> I wonder what they use the other 241663 addresses for.
>
> +-+-+--+--++
> | rir | country | type | descr| num|
> +-+-+--+--++
> | ripencc | QA | ipv4 | 81.29.160.0 | 4096 |
> | ripencc | QA
Le Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 07:07:22PM -0500, Joseph S D Yao a écrit :
> > I wonder what they use the other 241663 addresses for.
>
> Internal addressing, perhaps, if the AP story is correct.
Servers maybe ? I hope that they are not NATed.
Taping devices may need a separate management address too :
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
According to
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-TechBit-Wikipedia-Block.html
all of Qatar appears on the net as a single IP address. I don't know
if it's NAT or a proxy that you need to use to get out to the world,
but whatever the exac
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Fergie wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> - -- "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >According to
> >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-TechBit-Wikipedia-Block.html
> >all of Qatar appears on the net as a single IP addres
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Niels Bakker wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gadi Evron) [Thu 04 Jan 2007, 00:16 CET]:
> >4. I do wish the talk on how CCC set up their multiple-uplink GigE network
> >for the conference was filmed, I call this type of "create an ISP in 24
> >hours", in a very very hostile and
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gadi Evron) [Thu 04 Jan 2007, 00:16 CET]:
4. I do wish the talk on how CCC set up their multiple-uplink GigE network
for the conference was filmed, I call this type of "create an ISP in 24
hours", in a very very hostile and busy environment such as at
defcon or CCC "extrem
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:53:23 +0100
Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4-jan-2007, at 0:31, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> > According to
> > http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-TechBit-Wikipedia->
> > Block.html all of Qatar appears on the net as a single IP address.
>
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:04:17PM -0800, Payam wrote:
Should have said... "I wasn't aware that the Internet was a Male ...
that needed cleaning of the pipes" and see what they would have said! hahah
either way... go comcast go!
-Payam
I'm sorry, you'll have to explai
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:26:00AM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
...
But there are worse offenses. HTML emails - every author has a choice
there, so that ones unforgivable IMHO. Top-Posting and Legalese Addendums
to messages are both things that an en
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 12:53:23AM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>
> On 4-jan-2007, at 0:31, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> >According to
> >http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-TechBit-Wikipedia-
> >Block.html
> >all of Qatar appears on the net as a single IP address.
>
> I wonde
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 03:04:17PM -0800, Payam wrote:
>
> Should have said... "I wasn't aware that the Internet was a Male ...
> that needed cleaning of the pipes" and see what they would have said! hahah
> either way... go comcast go!
>
> -Payam
I'm sorry, you'll have to explain that one to
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 09:26:00AM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
...
> But there are worse offenses. HTML emails - every author has a choice
> there, so that ones unforgivable IMHO. Top-Posting and Legalese Addendums
> to messages are both things that an end-user in a COE corporate
> environment
On 4-jan-2007, at 0:31, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
According to
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-TechBit-Wikipedia-
Block.html
all of Qatar appears on the net as a single IP address.
I wonder what they use the other 241663 addresses for.
+-+-+--+
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>According to
>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-TechBit-Wikipedia-Block.html
>all of Qatar appears on the net as a single IP address. I don't know
>if it's NAT or a proxy that you nee
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
>
> According to
> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-TechBit-Wikipedia-Block.html
> all of Qatar appears on the net as a single IP address. I don't know
> if it's NAT or a proxy that you need to use to get out to the world,
> but whatever
According to
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-TechBit-Wikipedia-Block.html
all of Qatar appears on the net as a single IP address. I don't know
if it's NAT or a proxy that you need to use to get out to the world,
but whatever the exact cause, it had a predictable consequence -- the
e
Hi! Happy new year!
At CCC last week Raven Alder gave a talk on the subject (Router and
Infrastructure Hacking), which was pretty neat!
I figure some of you may enjoy this. I hope the video for her talk becomes
available soon.
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2006/Fahrplan/attachments/1197-CCC_inf
Should have said... "I wasn't aware that the Internet was a Male ...
that needed cleaning of the pipes" and see what they would have said! hahah
either way... go comcast go!
