-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:14 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
>
> IP-address issues can't get solved without policy changes, which
> happen today via community consensus. Domain-name issues have to get
> hammered out from the top down (with some policy
(again, this seems really off topic, but)
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:33 PM, andrew.wallace
wrote:
> though Gadi is Israeli and Marcus Sachs Pakistani and couldn't be
marcus is pakistani?
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Paul Ferguson
>> wrote:
>
>>> Folks should not be so obtuse about these activities. It's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Paul Ferguson
> wrote:
>> Folks should not be so obtuse about these activities. It's almost
>> blatantly in-your-face, so to speak. These guys have no fe
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:12 AM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Folks should not be so obtuse about these activities. It's almost blatantly
> in-your-face, so to speak. These guys have no fear of retribution.
no real arguement, but... 'please provide so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Alex Lanstein
wrote:
> I might as well reply to this here. The folks from threatpost had me
> talk at length about the various issues with doing cybercrime enforcement
> and how things have changed, and they picked t
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 22/12/2009 23:36, Jon Lewis wrote:
>> So, if you're not multihomed with jump.ro as one of your providers, is
'multihomed' here could mean: "we have an IPSEC vpn, we need to use
globally unique ip space, we may have exit points (and have s
George Bonser wrote:
> We have decided to initiate the process of becoming IPv6 capable. We
> have requested and received a block of addresses which, after reading
> some of the discussion here, I fear may be too small to suit our needs
> (a /48). To better understand how to proceed and in an a
I might as well reply to this here. The folks from threatpost had me talk at
length about the various issues with doing cybercrime enforcement and how
things have changed, and they picked that section for their post.
My key point I wanted to hammer home was that most of the modern botnets
(and
> -Original Message-
> From: eric clark
> I'm not an expert, but can/should you advertise ARIN IP space on APNIC
> or RIPE, etc ? You are talking about having recieved ip space from
> ARIN, tied to an ARIN AS I suppose it's probably more a matter of
> form than anything else though
On 23/12/2009, at 4:04 PM, Shane Ronan wrote:
I'm not an expert, but can/should you advertise ARIN IP space on
APNIC
or RIPE, etc ? You are talking about having recieved ip space from
ARIN, tied to an ARIN AS I suppose it's probably more a matter of
form than anything else though.
T
> I'm not an expert, but can/should you advertise ARIN IP space on APNIC
> or RIPE, etc ? You are talking about having recieved ip space from
> ARIN, tied to an ARIN AS I suppose it's probably more a matter of
> form than anything else though.
This happens all the time with IPv4 space and
On 23/12/2009, at 3:52 PM, George Bonser wrote:
If you can justify getting a /32, then I suggest you do so, but if
not
then don't worry, a /48 will work just fine. The networks that do
filter you will pretty soon adapt I expect.
I can't in good conscience justify a /32. That is just too muc
I'm not an expert, but can/should you advertise ARIN IP space on APNIC
or RIPE, etc ? You are talking about having recieved ip space from
ARIN, tied to an ARIN AS I suppose it's probably more a matter of
form than anything else though.
On Tuesday, December 22, 2009, Nathan Ward wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Nathan Ward [mailto:na...@daork.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 6:34 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: IPv6 allocations, deaggregation, etc.
>
> The assumption that networks will filter /48s is not the whole story.
...
> You will find that most
The assumption that networks will filter /48s is not the whole story.
The RIRs giving out /48s do so from a single pool that only contains /
48 assignments.
The RIRs give out /32s from a pool containing /32 or shorter prefixes
(ie /31, /30, etc. etc).
You will find that most networks filteri
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 4:24 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
> Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Should US based networks be willing to route RIPE "ASSIGNED PA" space
>>> customers provide?
>
> Are any of your customers multinationals?
What would yo
We have decided to initiate the process of becoming IPv6 capable. We
have requested and received a block of addresses which, after reading
some of the discussion here, I fear may be too small to suit our needs
(a /48). To better understand how to proceed and in an attempt to get
it right (or clos
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:09 AM, wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:42:18 CST, Jorge Amodio said:
>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/22/introducing-new-cybersecurity-
>>> coordinat
On 22/12/2009 3:36, "Jon Lewis" wrote:
[...]
> They may be. I don't agree that it's relevant. You can disagree with the
> RIPE wording or with RIPE policies, or maybe I'm misinterpreting
>
> ASSIGNED PA: This address space has been assigned to an End User for use
> with services provided
On 22/12/2009 23:36, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
Should US based networks be willing to route RIPE "ASSIGNED PA" space
customers provide?
I would argue not and the bofh in me would be inclined to announ
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Should US based networks be willing to route RIPE "ASSIGNED PA" space
customers provide?
Are any of your customers multinationals?
They may be. I don't agree that it's relevant. You can disagree with the
RIPE wording or with RIPE policies, or maybe
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
>
>> Should US based networks be willing to route RIPE "ASSIGNED PA" space
>> customers provide?
Are any of your customers multinationals?
> this is an interesting question, which when I worked for an ISP I
> alw
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
> Should US based networks be willing to route RIPE "ASSIGNED PA" space
> customers provide?
this is an interesting question, which when I worked for an ISP I
always wondered about. In fact, when we'd see solely based US
customers asking for thi
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Phil Regnauld wrote:
http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/attackers-buying-own-data-centers-botnets-spam-122109
It this something new ? The article seems to mix various issues together.
