On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Donovan Hill wrote:
Where do the Extreme and Juniper fit into this?
Juniper do not make L3-switches so they dont really compare.
Extreme i-plattform is currently destination ip based with inital cache
lookup. (guess this is flow based)
--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-01-20, at 22.19, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], William Allen Simpson
writes:
Eriks Rugelis wrote:
On the other hand, if your environment consists of a large number
(100's) of
potential tapping points,
On 21.01 09:24, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
From the initial discussions in Sweden around the new electronic
communications act, it seems as if the operators are obliged to provide
tapping free of charge. If this turns out to be the case, I guess it is
pretty much the same all over
On Wednesday 21 January 2004 12:07 am, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Donovan Hill wrote:
Where do the Extreme and Juniper fit into this?
Juniper do not make L3-switches so they dont really compare.
Others have said that too, but given where Junipers are used, I think they
(I did not rated firewalls etc).
Actually, an automated script or manual scan can find it trivially.
All you have to do is a quick port scan, looking for this:
We can make an experiment:
- I put such system (with ssh) on /26 network;
- you scan it, find and report me time and bandwidth,
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Donovan Hill wrote:
Extreme i-plattform is currently destination ip based with inital cache
lookup. (guess this is flow based)
I guess I just don't understand the architecture. What I really don't
understand is _why_ you'd bother with flow-based architecture over
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Donovan Hill wrote:
I guess I just don't understand the architecture. What I really don't
understand is _why_ you'd bother with flow-based architecture over
prefix-based architecture. am I looking green yet?
Since these boxes are priced around $3000-$4000 or so and
Uhm, that would be wrong. This is simply security through
obscurity.
Yes, it is wrong for the _smart books_. But it works in real life.
Actually, an automated script or manual scan can find it trivially.
If security through obscurity was useless then the USAF
would never have developed
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, William Allen Simpson wrote:
This is a feature, not a bug. Law enforcement is required to pay --
up front -- all costs of tapping. No pay, no play.
Oh, I wish, I wish
In NL, law dictates any telecommunicatins device (as defined amongst things
as anything with
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 08:02:23PM -0800, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
Not all L3-switches are flow-based; prefix-based ones should do just fine.
Can people add/correct this initial list ?
Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500 with Sup1(A)
Prefix-based: Foundry with
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kurt
Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
From the initial discussions in Sweden around the new electronic
communications act, it seems as if the operators are obliged to provide
tapping free of charge. If this turns out to be the case, I guess it is
pretty much
+++ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [21/01/04 10:52 +]:
Uhm, that would be wrong. This is simply security through
obscurity.
Yes, it is wrong for the _smart books_. But it works in real life.
Actually, an automated script or manual scan can find it trivially.
If security through obscurity
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:58:14 +0100, Ruben van der Leij [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Somebody who isn't smart enough to do 'nmap -p 0-65535 $target' isn't worth
diverting.
I'm sure everybody who got whacked by Lion or CodeRed or Blaster or are
glad to hear those attacks weren't worth diverting.
Please, do it:
time nmap -p 0-65535 $target
You will be surprised (and nmap will not report applications; to test a
response, multiply time at 5 ). And you will have approx. 40% of packets
lost.
Practically, nmap is useless for this purpose.
Somebody who isn't smart enough to do 'nmap -p
more generally... if you want routing, buy a router.
amen.
imho there can't be a better routing equipment than a real router :)
-J
i have a hybrid switer that i'm very happy with. at my house, that is.
(the idea of using one in commerce or production gives me cold
I can see how the biology analogy could lead itself to preordained outcome, but I do
not think it was the case in this research. For one it is really just a biology
analogy, the mathematics are standard graph theory/statititical mechanics. Actually,
the original results we got back from the
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:11:43PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
more generally... if you want routing, buy a router.
amen.
imho there can't be a better routing equipment than a real router :)
But unfortunately, not true. A router is anything which makes decisions by
more generally... if you want routing, buy a router.
amen.
imho there can't be a better routing equipment than a real router :)
i guess i need to explain in more detail. keep in mind that i'm technophobic
and that when VLANs first appeared i was convinced that the end of the
ok so..
please note that, that was rather a foolish statement of mine :)
for more constructive thought, i agree with ras' comments.
