On 03/26/02, Jim Popovitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Somehow eTrade's following response didn't make it to the list. I think
> it's important enough to resubmit it given the erroneous info posted
> earlier.
[ . . . ]
> This e-mail is the property of E*TRADE Group, Inc. It is intended only
Somehow eTrade's following response didn't make it to the list. I think
it's important enough to resubmit it given the erroneous info posted
earlier.
-Jim P.
-Original Message-
From: David Rickling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:02 PM
To: 'LeBlanc, Jason'; '
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> >I was also given a copy of a book by Lao Tze before the monk was
> >chased off by aggressive chanters and bongo-drummers from a rival sect.
> >Central London is weird.
>
> I think in business they should rather be reading Sun Tzu.
The guys around
At 07:58 PM 3/26/2002 -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:31:52PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> >Are we talking AS_Path attributes here? If so, all this means
>> >is that now we don't announce OTHER BACKBONE routes to C&W/EXODUS,
>> >which we probably we
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:58:40 -0500
> From: Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In my experience, the odds of any given path sucking are far
> greater than the odds of that path going away. Therefore I
> would rather have one path which doesn't suck than two paths
> which may.
!
rou
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 07:31:52PM -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> >Are we talking AS_Path attributes here? If so, all this means
> >is that now we don't announce OTHER BACKBONE routes to C&W/EXODUS,
> >which we probably weren't doing anyway.
>
> Actually, it also mean a reduction in the
At 02:04 PM 3/26/2002 -0800, Sean M. Doran wrote:
>
>
>| This isn't something I really care to make a big argument of, but my point
>| was that for many ISPs, the path will go from:
>|
>|SELF - EXODUS
>|
>| to:
>|
>|SELF - OTHER BACKBONE - C&W
>|
>| for a net increase in avera
Did I miss something or did my email get subscribed to the wrong list
somewhere?!
Steve
(no wise words.. except maybe never eat yellow snow.. worth remembering,
could save your life one day..)
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Sean M. Doran wrote:
>
>
> Three men are portrayed sipping a ladle filled f
> The "universal service" requirement is governmental protection for
> the incumbent.
Wrong answer again. The reason the majority of natural monopolies were
established was the prolifiration of non-compatible systems.
> Or are you suggesting that the requirement for universal service is natura
The "universal service" requirement is governmental protection for
the incumbent. Or are you suggesting that the requirement for
universal service is natural, rather than regulatory?
Monopolies (there is nothing natural about them) are normal
only when they are socially established and maintain
> (If the former, tell all the politicos you can to stop protecting
> local-loop monopolists!)
Another case of a person thinking that business 101 does not apply to them -
repeat after me "Natural monopolies are normal in cerain environments, where
univeral service is required". Majority of thos
| Okay, okay, when is someone going to start posting as "Dean S. Moran?"
It is unnecessary, for I am a self-parody.
Sean.
("Moron" is funnier btw)
| This isn't something I really care to make a big argument of, but my point
| was that for many ISPs, the path will go from:
|
|SELF - EXODUS
|
| to:
|
|SELF - OTHER BACKBONE - C&W
|
| for a net increase in average path length.
Are we talking AS_Path attributes here? If so, all this m
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:56:39 -0500 (EST)
> From: batz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(snip)
> Nimda and CodeRed were excellent indicators of how a good
> security policy can be a competetive edge during (increasingly common)
> global incidents. Hopefully we will see more security folks pressing
> th
Three men are portrayed sipping a ladle filled from a vat of vinegar.
One makes a sour face, because the de-peering policy flies in the face
of what is proper and conventional -- abandoning the ancient ritual
of zero-fee peering for small networks runs contrary to Confucianism.
Another makes a b
> -Original Message-
> From: LeBlanc, Jason
>
> What eBay does as a business is of little consequence to me, as a network
> engineer, though it seems they make pretty good decisions based on things
> I've seen in three years here. That "fact" came from someone who
> worked for them in At
Okay, okay, when is someone going to start posting as "Dean S. Moran?"
