Hi, NANOGers.
Don't forget to check for lame DNS delegations! There are 13066
entries in the lamer report for the week ending 07 SEP 2003.
These entries are often indicators of greater problems with name
server configurations.
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/lame.html
Thanks,
Rob, for Team Cymru.
Somehow links are seem broken
Mehmet Akcin
- Original Message -
From: Rob Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: NANOG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 6:29 AM
Subject: Weekly lamer report
Hi, NANOGers.
Don't forget to check for lame DNS delegations! There are 13066
Thus spake Mehmet Akcin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [08/09/03 09:46]:
Somehow links are seem broken
Looks like they're off by one -- instead of 20030908-, try 20030907-:
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/20030907-byip.html
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/20030907-byzone.html
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [08/09/03 09:46]:
Somehow links are seem broken
Looks like they're off by one -- instead of 20030908-, try 20030907-:
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/20030907-byip.html
http://www.cymru.com/DNS/20030907-byzone.html
And getting the lead time down to 4-6 weeks would be a challenge -
remember you
have to *ship* the re-mastered patch CD to every retailer and get it on
the
shelves. That's going to hit your bottom line.
Ever heard of Windows 98?
How about Windows 98 SE (Second Edition)?
They've done it
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 17:01:51 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And getting the lead time down to 4-6 weeks would be a challenge -
remember you
have to *ship* the re-mastered patch CD to every retailer and get it on
the
shelves. That's going to hit your bottom line.
Ever heard of
And getting the lead time down to 4-6 weeks would be a challenge -
remember you have to *ship* the re-mastered patch CD to every retailer
and get it on the shelves. That's going to hit your bottom line.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon 08 Sep 2003, 18:03 CEST]:
Ever heard of Windows 98?
How
Do any providers support non-standard inter-packet gap (IPG)
configurations on transit customers' ethernet interfaces?
Please respond privately, and I'll post a summary to the list.
Thanks,
-a
Aside from Juniper, what are the options for wire rate filtering and policy
routing (for at least 1Gbps and say 500+kpps)?
As usual, private responses will result in a summary to the list.
Thanks
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 06:59:25PM +0200, Niels Bakker wrote:
And getting the lead time down to 4-6 weeks would be a challenge -
remember you have to *ship* the re-mastered patch CD to every retailer
and get it on the shelves. That's going to hit your bottom line.
* [EMAIL
I wrote before:
Windows 98SE was only available to OEMs and wasn't on shelves in stores.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Wong) [Mon 08 Sep 2003, 19:33 CEST]:
Oh, this topic hasn't died yet?
Well, maybe because 98SE apparently was in stores as I've been told in
private mail, and 95OSR2 was the
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Ray Wong wrote:
I seem to be repeating myself a lot: The problem is not technical; hence the
solution is not technical either.
Now, other than being a poor attempt to pass the buck, how does this help
us as network operators (and similar IT professionals) in fixing the
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 01:40:01PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Ray Wong wrote:
I seem to be repeating myself a lot: The problem is not technical; hence the
solution is not technical either.
Now, other than being a poor attempt to pass the buck, how does this help
Aside from Juniper, what are the options for wire rate filtering and policy
routing (for at least 1Gbps and say 500+kpps)?
As usual, private responses will result in a summary to the list.
Cisco 6500 with Sup2/MSFC2/PFC2 or with Sup720.
If you don't need a full routing table you might
Can anyone from these three carriers tell me if you're doing port blocking
on the Windows file/print ports (135-139, 445 593) ?
A client of ours (in the US), against our recommendation, still wants to
connect to their Exchange server in the UK without a VPN. We're not
blocking their IP#'s from
My apologies to spamming Sean - here is the link to the tale:
Personal Message:
Brilliant display of chutzpah and social engineering.
The brazen airport computer theft that has Australia's anti-terror fighters
up in arms
By Philip Cornford
September 5, 2003
URL:
NTT/Verio is performing no network-wide port blocking
of such services.
You might want to point out to this client that
without a VPN client, one can not be assured of
home-office workers, or traveling people not having issues
with the ports involved.
- jared
On Mon,
I dont have a url for such an app (assuming one has been written) but you should
be able to run a traceroute using the tcp ports and see where it stops?
