On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
There's been a rumor on the street that an unnamed large router vendor
is releasing something around this today as well:
http://www.niscc.gov.uk/niscc/docs/al-20050412-00308.html?lang=en
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-=20050412-icmp.shtml
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Gwendolynn ferch Elydyr wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
There's been a rumor on the street that an unnamed large router vendor
is releasing something around this today as well:
http://www.niscc.gov.uk/niscc/docs/al-20050412-00308.html?lang=en
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Gwendolynn ferch Elydyr wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
There's been a rumor on the street that an unnamed large router vendor
is releasing something around this today as well:
http://www.niscc.gov.uk/niscc/docs/al-20050412-00308.html?lang=en
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
Cracking analogy, Valdis. I'll use that..now can we put this frankly
soporific thread down like an unwanted kitten?
Presumably you mean "gently, to its sibs/parents"?
My experience with #nanog on Efnet has been that the channel is totally
off to
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Sean Donelan wrote:
> Although many of the principles are the same, there are differences
> between running a corporate network and a public network. You can
> have the same people doing both. In small ISPs its likely the same
> people will be doing both. A larger company
On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Dave Stewart wrote:
> At 08:42 PM 7/5/2002, Dan Hollis wrote:
> >Is there a single wcom customer on nanog that *hasn't* been overbilled?
> I heard once that there was, but I think it's actually an urban legend.
I haven't been... yet ;>
Reminds me of motorcycles - there's two
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Chris Kuethe wrote:
As for an attempt at a technical control, maybe set up a box with Tor
on it, get a list of exit servers and null-route them automagically.
The TOR abuse FAQ is here:
http://tor.eff.org/faq-abuse.html.en
They provide a script to track TOR exit
