September 2015 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Cisco ASA
by A MEKKAOUI 11 Sep '15

11 Sep '15

HI Do you know any seller of Cisco ASA (used and new) please? Please contact me offline. Thank you KARIM M.

2 1

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
by Larry Sheldon 11 Sep '15

11 Sep '15

On 9/9/2015 10:23, Alan Buxey wrote: >> It's just text at the bottom of your email. > > 1 often a very large amount of text - in this case the legalese was > something like 10x longer than the comment! 2 its pointless. Its not > enforceable and doesn't mean anything. > > Shall i put a chapter of war and peace at the end of my emails? You > could just ignore it..... ;) I have been thinking that Lipsum Ipsum would be more in keeping with the spirit of uselessness here. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

6 5

DamnTest: ignore
by mikea 11 Sep '15

11 Sep '15

This post includes the word Damn. damn -- Mike Andrews, W5EGO mikea(a)mikea.ath.cx Tired old sysadmin

5 4

Cogentoo BGP Contact please?
by Don Gould 10 Sep '15

10 Sep '15

Hi, I've just moved 117.121.247.0/24 to a new provider (Cyberwurx) but our older provider still seems to have some fitlers loaded with you and I'm having trouble getting to their NOC team to sort it out. Is there anyone on list with clue who can help and/or point me to someone who can? D 1. 202.68.81.105 0.0% 2967 0.2 0.2 0.2 5.3 0.1 2. 202.174.181.1 0.0% 2967 20.5 20.2 20.1 83.2 2.0 3. v899.cr1.alb.akl.dtsanz.com 0.0% 2967 20.8 20.6 20.3 55.0 2.1 4. v890-u.cr1.alb.akl.dtsanz.com 0.0% 2967 21.5 23.2 21.3 114.5 8.7 5. as45177-ic-310274-las-b3.c.telia.net 0.0% 2967 144.7 147.1 144.4 233.1 9.6 6. las-b3-link.telia.net 0.0% 2967 157.8 158.0 157.6 199.2 2.7 7. las-b21-link.telia.net 0.0% 2967 158.9 157.6 157.3 187.8 1.5 8. be3052.ccr23.lax05.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 2967 159.5 159.2 158.7 207.7 2.1 9. be2180.ccr21.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 2967 158.2 158.1 157.8 197.9 1.2 10. be2065.ccr21.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 2967 193.7 193.5 193.1 230.7 1.0 11. be2687.ccr41.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 2967 207.5 207.2 206.9 251.5 1.2 12. te0-3-1-7.agr22.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 2967 207.8 207.8 207.6 252.4 1.3 13. gi0-0-0-1.nr11.b000173-2.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com 0.0% 2967 208.5 208.1 207.9 255.3 1.9 14. 38.88.191.250 0.2% 2967 208.9 209.3 208.5 411.8 11.5 15. ??? -- Don Gould 31 Acheson Ave Mairehau Christchurch, New Zealand Ph: + 64 3 348 7235 Mobile: + 64 21 114 0699 Ph: +61 3 9111 1821 (Melb) I'M COLLECTING COFFEE CUPS FOR PROJECT COFFEE CUP. Deja vue (missing the French accent mark) - literally means already seen, that sense of haven't we been here before.

1 0

BGAN Optimized Laptops
by Scott Weeks 10 Sep '15

10 Sep '15

Anyone use or know how these work with the satellite networks? http://www.groundcontrol.com/BGAN_Optimized_Laptop.htm Off list is fine... scott

2 1

outlook.com outgoing blacklists?
by Todd K Grand 10 Sep '15

10 Sep '15

I have an email server which hosts 3 domains. I have reason to believe that microsoft maintains an outgoing blacklist and would like confirmation on this. I have had many a report that people on domains hosted on hotmail/outlook are getting messages bounced back stating that our server was unreachable. This only happens for one of the three domains hosted on our server. I went to outlook.com and setup an account. When I create a new message and enter the recipient at that affected domain, the address immediately turns red, and when I hover over it states that the address may not be valid. This happens without ever sending a packet to our servers. The affected domain can send emails to hotmail/outlook accounts just fine. Anybody have some recommendations on how I resolve this, as Microsoft support seems to be under technical. Thanks, Todd K. Grand

