- Test - lists.nanog.org

Verizon text messaging
by Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy 18 May '04

18 May '04

Perhaps this is slightly OT, but if you rely on Verizon text messaging for notification, beware that they have implemented some sort of filtering as of last night it seems. Talking to their support they will not admit to any changes, but I have lost a few important notifications yesterday. After some experimentation, it looks like that at least messages to @vtext.com have to be explicitely addressed now (i.e. "To" has to be 123123123(a)vtext.com) and there are other rules that I have not figured out yet. Perhaps there is someone from Verizon on this list who would confirm that filtering was indeed added yesterday? Here is usenet article supporting my theory: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vtext&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=R… Grisha

2 1

The rules are fuzzy in IP numbers game
by Hank Nussbacher 18 May '04

18 May '04

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0517specialfocus.html -Hank PS I can think of yet another metric that can be measured at the SRDM-BOF at the next NANOG :-)

1 0

Maps
by P.Schroebel 18 May '04

18 May '04

Does anyone anyone know if there is still someone working at Maps.org, Paul . . . ? The phone works but is redirected to 408-453-6277 and seems to loop. Best Regards, Peter

3 3

Pay-As-You-Use High-Speed Internet?
by Jonathan M. Slivko 17 May '04

17 May '04

Hello Fellow NANOG'ers, I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable? The company that I work for developed a piece of technology which, through rate-limit statements, allow customers to buy/sell bandwidth "on demand". Now, I was thinking: "Why can't we take this technology that we've tested successfully in a colo environment and adapt it a little bit for personal/buisness-class ISP's to allow them to bill for the bandwidth that a customer uses, and only that with the exception of a base monthly fee (to cover the DSL/T1 loop, e-mail services, support, etc.) of a few dollars. Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for what they use - it would be a much better system for allowing people who don't neccessarily need to get on the Internet at high-speed, get on high-speed which will not only increase revenue for the ISP's, but also for the customer who can now use DSL/T1 access in a much more effective way. Questions? Comments? Suggestions? -- Jonathan -- Jonathan M. Slivko Network Operations Center Invisible Hand Networks, Inc. help(a)invisiblehand.net 1-866-MERKATO (USA) 1-812-355-5908 (Intl) <http://www.invisiblehand.net>

10 16

ngrep question
by Scott Weeks 17 May '04

17 May '04

Hello Everyone, I have a curious question for those of you that use ngrep (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ngrep/) I see strange IP addresses and was wondering if any of you had seen these reserved IP addresses on your networks. T 175.157.10.10 -> 102.211.0.0 +1540@8:46 T 97.176.10.10 -> 103.255.0.0 +1540@8:46 T 90.68.10.10 -> 103.233.0.0 +1540@8:46 T 175.157.10.10 -> 102.211.0.0 +1540@8:46 T 143.226.10.10 -> 3.82.0.0 +1540@8:46 I am having trouble finding anything on the web. The only correlation I see is they all seem to have "+1540@8:46" and the last two octets of the sender are x.x.10.10 and the last two octets of the receiver are x.x.0.0 Thanks, scott

1 0

RE: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall
by Christopher Brown 17 May '04

17 May '04

We've had a 400 up for 3 months now, very nice box. It's doing pretty good with handling false positives, and the updates are very frequent. One of the nice things for us is the ability to do per domain / per user quarantines for clients that want that ability. It also has an 'Exchange Accelerator' to tie into LDAP on exchange servers. We've not had any serious through put issues so far, but only pushing 500K mails a day so far. Christopher Brown Concergent, LLC Wichita, Kansas -----Original Message----- From: Jared B. Reimer [mailto:jared@theriver.com] Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 3:48 PM To: Claydon, Tom Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall We have done an eval of this same product (model 400). It is very cool in virtually every regard except one: performance. We were facing 1+ hour mail delays (!) through the device when pumping less than 1,000,000 messages per day through it. Given that they claim it can handle ten times that much, I am left wondering what happened. Very disappointing in that regard; the eval unit is being shipped back as a result. -- Jared At 11:35 AM 5/17/2004, Claydon, Tom wrote: >Doing evaluations on anti-spam, anti-virus solutions, and ran across >this: > >http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ > >Looks like a good box -- even won an Editor's Choice award from Network >Computing recently. > >Does anyone on list have any experience with these boxes? If so, how are >they with false positives, quarantine capabilities, etc? > >Thanks, >Tom Claydon >Dobson Telephone ## Jared B. Reimer <jared(a)theriver.com> ## CTO / The River Internet Access Co. ## +1 (877) 88-RIVER x170 || http://www.theriver.com/

