Greetings - here are the topics we've lined up so far for Seattle. Keep
an eye out as we post additional talks:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0505/topics.html
Also, just a quick reminder that the registration fee goes up $50 on
Monday, April 25, and our hotel room block rate expires on April
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mikael Abrahamsson writes:
> >So what will people do? Stop selling when their networks are full? Ignore
> >the economics and let other business carry the cost of bulk internet? Go
> >for cheaper platforms? Go bankrupt (if no other business can carr
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Mike Leber wrote:
H, router and optical gear capabilities are growing faster than the
market. Can you say "permanent state of affairs".
Do you have any facts to back up this statement, as I am of another
opinion. We're seeing doubling in traffic growth each year and the
Hello,
Can someone confirm if my approach explained below is sufficient and
if there is other/better ways to do this ? something i am missing.
On my Cisco-based SP network with RPMs in MGX chassis acting as PEs:
I have the ACL below applied on many network devices to block the
common worms port
On 4/17/05, Kim Onnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Can someone confirm if my approach explained below is sufficient and
> if there is other/better ways to do this ? something i am missing.
>
blocking netbios and 2..3 other ports is one way to go.
however, what you need is fast detection and
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 1:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: cost of doing business (was:Re: OpenTransit (france telecom)
> depeers cogent)
>
>
>
> Mikael Abrahamsson wr
> Let's say for the sake of argument that by 2010 we want to give every
> household 5 megabit/s on average. How could this be done with technology
> today seen on the radar? Remember that the households should want to pay
> for the bandwidth as well, meaning they might be willing to pay $30 per
> On my Cisco-based SP network with RPMs in MGX chassis acting as PEs:
> I have the ACL below applied on many network devices to block the
> common worms ports,
if you are a service provider, perhaps filtering in the core will
not be appreciated by some customers. of course, as a provider,
you c
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > On my Cisco-based SP network with RPMs in MGX chassis acting as PEs:
> > I have the ACL below applied on many network devices to block the
> > common worms ports,
>
> if you are a service provider, perhaps filtering in the core will
> not be appreciat
>>> On my Cisco-based SP network with RPMs in MGX chassis acting as
>>> PEs: I have the ACL below applied on many network devices to
>>> block the common worms ports,
>> if you are a service provider, perhaps filtering in the core
>> will not be appreciated by some customers. of course, as a
>> p
* Sean Donelan:
> Perhaps your DNS software also has a memory leak? Anyone know which
> software Comcast was using? Should other ISPs be concerned they might
> have the same latent problem in their systems?
Probably yes, especially if they don't read documentation of their DNS
software.
| The
Regardless of whether it actually _was_ a memory leak,
or not, it appears that the impact was on a rather
large enough scale.
- ferg
-- Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| The maximum amount of memory to use for the server's cache, in
| bytes. [...] The default is unlimited, meaning th
> Regardless of whether it actually _was_ a memory leak,
> or not, it appears that the impact was on a rather
> large enough scale.
Have other service providers been affected, too?
Not to my knowledge, or at least, none that has been
publicly acknowledged.
>From a Washington Post article yesterday (posted via Yahoo!
News), Comcast said that the problem manifested itself when
they were in the process of upgrading their DNS servers:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto
On 04/17/05, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On my Cisco-based SP network with RPMs in MGX chassis acting as PEs:
> > I have the ACL below applied on many network devices to block the
> > common worms ports,
>
> if you are a service provider, perhaps filtering in the core will
> not b
This is not parallel track sessions yet, right?
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Steve Feldman wrote:
Greetings - here are the topics we've lined up so far for Seattle. Keep
an eye out as we post additional talks:
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0505/topics.html
Also, just a quick reminder that the registra
Brandon Butterworth writes:
>Perhaps they aim to keep driving the competition out of business
>to ensure there's a cheap supply of equipment so they can grow
>whilst charging so little?
There are several problems with such a plan, even were someone to
attempt it. One, overall traffic is still gro
Hannigan, Martin writes:
>As long as the hardware can keep up, the amount of glass in spectrum
>in the ground should make this an impossibility for the near term,
>10 years plus.
Fiber isn't useful by itself; there are two obvious things needed to
turn a piece of glass into something that can car
>> Mikael Abrahamsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Let's say for the sake of argument that by 2010 we want to give every
>> household 5 megabit/s on average. How could this be done with technology
>> today seen on the radar? Remember that the households should want to pay
>> for the bandwidt
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
fwiw, 100mb to the home costs about that in japan
Well, I dont really see the average home actually using 100meg all the
time in the near future, thus my 5 meg utilization average estimate.
Access could be whatever speed of course, access speed not used does
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Fergie (Paul
Ferguson)" writes:
>
>
>Not to my knowledge, or at least, none that has been
>publicly acknowledged.
