumers forum?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:06:22 EDT, Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: i've sent some time (at least 20 minutes) considering that while there are forums for operators and engineers to discuss issues (nanog, ietf, others too numerous to mention), there aren't really forums for informed consumers of internet services to exchange notes (or for uninformed consumers to become informed.) There used to be Usenet, but then the spammers found it. Remember that Nanog probably has *significant* market penetration - I'll hazard a guess that at least 40-50% of the service providers in the US have at least one person lurking here. Now consider the number of consumers of network services in the US, and estimate what a 1% market penetration would be. Ask yourself: How do I keep spammers out of a group that size? And if I don't reach that size, what good am I really doing? Ask yourself (in addition): How is this useful to business users? I would think that either businesses are small enough that they depend on someone else for information of this sort, or large enough that they have multiple listening presences on NANOG. What is a business user? Spammers, after all, are a business. Do you mean them? MSN is a business. Do you mean them? Am I a business (you don't know the answer to that, trust me)? Do I represent one (you don't know the answer to that one, either)? Outside of a gripe list, what purpose(s) will this server? There used to be *.advocacy.* groups, alt.fan.* groups, *.discuss groups, all on usenet (as Valdis has already pointed out). They were all nice for letting off steam, but they were never really useful in any meaningful way. If this is just a place where you can discuss things that are not really on charter for NANOG, it seems like there are already a bunch of places to do that. Personally, I don't see that there's a raging desire by the consumers of packets to find some place to talk outside of the places already there. It sounds like you have a solution looking for a problem. There is no such thing as informed consumers of internet services, at least not in any reality I inhabit. YMMV, HTH, HAND. USENET: *sob* I miss usenet. :-( -- When you wish to instruct be brief -- so that people's minds can quickly grasp what you have to say, understand your point, and retain it accurately. Unnecessary words just spill over the side of a mind already crammed to the full. (Cicero)
Re: Sobigf + BGP
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, guy wrote: J. Oquendo wrote: 'vuln'dev', and besides I wouldn't think that any one here would do something malicious with any idea that actually worked for the worse. Stunning innocence. I had to read this statement at least four times to be sure that I was not mistaken. Then I examined the headers, and I wonder if you (J. Oquendo) are being a bit disengenous. You may be well-meaning, but I cannot believe that anyone believes such a thing. Assuming that everyone subscribed to the list has the best of intentions, what about people that can scan the publicly accessible archives? Or even the search engines that have nanog archives indexed? There's nothing wrong with kicking ideas like this around with the intention of coming up with a strategy on how to combat them, but perhaps a more discreet forum would be appropriate? We have seen that many people *posting* do not have the best of intentions; I can assure you that there are lurkers on Nanog (surprise, surprise) who are not nearly as naive and well-intentioned as J. O. would hope. In fact, I know that there are subscribers from various print media, various on-line media, and certainly some stunningly unpleasant characters that I run into on other lists. There is no such thing as a discreet forum. If you mean by that, a few people exchanging emails, then surely that is not a forum, not being public. If it is publically accessible, and you aren't sure of precisely every member that's on it, then it's NOT discreet. It may be obscure, but I know plenty people who specialize in the obscure. There are a lot more people subscribed to the list than you actually see posting, I'm sure many of them are representatives of the l33t h4x0r community.. Those are hardly the persons you need worry about. There *is* no hacker community. There may be pockets here and there, with people of varying skills, and purposes, but there is no community. On the other hand, this is almost certainly not a topic for Nanog, even if the word BGP does appear in the original post. -- In April 1951, Galaxy published C.M. Kornbluth's The Marching Morons. The intervening years have proven Kornbluth right. --Valdis Kletnieks
Re: ATT US Network Slowdown?
