until it begins to wear down your brain and you get Alzheimer's at 30
Good point. I don't think we understand enough about the electrical operation of the brain to be jumping for this. If I had to make a comparison, we can turn up the clock rate on an oscillator, but it doesn't mean that the device relying on the clock can handle it without some strange, sudden and premature failure.
I have been close to this case for various reasons, but this dude's exploits were only detected after the card brands detected massive fraud. The Secret Service might have authorized breaches, but I am sure the Secret Service didn't authorize CC fraud or divulging cardholder data to random people for them to commit fraud.
unless you know of some BGP peers that refuse the standard peering protocol, 1) they are required to only listen to routes from known surrounding peers, 2) will not be listening to what's being advertised by your router unless you have instructed them ahead of time what AS you manage and what prefixes you will be advertising to them.
No. Period, fucking no. Most BGP sessions run between customers and carriers are still basically allowing whatever. Even the big boys basically don't care what you advertise. It would cause too many problems to go and begin filtering, so only regions that seem to have routing DBs (RIPE region) are even remotely participating in this. For the most part, thats a few places here and there, but the carriers will let you do what you want.
Don't believe the hype: BGP is still as weak in public IP as it ever has been. The difference is that if you do decide to hijack someone else's prefixes (don't even include bogons, because the carriers will probably let you advertise those!), everyone will know and you will get your upstream looking at you.
> my provider uses 10.* addresses there therefore I had to change the > addressing scheme on my LAN because
Why did you chose 10.x.x.x for your LAN in the first place ? I doubt that you are planning to connect 16,777,216 machines to your LAN;-)
Guide lines are to use:
192.168.X.X if you need 65,536 IP addresses or less
172.16.X.X-172.31.X.X if you need between 65,536 and 1,048,576 IP addresses
10.X.X.X if you need between 1,048,576 and 16,777,216 IP addresses
Routing is slightly faster with more bits in your netmask. Although I do not think that you will notice a difference especially nowadays. I think this was one of the reasons for these guidelines. Following the guide lines also ease connectivity to bigger nated networks, your provider in your case.
We're in the era of VLSM. Please stop spreading this nonsense of classful addressing.
Heh... this isn't just about the network gear, this is also about HP's acquisition of EDS.
You see, once upon a time, HP left their network gear alone. Cisco and HP weren't much of competitors. Then, one day, after firing a CEO, HP decided that they should try to push the product line.
In the mean time, Cisco wasn't worried. But Cisco also had this "strategic alliance" with EDS, complete with multiple teams related to the account. One day, EDS got sold to HP. HP is pushing its product on EDS customers.
Cisco has the money to do this. Ever since around 2003, they have made sure to keep a good amount of cash on hand to finance their own endeavors. Yes, HP offers a lifetime warranty on their products but for anything more than access switches, I wouldn't use them.
I'm very picky about where I accept employment from and I CHOSE to work at Cisco even though I despise Northern California. For whatever it's worth.
I'm with you. Worked for Cisco because well, they do take the opportunities to foray outside of the core in routing/switching. The talent there is incredibly diverse and includes people who do know way more the just network gear
Fact is, in today's network world, if all you know is networks, you hit a ceiling pretty quickly. None of the folks I worked with were just focused on routing and switching. Almost everyone I knew in Customer Advocacy (Cisco Services) had at least 4 years of experience in something not solely "network" related. Look at the Unity product (its a voicemail system). Incredibly complex on the back end. Folks really have to understand their server operations just to get by.
One of the final projects I worked on before leaving was a virtualization project for CA lab ops. In less than a year, the org went from spending a ton of dosh on individual servers to run tests to less than 10% of the original figure. No one really knew what they were getting into when they did it, but the knowledge base in the company is so huge that you could always find someone to help with a problem
That said, I really don't think this foray into servers is any bigger of a challenge than what Cisco has taken on before.