-J
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:11:43PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
more generally... if you want routing, buy a router.
Alexei Roudnev wrote:
Please, do it:
time nmap -p 0-65535 $target
You will be surprised (and nmap will not report applications; to test a
response, multiply time at 5 ).
Yes. It will,
http://www.insecure.org/nmap/versionscan.html
--
Crist J. Clark
Hello,
I am trying to determine
for myself the relevance of Intelligent Routing Devices like Sockeye, Route
Science etc. I am not trying to determine who does it better, but rather if the
concept of optimizing routes is addressing a significant problem in terms of
improved traffic
On Jan 21, 2004, at 3:27 PM, Jim Devane wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to determine for myself the relevance of Intelligent
Routing Devices like Sockeye, Route Science etc. I am not trying to
determine who does it better, but rather if the concept of optimizing
routes is addressing a significant
Clipped for brevity...
On 1/21/2004 at 10:52:00 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Uhm, that would be wrong. This is simply security through
obscurity.
Yes, it is wrong for the _smart books_. But it works in real life.
Actually, an automated script or manual scan can find it
My questions are these:
Is sub-optimal routing caused by BGP so pervasive it needs to be
addressed?
that depends on your isp, and whether their routing policies (openness
or closedness of peering, shortest vs. longest exit, respect for MEDs)
are a good match for their
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:05:46PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
My questions are these:
Is sub-optimal routing caused by BGP so pervasive it needs to be
addressed?
that depends on your isp, and whether their routing policies (openness
or closedness of peering, shortest vs.
## On 2004-01-20 20:02 -0800 Tom (UnitedLayer) typed:
T(
T( On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rubens Kuhl Jr. wrote:
T( Not all L3-switches are flow-based; prefix-based ones should do just fine.
T( Can people add/correct this initial list ?
T(
T( Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco
... depends on your isp, and whether their routing policies (openness
or closedness of peering, shortest vs. longest exit, respect for MEDs)
are a good match for their technology/tools, skills/experience, and
resources/headroom.
In practice, all of the above just turn out to be
T( The 2948G-L3 and the 4908G-L3 I believe are Prefix/ASIC based.
T( I believe the 3550-EMI is as well, but I'm not familiar with that
T( equipment.
All 3550s are prefix/ASIC based, EMI or SMI doesn't matter.
Anyone know about the:
Cisco Catalyst 3750 ?
3750s are also prefix/ASIC
+++ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [21/01/04 11:40 -0500]:
Somebody who isn't smart enough to do 'nmap -p 0-65535 $target' isn't worth
diverting.
I'm sure everybody who got whacked by Lion or CodeRed or Blaster or are
glad to hear those attacks weren't worth diverting.
I'm sure moving
T( Flow-based: Foundry with IronCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500 with
Sup1(A)
T( Prefix-based: Foundry with JetCore modules, Cisco Catalyst 6500/7600
with
T( Sup2(A), Sup3(A/BXL)
T(
T( The 2948G-L3 and the 4908G-L3 I believe are Prefix/ASIC based.
T( I believe the 3550-EMI is as well,
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
As for the 3550-EMI real life experience as a 10/100 BT aggregation switch
wasn't affected(CPU 5%) at all by rather aggressive scanning but did
generate around 11 Mb/sec of ARP requests on all the 100Mb/sec ports in the same
VLAN and totally killed
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Jim Devane wrote:
Are these devices able to effectively address the need?
Sugar pills effectively address the needs of a great many ailments when
given to people who believe that they will work. And if the end result is
an addressed need, who are we
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Jim Devane wrote:
Are these devices able to effectively address the need?
Sugar pills effectively address the needs of a great many ailments when
given to people who believe that they will work. And
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 02:30:19PM -0800, Tom (UnitedLayer) wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 12:27:16PM -0800, Jim Devane wrote:
Are these devices able to effectively address the need?
Sugar pills effectively address the needs of a great
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
I don't know if they're doing the same thing in Cali or not (they probably
are, since all the radio stations are owned by the same 2 companies),
Yeah, NPR and CBS, both monopolistic empires with the same viewpoint :)
but here in NoVA land
35 matches
Mail list logo