Paul Jasa wrote: Dear Nanogers, Is anyone aware of a slowdown issue throughout the US ATT network since 8/18 at around 4pm which is causing a lot of internet circuits (including DSL) to be inaccessible and/or appear down from the outside world? ATT says this has been escalated to Level 4 with no ETA and affecting the whole country. I am seeing this problem in the San Francisco area. Just wondering if anyone else is experiencing anything that would confirm ATT's claim, and fishing for more info about the possible cause and ETA. Thanks! Considering the hideous ping storm going on right now, caused by some moron's attempt to write a good worm to go out and destroy the bad worm, I'd bet on that alone. I actually had to shut down all of the snort rules that had anything to do with pinging. I had logged nearly half a gig's worth in less than 24 hours, and my network is only a puny /28. I saw things start up at work earlier this morning, and I curse the stupidity of the imbecilic excuse for a neanderthal that thought this would be clever. The next person that says anything about writing a good worm in my presence had better have insurance. Len, I love you, you're a great guy, but this worm is not benevolent -- it's just a piece of crap, and very poorly thought out at that. The pings are coming from it, and I DON'T have any stupid windows machines on my network, so you might imagine my ecstasy at being hammered like this. Feh. -- You've confused equality of opportunity for equality of outcomes, and have seriously confused justice with equality. -- Woodchuck
Re: [connie.davis@mail.internetseer.com: answerpointe.cctec.com]
Charles Sprickman wrote: On Sat, 9 Aug 2003, Eric Germann wrote: You also have the sporadic people who say for whatever reason, I said something on NANOG I shouldn't have because now that I am unemployed from a dot bomb, when I try to get a job, they search the web and these stupid posts I made show up in your archive and can you remove them so I can get a job??? I explain to them the concept of an an archive. Whats the collective voice of NANOG say, keep it or kill it? Personally, since Merit is already archiving it, I'd really prefer that everyone else did not. You don't do us any favor. If I want to search the archives, I know where they are. I never understand the need to archive someone else's mailing list. On the other hand... I think we're all big boys (and girls) here and understand that subscribing to a large, archived mailing list will get your subscription address on yet another 1,000 MILLION EMAIL ADDRESSES CD. I should hope everyone here can implement, or at least ask for, basic spam filtering. This isn't your grandmother's crochet chat group; everyone here should be smart enough to at least glance at the Merit site before subscribing. Sure, maybe, but I really think, in this day and age, if you're going to archive mail in a public manner, that you ought to do the courteous thing, and at least make it somewhat difficult to collect email addresses. Sure, bugtraq (for example) is archived from here to Mars, and they surely don't obscure, but I really think that Nanog ought to be a cut or so above them...but then, it isn't my call. If you come in here and say things that make you unattractive as a prospective employee, tough crap. :) More jobs for the rest of us. Oh, even more important than that: It makes it easier for prospective employers to weed out the bad ones. Think about it. If you behave unprofessionally here, my guess is you're unprofessional. Go right ahead and display your bad manners in public; you're doing everyone a favor, and providing an early warning as well. There you have it. -- A system admin's life is a sorry one. The only advantage he has over Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare. On the other hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions of their own innards! (Michael O'Brien)
Re: Over three million computers 0wned?
Sean Donelan wrote: http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141901 Trustcorps claims it has scientific and anecdotal resaerch supporting its conclusion that over three million computers are owned by malicious groups. Well, it isn't as if that article really had many of the details that were meaningful. I decided to go right to the source (www.trustcorps.com) and see what they had to say. Beyond seeing that they were yet another web site that looks great iff you are using IE, I found almost NO substance. I visited the Press Room, and the News items, and even the archives thereof. Nothing there (at least not those claims). Ok, so maybe they haven't put it on their web site yet. Still, I suppose someone made those claims, and I think they deserve a little examination. On the other hand, Information Risk Management questioned how any one person could own hundreds of computers at any one time. And systems are often not owned by a single group, but exploited by multiple groups Well, no one here is truly defining what owned implies. I know what a ruckus it kicked up here on NANOG when the first truly distributed denial of service hit eBAy (or was it Yahoo???). No matter. That was no where near three million computers, but it certainly didn't require a lot of control to qualify as control, or a lot of ownership to qualify as owned. I'm amused at the thought that so-called hacker groups are in any way coordinated, or working together, other than a few here and there (and more for monetary gain than fame and glory). Three million? Sure, I believe, if you stretch the definition thin enough, that three million is quite believable. Organized in any way? Nonsense. Sheer, utter, mind-numbing nonsense. If it weren't for the tremendous amount of software out there that makes it EASY to take over machines (and I include every single default install of every single OS that enables anything more than port 22), if it weren't for the stunning array of folk who think that expediency is valuable, and ethics malleable, if it weren't for the vast populace that just wants pabulum, and padded cells, none of this would be possible. Trust me. The only bad guys that are organized are the ones who are after $$$, and they have absolutely no need to control three million computers. One or two is plenty, and for just long enough. The idea that there is a vast underground of pimply-faced teenagers just waiting to control the world would be laughable, were it not for the continued commercial assaults that insist it is so. Unfortunately this computer crime doesn't fit the FBI crime reporting statistics well. Vandalism of Property? Is the cracking of computers happening more or less often than car theft? Car theft is clear. Someone takes your car, and then you don't have it. When someone compromises your computer(s), what do you lose? What do they gain? It's a very unclear question. -- I apologize; I take it all back. MS Exchange is RFC-compliant. See RFC 1925, point three. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1925.html
Looking for transit
Well, sort of. I have a bunch of old network hardware. I've recently disassembled a test network, and there are a lot of useful leftovers. Rob Thomas (of cymru.com, amongst others) would like it. I'd really like him to have it. Unfortunately, I'm in Southern California, and Rob is in Chicago. I can get the equipment to Las Vegas, during defcon (http://www.defcon.org, for the three of you who don't know what it is), which is August 1-3 this year. If there's anyone driving to defcon from the Chicago area, who could take it back there, or if there's anyone who is going from SoCal to Chicago, would you please consider volunteering? Rob's contributions are so worthwhile, I'd really like him to have the goods. Otherwise, I'll just be donating them to a local trade school. I've blind carbonned this to a few folk who are probably not on Nanog, and who may or may not be able to help. Please, reply privately. No sense in starting yet another off topic thread. Here's the part that sucks. Don't volunteer if you can't be vouched for in some way. Either Rob should know you, or someone well-known on Nanog should know you, or I should know you. I want it to go to Rob. Sorry for disturbing everyone, but I'm really hopeful that this'll work out. -- They had discovered Mr. Slippery's True Name and it was Roger Andrew Pollack TIN/SSAN 0959-34-2861, and no amount of evasion, tricky programming, or robot sources could ever again protect him from them.
