I mean if the traffic were unrealistically to increase so that
bad traffic was
50% of all traffic we would all have to double our circuit and
router capacity
and you either pass that cost on directly (charge for extra
usage) or indirectly
(increase the $ per Mb) to the user.
I think
For virus scanners that run at other stages in the delivery process,
the right decision about whether to do a notification or not
is virus-dependent, if your anti-virus package supports it.
Sobig almost always forges sender addresses, so it shouldn't get a
reply,
but some other viruses
For two, most of the things that consume power are not in
fact consuming exactly a fixed amount of power. Light bulbs
go dimmer if you reduce voltage; electrical motors will produce
less power (torque X rpm) if voltage drops, etc. Minor blips
are happening all the time in major grids, and
I think there is confusion here.
The banks are making the claim, that, if you the user, has an infected PC,
that is compromised by an 3lit3 h4x0r, and your password to your bank
account is compromised, then the bank is not responsible.
That is what you are saying, Sean?
While
-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 ignorant
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Dave Temkin wrote:
Is this really an issue? So
On Fri, 30 May 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFC1918 is a set number of IP addresses. If you are working on a private
network lab that will be on the internet eventually or have parts on the
internet and exceeds the total number of IPV4 addressing set aside in
RFC1918, and IPV6 private
.
That said, if it takes a bit of FUD to get attention to a bad law,
that's maybe not such a terribly bad thing. The risk is that
lawmakers will refute the FUD and then feel comfortable going ahead
with a bad law.
--
David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
such proxies commonly run and some
ports may require more than one connection to test multiple
protocols. We never do such a probe except as a response to a
connection made to us.
--
David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 28 Dec 2002 18:34:01 -0500, Leo Bicknell wrote:
All in all, I find ratios an extremely poor way of validating a
peer. I can think of many cases where it is in both parties interest
to peer, but where the traffic might be extremely unbalanced. Yes,
the fact that it is unbalanced can
I was also curious about this - if I am a customer who wants to
multihome and can justify only a /24, I would go to an ISP
which has an allocation from the Class C space rather than one from the
Class A space.
It doesn't matter. For all practical purposes, basement multihomers only
care
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:36:39 -0600 (CST), Forrest wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but what good would it do for someone to
multihome if only their own providers accept their route, but nobody else
does? I realize that their block should be still announced with their
ISP's larger aggregate,
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:45:42 -0800 (PST), Harsha Narayan wrote:
Doesn't this mean that unless filtering policies change, after Class C
space is used up, the multihomer will have to get a /22 from the ISP
(since after Class C gets used up allocations will be made from Class A
space). There are
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 15:45:29 -0500, Scott Silzer wrote:
I could understand if an ISP was allowing spam from a portion of
there network. But in this case the only thing that the ISP did is
host a website, the SPAM was sent from from a third party's network.
The ISP did terminate the customer
On Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:52:38 -0500, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
You are under the delusion tht ARIN is selling goods. If they were, we'd
all have something to complain about. ARIN is selling you 5 bytes, a
couple records for contact info, a whois server, a template processing
system which takes
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:27:49 -0500, David Charlap wrote:
I don't know what (if any) legal right of privacy is in Nigeria, but I
would suspect that a publicly posted policy notice (like management
reserves the right to monitor all traffic and a strict TOS policy)
should mitigate any legal
On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 16:31:30 -0800 (PST), Vadim Antonov wrote:
In the regular skyjacking the attackers want to get ransom, or divert an
airplane to someplace. They'll get cooperation from pilots, too - without
any need to be present in the cockpit. So if it is known that the policy
is not to
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:12:20 -0800 (PST), Vadim Antonov wrote:
On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Barry Shein wrote:
The attack on the WTC not only took out the WTC, it essentially has
taken out our airline industry.
It may be argued that airline industry has taken out itself by first not
having elementary
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:46:51 -0500 (EST), Mike (meuon) Harrison wrote:
It also appears to block Gnutella and similar protocols.
You should never sign an IP access agreement that doesn't give you access to
the filtering rules that affect your traffic. Ideally, you should strongly
avoid
Ok but real world calling. I have tried this and when customers find
something
doesnt work on your network but it does on your competitor you make it
work even
if that means breaking rules.
What services require transport of packets with RFC1918 source
addresses across the public network?
I
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 15:53:40 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have experience of such breakage from your own customers? It
would be interesting to hear details.
Loss of ICMP packets generated by links with endpoints numbered in
RFC1918
space. Holes in traceroutes, broken PMTU
On Mon, 07 Oct 2002 15:37:16 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suppose they *could* - the fun then starts when you get a routing flap and
the other router tells you that you're not on one subnet because the subnet
is unreachable and would you please remove the interface? And I'm willing
to
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 23:16:20 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are these 'special needs' people keep mentioning? What special needs
might you have of your transit providers?
