Hi,
Is not the other danger that any anti Dos measure is likely to fail
unless unified over a significant % of the Internet / AS numbers to
block to the BotNet client machines at source within their home AS.
Once the army has been amassed and escaped their home ASes they can
launch an attack
On Jan 29, 2008 7:14 AM, Ben Butler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or, to ask the question another way, would the low % of infrastructure
backbone attacks increase if the infrastructure started blocking
effectively attacks rather than completing them through null routing the
target. If the
It does make sense though. Say one megabits interface with 20 VLANs. In that
scenario, every VLAN, usually has own link-local address. It is more practical
than multiple interfaces with same link-local address.
I found this on Juniper router and now assume it is Juniper specific
snort bsd wrote:
Never mind
it is the VLAN number. But which RFC define this?
I've never seen an IPv6 RFC specify to put the VLAN number in the
link-local address.
Thus this must be an (odd) choice made by some implementation. Perhaps
the implementation somehow requires that all the
Aah...I knew the name was familiar - they bought the Santa Clara,
NYC, and Georgia Globix facilities. Looks like they picked up the
hosting/managed services groups in the deal. So that's a reference
point, for whatever it's worth.
As I've been out of Globix for 6 years now, I won't claim to
And unless you are on only certain particular devices (e.g. L3 switches)
then the end device won't necessarily have any relevant clue what VLAN it's
on.
I have never seen/heard of an RFC for it either and would certainly wonder
WHY?. :)
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
This is slightly technical (not really, but slightly)...
I am looking for folks willing to help me determine whether or not newer
versions of the firmware have slightly closer to functional SNMP support
please contact me off-list if you are interested.
I've tried asking extreme