Steve
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, William Devine, II wrote:
Can anyone from these three carriers tell me if you're doing port blocking
on the
On 9/8/2003 at 3:58 PM, Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont have a url for such an app (assuming one has been written) but you should
be able to run a traceroute using the tcp ports and see where it stops?
Steve
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, William Devine, II wrote:
Can anyone
We use CW directly and Verio/Level3 through a peer.
a peer gives you their peer or transit routes?
randy
Cable Wireless is not doing any port filtering, with the possible
exception of specific customer requests.
Regards,
Mark
William Devine, II wrote:
Can anyone from these three carriers tell me if you're doing port blocking
on the Windows file/print ports (135-139, 445 593) ?
A client of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
DNS.exe is the executable for Microsoft DNS. This is either some
kind of bug or a function of active directory w/in Windows 2000.
regards,
Ken Budd
Data Systems Engineer
702 Communications
Moorhead, MN 56560
phone: 218.284.5702
Fax:
On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 14:56, William Devine, II wrote:
Can anyone from these three carriers tell me if you're doing port blocking
on the Windows file/print ports (135-139, 445 593) ?
A client of ours (in the US), against our recommendation, still wants to
connect to their Exchange server in
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Ray Wong wrote:
Of course, since we STILL have to handhold users into doing things, why
not just download the patches to our own servers, and either make CDs as
a courtesy to customers, or setup a quarantine network we shove them off
to, which only has access to our local
Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
After tracking down what I believed was an attempted DOS attack, it
turns out that two Windows 2000 servers, fully updated, were spewing out
hundreds of port 53 requests. Upon further investigation dns.exe was
hogging 99% of the CPU.
I haven't found any reference
Chris,
It was really odd. Here is an example of what the two hosts .3 and .4
were up to.
10.11.0.4:1420 64.215.170.28:53 64.215.170.28:53
10.11.0.3:4554 216.74.14.155:53 216.74.14.155:53
10.11.0.3:4554 216.239.38.10:53 216.239.38.10:53
10.11.0.3:4554 166.90.208.166:53
I have seen MS DNS go into some kind of resolving loop madness where for some
reason it continually tries lookups.. in the cases when I've seen it, it has
been a customer server which seemed to loop on some lame delegations - I noticed
it as the queries on the lames loaded our dns caches!
Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
Chris,
It was really odd. Here is an example of what the two hosts .3 and .4
were up to.
For grins, I ran that through our blacklist tool to see what it coughed up.
Nothing was on our blacklists.
Had rDNS's like *.google.com, *.akamai.com, sprintbbsd,
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 13:52:41 -0700
Christopher J. Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Here is an example of what the two hosts .3 and .4 were up to.
{snipped}
The list of hosts they were accessing is ... well, interesting!
24.221.129.4aztutmux01.az.sprintbbd.net
24.221.129.5
I had intermittent failures to resolve whois.arin.net today,
and haven't bothered to investigate this until now: someone
please forward this to an after-hours person at ARIN,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] will probably not be read for a while.
Reason:
BUCHU.arin.net. 3H IN A 192.100.59.110
[multiple response]
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
I'm going to take a stab at: The next 69.0.0.0/8 release? Certainly there
was some lesson learned from this, no?
I don't buy it, Chris. Are you saying that a large backbone provider
can't maintain up-to-date bogon filters? In fact,
keep in mind its not destination addresses that are the problem here, BUT
if it was, on an experiment (not a very smart one) we routed 0/1 to a lab
system inside 701 once in 2001 (as I recall, so before
nimda/code-red/blaster) and recieved +600kpps of garbage traffic as a
result. Trying to
Dear List,
I know this isn't the correct forum and for that I apologize. I have
been searching Ciscos website for the past 5 hours with no luck. I
need to know how I can gain access to a Cisco ONS 15454 with TCC+
running 2.2.1 software rev. If anyone knows how to accomplish this
please
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
keep in mind its not destination addresses that are the problem here, BUT
if it was, on an experiment (not a very smart one) we routed 0/1 to a lab
system inside 701 once in 2001 (as I recall, so before
nimda/code-red/blaster) and recieved
34 matches
Mail list logo
