April 2015 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Looking for core L3 switch for campus network; feedback on Juniper EX8208?
by Israel G. Lugo 17 Apr '15

17 Apr '15

Hello, I'm thinking of buying a Juniper EX8208 to serve as the core L3 switch on an collapsed campus network (faculty, academia). Rough figures: around 6,000 eyeballs, up to around 10,000 MACs, spread over some 30 buildings of varying size. OM2/OM3 fiber from the buildings to the core, using 1Gb optics. Planning to upgrade to monomode within 2 years and may migrate some buildings to 10 Gb. >From the spec sheets, the EX8208 seems to fit the bill. It will be teaming up with an older Alcatel L3 switch, which will work as backup. VRRP, OSPF, MSTP. It'll be replacing another Alcatel L3 switch that we're sending back due to way too many bugs and reliability issues over the 1.5 year span that we had it. We are fully IPv6 dual-stack (for over 10 years now), so this needs to support fully working OSPFv3, VRRPv3, MLD and so on. According to the manuals for the EX line, that seems to be the case (with some limitations regarding OSPFv3, it seems). Access and aggregation switches are mostly Alcatel. There are a few other routers for VLANs with specific requirements (NAT, firewalling, etc). All using OSPFv2 and OSPFv3. I'd welcome any feedback regarding the EX820x, positive or negative. Bugs, support quality, stability issues, scalability, IPv6 support... I could go up to the EX9200 if necessary. I've had very good experience with the SRX2x0 line in a separate setting, and Juniper TAC in general always seemed quite good. Of course the EX8200 is a different ballpark so things may be different. I'm curious for example: as a switch, I'd expect the EX8200 to work in packet mode, yes? Or does it have flowd and its security {...} section? I wouldn't really use the flow features at this level and wouldn't like to have it there waiting to catch a bug from some weird packets thrown at it. Thank you for reading. Regards, Israel G. Lugo

1 0

Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers
by Ca By 16 Apr '15

16 Apr '15

Good news (that i have not personally verified) ! Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T all launched the Samsung Galaxy S6 with IPv6 on by default. Given the growth and importance of mobile to Internet, it is great to see this progress from the mobile carriers. Just for those keeping score, of the top 10 Alexa website for the USA, these major websites prefer IPv6 or prefer NAT44 / NAT64 from the mobile networks 1. Google -- prefers IPv6 2. Facebook -- prefers IPv6 3. Youtube -- prefers IPv6 4. Amazon -- prefers NAT -- :( 5. Yahoo! -- prefers IPv6 6. Wikipedia -- prefers IPv6 7. Twitter -- prefers NAT -- :( 8. Ebay -- prefers NAT -- :( 9. Linkedin -- prefers IPv6 10. Reddit -- prefers NAT -- :( Dear Amazon, Twitter, Ebay, and Reddit -- please consider this your personal invitation to introduce IPv6 to your service.

