- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Time to think about a new NANOG AUP?
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 14 Feb '07

14 Feb '07

> I agree with Gadi. Everything which affects Internet > stability (e.g. DNS > denial-of-service attacks) deserves attention of network > operators. IMHO > it's time to think about a new NANOG AUP. Back in the beginning of December, I posted a message: http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog-futures/msg01600.html which points out that times have changed over the past 10 years and that we need to change to accomodate the new realities. This discussion really belongs on the nanog-futures mailing but it isn't easy to find where to subscribe that list. For the record, if you look on this page: http://www.nanog.org/email.html you can subscribe to nanog-futures and tell us what you think a new AUP would look like. --Michael Dillon

1 0

RE: Solaris telnet vuln solutions digest and network risks
by michael.dillon＠bt.com 14 Feb '07

14 Feb '07

> Subject: Re: Solaris telnet vuln solutions digest and network risks > This post appears to have been written for another mailing > list (where it is > probably on-topic). Why did you repost it to NANOG-L? Do you know of any network operators who have no Solaris boxes at all used in the management of some part of their network? Seems to me that it is very common for network operators to use Solaris boxes to manage their networks. And while they may have ACLs to prevent access from the outside world, this probably does not prevent employee access. So it is a big deal when there is an exploit that allows anyone to break into these management devices. Also, there is a subset of network operators whose business is hosting servers and these companies often use Solaris servers at least partly. Again, seems relevant to me. By the way, your posting seems to have been written for purposes which are not on-topic on this list. Why did you post it to NANOG-L? --Michael Dillon

3 2

Virtual Global Task Force Conference Invitation
by Jonathan Disher 14 Feb '07

14 Feb '07

This is from Travis Haymore of DHS/ICE Cyber Crimes Center: You are invited to attend the Virtual Global Task Force Conference being held in Washington, DC on the 21st and 22nd of February at the Renaissance Mayflower Hotel. The Virtual Global Taskforce (VGT) is made up of law enforcement agencies from around the world working together to fight child exploitation online. The aim of the VGT is to build an effective, international partnership of law enforcement agencies and Internet industry partners, to protect children from online child exploitation. Speakers: Jim Gamble - Chairman, Virtual Global Taskforce & Chief Executive of Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, UK Julie Myers - Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Joe Sullivan - Joe Sullivan is a recognised authority on this subject now seconded to CEOP. He is an Honorary Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Birmingham. Kevin Zuccato - Federal Agent, Australian Federal Police & Director of Australian Hi Tech Crime Centre David Gork - Director for Specialized Crime, Interpol John P. Clark - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Ernie Allen - President and Chief Executive Officer, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) Earla-Kim McColl - National Child Exploitation Co-ordination Centre, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Maggie Eno - M'Lop Tapang ("Under the Tree") Cambodia Dr Ethel Quayle - Director, The COPINE Project, University College Cork, Ireland Interested parties should see www.vgtconference.com for registration. If you have any questions, please feel free to contract Travis directly at 703-293-8005.

