January 2008 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Level3 in the Midwest is KIA
by Justin Shore 25 Jan '08

25 Jan '08

L3 dropped us at 13:30CST. I've been told that whatever happened took out everything from KC to Wichita to Little Rock to Houston. No word on the cause and no ETA yet. They're handing us 37 routes which is a far cry from the roughly 237,000 we'd normally get. I recognize 3 of the routes too as routes local to the Wichita area. FYI Justin

2 2

Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
by J. Oquendo 24 Jan '08

24 Jan '08

Rod Beck wrote: > With all due respect, it is easy back into a person's identity or a > household's identity using the IP address together with other information. > > It's done all the time by ISPs for law enforcement and it's fruitless > for you to deny it. > No one said it wasn't easy all I'm saying is it's not definitive. Look at the case of the RIAA. RIAA Sues the Dead February 4, 2005 Thomas Mennecke The RIAA's campaign against alleged music pirates has been well-criticized for being overly ruthless. In their plight to eradicate file-sharing, the RIAA has pursued children, grandmothers and the destitute. In a move that many consider to only add insult to injury, the RIAA has sued 83 year old Gertrude Walton. The only problem is, Gertrude has been dead since December of 2004. ... Not only has the RIAA's legal tactics been criticized for its ruthlessness, but also the obvious inaccuracies that inevitably surface. While sharing information over a P2P network, there is no direct way for the RIAA to obtain your personal information. Under the guidelines of a "John Doe" lawsuit, the RIAA sues your IP address. The RIAA then goes to your ISP and matches the IP address with the date and time in question. http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=653 -- ==================================================== J. Oquendo SGFA #579 (FW+VPN v4.1) SGFE #574 (FW+VPN v4.1) wget -qO - www.infiltrated.net/sig|perl http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF684C42E

1 0

Re: network reputation [was: IP is...]
by Paul Ferguson 24 Jan '08

24 Jan '08

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- Gadi Evron <ge(a)linuxbox.org> wrote: >Security is a strong supporter of privacy as much as it is misused as an excuse for infringing upon it. > Very well stated. I agree completely. >Considering possibilities, other than avoiding spoofing, what would network reputation which is reliable help us do operationally? > Having now worked on both IP source-spoofing issues [0] (e.g RFC2827) and more recently dealing IP (and domain) reputation issues (Trend Micro acquired the original MAPS spam RBL reputation service [1]), I think I have a couple of thoughts on this that have relevance. The one thing that merits attention with the MAPS/Trend RBL+ is that we allow ISPs to literally "whitelist" dynamic address space, which most people know as the DUL list [2]. The only real "ownership" issues that we pay attention to [3] are the owners of the IP address space which source (via AS) the prefix, and still allow ISPs to work within that framework (via the DUL, and legitimate dynamic allocations). Having said all that, it is my personal opinion that there is merit in the notion that IP address can, and do, provide personally identifiable information -- but the I suppose the jury is really "out" on that, per se, in the United States. And whether or not that is "bad" is reflects a larger, more political question that we probably can't resolve on the mailing list. $.02, - - ferg ref: [0] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2827.txt [1] http://www.mail-abuse.com/enduserinfo_rbl.html [2] http://www.mail-abuse.com/enduserinfo_dul.html [3] https://nssg.trendmicro.com/nrs/reports/rank.php?page=1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHmCJRq1pz9mNUZTMRApVbAJkBVvAAWeJxP8GEVefacMjC/5CzSACfVP1t w27WIBUMIskf7CXRXMOblt0= =Wwm0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

request for help w/ ATT and terminology
by Mike Donahue 23 Jan '08

23 Jan '08

Hi. I'm by no means an ip/networking expert, and we're having some difficulty communicating with the boffins at AT&T. Any input/advice/translation would be appreciated. We own our own class C netblock. Our previous provider, Sprint, had no problem "adding" it to their network/advertising it (that circuit is now disconnected). We've started using an AT&T colo facility, and we're having a lot of trouble trying to get AT&T to do the same thing there that Sprint was able to do for us. AT&T is refusing to advertise our netblock/path it to our cabinet unless we have an AS number. ARIN has refused to give us one on the grounds (rightly so) that we're not multi-homed. AT&T says they'll give us a temporary ASN, and want us to do eBGP for our netblock. They sent the technical information over today, and they want two distinct routers to act as the bgp peers... Anyway, it's all getting (for us) pretty complicated. We're a fairly small firm and just want an Ethernet handoff with our IP block on it. Sprint didn't blink at the request, but AT&T... We're getting a good rate from AT&T for the IP services because it's at their colo. Switching back to Sprint would definitely be more costly. Questions: 1. Is what we're asking for unusual/uncalled for? 2. What's the technical terminology for the request for AT&T to simply start advertising our netblock called? I'm wondering if they're not understanding our request. Any other comments/input/suggestions welcomed. Thanks in advance, Mike Donahue WATG