17 23

Re: Low cost WDM gear
by Kenneth McRae 16 Apr '15

16 Apr '15

Michelle speaks English. On Apr 16, 2015, at 09:04 AM, Justin Wilson - MTIN <lists(a)mtin.net> wrote: Does anyone have a English speaking rep for FiberStore? I have a client with a difficult time ordering some custom stuff. Language barrier is a big issue. Justin Wilson j2sw(a)mtin.net http://www.mtin.net Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers http://www.thebrotherswisp.com Podcast about xISP topics http://www.midwest-ix.com Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange On Feb 7, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> wrote: I will live vicariously though your experiences with them. I'm good on FiberStore. :-) Thanks for the feedback.. On Feb 07, 2015, at 01:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: Maybe, your experience was the pivotal event that became a turning point in their customer service attitudes... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 4:24:18 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear Point taken on the specs.. Still doesn't excuse poor customer service and tech support. I never expect to be told that no refund will be issued when I am dissatisfied with the product. A request for RMA because something is not working as expected should not have to be escalated to the President of the company. Other than that I am sure FiberStore is a great company :-) On Feb 07, 2015, at 01:17 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: My point is...... ... The thing to rely on is/are the Specs. If the Specs are right or specs are wrong, that is what determines the product's mfg shortcoming (defect). Mfg. Engineers are people, just like you and me.... and people can make mistakes... Being an Engineer, when I ask someone to do the design work, I ask them to explain it, and this way I double check their work.... Yes Mfg. Engineers are known to F***up too. While it is expected to be disappointed when something does not work.. and having a bad taste for dealing with that mfg, claiming that all of that mfg products are bad is a whole different issue. I deal with FiberStore, my experience have been very different, when stuff purchased from them, did not meet the specs, they took it back no questions asked. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 4:01:29 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear That's true up to a point. Specs are only as good as the entity providing the data. I can tell you a few stories about specs and some MAJOR fails by a major network equipment manufacturer failing to meet advertised specs. When you engage the engineering folks to assist in a build, they should know the true specs of their gear better than anyone else. If they say for a certain distance that A+B will work, then that is exactly what I expect. That is pretty basic. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: More power to you .... I always get a chuckle out of statements such as ... "Compared FiberStore to another Vendor"... It was pointed out to me long time ago.... when someone said.. "My Chevy is better than a Ford".... Someone pointed out, hey, which Chevy ? the Chevette ? or the Corvette ? and Which Ford the Fiesta or Mustang ? Every mfg. has a lots and lots of products, and they are always getting improved... One has to pay attention to the specs.. even the same model products at different times don't have the same specs ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:49:16 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear That's why I engage the engineering resources on their end to make sure the chosen candidate will support the use case. I have now performed an A/B comparison and the FiberStore gear is inferior. Excessive loss on the mux and optics. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: If you pay close attention to the Spec Sheets, on power output, insertion loss, sensitivity, and do the proper calculation for your link, then using anyone's products, passive or active will work unless the devices do not meet specified specs. If you don't do your homework, cals on the design, loss, and just buy stuff based on whatever, then it does not matter who the mfg. is, you are very very likely to be surprised in a bad way. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br> To: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:24:43 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear What others vendors do you using? Here in Brazil only PADTEC have this passive solution... Some days ago Digitel contact me to show your multiplex solution... Is a active solution... We import this from fiberstore, but i don't know others vendors to buy 10G sfp+ cwdm and this mux/demux... Enviado via iPhone  Grupo Connectoway Em 07/02/2015, às 16:04, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> escreveu: Hi Enviado, I cannot recommend FiberStore as I had a bad experience with them. I needed to cover only 3km from A to B side. When using 10km optics, I saw a loss of over 5db with their passive mux inserted into the path which created a total loss of over -20db which is outside of the tolerances for our equipment with 10km SFP+. Using another vendors low insertion loss mux corrected our issue. I am sure if you are using an 80km optic, you may be able to tolerate a higher insertion loss to cover < 60km. I also notice that their CDWM optics averaged about 3db less in power output when compared to other vendors. Thanks Kenneth On Feb 07, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Rodrigo 1telecom <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br> wrote: Hi kenneth... which the distance do you have from side A to side B when you using passive solutions from fiberstore( mux and demux)? I buy this mux and demux(4 channels single fiber) and only make a test about 60km( mux side A and demux on side B) with sfp+10gb for 80km... ( only see ddm on my ex3300( about -19db for 60km). Test switch access with ssh and pinging tests... What kind os issue do you have? For distances less than 60km is this solution good? Thanks!!! Enviado via iPhone  Grupo Connectoway Em 07/02/2015, às 14:55, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> escreveu: Mike, I just replaced a bunch of FiberStore WDM passive muxes with OSI Hardware equipment. The FiberStore gear was a huge disappointment (excessive loss, poor technical support, refusal to issue refund without threatening legal action, etc.). I have had good results from the OSI equipment so far. I run passive muxes for CWDM (8 - 16 channels). On Feb 07, 2015, at 09:51 AM, Manuel Marín <mmg(a)transtelco.net> wrote: Hi Mike I can recommend a couple of vendors that provide cost effective solutions. Ekinops & Packetlight. On Saturday, February 7, 2015, Mike Hammett <nanog(a)ics-il.net> wrote: I know there are various Asian vendors for low cost (less than $500) muxes to throw 16 or however many colors onto a strand. However, they don't work so well when you don't control the optics used on both sides (therefore must use standard wavelengths), obviously only do a handful of channels and have a distance limitation. What solutions are out there that don't cost an arm and a leg? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- TRANSTELCO| Manuel Marin | VP Engineering | US: *+1 915-217-2232* | MX: *+52 656-257-1109* CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this information, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Esta comunicación es sólo para el uso de la persona o entidad a la que se dirige y puede contener información privilegiada, confidencial y exenta de divulgación bajo la legislación aplicable. Si no es el destinatario de esta información, se le notifica que cualquier uso, difusión, distribución o copia de la comunicación está estrictamente prohibido.

