- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Cisco's Website down?
by joej＠Rocknyou.com 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Anyone else seeing an error getting to www.cisco.com? <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <TITLE>403 Forbidden</TITLE> </HEAD><BODY> <H1>Forbidden</H1> You don't have permission to access / on this server.<P> <P>Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. <HR> <ADDRESS>Apache/1.0 Server at www.cisco.com Port 80</ADDRESS> </BODY></HTML> Cheers -Joe

6 6

Curiosity
by Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

People keep asking me "why don't you take that off list?" I have a suggestion: say instead "STFU"--it is easier to type. And that is the net effect, because every attempt to take an item off-list results in something like the following. I can not really figure out what the problem is. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:26:16 -0500 From: Mail Administrator <Postmaster(a)cox.net> Reply-To: Mail Administrator <Postmaster(a)cox.net> To: LarrySheldon(a)cox.net This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason: Your message was not delivered because the return address was refused. The return address was '<LarrySheldon(a)cox.net>' Please reply to Postmaster(a)cox.net if you feel this message to be in error. -- Requiescas in pace o email

2 1

www.sunfreeware.com down too?
by Jon R. Kibler 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Have noticed several sites down today. Can't seem to get to www.sunfreeware.com as well as Cisco. -- Jon R. Kibler Chief Technical Officer A.S.E.T., Inc. Charleston, SC USA (843) 849-8214 ================================================== Filtered by: TRUSTEM.COM's Email Filtering Service http://www.trustem.com/ No Spam. No Viruses. Just Good Clean Email.

2 1

RE: Cisco website www.cisco.com 403 forbidden?
by Amar Andersson 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Works fine for me. -- amar

3 2

RE: Cisco website www.cisco.com 403 forbidden?
by Claydon, Tom 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Al Qaeda packets? -----Original Message----- From: Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. [mailto:LarrySheldon@cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:25 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Cisco website www.cisco.com 403 forbidden? Jay Hennigan wrote: > Is it just me that they don't like? I've seen one or two other reports. Seems like a good opportunity for a round of Wild Speculation. -- Requiescas in pace o email

1 0

Cisco 6513 Bug (was Re: hey had eric sent you
by joej＠Rocknyou.com 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Scott, Yep, we had to send in the line cards to get them upgraded, didn't have any information on upgrading the s/w on the Line cards and TAC wanted me to RMA them back. So. Boy this one was a real pain because it only seemed protocol specific at the time. Here's the referenced Bug for those interested. CSCeb67650 Bug Details Headline WS-X6548-GE-TX & WS-X6148-GE-TX may drop frames on egress Product cat6000 Model x6548 Component hw-1000tx Duplicate of Severity 2 Severity help Status Resolved Status help First Found-in Version 8.1 All affected versions First Fixed-in Version 8.1(1.8), 8.1(1.9), 8.2(0.18)DEL, 7.6(2.3), 12.1(19.4)E, 12.2(17a)SX Version help Release Notes Packets destined out the WS-X6548-GE-TX or the WS-X6148-GE-TX that are less than 64 bytes will be dropped. This can occur when a device forwards a packet that is 60 bytes and the 4 byte dot1q tag is to added to create a valid 64 byte packet. When the tag is removed the packet is 60 bytes. If the destination is out a port on the WS-X6548-GE-TX or the WS-X6148-GE-TX it will be dropped by the linecard. Additionally, if packets are received on an interface that does not have a minimum MTU of 64 bytes (e.g. ATM,POS) and are destined out the WS-X6548-GE-TX or the WS-X6148-GE-TX it will be dropped by the linecard. No current workaround other than moving the recieving device to a different model linecard. Cheers! -Joe ---------- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu[SMTP:owner-nanog@merit.edu] on behalf of Scott McGrath[SMTP:mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:07 AM To: joe Cc: Riley, Marty; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: hey had eric sent you Bit hard by same bug. What version of code are you running on the 6513 8.1(2) fixes the bug on the 6x48 line cards. What happens is that packets of 64 bytes or less are silently dropped. Replacing linecards will not help unless there is another bug of which I am not aware. With a little digging I can dredge up the relevant DDTS. Scott C. McGrath On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, joe wrote:

1 0

RE: Cisco website www.cisco.com 403 forbidden?
by Williams, Jeff 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

