On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:43:42 +, Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> dialup users and get away with it, but that person was VERY busy.
> that ratio only works if the rest of the system is designed to repel
> the professional spammers, [[SNIP]], and instant termination even at
> 4AM on su
After literally YEARS of complaining, I think theres so one alive at bell
south abuse...they're typical bell-spawn...fat, lazy, and un-responsive.
At 07:13 8/29/02 +0100, you wrote:
>Currently seeking an abuse contact for the above domain, or the party
>responsible for netblock that 66.21.84.2
> > How can I recognize someone by doing a portscan?
>
> http://www.insecure.org/nmap
>
> It slices, it dices, it makes julienne fries.
>
> (I'm assuming you mean in the same sense as "you can identify a machine's
> vendor based on the EUI-64..." - neither a portscan or a MAC address will
> tell
Barry Shein wrote:
> Fair enough but let me explain why I find this unsatisfying.
>
> It's like I'm living in a neighborhood where the crime rate is rising
> and rising, and you're "selling" security grates and better locks.
>
> They even seem to keep the crooks out of the bedroom at night for
> What is interesting is that people can identify a EUI-64 unicast
> address no matter where you are. For example, i use my laptop at work
> and at home (assuming I had an ipv6 connection at home). I could be
> identified as the same computer, without using cookies, since my base
> 64 address wo
Hello again -
Many thanks to all those who replied to my request regarding wireless
accounting via radius.
It is obviously fairly early days looking at the replies I received,
with the Cisco being the only unit sending (partially) useful accounting
starts and accounting stops (note that thi
For everyones knowledge yesterdays AT&T outage was not really an outage
but a Route-Reflection FUBAR on their Chicago link.
--
Manolo Hernandez - Network Administrator
Dialtone Internet - Extremely Fast Linux Web Servers
phone://954-581-0097 fax://954-581-7629
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://w
Folks-
A new group within the IRTF has been formed that will focus on
measuring networks. It seems obvious that operators will have some
valuable input into these issues and I would encourage folks to
participate if they can. The announcement (& group charter) are
attached.
allman
--
Mark
Kurtis Lindqvist wrote:
>>
>> What is interesting is that people can identify a EUI-64 unicast
>> address no matter where you are. For example, i use my laptop at work
>> and at home (assuming I had an ipv6 connection at home). I could be
>> identified as the same computer, without using cookies
Since we're on the topic of IPv6, I wanted to gauge the current attitude of
the ops. community toward its deployment. We're seeing a lot more interest
from our enterprise clients in using v6, especially as things like VoIP and
PDAs consume their address pools, and NAT gets in the way of collabor
This is impressive. It's very nice to see a carrier providing this level of
technical analysis to customers after an outage. Many carriers would be
embaressed or try to gloss over what has happened. Sprintlink, in the old
days, was also very good about this. Customers really appreciate honesty an
Hmm. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with just about everything you've
said :) . I haven't seen any enterprise folks demanding v6 - If VOIP and
PDA's (?) use up their IP addresses, they can easily ask for more. The more
you use, the more you get. There is no shortage of v4 space.
China and
Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
Kesva
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Daniel Golding
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 10:57 AM
To: Frank Scalzo; Matt Levine; Mike Tancsa
Cc: Wes Bachman; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Su
Thus spake "Daniel Golding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hmm. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with just about everything you've
> said :) . I haven't seen any enterprise folks demanding v6 - If VOIP and
> PDA's (?) use up their IP addresses, they can easily ask for more. The more
> you use, the more
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.19.html#subj7
> http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.21.html#subj4
>
> There must be a balance. Mistakes happen. How overzealous do you want
> ISP's to be be at shutting off spam sites or accounts? Some might
> consider the costs of mistakes acceptable, but a
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, NAIDOO Kesva FTLD/IAP wrote:
:
:Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
:
Of course, ISIS is no more resilient against the deletion of igp
configuration than OSPF.
cheers,
brian
Mmmm... me too post.
I have to agree with Dan on this. The only people who ask me about
IPv6 are people who have heard something about it from some tech
magazine and want the Newest Thing. Much of its useful functionality
(except the widened address space) is available in v4, and v4 is
deploy
> Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
Link-state protocols are evil, and when they break, they *really* break.
I still do not see a compeling argument for not using BGP as your IGP.
Alex
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:09:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
> Link-state protocols are evil, and when they break, they *really* break.
