> On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, Thomas C Kinnen wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, Jon Lewis wrote:
> >
> > > Why would you want to permit any source IP? If you're going to the
> > > trouble of making a filter, and you don't have a ridiculous number of CIDR
> > > blocks, then only allow the subset of possibly valid source addresses.
> >
> > You need to do that since anything not allowed is denied.
>
> That's the point. Re-read the above. I suspect at least some of the ISPs
> on the list understood it.
>
> Does anyone else think the net would be a better place if network hardware
> manufacturers had to run small ISPs or freenets? Then they would know
> exactly how their gear works in the "real world" and would be familiar
> with real world issues.
8) well some of the guys that work at Lucent RABU are either former owners
or techies from ISPs ... and Lucent RABU has a rule that employees may NOT
have an interest in a related company, such as I couldn't work there being
a shareholder/grunt for internet@vantage. It's called conflict of
interest...
Though it would be interesting to know if they do run a PM3/2 etc pool for
telecommuting for their employees...
Heck it's the 90s and they SHOULD allow telecommuting ;) wow, that'd be
one way to get MZ back... have him use VPN beta equipment from Mass and he
can return to doing what he did before ;)
-- Aloha from Paradise,Sherwood
- To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message. Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>