- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: ATM --> HSSI
by Eric Kozowski 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

At 04:14 AM 1/6/98 +1100, andrew khoo wrote: >what box can i use to convert PacBell ATM (for PacBell NAP) into HSSI? > kentrox adsu -- they supposedly work now.

1 0

Re: Things to do to make the network better
by Pete Ashdown 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

Owen DeLong said once upon a time: >> I will also point out that many of the recent "smurf" attacks and >> similar problems people are having on the net would be gone if people >> would just carefully filter internal/external addresses on their >> border machines, that is, prevent packets claiming to be from "inside" >> networks from coming in from the "outside", and prevent packets >> claiming to be from "outside" networks from going out from the >> "inside". The latter will stop your network from *ever* being the >> source of a wide variety of packet forgery attacks, and is necessary >> to being a good network citizen. The former will stop your network >> from being the subject of a wide variety fo packet forgery attacks, >> and is necessary to make your customers even remotely safe on the net. Expecting everyone else to do the right thing is the wrong way to solve the problem. 99% of everyone else will always do the easiest thing, which is nothing. >That's great if you're a downstream provider with no transit customers. >However, when you become a transit provider, it becomes much more difficult >to determine inside vs. outside, since you're more in the middle between >two "outsides" that pass traffic through you. Use customer configurable filters. There is no excuse for becoming less responsible as you grow larger.

1 0

Re: Whoa; the 3 network?
by rja＠corp.home.net 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

GE was the original party that was allocated Net 3, directly back when IP began. Your statements to the contrary were inaccurate. Regards, Ran

1 0

Re: Denial of Service Attacks disguised as Spam...
by gary flynn 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

> From: Dean Anderson <dean(a)av8.com> > Subject: Re: Denial of Service Attacks disguised as Spam... > > >many respects, he is forging his identity and I cannot imagine that > >forgery is legal. > > The ability to send anonymous email will probably remain protected. Also, > the legal beagles I know tell me it is perfectly legal to use an alias as > long as it is not done for fraudulent purposes. Ah, but sooner or later, we're going to have fairly universal certificate based authentication of some type ( IPSEC and/or application layer ). Then it will be a simple manner of refusing unauthenticated connections as policy or desires dictate. Someone may be able to send anonymous mail but nobody will have to read it :) The low level stuff will provide the ability to reliably trace packet level attacks and perhaps make decisions at the router level. The higher level stuff will provide the ability to implement authorization rules at the application or server level. You want to deliver mail to my mail server, you better tell me who you are. You want to send packets through my router, you best be authenticated in some way. Gary Flynn Network Analyst James Madison University

1 0

Re: Things to do to make the network better
by owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

> I will also point out that many of the recent "smurf" attacks and > similar problems people are having on the net would be gone if people > would just carefully filter internal/external addresses on their > border machines, that is, prevent packets claiming to be from "inside" > networks from coming in from the "outside", and prevent packets > claiming to be from "outside" networks from going out from the > "inside". The latter will stop your network from *ever* being the > source of a wide variety of packet forgery attacks, and is necessary > to being a good network citizen. The former will stop your network > from being the subject of a wide variety fo packet forgery attacks, > and is necessary to make your customers even remotely safe on the net. That's great if you're a downstream provider with no transit customers. However, when you become a transit provider, it becomes much more difficult to determine inside vs. outside, since you're more in the middle between two "outsides" that pass traffic through you. Owen

3 2

Re: Denial of Service Attacks disguised as Spam...
by dlr＠bungi.com 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

[In the message entitled "Denial of Service Attacks disguised as Spam..." on Dec 31, 15:30, Barry Shein writes:] > > We're being fooled, we're allowing criminals to operate without > challenge. > Not entirely without challenge. See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ -- Dave Rand dlr(a)bungi.com http://www.bungi.com

1 0

NOC phone number
by Richard Welty 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

not that anyone is likely to have a burning need for it just yet, but for the general information of nanog subscribers, here is the phone number for INet Solution's NOC: 518-432-4638 x1204 (my extension is x1202) richard -- Richard Welty Chief Internet Engineer, INet Solutions welty(a)inet-solutions.net http://www.inet-solutions.net/~welty/ 888-311-INET

1 0

FYI: BGP Security Analysis
by rja＠corp.home.net 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

Folks interested in Paul Vixie's recent thread (and others interested in inter-domain routing) should read: ftp://ds.internic.net/internet-drafts/draft-murphy-bgp-secr-00.txt which is a preliminary security analysis of BGP. It is also useful for folks to read draft-heffernan-* and to actually deploy the TCP MD5 Authentication option for BGP sessions (to protect against low-level attacks, not as protection for bogus prefix advertisements from otherwise legitimate BGP peers). Apologies for posting content onto NANOG and disturbing the usual noise. Ran rja(a)home.net

1 0

Re: Three common lies
by Sean M. Doran 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

(4) NANOG is a high-content technical mailing list for Internet operators. Sean.

1 0

Three common lies
by Hank Nussbacher 05 Jan '98

05 Jan '98

This appeared recently on rec.humor and I figured some people here would enjoy it: (1) The check is in the mail (2) I promise not to come in your mouth (3) For automatic removal from our emailing list, type "remove" in the subject box and email it back to us Cheers, Hank

1 0