It was resolved last night.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/05/dns-hackers-telegraph-interview
Andrew
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
> On 9/4/2011 5:34 PM, Andrew Mulholland wrote:
>
> I'm not seeing the problem here?
> Registrant:
> Gateway, Inc. (GATEW95
On 9/4/2011 5:34 PM, Andrew Mulholland wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here?
Registrant:
Gateway, Inc. (GATEW95532)
7565 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine, CA, 92618-2930
US
Domain name: acer.com
Technical contact:
Administrator, Domain (DA73355)
NetNames Hostmaster
3rd Floor Prosper
On Sep 5, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> Origin validation <> path validation.
Rather, that should read, 'Origin/path validation <> origin/path enforcement'.
The idea of origin validation is a simple one. The idea of path validation
isn't to determine the 'correctness' or 'desirab
On Sep 5, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Michael Schapira wrote:
> One crucial way in which S*BGP differs from other features is that ASes which
> deploy S*BGP *must* use their ability to validate paths to inform route
> selection (otherwise, adding security to BGP makes no sense).
Origin validation <> pat
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 5:39 PM Neil J. McRae n...@domino.org wrote:
> ... one could almost argue the opposite also or make the same case about
> nearly any feature in a transit product! If i stop offering
> community based filtering- I'd probably see revenue decline!
> Yes some features in a pr
Forgive my potential lack of understanding; perhaps BGP behavior has
changed or the way people use it has but my understanding is -
Since BGP is used in almost all circumstances in a mode where only
the best path to a prefix can be re-advertised, only one of the
peer or customer path can be used
On Sep 5, 2011, at 4:03, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Because routing to peers as a policy instead of customer as a matter
>> of policy, outside of corner cases make logical sence.
>
> welcome to the internet, it does not always make logical sense at first
> glance.
>
> the myth in academia that custom
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote:
> Okay, so to state the obvious for those who missed the point...
>
> The congestion will either be directly in front of user because
> they're flooding their uplink or towards the destination (beit a
> single central network or a set of stor
On 4 Sep 2011, at 21:17, "Sharon Goldberg" wrote:
thanks for responding you paper is interesting,
> Thus, while we cannot hope to accurately model every aspect of
> interdomain routing, nor predict how S*BGP deployment will proceed in
> practice, we believe that ISP competition over customer t
Hi
Seems Netnames / Ascio have been compromised, resulting in DNS servers for
a number of their customers (telegraph.co.uk, acer.com, betfair.com ,
theregister.co.uk etc) being changed, and the sites being redirected to an
hacked page.
list of domains affected here:
http://zone-h.org/archive/not
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 16:16:45 EDT, Sharon Goldberg said:
> Point 2: "The security threat model is unrealistic and misguided"
>
> Our paper does not present a security threat model at all. We do not
> present a new security solution.
Unfortunately for all concerned, it's going to be *perceived* as
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 12:56:25PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Wayne E. Bouchard:
>
> > the users will screw themselves by flooding their uplinks in which
> > case they will know what they've done to themselves and will largely
> > accept the problems for the durration
>
> With shared media
I've managed a few servers from sago, they have a great network and quick
support responses as needed. Hostway not had quite as good of responses from
them, and some weird network issues. However that was a few years back.
-Original Message-
From: James P. Ashton [mailto:ja...@gitflori
In response to Randy's three criticisms of our recent
SIGCOMM'11/NANOG'52 paper, which is available here:
http://www.cs.bu.edu/~goldbe/papers/SBGPtrans_full.pdf
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~phillipa/sbgpTrans.html
Point 1: "The ISP economic and incentive model is overly naive to the
point of being
> Because routing to peers as a policy instead of customer as a matter
> of policy, outside of corner cases make logical sence.
welcome to the internet, it does not always make logical sense at first
glance.
the myth in academia that customers are always preferred over peers
comes from about '96
Because routing to peers as a policy instead of customer as a matter
of policy, outside of corner cases make logical sence. While many
providers aren;t good at making money it is fact the purpose of the
ventures. If I route to a customer I get paid for it. If I send it
to a peer I do not.
On S
Neil,
> maybe volunteers from the nanog community should contact you?
Thanks for the suggestion! Yes, I would encourage interested people to contact
me. We won't be able to put everyone on the working group (in the interest of
having a small enough group to make progress), but we are very int
Randy,
Yes, as the brief write-up says, the group will make "recommendations regarding
the adoption" (e.g., suggesting effective strategies for incremental
deployment) of "procedures and protocols based on existing work" (e.g., RPKI,
BGP-SEC, etc.). In any case, if our current wording is uncle
+1
-Tk
On Sep 4, 2011, at 12:23 PM, "Neil J. McRae" wrote:
> maybe volunteers from the nanog community should contact you?
