On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Robert Boyle wrote:
> At 12:03 AM 8/31/2008, you wrote:
> >Currently it is my understanding the 10 Gbps signals are carried on
> >4 x 2.5 Gbps signals that are compatible with existing CWDM and DWDM
> >equipment. There are 40 Gbps DWDM systems and 10 Gbps lasers on 100
> >Gb
Paul Vixie said on 9/1/08 "OPN's are an unmanageable risk to
all of us. Netops people generally sweep OPNs under the rug, yes."
I agree completely, but how do we begin to address this problem?
Words are not enough, we need some action and that action, whatever it may
be will make
At 12:03 AM 8/31/2008, you wrote:
Currently it is my understanding the 10 Gbps signals are carried on
4 x 2.5 Gbps signals that are compatible with existing CWDM and DWDM
equipment. There are 40 Gbps DWDM systems and 10 Gbps lasers on 100
Gbps and greater capacity systems. I agree with Alex's c
Thanks Stefan for your reply.
Basically the goal of this testing is to study the BGP scalability issues in
the internet sometime in future lets say 10 years from now and try to find
out what problems it could face . I am trying to use ns2 as my simulation
environment.
Can you suggest how I can se
Topology and setup of these kinds of tests largely depend on whether you are
testing iBGP or eBGP. In my experience, eBGP testing is fairly straight forward
as you are almost always testing reconvergence of the BGP next-hop. iBGP
testing scenarios on the other hand can be quite a bit more compl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Steven M. Bellovin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum.
>> b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true.
>
Guess I need to look in more detail, but doesn't looking at that show that
CHINANET has about half the rouge network infections of the overall network.
Sounds like if you don't do business with China, putting in a blackhole on
AS4134 (and maybe 4837 and 4812) would knock out the majority of the tro
Hi
I am trying to simulate BGP for scalability testing. I have few queries.
1) What sort of topology I should try out ?
2) What parameters should I test?
I am trying to simulate it in ns-2 and i would appreciate reply from you
guys.
Regards
MAK
Any discussion on this or any other public list about joint action could be
portrayed as conspiracy. As Paul said, set your financial and carreer
affairs in order before doing so.
Better for each company's netops to quietly blacklist IPs/netblocks/ASNs as
they each see fit. If the traffic coming
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Paul Ferguson") writes:
> My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you suggest we should
> do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing to host criminal
> activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.?
depending on what you mean by "we", the immortal words of
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:33:21 EDT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum.
> > b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true.
>
> I mostly agree with you -- but
Sort of... There are still some notable differences in behavior.
Owen
On Sep 1, 2008, at 5:47 AM, jim deleskie wrote:
The S series runs the same FTOS as the C and E series, as of a number
of months ago. The only exception is the 2410, ie all 10G ports L2
only.
-jim
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum.
b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true.
I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines
"scum".
Wh
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum.
> b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true.
I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines
"scum". Consider the following cases,
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:21:24 CDT, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." said:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said:
>
> >> Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care
> >> about?
> >
> > If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/con
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said:
Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care
about?
If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity, what's your
incentive to make them clean up their act and get rid of their P2
The S series runs the same FTOS as the C and E series, as of a number
of months ago. The only exception is the 2410, ie all 10G ports L2
only.
-jim
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 3:19 AM, Greg VILLAIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 26, 2008, at 6:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>> Another thing to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 08-09-01 à 12:34, Gadi Evron a écrit :
Workeable suggestions? So far I've seen,
* organized shunning
* BGP blacklists
I can see the "don't be the Internet's firewall" bunch jumping up
and out of their seats, spilling their cof
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, William Waites wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 08-09-01 à 12:18, Adrian Chadd a écrit :
Oh come on, how quickly would that migrate to enforcing copyright
infringement? Or if you're especially evil, used by larger companies
to bully smaller companies
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 08-09-01 à 12:18, Adrian Chadd a écrit :
Oh come on, how quickly would that migrate to enforcing copyright
infringement? Or if you're especially evil, used by larger companies
to bully smaller companies out of precious IPv4 space?
With appropri
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008, William Waites wrote:
As mentioned in private email, I think where there is *evidence* of
*criminal* activity, show this to a judge, get the judge to order ARIN
to revoke the ASN/netblock, the traffic then becomes bogon and can/
shou
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008, William Waites wrote:
> As mentioned in private email, I think where there is *evidence* of
> *criminal* activity, show this to a judge, get the judge to order ARIN
> to revoke the ASN/netblock, the traffic then becomes bogon and can/
> should be filtered.
Oh come on, how qu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 08-09-01 à 10:48, Paul Ferguson a écrit :
My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you
suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing
to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.?
As mentione
* > On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:36:47AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Serious question, that - how many long-haul providers would be in serious
>> trouble if all the spam and filesharing suddenly stopped and only legitimate
>> traffic travelled through their pipes?
>
> define "legitim
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:36:47AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Serious question, that - how many long-haul providers would be in serious
> trouble if all the spam and filesharing suddenly stopped and only legitimate
> traffic travelled through their pipes?
define "legitimate"
--b
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Paul Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- "Marc Sachs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595&v=4&view=2.0
My only concern here is that by the publicit
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said:
> My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you
> suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing
> to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.?
>
> Seriously -- I think this is an issue whi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Paul Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>-- "Marc Sachs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595&v=4&view=2.0
>
>My only concern here is that by the publicity this issue continues
>to receive, these a
28 matches
Mail list logo
