- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: fixing insecure email infrastructure (was: Re: [eweek article]
by Mark Andrews 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

>What is wrong with MTAMARK? As currently described it doesn't fit well with RFC 2317 style delegations. They would need to be converted to use DNAME instead of CNAME which requires all the delegating servers to be upgraded to support DNAME. There are other issues but hear is not the correct place to debate them.

7 13

RE: AT&T ENS
by Hannigan, Martin 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

This isn't generally a list for customer requests. You should probably call Chartermi. ATT probably/usually won't act on a request regarding a customers circuit (Charter). You dont appear to have any public space, an AS, or anything. I think you're going to be stuck unless you route your issue via Charter. Best, -M< -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of trainier(a)kalsec.com Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 1:29 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: AT&T ENS Greetings. My name is Tim Rainier. I'm an end-customer of Chartermi.net. I work for Kalsec INC (www.kalsec.com) as UNIX Systems administrator with additional duties in regards to network infrastructure and security. I need an admin from AT&T Enhanced Network Services to contact me as soon as possible, regarding a peering issue. Best regards, Tim Rainier (269) 274-7118

2 1

Port 25 filters - how many here deploy them bidirectionally?
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

.. and if it has been tried, have you noticed any issues with this? Please consider the situation of net abuse with the source address being an infected PCs on a dialup pool that has port 25 filtering enabled. This sequence below is summarized from a post by an ISP admin on another list that I read. 1) SYN - Worm emails / spam goes out from another provider, with the source address spoofed to be the IP of a trojaned PC 2) ACK - Receiving network sends an ACK back to the forged source IP, and the trojan on that IP proxies this back to the actual spam source. 3) SYNACK - sent by the actual spam source to your network. Applying port 25 filters both ways (inbound and outbound to your dialup pool, instead of just outbound port 25 filtering) would help in such a situation. So, a quick poll .. how many ISPs here have noticed this behavior, and applied bidirectional filters? And if they've applied port 25 filters bidirectionally, have they noticed any problems with this setup? This ISP's post is only the second I've seen noting such behavior in a few months, the first being a nanog post in Aug 2004 by Hank Nussbacher - http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/current/msg03171.html Two posts about this in several months - but still, enough of a trend for me to wonder how widespread this behavior is. --srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com)

9 12

Re: Those interested in NANOG governance, please read...
by Paul Vixie 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

> > as co-moderator, i'd like all remote questions/comments to come via > > irc, and not via the speakerphone. audio engineers take note -- > > mute all "other ends" plz. > > Paul, this is the reason I suggested an audio hybrid=>ata-186 for > patching the audio to INOC. It doesn't matter if the people on the > conference bridge are screaming their heads off... Unless the output > of the hybrid is connected to the PA system, they're not going to be > heard at the NANOG end. ok, so, if an audio engineer brings an ATA186 and wires it up to the PA system, and if jared can get us a pstn+sipurl+inocdba confrm in time, that'll all be just fine. folks on the concall will hopefully all mute, so as to not have to listen to eachother's typing, breathing, and so on.

1 0

Re: Those interested in NANOG governance, please read...
by John Fraizer 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Daniel Golding wrote: > If you can provide an INOC-DBA phone, by all means! > > - Dan > Sadly, I won't be attending but, I'm sure someone from Cisco and/or PCH will be there and can probably come up with the VoIP phone. There are many folks on the INOC-DBA system who are running Asterisk as well so, setting up a conference bridge is trivial. An ATA-186 with a hybrid on it (to get the PA audio cleanly into the phone) would be an ideal situation. Perhaps there is someone with broadcast engineering experience (besides me) that can assist in this. John

7 10

sbc and MPLS
by Matt Bazan 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

My company is going to be looking into SBCs MPLS offerings. Am looking for any feedback and opinions regarding SBCs MPLS solution and WAN data networking in general. Off list is fine. Thanks, Matt

1 0

AT&T ENS
by trainier＠kalsec.com 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Greetings. My name is Tim Rainier. I'm an end-customer of Chartermi.net. I work for Kalsec INC (www.kalsec.com) as UNIX Systems administrator with additional duties in regards to network infrastructure and security. I need an admin from AT&T Enhanced Network Services to contact me as soon as possible, regarding a peering issue. Best regards, Tim Rainier (269) 274-7118

1 0

Bell Sympatico contact?
by Todd Mitchell - lists 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Can a clueful engineer / high level tech from Bell Sympatico, who can handle Montreal related issues, please contact me off-list. Thanks. Todd

1 0

Spamhaus problems anybody?
by Chris Allermann 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Has anybody here been experiencing any abnormalities with the spamhaus SBL-XBL lists? I've gotten an alarming number of complains in the last 24 hours regarding mail rejections from IP's that do not appear to be listed in the SBL-XBL databse.

2 1

Notification of Successful Emergency Network Maintenance (fwd)
by Chris Moody 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Here's some info indicating that the issue was -NOT- the Cisco VoIP issue. Cheers, -Chris ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Monday, 24 Jan 2005 06:09:19 From: TWTC Alert Notification <ipalert(a)twtelecom.net> To: ITOC(a)qualcomm.com Subject: Notification of Successful Emergency Network Maintenance 24 January 2005. 6:00 a.m. MST Confidential Communiqué to Time Warner Telecom Customers We successfully completed installation of new network software code during our regularly scheduled maintenance windows this past weekend. Only minor disruptions occurred. We especially thank our customers for their patience while we performed this essential work and apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. When we were notified by one of our network equipment providers about a possible security vulnerability to existing code revisions in their equipment we use in our network, we took immediate preventive action. This security vulnerability had the potential to impact Internet-based services delivered by service providers worldwide, not just Time Warner Telecom. Our top priority is always to protect our customers’ network and it is our policy to communicate in advance about any preventive measures that we plan to implement. The action we just completed should prevent service disruptions that could occur as a result of any network attack. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and thank you for your patience during this preventive action. Please call us at 1-800-829-0420, if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Time Warner Telecom

1 0