And this would seem highly inefficient to me compared to traditional
botnets (renting your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 7:09 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:42:18 CST, Jorge Amodio said:
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/22/introducing-new-cybersecurity-
>> coordinator/?e=23&ref=image
>
> "Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss"
>> Bill Gates has made a commitment to basically give away all of his money and
>> quit MS to devote full time to doing it. It will be a hard act to follow.
>
> this is all great stuff, but unrelated to network operations. Off to
> another list pls?
Unless the Gates Foundation and Google wish to s
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bruce Williams
wrote:
> Bill Gates has made a commitment to basically give away all of his money and
> quit MS to devote full time to doing it. It will be a hard act to follow.
this is all great stuff, but unrelated to network operations. Off to
another list pls?
Bill Gates has made a commitment to basically give away all of his money and
quit MS to devote full time to doing it. It will be a hard act to follow.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:03 AM, JC Dill wrote:
> Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>
>>
>> Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity?
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:44:09 CST, "Brandon M. Lapointe" said:
> municipal, county, and some state offices are requiring network
> engineers to be licensed SE's (Software Engineers) under the authority
> of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers.
Except it's not actually very clear that Softwar
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Google makes about $1.5B profit per quarter. $20M of charity? I
don't like MS any more than most, but Gates Foundation has received
$20B from Bill and Warren over the past 3 years. My hat goes off to
those guys!
Yes, the Gates Foundation gives a lot of money to wo
Hello,
We are developing a tool that helps ISPs optimize for cost when making
decisions about both internal routing and interconnection for planning and
traffic management. To develop the underlying algorithms, we need a better
sense of how various factors contribute to an ISP's overall operation
Personally, I have been seeing much more of a substantive push in this
arena than in times past, owing mostly to the large umbrella of the
Department of Homeland Security. As an example here in Texas -
municipal, county, and some state offices are requiring network
engineers to be licensed SE's (So
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:42:18 CST, Jorge Amodio said:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/22/introducing-new-cybersecurity-coordinator/?e=23&ref=image
"Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss" -- The Who, "Won't Get Fooled Again".
Do we have any indication that anything has been changed this
Any time mobile.
Regards,
Mauricio Rodriguez
Manager of IP/Data Engineering, FPL FiberNet
Email: mauricio.rodrig...@fpl.com
Office: 305-552-3418
Mobile: 786-236-2665
Pager: 786-236-2665
Sent using BlackBerry
- Original Message -
From: nanog-requ...@nanog.org
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent:
With the added refinement of spammer / botmaster controlled LIRs ..
after spammer / botmaster controlled registrars.
I did wonder sometimes how some snowshoe spammers could keep acquiring
a series of /20 to /15 sized CIDRs over the past year or two.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Tony Finch wro
FYI,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/22/introducing-new-cybersecurity-coordinator/?e=23&ref=image
Or these are VPS', and not physical Servers.
>From my brief encounters with various VPS technologies, this makes more
sense.
Regards,
Kieran.
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Bruce Forster wrote:
> I should add; i guess i made some assumption that you were co-locating your
> own servers with
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Phil Regnauld wrote:
> http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/attackers-buying-own-data-centers-botnets-spam-122109
>
> It this something new ? The article seems to mix various issues together.
> And this would seem highly inefficient to me compared to traditional
> botnets (renti
I should add; i guess i made some assumption that you were co-locating your
own servers with someone, if this isn't the case, please ignore everything
i'v said ;)
-bruce
-Original Message-
From: Truman Boyes [mailto:tru...@suspicious.org]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 December 2009 10:47 PM
To: Der
Yes. I think the netmask should be 255.255.255.255
1/ but why they are using this netmask setting? save ip address?
then does the router handle many routes in this setting?
I have no idea the only way you can have a /32 is with a ppp that doesnt
use arps to talk to each end of the tunnel.
I wou
Hi, your "hosting company" is likely NAT'ing or using load balancers on the
front end. You are obviously not "reaching" those machines by ssh'ing into
192.168.x.x... Additionally, assuming that DHCP is handing out that address on
the server that mask would likely not be all ones.
Even Amazon E
Hi Bruce
Thank you so much to explain me in detail. I would like to know about
this it in case i can get another hosting company
Yes. I think the netmask should be 255.255.255.255
1/ but why they are using this netmask setting? save ip address?
then does the router handle many routes in this set
http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/attackers-buying-own-data-centers-botnets-spam-122109
It this something new ? The article seems to mix various issues together.
And this would seem highly inefficient to me compared to traditional
botnets (renting your own rack for a botnet doesn't really make se
William Hamilton wrote:
Jay Ess wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Whilst it may have been established by one of the Microsoft founders,
what does that have to do with Microsoft's corporate charitable giving?
I would guess that the money originally comes from
Jay Ess wrote:
Jorge Amodio wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
Whilst it may have been established by one of t
Jorge Amodio wrote:
Another one from the "Evil Doer"
http://www.google.com/advertising/holiday2009/
Wish the guys from Redmond and others copy this action too ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_&_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
47 matches
Mail list logo