1 0

Re: Low cost WDM gear
by Kenneth McRae 16 Apr '15

16 Apr '15

I will live vicariously though your experiences with them. I'm good on FiberStore. :-) Thanks for the feedback.. On Feb 07, 2015, at 01:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: Maybe, your experience was the pivotal event that became a turning point in their customer service attitudes... :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 4:24:18 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear Point taken on the specs.. Still doesn't excuse poor customer service and tech support. I never expect to be told that no refund will be issued when I am dissatisfied with the product. A request for RMA because something is not working as expected should not have to be escalated to the President of the company. Other than that I am sure FiberStore is a great company :-) On Feb 07, 2015, at 01:17 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: My point is...... ... The thing to rely on is/are the Specs. If the Specs are right or specs are wrong, that is what determines the product's mfg shortcoming (defect). Mfg. Engineers are people, just like you and me.... and people can make mistakes... Being an Engineer, when I ask someone to do the design work, I ask them to explain it, and this way I double check their work.... Yes Mfg. Engineers are known to F***up too. While it is expected to be disappointed when something does not work.. and having a bad taste for dealing with that mfg, claiming that all of that mfg products are bad is a whole different issue. I deal with FiberStore, my experience have been very different, when stuff purchased from them, did not meet the specs, they took it back no questions asked. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 4:01:29 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear That's true up to a point. Specs are only as good as the entity providing the data. I can tell you a few stories about specs and some MAJOR fails by a major network equipment manufacturer failing to meet advertised specs. When you engage the engineering folks to assist in a build, they should know the true specs of their gear better than anyone else. If they say for a certain distance that A+B will work, then that is exactly what I expect. That is pretty basic. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: More power to you .... I always get a chuckle out of statements such as ... "Compared FiberStore to another Vendor"... It was pointed out to me long time ago.... when someone said.. "My Chevy is better than a Ford".... Someone pointed out, hey, which Chevy ? the Chevette ? or the Corvette ? and Which Ford the Fiesta or Mustang ? Every mfg. has a lots and lots of products, and they are always getting improved... One has to pay attention to the specs.. even the same model products at different times don't have the same specs ! :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom 7266 SW 48 Street Miami, FL 33155 Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232 Help-desk: (305)663-5518 Option 2 or Email: Support(a)Snappytelecom.net From: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> To: "Faisal Imtiaz" <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> Cc: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br>, "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:49:16 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear That's why I engage the engineering resources on their end to make sure the chosen candidate will support the use case. I have now performed an A/B comparison and the FiberStore gear is inferior. Excessive loss on the mux and optics. On Feb 07, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <faisal(a)snappytelecom.net> wrote: If you pay close attention to the Spec Sheets, on power output, insertion loss, sensitivity, and do the proper calculation for your link, then using anyone's products, passive or active will work unless the devices do not meet specified specs. If you don't do your homework, cals on the design, loss, and just buy stuff based on whatever, then it does not matter who the mfg. is, you are very very likely to be surprised in a bad way. :) Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet & Telecom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rodrigo 1telecom" <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br> To: "Kenneth McRae" <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 3:24:43 PM Subject: Re: Low cost WDM gear What others vendors do you using? Here in Brazil only PADTEC have this passive solution... Some days ago Digitel contact me to show your multiplex solution... Is a active solution... We import this from fiberstore, but i don't know others vendors to buy 10G sfp+ cwdm and this mux/demux... Enviado via iPhone  Grupo Connectoway > Em 07/02/2015, às 16:04, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> escreveu: > > Hi Enviado, > > I cannot recommend FiberStore as I had a bad experience with them. I > needed to cover only 3km from A to B side. When using 10km optics, I saw > a loss of over 5db with their passive mux inserted into the path which > created a total loss of over -20db which is outside of the tolerances for > our equipment with 10km SFP+. Using another vendors low insertion loss > mux corrected our issue. I am sure if you are using an 80km optic, you > may be able to tolerate a higher insertion loss to cover < 60km. I also > notice that their CDWM optics averaged about 3db less in power output when > compared to other vendors. > > Thanks > > Kenneth > >> On Feb 07, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Rodrigo 1telecom <rodrigo(a)1telecom.com.br> >> wrote: >> > >> Hi kenneth... which the distance do you have from side A to side B when >> you using passive solutions from fiberstore( mux and demux)? >> I buy this mux and demux(4 channels single fiber) and only make a test >> about 60km( mux side A and demux on side B) with sfp+10gb for 80km... ( >> only see ddm on my ex3300( about -19db for 60km). Test switch access with >> ssh and pinging tests... >> What kind os issue do you have? For distances less than 60km is this >> solution good? >> Thanks!!! >> >> Enviado via iPhone  >> Grupo Connectoway >> >>> Em 07/02/2015, às 14:55, Kenneth McRae <kenneth.mcrae(a)me.com> escreveu: >>> Mike, >>> I just replaced a bunch of FiberStore WDM passive muxes with OSI Hardware >>> equipment. The FiberStore gear was a huge disappointment (excessive >>> loss, poor technical support, refusal to issue refund without >>> threatening legal action, etc.). I have had good results from the OSI >>> equipment so far. I run passive muxes for CWDM (8 - 16 channels). >>> On Feb 07, 2015, at 09:51 AM, Manuel Marín <mmg(a)transtelco.net> wrote: >>> Hi Mike >>> I can recommend a couple of vendors that provide cost effective >>> solutions. >>> Ekinops & Packetlight. >>> On Saturday, February 7, 2015, Mike Hammett <nanog(a)ics-il.net> wrote: >>> I know there are various Asian vendors for low cost (less than $500) >>> muxes >>> to throw 16 or however many colors onto a strand. However, they don't >>> work >>> so well when you don't control the optics used on both sides (therefore >>> must use standard wavelengths), obviously only do a handful of channels >>> and >>> have a distance limitation. >>> What solutions are out there that don't cost an arm and a leg? >>> ----- >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il.com >>> -- >>> TRANSTELCO| Manuel Marin | VP Engineering | US: *+1 915-217-2232* | MX: >>> *+52 >>> 656-257-1109* >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is intended only for the use >>> of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain >>> information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure >>> under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient of this >>> information, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, >>> or >>> copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. >>> AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Esta comunicación es sólo para el uso de la >>> persona o entidad a la que se dirige y puede contener información >>> privilegiada, confidencial y exenta de divulgación bajo la legislación >>> aplicable. Si no es el destinatario de esta información, se le notifica >>> que >>> cualquier uso, difusión, distribución o copia de la comunicación está >>> estrictamente prohibido.