> I still do not see a compeling argument for not using BGP as your IGP.
Slow convergenc
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:09:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
> > Link-state protocols are evil, and when they break, they *really* break.
> > I still do not see a compeling argu
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 03:07:59PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:09:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
> > > Link-state protocols are evil, and
That's why you configure two. :)
-C
> looking a lot better than configuring 4 more BGP sessions. I've heard
> some people recommend a route-reflector, but that would mean if the
> route-reflector goes down you're screwed.
>
> -Ralph
>
>
msg04911/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:09:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
> > > > Link-state protocols are evil, and when they break, they *really*
break.
> > > > I still do not see a compeling argument for not using BGP a
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Irwin Lazar wrote:
> Since we're on the topic of IPv6, I wanted to gauge the current attitude of
> the ops. community toward its deployment. We're seeing a lot more interest
> from our enterprise clients in using v6,
Yes, we see this too.
This is in addition to the contin
Um. Set up more than one reflector
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:09:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
> > > Link-state prot
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
> Um. Set up more than one reflector
So how many is enough? I would think 3 is a minimum to come close to the
reliability/redundancy of OSPF.
-Ralph
>Um. Set up more than one reflector
yes... and align your setup with your physical topology(so making it
useful);
use other proto for mapping your infra, etc, etc,..
mh
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 a
It depends a lot on your topgraphy. For example, if you have a specific
city/region aggregation center, your redundant boarder routers for that
city are probably also RRs. Those boarders peer with your boarders in
other cities as well as your intra-region routers.
Of course, this is just one w
Yup. I like using OSPF to set up the mesh to the loopbacks and then ibgp
as the IGP.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Michael Hallgren wrote:
> >Um. Set up more than one reflector
>
> yes... and align your setup with your physical topology(so making it
> useful);
> use other proto for mapping your in
Figure out how to do reverse route reflecting.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:46 PM
> To: Robert A. Hayden
> Cc: Peter van Dijk; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: routing architectur
Uhh, come to think of it, the term reverse route reflecting probably
won't get you much help -- client to client route reflecting is probably
an easier term to understand.. My bad.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
> Behalf Of Ralph Doncaster
I personally prefer using IS-IS for loopback/infrastructure routes, and
I use confederations for my IBGP. If a confederation ever gets to large,
I can always add a route-reflector inside the confederation. Ralph, you
have never failed to amaze me with your love for WCP (Worst Current
Practices.)
>
> Yes, it's an gradual trend. We are seeing and increase over time in
> active tunnels and in average traffic per tunnel.
>
Two easy things to drive v6 traffic:
1) switch your NNTP feeds to ipv6
2) put names which resolve to ipv6 addresses in your MX´s
Both of these have little or no operatio
Running two routing protocols is too much of a hassle. I think I would
rather use static routes, and synchronize routers using rsync, diff, and
patch. Our NOC has several 286s running Xenix that could act as servers
for this.
This would eliminate the hassle of running OSPF, ISIS, or RIP. Doe
> Two easy things to drive v6 traffic:
> 1) switch your NNTP feeds to ipv6
> 2) put names which resolve to ipv6 addresses in your MX´s
>
> Both of these have little or no operational hazard. (SMTP fails over to v4
> gracefully)
Driver #1 : Sell p00rn via IPv6 only.
Sad but true. Content and u
I wish this was a joke, but I know it's not.
Ralph, they are talking about running BGP as an IGP, not if they are going
to run BGP at all. Most large carriers run BGP everywhere. They also run an
IGP for next-hop reachability within their networks (loopbacks, interface
/30s, etc). The issue was
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
> Hmm. I'm afraid that I have to disagree with just about everything you've
> said :) . I haven't seen any enterprise folks demanding v6 - If VOIP and
> PDA's (?) use up their IP addresses, they can easily ask for more. The more
> you use, the more you
I hope that in five years I'll be running a Tier 1 and can look back at
my posts and laugh at them. However I hope that nobody else is laughing
at me in the mean time.
-Dalph "Wiggum" Roncaster
Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Derek Samford wrote:
> I personally prefer using IS-IS for loopback/infrastructure routes, and
> I use confederations for my IBGP. If a confederation ever gets to large,
> I can always add a route-reflector inside the confederation. Ralph, you
> have never failed to amaze me
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
>
>> Um. Set up more than one reflector
>
>So how many is enough? I would think 3 is a minimum to come close to the
>reliability/redundancy of OSPF.
