On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Apr 20, 2014, at 2:32 AM, George William Herbert <
> george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have 20-30,000 counterexamples in mind that I worked with directly in
> the last decade.
>
> People do stupid things all the time - but gene
On Apr 20, 2014, at 2:32 AM, George William Herbert
wrote:
> I have 20-30,000 counterexamples in mind that I worked with directly in the
> last decade.
People do stupid things all the time - but generally, it's hard to do them at
scale.
;>
--
Can someone from AT&T Wireless contact me off-list? ... thanks ... n
On 04/18/2014 07:58 PM, Enno Rey wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 11:59:04AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
On 04/18/2014 12:57 AM, Enno Rey wrote:
I fully second Sander's input. I've been involved in IPv6 planning in a number of very
large enterprises now and_none_ of them required/asked for (
On Apr 19, 2014, at 11:44 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> There is not widespread use of stateful firewall units with the
> stateful element as a single point of failure in front of large public
> web farms.
I have 20-30,000 counterexamples in mind that I worked with directly in the
last decade.
An
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 1:08 PM, George William Herbert
wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:10 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
> I don't know where you find ideas like this.
>
> There are stateful firewalls in the security packages in front of all the
> internet facing servers in all the major service p
On 19 Apr 2014, at 20:08, George William Herbert
wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:10 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
>
>> You can 'call' it all you like - but people who actually want to keep their
>> servers up and running don't put stateful firewalls in front of them,
>
> I don't know where you
Sent from Kangphone
On Apr 18, 2014, at 9:10 PM, "Dobbins, Roland" wrote:
> You can 'call' it all you like - but people who actually want to keep their
> servers up and running don't put stateful firewalls in front of them,
I don't know where you find ideas like this.
There are stateful fi
Greetings,
The NANOG Mail server will be transitioning to a
new system next Saturday, April 26th. The maintenance
window for this transition will be from
10:00 - 10:30 UTC. This will impact the main NANOG
list and associated lists hosted on mailman.nanog.org.
The addresses for the server will
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:29 PM, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 4/18/14, 7:04 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
>> PCI requirement 1.3.8 pretty much requires RFC1918
>> addressing of the computers in scope...
>
> It does not
You are correct. In theory. However, for those
organizations that have chosen to use a f
On 4/18/14, 7:04 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> PCI requirement 1.3.8 pretty much requires RFC1918
> addressing of the computers in scope...
It does not
1.3.8
Do not disclose private IP addresses and routing
information to unauthorized parties.
Note
: Methods to obscure IP addressing may include, but a
* Simon Perreault:
> Le 2014-04-18 13:25, Mike Hale a écrit :
>> I agree with Bill. You can poopoo NAT all you want, but it's a fact
>> of most networks and will continue to remain so until you can make a
>> compelling case to move away from it.
>
> Does that mean all IPv6 firewalls should suppor
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Jeff Kell wrote:
> On 4/18/2014 9:53 PM, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 2014, at 1:20 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> >
> >> There isn't much a firewall can do to break it.
> > As someone who sees firewalls break the Internet all the time for those
> whose pac
On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Ignoring security, A is superior because I can change it to DNAT to the
> new server, or DNAT to the load balancer now that said server needs 10
> replicas, etc.
>
> B requires re-numbering the server or *if* I am lucky enough that it is
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
