Has anyone done any comparisons recently? I know that RouteScience
changed their model of not providing the hardware anymore, but I was
overall satisfied with their product when I had it before. Has anyone
stacked the Internap (former NetVMG/Sockeye) soft against the
PathControl software?
What
Does anyone know the address of the Philadelphia MCI/UU (legacy?) POP?
Replies off list are fine.
Thanks,
-Dave
Looking for anyone who's done a direct comparison of the two (I understand
the way they fundamentally work is completely different, however they both
try to achieve the same thing). I'm doing my own bake-off here and I'd
like to hear others' opinions.
Direct replies are OK
Thanks,
-Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> james
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Misplaced flamewar... WAS: RE: in case nobody else noticed
> it, there was a mail worm released today
>
>
>
>>: Also, for reference to other people - the preview pane does *not*
>>allow
>>: the execution of attachments unless they're double-clicked on and
>>: acknowledged. Again - we're not talking about another OS or Outlook
>>: exploit, only a stupid user exploit.
>The "feature" has been fixed but
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 08:37, Dave Temkin wrote:
>> So? Had the virii been an application compiled for RedHat and
>> everyone ran RedHat instead of Windows and they downloaded it using
>> Evolution and double clicked on it, it would suddenly be RH's fault
>>
On Wednesday 28 January 2004 08:37, Dave Temkin wrote:
>> So? Had the virii been an application compiled for RedHat and
>> everyone ran RedHat instead of Windows and they downloaded it using
>> Evolution and double clicked on it, it would suddenly be RH's fault
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> : They rate of it is quite surprising. By the description, the trick
>>> /
>>> : method of infection does not seem all that different than past worms
>>> : viri. Makes me wonder how many people in a room would reach into
>>their
>>> : purse/pocket on hearing, "Wallet inspector"
If anyone on the list is employed by Google please contact me ASAP. I've
sent emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and haven't gotten a response. There's
nothing on the NOC list for Google.
Thanks,
-Dave
You mean like Level3?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Steven M. Bellovin
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 2:27 PM
To: Matthew Crocker
Cc: Christopher X. Candreva; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AOL rejecting mail from IP's w/o reverse DN
FWIW, it's not a virus, it's something infrastructure related. All of the
systems that I've seen this on have all the latest DAT's and the proxy
servers it sits behind are virus scanning as well (for both email and web)
and use alternate vendors
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Dave
Has anyone seen a situation on their internal networks where going to a
(non-Google) page "Hijacks" them and they end up with either the Google
front page or a broken link page?
This happens on machines both with the toolbar and without, and we've
seen it on machines on different networks/running
Does anyone have any experience in dealing with US Lec? I'm working with
a FastNet customer who's been sold to them in FSST's bankruptcy.
We have other connectivity in the meantime.
Thx,
-Dave
Actually I was moreso looking to see if any of the "major" carriers were
doing it on the sly, ie, selling it as point-to-point TDM but instead it
was CES
Thanks,
--
David Temkin
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Jared Mauch wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 09:50:30PM -0400, Dave Temkin wrot
Is anyone aware of any carriers that are using CES as a transport method
as private line and aren't necessarily selling it as such? (ie, I've
ordered a DS-3 from point A to point B, and instead of the carrier
dropping it as standard TDM it's CES through their network...)
Thanks,
--
David Temki
lementation. Perhaps Cisco will improve their implementation
for the next round of CMTS development...
Filtering of RFC 1918 space by cable ISPs is of course another topic.
-Doug-
[Kevin Oberman <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wednesday, July 23,
2003 7:07 AM:]
>> Date:
Unless of course I block ICMP for the purposes of denying traceroute but
still allow DF/etc. Then it's not "broken" as you say.
--
David Temkin
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 13:50:05 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Dave Temkin <
Needs is a tough call. Plenty of networks block ICMP at the border and
could very well be using 1918 addressing in between and you'd have no
idea.
--
David Temkin
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Dave Temkin wrote:
> &
Schwartz wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:10 AM
> > To: Dave Temkin
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: re: rfc1918
Good point on the PMTU, you're correct and I wasn't thinking about that
(though generally that would have come from the inside router, unless one
of those routers was where the MTU limitation was). Engineered *correctly
*I don't see an issue.
I never implied that people should remove filters for
Is this really an issue? So long as they're not advertising the space I
see no issue with routing traffic through a 10. network as transit. If
you have no reason to reach their router directly (and after Cisco's last
exploit, I'd think no one would want anyone to reach their router directly
:-)
21 matches
Mail list logo
