On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:00:30PM -0700, Network Guru wrote:
Hello,
I have the responsibility of buidling a great network team for international
/domestic projects and I am looking for quality networking guys to work for me. If
you are based out of India or in the US, please do get in
Bevan Slattery wrote:
Just to ease peoples concerns, the patent has nothing
to do with blackholing. A brief description of the
way it works can be found here:
I believe that I am not the only one that is concerned precisely because it is _not_
blackholing, it is hijacking, no matter how
Micheal,
At 04:30 PM 13/08/2004, Michel Py wrote:
Trying to patent the wheel is not good for credibility, nor is using the
very same stinky methods as the scam artists.
Appreciate the hospitable welcome to the NANOG list. For future reference
your concern and feedback has been noted and filed
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, William Allen Simpson wrote:
I remain unenlightened. Should it be 2 days? Or 1 hour? And why the
inconsistent results? Obsolete root glue records?
I think your first answer is from the .com gtlds which use a 2 day ttl, the
second is from vix.com's nameservers which
sorry cant find a really good link, this is what BT have been doing in the UK
for a couple months:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5158457/
In answer to the critics, what an ISP chooses to do with its traffic
*internally* is up to the ISP, and bear in mind you are not suggesting the scope
of the
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
This is not IP hijacking by any means,
Mmmm. What tells you that these routes won't be announced to peers or
won't leak? We are not supposed to see announcements for bogons nor for
RFC1918 space, but we do.
Thinking about it, I agree that hijacking is not the proper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 09:00:30PM -0700, Network Guru wrote:
Hello,
I have the responsibility of buidling a great network team for international /domestic projects and I am looking for quality networking guys to work for me. If you are based out of India or in the
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Michel Py wrote:
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
This is not IP hijacking by any means,
Mmmm. What tells you that these routes won't be announced to peers or
won't leak? We are not supposed to see announcements for bogons nor for
RFC1918 space, but we do.
Thinking about
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Bevan Slattery wrote:
Hi,
Just to ease peoples concerns, the patent has nothing to do with
blackholing. A brief description of the way it works can be found here:
http://www.scamslam.com/ScamSlam/whatis.shtml
And based on what I've read, the above has a
At 01:41 PM 12-08-04 +0100, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Petri Helenius wrote:
We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending
on the
date they filed, prior art exists well documented. (blueprints obviously
predate running code)
everyone has gone patent
One would have to conclude since it is the behavior of
the present. that it shall not subside anytime soon.
Ir was a wonderful time on the internet when we still
had trust and respect for each other's endeaver, now
we
will have to collaborate to get things done with legal
shields, we can all
William,
At 06:15 PM 13/08/2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
And based on what I've read, the above has a lot to do with blackholing, I
don't see how patent can be claimed on this system with so many cases of
prior work of similar nature.
The service mainly uses the process of what we have made a
Redirecting is nothing new and has been around for
years, it was never a real problem until washington
and the media stuck their face into something they
had no clue about, as usual.
I am certain there are ways to prevent redirection and
those should be applied without a congressional
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 13 21:44:11 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
I like point 13 where you highlight how the system is doesn't
work. In anycase I doubt that this patent is any more valid
outside of the blackholing part and I hope this gets stuck
in some lengthy patent legal argument preventing anyone
from using it! :-) Why not ask the banks to be
responsible
BS Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 21:33:33 +1000
BS From: Bevan Slattery
BS The service doesn't use a transparent firewall/proxy, but
BS instead updates routing information by BGP and that traffic
BS gets sent to:from the system via a tunnel.
Search recent NANOG presentations. Keep an eye out for
william(at)elan.net wrote:
The only imlementation change to do this would be to provide
a link from the webpage where user might have been redirected
to the original website they wanted to access
But the user never wanted to access the site in the first place; lots of
these phishing scams
1.It's a financial issue. In the event of an emergency or an server
failure, how many hours can you financially be offline. Are your customers
willing to wait up to 2 days for their DNS caches to update with the new IP
address?
A very busy domain might benefit from having a higher TTL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The only implementation change to do this would be to provide
a link from
the webpage where user might have been redirected to the
original website
they wanted to access (it would have to be done by using
proxy service since ip is not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The service doesn't use a transparent firewall/proxy, but
instead updates
routing information by BGP and that traffic gets sent to:from
the system
via a tunnel.
BGP Shunt to a tunnel is has been done by several providers on this
list for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've admittedly not read the entire thread, but
Squid+GRE+WCCP comes to mind. That combination has been
around more than six months.
Yep - WCCPv2 can be BGP triggered via a community. So you can have a
bunch of devices (not just web) on a
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthew McGehrin) [Fri 13 Aug 2004, 16:46 CEST]:
1.It's a financial issue. In the event of an emergency or an server
failure, how many hours can you financially be offline. Are your customers
willing to wait up to 2 days for their DNS caches to update with the new IP
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) [Fri 13 Aug 2004, 16:04 CEST]:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
The only imlementation change to do this would be to provide
a link from the webpage where user might have been redirected
to the original website they wanted to access
But the user never wanted to
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Niels Bakker wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel Py) [Fri 13 Aug 2004, 16:04 CEST]:
william(at)elan.net wrote:
The only imlementation change to do this would be to provide
a link from the webpage where user might have been redirected
to the original website they
BRG Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:01:06 -0700
BRG From: Barry Raveendran Greene
BRG Yep - WCCPv2 can be BGP triggered via a community. So you
Speaking of questionable patents...
Eddy
--
EverQuick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, William Allen Simpson wrote:
I remain unenlightened. Should it be 2 days? Or 1 hour? And why the
inconsistent results? Obsolete root glue records?
I think your first answer is from the .com gtlds which use a 2 day ttl, the
second is
For another data point, I checked Randy's setup. After all, he was
the WG chair for quite awhile, so he'll have a clear preference.
Like Paul, different servers visible from the root. Unlike Paul,
much longer TTLs.
; DiG 8.3 @a.gtld-servers.net psg.net any
; (1 server found)
;; res
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED].
Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 14 Aug, 2004
On Aug 13, 2004, at 1:59 PM, William Allen Simpson wrote:
For another data point, I checked Randy's setup. After all, he was
the WG chair for quite awhile, so he'll have a clear preference.
Like Paul, different servers visible from the root. Unlike Paul,
much longer TTLs.
Uhh... why are you
John Payne wrote:
Uhh... why are you looking at vix.net and psg.net from the gtld
servers, but vix.com and psg.com from their servers?
psg.com has the same servers at the GTLD delegation as in-zone.
Aha! My fingers betrayed me. I'm so used to typing .net for network
guys. Whereas I
Folks,
There is a proposal that should interest you. It is called Bounce Tag
Address Validation By Dave Crocker.
http://www.brandenburg.com/specifications/draft-crocker-marid-batv-00-06dc.html
This proposal is now in the IETF MASS WG.
TH There was a BoF called MASS held at the recent IETF
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 05:38:02 -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have the responsibility of buidling a great network team for
international /domestic projects and I am looking for quality networking guys
to work for me. If you are based out of India or in the US, please do get in
touch with
Niels Bakker wrote:
Do you propose blocking goatse/tubgirl as well? The
same reasoning can apply to those sites.
No, and you are comparing apples to oranges. As far as I know, neither
goatse nor tubgirl tried to phish my password, SSN, or PIN (or I am
missing something?)
OTOH, I have
33 matches
Mail list logo
