[33118] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Sat Dec 30 01:41:59 2000
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:39:54 -0500 (EST)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net>
To: Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <NEBBJKIJGLMGELMBGHEOEEMLCNAA.ck@arch.bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0012300130420.5060-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Oh, come on. You must not monitor NANOG that much. Otherwise, you would
know that if I was flaming, anyone with a bell*.* address would be in a
burn ward. I was just making a simple observation. Can I help it if
every contact I've had, save one, with bell*.* has been a clueless,
old-fart, union-so-you-can't-replace-him-her-with-someone-with-clue,
wouldn't know a clue if it came up and bit them in the a$%@^$@%^ piece of
%^&#%&^#?!??? who is sucking up oxygen from the script kiddies (who while
I hate, may actually grow up some day and do something productive)??!!!???
Don't want to be associated with that stereotype? Get rid of 99% of your
organization or go to work for someone else.
BTW: I know from first hand experience. I had to leave a job at a bell*.*
company because as a 19 y/o. I made the 20/30/40/50/60 y/o's nervous as
far as their jobs were concerned.
'Nuff said.
---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>
> John,
>
> I disagree with Deron, albeit for different reasons. But I don't think the
> flame was neccessary.
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> --
> Christian Kuhtz <ck@arch.bellsouth.net> -wk, <ck@gnu.org> -hm
> Sr. Architect, Engineering & Architecture, BellSouth.net, Atlanta, GA, U.S.
> "I speak for myself only."
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> > John Fraizer
> > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 7:01 PM
> > To: Deron J. Ringen
> > Cc: Simon Lyall; nanog@merit.edu
> > Subject: RE: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Deron J. Ringen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> > > > Simon Lyall
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 3:03 PM
> > > > To: nanog@merit.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: RFC1918 addresses to permit in for VPN?
> > > .
> > > .
> > > > One of the companies we work with has 192.168 address for some of the
> > > > radius servers we have to talk to, we are directly connected to them so
> > > > it's not a big pain but it's just so ugly.
> > > .
> > > .
> > > That makes perfect sense to me...there is not a better way to
> > protect a box
> > > from a DOS/hack than to only give it a private address. Why expose a box
> > > to the outside world if there is not a need???
> >
> > Deron,
> >
> > Ever heard of an access list? Didn't think so.
> >
> > > Deron J. Ringen
> > > Sr. Network Architect
> > > BellSouth Internet Services
> >
> > Typical.
> >
> > ---
> > John Fraizer
> > EnterZone, Inc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
