Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Lyall) writes:
I've said in other forums the only solution for this sort of software is
to return the wrong time (by several months). The owner might actually
notice then and fix the problem.
that creates new liability, and isn't
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Simon Lyall wrote:
Everyone here runs spam filters. Many times a day you tell a remote MTA
you've accepted their email but you delete it instead. Explain the
difference?
Hold on there. What you are describing is evil and bad, and I
certainly hope everyone does not do
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Mat,
I'm not sure what providers are already present in your area, may be will be
easier if you mention some of the choices you have.
In general I will say that you can rely on companies such as Global
Crossing, Teleglobe, NTT/Verio,
On Apr 10, Mat Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We are multi-homed to both Level3 and Abovenet in the UK and Level3 only
in the US.
Level3 did have a promising sounding beta program last year but that
seems to have stalled. Abovenet apparently have no schedule to deploy v6
at the moment.
I
At 08:36 PM 10/04/2006, Simon Lyall wrote:
I've said in other forums the only solution for this sort of software is
to return the wrong time (by several months). The owner might actually
notice then and fix the problem.
Of our customers who have such routers, I would say 90% would not
know
It seems to me, that the only *real* solution is for these manufacturers to
implement a [responsible] strategy of automatic firmware upgrades, as it
pertains to these (simple eu type) devices.
How difficult would it be to have the router test a server periodically,
(say once a month), and in the
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Matt Ghali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Simon Lyall wrote:
Everyone here runs spam filters. Many times a day you tell a remote MTA
you've accepted their email but you delete it instead. Explain the
difference?
Hold on there. What
Matthew Black wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:23:06 -0700 (PDT)
Matt Ghali [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Simon Lyall wrote:
Everyone here runs spam filters. Many times a day you tell a remote MTA
you've accepted their email but you delete it instead. Explain the
To keep this operational: Operationally the network operator should
contact a lawyer before doing something like this.
Purposely and knowingly sending bad data in order to do harm is a
counter-attack. As such it might be vigilantism, which is illegal in
most countries. Or it might be
Hi all,
I am considering using LightPath's Metro Ethernet service. Does anyone have
any general feedback, if so you can respond off list?
Regards,
David Schreiber
Microwave Satellite Technologies, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 10:28:32 -0400, John Underhill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It seems to me, that the only *real* solution is for these manufacturers to
implement a [responsible] strategy of automatic firmware upgrades, as it
pertains to these (simple eu type) devices.
How difficult would
It's legal to have broken NTP server in ANY country, and it's legal in most
(by number) countries to send counter-attack (except USA as usual, where
lawyers want to get their money and so do not allow people to self-defence).
So, it can be a GOOD prtactice in reality. But, of course, not in USA.
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 09:28:14 -0700, Alexei Roudnev proclaimed...
It's legal to have broken NTP server in ANY country, and it's legal in most
(by number) countries to send counter-attack (except USA as usual, where
lawyers want to get their money and so do not allow people to self-defence).
As I replied in a comment offline, auto updating firmware is nothing new..
my cellphone updates itself, as does my satellite receiver, and many other
devices as well, (the best of which, perform these tasks without our notice
or appreciation).
There is of course the potential for a bug
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 02:04:39AM -0400, Alain Hebert wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Lyall) writes:
I've said in other forums the only solution for this sort of software is
to return the wrong time (by several months). The owner might actually
notice then and fix the
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 02:04:39AM -0400, Alain Hebert wrote:
Paul Vixie wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Simon Lyall) writes:
I've said in other forums the only solution for this sort of software is
to return the wrong time (by several months). The owner
Does anyone know
what is going on with XO and their peering? My XO circuit is taking weird
paths to other carriers, and internethealthreport.com shows elevated latency on
all of their links. XO won't tell me anything. This also seems to be
affecting US LEC, but I think US LEC buys transit
Berkman, Scott wrote:
Does anyone know what is going on with XO and their peering? My XO
circuit is taking weird paths to other carriers, and
internethealthreport.com shows elevated latency on all of their links.
Latency looks fine - Network availability is pretty pathetic. I can
route out
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Bonomi) [Tue 11 Apr 2006, 22:00 CEST]:
I'll suggest that there are several presumptions in that 'claim' that are
not fully supported by the facts of the matter, as previously described.
Please don't suggest anything of the kind. This is not the North
American
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:00:14 CDT, Robert Bonomi said:
1) _Who_says_ it is 'false data'? *Who*knows* what that machines is
'supposed'
to provide TO WHOM?
