Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Is he a senior? (Score 1) 249

by CyprusBlue113 (#47771285) Attached to: TechCentral Scams Call Center Scammers

This also explains using names like John Connor. You and I would be able to recognize the source of the name. It's much less likely that a senior citizen would, so it gives them a way to filter out the people least likely to fall for the scam.

Really? The original Terminator movie came out in 1984. People now in their 60s would have been about the same age as most of us here. Someone now in their 90s might not know about the movie, but I would bet at least as many people in their 60s and 70s know the name John Connor as do people in their teens and 20s.

Actually it would be the opposite.

The original terminator movie came out in 1984, the sequel came out in 1992. Someone born in 1984 is now 32 years old, you get a lot of people in their 20's who have never seen terminator.

If we add a non-western culture into the mix (in Australia, a lot of these telemarketers/scammers have thick Indian accents) they will likely have never seen Terminator, let alone make the John Conor connection. Also, it's not an unusual name.

I want to know how someone born in 1984 is somehow 32 years old in 2014. This isn't even hard math. The last digit is the same...

Comment: Re:consider the source (Score 1) 529

Jeff Sessions, Tea Party Guy. Of course he's going to take the nativist view. He probably thinks Microsoft could just take the 18,000 people it's laying off and repurpose them to fill whatever positions it's trying to use H1B visas for. Because tech skills are interchangeable, right? And all those 18,000 are totally okay relocating across the country (or globe) right?

Just because a lot of his opinions are idiotic, doesn't mean this one is. Tea Party people terrify me, and I still agree with this point.

If all you see is the source in a vote, and not the individual messages or topics, you're part of the problem in our system of government.

Comment: Re:Good! (Score 1) 619

by CyprusBlue113 (#47277941) Attached to: 2 US Senators Propose 12-Cent Gas Tax Increase

You think we'd have a lot of money if we didn't spend it on wars, imagine how much we would have if we didn't spend it on Welfare (corporate and social) which represents a MUCH larger number.

We could buy every working person a new fuel efficient car every year and repave all the interstates and still have money left over.

Yeah, all we have to do is kill the indigent, poor, lazy, and crippled. Imagine what a better world it would be.

Comment: Re:The FCC has no right to dictate terms (Score 2) 208

#1 is critically important. It is my understanding that getting land rights to put up poles and lay cable is the largest hurdle for many potential providers, to the point of making it cost prohibitive. And who is lobbying to keep it that way? The one provider already in the area. This must be fixed. I agree with you that a free-er (as opposed to completely free) market solution is the best. We just need some ground rules to ensure that competition can be made fair.

Too many people are looking to strong-arm the companies with strict regulation instead of looking at the situation and providing an environment in which the free market can work. We haven't really had a chance for the free market to work, and #1 is a great example of why, so we haven't seen what the free market can do in this sector.

Let's try the less-government solution first. If that doesn't work, then we can go to the more-government later. We can ALWAYS get more government later. It's excruciatingly difficult to go the other direction.

No, you idiot, because this: http://trillastravels.files.wo...

Comment: Re:Pretty Thin Ray of Hope (Score 2) 56

'You can't kid a kidder. Having been a lobbyist, he knows all their tricks,' says Blair Levin.

So this is what we've been reduced to? The disconsolate wish, having turned the regulatory body over to one of the kleptarchs, that he will discover not only his duty to society but also unbiased objectivity, and turn on his own? A ray of hope so thin strains my credulity.

I don't know, if done right it can go really well. See Joseph Kennedy and the initial SEC. He may actually be on the up and up, only time will tell.

Comment: Re:Root issue is lack of URPF and similar (Score 1) 92

by CyprusBlue113 (#46282367) Attached to: 200-400 Gbps DDoS Attacks Are Now Normal

Let me try this as simple as I can. Just because you ran BGP with your provider, does not make you a peer or transit network.

You just said default route. That is a leaf node. You're at the end of the world. You are not peering. uRPF is useful when you're a leaf. It is *completely useless as a real peer* in it's current form.

Let me illustrate this for you with a completely made up scenario: You are Telia, you peer with Abovenet in 3 places, how do you configure uRPF on those links so that it keeps spoofed packets out and doesn't break all your downstreams?

Comment: Re:Root issue is lack of URPF and similar (Score 1) 92

by CyprusBlue113 (#46281193) Attached to: 200-400 Gbps DDoS Attacks Are Now Normal

As one who has maintained an ISP's peering, it is no where near as complicated as you make it sound. Enterprise class hardware (from Cisco, Juniper, etc.) have builtin support for unicast reverse path filtering (uRPF) that's effectively processing free -- based on the routing table ("FIB" -- forwarding information base) -- very effectively preventing traffic from entering (or leaving) your network that doesn't belong there.

(As an end user, uRPF presents a small problem as the ISP DHCP server is a 10-net host and I null route 10/8.)

Yes obviously, which can be implemented in 2 modes: strict, which is useless as an upstream peer because you don't necessarily have best path down to them for everything you're hearing, or as loose, which is again useless as an upstream peer because you might as well turn it right off.

Dude, clearly you have no idea what you just read.

Comment: Re:Root issue is lack of URPF and similar (Score 2) 92

by CyprusBlue113 (#46255333) Attached to: 200-400 Gbps DDoS Attacks Are Now Normal

The problem with this becomes what if you're a transit provider yourself. The logistics of managing that kind of fitering suck. It's why most peers don't.

There needs to be a middle ground between loose and strict like feasable. I don't want to accept packets for any route I have, nor do I want to drop any packet that doesn't head back the same direction. For reasonable filtering at that level, it needs to be "allow any packets that should reasonably come from this peer per their advisement that I can filter". Sure you can base it of IRR or something, but it would be much more effective if this was signaled than configured.

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.