One key consideration you should think about is the ability to perform maintenance on redundant devices in the N+1 model without impacting the availability of the network.
Brent
Timothy Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
01/16/2004 10:14 PM
To: [EM
Sean Donelan [1/17/2004 9:20 AM] :
True, but it appears AOL has cranked something up in the last couple
of weeks or something is choking more often. If you look at various
places where users like to gripe, you'll notice an uptick of queries
and complaints on the subject.
Maybe they finally rolle
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> You just noticed this now?
>
> AOL has, since the past several months (over a year I think) set up
> their dynamic IP pool *.ipt.aol.com to hijack port 25 outbound requests
> and reroute it through a set of their own mailservers, that do some
>
I fear this may be a mother of a debate.
In my (short?) career, i've been involved in several designs, some successful,
some less so. I've recently been asked to contribute a design for one of the
networks I work on. The design brings with it a number of challenges, but
also, unlike a greenfiel
Christopher X. Candreva [1/17/2004 5:02 AM] :
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ajai Khattri wrote:
I have several users who connect to our mail server from an IP in the
*.ipt.aol.com namespace. All are complaining about intermittent SMTP problems.
I see that outbound SMTP traffic is proxied through AOL ser
On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 18:00, Gerald wrote:
>
> I should probably mention that I've already started looking at antisniff.
> I was hoping to find something that was currently maintained and still
> free while I investigate antisniff's capabilities.
Antisniff is still the best software based tool fo
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." writes:
>
>Gerald wrote:
>>
>> Subject says it all. Someone asked the other day here for sniffers. Any
>> progress or suggestions for programs that detect cards in promisc mode or
>> sniffing traffic?
>
>I can't even imagine how one might
Thus spake Gerald ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [16/01/04 18:32]:
> Subject says it all. Someone asked the other day here for sniffers. Any
> progress or suggestions for programs that detect cards in promisc mode or
> sniffing traffic?
There's an art to detecting promiscuous devices.[1] A good starting po
On Jan 16, 2004, at 3:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's those dang Nachi-sized ICMP echo/echo-replies. We block those at
all
our transit points and dial-up ports. Nachi was killing our cisco
access-servers until we did this to stop the spread.
FYI, Nachi is basically dead now from what I
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Ajai Khattri wrote:
> I have several users who connect to our mail server from an IP in the
> *.ipt.aol.com namespace. All are complaining about intermittent SMTP problems.
> I see that outbound SMTP traffic is proxied through AOL servers to our mail
> servers. Has there been
That is a battle that was lost at its beginning: the Ethernet 802.1d
paradigm of "don't know where to send the packet, send it to all ports,
forget where to send packets every minute" is the weak point.
There are some common mistakes that sniffing kits do, that can be used to
detect them (I think
I have several users who connect to our mail server from an IP in the
*.ipt.aol.com namespace. All are complaining about intermittent SMTP problems.
I see that outbound SMTP traffic is proxied through AOL servers to our mail
servers. Has there been a change recently causing this to not work?
Our
Since all sniffers I know of are passive devices, there really shouldn't be
a way to track one down. From a Cisco standpoint, if I were mirroring a
port, and had a sniffer mirroring the sniffer port, I would see traffic of a
unicast nature with multiple unicast MAC destinations destined at a
swith
if you have multiple network interfaces you can insure that
the one doing the snooping is undetectable by the tools that people wrote
to detect promiscious ethernets...
joelja
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote:
>
> Gerald wrote:
> >
> > Subject says it all. Someone asked t
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Gerald wrote:
> Subject says it all. Someone asked the other day here for sniffers. Any
> progress or suggestions for programs that detect cards in promisc mode or
> sniffing traffic?
I should probably mention that I've already started looking at antisniff.
I was hoping to f
Gerald wrote:
>
> Subject says it all. Someone asked the other day here for sniffers. Any
> progress or suggestions for programs that detect cards in promisc mode or
> sniffing traffic?
I can't even imagine how one might do that. Traditionally the only
way to know that you have a mole is to enc
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Petri Helenius wrote:
>
> > >I wouldn't be surprised if more people are filtering 69/8 now than before,
> > >roughly 40% of the spam hitting my servers is from there.
>
> That's likely going to be true of each newly allocate
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Of course, if they tried to run the test *before* assigning the
> block, it should fail, because it should still be in everyone's
> bogon filters. ^_^
So before assigning a block, mark it as "Pending assignment" or "Assigned
to IANA".
> their b
Subject says it all. Someone asked the other day here for sniffers. Any
progress or suggestions for programs that detect cards in promisc mode or
sniffing traffic?
Gerald
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Petri Helenius wrote:
> >I wouldn't be surprised if more people are filtering 69/8 now than before,
> >roughly 40% of the spam hitting my servers is from there.
