nanog mailing list archives
Re: MD5 proliferation statistics
From: John Kristoff <jtk () northwestern edu>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 09:20:25 -0500
On Thu, 6 May 2004 17:52:16 -0400 "Patrick W.Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
Unfortunately, my organization was not passive until we got to see what the threat actually was, so our numbers are not useful. Would any traffic-carrying-organization care to discuss their numbers?
<http://www.cctec.com/maillists/nanog/historical/0109/msg01381.html> After that post, DePaul's peering sessions peaked at about 50. If I'm not mistaken, only 1 new peer would not do MD5. The number doing MD5 for the first time probably went up slightly as well. In the end, one of those organizations who wouldn't do MD5 is no longer in operation and another, well, I'm here now and that was something on my list of to-do's. :-) John
Current thread:
- MD5 proliferation statistics Steve Gibbard (May 06)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Arnold Nipper (May 06)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Patrick W . Gilmore (May 06)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics John Kristoff (May 07)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Patrick W . Gilmore (May 06)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Stephen J. Wilcox (May 07)
- Re: MD5 proliferation statistics Arnold Nipper (May 06)