On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Mike Lewinski wrote:
> Bruce Beckwith wrote:
>
> >You should deal with a registrar for this information, since that is one
> >of the services they can provide for you.
> >
> >
> Right, but in a case where my client inherited a domain from their
> predecessor, and has no idea
Bruce Beckwith wrote:
You should deal with a registrar for this information, since that is one
of the services they can provide for you.
Right, but in a case where my client inherited a domain from their
predecessor, and has no idea who their registrar is, I seem to be in a
catch-22 This
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:04:18 EST, Alex Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> b) is it me, or does it seem the number of fiber cuts per time period is
> decreasing, or does sean donelan no longer have an email client?
Wait till April, the traditional mating season of backhoes and other
construct
Circuits we had that were affected by the fiber cut in NJ/PA have been
coming up over the last hour.
two notes:
a) anyone know of where this happened, specifically, and also what
actually happened? I heard ?langhorne?, pa, and two 288 bundles were
affected, MFN had to dig to find it -- if thats
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:01:35 EST, Chris Brenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Except its broken because the message in question was not spam. It was a
> technical post to the NANOG mailing list that triggered the 100+ port
Chris - please see if you can find out if it *was* your message. A few we
Andy Dills writes on 12/22/2003 7:33 PM:
Oh, sure have. Spews has listed an entire /19 of ours before, merely
because of a multi-stage relay (customer had an open relay configured to
dump everything to our mailserver).
As far as I have seen, that is not the typical reason for a spews nom.
Spews s
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> foxnews reporting 6.5 on the richter scale
>
> cant get more info than that
http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Maps/121-36.html
It was quite noticable in Santa Barbara. Building swayed for a good
30 seconds, localized power failures for a few ho
foxnews reporting 6.5 on the richter scale
cant get more info than that
Sorry this is a bit blurred being from my phone but this is recent from
telehouse london, the area under the floor is about 2ft6 deep
http://www.thedogsbollocks.co.uk/pictures/opalpops/P7090001.JPG
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Russel Callen wrote:
>
> i've started taking pictures of the places i've
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 19:10, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
> Whats IP over DNS, 512 bytes.. wouldnt want to kill my hotel access now huh?
LOL!
And least we forget RFC 1149. I think this limits carrier pigeon MTU to
256 milligrams. ;-)
C
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 16:55, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> > This is going to sound really snippy, but who died and made then
> > god/goddess of the Internet? Where is the document trail empowering them
> > to be spam cops of the Internet with absolute authority to probe who
> > ever they see fit?
>
> Th
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 18:18, Crist Clark wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Hey, Group.
> >
> > In my production network, I'm trying to do some extended traces and pings with the
> > record option turned on to see what route my packets take going and returning.
> > It's not working.
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Vadim Antonov wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> > Hmm...actually, YOUR spam is MY problem. That's how this works.
> >
> > I applaud njabl.
>
> Then you've never been on receiving end of their (and their ilk)
> viligantine "justice" for no reason other t
Mike,
You should deal with a registrar for this information, since that is one
of the services they can provide for you.
If you are interested in the cross-reference list, please see
http://www.pir.org/whois_search/registrar_whois_ids, which can be
accessed via the link at http://www.pir.org/who
Sorry for the noise, but I'm having trouble getting a router on an
ALLTEL circuit configured correctly and I am getting caught in the
level one support net.
Can a clueful ALLTEL network engineer please contact me off list?
Thanks,
Allan
> You mean like everyone who's still running TCP/IP over AX.25 in the
> ham radio community? They're generally technically adept and good at
> complaining... I'm sure rbush would encourage his competitors to do this.
Whats IP over DNS, 512 bytes.. wouldnt want to kill my hotel access now huh?
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 04:18:37PM -0700, Michael Lewinski wrote:
> > Sponsoring Registrar:R11-LROR
>
> All I really want to know is the Registrar's name/URL to tell my client
> so they can modify their nameservers.
>
> Does anyone have:
>
> 1) A URL to the table that will allow me to lookup
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Andy Dills wrote:
> Hmm...actually, YOUR spam is MY problem. That's how this works.
>
> I applaud njabl.
Then you've never been on receiving end of their (and their ilk)
viligantine "justice" for no reason other than being in the same block of
addresses as some hacked win
Strangely enough, PIR doesn't recognize that one... Google-mining seems
to indicate that its TUCOWS/OPENSRS, but I wont swear to that.
As for actually contacting someone to get it fixed, considering past
experience I think nothing short of a public outcry is going to draw
attention to the proble
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 11:27:01AM -0800, Scott Granados wrote:
> Apparently there was just a 6.4 quake in central california.
>
> We felt it here in San Jose but its probably to minor up here to cause any
> disruptions. However closer to the center there may be.