>
>>From a Washington Post article yesterday (posted via Yahoo!
>News), Comcast said that the problem manifested itself when
>they were in the process
> -Original Message-
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 12:55 PM
> To: Randy Bush
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: cost of doing business (was:Re: OpenTransit
> (france telecom) depeers cogent)
>
>
>
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Randy
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=ebay.com
it's been three years, I don't think they really give a damn.
matto
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Scott Grayban wrote:
If there are any eBay admin here please fix your spoof@ & abuse@
address because it is denying every spoof complaint se
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 08:58:50AM -0400, David Lesher wrote:
> He describes it as a long drawn-out exercise in futility. A
> non-trivial employee has to spend eons on the task. It's a recursive
> onion peeling, or a data version of Tom Lehrer's "I Got It From
> Agnes"...
>
> And once done... the
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
So here's the 64GB/s question:
If carriers are being paid to ensure physical separation between
circuits for the life of the circuit, why is it that they haven't
implemented change management systems (and I don't solely mean the
software) t
Even if they care, its consuming alot of CPU resources and bandwidth,
i had a long quarrel with my teams members on should we do it or not,
i understand that if we only provide best effort traffic without any
filtering contracted its wrong to do it, but the ACL matches are so
big, doing it on the
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:28:21 +0200
Kim Onnel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have the ACL below applied on many network devices to block the
> common worms ports,
Beware, you are guaranteed to be blocking other, legitimate things
too with some of these rules. More below.
> ip access-list extend
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
>
> http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=ebay.com
>
> it's been three years, I don't think they really give a damn.
>
> matto
>
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Scott Grayban wrote:
>
>
> If there are any eBay admin here ple
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 22:23:53 -1000
Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Let's say for the sake of argument that by 2010 we want to give every
> > household 5 megabit/s on average. How could this be done with technology
> > today seen on the radar? Remember that the households should wan
* David Lesher:
> As far as I can tell, eBay reads NO mail addresses. I am in a
> minor issue re: a purchase, and while I send off responses to
> their boilerplate "We are here to help you" messages; I merely
> get different boilerplate messages back.
I don't think Ebay is in the conflict resol
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Malayter, Christopher wrote:
I think you're very wrong here. For packet delivery of video based
services, I could see a home using 100mb/s between voice, video, and
data within the next 12-24 months. All of the product roadmaps I've
been looking at contain "How to get 100m
http://rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=ebay.com
it's been three years, I don't think they really give a damn.
matto
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Scott Grayban wrote:
If there are any eBay admin here please fix your spoof@ & abuse@
address because it is denying every spoof complaint sent to it
Steve (and all),
>At least in my neighborhood, Comcast appears to be running BIND 9.2.4rc6
Ah... Then there are to possible paths...
1) There was a real memory-leak bug and this was an unfortunate operations
event. The CHANGES file for 9.3.1 and bind-9.2.5rc1 show various big fixes
related t
On 04/17/05, John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > deny tcp any any range 135 139
> > deny udp any any range 135 netbios-ss
> > deny tcp any any eq 445
> > deny udp any any eq 1026
>
> Similar as before, you are going to be removing some legitimate
> traffic.
Is this
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J.D. Falk" writes:
>
>On 04/17/05, John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > deny tcp any any range 135 139
>> > deny udp any any range 135 netbios-ss
>> > deny tcp any any eq 445
>> > deny udp any any eq 1026
>>
>> Similar as before, you are go
Can someone from ATT.net security contact me offlist RE: our network in
their RBL?
--
Thanks,
-
Joseph W. Breu, CCNA phone : +1.319.268.5228
Senior Network Administratorfax : +1.319.266.8158
Cedar Falls Utilities
Indeed, it does appear that eBay is attempting to use Eliza to perform
all of their customer service.
Owen
pgpoKiy1tfq5g.pgp
Description: PGP signature
At 04:39 PM 17/04/2005, Joseph W. Breu wrote:
Can someone from ATT.net security contact me offlist RE: our network in
their RBL?
Try [EMAIL PROTECTED] Humans do seem to read it. During the week they
responded within a few hrs. However, when I asked why they blacklisted us
in the first place, I
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 03:15:04PM -0400, David Lesher wrote:
>
> As far as I can tell, eBay reads NO mail addresses. I am in a minor
> issue re: a purchase, and while I send off responses to their
> boilerplate "We are here to help you" messages; I merely get different
> boilerplate messages ba
> Do you have any idea what sort of underprovisioning is typical for this
> sort of service in Japan ? Do they really have anything like a symmetric
> 100 Mbps all the way back to the backbone ?
yep
randy
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 13:00:30 -0700
"J.D. Falk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > deny udp any any eq 1026
> >
> > Similar as before, you are going to be removing some legitimate
> > traffic.