-Bill
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> In general, as companies and backbones merge and eliminate "old" ASNs, that
> would reduce the overall AS path length.
This isn't something I really care to make a big argument of, but my point
was that for many ISPs, the path will go f
Title: RE: How to get better security people
A
knowledgeable investor would ask your HR department a few
questions:
1.
Which half of the resume do you believe?
2. Is
it really more economical to ignore half your talent than spend a little
checking resumes?
3.
What does it say about y
At 10:40 PM 3/26/2002 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>At 11:49 AM 26-03-02 -0800, Sean M. Doran wrote:
>
>>the Invisible Hand said you should talk to the face instead. Go figure.
>>
>>A monk I met on the street, however, said: "Even stupid companies can make
>>smart decisions sometimes, the troub
to end, the latency should improve. The majors/tier1s like AT&T, UUnet,
Genuity and C&W provide SLAs "end-to-end" *within* their ASN. They control
the pipes, they know what they can take and they don't have to worry about
some overloaded peering link. So as consolidation takes place, we should
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> And qualifications should never outnumber instances of hands on
> experience, what good is an academic with little knowledge in the field!
Finally, people who agree with me.
How many management personnel are out there who don't have degrees? Very
At 10:18 AM 26-03-02 -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > You mean Exodus are well connected and C&W limit themselves which gives
> > longer paths and increased latency.
>
>Longer paths definitely, increased jitter probably, increased late
At 11:49 AM 26-03-02 -0800, Sean M. Doran wrote:
>the Invisible Hand said you should talk to the face instead. Go figure.
>
>A monk I met on the street, however, said: "Even stupid companies can make
>smart decisions sometimes, the trouble is that you can only tell in hindsight
>whether the cho
It's also a matter of the market being saturated with
unemployed people with paper certs, genuine competence,
and some with both. The company I worked for sold out
5 months ago - I too have been looking ever since.
I've made it a point to ask the recruiters/companies
how much interest they've
Title: RE: How to get better security people
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 2:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: How to get better security people
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
:If I was looking for top security talent, what would I ask for whether
:I was hiring directly or outsourcing? Do I want a bunch of ex-miltary,
:ex-law enforcement, ex-banker, lots of certifications (CISSP, GIAC) none
:of which have existed for 10 years,
On Mar 26, 2:15pm, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Subject: Re: How to get better security people
*
*On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Tony Wasson wrote:
*> >> If I was looking for top security talent, what would I ask for whether
*> >> I was hiring directly or outsourcing?
*>
*> I agree with Steve Wilcox, incidents a
the Invisible Hand said you should talk to the face instead. Go figure.
A monk I met on the street, however, said: "Even stupid companies can make
smart decisions sometimes, the trouble is that you can only tell in hindsight
whether the choices made were the right ones".
I was also given a cop
| The problem right now is if you advertise for a job, you will get
| blasted with literally tens of thousands of resumes. What should I
| be telling the HR department to look for?
New careers.
Sean.
> -Original Message-
>
> AS3561 (InternetMCI) was once the number 1 ISP, by almost every
> measure that existed. The marketplace has not been kind to C&W
> since they bought AS3561. Why isn't Adam Smith's Invisible Hand
> rewarding C&W? Is C&W number 5 or 6 these days?
I think all th
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Sean M. Doran wrote:
> Only in the minds of people who are lied to by Exodus's detractors.
>
> I just spoke with the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace, and it
> signed (in BSL, so the translation may be off) the following:
AS3561 (InternetMCI) was once the number 1 ISP, by a
What eBay does as a business is of little consequence to me, as a network
engineer, though it seems they make pretty good decisions based on things
I've seen in three years here. That "fact" came from someone who worked for
them in Atlanta, was merely an idle comment meant to share a bit of
info
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Tony Wasson wrote:
> >> If I was looking for top security talent, what would I ask for whether
> >> I was hiring directly or outsourcing?