3 2

Re: Every incident is an opportunity
by Robert Bonomi 13 Feb '07

13 Feb '07

> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:05:08 GMT > From: Brandon Butterworth <brandon(a)rd.bbc.co.uk> > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Every incident is an opportunity > > > > During the cold war American kids > > > were trained to hide beneath their desktops in caseof a nuclear > > > attack. Much good that would have done. > > It could have kept them from running around the streets screaming we're > all going to die. > > It may well save people if they are on the edge of the survival zone, > that may not be a good idea but at least they know what to expect > > I don't pretend to know the real reason but keeping control is usually > better even if you can't change the outcome. There is a 'relatively small' area around ground-zero where it wouldn't make any difference what action was taken -- virtually everyone in that radius would be a 'prompt kill' causalty, regardless. 0utside the 'prompt kill' radius, there is a much larger circle where blast/concussion/over-pressure effects are the major cause of _immediate_ injury. _Most_ school-buildings in metro areas were of 'relatively' _survivable_ construction. Although there was likely to be significant damage -- flying glass from broken windows, airborne 'projectile' objects, possible minor thermal-flash triggered fires, etc. -- the buildings were not likely to suffer total collapse. 'Tornado safety' precautions -- "get underground, if you can,", and "get under something _solid_" -- are effective in minimizing immediate injuries. Many urban schools simply _did_not_ have basements. So that 'safety hatch' was not available. In the event of an imminent nuclear 'event', you just DON'T have any 'good' options. Depending on the delivery system, you may have a _maximum_ of from three (3) to 25 minutes warning. This isn't enough time to send the kids home. Assuming home provides better protection than the school building. *BIG* assumption. You don't have a basement to retreat to. You sure-as-hell don't want the kids gawking out the window, and ending up looking into the blast -- even from a range that wouldn't break windows. So, you make the 'best use' of what resources you _do_ have available. You cannot do much about preveting/reducing radiation injury. Given the situational constraints you have to work within. Blast/concussion/over-pressure is another story. When that procedure was promulgated, many classrooms had heavy wooden trestle-type desks. Getting _under_ them was some of the 'best protection available' against flying/falling 'foreign objects'. It is also a matter of experimental fact that having a _plan_ to do 'something' in event of an emergency -- 'right', 'wrong', or 'worthless' -- *IS* better than having no plans. "No plans" degenerates very quicly into 'panic', which is virtually always the 'worst possible thing'. 'Duck and cover' may not have appreciably incresed survival odds for those relatively near ground-zero, but it was (a) "better than nothing", and (b) about the "best that could be done", given the real-world constraints that did exist. BTW, I was in school (elementary/seconndary) in those days (1958-71), in a mid-sized Midwestern city. We -never- had any of those kind of drills. Apparently 'the powers that be' concluded that there was nothing in our vicinity that would be worth dropping a nuke on. :)

13 14

Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
by Brandon Butterworth 13 Feb '07

13 Feb '07

> "So assuming router state based multicast, how do you bill on that if > the stream is exploded on the opposite end of, or in the middle of, a > transit network?" "You're likely getting it from a settlement free peer at the request of your customer who has paid for you to deliver it to them. You can choose to carry it once per customer or once for all your customer paths. Using multicast the latter means you get to keep a proportion of your extra users payment as profit instead of paying network costs" > The simplified answer of "only as the stream actually transiting the > network" won't fly with most bean counters, because in their eyes, > every packet going through the network should be billed as bandwidth > consumed. Pardon me for suggesting they get themselves a viable business model for their current traffic first. All you can eat flat rate broadband is wonderful but not compatible with this argument If heads were to be extracted from sand they may find people willing to pay for a viable multicast model, extra cash for what their customers have already paid for. End of net neutrality debate, supply something extra people want to buy. > because while > multicast saves bandwidth generally, the bandwidth multiplies as it > transits a for-pay network, meaning that more resources are consumed > and thus ... could be billed for money. Or not if we do P2P instead. "Would you like your network lightly or totally spammed?" > Traditional v4 multicast, then, is unlikely to see deployment outside > of an organiation's own garden network, and you have near zero uptake. User demand isn't going away, lots of those gardens will have multicast when they find it useful. As we agree such islands will exist it's a short step to thinking what if all this was connected together into one big network, we could call it an internet Alternatively, if they stay islands an enterprising company may decide there's value in getting access to each island and selling a one stop easy access service. Others may follow and then we're back to that internet thing. brandon

1 0

death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
by Paul Vixie 13 Feb '07

13 Feb '07

(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?) ... A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes. ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6342063.stm

19 30

Major outage in Montreal, Canada
by Vassili Tchersky 13 Feb '07

13 Feb '07

Hi, For thoses that are affected by the fiber outage that currently takes place in Montreal, I've got some clues. It could take some time to repair, as they are currently trying to localise the failure location. The SRDP (http://www.srdptele.com/) is working with the CSEM (http://www.csem.qc.ca) to fix this. UPDATE: they now know where the fibers were cut, and the SRDP is expecting the links to be up in 60-120 minutes. The outage almost isolate the datacentre Canix II from the Internet since today, 5:35PM, and Cogent (http://status.cogentco.com) was affected also. Maybe others. -- Vassili Tchersky Koumbit Network - 514-387-6262 #2

1 0

Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
by Scott Weeks 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

