Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:19:51PM -0700, Steve Sobol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > There's a big difference, of course, between INTENTIONALLY pointing > your computers at DNS servers that do this kind of thing, and having > it done for you without your knowledg

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

* Patrick W. Gilmore: > Actually, I take that back. Why wouldn't you just get a feed from > Cymru ?? I don't think Team Cymru offers a "feed" of what is supposed to be in the routing table. 128/1 isn't a bogon. It's not even that useful for hijacking a

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

* Seth Johnson: > (A) Internet.— The term “Internet” means the worldwide, > publicly accessible system of interconnected > computer networks that transmit data by packet > switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP), > some

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

* Steven M. Bellovin: > The second is the precedent that's set -- who gets to decide what zones > are excluded from the tree? OpenDNS? Sure -- and to whom do they > listen? Are any sites to be ruled out on political grounds? > Ideological? Not today, sure, and (I assume) not by OpenDNS -- but

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:58:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > (I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that > Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate > networks, by the way.) eBay and Google aren't selling transit. - mark -- Mark Newton

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Title: Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... If its their corp IT peopl.  Oh well they should get over it.  If isp vote with your dollars.  -Original Message- From:   Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent:   Tue Jul 11 00:09:25 2006 To: Steve Sobol Cc: Joseph Jackson

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Joseph Jackson wrote: > If its their corp IT peopl. Oh well they should get over it. If isp > vote with your dollars. Exactly. That choice didn't exist with Sitefinder. -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

I disagree with your statement on NAT end-points not being "publicly accessible" -- that's certainly not true, and a myth that needs to be finally killed. The "statefulness" of the NAT gateway handles that -- it's a non-issue. I get really tired of hearing people perpetuate this mistruth. Of co

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

* Mark Newton: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:58:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > (I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that > > Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate > > networks, by the way.) > > eBay and Google aren't selling transi

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:39:50AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Mark Newton: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:58:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > (I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that > > > Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corpora

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Tuesday 11 Jul 2006 07:19, Steve Sobol wrote: > > There's a big difference, of course, between INTENTIONALLY pointing your > computers at DNS servers that do this kind of thing, and having it done for > you without your knowledge and/or consent. Yes, one way you choose who breaks your DNS, the

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Jul 11, 2006, at 12:09 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:19:51PM -0700, Steve Sobol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 16 lines which said: There's a big difference, of course, between INTENTIONALLY pointing your computers at DNS servers that do this kind of

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 03:25:55PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: Hi, > So far, much of the argument over "net neutrality" has been over > whether service providers should be allowed to favor one > application, destination or Internet service over another. This > is Net neutrality at the application

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Jul 11, 2006, at 3:09 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:19:51PM -0700, Steve Sobol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote a message of 16 lines which said: There's a big difference, of course, between INTENTIONALLY pointing your computers at DNS servers that do this kind of th

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Patrick writes: > I'm not going to use the service either, but for different reasons > than you state. And it does have "many of the same flaws" as > Sitefinder. Yes, it does. However, many of those flaws revolve around servers being forced to opt in to the (original) Sitefinder; it should

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

Having seen a lot cons and little pros, here is my scenario: I am running my own root, a copy of the Cesidan Root plus some TLDs of my own liking, some shared with "friends" who dont want to risk cache poisoning. I am runnings both djbdns (dnscache with tinydns and axfrdns as root) and Bind 9.

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

> * Seth Johnson: > > (A) Internet.— The term “Internet” means the worldwide, > > publicly accessible system of interconnected > > computer networks that transmit data by packet > > switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP), > >

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Tuesday 11 Jul 2006 13:40, you wrote: > > Client sites with dedicated recursers are going to be presented with a > challenge: if their servers use the recursers, then will they set up > a parallel set of caching forwarding recursers for desktop-to-OpenDNS > use, or will they simply let OpenDN

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

* Mark Newton: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:39:50AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > * Mark Newton: > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:58:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > (I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that > > > > Ebay or Google must carry third par

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 03:58:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > Eh? Of course they are. They're selling transit to their cable > > modem customers, surely? > > Quote from a typical terms of service agreement: I think you're missing the point, Florian. Regardless of any retail restr

RE: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

> So, what happened to "my network, my rules"? > > Perhaps I'm not seeing the point here, but what on earth does a > government has to do with the question wether or not a > service provider > implements QoS on his network? The government supplies them with laws virtually making them a monopoly

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

* Mark Newton: > I think you're missing the point, Florian. Regardless of any > retail restrictions, the fact still remains that your local > Cable company is selling connectivity to other peoples' > autonomous systems. Then why do the ads promote their new chat service, instead the ever-gro

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

* Fergie: > I disagree with your statement on NAT end-points not being "publicly > accessible" -- that's certainly not true, and a myth that needs to be > finally killed. >From a security point of view, they are still accessible. From an operational point of view, they are not, at least not on

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, WONG, Yuen-Fung wrote: > > Sometimes earlier this year someone announced this 128/1 and caused > heavy loading to our routers to rebuild the CEF. Would anyone filter > out this route (and other similar routes such as 0/1, 128/1, 0/2, 64/2, > up to /4, for example) as b

RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

That's absolutely ridiculous. Enterprise IT organizations make decisions on behalf of their userbase all day. Frankly, I'd be shocked if many tried this out - most enterprises run their own DNS servers as part of an Active Directory scheme. In any case, those workstations belong to the enterprise

(2nd) Call for Volunteers for Mailing List Administration Panel

There is an opening on the NANOG Mail List Administration Panel. According to the draft charter[1]: "... The NANOG list will be administered and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee." Accordingly, the Steering Committee is soliciting nominations for this o

RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

I agree. I think this isn't a bad service. If people want to run it more power to them. > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Golding [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:22 PM > To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Steve Sobol' > Cc: Joseph Jackson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > S

Re: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1

On 11-Jul-2006, at 02:06, Florian Weimer wrote: * Patrick W. Gilmore: Actually, I take that back. Why wouldn't you just get a feed from Cymru ?? I don't think Team Cymru offers a "feed" of what is supposed to be in the routing table. No, but they

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Simon Waters wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 Jul 2006 07:19, Steve Sobol wrote: > > > > There's a big difference, of course, between INTENTIONALLY pointing your > > computers at DNS servers that do this kind of thing, and having it done for > > you without your knowledge and/or con

RE: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal

> Behalf Of Florian Weimer > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:58 AM > To: Mark Newton > Cc: Seth Johnson; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal > > > * Mark Newton: > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:39:50AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > > * Mark Newton: >