Re: Another hijacked range???

On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Haesu wrote: > > and woah, what is this? :-) > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3029809556&category=11175 > > -hc Ah, that is just Max Sutter trying to get rid of his recently purchased 160.122.0.0/16 (or possibly some other similarly obtained) ip block

Re: Another hijacked range???

and woah, what is this? :-) http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3029809556&category=11175 -hc -- Sincerely, Haesu C. TowardEX Technologies, Inc WWW: http://www.towardex.com E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: (978) 394-2867 On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 03:15:30PM -0700, [EMAIL

Re: Another hijacked range???

> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5654 > > Why didnt the County file charges? hijacking... thats terrorism right? :-) This is not the same "hijacking" and you know it! But they can file charges for identity fraud and theft of resources. For FBI to investigate they want $5000 of losses from t

Security Requirements Intnernet Draft (a request for comments)

I've published an Internet Draft on "Security Requirements for Devices Implementing IP". You can view it at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-opsec-00.txt This is an outgrowth of a document used by UUNET (my former employer) to sanity check/security qualify equipment for connecti

RE: Minimum prefix length?

Interesting. Anyone know when this changed? I had a problem related to this with a /20 in classic A space about 9 months ago. -Ejay -Original Message- From: Jared Mauch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:25 PM To: Ejay Hire Cc: Temkin, David; [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Another hijacked range???

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5654 Why didnt the County file charges? hijacking... thats terrorism right? :-) -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: Minimum prefix length?

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 02:58:16PM -0500, Ejay Hire wrote: > > This doesn't seem to be much of a problem with prefixes less than or equal to /24. > Domestically, Verio is the big exception. They seem to filter anything longer than > a /20. Huh? http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.h

Re: FW: Minimum prefix length?

Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: Howevers its curious that signatures such as this claiming to be confidential are posted to a list which is very much public and archived in several public websites.. not sure how right it is to autoappend them to all your mails as well as the private ones! There is a c

Re: FW: Minimum prefix length?

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 09:50:30PM +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > Whilst we're sidetracking... > > I took some counsel on this not so long ago to see whether these were just > novelty signatures or if they were real legal stuff. Turns out they could > actually be used legally, interesting

RE: FW: Minimum prefix length?

I'm glad to hear there is actually some precedent. As I mentioned to someone privately, I could go ahead and use a @yahoo.com or some other webmail service, but I prefer doing anything work related via email such as this "officially" rather than covertly. I may go ahead and switch at some poin

Re: FW: Minimum prefix length?

Whilst we're sidetracking... I took some counsel on this not so long ago to see whether these were just novelty signatures or if they were real legal stuff. Turns out they could actually be used legally, interesting I thought. Howevers its curious that signatures such as this claiming to be co

FW: Minimum prefix length?

Randy - please stop sending these to me - you send me one every time I post to NANOG. If you don't like the signature that's appended to my emails (not by my choice), and the litigious society we live in, go ahead and block all email from me. Replies directly to you to stop sending me these ema

RE: AS-701 multihop BGP peering session?

I don't believe that AS701 does it. I seem to recall this from > hearing about some very complicated process that had to be completed > for route-views.oregon-ix.net to get their AS701 feed. > > This may no longer be the case but seeings as the feed isn't > there anymore, i'm guessi

RE: Minimum prefix length?

Title: Minimum prefix length? This doesn't seem to be much of a problem with prefixes less than  or equal to /24.  Domestically, Verio is the big exception.  They seem to filter anything longer than a /20.   -Ejay    -Original Message-From: Temkin, David [mailto

Re: High Speed IP-Sec - Summary

For the sake of completeness, Sun just announced a new Crypto accelerator board with GigE interfaces that does SSL and IPSec VPNs, and claims 800 Mb/s "bulk 3DES encryption": http://www.sun.com/products/networking/sslaccel/suncryptoaccel4000/index.html -- Simon.

Minimum prefix length?

Title: Minimum prefix length? A few years ago I had an issue with a few of the larger carriers rejecting my routes (from a natural Class B space) because their prefix length was too short (at one point I simply had the /16 divided into two /17's and this still got rejected in some places).  I

Re: AS-701 multihop BGP peering session?

Or tunnel it from your edge to only give 2 hops :) On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, David Barak wrote: > > AS701 has a published policy of never initiating BGP > sessions with multihop > 2. > > I'd be very surprised if you're able to get them to > change it for you: once you're in the multihop world,

Re: AS-701 multihop BGP peering session?

AS701 has a published policy of never initiating BGP sessions with multihop > 2. I'd be very surprised if you're able to get them to change it for you: once you're in the multihop world, security and load issues become more complex, and large networks don't particularly want to deal with those

Another hijacked range???

Found this note in another mailing list. --- Begin Message --- In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Javier Henderson wrote: > I'd get a local transit provider with good peering. I've been > entirely too happy with Layer42 interesting, given the other thread here on "IP address

Re: AS-701 multihop BGP peering session?

On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 10:25:14AM -0400, Jeffrey Haas wrote: > > I hate using NANOG as a NOC of last resort, but it looks like this is > my best option. > > We recently migrated our IP connectivity to UU-Net/MCI/whatever you > want to call them these days. I've migrated the majority of our > B

AS-701 multihop BGP peering session?

I hate using NANOG as a NOC of last resort, but it looks like this is my best option. We recently migrated our IP connectivity to UU-Net/MCI/whatever you want to call them these days. I've migrated the majority of our BGP topology collection feeds to the new IP space (anyone want to give us your