1 0

Re: Barracuda Networks Spam Firewall
by Jared B. Reimer 17 May '04

17 May '04

We have done an eval of this same product (model 400). It is very cool in virtually every regard except one: performance. We were facing 1+ hour mail delays (!) through the device when pumping less than 1,000,000 messages per day through it. Given that they claim it can handle ten times that much, I am left wondering what happened. Very disappointing in that regard; the eval unit is being shipped back as a result. -- Jared At 11:35 AM 5/17/2004, Claydon, Tom wrote: >Doing evaluations on anti-spam, anti-virus solutions, and ran across >this: > >http://www.barracudanetworks.com/ > >Looks like a good box -- even won an Editor's Choice award from Network >Computing recently. > >Does anyone on list have any experience with these boxes? If so, how are >they with false positives, quarantine capabilities, etc? > >Thanks, >Tom Claydon >Dobson Telephone ## Jared B. Reimer <jared(a)theriver.com> ## CTO / The River Internet Access Co. ## +1 (877) 88-RIVER x170 || http://www.theriver.com/

1 0

RE: CiSCO IOS 12.* source code stolen
by Michel Py 17 May '04

17 May '04

Rough translation of: http://www.securitylab.ru/45221.html May, 15 2004 Leak of code CiSCO IOS source code? As it became known to SecurityLab, the source code of operating system CISCO IOS 12.3, 12.3t, which is used in the majority of Cisco network devices has been stolen on May 13, 2004. The total volume of the stolen information represents about 800MB in an archive file. According to the information available to us, the leak of fragments of the source code occurred because of a break-in into the corporate network of Cisco System. Representatives of Cisco System have not made any comments about the break-in so far. A person whose alias on *darknet@EFnet IRC is "franz" has given a small parts of the source code (about 2.5 Mb) as proof. Below are links to the first 100 first lines of source code of: ipv6_tcp.c: http://www.securitylab.ru/45222.html ipv6_discovery_test.c: http://www.securitylab.ru/45223.html

8 9

More on Anti-Spam/Anti-Virus Solutions
by Claydon, Tom 17 May '04

17 May '04

Thanks to everyone who has responded regarding the Barracuda Network Spam Firewall. They look like very low cost but very powerful boxes. We are in the process of choosing an anti-spam/anti-virus solution for our current email enviroment (Sendmail Pro on RH9 Enterprise). One of the vendors that caught our eye was Sophos, and their PureMessage product http://www.sophos.com/products/pm/. However, I have not read much regarding integration issues with PM into an existing Sendmail Pro enviroment. Anyone have any success/horror stories on this? Thanks, Tom Claydon

1 0

Re: Pay-As-You-Use High-Speed Internet?
by Jonathan M. Slivko 17 May '04

17 May '04

Also, you could also take the approach of wiring a whole building for Internet connectivity through that model, like Intellispace does. -- Jonathan Daniel Senie wrote: > At 05:22 PM 5/14/2004, you wrote: > >> Hello Fellow NANOG'ers, >> >> I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable? The >> company that I work for developed a piece of technology which, through >> rate-limit statements, allow customers to buy/sell bandwidth "on >> demand". Now, I was thinking: "Why can't we take this technology that >> we've tested successfully in a colo environment and adapt it a little >> bit for personal/buisness-class ISP's to allow them to bill for the >> bandwidth that a customer uses, and only that with the exception of a >> base monthly fee (to cover the DSL/T1 loop, e-mail services, support, >> etc.) of a few dollars. > > > The access line (T-1, etc.) loop charge is substantially larger than the > bandwidth charge. Get the phone companies to price the lines better, and > it might make sense. > > >> Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for >> what they use - it would be a much better system for allowing people >> who don't neccessarily need to get on the Internet at high-speed, get >> on high-speed which will not only increase revenue for the ISP's, but >> also for the customer who can now use DSL/T1 access in a much more >> effective way. >> >> Questions? Comments? Suggestions? >> >> -- Jonathan >> >> -- >> Jonathan M. Slivko >> Network Operations Center >> Invisible Hand Networks, Inc. >> help(a)invisiblehand.net >> 1-866-MERKATO (USA) >> 1-812-355-5908 (Intl) >> <http://www.invisiblehand.net> -- Jonathan M. Slivko Network Operations Center Invisible Hand Networks, Inc. help(a)invisiblehand.net 1-866-MERKATO (USA) 1-812-355-5908 (Intl) <http://www.invisiblehand.net>

4 4