On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:47:38PM -0700, Josh Karlin wrote:
>
> Suspicious routes are those that originate at an AS that has not
> originated the prefix in the last few days and those that introduce
> sub-prefixes. Sub-prefixes are always considered suspicious (~1 day)
> and traffic will be rou
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 10:33:04AM -0800, william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
>
> Can there be a confirmation of this? I see no such MOTD at
> http://www.panix.com/panix/help/Announcements/
Verio was just extremely helpful and filtered out the bogus Panix
routes ConED was sending them quite rapidly u
This is hardly as serious as the last incident -- but, well, some people
do seem to have all the luck, eh?
Of course, there are measures one can take against this sort of thing; but
it's hard to deploy some of them effectively when the party stealing your
routes was in fact once authorized to of
can anyone
> think of a single application that would mimic that behavior?
VoIP with a low-rate codec, or some quantitatively similar multimedia
or gaming application?
--
Thor Lancelot Simon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The inconsistency is startling, tho
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:54:33PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> I'm curious how you'd feel if your local telephone company started
> preventing you from calling its competitors. How about if you suddenly
Your local telephone company is a regulated entity. It's required to
complete you
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:46:05AM -0600, Church, Chuck wrote:
>
> Another thing for an ISP considering blocking VoIP is the fact that
> you're cutting off people's access to 911. That alone has got to have
> some tough legal ramifications. I can tell you that if my ISP started
> blocking my Von
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:30:18PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> In theory true, you could run a TELNET listener on Port 25 or 135. But
> the world works a bit better when most people follow the same practice.
> Port 587 is for authenticated mail message submission.
I'm sorry, your last messag
On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:23:04AM +, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>
> Quite useful when it works (read: the other party has implemented
> AUTH-SMTP on port 587).
And if they's implemented unauthenticated SMTP on port 587, like,
say, Sendmail, you've achieved nothing, or possibly worse, since you
hav
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 09:00:11PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> Sendmail now includes Port 587, although some people disagree how
> its done. But Exchange and other mail servers are still difficult
> for system administrators to configure Port 587 (if it doesn't say
> click here for Port 587 d
On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 01:45:05PM -0500, Eric Gauthier wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 11:53:59AM -0600, Adi Linden wrote:
> > >> How is this any different then blocking port 25 or managing the bandwidth
> > >> certain applications use.
>
> Something else to consider. We block TFTP at o
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 09:17:44PM -0500, John Fraizer wrote:
>
> >I assume multiplexing up to 10Gb (possibly two links thereof) and then
> >back down is cost-prohibitive? That's probably the "best" practice.
>
> It's best practice to put two new points of failure (mux + demux) in a
> 200m fib
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 02:49:29PM -0500, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
> > >
> > > When running say 24-pairs of multi-mode across a datacenter, I have
> > > considered a few solutions, but am not sure what is
> > common/best practice.
> >
> > I assume multiplexing up to 10Gb (possibly two links the
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 07:23:17PM -0500, Deepak Jain wrote:
>
>
> I have a situation where I want to run Nx24 pairs of GE across a
> datacenter to several different customers. Runs are about 200meters max.
>
> When running say 24-pairs of multi-mode across a datacenter, I have
> considered a
On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 06:36:16PM +1100, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
>
> (5) The registry will send a message to the losing registrar confirming
> that a transfer has been initiated.
Can you confirm or deny whether this actually happened in the case of
the panix.com transfer?
The other problem I see i
- Forwarded message from Alexis Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Original-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 01:42:04 -0500
From: Alexis Rosen <[E
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 06:01:35PM -0500, Henry Yen wrote:
>
> The latest shell host motd's:
>
> . Hijack recovery underway (elr) Sun Jan 16 17:43:28 2005
> .
> .Recovery is underway from the panix.com domain hijack.
> .
> .The root name servers now have the correct information, as
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:22:59AM -0500, Paul G wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Thor Lancelot Simon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:04 AM
> Subject: Re: panix.com hijacked (VeriSign refuses to help)
>
Apologies for what may be another duplicate message, probably with broken
threading. This is Alexis Rosen's original posting to this thread; we
think the mail chaos caused by the hijacking of panix.com kept it from
ever reaching the list (but, flying mostly-blind, we aren't sure).
> On Sat, Jan
Alexis Rosen tried to send this to NANOG earlier this evening but it
looks like it never made it. Apologies if it's a duplicate; we're
both reduced to reading the list via the web interface since the
legitimate addresses for panix.com have now timed out of most folks'
nameservers and been replace
19 matches
Mail list logo
