IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [80attendees] Thank you CZ hosts

Chris Elliott <chelliot@pobox.com> Mon, 04 April 2011 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <chelliot@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 80attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 80attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AC63A69F0 for <80attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 07:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.034, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1jwY7S-pU2n5 for <80attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 07:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2993A6803 for <80attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 07:28:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxk30 with SMTP id 30so2571170yxk.31 for <80attendees@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 07:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from :subject:date:to; bh=QDjipSd+CAIVKx+qcUCuefXw8+tJibgrMs9HP6thmE8=; b=Ki8FOcRy5MfAJS/yy71JwrqGOk4xAwPCCwAEBgCrATsxpSHoAeWvb3W42tGLTyhMT0 hCVxn8XYznrPbQc5yheOya1W9yrHDpO/CI/vNj06+BSD2YqSfdNnHfDX2Kn79jRb40Ql KWjFLkX9x9IRzRJwwT40suciLOgCNdPsfunoI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from :subject:date:to; b=cO3AHPh1rqLUfWrHrXSaEaz9i+iKuEj9KfoQn0YDE51nOriHMTvjJx8lnzuH+Ppd50 80Ue61Jl6x0vvefW+CgVU89/Kcc2HgvQiwIk1Yt4vCaKlXCeUFLUDqpKwn0h4jUU2zK1 THadjMTMOW0t2cUFtx0pJh2oJqgcm1CJ5mZxI=
Received: by 10.150.48.38 with SMTP id v38mr7574933ybv.317.1301927397140; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 07:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.103] (cpe-098-026-014-181.nc.res.rr.com [98.26.14.181]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q29sm2175147ybk.10.2011.04.04.07.29.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 04 Apr 2011 07:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Chris Elliott <chelliot@gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104011050160.5627@ryouko.imsb.nrc.ca> <4D996E91.7070308@sidn.nl> <13D82FF2-947F-4C6D-B0DC-D749327224C6@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|799b930d7966829c169eb91b401fe917n33AAH03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|13D82FF2-947F-4C6D-B0DC-D749327224C6@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|799b930d7966829c169eb91b401fe917n33AAH03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|13D82FF2-947F-4C6D-B0DC-D749327224C6@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 8F190)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Message-Id: <D32EA894-4E65-42F6-B3CE-DE2F8B2A5F33@pobox.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (8F190)
From: Chris Elliott <chelliot@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:29:50 -0400
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: "80attendees@ietf.org" <80attendees@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [80attendees] Thank you CZ hosts
X-BeenThere: 80attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF 80 attendees list <80attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/80attendees>, <mailto:80attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/80attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:80attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:80attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/80attendees>, <mailto:80attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:28:15 -0000

On Apr 4, 2011, at 5:10 AM, Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> And not a single rogue RA on the (very reliable thanks NOC et al!) wireless...

Thanks!

> was RA Guard in place? :)

We filter RAs on the switches coming in from the APs and wired user ports, such as the terminal room ports. It's a Cisco access list.

We allow client to client communications on the wireless network (where we can't filter DHCP server and RA packets), so, if fewer rogue RAs were seen even on the same BSSID then I suspect we are also seeing fewer misconfigured clients.

Chris.


--
Chris Elliott
CCIE # 2013
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email