NetBSD as a TimeCapsule?
Use avahi.
kernel.org dns broken
I can't resolve anything for kernel.org from Verizon's 3G network, or from HE in California. I'm using HE's nameservers, with Google's as a backup. Neither of them have any records. Anyone know what's up? -- FT3(SU) Byron Grobe, USN
Berkely Netalyzr for IPv6/IPv4 testing (Was: Yahoo and IPv6)
Disable the firewall and try again or all results are worthless.
HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?
Please note, I'm not arguing against fixing the problem. I just think we should show each other some professional respect, and use some manners.
HIJACKED: 159.223.0.0/16 -- WTF? Does anybody care?
This OT, and for those of you with virgin ears, don't read more. This is specifically to Ronald: Maybe, if you didn't act like a flaming douchebag, and were polite to people, they would be more interested in helping you out. Learn to use some fucking manners. Every single message I've seen from you has been condescending. I agree, this entire situation and situations like it are fucked up. That doesn't give you the right to start demanding answers from people, and in general treating everyone else like we are your personal servants, and are responsible for making sure your every whim is carried out. That being said, I'm probably going to get banned for that, but I feel it needed to be said. Grobe
i386 home firewall/router/nat bottleneck diagnostics?
I have a four or five of 'em I don't use. If anyone needs one, I'll mail it, just contact me off list.
gmail issues ?
Odd. I haven't had any problems at all.
Sunday Funnies: Using a smart phone as a diagnostic tool
I use Android phones, mostly for remote administration. SSH using ConnectBot. If you want a really durable phone, with the option of a little bit of additional functionality, I would take a Motorola Droid 1, throw CyanogenMod on it with a p3droid kernel. The phone itself can survive 3ft falls @ 30 mph (proven myself on accident), the keyboard is very useable, and overall is an amazing phone. You can also use a fair number of command line tools, and add your own statically compiled tools, or dynamically compiled with a bit more work. On Feb 27, 2011 9:03 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: Do you have a smartphone? Blackberry? iPhone? Android? Do you use it as a technical tool in your work, either for accessing devices or testing connectivity -- or something else? If so, what kind of phone, and what (if you don't mind letting on) are your magic apps for this sort of work? (My motivation? Well, um, Lee, I'm looking at buying an HTC Thunderbolt, if everyone can get their thumbs out, and I want to get a feeling for the lanscape, if you'll pardon the pun. :-) Cheers, -- jra
pf not redirecting packets
I did indeed. I found an error in the file I attatched, but fixing it made no difference. Remove quick from 'block in on wm0' On Feb 9, 2011 2:00 PM, bart sikkes b.sik...@gmail.com wrote: if NAT works it probably isn't this, but who knows, did you turn packet forwarding on? net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 bart On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Atticus grobe...@gmail.com wrote: Okay, so maybe I'm just retar...
802.11g with WPA-PSK
Im not familiar with wpa_supplicant, but you can preface external commands to execute in ifconfig.* with ! On Feb 6, 2011 1:08 PM, Andrew Ball ab...@students.prairiestate.edu wrote: Hello, I have a NetBSD host that I would like to connect to an existing wireless LAN using a rum(4) interface (Belkin F5D7050B USB 802.11g adaptor). I have tried configuring wpa_supplicant via rc.conf but it does not seem to start and I don't know why. Is there some other way to launch wpa_supplicant, perhaps via ifconfig.rum0? - Andy Ball
Request Spamhaus contact
They /are/ focusing on a provider that doesnt respond to complaints. On Jan 17, 2011 9:20 PM, Jeffrey Lyon jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net wrote: I've already stated that i'm having the server powered down. What else do you people want? Why not focus your energy on the providers who are NOT responding to complaints? Jeff On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Mark Scholten m...@streamservice.nl wrote: -Original ... -- Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team jeffrey.l...@blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net Black Lotus Co...
BGP Attribute 92 ?
I'm not a network engineer, I merely subscribe to NANOG for interesting things that come across for me to learn about. That being said, I find it hard to take someone seriously who doesn't know how to write using proper English with words capatalized and punctuation, etc. I also saw noone taking the BGP attribute 92 stuff personally. Not to mention, anything that can disturb services uptime warrants at least a Sorry guys, my bad. Without a forewarning, its not exactly a wild assumption to think it could have been an attack. I believe I remember a thread from a while back about the same attribute messing a lot of Cisco products up. I also don't see anyone else resorting to foul language to get their point across. Mayhaps I'm out of line for sending this, and just needed to vent. If I've offended anyone, I appologize. Sent from my Motorola Droid. On Dec 19, 2010 1:17 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
[no subject]
Cc
Re: Wake on LAN in the enterprise
Appologies to all that got a quote email from me. My phone decided to pocket-reply to you.