32 62

Global Crossing issues?
by Drew Linsalata 23 Jan '08

23 Jan '08

Based on reports from customers on both sides of the US, we're thinking that Global Crossing is experiencing performance problems. Ingress points into GBLX from Comcast in the east and GoDaddy in the west are both showing significant packet loss and higher latencies. A quick look at Keynote: http://internetpulse.net/ shows that GBLX looks a little uglier than the others for the past 24 hours. Admittedly, I'm not sure if the GBLX stats always look like this. :-) Is anyone else seeing similar problems? We're waiting for something from GBLX now. If we get anything definitive that we are free to pass along I will do so. - Drew

2 1

AT&T DSL Support IVR issue
by Jason Gurtz 23 Jan '08

23 Jan '08

I'm posting under the assumption that many larger orgs may be involved with dsl at remote sites and would potentially need vendor support when a problem occurs with their AT&T adsl. Since the middle of December 2007 we have been unable to obtain support by following these steps: Call AT&T national support line at 1.877.722.3755 Say "no" Enter <DSL Line#> on keypad Say "tech support" Say "no" Say "yes" Say "Connection Problem" At this point the IVR reports that it will transfer to a customer support rep....followed by a pause...Followed by this announcement: "You've reached a non-working number at teletech. Please hang up and try your call again." Then it hangs up. Just today, after a month of contacting AT&T and being told we were crazy at multiple levels we may have someone who can help but we're interested if anyone at other locations in the U.S. has experienced the same issue. Yes, it would be great if the system could be changed to support keypad phone tree entry in addition or instead of voice input. kthx O yes, calling sales to get support did the trick. ~JasonG --

1 0

Re: v6 gluelessness
by Andreas Ott 22 Jan '08

22 Jan '08

Hi, even if Randy is successful to get IPv6 glue records added to the the root zone, how would I get to them? This is not obvious from my corner of the net. $ grep -i AAAA named.root $ grep -i AAAA named.cache $ $ for l in a b c d e f g h i j k l m ; do host -t aaaa $l.root-servers.net ; done a.root-servers.net has no AAAA record b.root-servers.net has no AAAA record c.root-servers.net has no AAAA record d.root-servers.net has no AAAA record e.root-servers.net has no AAAA record f.root-servers.net has no AAAA record g.root-servers.net has no AAAA record h.root-servers.net has no AAAA record i.root-servers.net has no AAAA record j.root-servers.net has no AAAA record k.root-servers.net has no AAAA record l.root-servers.net has no AAAA record m.root-servers.net has no AAAA record $ -andreas -- Andreas Ott K6OTT andreas(a)naund.org

14 29

RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
by Frank Bulk 22 Jan '08

22 Jan '08

I'm not struggling -- anyone else volunteer that they are? It costs to upgrade plant/equipment to meet traffic growth, but it's being done and no one is saying that their prices are going up. Even from the customer perspective, the bang for their buck has continued to rise. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Roderick Beck [mailto:roderickbeck@tmo.blackberry.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:45 AM To: frnkblk(a)iname.com; michael.dillon(a)bt.com; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Hi Frank, My impression is that IP networks are struggling. Do you disagree? -R. Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile. -----Original Message----- From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk(a)iname.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:21:08 To:<michael.dillon(a)bt.com>, <nanog(a)merit.edu> Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial Which of the telecom service providers is moaning about being a provider? This conversation started with Time Warner's metered trial, and they aren't doing it in response to people complaining -- I'm pretty sure there was a financial/marketing motive here. There are some subscribers who complain about asymmetrical speeds, and some members of this listserv who fall into that category, but I would hazard a guess that less than 5% of the entire N.A residential subscriber base would actually pay a premium to have higher upstream speeds (we provide that option with our service today for an extra $10 and very few take it). And for that small base, an operator isn't about to rebuild or overbuild their network. Oh, they'll keep it in mind as they upgrade and enhance their network, but upstreams speeds aren't an issue that cause them to lie awake at night. I think FiOS as a competitive factor will move them more quickly to better their upstreams, though. So I don't think telecom providers think they are in the ghettos, and neither do most customers. As for creative technology, I'll let someone else buy DOCSIS 3.0 first and drive down prices with their volumes -- I'll join them in 3-5 years. On the DSL side, the work on VDSL2 demonstrates the greatest benefits on short loops. I haven't see any technology that serves fantastic upstream speeds at 1, 2 and 3x a CSA. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of michael.dillon(a)bt.com Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 5:36 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial > There are symmetric versions for all of those. But ever > since the dialup days (e.g. 56Kbps modems had slower reverse > direction) consumers have shown a preference for a bigger > number on the box, even if it meant giving up bandwidth in > the one direction. > > For example, how many people want SDSL at 1.5Mbps symmetric > versus ADSL at 6Mbps/768Kbps. The advertisment with the > bigger number wins the consumer. Seems to me that Internet SERVICE Providers have all turned into telecom companies and the only thing that matters now is providing IP circuits. If P2P is such a problem for providers who supply IP circuits over wireless and cable, why don't they try going up a level and provide Internet SERVICE instead? For instance, every customer could get a virtual server that they can access via VNC with some popular P2P packages preinstalled. The P2P software could recognize when it's talking over "preferred" circuits such as local virtual servers or over peering connections that aren't too expensive, and prefer those. If the virtual servers are implemented on Linux, there is a technology called FUSE that could be used to greatly increase the capacity of the disk farm by not storing multiple copies of the same file. Rather than moaning about the problems of being a telecom provider, people could apply some creative technology to get out of the telecom ghetto. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Comcast email block list human point of contact...
by Jason West 22 Jan '08

