Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

On 12/12/2009, at 4:15 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: > Is there a natophobe in the house who thinks there shouldn't be stateful > inspection in IPv6? If not then could you explain what overhead NAT > requires that stateful inspection hasn't already taken care of? I handwave past all that by pointing

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

On 12/12/2009, at 12:11 AM, Simon Perreault wrote: > We have thus come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be a NAT-like > firewall > in IPv6 home routers. Eh? What does NAT have to do with anything? We already know that IPv6 residential firewalls won't do NAT, so why bring it into this di

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

On 11/12/2009, at 11:56 PM, Simon Perreault wrote: >> We *know* that if a worm puts up >> a popup that says "Enable port 33493 on your firewall for naked pics of.." >> that port 33493 will get opened anyhow, so we may as well automate the >> process and save everybody the effort. > > Not if the

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Roger Marquis wrote: Joe Greco wrote: Everyone knows a NAT gateway isn't really a firewall, except more or less accidentally. There's no good way to provide a hardware firewall in an average residential environment that is not a disaster waiting to happen. Gotta love

Re: news from Google

Seth Mattinen wrote: JC Dill wrote: Seth Mattinen wrote: What I mean was that everyone seems happy with the whole "don't do anything you don't want anyone knowing" thing, then this tangent started. There must be things you don't want people to know that have nothing to do with a potential

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

Joe Greco wrote: Everyone knows a NAT gateway isn't really a firewall, except more or less accidentally. There's no good way to provide a hardware firewall in an average residential environment that is not a disaster waiting to happen. Gotta love it. A proven technology, successfully implemen

Re: news from Google

JC Dill wrote: Seth Mattinen wrote: What I mean was that everyone seems happy with the whole "don't do anything you don't want anyone knowing" thing, then this tangent started. There must be things you don't want people to know that have nothing to do with a potential issue with law enforce

Re: news from Google

Seth Mattinen wrote: JC Dill wrote: Seth Mattinen wrote: Hell, all you gmail users on this list right now are feeding the machine with all our data. The part that gets me: everyone seems happy with this. This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived by Google. For

Re: news from Google

Jorge Amodio wrote: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1CHNU_enUS355US353&q=%22Preventing+my+email+to+gmail+from+entering%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= I didn't get any results from that link. ~Seth

Re: news from Google

>> This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived by >> Google.  For example: >> >> http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/threads.html >> http://seclists.org/nanog/2009/Dec/434 >> >> Subscribing to the list with a gmail account doesn't change anything about >> what Google kn

Re: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:48:35 -0800 Seth Mattinen wrote: > William Pitcock wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +, John Levine wrote: > >>> ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole > >>> Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being > >>>

Re: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

William Pitcock wrote: On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +, John Levine wrote: ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being involved, nor the provider that belongs to. Since nobody but the occasional h

Re: news from Google

JC Dill wrote: Seth Mattinen wrote: Hell, all you gmail users on this list right now are feeding the machine with all our data. The part that gets me: everyone seems happy with this. This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived by Google. For example: http://www.

Re: news from Google

JC Dill wrote: The part that gets me is that you don't already understand this. Can you please be nice? I didn't throw personal attacks at you. ~Seth

Re: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

So write to her from a gmail account. APEWS is pretty kooky, and I'm kind of surprised if SORBS is using it. On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +, John Levine wrote: ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32

Re: news from Google

> This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived by > Google.  For example: > > http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/threads.html > http://seclists.org/nanog/2009/Dec/434 > > Subscribing to the list with a gmail account doesn't change anything about > what Google knows abou

Re: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 23:39 +, John Levine wrote: > >ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole > >Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being > >involved, nor the provider that belongs to. > > Since nobody but the occasional highly vocal G

Re: news from Google

Seth Mattinen wrote: Hell, all you gmail users on this list right now are feeding the machine with all our data. The part that gets me: everyone seems happy with this. This list has public archives that are already crawled and archived by Google. For example: http://www.merit.edu/mail.a

RE: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 17:25 -0800, Alex Lanstein wrote: > William Pitcock wrote: > >>>Cernal and Atrivo are two different entities, Atrivo used to host > >>>Cernal, but now they have different hosting arrangements. > > I now understand the original point you were trying to make about Atrivo. I >

RE: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

William Pitcock wrote: >>>Cernal and Atrivo are two different entities, Atrivo used to host >>>Cernal, but now they have different hosting arrangements. I now understand the original point you were trying to make about Atrivo. I disagree with your premise that it is actually a different entity t

Re: news from Google

--- se...@rollernet.us wrote: The part that gets me: everyone seems happy with this. --- Not everyone. ;-) scott