I think if you are handing another machine an NTP packet that's intentionally
set several months off just to get them to shut up, you
Does anyone know what is going on with XO and their peering? My XO
circuit is taking weird paths to other carriers, and
internethealthreport.com shows elevated latency on all of their links.
Latency looks fine - Network availability is pretty pathetic. I can
route out our XO pipe
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 15:00:14 CDT, Robert Bonomi said:
1) _Who_says_ it is 'false data'? *Who*knows* what that machines is 'supposed'
to provide TO WHOM?
I think if you are handing another machine an NTP packet that's intentionally
set several months off
I've said in other forums the only solution for this sort of
software is to return the wrong time (by several months). The
owner might actually notice then and fix the problem.
that creates new liability, and isn't realistic in today's
litigious world.
(Suprise to read
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Does anyone else miss the good old days when nanog readers/attendees knew
why pinging the routers you saw in a traceroute directly was not an
accurate measurement of anything?
Looking at the Internet Health Check site, I'd think the 50%
availability was down to
Paul Vixie wrote:
I've said in other forums the only solution for this sort of
software is to return the wrong time (by several months). The
owner might actually notice then and fix the problem.
that creates new liability, and isn't realistic in today's
litigious world.
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 16:30:11 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks
I suppose pointing out that the Internet works because providers
*cooperate* and *agree on protocols* would be pointless
To a certain [limited] extent, anyway, as countless NANOG-L threads
prove time and again. Of course,
Does anyone else miss the good old days when nanog readers/attendees
knew why pinging
the routers you saw in a traceroute directly was not an accurate
measurement of anything?
I miss the succinct, polite answers even more
-donn
[I just happened to see this, browsing at high speed, so please
forgive me, if I'm out of context.]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
AS112-style NTP service, anyone? That would be cooperative and
possibly even useful.
That is actually not necessarily such a good idea.
With the current AS112 stuff, we
LL Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 01:10:09 +0200
LL From: Lars-Johan Liman
LL [I just happened to see this, browsing at high speed, so please
LL forgive me, if I'm out of context.]
I was primarily referring to taking the load away from DIX. :-)
However, as long as you raise a few points...
LL If you
[I just happened to see this, browsing at high speed, so please
forgive me, if I'm out of context.]
You did miss the point (if there is one still)
a rouge anycast NTP server could create
substantial amounts of harm from security and other standpoints by
giving out incorrect time.
It
Hi Matt-
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Matthew Black wrote:
Are you suggesting that we configure our e-mail servers to notify
people upon automatic deletion of spam?
Absolutely not. I was responding to the suggestion that it's a good
idea to silently drop mail which you have accepted with a 2xx
2) *Who*says* there is 'malicious intent' involved? I'm going to be
travelling 'off network'(with the 'network' being defined as the one where
I have published that I'm providing time-server services to), and I happen
to have a recurring need for 32-bit units of a specifically
transformed
On 4/11/06, Matthew Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you suggesting that we configure our e-mail servers to notify
people upon automatic deletion of spam? Frequently, spam cannot be
properly identified until closure of the SMTP conversation and that
final 200 mMESSAGE ACCEPTED...or do you
Two concrete technical suggestions to mitigate the volunteered NTP server's
usage issues at the DIX:
(1) Have someone else anycast the DIX block, and NAT the incoming NTP requests
to another NTP stratum-1 server (eg pool address(es)).
Or a much better idea:
(2) Renumber into a new /24, which
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Alain Hebert wrote:
Yeap ... cooperate... Which DLink is not doing.
All legal discussion end the same way... a dead end.
Half are scared by lawyer and the other have enought intestinal
fortitude to put them in there place.
(At the bottom of the sea
At 11:47 PM -0400 4/11/06, Brian Dickson wrote:
Two concrete technical suggestions to mitigate the volunteered NTP server's
usage issues at the DIX:
(1) Have someone else anycast the DIX block, and NAT the incoming NTP requests
to another NTP stratum-1 server (eg pool address(es)).
Or a much
BD Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 23:47:11 -0400
BD From: Brian Dickson
BD As to the liability issue, it is easy enough to envision that
BD someone, somewhere, is relying on time results from NTP for a
BD life-or-death application, like a medical device, and is innocently
BD an impacted third party in
37 matches
Mail list logo
