- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

RE: [nznog] Zombies
by Gordon Smith 09 Jun '04

09 Jun '04

Neil gets my vote. This is by far the best solution I've seen in years :-) And it's extendable to other protocols as well..... Cheers, Gordon

1 0

Re: [nznog] Zombies
by neil gardner 09 Jun '04

09 Jun '04

Point taken. OK, revised suggestion is this: Cut port 25 entirely, when people call to complain, press a button to play this recorded message. "Dear customer, in order to combat the Child pornography, Terrorist communications and Spam being sent by infected computers - WHICH YOU MAY HAVE! - we have blocked all popular email programs form communicating to the Intarweb thingy. In future, please feel free to use http://webmail.isp.co.nz for your email requirements. If on the other hand you support Child Pornography, are a member of an active Terrorist Cell, or wish to get a b1gger p3nis now!, then please press (1) and we'll unblock your evil Email connection." Cheers - Neil G ps. Sorry - I'll get back ontopic by about Tuesday week. :-) >>> Juha Saarinen <juha(a)saarinen.org> 10/06/2004 2:58:56 p.m. >>> neil gardner wrote: > To be fair though, in mentioning an opt-out system I was thinking of > clueful users deliberately running their own servers that would notice > within minutes that port 25 had been blocked - "Hey Mr/Ms Helldesker, how come nobody can send us mail anymore?" -- Juha NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender has the authority to issue and specifically states them to be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.

1 0

Re: [nznog] Zombies
by neil gardner 09 Jun '04

09 Jun '04

>>> Simon Lyall <simon(a)darkmere.gen.nz> 10/06/2004 1:46:38 p.m. >>> >It looks like there are lot of NZ based Zombies sending very large amounts >of Spam ( much of it in German) to some ISPs. Would it not be relatively easy to drop all port 25 traffic unless it was directed at your own SMTP server? * (Or are the Zombies sending through your SMTP anyway?) Cheers - N. * - Allow an opt out for anyone that even notices - if they notice, they won't be part of the problem. NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender has the authority to issue and specifically states them to be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.

3 2

Trade Me changes
by paul gold 09 Jun '04

09 Jun '04

Please be advised that the Trade Me group of sites are currently undergoing an addressing update. DNS records were changed last night, and all routing for our new address ranges continues to be via our upstream AT&T. Major sites affected; trademe.co.nz oldfriends.co.nz safetrader.co.nz findsomeone.co.nz (findsomeone.com.au, findsomeone.ca and personalstuff.co.nz plus other minority 'skins') circleoffriends.co.nz (circleoffriends.com.au) We are also physically moving the 'farm', which will introduce a number of interruptions and periods of downtime between Thursday 2300 and Friday 0700.

1 0

RE: [nznog] Google and MaxNet
by neil gardner 09 Jun '04

09 Jun '04

>>> "Craig Spiers" <craig(a)concept.net.nz> 10/06/2004 11:10:01 a.m. >>> >Heh.. Telecom ADSL's charges are for the data traveling across the telecom >data network, regardless where its come from.. This is a different situation >altogether.. You know what? I can't figure out if you're joking or serious :-) Really! N. NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender has the authority to issue and specifically states them to be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.

1 0

RE: [nznog] Google and MaxNet
by Regan Murphy 09 Jun '04

09 Jun '04

> In the past, caching has made some sense for accelerating > content to clients. I like it when I download a service pack from microsoft (for example) and the 100MB comes in at 20Mbps instead of the 512kbps that my international pipe is limited to. The fact that it may only technically be local traffic but I get charged for international traffic makes no difference because I would have no choice but to be paying international rates if there was no cache. When security/antivirus vendors release patches and updates is there a large increase in international bandwidth use or do the caches assist there? Caching must also be good for sites where there limited bandwith is at the server end too. -- Regan

4 5

RE: [nznog] Google and MaxNet
by Gordon Smith 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

Hahaha... but they were better than some of the other commercial offerings out there. I have heard good things about the more recent squid code (haven't tried it though) - but who wants to maintain bypass lists just because users want to use dodgy web software :-( > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Wicks [mailto:nzog(a)road.gen.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2004 1:23 p.m. > To: 'David Fox'; 'Steve' > Cc: 'NZ Network Operators Group' > Subject: RE: [nznog] Google and MaxNet > > > Well, maybe it's just that Cacheflows suck ? > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Fox [mailto:foxy(a)morenet.net.nz] > Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2004 1:12 p.m. > To: Steve > Cc: NZ Network Operators Group > Subject: RE: [nznog] Google and MaxNet > > > I agree wholeheartedly with Steve comments below, the cost saving is > negligible while the required resource to administer was > high. I redeployed > my cache to a new position in our network: it is working very > well as a > footrest under my desk. > > I found removing the cache actually improved overall performance, my > customers - and even managers - noticed the improvement ... > some of them > even rang to say Thanks (that makes a change!) > > David >

1 0

RE: [nznog] Google and MaxNet
by Gordon Smith 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

I don't think its so much particular brands that are an issue, but rather the sheer volume of poorly designed websites. With the popularity of MS Word & Frontpage, there seems to be a lot of ignorance relating to the W3C standards. In the past, caching has made some sense for accelerating content to clients. As far as bandwidth savings go, I've never seen that achieved to the point that it made them worthwhile in that role. They can improve performance as perceived by the customer, but bypass lists rapidly become unwieldy when trying to compensate for sites that don't adhere to standards. Overall, in terms of TCO, they're probably not worth having in place any more Cheers, Gordon > -----Original Message----- > From: Juha Saarinen [mailto:juha(a)saarinen.org] > Sent: Wednesday, 9 June 2004 1:13 p.m. > To: Alastair Johnson > Cc: NZ Network Operators Group > Subject: Re: [nznog] Google and MaxNet > > > So which caches have people had success/hassle with? > > -- > Juha

1 0

Re: [nznog] Google and MaxNet
by neil gardner 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

>>> Joe Abley <jabley(a)isc.org> 9/06/2004 12:52:46 p.m. >>> >Akamai has nodes in New Zealand, though. Or are you suggesting that NZ >ISPs routinely cache domestic content as well as content from overseas? >Joe Well they might have to start caching Domestic traffic shortly if Peering goes the way the big players would like it to go. Cheers - N. NOTICE: This message contains privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify Allied Telesyn Research Ltd immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender has the authority to issue and specifically states them to be the views of Allied Telesyn Research.

1 0

Transparent Caching (was Google and Maxnet)
by Templeman Colin 08 Jun '04

08 Jun '04

A good topic! I 'discovered' transparent proxies recently when I was trying to resolve a problem I had obtaining security patches from security.debian.org via http. Other than having recently changed to cable broadband via Telstraclear, nothing (including apt sources) was altered, yet I was getting timeouts. After a couple of weeks of this, I eventually provided a comparison of latency output from 'ping' vs 'hping' to security.debian.org before the call was tacitly acknowledged and the problem silently fixed. I agree with Joe that they are an overhead when it comes to managing exceptions. -- Colin Templeman Security Analyst IT Risk and Security New Zealand Post Ltd This email with any attachments is confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If it is not intended for you please reply immediately, destroy it and do not copy, disclose or use it in any way.

1 0