Meh, we're testing out both Juniper and Cisco (major tier 1 service provider) and we tend to get far better response from Cisco than Juniper. Some of our problems have gone weeks without answer by Juniper but for similar issues, Cisco has come back within hours. It really depends on how much you leverage the relationship with the rep on what kind of service you'll get. Tell the Cisco guy that you want to get training from Advanced Services. He'll arrange something and make you feel more comfortable.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are hardly any regulations that prevent a small ISP from implementing this. The whole notion that QoS is illegal is absolutely absurd. Today, major service providers (and one that I work for!) implement QoS for preferential treatment of some traffic across their backbone.
Do they have an obligation to disclose it to the customers? Probably. Would most customers mind this? Probably not. The average user would just like to be able to access their website unimpeded by "scavenger" class traffic.
Remember folks, most people really are not affected by policies like this. The people that are affected by these are not the sort that an ISP really wants to keep as customers anyway. Its a fact of life and, the reality stands, the only thing that makes it sleazy is the lack of transparency.
If we want networks that will be able to support the full gamete of voice, video, and data at affordable rates, we are going to have to accept QoS as a fact of life. If you have little more than a basic knowledge of how these applications wreck havoc in a network, I'd suggest running a simulation. (I do this for a living, so its not so hard to see). If you can't tell me why voice requires priority queueing versus web traffic that can handle best effort treatment, you probably don't understand the issue beyond an oversimplified argument that all traffic is "equal". Folks, it isn't. Traffic behaviors and needs make traffic unequal. QoS/Traffic Management/Traffic Engineering is necessary in today's oversubscribed environments to ensure that we can still access resources such as HTTP, SSH, VoIP, Video, and not be overrun by folks who crank up torrents, spew spam, and let worms run rampant from unsecured machines.
All this stuff is already being done for businesses. This is not a new concept. Whats different though is that the policies are included in the contract.
Couldn't this idea of running fiber to homes really bring in a good, practical use for WDM?
I mean, we assign the SP a wavelength and now we can have competing SPs on the same links. WDM and its variants are really made for metro access anyway. We have the tech... if a city wants to build out the infrastructure, why not?
Its sort of like how in Texas, a neutral company runs the power lines and you can select any provider you want. The neutral company here just happens to be a muni.
Mod parent up. There is no friggin way they're going to be able to use these terms to disconnect service solely for complaining about service provided. It would cause too many problems for At&t. At my job, we use similar language in our AUP so that we have a catch-all for all other idiotic activities that may not be specifically noted.
Nothing to see here, move along. People are too paranoid
I still can't understand why sony has a reputation of such high value with the public. In my opinion, their products are crap and were worth more on a sheet of paper (intellectual property) than manufactured by sony.
I have one of them new fangled hsdpa devices. Pretty much, for what you would pay for it, it looks like any other cheap phone. It ought to look like a rich people phone given all it can do and how apparently exciting this is. But no. It looks cheap.
Check out the Samsung ZX-20. Thats one of them.
most morons in the US that i can think of would allow such a search if presented the argument of 'if you have nothing to hide, why worry"
it has never made ANY sense to me as to why someone would willingly consent to a police search, but as i learned from my recent encounter, people really are too stupid to realize they have the right to say no.
The difference between freedom and opression are the rights of privacy afforded to us as citizens. The idea that monitering could POTENTIALLY come up with valuable information in fighting terror is outweighed by the individual's right to maintain one's items private.
I mean, if you can't even come close to a hit, is the cost of jeopardizing our freedoms worth it? Remember, under our government, even criminals have rights afforded to them that can not be revoked without due process.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems like it did mostly the same thing?
Good point. I don't think we understand enough about the electrical operation of the brain to be jumping for this. If I had to make a comparison, we can turn up the clock rate on an oscillator, but it doesn't mean that the device relying on the clock can handle it without some strange, sudden and premature failure.