We felt it pretty good here in
> I'm working with a few folks on firewall and IDS rules that will flag
> suspicious fragmented traffic. I know the legal minimum of a
> non-terminal fragment is 28 bytes, but given non-terminals should
> reflect the MTU of the topologies along the link, this number is far
> lower than what I expe
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Tim Wilde wrote:
> whois -h whois.pir.org "registry id r11-lror"
It would help if I could type. s/registry/registrar/ - sorry.
Tim
--
Tim Wilde
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Systems Administrator
Dynamic DNS Network Services
http://www.dyndns.org/
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Michael Lewinski wrote:
>
> During the recent changes to .org, whois stopped being useful for what
> I need.
>
> > Sponsoring Registrar:R11-LROR
>
> All I really want to know is the Registrar's name/URL to tell my client
> so they can modify their nameservers.
>
> Does anyon
During the recent changes to .org, whois stopped being useful for what
I need.
> Sponsoring Registrar:R11-LROR
All I really want to know is the Registrar's name/URL to tell my client
so they can modify their nameservers.
Does anyone have:
1) A URL to the table that will allow me to lookup a n
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hey, Group.
>
> In my production network, I'm trying to do some extended traces and pings with the
> record option turned on to see what route my packets take going and returning. It's
> not working. If I do the extended traceroute or ping without the record op
I believe source routing must be permitted in order for the record route
to function. Otherwise the packet is dropped.
Chris
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 16:45, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hey, Group.
>
> In my production network, I'm trying to do some extended traces and
> pings with the record op
"Michael R. Wayne" wrote:
>
> Summary:
> If you use Verizon Wireless pagers (pagers with an @myairmail.com
> email address) to monitor your network, your alerts may be blocked
> without notice.
>
[snip]
> I did get a call back as promised. I mentioned that they were not
> filtering on a
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Chris Brenton wrote:
> > If we have a single entitity that does all
> > this scanning, we as individual entities do not need to scan ourselves.
>
> This is going to sound really snippy, but who died and made then
> god/goddess of the Internet? Where is the document trail emp
Title: Message
Hey,
Group.
In my
production network, I'm trying to do some extended traces and pings with the
record option turned on to see what route my packets take going and
returning. It's not working. If I do
the extended traceroute or ping without the record option, it works
for those who don't speak inside-dc-beltway,
the below is a request for information that
a well-funded federal agency will use to write
a proposal solicitation, to which folks
(including but not limited to operators)
then write proposals to get ops research funding.
(and ultimately, presumabl
hello all,
i was wondering if anyone was interested in some possible ongoing
'smart hands'-type work in the san jose area. ideally looking for
someone with some unix (debian), juniper, and/or cabling skills.
if you are interested please drop me a note.
thanks
/joshua
/* i hope everyone in th
i've started taking pictures of the places i've worked, since I was proud
of one...and entertained by another. you can decide which is which:
http://gallery.arxys.net/gallery/Cogent/IMGP0320
http://gallery.arxys.net/gallery/Cogent/IMGP0322
http://gallery.arxys.net/gallery/Rivien/main_LAN_rack
h
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Brenton) [Mon 22 Dec 2003, 21:07 CET]:
[proxies]
> Humm. This is something I have not run into before. Can you supply a URL
> that explains how to relay mail though a Telnet or RADIUS server?
Older versions of WinGate used to run a listener service on port 23
that would
Speaking as and for SORBS (another hated and loved antispam bl)..
Chris Lewis wrote:
It's worth commenting:
Triggering relay testing can occur in a number of different ways.
Some simply scan all IPs.
I consider this abuse and don't do it.
Some scan particular ranges.
Same as above ;-)
Some
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 13:46, Andy Dills wrote:
>
> > Agreed. My spam is _my_ problem and fixing it should not include making
> > it everyone else's problem. Forget whether its legal, its pretty
> > inconsiderate as many environments flag this stuff as malicious so it
> > triggers alerts.
>
> Hmm.
If a fault line slips, then the terrorists have already won.
-Original Message-
From: Gerald [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:34 PM
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: california quake
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Scott Granados wrote:
> Apparently there was just a
Now four 3.x or 4.x shocks south of the major epicenter.
I felt the first one also. It was significant shaking.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Aviva Garrett
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 11:30 AM
To: Scott Granados
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Scott Granados wrote:
> Apparently there was just a 6.4 quake in central california.
Terrorists!
Gerald
According to current data, it was a 6.5, and the epicenter was 7 miles NE of
San Simeon, CA.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Granados [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 1:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: california quake
Apparently there was just a 6.4 quake
| From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott
| Granados
| Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 2:27 PM
|
| Apparently there was just a 6.4 quake in central california.
|
| We felt it here in San Jose but its probably to minor up here to cause any
| disruptions. However clos
Yep, we felt it too, in Sunnyvale. It was 6.5, near San Simeon.
http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/recenteqs/Quakes/nc40148755.htm
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>you wr
ite:
>
> Apparently there was just a 6.4 quake in central california.