10 21

Can't reach RIPE WHOIS via IPv6 ?
by John Levine 10 Sep '15

10 Sep '15

(I realize RIPE is not in North America, but we get a lot of traffic from their IP space.) When I try to contact whois.ripe.net (2001:67c:2e8:22::c100:687) or their REST server rest.db.ripe.net (2001:67c:2e8:22::c100:68e), it times out. Traceroutes from a couple of different places all seem to loop in Amsterdam, IPv4 is fine. Am I special, or is it just broken? R's, John

5 4

Fwd: BSDCon Brasil 2015: Apresentações / Talks
by Vinícius Zavam 10 Sep '15

10 Sep '15

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: BSDCon Brasil 2015 <bsdcon bsdcon.com.br> Date: 2015-07-16 13:09 GMT-03:00 Subject: BSDCon Brasil 2015: Apresentações / Talks To: https://twitter.com/bsdcon_br/status/620727031630798852 ===== pt Acompanhe as atualizações da conferência através do Twitter ou Facebook (fb.com/bsdconbrasil2015) Gostaria de patrocinar a BSDCon Brasil 2015? Entre em contato conosco através das redes sociais ou mande-nos um email. Escreva para patrocinio(a)bsdcon.com.br Conheça nossos patrocinadores: http://2015.bsdcon.com.br/patrocinio ===== en Follow conference updates on Twitter or Facebook (fb.com/bsdconbrasil2015) Would you like to become a sponsor? Please write to sponsorship(a)bsdcon.com.br Meet our sponsors: http://2015.bsdcon.com.br/sponsorship -- BSDCon Brasil 2015 http://2015.bsdcon.com.br http://2015.bsdcon.com.br/start http://twitter.com/bsdcon_br

1 1

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
by Larry Sheldon 09 Sep '15

09 Sep '15

On 9/9/2015 20:22, Larry Sheldon wrote: I can not believe (except as, perhaps, an irrefutable sign of my advancing years) that I did not mention the very personal objection to the apparently content-free Wile E. Coyote legalese pollution: The irrefutable fact that in years (and administrations) past I was banned from NANOG for offenses that to me today seem more defensible and a great deal less egregious than in the instant case. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

1 0

Re: Extraneous "legal" babble--and my reaction to it.
by Larry Sheldon 09 Sep '15

09 Sep '15

On 9/9/2015 08:36, Dovid Bender wrote: > I am trying to understand why the legal babble bothers anyone. Does > it give you a nervous twitch? Your disrespectful query is not really worthy of a answer because it is obviously not asked in good faith, but I am going to try to answer it it because there may be others who actually are interested in my answers. Remind you why you hate legal? That sentence does not make any sense to me. I don't hate much, certainly not "legal", what ever that might turn out to mean, It's > just text at the bottom of your email. That has been the answer of rogues and renegades to network messaging abuse since before there was an Internet. Now to try and answer "why does it bother me?" (There are already clues in what I have said above, but I am guessing that th4 OP is not into "clues" much.) I am old school and I still try, in an increasingly hostile world, to deal with electronic messages in the order of real time, with the oldest material at the top and the newest at the bottom. I am old school and still believe in not causing read-before-writes, not violating blocking-factor protocols, and not forcing people to pay for the transmission of bits they don't want, don't need, and did not ask for--especially if the bits are hostile and are carrying spam, viruses, trojans, or legal traps into which the receiver might innocently blunder. In the instant case it is this latter aspect that concerns me most as recipient--I did not ask for the message carrying it, I have no idea what about the message puts me at risk, and on and on through a number of arguments that others have covered well. I am old, unemployed, unemployable, in less than robust health, and I don't think I could survive being dragged into court because of something I did (or did not do) and I could not survive the expense of my defense and of the almost-certain adverse judgement the courts seem bound to hand down these days. And in the instant case (not always the case) the 11 1/2 word query struck me as ingenuous that would have been more appropriate in a high-school class*; and I looked elsewhere in the message to see if I could work out why somebody would ask that kind of a question in this kind of forum. *I am still undecided on that question. -- sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

2 1