Re: news from Google

>> LRMAO >> > > Coming from a gmail user... Yes, and very satisfied with their service (not happy with the line wraps though and plain text formatting), very convenient to receive messages from e-mail lists and a more efficient way to deal with spam and other nuisances. I've to admit that actuall

Re: news from Google

Peter Beckman wrote: Using a combo of Ad Blocker Plus and NoScript in Firefox helps reduce that significantly, without all the popups. But yeah, it's hard to use the Internet and not get tracked by a bunch of different entities you know nothing about. Which gives further proof that my ear

Re: news from Google

Jorge Amodio wrote: LRMAO Coming from a gmail user... ~Seth

Re: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

>ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole >Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being >involved, nor the provider that belongs to. Since nobody but the occasional highly vocal GWL uses ASPEWS, it's hard to see why one would care, but if you

Re: news from Google

Peter Beckman wrote: I'm shocked that really smart people like Asa Dotzler are shocked by what Eric Schmidt said, what I assumed was simply common knowledge - that there is no real privacy on the internet. "On the Sprint 3G network... If [the handset uses] the [WAP] Media Access Gateway, we

Re: news from Google

> Here's a pretty common line that Microsoft has that Google completely omits > (or that I can't find): > > "We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties." LRMAO Or they just acquire the third party to keep it in house ...

Re: news from Google

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies for your data. That's an extremely naive view of how governments operate. To put it mildly. Tha

Re: news from Google

>  If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your >  data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies >  for your data. Welcome to China, host country of IETF 79, the first IETF meeting that will break the record of VPN tunnels ... Also, what law

Re: news from Google

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Scott Weeks wrote: --- beck...@angryox.com wrote: From: Peter Beckman At least Google seems to be honest about it. -- Yeah, trust them... I said "seems." It's hard to verify if ANY company follows what is said in their Pri

Re: news from Google

> If you aren't breaking the law, the government won't be looking for your > data, and won't ask Google/Yahoo/Bing/AltaVista or other search companies > for your data. That's an extremely naive view of how governments operate. To put it mildly. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Dec 11 21:11:26 2009 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

BGP Update Report Interval: 03-Dec-09 -to- 10-Dec-09 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS845229130 1.0% 24.1 -- TEDATA TEDATA 2 - AS432327436 0.9% 6.2 --

Re: news from Google

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: > Peter Beckman wrote: > Here's a pretty common line that Microsoft has that Google completely omits > (or that I can't find): > > "We do not sell, rent, or lease our customer lists to third parties." > > ~Seth > > You aren't Bing's customer

Re: news from Google

> In FF goto "Tools", 'Options', 'Privacy', and select: "Accept cookies from > sites'; 'Accept third-party cookies'; 'Keep until: just > to get a taste. Be sure to click on 'Show Details' when the flood of cookies > comes and pay attention to the details. Don't go to sites that bork when you

Re: news from Google

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote: "We want your money" versus "we want your life". I don't pay any of those search engines -- they make money off of advertising. Huh, just like Google. And to think that none of the search engines are taking that data and trying to build better pr

Re: news from Google

--- beck...@angryox.com wrote: From: Peter Beckman At least Google seems to be honest about it. -- Yeah, trust them... --- What does Bing say they keep about you when you search, not logged into your Passport account?

Re: news from Google

--- rich...@bennett.com wrote: From: Richard Bennett Microsoft just wants your cash, but Google wants your personal information so they can sell it over and over again. The entire Google --- You need to study up on your corporate competition tactics m

Re: news from Google

Peter Beckman wrote: On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote: It's better than the "maybe you shouldn't be doing things you don't want people to know about" statement. That right there gives me some insight on where Google wants to go in the future with privacy. At least Google seems to be

Re: news from Google

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Seth Mattinen wrote: It's better than the "maybe you shouldn't be doing things you don't want people to know about" statement. That right there gives me some insight on where Google wants to go in the future with privacy. At least Google seems to be honest about it. Wh

Google Privacy (was Re: news from Google)

Richard Bennett wrote: > Microsoft just wants your cash, but Google wants your personal > information so they can sell it over and over again. The entire Google > business model is at odds with notions of personal privacy, so it's not > even a question of the occasional excess on their part. Schmi

Re: news from Google

Microsoft just wants your cash, but Google wants your personal information so they can sell it over and over again. The entire Google business model is at odds with notions of personal privacy, so it's not even a question of the occasional excess on their part. Schmidt did what Michael Kinsey c

Re: news from Google

Scott Weeks wrote: --- m...@sizone.org wrote: From: Ken Chase topically related, it's actually news from Mozilla: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142106/Mozilla_exec_suggests_Firefox_users_move_to_Bing_cites_Google_privacy_stance?source=rss_news from the horse's mouth, as it were. So,

