On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 08:05:33AM +, Gary Coates wrote:
Duplicated info.. But this is an old worm ;-(
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-1996-01.html
This is not the worm that's spreading now.
Greetz, Peter
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue
Does anybody know a _working_ contact at rackspace.com?
Greetz, Peter
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.dataloss.nl/ | Undernet:#clue
http://www.blinkenlights.nl/party/ - birthday party (page in Dutch)
all geeks invited - send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more info
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 02:26:36AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
over the last week I have been seeing more and more resolvers (all
that I know about are BIND but I'm not drawing conclusions yet) send
my nameservers more and more *identical* queries, a *lot* of them.
Just to keep it short
Hi,
over the last week I have been seeing more and more resolvers (all
that I know about are BIND but I'm not drawing conclusions yet) send
my nameservers more and more *identical* queries, a *lot* of them.
Just to keep it short: take a look at
http://www.dataloss.nl/dnsoffenders/ and
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 07:42:00PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 5:11 PM +0200 2002/09/06, Peter van Dijk wrote:
I am very willing to believe everything that you are saying, but *what
part* of my configuration breaks those nameservers?
$DEITY-only-knows how older/less capable
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:04:36PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
[snip]
60.1.0.10.in-addr.arpa. CNAME bla-reverse.example.org.
bla-reverse.example.org. PTR bla.example.org.
bla.example.org. A 10.0.1.60
What's wrong with that? No RFC against it ;)
Are you sure about that? IIRC,
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:39:05PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
[snip]
Or even better... actual popquiz question*: What is the subnet mask of
a class E? ;)
Does anybody know that one ? Without looking into docs that is.
There is none, just as there is none for class D.
Greetz, Peter
--
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 10:04:08PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[snip]
About classfulness: I think it's more relevant, even today, than many
people like to admit. Why is it that I can type network 192.0.2.0 in my
Cisco BGP config and the box knows what I'm talking about, but network
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:58:08PM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
[snip]
about 2 years ago, interviewing fresh graduates for jobs, i found that they
were still being taught classful networking at many colleges.
Only half a year ago a teacher (university, subject: networking) told
us (I'm a
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 03:19:08PM -0400, Christian Malo wrote:
[snip]
these days you can easily delegate reverse using CIDR with BIND ...
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2317.html
And you can do it even easier without RFC2317:
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 02:21:35PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 11:11 AM +0200 2002/09/06, Peter van Dijk wrote:
And you can do it even easier without RFC2317:
http://homepages.tesco.net/~J.deBoynePollard/FGA/avoid-rfc-2317-delegation.html
Nope. Fundamentally broken
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:10:45AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 14:42:39 +0200, Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That is a common misconception. Recursing resolvers couldn't care less
if they are written according to spec (unlike old BIND versions
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 03:32:00PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
[snip]
Have a look, for example, at the reverses for 193.109.122.192/28 and
let me know if you can find anything wrong with those.
Okay, so you've made 192.122.109.193.in-addr.arpa a zone
(delegated from bit.nl within
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:06:40PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 3:32 PM +0200 2002/09/06, Brad Knowles wrote:
Have a look, for example, at the reverses for 193.109.122.192/28 and
let me know if you can find anything wrong with those.
[snip]
The key phrase is A correctly operating
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:56:09PM +0200, Brad Knowles wrote:
[snip]
I am doing separate zone files. Each IP delegated to me is a separate
zone. Now, again, what is wrong with that?
Technically, nothing -- at least, with the absolute latest
authoritative nameservers and the
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 03:39:25AM -0400, Deepak Jain wrote:
[snip]
Boxes like Foundry, Extreme, Redback and many others all talk BGP
(at least to a first approximation) but is their lack of use in
the core/edge/CPE a lack of scale, stability, performance or just
interest?
One Dutch
On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
A supplier I don't think I'm at liberty to name. When they were good,
they were very, very good. But when they were bad they were horrid.
Another supplier I don't wish to name. Mostly worked, but crashed if
you made
On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:09:54PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
Link-state protocols are evil, and when they break, they *really* break.
I still do not see a compeling argument for not using BGP as your IGP.
Slow convergence.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 02:23:56AM -0500, James Ferris wrote:
Interesting. No text/plain content. Please disable HTML in your mailer
and we may be able to read what you are saying :)
Greetz, Peter
--
MegaBIT - open air networking event - http://www.megabit.nl/
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:03:12AM -0700, Stephen Stuart wrote:
[snip]
They were; hopefully you mailed them and received an answer to that
effect. A software fault took down one of the switches, and the vendor
is being made aware of the problem they need to fix.
Given all the trouble AMS-IX
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 12:54:57PM -0700, Scott Granados wrote:
As are f5 proeducts including bigip, 3dns and hmmm they make something
else I forget:).
On Thu, 23 May 2002, Brian wrote:
bsd kernel eh? i believe netapp filers are based on that as well.
Indeed - bigIP is BSDI aka
On Tue, May 21, 2002 at 06:34:47PM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
I don't really trust the vmstat system time numbers. Based on some
suggestions I received, I ran some CPU intensive benchmarks during
different traffic loads, and determined how much system time was being
used by comparing the
22 matches
Mail list logo