22 Jan '08

I have tried numerous times to get a couple of different IPs of mailservers (our corporate mail server as well as a few of our customers'). I have gone through the web page automated removal process, and each time I do, I receive notice that the blocks have been removed, but then test emails sent to comcast.net still fail. I would like to talk to an actual person who can actually help get this resolved. Thanks, Jason

1 0

Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial
by Scott McGrath 22 Jan '08

22 Jan '08

No we do not however we are allocated a invariant budget to deliver services for a fixed period of time. We cannot 'raise' prices as the pot of funds needs to be allocated to scholarship, teaching, housing and all the other things which make up a university we provide a service which must be available 7x24 for a fixed amount of funds. So even though we do not face a profit/loss calculus cost control is a key driver for us as every dollar not spent for IT can be redirected into scholarships for deserving students. Our problem on the residential networking side is finding the balance between unfettered access which is untenable and providing a service which allocates the available pool of bits fairly among the average customers and trying to accomodate the large users who are downloading the latest Ubuntu ISO's without causing undue pain for either. For instance at Columbia resnets implement the same policy I posited in my initial response. But I REALLY dont want to go back to the days of .25cts/minute access to the internet if we do that the entire thing will collapse due to the financial uncertainty and the internet will go back to being a curiosity for Education and Government as it will be deemed 'too expensive' by the masses. But it just seems that the telco's just cannot give up the concept of metered access for instance I use DSL at home which is PPPoE which means many 'broadband' devices are unusable here sure it terminates on a PIX but the PIX does not have a finger to press the reset button on the 'required by contract' access device sure I could directly terminate it but since I live in a rural area I need my ISP more than the ISP needs me hence devices which need 'always on' access are a pipe dream as my service is 'on most of the time'. Roderick Beck wrote: > Universities don't face a profit calculus. > > And universities are also instituting rationing as well. > > -R. > Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott McGrath <mcgrath(a)fas.harvard.edu> > > Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:00:19 > To:"Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> > Cc:nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: An Attempt at Economically Rational Pricing: Time Warner Trial > > > > Why does the industry as a whole keep trying to drag us back to the old > days of Prodigy, CompuServe, AOL and really high rates per minute of > access. I am old enough to remember BOS>c202202 <return> > > The 'Internet' only took off in adoption once flat rate pricing became > the norm for access. Yes there are P2P pigs out there but a more > common scenario is the canonical "Little Old Lady in a Pink Sweater" > with a compromised box which is sending spam at a great rate. Should > she pay the $500 bill when it arrives or would a more prudent and > rational approach be like some universities do. > > i.e. Unthrottled pipe until you hit some daily limit like 1-2 gb and > then your pipe drops to something like 64k until midnight or so. This > keeps the 'pigs' in line and you might want to add a SUPER tier which > would allow truly unlimited use of the pipe for $200-300 because for > some people it would be worth it for them. It's human nature to > desire a degree of predictability > in day to day affairs and as another poster noted that's why prepaid > phones are popular now. Further with the compromised system analogy I > purchased a prepaid phone for my wife who is a teacher so in the event > it was stolen at school the financial loss would be limited to the > prepaid balance, no multi-thousand dollar bill for overseas calls. "You > used the minutes (bandwidth) didn't you?". > > Ultimately there is no option but to build out the network as we have > found on the university side of the house as digital instructional > materials and entertainment delivery over the net will > become the norm instead of sending bits of plastic through the mail > (except for luddites like me ;-}). > > Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >> On Jan 18, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Michael Holstein wrote: >> >> >>> The problem is the inability of the physical media in TWC's case >>> (coax) to support multiple simultaneous users. They've held off >>> infrastructure upgrades to the point where they really can't offer >>> "unlimited" bandwidth. TWC also wants to collect on their "unlimited" >>> package, but only to the 95% of the users that don't really use it, >>> and it appears they don't see working to accommodate the other 5% as >>> cost-effective. >>> >> I seriously doubt it the coax that is the problem. >> >> And even if that is a limitation, upgrading the last mile still will >> not allow for "unlimited" use by a typical set of users these days. >> Backhaul, peering, colocation, etc., are not free, plentiful, or >> trivial to operate. >> >> >> >>> My guess is the market will work this out. As soon as it's >>> implemented, you'll see AT&T commercials in that town slamming cable >>> and saying how DSL is "really unlimited". >>> >> I do not doubt that. But do you honestly expect the at&t DSL line to >> provide faster / more reliable access? >> >> Hint: Whatever your answer, it will be right or wrong for a given time >> in the near future. >> >>

14 21