### 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 ? We have
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]
Sent:
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 infected.
An
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, 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 for
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 if
I'm presuming that Exodus is planning to get the transit they need after this
depeering via CW'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
snip
Should be interesting to see how this impacts the ability to reach
sites hosted at Exodus.
/snip
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 CW. the bottom line - it will now
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 Flores wrote:
snip
Should be interesting to see how this impacts the ability to reach
sites hosted at Exodus.
/snip
nothing complicated. just means you will utilize a transit provider to reach
Exodus hosted sites instead of direct public peer. unless you
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 CW 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
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
From the sound of things, it seems that CW 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
From the sound of things, it seems that CW might have been better off migrating
AS3561 into AS3967, not the other way around ;)
I think that's what CW's engineering group thinks is happening. :-/
I will say that CW maintains a good backbone internally, even if it's
pretty
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:20:02 + (GMT)
From: Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On another angle, if enough people refuse to take CW routes
from transit preferring only peering nar, thats a
conspiracy! Good plan tho.
But if provider X becomes undesirable, I'd expect people to
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 worked
-Original Message-
AS3561 (InternetMCI) was once the number 1 ISP, by almost every
measure that existed. The marketplace has not been kind to CW
since they bought AS3561. Why isn't Adam Smith's Invisible Hand
rewarding CW? Is CW number 5 or 6 these days?
I think all that shows
| 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.
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 copy
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 are
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
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
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 CW limit themselves which gives
longer paths and increased latency.
Longer paths definitely, increased jitter probably, increased latency
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 trouble is that
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
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
Okay, okay, when is someone going to start posting as Dean S. Moran?
-Bill
-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 Atlanta,
to end, the latency should improve. The majors/tier1s like ATT, UUnet,
Genuity and CW 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
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
this
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
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 natural,
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
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.
!
route-map
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 CW/EXODUS,
which we probably weren't doing
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 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 for
37 matches
Mail list logo