RE: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 09:55 -0800, Alex Lanstein wrote: > >>>Also, the fact that Atrivo is *dead* and this > >>>stuff is still listed means that anyone who gets > >>>those blocks from ARIN next are basically screwed > > Why would you say Atrivo is dead? > > r...@localhost --- {~} nslookup www.go

Weekly Routing Table Report

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 bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing

RE: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

>>>Also, the fact that Atrivo is *dead* and this >>>stuff is still listed means that anyone who gets >>>those blocks from ARIN next are basically screwed Why would you say Atrivo is dead? r...@localhost --- {~} nslookup www.googleadservices.com 85.255.114.83 Server: 85.255.114.83 Address

Re: news from Google

Another one for the collection http://www.circleid.com/posts/dot_google_before_christmas/ Cheers Jorge

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

> Once upon a time, Joe Greco said: > > Everyone knows a NAT gateway isn't really a firewall, except more or less > > accidentally. There's no good way to provide a hardware firewall in an > > average residential environment that is not a disaster waiting to happen. > > I don't think hardware

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

Once upon a time, Joe Greco said: > Everyone knows a NAT gateway isn't really a firewall, except more or less > accidentally. There's no good way to provide a hardware firewall in an > average residential environment that is not a disaster waiting to happen. I don't think hardware vs. software

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, Simon Perreault wrote: We have thus come to the conclusion that there shouldn't be a NAT-like firewall in IPv6 home routers. No, the conclusion is that for IPv6 there should be something that behaves much like current IPv4 NAT boxes, ie do stateful firewalling and only le

Re: news from Google

> Um, yeah.  Them there micro$loth folks is W more privacy oriented > than them google rascals. Well, we still have hope that bing logs are stored in windows servers making them more difficult to access or even retain after the seasonal color of the screen of death. The article is not wo

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

Joe Greco wrote, on 2009-12-11 08:36: > Everyone knows a NAT gateway isn't really a firewall, except more or less > accidentally. There's no good way to provide a hardware firewall in an > average residential environment that is not a disaster waiting to happen. > > If you make it "smart" (i.e.

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

> Mark Newton wrote, on 2009-12-11 03:09: > > You kinda do if you're using a stateful firewall with a "deny > > everything that shouldn't be accepted" policy. UPnP (or something > > like it) would have to tell the firewall what should be accepted. > > That's putting the firewall at the mercy of v

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote, on 2009-12-11 08:06: > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:41:59 EST, Simon Perreault said: >> Mark Newton wrote, on 2009-12-11 03:09: >>> You kinda do if you're using a stateful firewall with a "deny >>> everything that shouldn't be accepted" policy. UPnP (or something >>> like

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:41:59 EST, Simon Perreault said: > Mark Newton wrote, on 2009-12-11 03:09: > > You kinda do if you're using a stateful firewall with a "deny > > everything that shouldn't be accepted" policy. UPnP (or something > > like it) would have to tell the firewall what should be acce

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

Mark Newton wrote, on 2009-12-11 03:09: > You kinda do if you're using a stateful firewall with a "deny > everything that shouldn't be accepted" policy. UPnP (or something > like it) would have to tell the firewall what should be accepted. That's putting the firewall at the mercy of viruses, worm

Re: More ASN collissions

* Rene Wilhelm: > AS3745 is not a duplicate ASN assignment either. Like AS35868 the entry at > whois.ripe.net is a user created object in the RIPE routing registry, not > an assignment by RIPE NCC. How can you tell one from the other? Is the lack of an org: attribute reliable? -- Florian Weime

Re: About IPv6 performance

On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:59 PM, David Pérez wrote: > could anybody point to a report that deals with all these issues? Also be sure to pay attention to IPv4/IPv6 feature parity gaps. --- Roland Dobbins //

About IPv6 performance

Dear all: I've been searching the web for tests or reports about how performance in current IP boxes (core routers, BRAS, edge routers...) is impacted when enabling IPv6, but haven't been able to find anything useful, but a couple of reports dated in 2002 and 2004: http://www.lightreading.com/do

Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?

Hi, ASPEWS is listing 216.83.32.0/20 as being associated with the whole Atrivo incident of 2008. My memory does not recall 216.83.32.0/20 being involved, nor the provider that belongs to. So it'd be cool if I could you know, talk to someone who has involvement with that, because frankly, I do no

Re: Consumer Grade - IPV6 Enabled Router Firewalls.

On 11/12/2009, at 1:14 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > You don't need UPnP if you'r not doing NAT. You kinda do if you're using a stateful firewall with a "deny everything that shouldn't be accepted" policy. UPnP (or something like it) would have to tell the firewall what should be accepted. -