2 1

Ixia or Spirent around?
by Jason Lixfeld 16 Apr '15

16 Apr '15

I tried the contact form on their respective websites a couple of weeks back, but have not heard back. If anyone from there is lurking about or if anyone has a sales contact that covers Toronto and could send me off-list, I'd be grateful. Thank you! Sent from my iPhone

1 0

reclaiming arin IP allocations?
by goemon＠anime.net 15 Apr '15

15 Apr '15

web.com/netsol is disavowing ownership of 209.17.115.109. NetRange: 209.17.112.0 - 209.17.127.255 CIDR: 209.17.112.0/20 NetName: WEB-COM-BLK3 NetHandle: NET-209-17-112-0-1 Parent: NET209 (NET-209-0-0-0-0) What is the process to get this netblock reclaimed? -Dan

7 11

Cisco Security Advisory: Cisco IOS XR Software BVI Routed Packet Denial of Service Vulnerability
by Cisco Systems Product Security Incident Response Team 15 Apr '15

15 Apr '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Cisco IOS XR Software BVI Routed Packet Denial of Service Vulnerability Advisory ID: cisco-sa-20150415-iosxr Revision 1.0 For Public Release 2015 April 15 16:00 UTC (GMT) Summary ======= A vulnerability in the packet-processing code of Cisco IOS XR Software for Cisco ASR 9000 Series Aggregation Services Routers (ASR) could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a lockup and eventual reload of a network processor chip and the line card that is processing traffic. Only Typhoon-based line cards on Cisco ASR 9000 Series Aggregation Services Routers are affected by this vulnerability. The vulnerability is due to improper processing of packets that are routed via the bridge-group virtual interface (BVI) when any of the following features are configured: Unicast Reverse Path Forwarding (uRPF), policy-based routing (PBR), quality of service (QoS), or access control lists (ACLs). An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by sending IPv4 packets through an affected device that is configured to route them via the BVI interface. A successful exploit could allow the attacker to cause a lockup and eventual reload of a network processor chip and the line card that is processing traffic, leading to a denial of service (DoS) condition. Cisco has released free software updates that address this vulnerability. There are no workarounds to address this vulnerability. This advisory is available at the following link: http://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-… -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJVLoaBAAoJEIpI1I6i1Mx3QxoP/0l8Z+HfJhF5ipb0CZT62TIS m6gBR5TnXtkQTSLPBqvGTALoKTpXIuY49YwRjkAYRmVMei+ercsf6llE8YSmYL3Q TjaGxxhp4v9dQo36IwuzhjY8oGiMHIrLuRwWt+b8OZos2d+wQAcP76nfKyWhnGhC rBwN/js1uxBkTWpxIru149xf76moe3+1v353kjVS+PUbm33Uwe1dfAS1uETZvN1N lIIYlyzwqzokl+KRFvPKq0Iyr/qLa2cHqtfcLOwAD2VuLwGboFcno1uOlf7uEt4Z Wb1T1tAHvEHVBMpmh2jcV6EgGw3igU5Azx2C/+YeNqFTAei4qbUYi9Jhg9vuvhO1 ED5w+GaXg58opiaYEvP4GAXJ6pcq2P39Nawncodz/rA2IM5bQyTRWzCflMMfivFC AR0/g500NvwyCWluXaDVpvcZMI/MNuw8nq4MaTp7e/opYAiJFMW/ru6YAAFZOTW3 yG0Iij+vObL977hGlSHxlbJfqusfHT9m1tvARUhqRnD+LJcymvGMY9bJnndGqFr1 MQowrdz2acEX4DYF6RJgjgYSUfpH7QZd2Dh7STxmOS1y+8oUBplcr8oD4qgl/NRk NJyyuN2lLywb+v0EJGwz1+QjCBOLRJ5y3CvYM9ZsPOWJJZASDmPa4EvVQSyXloBM 8aItCdd34k/4H7gj+gYy =nnUg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: macomnet weird dns record
by Larry Sheldon 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

On 4/14/2015 08:51, Colin Johnston wrote: > Get real, why make is hard for others to debug abuse issues, another > reason why blocks in place as no technical cooperation. Because "others" has a subset = "dreaded anti-spammers". -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

1 0

Re: macomnet weird dns record
by Larry Sheldon 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

On 4/14/2015 08:26, Colin Johnston wrote: > Because looks strange especially if the traffic is 100% bad Best > practice says avoid such info in records as does not aid debug since > mix of dec and hex Which is precisely why spammers have been doing it for years. -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

1 0

Cisco/Level3 takedown
by Sameer Khosla 14 Apr '15

14 Apr '15

Was just reading http://blogs.cisco.com/security/talos/sshpsychos then checking my routing tables. Looks like the two /23's they mention are now being advertised as /24's, and I'm also not sure why cisco published the ssh attack dictionary. It seems to me that this is something that if they want to do, they should be working with entire service provider community, not just one provider. Thanks Sameer Khosla Managing Director Neutral Data Centers Corp. Twitter: @skhoslaTO

30 49