Mailing List Archive by Gossamer Threads http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/ en-us (c) Gossamer Threads Inc. All rights reserved. 12 Feb 2012 16:05:17 -0800 120 75 23 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/ http://www.gossamer-threads.com/images/lists/rss_logo.jpg On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:59:36 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > The problem is greekbank.gr is spoofable as greekbank.gr. That would be the .gr registry's 12 Feb 2012 11:55:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149787 On 2/12/2012 1:19 PM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 04:44:13AM -0500, Vinny Abello wrote: >> All recent email clients I've come acros 12 Feb 2012 11:49:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149786 In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.1202121919390.10731@a84-22-97-10.cb3rob.net> you write: >btw, i'm quite sure that -banks- of all things have the resources t 12 Feb 2012 11:47:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149785 Heck, even Klingon made it to the private UTF-8 registry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon_writing_systems :) Jeff 12 Feb 2012 11:27:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149784 btw, i'm quite sure that -banks- of all things have the resources to just take the transaction part for consumers -off their pcs- and simply send th 12 Feb 2012 11:22:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149783 > > That's why I recommend that banks et.al. don't put *any* URLs in their > messages. If they make this an explicit policy and pound it into the > h 12 Feb 2012 11:15:28 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149782 On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 04:44:13AM -0500, Vinny Abello wrote: > All recent email clients I've come across give you anti-phishing > warnings in one way 12 Feb 2012 10:19:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149781 >>What is truly evil is non text/plain email. > >Have we fallen through a time warp into 1996? Evidently yes. Look, it's a known-not-to-work SMTP ca 12 Feb 2012 10:06:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149780 > The DNS "industry" is putting us a long way from when RFC 2826 was written. That's true, but you can't just blow off the majority of people in the 12 Feb 2012 09:40:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149779 The DNS "industry" is putting us a long way from when RFC 2826 was written. Christian On 12 Feb 2012, at 01:31, John Levine wrote: >> Nice. Basi 12 Feb 2012 09:23:49 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149778 >What is truly evil is non text/plain email. Have we fallen through a time warp into 1996? R's, John -- Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Prima 12 Feb 2012 08:52:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149777 In article <20120210213755.GA88812@ussenterprise.ufp.org>, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> writes >Hypothetically, I get an e-mail from ripe.ca Or f 12 Feb 2012 07:30:40 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149776 On 2/11/2012 4:37 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote: >> Unfortunately that's not under control of those businesses. This >> plain text email you sent comes acro 12 Feb 2012 01:44:13 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149775 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > Doesn't actually matter, because the .ua registry isn't allowing Greek Gamma > or Latin-E-with-diaresis, in domain n 11 Feb 2012 23:59:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149774 On Feb 11, 2012, at 10:57 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote: > On 2/11/12 19:34 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: >> yes, domain names that cannot be typed in with any 11 Feb 2012 23:16:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149773 On 2/11/12 19:34 , Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > yes, domain names that cannot be typed in with any keyboard/charset on > any computer out there, excell 11 Feb 2012 22:57:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149772 On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:13 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:25:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: >> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.e 11 Feb 2012 21:45:08 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149771 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: >> (and that despite the fact that it's perfectly well possible to write -any >> language out there- in the first 7 bi 11 Feb 2012 21:25:05 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149770 On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:25:53 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > > (The actual policy for the .UA registrar is more subtle 11 Feb 2012 21:13:27 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149769 Neil Harris wrote: > I'm not a flag-waver for IDN, so much as a proponent of ways to make IDN > safer, given that it already exists. It's like tryin 11 Feb 2012 21:07:26 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149768 On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:47:24 GMT, Sven Olaf Kamphuis said: > (and that despite the fact that it's perfectly well possible to write -any > language ou 11 Feb 2012 20:39:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149767 as if it wasn't annoying enough already that some n00bs are using URI's with characters you can't type in (and in most cases don't even display corr 11 Feb 2012 19:47:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149766 yes, domain names that cannot be typed in with any keyboard/charset on any computer out there, excellent idea, devide and conquerer, i wonder who ca 11 Feb 2012 19:34:58 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149765 On 12/02/12 00:09, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Neil Harris wrote: > >> Techniques to deal with