That's likely going to be true of each newly allocated block as spammers
move around, move into them, or even sca
The GRFs started with gated, but throughout the time they were an
Ascend product the code base moved farther and farther away from
that. Unfortunately, the result wasn't ever quite ready for production
use, though not through any lack of effort on the part of the Ascend
GRF guys. Fortunately many
Matthew S. Hallacy wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:56:24AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All you early adopters of 69/8 now have somebody to share your pain with
I wouldn't be surprised if more people are filtering 69/8 now than before,
roughly 40% of the spam hitting my servers i
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:29:16 PST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> and the block can be used as part of the normal allocation
> and assigned as appropriate (would kinda suck to be given
> the last assignment from the block, only to be told that
> "sorry, your last /24 is actually routed by the RIR, so
>
Hi, NANOGers.
Nope, we didn't forget or ignore it. :) The numerous Team Cymru
bogon projects have been updated as of 15 JAN 2004 to reflect the
following IANA allocation made on 15 JAN 2004:
70/8 Jan 04 ARIN
IANA allocations change over time, so please check regularly to ensure
you hav
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:56:24AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> All you early adopters of 69/8 now have somebody to share your pain with
I wouldn't be surprised if more people are filtering 69/8 now than before,
roughly 40% of the spam hitting my servers is from there.
--
Matthew S. H
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:34:18 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> >
> > > There are still numerous networks blocking 69/8. Probably more blocking
> > > 70/8 as most of the people who were behind the times with their filters
> > > blocking 69/8 fixe
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:34:18 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > There are still numerous networks blocking 69/8. Probably more blocking
> > 70/8 as most of the people who were behind the times with their filters
> > blocking 69/8 fixed that /8 b
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:34:18 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> There are still numerous networks blocking 69/8. Probably more blocking
> 70/8 as most of the people who were behind the times with their filters
> blocking 69/8 fixed that /8 but still don't keep their filters up to date.
>
> http:/
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:31:37 PST, Steve Conte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated 70/8 to ARIN.
>
> All you early adopters of 69/8 now have somebody to share your pain with
There are still numerou
>Uh, no, that's not what the article said and it's not what the patent,
>which is linked from the article, says. The patent is on the tiny
>tweak of selling matching e-mail addresses and domains (it says URLs
>but their examples show domains) of the form [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
>argle.bargle.tld.
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:31:37 PST, Steve Conte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated 70/8 to ARIN.
All you early adopters of 69/8 now have somebody to share your pain with
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
At 09:41 AM 1/16/2004, you wrote:
>>According to the article, somebody maanged to patent the selling of
>>www.something.somethng.com. Which seems a bit assanine to me, since the
>>ISP I worked for in 1993 offered custoemrs www.customer.ccnet.com.
Uh, no, that's not what the article said and it's n
John Levine wrote:
According to the article, somebody maanged to patent the selling of
www.something.somethng.com. Which seems a bit assanine to me, since the
ISP I worked for in 1993 offered custoemrs www.customer.ccnet.com.
Uh, no, that's not what the article said and it's not what the p
>>According to the article, somebody maanged to patent the selling of
>>www.something.somethng.com. Which seems a bit assanine to me, since the
>>ISP I worked for in 1993 offered custoemrs www.customer.ccnet.com.
Uh, no, that's not what the article said and it's not what the patent,
which is lin
Does any one in this group have a comment/view of the TippingPoint
product line?
Replies off list are encouraged. I can make a digest of the replies and
post the consolidated replies so as to save clutter if anyone would
like.
Thanks in advance and Happy New Year
Chris
> It used a heavily modifed public that IEng worked on. The guys
> at IEng were fantastic and did a huge amount of fixing and feature
> adding of features. I think Cisco bought IEng.
Indeed they did, and they were purchased by Cisco.
-John
This report has been generated at Fri Jan 16 21:47:34 2004 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.
Recent Table Hist
>According to the article, somebody maanged to patent the selling of
>www.something.somethng.com. Which seems a bit assanine to me, since the
>ISP I worked for in 1993 offered custoemrs www.customer.ccnet.com.
>As much as I dislike Verisign, this is silly.
Agreed. Here is some of my prior art f
> As I remember, it used commercial gated.
It used a heavily modifed public that IEng worked on. The guys
at IEng were fantastic and did a huge amount of fixing and feature
adding of features. I think Cisco bought IEng.
Regards,
Neil.
As I remember, it used commercial gated.
- Original Message -
From: "Nicole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Vadim Antonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: PC Routers (was Re: /24s run amuck)
>
>
> On 15-Ja
> yes, we tried those in beta. literally went up in flames, yes real
> flames. one of the more exciting routers made from washing machine
> parts i have ever seen.
We also used them but the number of issues in keeping the
cards routeing tables in sync just made them too unreliable.
41 matches
Mail list logo