It was down the first time I tried... seems to be back now. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Todd Mitchell - lists Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 1:23 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RE: Cisco website www.cisco.com 403 forbidden? | Behalf Of Jay Hennigan | Sent: March 15, 2004 3:19 PM | | Is it just me that they don't like? Apparently they don't like me either. On top of that, they're running Apache 1.0--not so good. Todd -- ************************************************************** This message, including any attachments, contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies. You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. TIAA-CREF **************************************************************

1 0

RE: Cisco website www.cisco.com 403 forbidden?
by Claydon, Tom 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Nope. It's horked. = TC -----Original Message----- From: Jay Hennigan [mailto:jay@west.net] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 2:19 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Cisco website www.cisco.com 403 forbidden? Is it just me that they don't like? -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay(a)west.net WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/

1 0

iMPLS benefit
by sonet twister 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Hello, i heard there is a way to run MPLS for layer3 VPN(2547) service without needing to run label switching in the core(LDP/TDP/RSVP) but straight IP (aka iMPLS). Anyone running this in a live network yet? Thanks in advance for any information. Suki Lim Blacksburg, VA ee.VA.TECH --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster.

4 9

Re: Packet Kiddies Invade NANOG
by John Harold 15 Mar '04

15 Mar '04

Yes, Gregory Taylor aka "OseK" is a perfect gentlemen now. Here are logs from Feb 4th 2004 showing him being a perfect gentlemen... (08:35:45) <#sigdie!OseK_> :[NEMESIS] Nodes are attacking 212.242.41.0/24 on port 666 for 60 seconds using spoofed TCP RESET Packets ... (08:36:04) <#sigdie!OseK_> doesn't help the port 666 tho :( (08:36:31) <#sigdie!OseK_> you prolly have a much larger dosnet than me tho (08:36:34) <#sigdie!OseK_> i only have 500 nodes (08:38:55) <#sigdie!OseK_> you dropped it (08:38:58) <#sigdie!OseK_> so it cant take ICMP (08:39:00) <#sigdie!OseK_> what'd you hit? (08:39:18) <#sigdie!p> .17 (08:39:54) <#sigdie!OseK_> down (08:39:55) <#sigdie!OseK_> i got it (08:39:56) <#sigdie!OseK_> :) (08:40:03) <#sigdie!p> let me try by myself ! (08:40:07) <#sigdie!p> no (08:40:07) <#sigdie!p> its up (08:40:08) <#sigdie!OseK_> hold (08:40:10) <#sigdie!OseK_> wait 60 seconds (08:40:15) <#sigdie!OseK_> ah (08:40:16) <#sigdie!OseK_> wtf (08:40:20) <#sigdie!OseK_> i only dropped one box? (08:40:29) <#sigdie!OseK_> cuz it wouldn't respond for a second there (08:40:44) <#sigdie!OseK_> i wanna fucking drop banetele (08:40:49) <#sigdie!p> well (08:40:50) <#sigdie!p> my turn (08:40:51) <#sigdie!OseK_> cuz those fags are the ones that put that page up on there (08:40:55) <#sigdie!OvEr_LoAD> lol lets do it (08:41:05) <#sigdie!p> OK (08:41:06) <#sigdie!p> wach (08:41:08) <#sigdie!p> watch (08:41:13) <#sigdie!p> is everyone watching (08:41:18) <#sigdie!OseK_> yeah (08:41:28) <#sigdie!OseK_> pwned (08:41:31) <#sigdie!OseK_> p- (08:41:32) <#sigdie!OseK_> u (08:41:34) <#sigdie!p> no i didnt even do anything (08:41:35) <#sigdie!OseK_> pwn (08:41:36) <#sigdie!p> :P (08:41:38) <#sigdie!OseK_> wtf (08:41:44) <#sigdie!OseK_> why are they all fucked now (08:41:48) <#sigdie!p> they arent.. (08:42:01) <#sigdie!p> unless youre talking about 212.242.41.35 (08:42:05) <#sigdie!p> im flooding its httpd (08:42:28) <#sigdie!p> ok ok (08:42:29) <#sigdie!p> watch (08:42:57) <#sigdie!p> bewm (08:43:00) <#sigdie!OseK_> ok (08:43:02) <#sigdie!OseK_> dammit (08:43:05) <#sigdie!OseK_> you hit it right when i do (08:43:07) <#sigdie!p> it doesnt like ICMP (08:43:07) <#sigdie!OseK_> i can never tell (08:43:10) <#sigdie!OseK_> if my shit is working (08:43:22) <#sigdie!OseK_> :) (08:43:33) <#sigdie!OseK_> its up (08:43:44) <#sigdie!p> i only did 50 seconds (08:44:06) <#sigdie!OseK_> hrm (08:44:20) <#sigdie!p> 212.242.41.17 no like the icmp (08:45:19) <#sigdie!OseK_> ok (08:45:23) <#sigdie!OseK_> imma go play with banetele (08:48:02) <#sigdie!OseK_> i just collapsed banetele's BGP announcement (08:48:09) <#sigdie!OseK_> but that doesn't help (08:48:13) <#sigdie!OseK_> cuz they're not gonna split (08:48:43) <#sigdie!p> i dunno banetele looks dead (08:48:48) <#sigdie!p> or maybe im just lagging (08:49:00) <#sigdie!OseK_> ... BitchX: Sent server ping to [irc.banetele.no] (08:49:00) <#sigdie!OseK_> ... Server pong from irc.banetele.no 0.8224 seconds (08:49:12) <#sigdie!p> bash-2.05a$ telnetirc.banetele.no 6667 (08:49:13) <#sigdie!p> Trying 213.239.111.2... (08:49:16) <#sigdie!OseK_> thats cuz I collapsed their BGP announcement by nailing their router head on(08:49:26) <#sigdie!OseK_> but they have a secondary route to efnet (08:49:30) <#sigdie!_mre|42o> BGP announcement? (08:49:31) <#sigdie!OseK_> thru their multihomed connection (08:49:32) <#sigdie!OseK_> yeah (08:49:37) <#sigdie!OseK_> they have a collapsable route (08:49:44) <#sigdie!OseK_> using the border gateway protocl (08:49:54) <#sigdie!OseK_> hey have to announce to a pool (08:49:58) <#sigdie!OseK_> in order to establish their route (08:50:07) <#sigdie!OseK_> but if thye get hit enough their router drops the announcements (08:50:10) <#sigdie!OseK_> and they lose their routes (08:50:14) <#sigdie!OseK_> its wierd (08:50:21) <#sigdie!OseK_> i dont quite understand how it works myself (08:50:33) <#sigdie!OseK_> its something you only find UU net and IRC servers doing (08:50:34) <#sigdie!OseK_> hehe (08:51:19) <#sigdie!OseK_> they should recover now (08:51:21) <#sigdie!OseK_> any time (08:53:30) <#sigdie!OseK_> damn (08:48:02) <#sigdie!OseK_> i just collapse (08:48:09) <#sigdie!OseK_> but that doesn't help (08:48:13) <#sigdie!OseK_> cuz they're not gonna split (08:48:43) <#sigdie!p> i dunno banetele looks dead (08:48:48) <#sigdie!p> or maybe im just lagging (08:49:00) <#sigdie!OseK_> ... BitchX: Sent server ping to [irc.banetele.no] (08:49:00) <#sigdie!OseK_> ... Server pong from irc.banetele.no 0.8224 seconds (08:49:12) <#sigdie!p> bash-2.05a$ telnet irc.banetele.no 6667 (08:49:13) <#sigdie!p> Trying 213.239.111.2... (08:49:16) <#sigdie!OseK_> thats cuz I collapsed their BGP announcement by nailing their router head on (08:49:26) <#sigdie!OseK_> but they have a secondary route to efnet (08:49:30) <#sigdie!_mre|42o> BGP announcement? (08:49:31) <#sigdie!OseK_> thru their multihomed connection (08:49:32) <#sigdie!OseK_> yeah (08:49:37) <#sigdie!OseK_> they have a collapsable route (08:49:44) <#sigdie!OseK_> using the border gateway protocl (08:49:54) <#sigdie!OseK_> hey have to announce to a pool (08:49:58) <#sigdie!OseK_> in order to establish their route (08:50:07) <#sigdie!OseK_> but if thye get hit enough their router drops the announcements (08:50:10) <#sigdie!OseK_> and they lose their routes (08:50:14) <#sigdie!OseK_> its wierd (08:50:21) <#sigdie!OseK_> i dont quite understand how it works myself (08:50:33) <#sigdie!OseK_> its something you only find UU net and IRC servers doing (08:50:34) <#sigdie!OseK_> hehe (08:51:19) <#sigdie!OseK_> they should recover now (08:51:21) <#sigdie!OseK_> any time (08:53:30) <#sigdie!OseK_> damn (08:53:34) <#sigdie!OseK_> banetele's getting nailed hard (08:53:52) <#sigdie!OseK_> i didnt realize their ircd is using the same core router as their web page (08:53:53) <#sigdie!p> and its still linked to efnet fine (08:55:23) <#sigdie!OseK_> yeah (08:55:26) <#sigdie!OseK_> they have a second link (08:55:28) <#sigdie!OseK_> to the hub (08:55:32) <#sigdie!OseK_> thru another line (08:55:36) <#sigdie!p> anyone wanna read something funny? (08:55:38) <#sigdie!OseK_> its almost a requirement on efnet anymore (08:55:40) <#sigdie!OseK_> sure (08:55:45) <#sigdie!p> http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8579692%5E13762,00.html (08:55:51) <#sigdie!OseK_> <p-> http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8579692%5E13762,00.html (08:55:56) <#sigdie!OseK_> god damn it (08:56:02) <#sigdie!OseK_> i was only trying to copy the url (08:56:04) <#sigdie!p> one exerpt from it (08:56:05) <#sigdie!p> i will show (08:56:10) <#sigdie!p> "He told police he noticed a brown female stray dog wagging its tail and "acting sexy" and pulled it into some tall grass by the roadside." (08:56:22) <#sigdie!OseK_> OMG (08:57:27) <#sigdie!gh0tzt> have you guys seen those movie commercials for anti piracy? (08:57:34) <#sigdie!p> yes (08:57:43) <#sigdie!gh0tzt> where the guy is like "I'm just a poor stunt double trying to make it, and when people click a few times blahblahblah" (08:58:01) <#sigdie!p> get a better job (08:58:02) <#sigdie!p> fuck face (08:58:38) <#sigdie!gh0tzt> I wish they'd make a pro-piracy commercial. have some kid sitting next to a computer like "I'm just a poor college student on loans, and when cd prices rise to $21 from $13.50 and I don't have a car..." (08:58:47) <#sigdie!p> pepsi has a pro piracy (08:58:52) <#sigdie!p> i sa it during the super bowl (08:58:54) <#sigdie!p> it said (08:58:59) <#sigdie!gh0tzt> really? (08:59:02) <#sigdie!p> 'we are the youth' (08:59:02) <#sigdie!gh0tzt> how'd it say that (08:59:09) <#sigdie!p> 'and we're gonna keep downloading music' (08:59:16) <#sigdie!p> 'you cant stop us' (08:59:23) <#sigdie!OseK_> 208.173.218.94 <-- p, want some fun? (08:59:36) <#sigdie!OseK_> one of the (hidden) routers on banetele's BGP pool :) It's a good thing for us that he's a white hat now! Greg the packet kiddie OseK Wrote: Matthew (yes I know it is you), The personal information you have posted regarding my phone number is me. However, the slanderous material and obvious hate/flame statements you made against me are absolutely false. I have not attacked any Internet Service Provider or IRC server in several years. I am and have been retired from the underground for a long while now, despite the constant comments made to the contrary by people who do not represent me in any manner. I admit publically to everyone who may read this posting, that I have made some very stupid decisions in the past and I had hurt alot of people in the process. Despite my attempts to justify my actions, the fact is two wrongs do not make a right. XWB is my dad's personal sole propietership. Not once has anyone involved with XWB ever attempted to represent that business as anything more than a Sole propietership that does web development work for non-profit organizations and small businesses. My father works very hard and your attempt at attacking his character was uncalled for and unnecessary. I do not know what your problem with me is, Matthew, but whatever they are, you need to leave them off of NANOG and the phone calls to my house are not appreciated either. I hope you realize that posting personal information about people, such as phone numbers, addresses, and any other such stuff to a public forum without the consent of the person to whom that information belongs to, is illegal. It is a felony in fact. Your unfounded truthless statements about myself and my father's business are a felony as well and if I wanted to take action, could end in a civil lawsuit against you for libel and slander. Will I take that approach? Probably not, mostly because the people on this list, minus certain people, are for the most part mature, intelligent adults who do not care to take part in flame wars, nor do they listen to slanderous statements made by someone who obviously has some kind of jealousy towards someone to the point that he has to make public unprovoked attacks against that person's character. The people who matter on this list will most likely ignore this thread and what not. Good luck in whatever future endeavor you may take. And this is my only and last response to this thread. Greg _________________________________________________________________ One-click access to Hotmail from any Web page download MSN Toolbar now! http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/

7 6