>
> On 4 Sep 2011, at 16:45, "Jennifer Rexford" wrote:
>
>> Neil,
>>
>> The group is being assembled right now, so we don't have a list as of yet.
>>
>> -- Jen
>>
>>
>> Se
> While I can think of some corner cases for this, ie you have a
> satellite down link from one provider and fiber to anther. I expect
> this is not the norm for most networks/customers.
what is it you do not understand about "more than one of the world's
largest providers?" not in corner cases,
> As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to
> clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of
> vendors and operators (not "publish or perish" academics) to discuss and
> recommend effective strategies for incremental deployment of security
> solu
maybe volunteers from the nanog community should contact you?
On 4 Sep 2011, at 16:45, "Jennifer Rexford" wrote:
> Neil,
>
> The group is being assembled right now, so we don't have a list as of yet.
>
> -- Jen
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Neil J. McRae" wro
Jay,
I recommend E Solutions, But I am biased (I build the network).
But also in town we have,
Switch and Data
Qwest
Peak 10
Sago Networks
Hostway
I know them all pretty well, so if you have any questions, fire away.
James
- Original Message -
Anyone got any opinions on sma
Neil,
The group is being assembled right now, so we don't have a list as of yet.
-- Jen
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2011, at 11:32 AM, "Neil J. McRae" wrote:
> Jen,
> What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?
>
> Neil.
>
> On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford"
Jen,
What operators are involved? And who represents them specifically?
Neil.
On 04/09/2011 16:07, "Jennifer Rexford" wrote:
>
>
>As one of the co-chairs of this working group, I'd like to chime in to
>clarify the purpose of this group. Our goal is to assemble a group of
>vendors and operators
>> to me honest, what set me off was
>>
>>http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric3/wg-descriptions_v1
>>
>> describing, among others, a routing working group of an fcc
>> "communications security, reliability and interoperability council"
>>
>> i.e. these folk plan to write policy and
While I can think of some corner cases for this, ie you have a
satellite down link from one provider and fiber to anther. I expect
this is not the norm for most networks/customers.
-jim
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I have worked for more then one transit free network, a
On Sep 4, 2011, at 9:59 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I have worked for more then one transit free network, and have work
>> with people from (most) of the rest, we always prefer cust over peer,
>> every time.
>
> again, more than one of the world's largest providers prefer peers. and
> even if they
> -Original Message-
> From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
> Sent: 04 September 2011 15:01
> To: deles...@gmail.com
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: Re: Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics
>
> > I have worked for more then one transit free
> I have worked for more then one transit free network, and have work
> with people from (most) of the rest, we always prefer cust over peer,
> every time.
again, more than one of the world's largest providers prefer peers. and
even if they wanted to change, it would be horribly anti-pola to the
I have worked for more then one transit free network, and have work with people
from (most) of the rest, we always prefer cust over peer, every time.
-jim
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-Original Message-
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore"
Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2011 09
Mostly excellent thoughts, well documented. I have a question about this
statement though:
> in fact, a number of global Tier-1 providers have preferred peers for decades
I assume you mean for a very limited subset of their customers? I've checked
routing on well over half the transit free ne
>> the previous paper is flawed and if the findings where true you would
>> wonder how anyone ever created a viable online business.
>
> to me honest, what set me off was
>
>http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric3/wg-descriptions_v1
>
> describing, among others, a routing working gro
> the previous paper is flawed and if the findings where true you would
> wonder how anyone ever created a viable online business.
to me honest, what set me off was
http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric3/wg-descriptions_v1
describing, among others, a routing working group of an fcc
"
On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:38:40 EDT, Jay Ashworth said:
> Two people making the same mistake: end-user support telephone calls don't
> generally go to datacenters, do they?
Maybe they've figured out how to let an AI answer the phones. All you need is
text-to-speech, speech-to-text, and the script
Well said Randy - the previous paper is flawed and if the findings where true
you would wonder how anyone ever created a viable online business.
Neil
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Sep 2011, at 11:03, "Randy Bush" wrote:
> [ http://archive.psg.com/110904.broadside.html ]
>
>Do Not Complicate R
On Sep 4, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> Will the benefits of security - no more YouTube incidents, etc. - be
> perceived as worth having one's routing at the whim of an non-operational
> administrative monopoly?
Given recent events in SSL CA-land, how certain are we that the putative
s
* Wayne E. Bouchard:
> the users will screw themselves by flooding their uplinks in which
> case they will know what they've done to themselves and will largely
> accept the problems for the durration
With shared media networks (or insufficient backhaul capacities),
congestion affects more than j
[ http://archive.psg.com/110904.broadside.html ]
Do Not Complicate Routing Security with Voodoo Economics
a broadside
A recent NANOG presentation and SIGCOMM paper by Gill, Schapira, and
Goldberg[1] drew a lot of 'discussion' from the floor. But that
discuss
39 matches
Mail list logo