this sort of spoofing already exist: see >> >> http://www.mo 11 Feb 2012 17:34:17 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149764 >Nice. Basically, unless the TLD registrar has a public policy that basically says >"We don't allow names with cyrillic C to collide with MICROSOFT", 11 Feb 2012 17:31:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149763 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > (The actual policy for the .UA registrar is more subtle. They *do* in fact > allow "U+0441 Cyrillic Small Letter ES" 11 Feb 2012 17:25:53 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149762 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote: You know, clickable objects in automated business communications are a 11 Feb 2012 16:10:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149761 Neil Harris wrote: > Techniques to deal with this sort of spoofing already exist: see > > http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/tld-idn-policy-li 11 Feb 2012 16:09:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149760 On 2/11/2012 4:50 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: > FWIW: A colleague in Iran was able to connect to a server in the US > using HTTPS on a non-standard port 11 Feb 2012 14:56:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149759 FWIW: A colleague in Iran was able to connect to a server in the US using HTTPS on a non-standard port (9999). It appears that the Iranian government 11 Feb 2012 13:50:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149758 > Unfortunately that's not under control of those businesses. This plain text > email you sent comes across with clickable mailto and http links in yo 11 Feb 2012 13:37:31 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149757 On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:09:25 PST, Randy Bush said: > >>>> My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over the link > >>>> and see w 11 Feb 2012 10:28:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149756 On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:13 PM, chris wrote: > The internet was way cooler before that Yes, and a lot of us could run open relays on our SMTP servers 11 Feb 2012 09:18:15 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149755 The internet was way cooler before that chris On Feb 11, 2012 12:09 PM, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com> wrote: > >>>> My $0.02 on this issue is if the 11 Feb 2012 09:13:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149754 >>>> My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over the link >>>> and see where it actually sends me. >>> idn has made this unsafe 11 Feb 2012 09:09:25 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149753 On 11/02/12 01:16, Masataka Ohta wrote: > Randy Bush wrote: > >>> My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over the link >>> and 11 Feb 2012 08:04:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149752 It is not accessible to with XMPP, yahoo google none of them is not accessible from Iran. I have not try obfsproxy but as a ordinary connection we do 11 Feb 2012 02:09:16 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149751 Leo Bicknell wrote: >> The applications can simply be debugged to use socket option >> of REUSEPORT. > > "Simple" is subjective. To "the problems 11 Feb 2012 00:19:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149750 You might also want to think about it's not to far off that the gov starts supplementing those cost of these users, with all the changes being made in 10 Feb 2012 22:54:29 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149749 Unfortunately that's not under control of those businesses. This plain text email you sent comes across with clickable mailto and http links in your s 10 Feb 2012 20:47:42 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149748 On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:24:11 PST, Landon Stewart said: > I don't click it. Not sure how long it's going to take, probably a > generation, for people 10 Feb 2012 18:41:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149747 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Eric J Esslinger <eesslinger@fpu-tn.com>wrote: > We're toying with the idea of a low bitrate 'lifeline' internet on 10 Feb 2012 17:36:44 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149746 On Friday 10 February 2012 17:24, Landon Stewart wrote: > My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over the link > and see where 10 Feb 2012 17:25:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149745 Randy Bush wrote: >> My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over the link >> and see where it actually sends me. > > idn has 10 Feb 2012 17:16:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149744 In a message written on Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 09:19:46AM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote: > The applications can simply be debugged to use socket option > o 10 Feb 2012 17:00:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149743 > My $0.02 on this issue is if the message is rich text I hover over the link > and see where it actually sends me. idn has made this unsafe randy 10 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149742 On 10 February 2012 16:09, Brandon Butterworth <brandon@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > So it's necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and tell 10 Feb 2012 16:24:11 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149741 Leo Bicknell wrote: > UPNP, NAT-PMP, the ability to enter static bypasses (DMZ's, NAT > passthrough), combined with the problems of some applications 10 Feb 2012 16:19:46 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149740 There used to be the old programming benchmark of how large a "program" (in lines, as well as compiled bytes) it took to say "Hello, world." The 21st 10 Feb 2012 16:12:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149739 > So it's necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and tell them > never to click on a link... That baby was ugly anyway brandon 10 Feb 2012 16:09:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149738 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:37:01AM -0800, Leo Bicknell wrote: > Remind me again why we live in this sad word Randy (correcly) described? Because bank 10 Feb 2012 15:46:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149737 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:29:30AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > > So because of phishing, nobody should send messages with URLs in them? > > more and m 10 Feb 2012 14:24:39 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149736 BGP Update Report Interval: 02-Feb-12 -to- 09-Feb-12 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASN 10 Feb 2012 14:00:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149734 This report has been generated at Fri Feb 10 21:12:37 2012 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on a 10 Feb 2012 14:00:00 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149735 In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 03:19:24PM -0600, Eric J Esslinger wrote: > First question, if you happen to be doing something like this 10 Feb 2012 13:43:41 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149733 In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:15:19PM -0500, William Herrin wrote: > The problem space is that most folks won't catch the difference 10 Feb 2012 13:37:55 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149732 We're toying with the idea of a low bitrate 'lifeline' internet on our cable system, maybe even bundled with a certain level of cable service. First 10 Feb 2012 13:19:24 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149731 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote: > In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 06:46:43PM +0100, Jeroen Massar 10 Feb 2012 13:15:19 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149730 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steven Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu> > What's the line -- "I know I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?" " 10 Feb 2012 12:30:35 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149729 On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:37 01PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: > In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:29:30AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: >> more and mo 10 Feb 2012 12:26:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149728 On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:29 30PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> So because of phishing, nobody should send messages with URLs in them? > > more and more these 10 Feb 2012 12:20:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149727 In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:11:18AM -0800, Ryan Malayter wrote: > Windows has had its own centralized certificate store and APIs s 10 Feb 2012 12:08:26 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149726 And in response http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/02/10/as-iran-cracks-down-online-tor-tests-undetectable-encrypted-connections/ (quoti 10 Feb 2012 12:07:15 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149725 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Valdis Kletnieks" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> > On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:44:29 EST, Jay Ashworth said: > > a pictur 10 Feb 2012 11:57:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149724 On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:44:29 EST, Jay Ashworth said: > a picture of an abandoned factory, with the doors flapping in the wind, > bceause the company 10 Feb 2012 11:53:14 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149723 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JC Dill" <jcdill.lists@gmail.com> > If you wanted to have a similar effect at $workplace, try a similar > visua 10 Feb 2012 11:44:29 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149722 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:28:22PM -0500, Steven Bellovin wrote: > If they're intended as a path to log in with a typed password, that's correct. > Sa 10 Feb 2012 11:16:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149721 On 10/02/12 10:00 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Even lots of*technical* people just don't understand what "a security- > related URL"*is*, and there's al 10 Feb 2012 11:12:03 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149720 On Feb 10, 12:01 pm, Leo Bicknell <bickn...@ufp.org> wrote: > OSX at least has a central certificate store (Keychain), although > it's not up to the t 10 Feb 2012 11:11:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149719 Yes I am from Iran and outgoing TCP/443 has been stoped ;) -- Regards, Shahab Vahabzadeh, Network Engineer and System Administrator PGP Key Fingerpr 10 Feb 2012 11:03:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149718 This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to A 10 Feb 2012 10:59:54 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149717 ---- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> > And if we could just train people to never send or accept email > attachments 10 Feb 2012 10:59:36 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149716 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com> wrote: >> From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> >> Big problem with clickable object 10 Feb 2012 10:52:45 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149715 correct, it's down in Iran, A few of my contacts got back to me confirming this a few hours ago. -----Original Message----- From: Jay Ashworth Sent 10 Feb 2012 10:35:49 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149714 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ryan Malayter" <malayter@gmail.com> > Haven't