I disagree - this is a good idea, and it REALLY DO WORKS (have been tested
on hackers, with great success).
Moreover, it is not a problem to catch this fishers/phishers... issue 1,000
special credit cards, send their data to this site, and trace who and how
will use them. Or just intersect
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
the example we are talking about below, an _approximately_ 5Gb/s stream
on an _approximately_ full pipe the performance will be significantly
better than you imply. And I have customers that do it pretty regularly
(2 ~500Mb/s streams per GE port -
Posted here on the assumption that some will find it useful:
http://nodemap.internode.on.net
# Internode Nodemap performs SNMP queries against network devices to
# determine the status of network links in complicated networks.
#
# Using the results of those probes, Nodemap produces
On Fri, Aug 13, 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
We have not disclosed the site address to the
Deepak Jain wrote:
Have you tried running a single TCP stream over a 10 meg ethernet with
a 5
megabit/s policer on the port? Do that, figure about what happens and
explain to the rest of the class why this single TCP stream cannot use
all
of the 5 megabit/s itself.
That's entirely a different
to mitigate the effects.
This advisory is available at
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20040818-ospf.shtml.
Affected Products
=
Vulnerable Products
This vulnerability was introduced by a code change that was committed to the
12.0S, 12.2, and 12.3 based release trains
William B. Norton wrote:
The Cost of Internet Transit in
Commit AU SG JP HK USA
1 Mbps $720$625$490$185$125
10 Mbps $410$350$150$100$80
100 Mbps$325$210$110$80 $45
1000 Mbps
With these US street prices in mind, how can anyone justify paying
prices of some commercial exchanges (the last offer I got from PAIX Palo
Alto was USD 5500 per month for a FE port about a year ago, and Equinix
Ashburn was not much cheaper). Please note: I'm not talking of the
technical
we took around a gig of port 80 syn flooding to a customer web host, it was
around 12-3pm utc.. ended when the customer disappeared off the net. not sure if
this is unusual tho, theres hundreds of such attacks per day globally...
Steve
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry I
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Deepak Jain) [Wed 18 Aug 2004, 18:52 CEST]:
Or, perhaps the better question is. How can one justify the cost of
_public_ peering when fiber cross-connects are $200-$300/month each.
Perhaps not at the site previously mentioned.
I believe fiber crossconnects are cheaper
I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Josh Brady
That said, I do filter 1918 at my edge.
/vijay
ok everybody, vijay says the snapshot below didn't come from him.
who wants to claim it, then?
# tcpdump -n -c 25 net 10 or net 192.168 or net 172.16.0.0/12
tcpdump: listening on fxp0
19:52:53.787244 10.9.10.250.53 192.5.5.241.53: 29644 MX?
All gone
I've got a few to give out as well. Email me off-list and if I have
any left, I'll send an invite.
Brett
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 16:43:30 -0400, Joshua Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All gone
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 07:57:53PM +, Paul Vixie wrote:
this seems excessive, and so i've been assuming that it was all vijay's
fault. but apparently it's not him. so which one of you isn't filtering
1918 at your edge? (oops, it's all of you, isn't it?)
Is it really enough traffic
quote who=Richard A Steenbergen
Is it really enough traffic that you, as a root server operator, can't
just suck it up and deal? Sure there are going to be a few folks who are
misconfigured, but I can't imagine that it is enough to cause operational
issues.
No, no operational issues at all
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:18:32PM -0700, David A. Ulevitch wrote:
quote who=Richard A Steenbergen
Is it really enough traffic that you, as a root server operator, can't
just suck it up and deal? Sure there are going to be a few folks who are
misconfigured, but I can't imagine that
I received a few messages as well, one with US Bank, which I don't
have an account with, and they both had images attached. The image
was displayed, without any external connection.
As far as fighting abuse with abuse, it's not *always* a bad idea. If
the databases are filled with bad entries,
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 05:31:47PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:18:32PM -0700, David A. Ulevitch wrote:
quote who=Richard A Steenbergen
Is it really enough traffic that you, as a root server operator, can't
just suck it up and deal? Sure there
WOW! Overwhelming response. Haven't sent them all out yet, but all
accounted for.
Brett
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:51:43 -0700, Brett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've got a few to give out as well. Email me off-list and if I have
any left, I'll send an invite.
Brett
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:12:38PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
Anyone that isn't working on this (even slowly) is helping
contribute to part of the problem/mess of rfc1918 sourced packets leaking
to the internet.
Tell it to the unfortunate number of people manufacturing customer edge
On Aug 18, 2004, at 6:46 PM, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 06:12:38PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
Anyone that isn't working on this (even slowly) is helping
contribute to part of the problem/mess of rfc1918 sourced packets
leaking
to the internet.
Tell it to the unfortunate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Vixie) writes:
in the example i posted earlier, i included some numbers from one member of
the f troop, which showed ~21M packets from rfc1918 space over the course
of ~106 days. that's 241 queries per second. on only one host of many.
granted it's not much as a
Invoicing for unsolicited materials is commonly referred to as mail
fraud hereabouts.
The courts have consistently upheld the notion that such materials can
be considered gifts.
IANAL but I would advise /dev/nulling all further correspondence from
these losers.
-- MAB
On Aug 18, 2004, at
No... It is not a good idea to /dev/null it. If you /dev/null it, the
doctrine of Acquiescence by Estoppel works in their favor (essentially latin
legalise for Silence is Consent). Instead, you should write on the
invoice
that you never agreed to purchase the items and send it back to them
Owen DeLong wrote:
No... It is not a good idea to /dev/null it. If you /dev/null it, the
doctrine of Acquiescence by Estoppel works in their favor (essentially
latin
legalise for Silence is Consent). Instead, you should write on the
invoice
that you never agreed to purchase the items and send
Mike Lewinski wrote:
Has anyone else has run into these scumbags? Sometime last
winter I received a call along the lines of We'd like to
send you some materials to review. Well, they sent some
Internet Law encyclopedia along with an invoice for ~$700.
Of course, there was no cost mentioned
Michel Py wrote:
File a complaint with the BBB of Vancouver, BC. They are known to the
BBB. Then, let their collection goons waste their time and their money,
and tell them that if they want to see it back they have to send you a
prepaid box.
Ah, excellent pointer! I see the Vancouver BBB lists
In the last couple of days, I have received complaints from customers
not able to receive email from certain sites.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that these sites are not able
to send mail to you. Assuming that they are diverse sites that don't have
significant
Joshua Brady wrote:
I've got 2 Gmail invites up for grabs for the first 2 to email me offlist.
You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com
accounts already. :P
-Jonathan G-mail-less Nichols
You know, I'm having trouble finding people that *don't* have gmail.com
accounts already. :P
-Jonathan G-mail-less Nichols
If we are all network operators, exactly what is the benefit of having a
1GB mailbox operated by another network?
Deepak 150GB and growing Jain
31 matches
Mail list logo
