- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: "Cisco gate" and "Meet the Fed" at Defcon....
by Chris Ranch 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Hi Randy, > > I might be wrong, but I thought an image with IPv6 support required > > 16 MB flash on the 2500? > > could be. don't care. don't need ipv6 on terminal servers > for oob access. But the vulnerability applies for only ipv6-enabled devices... http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/cisco-sa-20050729-ipv6.shtml Why don't you care? Chris

3 3

Re: "Cisco gate" and "Meet the Fed" at Defcon....
by Randy Bush 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

> I forget who suggested it actually, i was first, but others have followed > but I like the request to move this to cisco-nsp. Any reason > that isn't a better place than NANOG at this stage? i would guess that, if useful discussion is started on cisco-nsp, that the momentum will move there and attenuate here. but, imiho, shutting folk down here first is not a useful social path. randy

1 0

[Administrivia]: Please end this Thread: RE: "Cisco gate" and "Me et the Fed" at Defcon....
by Malayter, Christopher 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Good Morning, Perhaps Susan was not clear enough yesterday. The mailing list administrative committee would request that you allow this thread to stop. It has certainly outlived its operational usefulness. I am now reiterating that request. Regards, Chris Malayter NANOG Mailing List Administration Team > -----Original Message----- > From: Geo. [mailto:geoincidents@nls.net] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:10 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: "Cisco gate" and "Meet the Fed" at Defcon.... > > > > >> ok so your issue is totally irrelvant to the recent "ciscogate" > >> paranoia? > > That would depend on what other exploits cisco has slipstream > patched wouldn't it? (honest question as I don't know but it > would be nice if cisco would clarify the situation) > > Geo. > > George Roettger > Netlink Services >

4 3

Lynn Interview
by Crist Clark 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Haven't seen Furgie post this one yet (may have missed it deleting some of the noise in those threads, though). Wired's interview with Mike Lynn. His side of the story, timeline, and motives for the rather climatic ending for what should have been a rather routine Black Hat presentation: http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,68365,00.html -- Crist J. Clark crist.clark(a)globalstar.com Globalstar Communications (408) 933-4387

1 0

Tiscali switches to Public-Root?? What do you think?
by John Palmer (NANOG Acct) 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

>From their press release at http://www.tiscali.com/press/releases/10552825f1a.html "... As a result of this agreement, Tiscali will offer to its subscribers across Europe the access to the entire World Wide Web, including the new alternative domain names. The agreement underscores Tiscali's commitment to embrace technological developments that simplify, improve and expand the opportunities offered by internet ..." John

6 6

RIPE NCC to begin allocating from new IPv4 range
by leo vegoda 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

Dear Colleagues, This announcement is being sent to multiple lists. I apologise for duplicates. The RIPE NCC received the IPv4 address range 89.0.0.0 - 91.255.255.255 (89.0.0.0/8 and 90.0.0.0/7) from the IANA in June 2005. We expect to start making allocations from this range in the near future. We have started announcing two prefixes from each /8, which originate in AS12654. They are: 89.192.0.0/16 89.255.248.0/21 90.192.0.0/16 90.255.248.0/21 91.192.0.0/16 91.255.248.0/21 Details of target names and addresses, reachability tools and other information are available on our web site at: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/debogon.html You may want to update any filters you have in place. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC

1 0

Re: as numbers
by Geoff Huston 02 Aug '05

02 Aug '05

At 08:15 PM 1/08/2005, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: >On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, Geoff Huston wrote: > > > So - to NANOG at large - if you want your vendor to include 4-Byte AS > support > > in their BGP code anytime soon, in order to avoid some last minute > panic in a > > couple of years hence, then it would appear that you should talk to > them now > > and say clearly that you want 4-Byte AS support in your BGP software right > > now. > >Geoff, excellent idea.. > >before I forward this email to my suppliers tho, is there a reference I can >send.. excuse my ignorance but I'm not familiar with research done on 4-byte >ASNs, is there a proposed standard implementation? There is a draft draft-ietf-idr-as4bytes-10.txt- it is a draft because under the current IETF procedures there needs to be 2 independent implementations of the specification, and at the moment only Redback's BGP has implemented this. Once there is a 2nd implementation it will enter the Internet Standards track as a Draft Standard. >If I have something definite to request I will immediately send those emails, http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-08/as.html contains the analysis of the AS number consumption data regards, Geoff

2 1

Could someone from Dotster pls Contact me offlist?
by Alon Tirosh 01 Aug '05

01 Aug '05

Thanks

1 0

as numbers
by Randy Bush 01 Aug '05

01 Aug '05

geoff has a quite good article on antonymous systems, usage, ... at <http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2005-08/as.html>. randy

10 15

Re: as numbers
by Robert Boyle 01 Aug '05

01 Aug '05

At 01:12 AM 7/31/2005, you wrote: This kind of response does have a certain market-based logic to it, I must admit, but its highly risky. I don't think its all that wise for this to be delayed indefinitely until the point at which its turning from an orderly transition into a last second panic, and I don't think that many customers will place this high on their vendor support priority list until they are actually allocated a 4-byte AS number because the 2-byte pool has been exhausted. . >So - to NANOG at large - if you want your vendor to include 4-Byte AS >support in their BGP code anytime soon, in order to avoid some last minute >panic in a couple of years hence, then it would appear that you should >talk to them now and say clearly that you want 4-Byte AS support in your >BGP software right now. I agree that implementation sooner rather than later is a good idea, but all of us already have a 2-Byte AS so although we care in theory and believe it is a good idea, we don't _really_ care as much as the first guy who gets a 4-Byte AS will. Eventually one of our BGP speaking transit customers will be assigned these AS numbers and other newer providers will too, but unless someone plans to chop up their network or split into two companies, I don't see that there will be much clamoring for this - yet. When we can't provide connectivity to a potential customer because we can't accept or wrap up their 4B AS, then there will be demand. Just some food for thought... -R Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin

7 9