On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
Seriously, though, you're welcome to use fd00::/8 for exactly that
purpose. The problem is that you (and hopefully it stays this way) won't
have much luck finding a vendor that will provide the NAT for you to do
it with.
[with my flame-retardant hat
I just retested nprobe and it has the same issue as most of the other tools.
It doesn't specify the InputInt and OutputInt properly. Yes, you can
statically set it but that will drastically skew the data in this
environment. I'm not against running multiple processes, I've just not found
a product
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:18:31AM -0500, david raistrick wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
Seriously, though, you're welcome to use fd00::/8 for exactly that
purpose. The problem is that you (and hopefully it stays this way)
won't have much luck finding a vendor that will
On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:05 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:18:31AM -0500, david raistrick wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
Seriously, though, you're welcome to use fd00::/8 for exactly that
purpose. The problem is that you (and hopefully it stays this way)
On 12/7/10 5:18 AM, david raistrick wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
Seriously, though, you're welcome to use fd00::/8 for exactly that
purpose. The problem is that you (and hopefully it stays this way)
won't have much luck finding a vendor that will provide the NAT for
you to
Hello,
After a weekend of heavy spam last month, we decided to fire some
reports over to the abuse contacts for each relevant IP or domain - some
US/Europe based, others from more obscure locations.
We've not had a reply from any of the reports sent over, other than some
automated bounces.
Does anyone know if this is actually an IP multicast mesh network, and, if so,
anything about its protocols and deployment experience ?
Regards
Marshall
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/370450/darwin_becomes_home_first_multicast_mesh_network/
Darwin has become home to the first
Or have had any luck with abuse@ contacts in
the past? Who's good and who isn't?
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/submit_form.php?table=abuse
On Dec 7, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
After a weekend of heavy spam last month, we decided to fire some
reports over to the abuse contacts for each relevant IP or domain - some
US/Europe based, others from more obscure locations.
We've not had a reply from any of the reports
How many of you (honestly) actively manage and respond to abuse@ contact
details listed in WHOIS? Or have had any luck with abuse@ contacts in
the past? Who's good and who isn't?
I answer ours, and I've sent a few abuse complaints (sometimes in error...)
I haven't kept count, but I'd say I
On 2010/12/07 11:39 AM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
How many of you (honestly) actively manage and respond to abuse@ contact
details listed in WHOIS? Or have had any luck with abuse@ contacts in
the past? Who's good and who isn't?
I answer our abuse@ address and file reports daily. I get automated
IP6.ARPA NAMESERVER CHANGE COMPLETED
This is a courtesy notification of a change to the nameserver set
for the IP6.ARPA zone.
There is no expected impact on the functional operation of the DNS
due to this change.
There are no actions required by DNS server operators or end users.
DETAIL
The
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 04:39:54PM -, Gavin Pearce wrote:
How many of you (honestly) actively manage and respond to abuse@ contact
details listed in WHOIS? Or have had any luck with abuse@ contacts in
the past? Who's good and who isn't?
Inbound: wherever I am, I try to make it a point of
On Dec 4, 2010, at 1:43 09AM, Kevin Oberman wrote:
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:00:15 -0500
On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 14:24:16 PST, Leo Bicknell said:
It is speculated that no later than Q1, two more /8's will be allocated,
triggering
Folks,
I've been tempted by the NANOG PC into trying to run some Lightning Debates
at NANOG 51 in Miami. The idea, similar to lighting talks, is a 30 minute
session, covering 3 debate topics, 10 minutes each. Each person would get 5
minutes to argue their side of the issue.
Some ideas so far:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 04:39:54PM -, Gavin Pearce wrote:
How many of you (honestly) actively manage and respond to abuse@ contact
details listed in WHOIS? Or have had any luck with abuse@ contacts in
the past? Who's good and who isn't?
