By now, I think it's widely accepted that it really isn't
"oversubscription" or "overselling" until congestion starts becoming an
issue. Up until then it's "statistical multiplexing".
On Tue, 28 May 2002, Brian wrote:
>
> Got to think most customers assume oversubscription. Having been on t
Anyone on the list with ARIN (hopefully in the capacity to deal with
ARIN route registry) who can help out with an out of control auto-reply
from [EMAIL PROTECTED] please contact me off-list. We are getting hammered
with auto-replies at a rate of about 40 messages a minute.
-
Hi,
Does any of you plan to make it to the upcoming Nanog ? If so, please
contact me off list.
thanks,
--Ariel
--
Ariel Biener
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP(6.5.8) public key http://www.tau.ac.il/~ariel/pgp.html
Yeah sorry should have included a disclaimer! My numbers for PSTN were
made up as I dont have any real figures to hand or in my head .. it was
more the analogy I wanted to demonstrate as people seem to understand
aggregation in local exchanges better than bandwidth contention even tho
its the sa
[ On Tuesday, May 28, 2002 at 13:26:37 (-0700), Rowland, Alan D wrote: ]
> Subject: RE: operational: icmp echo out of control?
>
> We had one user report our DNS servers were hacking his system. Knew enought
> to do a whois but didn't have any clue beyond that. :)
IFWs aren't just luzers with
Got to think most customers assume oversubscription. Having been on the
provider end of this in a previous life, how it often goes is like
this. The customer will think/feel they are not getting what they are
paying for. As a result the customer will deliberately try to peg their
ckt at the bw
> > We call them OZZADs and here is how we respond:
>
> Hmm.. 3 people have asked already "What's an OZZAD?" ;)
So I don't have to keep answering this, forwarded to the group:
Over Zealous Zone Alarm Dork
John
Would anyone using Riversoft to monitor a large scale IP network mind
sharing operational experiences?
Please reply off list. If anyone else would care for the same
information, I'd be happy to send (off list) a summary of any responses.
Thanks!
Austin
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Mike Tancsa
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 3:36 PM
To: Jeff Mcadams
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: operational: icmp echo out of control?
[deleted]
The access attempt(s) are shown below, including the d
This might be a dumb question, but I can be sure that I'll be told if
that's the case, so here goes:
What's a good oversubscription ratio for customer traffic to global
Internet bandwidth these days? I.e., if you have, say 90megs of bandwidth
to other transit providers, how much bandwidth, in
On Tue, 28 May 2002 16:16:08 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's common enough that it's got it's own acronym. IWF - Idiot With
> Firewall.
We call them OZZADs and here is how we respond:
http://condor.depaul.edu/~jkristof/technotes/incident-response.html
John
We had one user report our DNS servers were hacking his system. Knew enought
to do a whois but didn't have any clue beyond that. :)
(lots of port 53 activity in the logs every time he surfed the web...)
Best,
-Al
-Original Message-
From: Richard A Steenbergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 28 May 2002 16:01:12 EDT, Richard A Steenbergen said:
> I don't know whats worse, those crappy personal firewalls that make every
> packet look like a life or death assault, or the idiots who send abuse
> email demanding that you do something for them or they will sue and/or
> hax0r you.
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 03:36:08PM -0400, Mike Tancsa wrote:
>
> Jeu 09 mai 2002 15:30:22, Port 3, ICMP, Destination Unreachable
> Jeu 09 mai 2002 15:30:21, Port 3, ICMP, Destination Unreachable
> Jeu 09 mai 2002 15:30:10, Port 3, ICMP, Destination Unreachable
> Jeu 09 mai 2002 1
At 03:21 PM 28/05/2002 -0400, Jeff Mcadams wrote:
>Also sprach E.B. Dreger
> >RAS> be mistaken for a port scan. But for so many network admins,
> >RAS> all they know is "ICMP bad".
>
> >That'll be the day when someone calls abuse saying "I'm being attacked
> >by ICMP unreachables!" ;-)
>
>"That'
Also sprach E.B. Dreger
>RAS> be mistaken for a port scan. But for so many network admins,
>RAS> all they know is "ICMP bad".
>That'll be the day when someone calls abuse saying "I'm being attacked
>by ICMP unreachables!" ;-)
"That'll be..."? Future tense? Hrmm...
--
Jeff McAdams
RAS> Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:43:25 -0400
RAS> From: Richard A Steenbergen
RAS> Theoretically, ICMP Echo should be less intrusive for
RAS> performance measuring since it is clearly only for this
RAS> purpose, whereas doing an actual TCP handshake could easily
And less accurate for asymmetric
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:05:19PM -0400, Chris Woodfield wrote:
> The problem here is that other types of probes raise IDS alarms on way
> too many networks - the next-best method is to probe HTTP ports, but we
> don't want to have to pull down thousands of web pages just to get
> performance s
Chris Woodfield wrote:
>...the next-best method is to probe HTTP ports, but we don't want to
> have to pull down thousands of web pages just to get performance stats.
Why not just passively measure the time it takes to send actual
traffic to actual clients? It shouldn't take too much talent
t
The problem here is that other types of probes raise IDS alarms on way too many
networks - the next-best method is to probe HTTP ports, but we don't want to
have to pull down thousands of web pages just to get performance stats. So,
they send a SYN, wait for the ACK, record the latency and send
We had a minor technical problem during a hardware upgrade. Thank you for
bringing it to our attention. WHOIS is back up and running as normal on
both port 43 and web queries.
Ginny Listman
Director of Engineering
ARIN
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Joe wrote:
>
> Looks like its down, Maintenance?
>
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