--- paul(a)vix.com wrote: ... A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes. ... Beware, the end is near! www.onboardmovies.com/publicity/Synopsis/images/0021553.jpg scott

1 0

Re: motivating security ....
by J. Oquendo 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

Let's look at the cost factor of using Windows in a quick dirty fashion and why you have to love their scheme. On top of ripping you off, they'd like to sell you security atop of the garbage they've already flooded the world with. <crapaganda> 1 Corporate office 2000 users * 75.00 per WinXP professional 5 Exchange servers * 500.00 per software 2 Win2003 servers * per seat low factor of 25.00 per seat Some Terminal licenses for RDesktop (l)users * low factor 100 per seat per person 2000 * $75.00 $150,000.00 5 * 500 = 2500.00 25.00 per seat * 2000 50,000.00 100.00 terminal licenses * 100 employees (management) 10,000.00 $212,500.00 sounds reasonable. Last I did anything MS, I recall Exchange being something closer to $60.00 per seat (1st Q 2004) Windows updates once a month ... total time 5 minutes 5min * 2007 machines downtime... 10035 minutes lost productivity Possible virus/security risk ... Estimated downtime to upgrade say once per month at 5 minutes, another 10035 minutes. Let's say this is once per quarter 2508 minutes downtime... Total so far 12,543 minutes - 10035 and a possible 2508 in security risks/breaches - a month in lost computing time. Let's say the company made 15,000,000.00 a year this breaks down into about: 41095.00 per day (* 365 days per year) 1712.00 an hour 28.53 a minute Let's say 10% of this lost time affects profits: 1254 minutes * 28.53 per minute = $35,787.00 Ok, let me be realistic, let's say only 5% of the time it affects profit: 627 minutes * 28.53 = $17,888.00 * 12 mos Not good or realistic enough, fine, 1% of the time it affects profits, 125.43 * 28.53 = 3578.51 per month in lost revenue from downtime. $42,942.21 per year in lost revenue </crapaganda> Why should MS get off their rears when corporations are stupid enough to continue doing business with a shoddy company. MS isn't doing anything I can't do on BSD, Linux or Solaris using OpenOffice or other program. Why do I use Windows still here and there... Utter laziness to swap out my drive. Utter laziness to replace Visio with Kivio. Just sheer laziness that's all. Would I run a production farm on Windows, as fast as I would pierce my ear with a harpoon. I blame the end user at the end of it all: <sarcasm> Mom "Tommy don't touch the stove you will get burned" Tommy "Ouch I burned myself" Mom "Next time be more careful" Tommy "Ouch I touched it again" Mom "Tommy you have to look at what you're doing" Tommy "Ouch, yet again" Tommy is the idiot here not his stove, not his mom, not the gas fueling the fire, Tommy. </sarcasm> -- =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ J. Oquendo echo @infiltrated|sed 's/^/sil/g;s/$/.net/g' http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743 "How a man plays the game shows something of his character - how he loses shows all" - Mr. Luckey

1 0

Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
by Brandon Butterworth 12 Feb '07

12 Feb '07

> IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP > Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of > people will watch the same content at the same time. They do. Sure it degrades to effective unicast if too few people watch the same channel in the same area (so just use unicast for those channels), that doesn't mean it's no use for the popular channels that have millions of viewers. > The usage model > that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before > cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to > choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not > made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to > have failed to notice this. 10 or 1000 channels it's going to be better than not using it. I don't see the logic in using it for nothing because it's not good for some things. There are local factors that may mean some countries adopt it. In the UK all spectrum is sold, as we turn off analog it's not a given that the broadcasters will be able to buy that spectrum for HD. When we want 10 HD Olympics channels IPTV may be the only way for a large portion of the 20M or so viewers to get it. > The point is the more > possible live content there is, the less multicast makes sense. > Compounding this, fewer people care to watch live content, preferring > instead to record and watch later on their own schedule, or be served > on-demand. In this usage model, multicast is not helpful either. Because they want to watch later doesn't make multicast no use. Who is going to pay for their time shift bandwidth use? Why would someone pay when a home device can do the time shift and make good use of the live multicast stream? They'll save the download cash for stuff that never was available live to them or they forgot to record, unless someone makes it appear to have no cost. brandon

6 5