seen this come through on NANOG yet: > http://arstechnica.com/tec 10 Feb 2012 10:29:34 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149713 Probably better than Iran doing man-in-the-middle... Thanks, Donald =============================  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)  1 10 Feb 2012 10:28:12 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149712 Haven't seen this come through on NANOG yet: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/02/iran-reportedly-blocking-encrypted-internet-traffic.ars 10 Feb 2012 10:26:15 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149711 > We know how to sign and encrypt e-mail. there is a public key distribution and trust problem > We know how to sign DNS. not very reliably yet ra 10 Feb 2012 10:04:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149710 Leo, This has nothing to do with the competency of the folks on the nanog list. It's a safe rule in general. Why? Because the stupid on the Int 10 Feb 2012 10:03:53 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149709 In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 06:46:43PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote: > The problem still lies in the issue that most people, even on th 10 Feb 2012 10:01:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149708 ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us> > Big problem with clickable objects which lead to PII (personally > identifia 10 Feb 2012 10:00:10 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149707 On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:37:01 PST, Leo Bicknell said: > We know how to sign and encrypt web sites. > > We know how to sign and encrypt e-mail. > > We 10 Feb 2012 09:51:02 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149706 > While still perfectly intelligible, most folks who use English as a > second language don't speak in the same voice as, say, Wells Fargo > corporate 10 Feb 2012 09:51:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149705 > There's no reason my mail client shouldn't validate the signed e-mail > came from the same entity as the signed web site I'd previously logged > int 10 Feb 2012 09:48:18 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149704 On 2012-02-10 18:37 , Leo Bicknell wrote: [..] > There's no reason my mail client shouldn't validate the signed e-mail > came from the same entity as 10 Feb 2012 09:46:43 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149703 The line gets crossed when you send an unsolicited message that includes a clickable change password link, that a phisher would find interesting to em 10 Feb 2012 09:37:52 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149702 > It seems as if they're no longer written by non-native English > speakers, which goes a long way towards making them more insidious. > While still p 10 Feb 2012 09:37:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149700 In a message written on Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:29:30AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > more and more these days, i have taken to not clicking the update m 10 Feb 2012 09:37:01 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149701 On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Richard Barnes <richard.barnes@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia 10 Feb 2012 09:35:56 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149699 On Feb 10, 2012, at 9:29 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> So because of phishing, nobody should send messages with URLs in them? > > more and more these day 10 Feb 2012 09:32:37 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149698 > So because of phishing, nobody should send messages with URLs in them? more and more these days, i have taken to not clicking the update messages, 10 Feb 2012 09:29:30 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149697 If they're intended as a path to log in with a typed password, that's correct. Sad, but correct. On Feb 10, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Richard Barnes wrote: 10 Feb 2012 09:28:22 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149696 So because of phishing, nobody should send messages with URLs in them? On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu> wrote 10 Feb 2012 09:18:29 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149695 I received the enclosed note, apparently from RIPE (and the headers check out). Why are you sending messages with clickable objects that I'm supposed 10 Feb 2012 08:56:57 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149694 On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 18:36:13 -0500 Ray Gasnick III <rgasnick@milestechnologies.com> wrote: > Only solution thus far was to dump the victim IP address 10 Feb 2012 08:53:49 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149693 2012/2/8 Steve Bertrand <steve.bertrand@gmail.com> > On 2012.02.08 14:23, Drew Weaver wrote: > >> Stop paying transit providers for delivering spoofe 09 Feb 2012 20:21:48 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149692 Look how much time people waste with those all in one devices :) As soon as I get the feeling something is very appliancey I run the other direction 09 Feb 2012 19:00:50 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149691 Thank you Justine! your research recalled me to a recent middlebox-related publication: "An Untold Story of Middleboxes in Cellular Networks" by Zha 09 Feb 2012 17:20:11 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149690 Hello NANOG! I emailed you a few months ago asking for help understanding typical middlebox deployments in enterprise networks. 57 of you responded - 09 Feb 2012 17:01:06 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149689 Hi, Lincoln, *sigh* Ok, I see what happened. We just went through a software upgrade cycle on that unit and it got upgraded to the end of 4.6 inste 09 Feb 2012 14:48:31 -0800 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/nanog/users/149686