- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal
by Seth Johnson 12 Jul '06

12 Jul '06

Hello folks, please consider endorsing this legislative proposal on net neutrality. It's a bit different from the others you may have heard of . . . > http://www.dpsproject.com This bill focuses on net neutrality in terms of the IP protocol, rather than the "equal treatment" and "nondiscrimination" application-layer policy approaches you usually hear about. One of the Intro pages from the site above, and the legislative Language, are pasted below. Coverage on Infoworld: > http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/20/79453_HNnetneutrality_1.html David Weinberger on Stevens and a Commentary by David Reed: > http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/sen_stevens_and_david_reed_on.html Here's a link to a research paper by Dave Clark, et al. that identifies the IP protocol as the "spanning layer" that assures innovation across hardware and protocols: > http://www.isi.edu/newarch/iDOCS/final.finalreport.pdf Seth Johnson --- > http://www.dpsproject.com/twotypes.html Two Types of Neutrality So far, much of the argument over "net neutrality" has been over whether service providers should be allowed to favor one application, destination or Internet service over another. This is Net neutrality at the application layer. But the real issue is the neutrality of the IP layer where routers treat alike bits from every type of application. This neutrality is what makes the Internet flexible -- while it also assures uniform treatment of information flow. If this neutrality is not maintained, the Internet will be changed fundamentally. It will no longer be the flexible, open platform that allows anyone with a good idea to compete on a level ground. IP-layer neutrality is not a property of the Internet. It is the Internet. The Internet is a set of agreements (protocols) that enable networks to work together. The heart of the Internet protocol is the agreement that all data packets will be passed through without regard to which application created them or what's inside of them. This reliable, uniform treatment of packets is precisely what has made the Internet a marketplace of innovation so critical to our economy. Providers certainly should be allowed to develop services within their own networks, treating data any way they want. But that's not the Internet. If they want to participate in the Internet, they need to follow the protocols that have been developed over the course of more than thirty years through consensus standards processes. Nor should they be permitted to single-handedly subvert the authority of the processes that have developed and maintained the Internet. We call on Congress to end the confusion and protect not only the Internet but the tens of millions of American citizens who need to know that when they buy Internet access, they're getting access to the real Internet. Network providers who offer services that depend on violating IP-layer neutrality should be prohibited from labeling those services as "Internet," as their doing so will only undermine the weight of consensus authority presently accorded to the existing standards. The term "Internet" represents specific standards that provide IP-layer neutral connectivity that supports the openness of access and innovation that have been the defining characteristics of the Internet since its origins. To that end, we present the attached draft legislative language and call for concerned citizens and members of Congress to offer their support for passing it into law. --- > http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "Internet Platform for Innovation Act of 2006". SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following: (1) The Internet is the most successful means of communication ever developed, connecting people of all walks of life across the globe and enabling unprecedented flexibility in applications and unfettered exchange of information and ideas. (2) The success of the Internet is built on the establishment of certain commonly observed principles of practice, expressed in Internet protocols, governing the manner in which transmissions are exchanged. Interoperation among competing Internet providers on the basis of these principles assures that the Internet remains a generic, flexible platform that supports innovation and free expression. (3) This flexible platform, commonly referred to as the IP layer of the Internet, enables users to independently develop innovative applications by devising rules and conventions describing how information transmitted between connected users will be interpreted in order to serve diverse purposes. The vast collection of applications that have been freely created in this manner is commonly referred to as the application layer of the Internet. (4) The Internet protocols that created this architecture have been developed and maintained by globally recognized standards bodies through participatory processes that work to develop optimal engineering designs and establish the consensus necessary for interoperability. (5) Among the commonly-observed principles of practice that govern Internet transmissions are the following: a) Transmissions are broken down into small pieces referred to as "packets," comprised of small portions of the overall information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints. A small set of data is prefixed to these packets, describing the source and destination of each packet and how it is to be treated. b) Internet routers transmit these packets to various other routers, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow. c) Internet routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the applications that the packets are supporting. (6) These principles governing the IP layer establish a technical behavior that not only assures the platform's flexibility, but also assures its reliability, availability, universal accessibility, and uniform treatment of information flow. The IP layer assures that all applications may