On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:11:00 +1100, Karl Auer said:
No-one has said this yet, so I will - why are people working around your
normal network policies? This is often a sign of something lacking that
people need in their daily work. You can often reduce this sort of
innocent thievery down to a
Well, quite frankly they have the tools they need. Our remote sites do not
have any devices that require wireless. They don't have company-issued
laptops, and personal laptops are not allowed. The policy is on the books
but it isn't my department to make sure people know about it and follow it.
Why not give them wireless Internet access only? That will keep all the
smartphone users happy.
On 10/15/2012 8:12 AM, Jonathan Rogers wrote:
Well, quite frankly they have the tools they need. Our remote sites do not
have any devices that require wireless. They don't have company-issued
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not give them wireless Internet access only? That will keep all the
smartphone users happy.
Maybe because he has 130 sites and 130 truck rolls is not cheap. Also
company policy says no.
--
Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip,
I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain hosted
@netsol for a significant amount of time now (several days) only and
getting a vague error from the remote side:
inbound.xxx.com.netsolmail.net [206.188.198.64]: 451 4.3.2 Please try
again later
I have tried the support channels
APNIC will be switching to a new RPKI 'split' trust anchor system on
the 25th of October. This change is needed to align APNIC administered
resources with their allocation hierarchy. These resources will also
be certified under each responsible parent registry at the appropriate
time.
...
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:08:10PM -0400, chris wrote:
I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain hosted
@netsol for a significant amount of time now (several days) only and
getting a vague error from the remote side:
inbound.xxx.com.netsolmail.net [206.188.198.64]: 451 4.3.2
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Mike A mi...@mikea.ath.cx wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:08:10PM -0400, chris wrote:
I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain hosted
@netsol for a significant amount of time now (several days) only and
getting a vague error from the remote
I'm thinking crappy monitoring tools.
Josh
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM, chris tknch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Mike A mi...@mikea.ath.cx wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:08:10PM -0400, chris wrote:
I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 07:41:01PM +0200, Kasper Adel wrote:
I have never used any CLI other than Cisco so i am curious what useful and
creative knobs and bolts are available for other network appliance Vendors.
Junos OS has:
- Multi-level hierarchical configuration with absolute or relative
On Oct 15, 2012, at 1:08 PM, chris wrote:
I am having a issue delivering mail to a specific domain hosted
@netsol for a significant amount of time now (several days) only and
getting a vague error from the remote side:
Note that mail delivery issues to NetSol have been discussed over the
Are there somewhat reputable service providers for Internet-wide TCP
port scans? What's the typical rate per TCP port? (I'm interested in
rather obscure services whose identification may need additional
probing, and this data is unlikely on file already.)
A full scan needs just 0.5 TB of data
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
Maybe because he has 130 sites and 130 truck rolls is not cheap. Also
company policy says no.
You are correct that deploying to a number of sites isn't cheap, but the
actual relevant question is how does this cost compare
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Sean Harlow s...@seanharlow.info wrote:
You are correct that deploying to a number of sites isn't cheap, but the
actual relevant question is how does this cost compare to the cost of the
original request to detect these things. In this case almost all forms
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
Jonathan stated that they have health data on the network and only company
issued devices are allowed. I would suggest to him that he inventory the
equipment via MAC address (I'm guessing that it's mostly standard issue
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Sean Harlow s...@seanharlow.info wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Joe Hamelin j...@nethead.com wrote:
Maybe because he has 130 sites and 130 truck rolls is not cheap. Also
company policy says no.
You are correct that deploying to a number of sites
On 16/10/2012, at 4:15 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
APNIC will be switching to a new RPKI 'split' trust anchor system on
the 25th of October. This change is needed to align APNIC administered
resources with their allocation hierarchy. These resources will also
be certified under each
George,
On Oct 15, 2012, at 8:44 PM, George Michaelson g...@algebras.org wrote:
Once there is a global trust anchor, you can validate the 5 APNIC operating
CA under a single root, single TAL. Until then, an APNIC TAL is necessary.
So, just to be clear, the lack of a single TAL is due to
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:44 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
This solution - the don't care solution - almost fails the
negligence test for certain security regimes including PCI (credit
cards) and possibly SOX for retail data locations (and HIPPA for
hospitals / medical
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Florian Weimer f...@deneb.enyo.de wrote:
A full scan needs just 0.5 TB of data per TCP port, so roll your own
is definitely an option. But I expect that any halfway decent hosting
provider will start asking questions after the first billion packets
or so, and
On 16/10/2012, at 11:09 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
George,
On Oct 15, 2012, at 8:44 PM, George Michaelson g...@algebras.org wrote:
Once there is a global trust anchor, you can validate the 5 APNIC operating
CA under a single root, single TAL. Until then, an APNIC TAL is
On Oct 14, 2012, at 9:02 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
Hopefully, you have hardware-based edge devices, not just software-based
devices and (awful) stateful firewalls - the days of software-based devices
on the Internet were over years ago.
Software forwarding is usually
ok. i'll bite. what the heck is this meant to support? i thought the
rirs were moving from five TALs to one.
Randy, we have an operational need to separate the existing single TAL
into its discrete components for each source, so we can have production
certificates for each source, so
On Oct 16, 2012, at 8:57 AM, Ryan Malayter wrote:
10G+ forwarding with minimum packet sizes is possible on a single core using
optimized kernels (see Intel DPDK and PF_RING DNA).
Of course it isn't. You can *approach* 10gb/sec with multiple cores and
minimum packet sizes, granted.
You
Perhaps the following?
AfriNIC
ARIN
APNIC
LACNIC
RIPE
Regards,
Jay
On 16/10/2012, at 1:18 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
ok. i'll bite. what the heck is this meant to support? i thought the
rirs were moving from five TALs to one.
Randy, we have an operational need to separate the
Roland,
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 15, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Dobbins, Roland rdobb...@arbor.net wrote:
I know all about the forwarding capabilities of modern general-purpose CPUs,
ring-buffers, et. al. I know what is possible, and what isn't possible. And
please, no more from the Vyatta
--- djahanda...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Darius Jahandarie djahanda...@gmail.com
Either way, in the US at least, it's not legal to port scan random
machines on the internet, so this was a rather useless exercise. (And
--
Want to re-write that
... we lost Jon.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2468.txt
28 matches
Mail list logo
