Phishing scheme didn't happen.
fedex has had a number of major compromises so it's not a stretch that
their user database was stolen and sold to spammers.
-Dan
On Thu, 30 May 2019, Matt Hoppes wrote:
Possibly. The other possibility I can think of is that you succumbed to a
phishing scheme
--- valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
From: "Valdis Klētnieks"
On Thu, 30 May 2019 16:07:53 -0700, "Scott Weeks" said:
> Having been on quite a few networks in my career,
> (eyeball/enterprise) I'd say many struggle with
> having a "single and clearly defined routing policy"
Which part do they
No, that's not the situation being discussed. As I've pointed out, a multi
homed AS without an IGP connecting all prefixes is non-compliant with the BGP
definition of an AS. Your Tokyo/DC example is additionally non-compliant
because it doesn't have a single routing policy. It has two policies.
On Fri, 31 May 2019 00:10:42 -, Mel Beckman said:
> What are you talking about? Do you use multi homed BGP? If so, Iâd expect
> you
> to know that an organization with multiple sites having their own Internet
> still uses a single AS. They have IGP paths to route traffic between sites
>
On Thu, 30 May 2019 16:07:53 -0700, "Scott Weeks" said:
> Having been on quite a few networks in my career,
> (eyeball/enterprise) I'd say many struggle with
> having a "single and clearly defined routing policy"
Which part do they find problematic, the "single" part, or the
"clearly defined"
"Citation needed". :-) How is it clear that the vast majority are
following this?
Uh, because the Internet works? Think about it. If an AS advertises prefixes
that can’t be reached through all of its border routers, those prefixes would
lose packets.
But I don’t need to provide a citation.
After attempting several times, and failing to get something resembling a
real RFO from your first tier customer support/ticket answering staff, I am
now looking for a person in a position of responsibility at voip.ms.
Please contact me off list.
--- bell...@nsc.liu.se wrote:
From: Thomas Bellman
... prefixes with a "single and clearly defined
routing policy"
--
Having been on quite a few networks in my career,
(eyeball/enterprise) I'd say many struggle with
having a "single and clearly
On 2019-05-30 20:00 +, Mel Beckman wrote:
> I’m sure we can find corner cases, but it’s clear that the vast
^
> majority of BGP users are following the standard.
"Citation needed". :-) How is it clear that the vast majority are
following
On 5/30/19 1:48 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> 1. What happens to the packets when the /24 gets filtered from one
> source (in favor of an aggregate) but not from the other?
>
> 2. In exchange for this liability, did you gain any capacity in your router?
It was my understanding that the argument
Possibly. The other possibility I can think of is that you succumbed to a
phishing scheme where are you entered the login information for your Fed ex
account.
> On May 30, 2019, at 4:12 PM, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> I received a credit card scam addressed to my one-off unique address
>
On 05/30/2019 03:40, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
What I have in mind is actually to combine line-rate ODUs with a static
mapping and pipe the uncommitted capacity to a packet-switch.
Statically commited services will be muxponded in fastpath, hence no
jitter and less latency, while the fractionnal
I received a credit card scam addressed to my one-off unique address
registered to fedex.com.
So it seems fedex.com user database has been compromised. Change your
logins asap.
-Dan
Yes, my original quote wasn’t exactly word-for-word from the standard, but it
was semantically identical.
I’m sure we can find corner cases, but it’s clear that the vast majority of BGP
users are following the standard. Anycast isn’t a violation of the standards
because it’s defined in BGP as
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:58 AM Mel Beckman wrote:
> > Come on now. The definition of an autonomous system is well established
in RFC1930, which is still Best Current Practice:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1930#section-3
Your quote wasn't from the RFC. Sorry, my google fu is only good
Required or not, I've seen a number of networks doing this. At some point
"single global ASN" became a marketable pitch and folks realized they don't
actually have to have a single Network to get it.
Matt
(Oops +nanog, sorry Mel + William)
> On May 30, 2019, at 13:10, Mel Beckman wrote:
>
>
On Thu, 30 May 2019 10:42:17 -0700, William Herrin said:
> Heck, most networking courses still teach class A, B and C... definitions
> which were explicitly invalidated a quarter of a century ago.
If you had asked me back in 1993 if I was going to be retired before class A/B/C
was gone from
Bill,
Come on now. The definition of an autonomous system is well established in
RFC1930, which is still Best Current Practice:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1930#section-3
An AS is a connected group of one or more IP prefixes run by one
or more network operators which has a SINGLE and
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:43 AM Robert Blayzor
wrote:
> On 5/30/19 12:54 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > It's permissible to announce to your transits with a private AS which
> > they remove before passing the announcement to the wider Internet. As a
> > result, the announcement from each provider
On 5/30/19 12:54 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> It's permissible to announce to your transits with a private AS which
> they remove before passing the announcement to the wider Internet. As a
> result, the announcement from each provider will have that provider's
> origin AS when you see it even
> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 10:11 AM Mel Beckman wrote:
> > Are your sure about your Error #2, where you say "Prefixes from the
same AS are not required to have direct connectivity to each other and many
do not."?
> >
> > From BGP definitions:
> >
> > The AS represents a connected group of one or
Hey William,
> Error #1: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6996 section 4.
>
> It's permissible to announce to your transits with a private AS which they
> remove before passing the announcement to the wider Internet. As a result,
> the announcement from each provider will have that provider's
Bill,
Are your sure about your Error #2, where you say "Prefixes from the same AS are
not required to have direct connectivity to each other and many do not."?
From BGP definitions:
The AS represents a connected group of one or more blocks of IP addresses,
called IP prefixes, that have been
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 8:30 AM Robert Blayzor
wrote:
> On 5/24/19 2:22 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> > Get it? I announce the /24 via both so that you can reach me when there
> > is a problem with one or the other. If you drop the /24, you break the
> > Internet when my connection to CenturyLink
On 5/24/19 2:22 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> Get it? I announce the /24 via both so that you can reach me when there
> is a problem with one or the other. If you drop the /24, you break the
> Internet when my connection to CenturyLink is inoperable. Good job!
It would be dropped only if the
On 5/15/19 2:52 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> You can't do uRPF if you're not taking full routes.
>
> You also have a more limited set of information for analytics if you
> don't have full routes.
Or instead of uRPF (loose) on transit links, just take a BOGON feed?
--
inoc.net!rblayzor
XMPP:
You might want to check with a company called Transtelco. They are an
alternate fiber provider (outside of Telmex).
Steven Naslund
Chicago IL
From: NANOG On Behalf Of Mehmet Akcin
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2019 9:20 AM
To: nanog
Subject: Mexico
Hi there
I am looking for dark fibre in several
Take a look at Tufin. They’ve been in the firewall configurations
management business for a long time and may have something to suit your
needs.
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 01:18 Chris Knipe wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Quick question... In orgs using frequent and large amounts of IPSec, what
> are you
Hi there
I am looking for dark fibre in several markets in México and waves from
mexico city to LA and Dallas.
If you know someone in wholesale who can help, please contact me offlist
Thank you.
Mehmet
--
Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903
Brandon,
Le 30/05/2019 à 03:46, Brandon Martin a écrit :
The only way I know to do this is to packet switch, as either Ethernet
or GFP-F OTN traffic, the subscriber data onto a FlexODU at the desired
subscriber rate within the OTU4. Other traffic could then be placed
within the same OTU4
30 matches
Mail list logo
