silvan
they've presented the product on swinog last time: http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog17/20081022_SWINOG.pdf
-steven
_____
From: swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] On Behalf Of Silvan Michael Gebhardt Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 11:56 PM To: Matthias Leisi Cc: swinog@swinog.ch Subject: Re: [swinog] Post from Canton de Vaud
There is one commercial solution out there I have heard about,
netclean Whitebox.
only problem? blind on one eye.
Quote: "The NetClean WhiteBox does not currently support IPV6"
Source of Quote? http://adminblog.ch/2009/01/ipv6-traffic-existiert/
lg silvan
Am 17.02.2009 um 23:44 schrieb Matthias Leisi:
Oliver Bollisger schrieb:
but what is the best method? blocking ip traffic to the site can also
mean to block legitimate traffic to a shared hosting server!?
Filter the traffic for specific IPs/networks/etc (eg by playing some BGP games) through transparent proxies and redirect "forbidden" traffic to a suitable target (or /dev/null).
Yes, that is an engineering challenge, but feasible.
Yes, that is a legal challenge, but it can be done in ways compatible with constitutional rights and contractual obligations.
Yes, that contradicts many fundamental principles of how many people perceive the Internet, but that is a weak argument in public discussion.
Yes, judges from the canton of Vaud seem to be specifically incompetent and impertinent, but this can not be corrected by whining on a techie mailing list.
Note that I'm far from endorsing or supporting such decisions, but that I'm just asking for more effective ways to unmask the short-sightedness of the judges orders.
-- Matthias _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog