- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Is network solutions broken again?
by GAVRON＠ACES.COM 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

Actually, as several people pointed out, it was the % that it couldn't parse. (For the mailing address). Once that was changed it went through magically. Ehud, who just spent a week and three faxes and 17 mail messages to delete a domain name for which he is all 4 contacts.

1 0

Fatty Pipes with Y2K problem - OT humor
by Rodney Joffe 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

We have had a significant pipe problem at our Sherman Oaks facility in Los Angeles as a result of a Y2K test failure :-) The staff is currently off-line recovering! Seriously. Sean, one for your book :-) http://www.cbs2.com/news/stories/news-990617-081237.html -- Rodney Joffe CenterGate Research Group, LLC. http://www.centergate.com "Technology so advanced, even we don't understand it!"

1 0

cisco & juniper config differ
by john heasley 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

there is another cisco config differ, similar to that which avi (?) presented at nanog in eugene, here: http://www.shrubbery.net/rancid it does juniper config diffs too. enjoy.

1 0

(Off Topic?) NSI Stalling Domain Transition
by Russell Van Tassell 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

For those that didn't see this yesterday... Dyson: NSI Stalling Domain Transition June 16, 1999 By Brian McWilliams InternetNews.com Correspondent Business News Archives http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_138581,00.html -- Russell M. Van Tassell russell(a)cscorp.com "Who me? I just wander from room to room."

1 0

A cordial invitation.
by s0vx＠yahoo.com 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

Dear Candidate, (US and CANADA ONLY) You were recently appointed by The Office of the Managing Director for a free listing in The Lexington Publishing Who's Who Directory. Please fill out the form provided at our web site below. http://204.1.12.2%20key=%35%23index=%22@3486900300/temp/cyber-5/222.html Our Public Affairs Office gathers information from many recognized sources, including professional associations and societies, trade organizations, newspaper and magazine articles, professional reference publications, web presence, and referrals from existing members. As a highly respected professional in your field of expertise, we believe your contributions merit very serious consideration for inclusion in The Lexington Publishing Who's Who Directory. To maintain the level of accuracy, we ask you to click on the web address highlighted below and fill out the brief bit of information required for inclusion. http://204.1.12.2%20key=%35%23index=%22@3486900300/temp/cyber-5/222.html There is no cost or obligation to be listed in The Lexington Publishing Who's Who Directory. All applicants will receive a free listing compliments of Lexington Publishing Who's Who. http://204.1.12.2%20key=%35%23index=%22@3486900300/temp/cyber-5/222.html My Sincere Thanks, Lisa Narod Office Of Public Affairs A Lexington Publishing representative will contact you shortly after submission of the application form. All information provided will be used solely for the purposes described herein. We apologize if this has reached you in error. We thank you for your time.

1 0

Re: Death knell for residential non-cable access?
by trall＠almaden.ibm.com 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

(I dropped domain-policy off of the distribution - this doesn't seem to have anything to do with that topic. And it may not be a good nanog topic either, but here I go anyway.) > Type bit-rate Monthly CKb > modems 33.6Kbps ~$25US $0.74US note:$25 telco + $0 ISP charges > modems 33.6Kbps ~$34US $1.01US note:$25 telco + $9 ISP charges > Cable 1024Kbps ~$49US $0.04US > DSL 1148Kbps ~$600US $0.52US > T1 1540Kbps ~$2500US $1.62US I think Roeland is ignoring a couple of pretty important issues to many customers: 1. Many folks are almost completely price-driven. A $25 service is preferred over a $49 service, regardless of capacity issues. 2. Some folks are very much part-time connectors. They use their normal voice line to talk to their ISP. They don't consider the cost of the line as part of the cost of the Ineternet connection. So their ISP service costs them 9 or 19 dollars (or even 0, if we reach that point). Tony Rall

2 1

security (was Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?)
by Brett_Watson＠enron.net 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

On 06/16/99 12:00:16 PM Majdi Abbas wrote: > > Perhaps you should follow your own career advice. *i* have no problem being the first to admit when i'm not an expert at something. i most certainly do follow my own career advice. i simply don't think it's OK to say "this way is bad, just do this other thing and NO PROBLEMS". it's all about tradeoffs, it's not black and white. -brett

1 0

Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
by Vadim Antonov 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

Brett_Watson(a)enron.net wrote: >i'll give you that. however, caches tend to run under unix-like os's which >are multi-user and multi-service machines. they can be susceptible to DoS >attacks, and can be running services listening on a port which can >potentially be "hacked". my only point is that you are trading a set of >security issues in multicast for *different* security issues with a cache. A Unix machine can be secured a lot better than any commercial router. For one, you can get a source code from it and see what the hell it is doing and fix discovered security holes ASAP. Second, just run SSH or Kerberos. SSH on cisco, anyone? Nyah. --vadim

4 3

Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
by Brett_Watson＠enron.net 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

On 06/16/99 10:31:03 AM Vadim Antonov wrote: >Brett_Watson(a)enron.net wrote: > >>i'll give you that. however, caches tend to run under unix-like os's which >>are multi-user and multi-service machines. they can be susceptible to DoS >>attacks, and can be running services listening on a port which can >>potentially be "hacked". my only point is that you are trading a set of >>security issues in multicast for *different* security issues with a cache. > >A Unix machine can be secured a lot better than any commercial router. i don't believe that at all. i say this from operational experience, not just generalizing. >For one, you can get a source code from it and see what the hell it is >doing and fix discovered security holes ASAP. in some cases, yes you can. but the fact that i (someone who doesn't crack systems) can get source code to some flavors of unix doesn't stop the hackers from getting it either. no *real* gain here. and if you don't think that some of the more elite hackers in the world don't have access to proprietary source code, both systems and router vendors.... if you're not scared, you don't understand. >Second, just run SSH or Kerberos. SSH on cisco, anyone? Nyah. maybe i just misunderstand you but you seem to portray these issues as black and white. they're not. ssh has had known security problems, and kerberos, while i like it myself, is damned easy to misconfigure which opens all kinds of holes. -brett

3 2

Re: Is anyone actually USING IP QoS?
by Brett_Watson＠enron.net 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

On 06/16/99 10:55:40 AM Alex P. Rudnev wrote: >They (cisco) promised to realise ssh. Hope we'll see it in a few years, >For now, install IPSEC, tunnel, bla-bla-bla, and may be you'll have a >piece of security. cisco *has* released code with ssh (ok, not released in the cisco-sense but you can get it) >Unix machine... drop all services you don't need, run your services not >as the root, install secure level or read-onl.y file system - and no >problems. this is just rediculous. it's not as simple as "no problems". the things you state are rather obvious but for a system to be used as *anything* (cache, web server, video server, etc) you simply have to have certain ports open, many times simple udp ports. locking down down services/ports, and running anything you can as non-root certainly goes a long way in protecting the system but it's just not that cut and dried. i'll give you and vadim full credit for being math wizards, or scientists (which i clearly am not) but don't choose your next career in the computer/network security industry. :) -brett

2 1