>
> I agree with Steve Wilcox, incidents are important. I would ask for a
> description of the 3 most interesting incidents they've ever w
> -Original Message-
> From: LeBlanc, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On that note, Etrade layed off their entire net sec team a few
> months back. I don't trade there no more. ;)
Let me guess, eBay is moving into securities trading next Your "facts"
about eTrade are wrong, very wrong
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 01:40:49PM -0500, Chris Woodfield wrote:
>
> From the sound of things, it seems that C&W might have been better off migrating
> AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)
I'm sure the C&W money people think othervise ...
/Jesper
--
Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skri
| Won't this just increase the distance and AS count for Exodus outbound traffic,
| making Exodus hosting even less desirable?
Only in the minds of people who are lied to by Exodus's detractors.
I just spoke with the Invisible Hand of the Marketplace, and it
signed (in BSL, so the translation m
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:20:02 + (GMT)
> From: Stephen J. Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On another angle, if enough people refuse to take C&W routes
> from transit preferring only peering nar, thats a
> conspiracy! Good plan tho.
But if provider X becomes undesirable, I'd expect peopl
> From the sound of things, it seems that C&W might have been better off migrating
> AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)
I think that's what C&W's engineering group thinks is happening. :-/
I will say that C&W maintains a good backbone internally, even if it's
pretty constr
>From the sound of things, it seems that C&W might have been better off migrating
AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)
I am assuming that the reasons it's not happening like this are much more political
than technical.
-C
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:18:04AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wro
Surely you're looking for someone who can tell you what they are trying to
protect from ie hacking, DoS, DDoS and how and why that is a security
problem..
Then I guess you want them to have had sufficient experience to know how
the different security products address these issues.
No other majo
> Will the members of the oligopoly lose interest in maintaining
> decent peering, simply saying "you could reach us fine if you
> bought transit from us"?
There's an FCC report on "The Digital Handshake: Connecting Internet
Backbones" at
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OPP/working_papers/oppwp32
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Avleen Vig wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, LeBlanc, Jason wrote:
> > On that note, Etrade layed off their entire net sec team a few months back.
> > I don't trade there no more. ;)
>
> Fewer and fewer companies are paying attention to network security with
> the right mindset.
> On the other hand, this could help balance traffic ratios, and make more
> people qualify for peering with CW. Well probably not, considering their
> requirements include winners like this:
>
> A. The applicant shall consistently announce at least 5000 routes to
> AS3561 (way to encou
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> You mean Exodus are well connected and C&W limit themselves which gives
> longer paths and increased latency.
Longer paths definitely, increased jitter probably, increased latency
probably, increased loss possibly.
C&W obviously have
> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:47:57 -0500 (EST)
> From: Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Since Exodus is mostly a webhoster, do they have an asymetric
> traffic flow. Isn't bulk of the bandwidth is outbound from
> Exodus. Won't this just increase the distance and AS count for
> Exodus outbound
You mean Exodus are well connected and C&W limit themselves which gives
longer paths and increased latency.
I guess its obvious to us this is bad, but the thing the C&W bosses are
relying on is that it wont be bad enough for Joe Public to notice, and I
very much doubt they will notice :/
Wonde
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> Average path lengths increase, the consumer loses.
>
Not to mention Exodus customers.
allan
--
Allan Liska
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.allan.org
It is a free market and they can do anything they want.
If you have 5000 routes, and OC48c backbone and 3 OC3s worth of traffic at
a 2:1 ratio; peering with C&W is a snap.
It clearly improved the ability of new players to enter the market for the
FCC to aprove the transfer of MCI Internet asses
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Chris Flores wrote:
>
> Should be interesting to see how this impacts the ability to reach
> sites hosted at Exodus.
>
>
> nothing complicated. just means you will utilize a transit provider to reach
> Exodus hosted sites instead of direct public peer. unless you privately
I wrote:
> Of course there's little point in maintaining an overlay network with the
> same AS and separate peering.
