> As of the now (according to Panix; I haven't independantly verified
> it), Verio is (at Panix's request) rejecting the route from ConEd, and
> Panix's upstreams are accepting the /17s, so connectivity should be
> OK from everywhere except possibly ConEd.
are the following two statements true?
Folx,
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 06:09:08PM +, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> This is hardly as serious as the last incident -- but, well, some people
> do seem to have all the luck, eh?
>From where I'm standing this situation looks much more serious than
the last one. It looks like Con Edison
Yes - we do for IBGP, IS-IS, OSPF (where relevent), also LDP,
HSRP, and anything else that offers the feature (even cleartext).
It proves a useful guard against misconfiguration, as well as
preventing certain security issues.
--
> Just one more question. What kind of misconfiguration isues does us
You mean, like, a drone army of botnet zombies? ;-)
- ferg
-- "Bevan Slattery" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You're comments are spot on. There are far more simpler, destructive,
portable, scalable and inexpensive ways to achieve the same end. Any
fibre provider knows what they are and hopes th
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Daniel Golding
> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 3:59 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If I was a terrorist, I'd rather try to take out points of fiber
concentration, and my tool would not be a backhoe. I
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:33:04AM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
> Can there be a confirmation of this? I see no such MOTD at
> http://www.panix.com/panix/help/Announcements/
I don't know how realtime that is ... but Panix (including their web
site) was unreachable from several points ear
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Petri Helenius wrote:
And the real question is if the money is better spent on implementing
preferential treatment or upgrading the infrastructure as a whole.
If you have an 8meg ADSL line and want to deliver IPTV you need some kind
of preferential treatment to the TV pa
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:33:04AM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>
> Can there be a confirmation of this? I see no such MOTD at
> http://www.panix.com/panix/help/Announcements/
Verio was just extremely helpful and filtered out the bogus Panix
routes ConED was sending them quite rapidly u
Can there be a confirmation of this? I see no such MOTD at
http://www.panix.com/panix/help/Announcements/
and my connection to panix is fine and route I see is 166.84.0.0/17
with origin in 2033. I also checked at routeviews.org and similarly
all their peers see origin in in 2033. Is there some
This is hardly as serious as the last incident -- but, well, some people
do seem to have all the luck, eh?
Of course, there are measures one can take against this sort of thing; but
it's hard to deploy some of them effectively when the party stealing your
routes was in fact once authorized to of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Randy Bush) wrote:
> any cctld ops seeing unusual traffic in the last hours?
.de didn't. What should we have expected?
Cheers,
Elmar.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And if you are spending the extra money to implement
preferential treatment, can you be sure that there is
a market willing to pay extra for this?
And the real question is if the money is better spent on implementing
preferential treatment or upgrading the infra
12 matches
Mail list logo
