- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Utility Mapping to be featured at the 2003 DPC in Tampa
by John Palmer 20 Nov '03

20 Nov '03

Its at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mpsc_blackout_77423_7.pdf ----- Original Message ----- From: "daniel lance herrick" <dan.herrick(a)pbs.proquest.com> To: "John Palmer" <nanog(a)adns.net> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 10:25 Subject: Re: Utility Mapping to be featured at the 2003 DPC in Tampa > On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, John Palmer wrote: > > > Also public information tells alot about things. > > The Michigan PUC just finished their study of > > the August 14th blackout and has issued their > > report. In it it has a section that outlines the > > restoration procedures the DTE and ITC (the > > transco) took to restore service. > > Is that report on the web? (I didn't find it in > the first seven pages of my Google search, but it > could be not yet indexed.) > > Would you share the URL? > > dan > > > > >

2 1

Mirapoint Message Director appliances
by Paul S. Brown 20 Nov '03

20 Nov '03

Does anybody have any experience with the MD400/MD450 appliances? Good/bad/indifferent Do they do anything I can't do myself with Sophie, Cyrus IMAP, Postfix and SpamAssassing on a decent PC? Would you recommend them for high volume VISP mail hosting? (around 600k domains) Thanks for any opinions anybody has. P.

5 10

Comcast
by John Ferriby 19 Nov '03

19 Nov '03

Could someone from Comcast please contact me off-list? Thanks - John now back to the IANA allocations rehash...

1 0

New IANA IPv4 Allocations
by Steve Conte 19 Nov '03

19 Nov '03

Greetings, This is to inform you that the IANA has allocated 83/8 and 84/8 to the RIPE NCC. For a full list of IANA allocations please see : http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space Thanks, Steve --------------- Steve Conte - IANA conte(a)iana.org PGP KeyID: E72D5F30

9 10

RE: OT: BGP questions
by Pete Templin 19 Nov '03

19 Nov '03

It's not a dispute, it's a dollar$ decision on behalf of Sprint and/or MFN. "Hmmm, I'm getting paid by 6939 but not by 3356. I'll send my traffic through 6939 by increasing my local preference to them." Pete Templin Senior Staff Engineer TexLink Communications (210) 892-4183 pete.templin(a)texlink.com -----Original Message----- From: Charles Sprickman [mailto:spork@inch.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:24 AM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: OT: BGP questions > On Sat, 15 Nov 2003, Charles Sprickman wrote: > > > (just look at AS8059, which is still sucking down most traffic via 6939 > > rather than 3356, even with all that silly prepending)... Found an interesting one. Sprint no longer has a "full" looking glass, just this: http://oxide.sprintlink.net/cgi-bin/glass.pl But it shows Sprint reaching 8059 via MFN, even with the prepends. Is there a Sprint/Level3 peering dispute that I'm not aware of? Might someone from Sprint comment on this privately? Thanks, Charles

1 0

Re: New IANA IPv4 Allocations
by Brandon Butterworth 19 Nov '03

19 Nov '03

> > I'd just check the web site or directly if it was important to know > > What makes you think that the answer you get when you look up > www.iana.org is what the real IANA wanted you to get? "or directly if it was important to know", choose channel by degree of certainty you desire. > This is not a Grand Paranoid Call-to-Arms, necessarily, but it seems > odd to distrust a non-signed email but at the same time trust an HTTP > url. It'd be a simple cross check rather than just trusting either, the chances of both being compromised should be lower. Chances of the RIPE site also being compromised are even lower unless there was an ARIN/RIPE conspiracy in which case we have bigger problems </xfiles> brandon

1 0

Re: New IANA IPv4 Allocations
by Brandon Butterworth 19 Nov '03

19 Nov '03

> It would be good for them to sign such posts with > a well known PGP key... I see no point, if someone was trying to spoof this announcement they may already have the iana key X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:54:45 -0800 From: Steve Conte <conte(a)iana.org> I believe there is an exploit for that version, the other common client regularly has similar problems I wonder if people use such signing, usually out of band verification is easier and safer. > > For a full list of IANA allocations please see > > : http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space I'd just check the web site or directly if it was important to know brandon

2 1

OT: BGP questions
by Charles Sprickman 19 Nov '03

19 Nov '03

Hi, Where's the best place these days to ask some "simple" BGP questions? I don't want to bother *-nsp@puck, but inet-access scares me. Any suggestions? I'm good with the basics, but I've got a perplexing issue (just look at AS8059, which is still sucking down most traffic via 6939 rather than 3356, even with all that silly prepending)... Thanks, Charles -- Charles Sprickman spork(a)inch.com

1 2

Cisco, Anti-virus Vendors Team on Network Security
by Sean Donelan 19 Nov '03

19 Nov '03

As part of Cisco's Self-Defending Network Initiave Cisco has announced a new product which relies on "the Cisco Network Admission Control program is innovative software developed by Cisco called the Cisco Trust Agent which resides on an endpoint system and communicates with the Cisco network. The Cisco Trust Agent collects security state information from multiple security software clients, such as anti-virus clients, and communicates this information to the connected Cisco network where access control decisions are made and enforced. Cisco has licensed its Cisco Trust Agent technology to Network Associates, Symantec and Trend Micro so it can be integrated with their security software client products." Currently the Cisco NAC software only works with Cisco network equipment and Microsoft Windows NT, XP and 2000 operating systems. Without the secret handshake Mac OS, Linux, Solaris and other operating systems will not be able to connect to a Cisco Self-Defending Network which limits its usefullness for ISPs.

6 6

RE: Cisco, Anti-virus Vendors Team on Network Security
by Brennan_Murphy＠NAI.com 19 Nov '03

19 Nov '03

I think port security is what determines whether or not a box is allowed onto the network. If you know that all of your conference room jacks are patched into switch X blades Y-Z, then you apply security to those ports. If you have a *NIX box in a server room, you obviously drop the mcafee security requirement for that port. I havent read through the documentation but that's my guess. The corporate network security market is looking for a way to ensure that only machines with up to date security policies (AV, FW, IPS) are allowed on the network...with ways to distinguish printers, from workstations/servers... etc... -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Sean Donelan Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 3:48 PM To: Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Cisco, Anti-virus Vendors Team on Network Security On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > > Without the secret handshake Mac OS, Linux, Solaris and other > > operating systems will not be able to connect to a Cisco > > Self-Defending Network which limits its usefullness for ISPs. > > A *nix without a secret handshake is like a fish without a bicycle. > > Yes, viruses *are* theoretically possible on these platforms, but > let's be honest here - even if you included all of the platforms, > you'd only intercept another 1% or so viruses, tops. Well, if you let systems on the network without the secret handshake, what's to stop people from connecting Windows boxes with the "security" software disabled so it doesn't answer the "I'm Infected" question? Or the next virus can take over the Cisco secret handshake port and always answer "I'm Ok" when ever the network asks it a question. How does the Self-Protecting Network tell the difference between a non-infected Mac or Unix machine from a Typhod Mary Windows bo if you are depending on software on the system to answer the question? Yes, some level of security works when every obeys the rules. But the current problem ISPs have is not everyone obeys the rules.

1 0