I have been close to this case for various reasons, but this dude's exploits were only detected after the card brands detected massive fraud. The Secret Service might have authorized breaches, but I am sure the Secret Service didn't authorize CC fraud or divulging cardholder data to random people for them to commit fraud.
Fake it? Not in the last five years!
unless you know of some BGP peers that refuse the standard peering protocol, 1) they are required to only listen to routes from known surrounding peers, 2) will not be listening to what's being advertised by your router unless you have instructed them ahead of time what AS you manage and what prefixes you will be advertising to them.
No. Period, fucking no. Most BGP sessions run between customers and carriers are still basically allowing whatever. Even the big boys basically don't care what you advertise. It would cause too many problems to go and begin filtering, so only regions that seem to have routing DBs (RIPE region) are even remotely participating in this. For the most part, thats a few places here and there, but the carriers will let you do what you want.
Don't believe the hype: BGP is still as weak in public IP as it ever has been. The difference is that if you do decide to hijack someone else's prefixes (don't even include bogons, because the carriers will probably let you advertise those!), everyone will know and you will get your upstream looking at you.
> my provider uses 10.* addresses there therefore I had to change the
> addressing scheme on my LAN because
Why did you chose 10.x.x.x for your LAN in the first place ? I doubt that you are planning to connect 16,777,216 machines to your LAN ;-)
Guide lines are to use:
192.168.X.X if you need 65,536 IP addresses or less
172.16.X.X-172.31.X.X if you need between 65,536 and 1,048,576 IP addresses
10.X.X.X if you need between 1,048,576 and 16,777,216 IP addresses
Routing is slightly faster with more bits in your netmask. Although I do not think that you will notice a difference especially nowadays. I think this was one of the reasons for these guidelines. Following the guide lines also ease connectivity to bigger nated networks, your provider in your case.
We're in the era of VLSM. Please stop spreading this nonsense of classful addressing.
You see, once upon a time, HP left their network gear alone. Cisco and HP weren't much of competitors. Then, one day, after firing a CEO, HP decided that they should try to push the product line.
In the mean time, Cisco wasn't worried. But Cisco also had this "strategic alliance" with EDS, complete with multiple teams related to the account. One day, EDS got sold to HP. HP is pushing its product on EDS customers.
Cisco has the money to do this. Ever since around 2003, they have made sure to keep a good amount of cash on hand to finance their own endeavors. Yes, HP offers a lifetime warranty on their products but for anything more than access switches, I wouldn't use them.
Cisco has people like me and I'm far from alone.
I'm very picky about where I accept employment from and I CHOSE to work at Cisco even though I despise Northern California. For whatever it's worth.
I'm with you. Worked for Cisco because well, they do take the opportunities to foray outside of the core in routing/switching. The talent there is incredibly diverse and includes people who do know way more the just network gear
Fact is, in today's network world, if all you know is networks, you hit a ceiling pretty quickly. None of the folks I worked with were just focused on routing and switching. Almost everyone I knew in Customer Advocacy (Cisco Services) had at least 4 years of experience in something not solely "network" related. Look at the Unity product (its a voicemail system). Incredibly complex on the back end. Folks really have to understand their server operations just to get by.
One of the final projects I worked on before leaving was a virtualization project for CA lab ops. In less than a year, the org went from spending a ton of dosh on individual servers to run tests to less than 10% of the original figure. No one really knew what they were getting into when they did it, but the knowledge base in the company is so huge that you could always find someone to help with a problem
That said, I really don't think this foray into servers is any bigger of a challenge than what Cisco has taken on before.
Meh, we're testing out both Juniper and Cisco (major tier 1 service provider) and we tend to get far better response from Cisco than Juniper. Some of our problems have gone weeks without answer by Juniper but for similar issues, Cisco has come back within hours. It really depends on how much you leverage the relationship with the rep on what kind of service you'll get. Tell the Cisco guy that you want to get training from Advanced Services. He'll arrange something and make you feel more comfortable.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are hardly any regulations that prevent a small ISP from implementing this. The whole notion that QoS is illegal is absolutely absurd. Today, major service providers (and one that I work for!) implement QoS for preferential treatment of some traffic across their backbone.