>
>-Ralph
My two cents..
BGP beats OSPF in the reliability stakes easily in my experience. I
I wish this was a joke, but I know it's not.
Ralph, they are talking about running BGP as an IGP, not if they are going
to run BGP at all. Most large carriers run BGP everywhere. They also run an
IGP for next-hop reachability within their networks (loopbacks, interface
/30s, etc). The issue was
Ralph,
Okay, no one ever said an IBGP mesh was bad. We were all upset
by the mention of an IGP distributed into an EGP. Let's do a little math
here. The formula for IBGP sessions goes as follows.
n*(n-1)/2
2=1
3=3
4=6
5=10
So you've only got 4 routers? That's fine, 6 sessions is not to
Daniel,
I'm talking about using OSPF as my IGP instead of an iBGP mesh. Even if I
were crazy enough to want to use OSPF as my EGP, there's no transit
provider crazy enough to use OSPF as their EGP to customers (at least that
I know of).
-Ralph
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Daniel Golding wrote:
> Ralp
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Derek Samford wrote:
> Ralph,
> Okay, no one ever said an IBGP mesh was bad. We were all upset
> by the mention of an IGP distributed into an EGP.
Derek,
I think we're both confused now. Your example seems to have nothing to do
with what I'm talking about. I'm curre
daniel, why would you return to that state?
--
dima.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Daniel Golding
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:27 PM
> To: Ralph Doncaster; Peter van Dijk
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: AT&T NYC
>
>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Doncaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ralph> I think we're both confused now. Your example seems to
Ralph> have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm
Ralph> currently using an iBGP mesh in my network, with no OSPF or
Ralph> IS-IS. In
>Driver #1 : Sell p00rn via IPv6 only.
>
>Sad but true. Content and use is all there is.
Remember that multicast never happened either.
How much it would take to "sponsor" free content over multicast to
get it deployed. Don´t know if this would be approvable for government
subsidies though.
Pe
Dmitri,
Absolutely unavoidable. I think it's called Dalph Roncaster's
Law of Impropability.
Derek
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of
> Dmitri Krioukov
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:10 PM
> To: Daniel Golding
> Cc: [EMAIL
Ralph,
It all depends on your application. Will you be peering with
your clients, or planning to at some point. If that router has anything
to do with transit, then you need the BGP tables, as you need to be able
to hold path attributes. Every time you see one of us mention ISIS or
OSPF,
>
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:09:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
> > Link-state protocols are evil, and when they break, they *really* break.
> > I still do not see a compeling argument for not using BGP as your IGP.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:09:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
> > > Link-state protocols are evil, and when they break, they *really* break.
> > > I still do not see a
> From: "Petri Helenius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 00:32:38 +0300
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Remember that multicast never happened either.
> How much it would take to "sponsor" free content over multicast to
> get it deployed. Don´t know if this would be approvable for g
>
> Daniel,
>
> I'm talking about using OSPF as my IGP instead of an iBGP mesh. Even if I
> were crazy enough to want to use OSPF as my EGP, there's no transit
> provider crazy enough to use OSPF as their EGP to customers (at least that
> I know of).
AS7007
ALex
>> Every time you see one of us mention ISIS or OSPF, all it has to do
>> with is carrying loopback/infrastructure routes.
I don't think anyone has said to Ralph why the above is done. Just in
case it isn't obvious: you need to make sure the next-hops are known
on each router by a means other t
At 8:20 PM -0700 2002/08/28, David Schwartz wrote:
> There are a few thousand people and more computers than you can shake a
> stick at located at Fort Meade for just this purpose.
I'm not worried about Fort Meade for something like this.
Moreover, this is not "widely available"
At 11:54 AM +0200 2002/08/29, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> But as long as you live that's better than letting them have their ways
> now is it.
It's still the death of a thousand cuts. Yes, it buys us time,
but we have to use that time wisely to get real socio-legal
solutions. And we ha
i awoke from my hibernation to this mail. what's going on?
bandy rush
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: verlo router config diffs
Index: configs/gar1.cgcil.ip.att.net
===
retrieving revision 1.420
diff -u
>
>
> Running two routing protocols is too much of a hassle. I think I would
> rather use static routes, and synchronize routers using rsync, diff, and
> patch. Our NOC has several 286s running Xenix that could act as servers
> for this.
>
> This would eliminate the hassle of running OSPF, I
58 matches
Mail list logo
