May 2015 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Alcatel-Lucent 7750 Service Router (SR)
by Colton Conor 08 May '15

08 May '15

I was wondering if anyone was using a Alcatel-Lucent 7750 Service Router (SR) in their network? How does this platform compare the the Cisco ASR, Brocade MLXe, and Juniper MX line?

15 27

Re:
by Ted Cooper 07 May '15

07 May '15

On 08/05/15 11:58, Mike Hammett via NANOG wrote: > I've seen the same over here and also considered it weird. It looks exactly like the the DMARC senders treatment - I think there's something wiggy and everyone is being treated as a DMARC encumbered sender.

2 2

Re:
by Christopher Morrow 07 May '15

07 May '15

List-Post: <mailto:nanog@nanog.org> From: Nathan Angelacos via NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> you are seeing the effect of whatever that new 'we will stop spam with dns records' process (not spf, not dkim ... the other one) On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Nathan Angelacos via NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nathan Angelacos <nangel(a)tetrasec.net> > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Cc: > Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 22:04:05 -0400 > Subject: Re: Missing Subjects > Looks like there's an extra line break after this header line: > > X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP > > So the SMTP headers are getting partitioned. > >

1 0

Re:
by Joel Esler (jesler) 07 May '15

07 May '15

Seeing them here too. -- Joel Esler Sent from my iPhone On May 7, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Paul Ferguson via NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: <mime-attachment>

1 0

Re: Missing Subjects
by Nathan Angelacos 07 May '15

07 May '15

Looks like there's an extra line break after this header line: X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP So the SMTP headers are getting partitioned.

1 0

Re: Missing Subjects
by Nathan Angelacos 07 May '15

07 May '15

Looks like there's an extra line break after:

1 0

Re:
by Mike Hammett 07 May '15

07 May '15

I've seen the same over here and also considered it weird. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Ferguson via NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> To: "NANOG" <nanog(a)nanog.org> Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 8:56:44 PM

1 0

List hiccups?
by Paul Ferguson 07 May '15

07 May '15

1 0

Re: Network Segmentation Approaches
by Scott Weeks 07 May '15

07 May '15

From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk(a)gsp.org> On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:30:01PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote: > From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk(a)gsp.org> > > The first rule in every firewall is of course > "deny all" and subsequent rulesets permit only > the traffic that is necessary. > ------------------------------------ > > I think you got this backward? That way all > traffic is blocked, so none is allowed through. Nope, I said exactly what I intended (and what I do, in practice). Doing so forces one to understand in detail what traffic actually needs to pass in/out and to craft specific rules for it. This in turn helps avoid making mistake #1: The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/editorials/dumb/ ----------------------------------------------------- After reading your emails all these years, I figured you meant it the way you wrote it. When you wrote "...subsequent rulesets permit only the traffic that is necessary" I misunderstood and thought you meant rules put in after the default deny, which are useless. But by subsequent rulesets you meant rule sets put in later in time and above the deny all not after the deny all. Small confusion over wording... :-) scott

3 2

disadvantages of peering with own IP transit customers
by Martin T 07 May '15

07 May '15

Hi, what are the disadvantages of peering(announcing own and all customers prefixes) with own IP transit customers? One disadvantage is obviously that amount of traffic on IP transit link is lower and thus customer pays for smaller amount of Mbps. On the other hand, this can be somewhat compensated with higher price per Mbps if the amount of traffic on the IP transit connection is lower. However, are there any other disadvantages/concerns when peering with own IP transit customers? regards, Martin

3 2