August 2002 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Cisco VPN Client Multiple Vulnerabilities
by blitz 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/vpnclient-multiple-vuln-pub.shtml.

1 0

Re: Microslosh vision of the future
by Gregory Hicks 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

> Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:23:05 -0400 > From: William Warren <hescominsoon(a)adelphia.net> > > a little bit of humor never hurt anything..not even nanog will be > destroyed.. How about <nanog-offtopic(a)lists.blank.org>? Wasn't this set up for this very purpose? > Sam Hayes Merritt, III wrote: > > does this belong on nanog? > > On Mon, 12 Aug 2002, William Warren wrote: > > > Microsoft has shown itself time and time again it thinks it can > > > get away with something like that and going by Microsoft's past > > > behaviors....do not be surprised to see Microsoft try this exact > > > scheme later on down > > > [...snip rest of rhetoric...] Regards, Gregory Hicks --------------------------------------------------------------------- Gregory Hicks | Principal Systems Engineer Cadence Design Systems | Direct: 408.576.3609 555 River Oaks Pkwy M/S 6B1 | Fax: 408.894.3479 San Jose, CA 95134 | Internet: ghicks(a)cadence.com Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity. Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton You can have it done good, fast, or cheap -- pick any two.

2 1

Re: Microslosh vision of the future
by William Warren 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

2 1

gentlemen, stop your engines
by Paul Vixie 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

after six reports that 192.5.5.241's address has been forged as the source of a tcp "fragmented scan" probe, i'm ready to have it stop. but just in case it doesn't, this is fair warning to the community: F's address is in unlawful use by as-yet-unidentified third parties. re: ------- Forwarded Message From: ... To: "'abuse(a)VIX.COM'" <abuse(a)VIX.COM> Subject: Unauthorized Fragmented Scan Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 06:56:08 -0700 To whom it may concern, The Security Information & Analysis Center has detected an unauthorized scan against one of our networks that has a possible origin at 192.5.5.241. Please review the following initial information: IPHalfScan 08-11-2002 17:34:02 UTC 192.5.5.241:53 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:53 TCP IPHalfScan 08-11-2002 17:28:00 UTC 192.5.5.241:53 xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:53 TCP Please take action to verify this address on your network and it's intent to scan our networks. Thank you for your assistance. SECURITY INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS CENTER 1-877-... ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: your mail
by JC Dill 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

>> All of the evidence I could gather indicate that it did, in fact, happen >> in at least some form. At the very least, other employees (whom I have >> know for years) said that he was gone, as of the date in question. They >> were not told the cause (as would be expected in most companies). When I did my own investigation into this, I was told the person in question: >was not giving a warning, was not given a second chance, >was not already on any kind of performance plan, had many strong >ties in the organization since he had been here for over 3 1/2 >years, and is also currently unemployed with no hopes of getting >any jobs at this point. I learned this information (with varying levels of detail) from 2 different independent sources, once a while ago (when the incident first happened), once recently reconfirmed. I really wish I was in a hiring position right now. There are an awful lot of GOOD people out there who need jobs and who can do awesome work. It's a wonderful time to startup a company, you can hire really good people for far less than it cost 2-4 years ago (because inflated salaries have come back down to realistic levels). If only you can shake the startup money loose from a VC, which is only possible if you have a *real* business plan. jc

1 0

endpoint liveness (RE: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense an ymore?)
by Lane Patterson 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

BGP keepalive/hold timers are configurable even down to granularity of link or PVC level keepalives, but for session stability reasons, it appears that most ISPs at GigE exchanges choose not to tweak them down from the defaults. IIRC, Juniper is 30/90 and Cisco is 60/180. My gut feel was that even something like 10/30 would be reasonable, but nobody seems compelled that this is much of an issue. Cheers, -Lane -----Original Message----- From: Petri Helenius [mailto:pete@he.iki.fi] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 3:07 PM To: Mikael Abrahamsson; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? > What functionality does PVC give you that the ethernet VLAN does not? > That´s quite easy. Endpoint liveness. A IPv4 host on a VLAN has no idea if the guy on the "other end" died until the BGP timer expires. FR has LMI, ATM has OAM. (and ILMI) Pete

