Re: Contact for va.gov
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote: > Yes, two in one day. Wholesalers don't wipe device configs, apparently. > > Anyways, would a technical contact for va.gov please contact me off-list? > > Best Regards, > Nathan Eisenberg > Is tracking down the original user and letting them know about the config leak a standard practice, necessary or "the right thing to do"? I've always just wiped flash and carried on.
Re: IPv6
Good to know about TWT, and yes, I know that TWT != TWC... Figured it was a good datapoint considering the concurrent discussion of providers charging for v6... On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > > TW Telecom, Not Time Warner Cable. And TW Telecom already told me it was a > simple change order with a NRC of 25.00 > Haven't talked to cogent about it yet. > > Nick Olsen > Network Operations > (855) FLSPEED x106 > > > > ________ > From: "Jon Auer" > Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 5:19 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: IPv6 > > Technically it was a non-event. > Layer 8 wise, they refused to turn up IPv6 without a renewal or new order. > > Time Warner Cable is demanding a new order and additional costs to support V6. > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > > Curious as to who is running IPv6 with TW Telecom or Cogent. > > I'm wanting to turn up native IPv6 with them, And wanted to hear > > thoughts/experiences. > > I assume it should be a "non-event". We've already got a prefix from arin > > that we are going to announce. > > > > Nick Olsen > > Network Operations > > (855) FLSPEED x106 > > > > > > > > >
Re: IPv6
Technically it was a non-event. Layer 8 wise, they refused to turn up IPv6 without a renewal or new order. Time Warner Cable is demanding a new order and additional costs to support V6. On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Nick Olsen wrote: > Curious as to who is running IPv6 with TW Telecom or Cogent. > I'm wanting to turn up native IPv6 with them, And wanted to hear > thoughts/experiences. > I assume it should be a "non-event". We've already got a prefix from arin > that we are going to announce. > > Nick Olsen > Network Operations > (855) FLSPEED x106 > > > >
Re: ISP port blocking practice
> With all the different webmail systems, it seems unlikely to me (though I > definitely wouldn't say impossible) that bots are spamming through your > webmail (unless you work for gmail, hotmail, etc. and are an attractive > enough target that it made sense to code a bot to automate utilizing your > webmail interface). Bots being used as proxies seems far more likely to me > for the general case of "bots" spamming through an ISP's webmail. > Many providers and hosts use the same webmail packages so the work to automate is a bit lower than one might think. We have seen bots sending spam using our squirrelmail and roundcube webmail using credentials gleaned from phishing activity.
Re: Best VPN Appliance
If you can use 3rd party VPN clients the ShrewSoft IPSec client on Windows 7 works great with Cisco concentrators. http://www.shrew.net/software On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Blomberg, Orin P (DOH) wrote: > There is also the fact to consider that Cisco has said there will be no > support for Windows 64-bit on their IPSEC client, they are pushing > people to the AnyConnect (An SSL-based clientless IPSEC) who want to use > Windows 64-bit or other OSs, so in the future the argument for having a > separate box for client-based IPSEC will be moot. > > Orin > > -Original Message- > From: Stefan Fouant [mailto:sfou...@shortestpathfirst.net] > Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:29 AM > To: Voll, Toivo; Chris Campbell; Dawood Iqbal > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Best VPN Appliance > > Toivo, > > The SA Series absolutely supports IPsec if you are using Network > Connect. It defaults to using IPsec and if that is not supported then > it will fall back to SSL. Of course, NC is not as secure as W-SAM, > J-SAM, or Core Access in terms of role and resource granularity control > but the support for IPsec is absolutely there. > > HTHs. > > Stefan Fouant > --Original Message-- > From: Voll, Toivo > To: Chris Campbell > To: Dawood Iqbal > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: RE: Best VPN Appliance > Sent: Mar 8, 2010 11:56 AM > > We're generally happy with our Juniper SA6500s, but they, and a lot of > the other SSL VPN vendor appliances will not support IPSec. Cisco's ASA > does, but it's less feature-rich in the SSL VPN arena. The Juniper was > the most mature and flexible of all the offerings we looked at, but also > the most expensive, and it's not perfect either. > > Having migrated from Cisco's 3000 series appliances, the current SSL > VPNs are a totally different mindset and about two orders of magnitude > more complicated. Have a very good understanding of exactly what problem > you're trying to solve with the product and what kind of policies and > requirements you have to meet, or it's going to be a mess. I can answer > more specific questions on our experiences and testing off-list. > > -- > Toivo Voll > University of South Florida > Information Technology Communications > > > > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Campbell [mailto:chris.campb...@nebulassolutions.com] > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 11:36 AM > To: Dawood Iqbal > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Best VPN Appliance > > The Juniper SA is by far and away the market leader and in my opinion > the best end user experience. > > On 5 Mar 2010, at 15:57, Dawood Iqbal wrote: > >> Hello All, >> >> >> >> Is it possible to get your ideas on what VPN appliances are good to > have in >> enterprise network? >> >> >> >> Requirements are; >> >> SSL >> >> IPSec >> >> Client and Web VPN support (Win/MAC/iPhone/Android) >> >> If webvpn is used, then when any user connects via webvpn, we should > be able >> to re-direct him to any and ONLY specific application i.e SAP. >> >> If 2 boxes are installed then they should replicate data seamlessly. >> >> >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> dI >> > > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > >
Re: cisco.com
See: https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/outages/2009-August/001386.html I do not have a route to that IP (198.133.219.25) in BGP either.. On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:34 AM, R. Benjamin Kessler wrote: > Hey Gang - > > I'm unable to get to cisco.com from multiple places on the 'net > (including downforeveryoneorjustme.com); any ideas on the cause and ETR? > > Thanks, > > Ben > > >
