- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

RE: Network for Sale
by Jason Lixfeld 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Heh, nah keep it on-list. It's 3:30am over here where I am, but alas, I'm sure getting a kick out of sitting up in anticipation waiting for stuff to hit my NANOG folder. This is a hoot! :) > Again, if you want to have a flame-war, let's take it off-list. .

1 0

RE: Network for Sale
by Daniel L. Golding 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Nick, Savvis was first by a very long time. As I understand it, they cooled to the idea after a while. InterNAP came later, and executed (at least marketing and sales-wise), much better. Regardless of the hype, there's a big difference between a PNAP/POP from one of these guys, and what is conventionally thought of as a NAP. - Daniel Golding On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, Kampeas, Nick (EPIK.ORL) wrote: > > Now that you brought up that point, let me interject with two question. > What is the difference between Internap and Savvis (short of the names and > financial status)? Who came up with the minnaps first? > > Nick Kampeas > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dan@netrail.net] > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 4:20 PM > To: Majdi S. Abbas; Alex Bligh > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: Network for Sale > > > > InterNAP has done the tier-0 marketing dance for some time. Quite > successfully, as a matter of fact. Secret Sauce sells like hotcakes. Wall > Street likes it as well. Not much of a performance increase, though. > > - Daniel Golding > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > > Majdi S. Abbas > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 3:09 PM > > To: Alex Bligh > > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: Network for Sale > > > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:51:30PM +0000, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > If you refuse to peer with anyone at all, you can be tier-0. This > > > can be achieved with considerable savings to phone line utilization. > > > > Actually, we already have a tier-0. See: > > > > http://www.opnix.net/perl/PressRelease.cgi?article=100032 > > > > (And many other things on their website.) > > > > Particularly amusing is: > > > > http://www.opnix.net/whatwedo/performance.shtml > > > > --msa > > >

1 0

uRPF enhancement
by Stephen Stuart 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

For those of you at the Network Policy BOF who were asking about the less strict form of unicast RPF checking on Cisco, here's a pointer to the paper: ------- Forwarded Message From: "Barry Raveendran Greene" <bgreene(a)cisco.com> To: xxx, xxx Cc: <cisco-nsp(a)puck.nether.net> Subject: RE: [nsp] ip spoofing prevention Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:50:48 -0800 FYI - I've updated the uRPF Enhancement whitepaper: http://www.cisco.com/public/cons/isp/documents/uRPF_Enhancement.pdf Barry ------- End of Forwarded Message Stephen

1 0

MPLS and VLAN info
by Michael Long 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

I need to educate some coworkers (who aren't all that familiar with networks) and my boss on the security advantages of MPLS and VLAN's. I guess I don't seem to be communiating it very well because they just don't get it. Can anyone point me to some good technical docs that specifically deal with some of the benefints of MPLS and VLAN's. Specifically security related would help. TIA, Michael Long

2 1

RE: MPLS and VLAN info
by Irwin Lazar 20 Feb '01

20 Feb '01

Michael, Network Magazine just ran a fairly lengthy article on various approaches to VPN's, including network-based versus CPE approaches. You can find it at: http://www.networkmagazine.com/article/NMG20010125S0013 If memory serves me correctly, they did address the security issues of MPLS vs. encrypted VLANs. In a nutshell, MPLS VPN's, from a security aspect, aren't all that different from other PVC based services such as Frame Relay and ATM. Traffic is basically isolated into the MPLS label switch path (or PVC). IPsec-based VPNs provide additional security by encrypting the traffic that rides on top fo the MPLS LSP. Depending on where the encryption occurs, it is quite possible to run IPsec over an MPLS-VPN. The real benefit to MPLS-VPNs is the elimination of the need for dedicated intelligent CPE, which "in-theory" should make it easier and cheaper for service providers to roll out IP-VPN services. In terms of VLAN security, have a look through the archives of the firewall wizards mailing list at http://www.nfr.com/pipermail/firewall-wizards/. This topic has been addressed quite a bit in the past. You might also want to check out my MPLS site at www.mplsrc.com for links to articles & drafts on MPLS topics. Irwin ------ Irwin Lazar, Senior Consultant The Burton Group - www.tbg.com ilazar(a)tbg.com 703-742-9659 (office) 703-402-4119 (cell) The Ultimate Resource For Network Architects > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Long [mailto:mlong@sac.verio.net] > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 8:00 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: MPLS and VLAN info > > > > > I need to educate some coworkers (who aren't all that familiar with > networks) and my boss on the security advantages of MPLS and VLAN's. I > guess I don't seem to be communiating it very well because > they just don't > get it. Can anyone point me to some good technical docs that > specifically > deal with some of the benefints of MPLS and VLAN's. > Specifically security > related would help. > > TIA, > > Michael Long > >

1 0

RE: Network for Sale
by Nathan Stratton 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

On Mon, 19 Feb 2001, kysi ferul wrote: > > how about running a foreign language tier1? http://www.rhyngrwyd.net > I like the name NETRAIL sounds Lincolnesque! Hehe, actually I never liked the name. I started as Novanet because I never planned on expanding past Northern VA, I then ran into trademark problems and had to change the name to NetRail. ><> Nathan Stratton CTO, Exario Networks, Inc. nathan(a)robotics.net nathan(a)exario.net http://www.robotics.net http://www.exario.net

1 0

dDos preventation startups
by Hank Nussbacher 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

http://www.nwfusion.com/archive/2001/116394_02-05-2001.html Companies listed: Mazu, Arbor, OneSecure. -Hank PS They missed Cloudshield.

1 0

port 2340?
by elble＠icculus.nsg.nwu.edu 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

does anyone know what tcp port 2340 is (really) being used for these days? <lazy> it seems to be moving quite a bit of data around here, and i can't seem to track down it's corresponding application easily. </lazy> --/\ndy

3 2

Re: port 2340?
by elble＠icculus.nsg.nwu.edu 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

> CuteMX thank you! --/\ndy

1 0

RE: NetSol Bulk Whois
by Richard Welty 19 Feb '01

19 Feb '01

Nicholas Bastin <nbastin(a)opnet.com> > Anyone noticed this lately when they do a dump in whois? > (47) bulk_whois_optout: N| > Anybody know when this became an option? (And can we charge > NetSol for > the amount of mail we receive between when we submit the change order > and when it actually gets done?) i'm not sure when it actually started, but it was recently discussed on another mailing list. From: PRIVACY Forum Digest Wednesday, 14 February 2001 Volume 10 : Issue 03 (http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.10.03) Excerpt: If you don't want to participate in NSI's bulk/marketing bonanza, you'll need to avail yourself (*now* that you'll know about them) of their opt-outs. Buried within their privacy policy it says that you can send notes with the text: remove bulk access or: remove domain respectively, in the subject lines of e-mail to: privacy(a)networksolutions.com with a list in the body of the message detailing the domains (for which you are the registrant) that you wish to opt-out. It is not detailed how such requests are authenticated, nor is any particular format for the lists specified. If a human is reading those requests, they're likely to be getting pretty busy very soon!

2 1