Re: Looking for transit
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: Well, sort of. I have a bunch of old network hardware... [snippety snip] Sorry for disturbing everyone, but I'm really hopeful that this'll work out. It worked out very quickly. I even have backup volunteers. Thank you all, a whole lot, from me, and from Rob, too. Oh, and for those that wondered, I should have specified, it's a lot (router and other fun things). -- They had discovered Mr. Slippery's True Name and it was Roger Andrew Pollack TIN/SSAN 0959-34-2861, and no amount of evasion, tricky programming, or robot sources could ever again protect him from them.
Amateurs suck (was [snip] (was Re: 69/8...this [degenerate linguistic usage elided))
You mean to say that you wasted everyone's time (although I suspect that many already filter you out, with cause) and energy to spout this nonsense? I had to go back and find what on earth the degenerate linguistic usage elided referred to. As you can see, I figured it out. I apologize ahead of time to Susan, to save her the private scolding that otherwise would almost certainly be headed my way. That said, you sir, are a fool. Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 20:58:50 -0500, Vivien M. wrote: I wonder if perhaps a solution would be doing something I saw a gentleman from China, IIRC, do on this list quite a while ago. He had added (Mr.) to his .sig to make it easy for people to figure out his gender. Perhaps this would be an easyish way to somewhat-subtly warn people of the correct gender? Female personal-status-specific honorifics (Miss, Mrs.) used to be essential elements of any signature block, at least for written correspondence, in the days when persons honored one another. Lack of such an honorific implied not female. Now it's just 'Hi $first_name'. I'm glad I'm on the way out. Puh-leeze. Does this mean that anyone female ought to let you know ahead of time, because otherwise they're male? Perhaps you are implying that the first name basis of some folk is offensive to you (trust me, if the phrase this sucks is offensive to you, you don't want to hang out in a router room). Maybe I misunderstand. Perhaps you mean that we should all put our important titles and other status-signifying characteristics in our signature blocks so that everyone will know how important we are (or not). I know some Ph.D. folk, but unlike you, they don't consider it an integral part of their name (except Dr. Mudge, but that's another story, and it's over anyway). Oh, I could go on, but I won't. How's this for degenerate linguistic usage? *plonk* -- Traceroute is a disconcertingly blunt hammer; that we continue to use it to essentially nail moving jello to a wall says more about us than about anything on the Internet. k claffy (at 8:43 -0700 10/17/02 on NANOG)
Re: Symantec detected Slammer worm hours before
Sean Donelan wrote: Wow, Symantec is making an amazing claim. They were able to detect the slammer worm hours before. Did anyone receive early alerts from Symantec about the SQL slammer worm hours earlier? Academics have estimated the worm spread world-wide, and reached its maximum scanning rate in less than 10 minutes. I am still of the belief that it was released in direct reaction to the worldwide message from Bill Gates [EMAIL PROTECTED], entitled Security in a Connected World, and sent to all sorts of people who NEVER asked to be on his silly list (me, for example). My timestamp for the email says: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:06:50 (PST, give or take a few). H, how close in time to the appearance of the worm that is... I can just picture the annoyance of the worm author, who then said to himself I'll show him security all righty. Perhaps it was something he'd been working on the night before. It wasn't that complex, after all, and really not destructive, if you don't count the annoyance factor. Just the same, I've had my excitement for the year, I don't really want to see another. Bill? If you're out there, don't send out any more unsolicited newsletters, ok? -- Open source should be about giving away things voluntarily. When you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking.-- Larry Wall
Re: How to secure the Internet in three easy steps
Sameer R. Manek wrote: Paul Vixie wrote: Sean Donelan wrote: I didn't make any of these up. They've all been proposed by serious, well-meaning people. i recommend caution with your choice of words. apparently not everyone treats well meaning as the compliement that it is. I forget what they paved the road to hell with Good intentions. -- Only the mediocre are always at their best. Jean Giraudoux
Re: More federal management of key components of the Internet needed
