I'd like to reminde you SwiNOG meeting (#28) is happening on May 6th
2015. The event will be held at the Gurtenpark in Berne.
Registration is open. The agenda is available on the meeting
We hope to see you *all* at SwiNOG-28!
Have a nice week,
on behalf of the whole SwiNOG Core-Team
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Unfortunately, my supplier needs more than 1 Month to ship me my
LRAT-2000 so it's too late for a project.
Does anyone have a similar device for me?
Ethernet Testing Gigabit, ideally plus POE Load Testing.
I'll pick it up - and bring beer or whatever is asked for :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
We have some older Cisco Material to be given away
5 Stk Cisco 6509 NEBS with Sup720 3BXL, 6704, 6724, (incl Xenpacks)
10 Stk Cisco 3550 12T
9 Stk Cisco 3550 12G
2 Stk Cisco 3550-24
10 Stk Cisco 2960
10 Stk Cisco 2940
5 Stk Cisco ME3440G-2
15 Stk Cisco ME3750-24
Some old HP Servers
All equipment is EndOfSale and EndOfSupport, but still working fine. It had been treated very nicely!
All equipment must be picked up at our premises.
If interested, please send an offer offlist to ruedi.hofer(a)ewb.ch<mailto:email@example.com>
Leiter Telecom Center
Energie Wasser Bern
Monbijoustrasse 11, Postfach, 3001 Bern
Telefon direkt +41 31 321 3778
ewb.INTERNET - das neue Berner Internet. Jetzt gratis testen.
Who else experiences that problem since a couple of days?
$ whois direktion.ch
The number of requests per client per time interval is
restricted. You have exceeded this limit.
Please wait a moment and try again.
(query was done via IPv6)
$ whois -h 220.127.116.11 direktion.ch
whois: This information is subject to an Acceptable Use Policy.
I'm not doing more than max 10 queries/week from that specific ipv6 address,
probably much less.
I'm not aware of having other clients within my /48 network doing any queries
to whois.nic.ch (yes, my blacklist scripts do a lot of queries to
whois.ripe.net and other RIR's to get abuse contacts, but not to switch)
> We see a lot of such viruses at the moment.
> Clamav is desperately behind all other AV's at the moment...
We see them too. It seems Upatre is morphing very quickly, so signature
based AV solutions will always be behind. Here Cloudmark recognizes new
variants of Upatre in about one hour after the first one arrives, but in
that one hour lots of them arrive. So we decided to just block all
emails with EXE-in-ZIP attachments.
I've been contacted by a couple of customers which caught a new virus in
the last few days, sent by e-mail in a .zip file containing an .exe.
(yes, there are still people out there who open these kind of
attachments if they come from a known address)
The .zip file passes our AV on the mailserver (Kaspersky) as well as our
desktop AV (Symantec) with the newest definitions.
Once infected, it spreads via e-mail (probably through the outlook
e-mail profile, it authenticates nicely against our mailserver anyway)
blasting out hundreds of mails in a single short session only to sleep
again until the next day...
Has anybody else seen this? Is there a name or details or cure fo it yet?
Mike Kellenberger | Escapenet GmbH
+41 52 235 0700/04
> Has anybody evaluated this solution or is running in production ? Any
> feedback would be welcome.
We have a FortiVM in production use for several years now and we are
happy with it. Performance is good, it's stable, no major problems.
There might be differences in performance concerning the ASICs as
mentioned by Ralf, but for our use performance was always more than enough.
One caveat: Don't use the vmxnet2 or vmxnet3 drivers for the NICs. Use
the e1000. FortiNet provides images with vmxnet* drivers, but this
configuration is not supported by VMware for vsphere. It has been
working until vsphere 5.5. With vsphere 5.5 the FortiVM freezes at every
snapshot taken. We then changed the NIC type to e1000, no problems since
Please note that the FortiVM is just a replacement for a FortiGate. It
does not use SDDC as the FortiGate-VMX.
We are in the process of evaluating “cloud" firewall solutions such as
FortiVM. The promise of these virtual appliances looks interesting and it
seems like a great fit given our current infrastructure is based off of
Fortigate physical appliances.
Nonetheless, I can’t help but think that given the virtual appliance
nature of these solutions there could be a number of limitations to it.
Has anybody evaluated this solution or is running in production ? Any
feedback would be welcome.
Also for our sales friends, if you can provide us a competitive quote
off-list we’re interested as the pricing we’ve received so far is a bit
Have a nice day and thank you for your help,