Inbound: wherever I am, I try to make it a
On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Tom Daly wrote:
Folks,
I've been tempted by the NANOG PC into trying to run some Lightning Debates
at NANOG 51 in Miami. The idea, similar to lighting talks, is a 30 minute
session, covering 3 debate topics, 10 minutes each. Each person would get 5
minutes to
Cooling: Raised floor vs. Underfloor
forgive me, but what is the difference between raised floor and underfloor?
Ethernet: 40GE vs. 100GE
people are debating which is better? really?
Optics: XFP vs. SFP+
?
some interesting choices of things to debate.. are these serious debate
I have a suggestion...
Nanog Mailing List: Critical Operational Content vs. Break time Amusement
*ducks*
--
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
pgpQyNXAqnUNL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Greg,
forgive me, but what is the difference between raised floor and
underfloor?
Excuse me. Raised floor vs. overhead.
Ethernet: 40GE vs. 100GE
people are debating which is better? really?
I'm sure someone has an opinion...
Optics: XFP vs. SFP+
?
some interesting choices of
They are meant to be informative. Maybe you have no idea on what XFP or
SFP+ is because you've been running a Gigabit based network and haven't
made the jump to 10GE yet - the debate might give you the top 3-5
points on why each might be the right option for you. And then, of
course, there is
Excuse me. Raised floor vs. overhead.
ahh that makes much more sense, thanks Tom.
I'm sure someone has an opinion…
i suspect you are correct, not sure who would elect for the slower standard,
considering they hit the streets fairly close to each other and I can't see
there being a huge
In most cases it isn't an option, you use what the hardware uses. I
can't decide to use an SFP+ in a unit with XFP form factor. I select
the hardware according to the features I need and then buy the optics
it requires, I don't select the hardware based on the optics modules
it uses. The
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Gavin Pearce gavin.pea...@3seven9.com wrote:
Hello,
After a weekend of heavy spam last month, we decided to fire some
reports over to the abuse contacts for each relevant IP or domain - some
US/Europe based, others from more obscure locations.
We've not
Greg,
i suspect you are correct, not sure who would elect for the slower
standard, considering they hit the streets fairly close to each other
and I can't see there being a huge difference in cost, but i could be
wrong. (the isp i'm connected to is running100G now)
Regarding 40G/100G, I'm
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:24:16 -0500 (EST)
Tom Daly t...@dyn.com wrote:
They are meant to be informative. Maybe you have no idea on what XFP
or SFP+ is because you've been running a Gigabit based network and
haven't made the jump to 10GE yet - the debate might give you the top
3-5 points on why
--- t...@dyn.com wrote:From: Tom Daly t...@dyn.com
Ethernet: 40GE vs. 100GE
people are debating which is better? really?
I'm sure someone has an opinion...
On NANOG? Naahhh ;-)
scott
On Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Owen DeLong wrote:
Ethernet: 40GE vs. 100GE
ROFL
Even more interesting is the 100GE Optics debate. Standardized (expensive
and very scarce) 100GBASE-LR4 vs non-standard but cheaper and easier to
manufacture LR10 (based on 10x 10Gbit/s on a very narrow DWDM-grid)..
From: Gavin Pearce gavin.pea...@3seven9.com
How many of you (honestly) actively manage and respond to abuse@ contact
details listed in WHOIS? Or have had any luck with abuse@ contacts in
the past? Who's good and who isn't?
We monitor our abuse queues, but when the email is just a stock
I agree, I just joined the list today and was about to unsubscribe because of
all the realtively useless posts ducks behind Leo
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
I have a suggestion...
Nanog Mailing List: Critical Operational Content vs. Break time
Amusement
*ducks*
--
Leo
This is nanog-futures stuff and/or community meeting stuff.