-Payam
Joseph S D Yao wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:07:23PM -0500, Matthew Walker wrote:
Issue was resolved at
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:07:23PM -0500, Matthew Walker wrote:
> Issue was resolved at 1:35 pm. Thank you for the many replies.
>
> The response when I called Comcast was:
>
> Sorry Sir, We are doing Maintenance, the pipes were dirty, and they were
> cleaning them'. I asked, which pipes, and t
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:44:28PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
So why the big deal?
Because it's very rude -- like top-posting, or full-quoting, or sending
email marked up with HTML. Because it's an unprovoked threat. Because
it's an attempt to uni
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Bill Nash wrote:
> malicious/hacked sites. Currently, phishing sites and open proxies, make
> it into blacklist, but drone network C&Cs do. Darknet is intended to
Someone pointed out my typo. This should read 'phishing sites and open
proxies don't make it into the blacklis
At 12:07 PM 1/3/2007, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:39:40 +
Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:29, you wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, James Baldwin wrote:
> > > Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access
> > > http://ci
On Jan 3, 2007, at 9:07 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:39:40 +
Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:29, you wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, James Baldwin wrote:
Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access
http://cisco.com?
James Blessing wrote:
Very simply : Would you accept traffic from a customer who insists on sending 0
prefixes across a BGP session?
I just ran through a related issue with one of my upstream peers. It appears
that they have a RPF strictly enforced policy, yet during the process of
renumber
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:39:40 +
> Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Working fine here. Resolves to 198.133.219.25
>
> What does DNS resolution have to do with 403 web errors?
>
Determining if this is an episode of GSLB's Gone
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Scott Morris wrote:
Works fine for me.
And a 403 Forbidden is a web server error, not a resolution error if I
remember right.
Correct. Someone made a boo-boo on some component of www.cisco.com, i.e.
changed a chunk of the web server configuration or broke the permission
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Andy Davidson wrote:
> From a 'problem solving' perspective, a Team Cymru-style bgp peer that
> injected very specific routes into their routing table, and matching
> configuration which caused those particular routes to be dropped would be
> ideal. Additions and deletions wo
At 11:53 AM 1/3/2007, Scott Morris wrote:
Works fine for me.
Works for me now too.
---Mike
And a 403 Forbidden is a web server error, not a resolution error if I
remember right.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Ta
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:39:40 +
Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:29, you wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, James Baldwin wrote:
> > > Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access
> > > http://cisco.com?
[...]
> Working fine here. Resolves to
Works fine for me.
And a 403 Forbidden is a web server error, not a resolution error if I
remember right.
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Tancsa
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 11:35 AM
To: James Baldwin; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Don't include the email you're responding to then it's no longer top
> posting, plus you can still read the archive easily.
>
It would be nice if mailing list software added the archive URL to all
email forwarded. Then people could easily say
In http://lists.nanog.org/nanog/2007/01/03/
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 16:29, you wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, James Baldwin wrote:
> > Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access
> > http://cisco.com?
>
> Forbidden
>
> You don't have permission to access / on this server.
>
> Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encounte
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, James Baldwin wrote:
>
> Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access http://cisco.com?
Who was talking about chmod -R 0 earlier?
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/
SOLE LUNDY FASTNET IRISH SEA: SOUTHWEST VEERING WEST 7 TO SEVERE GALE 9,
At 11:24 AM 1/3/2007, James Baldwin wrote:
Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access http:// cisco.com?
Yes. Resolves to 198.133.219.25 for me.
---Mike
Looks like certain portions of it are coming back... that recursive
chown is taking a while.
James Baldwin
On Jan 3, 2007, at 10:24 AM, James Baldwin wrote:
Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access http://
cisco.com?
James Baldwin
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, James Baldwin wrote:
Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access http://cisco.com?
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an
ErrorDocument to handle the reque
Anyone else getting a 403 Forbidden when trying to access http://
cisco.com?
James Baldwin
why.. do not filter/reject html mails? and end the endless discussions?
http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?&user=&passw=&list=GLOBAL&func=help&extra=configset_taboo_headers
bye
ingo flaschberger
geschaeftsleitung
---
netstorage-crossip-flat:fee
powered by
cros
Hrm. Well, this is the way I see it.