It's hard to generally categorize special needs because they're special. I
can give you an example
On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:35:48 +0300 (IDT), Arie Vayner wrote:
Does anyone have any comments (good or bad) about Cognet as a transit
provider in New York?
They seem to be too cheap.
Arie
We use them. They work, they're reliable, they keep their promises, and
their NOC is incredibly
I think an important question would be what level of service are they
buying. Including 255 address with a T3 would be very reasonable, less so
with a T1, not very reasonable with DSL, and ridiculous with a dial-up
account.
I must be missing something. Why would you expect need for IP
Maybe I don't want my email sitting around in your MTA queue for
your sysadmins to read.
Given the volumes of mail that pass through these kinds of
things, that's not likely to be a problem. More likely to be a
problem would be the fact that the mail might sit there for a week
before it
On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 19:40:16 -0700, Jim Hickstein wrote:
--On Tuesday, August 27, 2002 6:13 PM -0700 David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm afraid the technology to rapidly sift through large volumes of
information to search for specific areas of interest is widely available
Force forward by default, but allow anyone who wants to use TCP port
25 the ability to do so. They must sign an non-abuse agreement or
whatever. Then they get their host/link put into the TCP port 25 open
path.
Every ISP I have ever worked for and every ISP I have ever used has
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:59:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The industry needs one or more clueful persons willing to act as expert
witnesses in these types of court cases. Because of Dave Farber's role in
the early Internet, the legal community views him as an authority on the
subject. At
I'm sure that they have all sorts of methods. On the other hand,
cellphones make devilishly difficult bugs to eliminate, especially
the ones that are capable of automatically answering the call and
activating the microphone without any audible ring. You can't just
block all cellphones,
buy it. I don't
see Bill Gates packing heat any time soon.
*yawn*
--
David Schwartz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:43:17 -0700 (PDT), Vadim Antonov wrote:
Microsoft already duped the software consumers into buying into fully
proprietary software.
I don't think duped is really a fair description. They simply provide a
large number of users with what they want. There isn't
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:04:02 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a
/24
is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still
thousands of /24 announcements)
If a significant number of providers
On 29 Jun 2002 02:32:03 +, Vijay Gill wrote:
Mike Leber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sprint's peers aren't equal to Sprint or each other when considered by
revenue, profitability, number of customers, or geographical coverage.
A good proxy for the above is to ask the question:
Do X and Y
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:22:25 -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote:
But if you were hungrier, and they were the only place that had food,
they *COULD* charge whatever they want, and you'd be willing to pay it,
no?
--Phil
Obviously any business would like to get the highest possible price for
On Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:15:21 -0400, Ukyo Kuonji wrote:
You wouldn't buy the notion of reciprical billing? I think this would most
likely be the fairest, but maybe the hardest to implement. It would either
have to be done at the end points, or at every interconnect. In this
method, if the
My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN once
they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock
assigned directly to them (currently a /20, unless I slept through another
change...)
The guidelines have a strong preference for
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:18:50 -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2002 at 01:56:26AM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
My *personal* opinion is that wise ISPs only punt customers to ARIN once
they reach the point where they can, in fact, have a normal ARIN netblock
assigned directly to them
On Mon, 6 May 2002 09:59:24 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
Is that true? I thought the space belongs to ARIN, and they loan it to
certain parties. Those parties can use the IPs in accordance with ARIN
rules.
The way you've written the above statements makes them true. However, such
a
On Thu, 9 May 2002 19:46:53 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
DS writes:
Nonetheless, ARIN is in the business of requiring compliance with its
policies as a condition of IP address allocations.
In the real world ARIN only looks at existing assignments to judge the
worthiness of an
On Thu, 9 May 2002 20:17:32 -0400 (EDT), David R Huberman wrote:
I'm not a lawyer and cannot answer the questions you pose.
However I fail to see why the interesting legal principles you are
espousing have anything to do with the original topic of this thread: an
upstream revoking an
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:17:01 -0400 (EDT), David Lesher wrote:
If you use that sand-based media instead of the copper;
you'll avoid LOTS of issues -- ground loops, induced noise,
corrosion resistance, etc...
Fiber Is Your Friend.
You do have to worry about shark attack though.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:03:59 +0200, Chen Genossar wrote:
Hi Greg,
Are you familiar with companies that provide two gig Ethernets into an OC-48
channel ?
That's exactly what Cogent put in at our office. They actually have two
OC-48s (DWDM, so they're over the same fiber) that go into
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:50:22 -0500, Steve Sobol wrote:
Apologies in advance for any operational content this may contain.
I have a customer who wants to get a static ip with his dialup. He uses SSH
extensively
and plans to do X11 forwarding, and if he gets disconnected and redials and
gets
101 - 143 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
