On Sep 26, 2011, at 02:23 , Manish Karir wrote:
We tried to outline some of the challenges of building such a system in our
NANOG52 presentation:
http://www.merit.edu/networkresearch/papers/pdf/2011/NANOG52_reputation-nanog.pdf
In particular see slide 4. where we tried to lay down what
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 04:09:03PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
Yes, it is realistic to expect every mom-and-pop posting a personal
web site to utilize a provider that implements SNI, and the sooner
they do it.
No, it isn't because it requires you to send the domain portion of the URL
in
Thanks for all the replies everyone.
Some good options, though I am surprised by how few options I'm finding that
have a good centralized management system. I have to deploy monitoring to a
bunch of sites spread around the world, centralized management is key.
Thanks for all the suggestions.
On 28/09/11 07:53 -0700, eric clark wrote:
Thanks for all the replies everyone.
Some good options, though I am surprised by how few options I'm finding that
have a good centralized management system. I have to deploy monitoring to a
bunch of sites spread around the world, centralized management
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Software IP Service Level
Agreement Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20110928-ipsla
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2011 September 28 1600 UTC (GMT
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS Software Smart Install Remote Code
Execution Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20110928-smart-install
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2011 September 28 1600 UTC (GMT
On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:09:03 PDT, Owen DeLong said:
No, it isn't because it requires you to send the domain portion of the URL
in clear text and it may be that you don't necessarily want to disclose even
that much information about your browsing to the public.
If that's an actual concern, I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco 1 Series Denial of Service
Vulnerability
Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20110928-c10k
Revision 1.0
For Public Release 2011 September 28 1600 UTC (GMT
Jimmy,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
The name for an ISP intercepting traffic from its own users is not
interference or DoS,
because they're breaking the operation of (er) only their own network.
This statement somehow assumes that users of said
There's a packet filtering problem on your peering link with Godaddy
in Phoenix. Ongoing for about 7 or 8 hours now. Details in your ticket
#CI000596124.
Front line techs insist that, This is godaddy's problem. We're
sending them packets. Apparently you're not in contact with godaddy
to resolve
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Martin Millnert milln...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I think you're echoing a common misconception here:
If I have a partner/customer/supplier/$foo in [common carrier/public
carrier] network X, and there is no D/DoS or other form of abuse
ISPs are not like traditional
11 matches
Mail list logo