(1) Short inline responses which provide context are useful for
following a conversation.
(2) Anything longer than 1,000 words (including quotations) merits
discussion outside of email, such as within a document or on a site
which hosts threaded conversati
> Some say that top-posting reverses the conversation, but if you
> are thumbing through the archives of top-posted threads, each
> contribution is on the first screen and you can navigate message
> to message in time-order
Don't include the email you're responding to then it's no longer top
post
This little piece will be top-posted, but everthing else will be inline.
I'm also going to trim the pieces that I won't be responding to *gasp*!
Please don't shoot me - comments are inline ;-)
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, Edward Lewis wrote:
I'm not going to pick on the "it's" (grammatically correct,
> SecureID might be helpful if you want to differentiate your product
> between automatic and manual use, but it doesn't do anything to
> authenticate the party you are relaying information to. But it's
> useless in a phishing context. If you want a token solution, at least
> use something that
* Neil J. McRae:
> I didn't see the original post but the topic came
> up in 2005 here in the UK as the banks here wanted to
> use BGP filtering in the same light. The LINX prepared
> a paper on the issues with BGP blackholing and recommended
> that if the banks want to trade on the Internet that
I'm not going to pick on the "it's" (grammatically correct, but it
refers the email disclaimers which I don't feel like commenting on)
but I want to say that I've come to appreciate top-posting. With
top-posts, there is no need to scroll down the list, and it is more
like a conversation than
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 01:36:26PM +, James Blessing wrote:
> Expecting the traffic is not a problem, just want some way of verifying
> that the traffic isn't malicious/spoofed (e.g. by using unicast RPF or
> similar)
Whether or not the customer plans on advertising prefixes via BGP,
your s
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, James Blessing wrote:
> Expecting the traffic is not a problem, just want some way of verifying
that the
> traffic isn't malicious/spoofed (e.g. by using unicast RPF or similar)
Is there some reason a filter wouldn't work?
-Bill
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, James Blessing wrote:
> Very simply : Would you accept traffic from a customer who insists on
sending 0
> prefixes across a BGP session?
Does that somehow make their money not [green,colorful,whatever]?
-Bill
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Neil J. McRae wrote:
> are you advertising them routes?
> If so then why wouldn't you expect traffic?
>> -Original Message-
> Very simply : Would you accept traffic from a customer who insists on
> sending 0
> prefixes across a BGP session?
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 12:42:34PM +, James Blessing wrote:
> Very simply : Would you accept traffic from a customer who insists
> on sending 0 prefixes across a BGP session?
As long as I knew the src ip blocks used by the customer and could
craft an appropriate ingress filter, sure. I'm gu
On 3 Jan 2007, at 01:02, Joy, Dylan wrote:
I'm curious if anyone can answer whether there has been any
traction made relative to blocking egress traffic (via BGP) on US
backbones which is destined to IP addresses used for fraudulent
purposes, such as phishing sites. I'm sure there are s
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 05:44:28PM +1300, Mark Foster wrote:
> So why the big deal?
Because it's very rude -- like top-posting, or full-quoting, or sending
email marked up with HTML. Because it's an unprovoked threat. Because
it's an attempt to unilaterally shove an unenforceable contract down
are you advertising them routes?
If so then why wouldn't you expect traffic?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> James Blessing
> Sent: 03 January 2007 12:43
> To: nanog
> Subject: Quick BGP peering question
>
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Very simply : Would you accept traffic from a customer who insists on sending 0
prefixes across a BGP session?
J
- --
COO
Entanet International
T: 0870 770 9580
http://www.enta.net/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
C
I didn't see the original post but the topic came
up in 2005 here in the UK as the banks here wanted to
use BGP filtering in the same light. The LINX prepared
a paper on the issues with BGP blackholing and recommended
that if the banks want to trade on the Internet that
they should introduce authe
: It also says 'If you are not the intended recipient...'
: Since the post is being made to NANOG,
: ... so I fail to see why a big deal should be made out of it
Because it's bad manners in a public forum. It's impolite in the same way
SHOUTING! is.
scott
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrot
55 matches
Mail list logo
