-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't think you will get any argument that the vast majority of CS
departments teach theory and not as much valid practice when it comes
to networking. Though, being formally at the UW, I can tell you that
they wouldn't have been able to spoo
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Paul Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jo Rhett wrote:
>> Note the "not random" comment. People love to use the random feature of
>> ixia/etc but it rarely displays
>> actual performance in a production network.
>
> Once upon a time, vendors released products which
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Jim Shankland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nvidia NICs ... as my mother said, if you can't say anything nice,
> don't say anything at all. So the rest is silence.
Hi Jim,
My mother wasn't quite so adamant, she just said "don't cuss", so I'll
try to keep it clean
Jo Rhett wrote:
> Note the "not random" comment. People love to use the random feature of
> ixia/etc but it rarely displays
> actual performance in a production network.
Once upon a time, vendors released products which relied on CPU-based
"flow" setup. Certain vintages of Cisco, Extreme, Found
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 01:19:44PM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> The same DHCP server (ip helper-address blah) serves my office, my
> home, and the colo. Can you give me an idea of a good heuristic for
> telling the difference between moving my laptop around and finding MAC
> address collisio
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net.
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 10:35:15AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Simon Waters wrote:
>
> >If the ISP blocks port 25, then the ISP is taking responsibility for
> >delivering all email sent by a user, and they have to start applying rate
> >limits.
>
> MUAs should stop send
"David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 10:32:46AM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
>> Forwarded to NANOG in the interests of wider awareness... having been
>> there and torn out my already scarce hair, duplicate MAC addresses can
>> really mess up your day...
>
The Marvel NIC presents the MAC as what we believe to be part of dot1x
negotiation. These were new Dells out of the box, not yet infected. If we
disable dot1x on the NIC the problem goes away.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst3750e_3560e/software/re
lease/12.2_44_se/release/no
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert D. Scott wrote:
> Does this MAC present itself all the time, or just during boot?
>
> Marvel makes a NIC prevalent in some Dell systems, that presents MAC
> 0c00.. during its startup process. If you run port security, and
> several peop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Just when you thought this couldn't happen any more...
>
> Copying from a different email list...
>
> mac address 04:4b:80:80:80:03, was showing up in multiple places
> across the network.
That's why I stick to ARCNET
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 10:32:46AM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> Forwarded to NANOG in the interests of wider awareness... having been
> there and torn out my already scarce hair, duplicate MAC addresses can
> really mess up your day...
Out of curiosity, does this happen often enough we migh
The Nvidia NIC on the Asus motherboard on my desktop computer
spontaneously changed its MAC maybe a year ago from 00:13:d4:fe:04:ee
to 00:0b:e0:f0:00:ed. It can still be overridden in software,
but the default MAC address -- the one stored in "ROM" -- simply
made a one-time, spontaneous, permanen
it was real. (I still ahve some 3c503's with the problem :)
this is one reason why it is so important to be able to override the MAC.
--bill
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 10:53:28AM -0400, Scott Berkman wrote:
> This reminds me of a story I was told a while back that there was a batch
> of 3com N
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Greg Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey Paul, would you be able to demonstrate this problem? I'd like to see
> it so that we can investigate and fix it.
>
> You are correct that the first generation of E-Series hardware (EtherScale)
> had little control plane
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> I thought that these bot nets were so massive that it is pretty
> easy for them to fly under the radar for quotas, rate limiting, etc.
> Not that all bot nets are created equal, and there aren't local hot
> spots for whatever reason, but putting on the
Back in 1999, I experienced an issue when we ghosted a number of Compaq
desktops and the Intel NICs all ended up with the same MAC address.
It turned out that the Intel NIC that was used in the later models was
different from the earlier models, so changing the driver resolved the
issue.
Eric Tow
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 08:02:27AM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > FWIW, IEEE's OUI lookup page says that's not assigned to *anyone*.
> >
> > http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/index.shtml
>
> No, the IEEE page does not say anything. For many y
> From: "Scott Berkman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:53:28 -0400 (EDT)
>
> This reminds me of a story I was told a while back that there was a batch
> of 3com NIC's that all went out with the same MAC from the factory. I
> never found out if that was a rumor/urban legend or the
> Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 10:36:24 -0400
> From: "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 10:32:46AM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> > mac address 04:4b:80:80:80:03, was showing up in multiple places
> > across the network. I googled the mac address and discovered that
Does this MAC present itself all the time, or just during boot?
Marvel makes a NIC prevalent in some Dell systems, that presents MAC
0c00.. during its startup process. If you run port security, and
several people boot their computer within the cam table expiration period,
port security wil
This reminds me of a story I was told a while back that there was a batch
of 3com NIC's that all went out with the same MAC from the factory. I
never found out if that was a rumor/urban legend or the truth. Anyone
know firsthand or have an article about that?
-Scott
-Original Messag
Paul Ferguson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If the ISP blocks port 25, then the ISP is taking responsibility for
delivering all email sent by a user, and they have to start applying rate
limits. Otherwise if they send
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 10:32:46AM -0400, Robert E. Seastrom wrote:
> mac address 04:4b:80:80:80:03, was showing up in multiple places
> across the network. I googled the mac address and discovered that
> other people are having the same issue with this mac address. Below
> are some links des
Forwarded to NANOG in the interests of wider awareness... having been
there and torn out my already scarce hair, duplicate MAC addresses can
really mess up your day...
---
Just when you thought this couldn't happen any more...
Copying from a different email list...
mac address 04:4b:80:80:80:
This report has been generated at Fri Sep 5 21:15:29 2008 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
BGP Update Report
Interval: 04-Aug-08 -to- 04-Sep-08 (32 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS2.0
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS9583 214882 3.6% 165.2 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited
2 - AS1803 112095 1.9%
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Simon Waters wrote:
If the ISP blocks port 25, then the ISP is taking responsibility for
delivering all email sent by a user, and they have to start applying rate
limits.
MUAs should stop sending email via 25 and use 587 or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Simon Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If the ISP blocks port 25, then the ISP is taking responsibility for
delivering all email sent by a user, and they have to start applying rate
limits. Otherwise if they send all email from their users, a
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Simon Waters wrote:
If the ISP blocks port 25, then the ISP is taking responsibility for
delivering all email sent by a user, and they have to start applying rate
limits.
MUAs should stop sending email via 25 and use 587 or equivalent instead.
There is little actual reason
On Friday 05 September 2008 00:33:54 Mark Foster wrote:
>
> *rest snipped*
>
> Is the above described limitation a common occurrance in the
> world-at-large?
If the ISP blocks port 25, then the ISP is taking responsibility for
delivering all email sent by a user, and they have to start applying r
31 matches
Mail list logo