>
> We felt it here in San Jose but its probably to minor up here
Apparently there was just a 6.4 quake in central california.
We felt it here in San Jose but its probably to minor up here to cause any
disruptions. However closer to the center there may be.
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Dave O'Shea wrote:
> If you have one of the
> super-duper(tm) motorola pagers that skytel uses, you
> can even filter those messages so they won't set off
> the audible alert; they just show up in the "received"
> list.
Same with the Blackberry/RIM s
I'm not sure I'd fault Verizon, it's got to be a major
pain to keep the spam level down on pagers. It would
probably be useful if SMS/paging companies posted a
"this is the approved way to" guide for customers.
I set up nagios/netsaint with a pager system, and
programmed it to send an "all is
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, Chris Brenton wrote:
> > I hate spammers. I loathe and
> > despise them. I hate njabl even more.
>
> Agreed. My spam is _my_ problem and fixing it should not include making
> it everyone else's problem. Forget whether its legal, its pretty
> inconsiderate as many environment
Robin Lynn Frank wrote:
This is not the only list where this is occurring. It has been happening on
the spamtools list, as well. We've now dropped them at the firewall. No
loss to us.
It's worth commenting:
Triggering relay testing can occur in a number of different ways.
Some simply scan
One of my customers is experiencing what I'm being told is backhoe fade
in the Philadelphia area. It's a Broadwing circuit resold by another
party, so they won't talk to me directly.
Does anyone know if they have a network status page? I've not found
anything googling around.
Thanks,
Daryl G.
Summary:
If you use Verizon Wireless pagers (pagers with an @myairmail.com
email address) to monitor your network, your alerts may be blocked
without notice.
The saga:
We use multiple paging companies for our pagers, under the theory
that redundancy is a "good thing". Last week, our peop
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 11:04, Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
>
> Um, welcome to the world of spam nazis.
I've seen returning MX queries and even source address validation, but
never anything this excessive up till now. IMHO its hard to tell if they
are looking for spam relays to reduce spam, or because they
Chris Brenton wrote:
>
> Greets again all,
>
> I noticed something kind of interesting when I made my last post to
> NANOG. I can understand people wanting to do spam checking, but IMHO
> this is a bit excessive and inconsiderate.
>
> I'm guessing njabl.org is doing this to everyone who posts t
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 09:36, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
> You mean like everyone who's still running TCP/IP over AX.25 in the
> ham radio community?
I actually thought of this, but only as an end-point which would not
generate fragmented packets. I didn't consider that people could be
using Lin
Or the X.25/IP gateways beloved of Airlines who are also good at
complaining when traffic is dropped on the floor
Scott C. McGrath
On 22 Dec 2003, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>
>
> Chris Brenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I agree, this is a bit of a loaded
Chris Brenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I agree, this is a bit of a loaded question. I guess by safe I mean "Is
> anyone aware of a specific link or set of conditions that could cause
> _legitimate_ non-last fragmented packets on the wire that have a size of
> less than 1200 bytes". I agree
Greets again all,
I noticed something kind of interesting when I made my last post to
NANOG. I can understand people wanting to do spam checking, but IMHO
this is a bit excessive and inconsiderate.
I'm guessing njabl.org is doing this to everyone who posts to the list,
so I thought others might
On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 08:27, bill wrote:
>
> > Is is safe to assume
> > that 99.9% of the Internet is running on 1500 MTU or higher these days?
>
> define safe.
I agree, this is a bit of a loaded question. I guess by safe I mean "Is
anyone aware of a specific link or set of conditions t
> by GRE or IPSec. With this in mind, would we be safe to flag/drop/what
> ever all fragments smaller than 1200 bytes that are not last fragments
> (i.e., more fragments is still set)?
No. Check previous thread about IPSec and MTU. Some IPSec implementations split the
greater-than-mtu sized pac
>
>
> A few years back I noted some 512-536 MTU links in ASIA. I've been doing
> some testing and can't seem to find them anymore. Is is safe to assume
> that 99.9% of the Internet is running on 1500 MTU or higher these days?
define safe.
> I know some people artificially set their e
> Is is safe to assume
> that 99.9% of the Internet is running on 1500 MTU or higher these days?
I'd say no, usually you'll find that the one site your customer is
interested in the most has some braindead configuration and you
never hear the end of it.
Greetings all,
I'm working with a few folks on firewall and IDS rules that will flag
suspicious fragmented traffic. I know the legal minimum of a
non-terminal fragment is 28 bytes, but given non-terminals should
reflect the MTU of the topologies along the link, this number is far
lower than what
59 matches
Mail list logo
