On Sun, 13 May 2007, Gadi Evron wrote:
"Passing the buck! Buck passer!" (see below - skip to Dilbert link)
I guess you missed my attempts 3 or 4 years ago at trying to establish
some standards for CPE concerning security. I've been at this party for
a long time, I know how the song ends.
Folks,
Can you please try to slot the ISP security BOF into the
first day (Monday) of the agenda? Something has come
up and I have to leave late Monday night.
Thanks for your consideration!
-danny
choice. Layout here is such that I'd expect to use a single quad gigabit port
ethernet blade in each of a pair of M10i/M20 to achieve redundancy.
he said 'blade' to which I read '4 pics in a FPC'... maybe it's a
terminology thing? Neal?
The M10i doesn't have an FPC blade per se (it's built int
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 May 2007, Gadi Evron wrote:
> > There is little to no financial incentive for ISPs to do something about
> > this problem right now, even if it is currently under their direct
> > control. Later on, when it is a problem - it will cost mor
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Donald Stahl wrote:
>
> > I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn with a new job. If
> > I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams and have a couple
> > of
> > peers will the M10i (768M max) be enough or is the M20 (2048M max) a better
> > cho
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Gadi Evron wrote:
> There is little to no financial incentive for ISPs to do something about
> this problem right now, even if it is currently under their direct
> control. Later on, when it is a problem - it will cost more.
So, out of curiousity, could you define: "under t
I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn with a new job. If
I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams and have a couple of
peers will the M10i (768M max) be enough or is the M20 (2048M max) a better
choice. Layout here is such that I'd expect to use a single quad g
M7i is a very, very attractive lab/spare box, but this company wants
carrier class - dual engine M10i are the minimum.
John Crain wrote:
You might even consider the m7i they can use the same cards
JC
On May 13, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 13-May-2007, at 15:33, Neal Rauh
On 13-May-2007, at 15:33, Neal Rauhauser wrote:
I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn with a new
job. If I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams
and have a couple of peers will the M10i (768M max) be enough or is
the M20 (2048M max) a better choice.
I
There is really no ethernet connectivity to Verizon (UUNet) in the
505 Marquette building in ABQ? That seems very, very strange to me this
late in the game ... can anyone confirm/deny this for me?
I don't know much about Juniper but I'm about to learn with a new job.
If I'm going to take full routes from a couple of upstreams and have a
couple of peers will the M10i (768M max) be enough or is the M20 (2048M
max) a better choice. Layout here is such that I'd expect to use a
single qua
Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 May 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this kind of problem: ISPs
>> are very likely liable if they fail to alert customers about security
>> problems, and do not provide updates in a timely manner. After a few
>> painful
Hi Gadi,
reading all the email re off topic etc is wrong.
If this issue is dealt with then transit bandwidth will be less,
security will improve and the end user experience will be better.
Great dilbert cartoon
Colin
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 May 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this kind of problem: ISPs
> > are very likely liable if they fail to alert customers about security
> > problems, and do not provide updates in a timely manner.
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
Fortunately, there is a simple solution to this kind of problem: ISPs
are very likely liable if they fail to alert customers about security
problems, and do not provide updates in a timely manner. After a few
painful incidents, the ISPs will learn, and
On 5/13/07, Niels Bakker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Difficult, as spam complaints generally include the original spam and
thus trigger SpamAssassin (almost) just as hard.
Otherwise, looking forward to your 98% effective procmail recipe
Start with something as simple as "to or cc your abuse
On 5/12/07, Niels Bakker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Suresh Ramasubramanian) [Sat 12 May 2007, 05:25 CEST]:
> On 5/11/07, K K <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Probably 98% of the mailbox is from are spammers who've harvested or
>> randomly targeted abuse@ addresses for male enh
Jo,
you are in the colo business, and not in the access
business? You surely must also have millions of users,
all with Windows on it and some horses and what not.
Just a thought, with no opinion specifically.
Alexander
On Sat, 12 May 2007 09:06:58 -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> We do better. We a
* Suresh Ramasubramanian:
> As frequent as Gadi is with his botnet posts, insecure and wide open
> CPE getting deployed across a large provider is definitely
> operational.
And if Gadi's examples are not scary enoug for you, there are far more
relevant vulnerabilities.
It seems that the organiz
19 matches
Mail list logo