6 6

Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
by Nenad Trifunovic 12 Aug '02

12 Aug '02

It appears that for analysis purposes one has to separate access from switching. How much payload one brings to the exchange depends on port speed and protocol overhead. In that light, Frame Relay can bring similar amount of payload as Ethernet (comparable overhead) and preserve good properties of ATM (traffic flow separation). Regards, nenad p.s. both juniper 160 and cisco gsr can handle oc-48 frame relay, and they don't seem to be frame relay switches >Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 13:42 -0700 (PDT) >From: "William B. Norton" <wbn(a)equinix.com> >To: Nenad Trifunovic <nenad.trifunovic(a)wcom.com> >CC: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore? > > >>Can you, please, explain why you didn't consider Frame Relay >>based exchange in your analysis? > >I don't have much insight into Frame Relay-based Internet Exchange Points ;-) >The majority of IXes around the world are ethernet-based, with some legacy >FDDI and a few ATM IXes. It is in these areas that I have done the most >data collection. The same analysis could be applied to peering across WANs >and MANs as compared with buying transit though. It might be interesting >provided I can get some market prices for transport and ports. > >Why look at ATM? Right now almost everyone I am speaking with is seeing >massive drops in transit and transport prices, even below the points I >quoted, but with no comparable price drop in ATM ports or transport into an >ATM cloud. These forces lead to a point where a connection to an ATM IX >makes no sense (from a strictly financial standpoint). I have another 10 >folks to walk through the paper to make sure I'm not missing anything in >the analysis, and I'll post to the list when the paper is available. If you >are interested I'd love to walk you through it to get your take. > >One point a couple other folks brought up during the review (paraphrasing) >"You can't talk about a 20% ATM cell tax on the ATM-based IX side without >counting the HDLC Framing Overhead (4%) for the OC-x circuit into an >ethernet-based IX." Since the "Effective Peering Bandwidth" is the max >peering that can be done across the peering infrastructure, this is a good >point and has now been factored into the model and analysis. > >Bill >

13 19

Re: Microslosh vision of the future
by blitz 11 Aug '02

11 Aug '02

I agree wholeheartedly, "let 'em starve".... At 18:17 8/11/02 -0700, you wrote: > Microsoft can have whatever vision of the future they want and > can use any >resources at their disposal to bring their vision to light. Everybody has >that right. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. If they convince customers >that they gain more than they lose, only a gun will make them buy it. I don't >see Bill Gates packing heat any time soon. > > *yawn* > >-- >David Schwartz ><davids(a)webmaster.com>

1 0

Re: Microslosh vision of the future
by Vadim Antonov 11 Aug '02

11 Aug '02

Microsoft already duped the software consumers into buying into fully proprietary software. Given the prevalent time horizon of average IT manager's thinking I fully expect Microsoft to get that stuff deployed before the poor saps start realizing they're being ripped. After that Microsoft will leverage their market power to exclude any competition. Exactly like they did it before on numerous occasions. Their PR budget is bigger than GDP of some nations. They're ruthless and show remarkable lack of respect to the notions of fairness or common good. Be afraid. --vadim On Sun, 11 Aug 2002, David Schwartz wrote: > Microsoft can have whatever vision of the future they want and can use any > resources at their disposal to bring their vision to light. Everybody has > that right. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. If they convince customers > that they gain more than they lose, only a gun will make them buy it. I don't > see Bill Gates packing heat any time soon. > > *yawn* > > -- > David Schwartz > <davids(a)webmaster.com>

2 1

Re: Do ATM-based Exchange Points make sense anymore?
by Paul Vixie 11 Aug '02

11 Aug '02

> I suppose the discussion is what do you want from your exchange pt > operator and what do you NOT want. At the IXP level, "bits per month" always trumps "bits per second", and usually trumps "pennies per bit" as well. There are now a number of companies trying to sell wide area ethernet -- even some transoceanic but most just intracontinental. It doesn't work well for peering, though, just like SMDS and NetEdge didn't work well for peering. Too many moving parts and too little transparency. > Many people would not feel comfortable that circuit operators have > visibility and maintain stats on even NUMBER of packets passed.... That's one of several important reasons why neutrality matters.

1 0