Do they have an obligation to disclose it to the customers? Probably. Would most customers mind this? Probably not. The average user would just like to be able to access their website unimpeded by "scavenger" class traffic.
Remember folks, most people really are not affected by policies like this. The people that are affected by these are not the sort that an ISP really wants to keep as customers anyway. Its a fact of life and, the reality stands, the only thing that makes it sleazy is the lack of transparency.
If we want networks that will be able to support the full gamete of voice, video, and data at affordable rates, we are going to have to accept QoS as a fact of life. If you have little more than a basic knowledge of how these applications wreck havoc in a network, I'd suggest running a simulation. (I do this for a living, so its not so hard to see). If you can't tell me why voice requires priority queueing versus web traffic that can handle best effort treatment, you probably don't understand the issue beyond an oversimplified argument that all traffic is "equal". Folks, it isn't. Traffic behaviors and needs make traffic unequal. QoS/Traffic Management/Traffic Engineering is necessary in today's oversubscribed environments to ensure that we can still access resources such as HTTP, SSH, VoIP, Video, and not be overrun by folks who crank up torrents, spew spam, and let worms run rampant from unsecured machines.
All this stuff is already being done for businesses. This is not a new concept. Whats different though is that the policies are included in the contract.
Couldn't this idea of running fiber to homes really bring in a good, practical use for WDM?
I mean, we assign the SP a wavelength and now we can have competing SPs on the same links. WDM and its variants are really made for metro access anyway. We have the tech... if a city wants to build out the infrastructure, why not?
Its sort of like how in Texas, a neutral company runs the power lines and you can select any provider you want. The neutral company here just happens to be a muni.
http://www.space.com/spacenews/archive04/ciscoarch_042104.html
Mod parent up. There is no friggin way they're going to be able to use these terms to disconnect service solely for complaining about service provided. It would cause too many problems for At&t. At my job, we use similar language in our AUP so that we have a catch-all for all other idiotic activities that may not be specifically noted. Nothing to see here, move along. People are too paranoid
I still can't understand why sony has a reputation of such high value with the public. In my opinion, their products are crap and were worth more on a sheet of paper (intellectual property) than manufactured by sony.
but i have personal reasons.
who didn't see this coming?
I have one of them new fangled hsdpa devices. Pretty much, for what you would pay for it, it looks like any other cheap phone. It ought to look like a rich people phone given all it can do and how apparently exciting this is. But no. It looks cheap. Check out the Samsung ZX-20. Thats one of them.
all i have to say is wtf bbq... roflgasim
Greatt.... now we can look forward to hacking the "signed drivers" mechanism. Or shell out a fortune to get our home-made device drivers "signed"
Hell, if your enemy is playing that game, better to play it back. If someone was stealing my shit, I'd start breaking into their house too.
Bureocracy can't find stuff? Whats new.
FP!
What is the satalite going to be used for? FIRST POST!!!
most morons in the US that i can think of would allow such a search if presented the argument of 'if you have nothing to hide, why worry"
it has never made ANY sense to me as to why someone would willingly consent to a police search, but as i learned from my recent encounter, people really are too stupid to realize they have the right to say no.
The difference between freedom and opression are the rights of privacy afforded to us as citizens. The idea that monitering could POTENTIALLY come up with valuable information in fighting terror is outweighed by the individual's right to maintain one's items private. I mean, if you can't even come close to a hit, is the cost of jeopardizing our freedoms worth it? Remember, under our government, even criminals have rights afforded to them that can not be revoked without due process.
or instead of buying a scanner, buy some people to type it with you and have fun.
I remember when people said AMPS was the standard and that digital (old school TDMA or whatever) wouldn't ever make it big time. Oh, well.