^^^
I meant "different AS".
-Bill
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> I'm presuming that Exodus is planning to get the transit they need after this
> depeering via C&W's peering points? If so, this makes a certain amount of sense
- no
> need to maintain separate peering circuits.
The point isn't that
Chris,
You are right.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Chris Woodfield wrote:
>
> I'm presuming that Exodus is planning to get the transit they need after this
> depeering via C&W's peering points? If so, this makes a certain amount of sense - no
Looking at Exodus Route Server you will see that they are n
Should be interesting to see how this impacts the ability to reach
sites hosted at Exodus.
nothing complicated. just means you will utilize a transit provider to reach
Exodus hosted sites instead of direct public peer. unless you privately peer
with C&W. the bottom line - it will now cost you
I'm presuming that Exodus is planning to get the transit they need after this
depeering via C&W's peering points? If so, this makes a certain amount of sense - no
need to maintain separate peering circuits; this is probably just a step in the
eventual assimilation of Exodus' IP backbone into C
Well, another round of the depeering battles.
We received notice this morning that Exodus is depeering at all US public
exchanges on Friday ( gotta love that notice by the way ). They are
also not accepting any requests for private peering ( despite meeting
the requirements still listed on the
> I don't know where you get your information, but E*Trade hasn't laid-off
> their network security department. In fact, we're currently adding to it.
> I know there are some good network security experts on this list so if
> you're looking for a position then send your resume my way.
Or to me
Jason,
I don't know where you get your information, but E*Trade hasn't laid-off
their network security department. In fact, we're currently adding to it.
I know there are some good network security experts on this list so if
you're looking for a position then send your resume my way.
Jay Field
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, LeBlanc, Jason wrote:
> On that note, Etrade layed off their entire net sec team a few months back.
> I don't trade there no more. ;)
Fewer and fewer companies are paying attention to network security with
the right mindset. They all want peopl who have been in the field fo
On that note, Etrade layed off their entire net sec team a few months back.
I don't trade there no more. ;)
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 7:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: How to get better security people
>
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:13:08 EST, "Steven M. Bellovin" said:
> There are worms out there (such as Nimda.E) that use Outlook address books
> not just for lists of victims, but also as "From:" addresses. In other
> words, your involvement might be having sent email to someone else who
> is infect
### On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:14:11 -0500, "Chris Pace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
### casually decided to expound upon "Jake Khuon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the
### following thoughts about "Re: Route Collector ":
CP> Yes, it is forwarding bgp routes. However, it has no serial lines connected.
CP> Do you thin
Yes, it is forwarding bgp routes. However, it has no serial lines connected.
Do you think it is causing unnecessary traffic ?
Thanks
- Original Message -
From: "Jake Khuon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Chris Pace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Todd Suiter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In message <011301c1d4ad$b5676f10$2028a8c0@carpenter>, "Peter Galbavy" writes:
>
>OK - As a knowledgeable bunch, maybe you lot can give me pointers.
>
>A customer / friend phoned me last night saying that I sent him a virus by
>e-mail. Now, I am far more careful than that - at least I hope. It tu
### On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:50:44 -0500, "Chris Pace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
### casually decided to expound upon "Todd Suiter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> the
### following thoughts about "Route Collector":
CP> Is it common or a good idea to have a route collector in a
CP> datacenter/enterprise environment
Is it common or a good idea to have a route collector in a
datacenter/enterprise environment ? We have 1 router that just collects
routes using bgp and ospf, then set all servers to use it as the default
gateway. Is this practical or am I making more work for myself ?
Chris Pace
OK - As a knowledgeable bunch, maybe you lot can give me pointers.
A customer / friend phoned me last night saying that I sent him a virus by
e-mail. Now, I am far more careful than that - at least I hope. It turned
out that it wasn't me, but a forgery. Now, that is not unusual, but what is
that
67 matches
Mail list logo