>
> Is this really true? All of the ports listed above are used by
> LAN protocols that w
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> one approach might be radius installed filters? some contract language to
> allow 'customers' to request standard templated filters at little/no-extra
> cost to them. Allow them to make the decision to filter themselves (where
> 'themselves' may
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
>
>
> Not to my knowledge, or at least, none that has been
> publicly acknowledged.
>
> >From a Washington Post article yesterday (posted via Yahoo!
> News), Comcast said that the problem manifested itself when
> they were in the process of upgr
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
>
> On 04/17/05, Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On my Cisco-based SP network with RPMs in MGX chassis acting as PEs:
> > > I have the ACL below applied on many network devices to block the
> > > common worms ports,
> >
> > if you are a service
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, J.D. Falk wrote:
>
> On 04/17/05, John Kristoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > deny tcp any any range 135 139
> > > deny udp any any range 135 netbios-ss
> > > deny tcp any any eq 445
> > > deny udp any any eq 1026
> >
> > Similar as before, you are going to
Cogent is now reachable from OT and vice versa, apparently Cogent
dropped the filters, i see everything passing verio now. Not sure
since when this works again.
Regards,
Jonas
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> >>> On my Cisco-based SP network with RPMs in MGX chassis acting as
> >>> PEs: I have the ACL below applied on many network devices to
> >>> block the common worms ports,
> >> if you are a service provider, perhaps filtering in the core
> >> will not be a
> interesting... everytime we have filtered in the core we've gotten
> complaints, I believe many folks filtered/rate-limited in their cores for
> welchia/nachia and got bunches of complaints about it as well... Hrm,
> maybe all of these folks are just grumpy-geeks?
i suspect that the remaining s
On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 10:20:24AM -0700, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
> This is not parallel track sessions yet, right?
At the moment, we have neither enough meeting space or content for
real parallel track sessions this time. We might do something like
split off the peering topics and BOF (fo
As a cogent customer, I still see no routes to 217.167.0.0/16 (the route that
holds www.francetelecom.com) via my cogent feed.
That /16 also appears to be unreachable from the looking glass on cogent's
website still.
John van Oppen
PocketiNet Communications
AS23265
-Ursprüngliche Nachri
On Apr 17, 2005, at 10:49 PM, John van Oppen wrote:
As a cogent customer, I still see no routes to 217.167.0.0/16 (the
route that holds www.francetelecom.com) via my cogent feed.
That /16 also appears to be unreachable from the looking glass on
cogent's website still.
I can trace from Cogent t
On 4/17/2005 12:29 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Sean Donelan:
>
>>Perhaps your DNS software also has a memory leak? Anyone know which
>>software Comcast was using? Should other ISPs be concerned they might
>>have the same latent problem in their systems?
>
> Probably yes, especially if they
On 4/16/2005 10:03 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Should other ISPs be concerned they might have the same latent problem
> in their systems?
"ps v -C " will tell you how badly you're hurting
Anybody that does a bunch of lookups -- whether this is forward lookups
for customers or blacklist lookups o
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
> celebrate diversity (aka i wish all my competitors did that:-)
What did people think would happen if they try to hold third-parties
liable for the actions of others? Third-parties have very little
interest in defending your diversity. And if the FCC star
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005, Randy Bush wrote:
Do you have any idea what sort of underprovisioning is typical for this
sort of service in Japan ? Do they really have anything like a symmetric
100 Mbps all the way back to the backbone ?
yep
Do you have any reference for this?
Provisioning 10G distribution
On Apr 17, 2005, at 11:16 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Apr 17, 2005, at 10:49 PM, John van Oppen wrote:
As a cogent customer, I still see no routes to 217.167.0.0/16 (the
route that holds www.francetelecom.com) via my cogent feed.
That /16 also appears to be unreachable from the looking gla
All,
Here is an output of show ip bgp regexp _5511_ on my cogent facing router (ie
with a full cogent feed)...Most of the prefixes with best paths that are
not through cogent don't exist in my cogent route feed at all (even via a non
FT path). It looks like things are still a bit wonky.
Hi,
On Apr 17, 2005, at 8:20 PM, Eric A. Hall wrote:
| The maximum amount of memory to use for the server's cache, in
| bytes. [...] The default is unlimited, meaning that records are
| purged from the cache only when their TTLs expire.
That was my first guess too.
Most DNS servers don't even have
John van Oppen wrote:
> All,
>
>
> Here is an output of show ip bgp regexp _5511_ on my cogent facing router (ie
> with a full cogent feed)...Most of the prefixes with best paths that are
> not through cogent don't exist in my cogent route feed at all (even via a non
> FT path). It look
59 matches
Mail list logo