Re: Mystery open source switching company claims top-of-rack price edge (was Re: Pica8 - Open Source Cloud Switch)
What interests me is that they can't even be bothered to set up their own mail server, or at the very least to use Google Apps for mail.
Re: Facebook Issues/Outage in Southeast?
Forgot to CC my last reply. Managed to load over v6 once, then shot me the finger and said no more. Somebody forget to pay the internet bill this month? -- Byron Grobe
Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the
numeric range. As for only needing port 80, I'm not really sure where
you've been for the last decade or so. There's are hundreds of services
using different ports, and tunneling them all makes absolutely no sense.
Yes, we don't really need 65k ports, but stealing bits in the header from
them is the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.
List of registered ports: http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers
http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbersAlso take into account public
access *nix servers, with people running their own services on whatever port
they've taken or been assigned. How do you intend to implement a solution
for that? Give public access servers the middle finger and keep on going?
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Tom Limoncelli t...@whatexit.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 4:17 PM, William Pitcock
neno...@systeminplace.net wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:50 -0400, Steven King wrote:
I am very curious to see how this would play with networks that
wouldn't support such a technology. How would you ensure communication
between a network that supported 33-Bit addressing and one that doesn't?
33-bit is a fucking retarded choice for any addressing scheme as it's
neither byte nor nibble-aligned. Infact, the 33rd bit would ensure that
an IPv4 header had to have 5 byte addresses.
33 bits nearly as useful as my proposal to extend the live of IPv4 by
simply using the unused addresses. What unused addresses do I speak
of? Currently the highest IP address is 255.255.255.255. Well, why
not use the addresses from 256 to 999? IP addresses could go all the
way to 999.999.999.999 and still be 3-digits per octet.
We wouldn't even have to modify much code. How many times have you
see a perl script that uses \d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3}\.\d{1,3} as the
regular expression for matching IP addresses? Tons of code assumes 3
digits per octet. None of that would have to change.
We can get a few more bits another way. Why not steal bits from the
port number? We used to think we needed 64k different ports.
However, now we really only need port 80. Instant Message tunnels
over port 80, so does nearly every important new protocol. Why not
just reclaim those bits and use them for addresses? Instant address
extension!
Tom
:-) --- indicates humor or sarcasm (in case you weren't sure)
--
http://EverythingSysadmin.com -- my blog
http://www.TomOnTime.com -- my advice
--
Byron Grobe
Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the numeric range. As for only needing port 80, I'm not really sure where you've been for the last decade or so. There's are hundreds of services using different ports, and tunneling them all makes absolutely no sense. Yes, we don't really need 65k ports, but stealing bits in the header from them is the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet. List of registered ports: http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbersAlso take into account public access *nix servers, with people running their own services on whatever port they've taken or been assigned. How do you intend to implement a solution for that? Give public access servers the middle finger and keep on going? -- Byron Grobe -- Byron Grobe
Re: 33-Bit Addressing via ONE bit or TWO bits ? does NANOG care?
I (unfortunately) cannot get native IPv6 from my ISP at this time, but do have several tunnels set up using Hurricane Electric's excellent tunnel brokerage service. All my local systems are dual-stack, my public access server has a routed /48 that I use to broker my own tunnels for devices (like my Motorola Droid cell phone). IPv6 is the future, and it is coming. As Valdis said, why try to extend the life of an effectively dead technology, and an inferior one at that. With IPSec compliance integrated into the protocol itself, and the hundreds of other benefits, why try to morph an old technology? In with the new, out with the old. IPv4 is very soon to be a completely dead beast, and we'll be all the better for it. This is the age of the internet, everything is interconnected. There is no possible way for v4 to keep up with the growth of this era. On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:55 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 23:45:03 EDT, Atticus said: What world do live in? Yes, we extend the life of IPv4 by increasing the numeric range. As for only needing port 80, I'm not really sure where you've been for the last decade or so. I hate to say this, but all of you who are actually thinking about stealing bits from IPv4 headers when IPv6 is already here: Look who started the ONE bit or TWO bits thread. YHBT. HAND. ;) -- Byron Grobe