Kris
On Dec 7, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Christian Pena wrote:
I agree, I just joined the list today and was about to unsubscribe because of
all the realtively useless posts ducks behind Leo
Leo Bicknell bickn...@ufp.org wrote:
I
From: Tom Daly
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:41 PM
To: George Bonser
Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Greg Whynott
Subject: Re: Lightning Debates at NANOG 51
A good topic might be ipv6 migration strategies: dual stack or
native
v6 with nat64/dns64
Alright, added. Are you volunteering
Hello-
ARIN received the IPv4 address blocks 23.0.0.0/8 and 100.0.0.0/8 from the IANA
on November 30, 2010. We will begin making allocations of /22 and shorter
prefixes from these blocks in the near future in accordance with ARIN’s minimum
allocation policy.
Network operators may wish to
On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 17:02:40 PST, somebody said:
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 20:00:15 -0500
224/3
Oh. And don't forget to do *bidirectional* filtering of these addresses.
;)
Ahh, not quite. Blocking 224/3 bi-directionally
Well -- spammers are following the NANOG list in real-time, it seems. A few
hours after my post this afternoon, I received some spam with a correct
Subject: line for that post. I'll be happy to forward the email to anyone who
wants to analyze it or find the offender and permanently blacklist
Well -- spammers are following the NANOG list in real-time, it seems. A =
few hours after my post this afternoon, I received some spam with a =
correct Subject: line for that post. I'll be happy to forward the email =
to anyone who wants to analyze it or find the offender and permanently =
Yup, same purported sender...
On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:46 40PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Well -- spammers are following the NANOG list in real-time, it seems. A =
few hours after my post this afternoon, I received some spam with a =
correct Subject: line for that post. I'll be happy to forward the
--- s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
From: Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
Yup, same purported sender...
From what company? So we don't make the mistake of buying from them.
scott
From: Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com
From: Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
Yup, same purported sender...
From what company? So we don't make the mistake of buying from them.
--
Never mind, I got one too.
On Dec 7, 2010, at 8:27 PM, Thomas York wrote:
Yes, you can statically set it but that will drastically skew the data in
this environment.
What are you attempting to do that northbound/southbound isn't Good Enough?
---
same, sent via yahoomail webmail (I think):
srcaddr: 173.208.103.211
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:
--- s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
From: Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
Yup, same purported sender...
All
Taken care of (at least for the @yahoo address I received the spam from).
Chris and Steven, mind fwd'ing the problem emails to adm...@nanog.org?
Kris
On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:19 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
same, sent via yahoomail webmail (I think):
srcaddr: 173.208.103.211
On Tue, Dec
I have been seeing targeted spam for a while now - typically from someone
with my last name and a random first name,
and a familiar subject line.
Just wait until they start using the _text_ from open mail lists as well.
Regards
Marshall
On Dec 7, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Joe Greco wrote:
Well --
On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:26 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
But as you and others have pointed out, not a lot of defense against
DDoS these days besides horsepower and anycast. :-)
Not just anycast. I said distributed architecture. There are more ways to
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Other than trying to hide your real address, what can be done to prevent DDOS
in the first place.
DDoS is just a symptom. The problem is botnets.
Preventing hosts from becoming bots in the first place and taking down existing
botnets is
Botnets are the symptom.
The real problem is people.
Adrian
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:26 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
Other than trying to hide your real address, what can be done to prevent
DDOS in the first place.
DDoS is just a symptom.
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The real problem is people.
Well, yes - but short of mass bombardment, eliminating people doesn't scale
very well, and is generally frowned upon.
;
---
Roland Dobbins
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
The real problem is people.
Well, yes - but short of mass bombardment, eliminating people doesn't scale
very well, and is generally frowned upon.
;
I think history can conclusively state
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Sean Donelan s...@donelan.com wrote:
February 2000 weren't the first DDOS attacks, but the attacks on multiple
Other than buying lots of bandwidth and scrubber boxes, have any other DDOS
attack vectors been stopped or rendered useless during the last decade?
Nanog is available via at least two archives on the public web - try
googling any line of text - even this
onehttp://www.google.com/search?q=Nanog+is+available+via+at+least+two+archives+on+the+public+web+-+try+googling+any+line+of+text+-+even+this+one.
.
j
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:08 PM,
50 matches
Mail list logo