Alan Hannan wrote: I don't understand how giving the US federal government management control of key components of the Internet will make it more secure. It worked for airline security. Sure, searching Ray Charles makes me feel much safer. Asking me whether any one helped me packed my bags or handed me a package always shows whether or not I should be trusted to get on the plane. Stopping a little boy from taking on a toy with a 1 inch long gun makes me feel safer too. These are the same people who can't be trusted to make sure that your luggage flies the same flight you do. Puh-leeze. There is not one single thing that goes on in airport security that contributes one whit to actual security. ...and surely you aren't suggesting that you want those same people to run the root servers. I'm just glad they aren't all in the US (so that there can be no preemptive strike by some poser-crazed congress critter). -- Only the mediocre are always at their best. Jean Giraudoux
Really, really, really off topic, but (was Re: Security Practices question)
John M. Brown wrote: I have question for the security community on NANOG. I confess that I think of NANOG as not being a security community, rather it is a group of north american network operators. That said, you can find all sorts of info for the somewhat naive question below by a slightly judicious use of our friend, Google. That said, and since I'm avoiding work that I SHOULD be doing, I will answer your Important question. What is your learned opinion of having host accounts (unix machines) with UID/GID of 0:0 This shows a certain naiveté, and suggests that you have not heard of truly useful tools such as sudo. If it's UNIX, sudo builds. Why is this a bad thing? The first number in your password entry implies USER. Not users. There is simply no way to tell which of many multiples of people might have made a change in your system, since the UID is the same for all. otherwords jmbrown_r:password:0:0:John M. Brown:/export/home/jmbrown:/bin/mysh I also truly hope that this was just a quick copy by you, and that you are not truly discussing a system here that allows the password file to actually contain the password. Please tell me that your password file is at least shadowed, and that was just a typo. The argument is that way you don't hav to give out the root password, you can just nuke a users UID=0 equiv account when the leave and not have to change the real root account. I will also supply you with a bit of advice, one that I see even using SSH over the network to my own machines: Don't login as root, use su Now, don't flame me over the question, but provide valid pro's or con's for this practice from your experience. There are no positive aspects to this practice. I suggest that you get the wonderful red book (now colored purple, last I recall) by Evi Nemeth et al, and study it thoroughly. I now return you to the discussion on (wireless and other) security, how much is too much, and so on. -- ...some sort of steganographic chaffing and winnowing scheme already exists in practice right here: I frequently find myself having to sort through large numbers of idiotic posts to find the good ones. -- Rufus Faloofus
Re: IP address fee??
Tony Tauber wrote: On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:36:27PM -0400, Derek Samford wrote: Shane, There is a practice on that (At least here.). Generally we provide a Class C to our customers at no additional charge, but we have Why in this day and age, 9 years after the invention of CIDR, are we still refering to class C's? At least as importantly, why do 254 addresses get provided where the actual need might not warrant that quantity? Because it's easier to do the reverse DNS? Sorry to contribute to the general noise, but that answer's close to the truth. -- ...some sort of steganographic chaffing and winnowing scheme already exists in practice right here: I frequently find myself having to sort through large numbers of idiotic posts to find the good ones. -- Rufus Faloofus
Re: NANOG25 - MRTG Stats for Hotel Network
Simon Lockhart wrote: On Mon Jun 10, 2002 at 07:24:52AM -0400, Susan Harris wrote: Randy, please talk with me before posting any more messages. I appreciate that this was a mis-post, but it does raise the question of whether the NANOG list is an open forum or not... Considering the LARGE number of messages that are posted here that are truly non-operational (such as whether certain people have connectivity on their DSL line), I suspect that Susan was far more concerned with the slashdot effect of a bazillion people going to look at the bandwidth link (for the hotel router) that Randy had posted. I think you are reading too much into the original post. If the issue is with meeting messages being on the main NANOG list, can I suggest setting up a seperate mailing list for NANOG meeting attendees, where non-operational content can be posted? I hope not. I imagine that one of the niceties for those not attending is listening in on the exchanges. At least someone's having a good time. -- Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Benjamin Franklin