compete on a level basis of connectivity, be they commercially developed by a major corporation and made available to millions, or non- commercial applications developed by individuals and offered at no charge. (7) These principles of practice are commonly understood and recognized as features of existing, commonly- observed communications standards defining the behavior of the Internet transport. (8) This settled understanding of the Internet, based on an architecture created by well-recognized standards bodies, leading to user expectations about the accessibility and behavior of the Internet, is what "the Internet" has come to mean to users in the United States and around the world. (9) Network providers who analyze and interpret the types of applications being conveyed within packets at the IP layer in order to offer special service features (including but not limited to prioritized delivery) intrinsically favor particular application designs that they recognize over competing ones. This practice therefore works at odds with the flexibility and other desirable features of the IP layer brought about by the above-described principles of practice. They depend, for their success, on the neutral platform afforded at the IP layer, even as they upset the neutrality of the IP layer to benefit services best offered at the application layer. (10) Network providers who offer special treatment for specific types of applications by identifying the applications being conveyed by packets, presently face competition from providers who provide neutral networks by means of the above principles, as well as from the diversity of applications, flexibility, uniform treatment of information flow, availability and access made possible by these networks. (11) If network providers in the United States were given support in legislation for presenting as "Internet" services that diverge from the above global principles of practice, as they offer special treatment of packet transmissions on the basis of identifying particular types of applications, the result would be to: a) supplant and undermine the consensus authority currently accorded to existing international protocols and standards-making processes; b) impair innovation and competition by undermining the flexibility and other desirable features afforded by the technical behavior of the Internet transport as described above; c) deny consumers the expectation of quality and breadth of service globally associated with the Internet; and d) suppress freedom of speech within the United States, while the people of other nations continue to enjoy unabridged Internet communications; (12) It is in the national interest to a) support the international consensus authority that gave rise to the current IP layer and associated protocols; b) encourage innovation in the applications layer of the Internet through the flexibility, reliability, availability, and accessibility afforded by the commonly established principles of practice expressed in existing consensus standards for the IP layer; and c) assure consumers in the United States that the globally accessible and open architecture of the Internet will be preserved even as some Internet access providers may choose to compete in offering additional features to their customers. SEC. 3. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN PROVIDING INTERNET ACCESS. (1) Definitions. As used in this Section: (A) Internet. The term Internet means the worldwide, publicly accessible system of interconnected computer networks that transmit data by packet switching using the standard Internet Protocol (IP), some characteristics of which include: i) Transmissions between users who hold globally reachable addresses, and which transmissions are broken down into smaller segments referred to as "packets" comprised of a small portion of information useful to the users at each transmission's endpoints, and a small set of prefixed data describing the source and destination of each transmission and how the packet is to be treated; ii) routers that transmit these packets to various other routers on a best efforts basis, changing routers freely as a means of managing network flow; and iii) said routers transmit packets independently of each other and independently of the particular application in use, in accordance with globally defined protocol requirements and recommendations. (B) Internet access. The term Internet access means a service that enables users to transmit and receive transmissions of data using the Internet Protocol in a manner that is agnostic to the nature, source or destination of the transmission of any packet. Such IP transmissions may include information, text, sounds, images and other content such as messaging and electronic mail. (2) Any person engaged in interstate commerce that charges a fee for the provision of Internet access must in fact provide access to the Internet in accord with the above definition, regardless whether additional proprietary content, information or other services are also provided as part of a package of services offered to consumers. (3) Network providers that offer special features based on analyzing and identifying particular applications being conveyed by packet transmissions must not describe these services as "Internet" services. Any representation as to the speed or bandwidth of the Internet access shall be limited to the speed or bandwidth allocated to Internet access. (4) Unfair or Deceptive Act or Practice- A violation of paragraphs 2 or 3 shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce this Act in the same manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were incorporated into and made a part of this Act.

9 15

Anyone at HopOne Internet?
by payam＠bhsecurity.com 12 Jul '06

12 Jul '06

Hey guys, Just wondering if anyone on here works at HopOne's Network Eng. dep/Noc... let me know off list... Thanks, -Payam

2 1

Multicast Survey
by Marshall Eubanks 12 Jul '06

12 Jul '06

Hello; The Multicast Backbone deployment (Mboned) Working Group of the IETF is conducting a Survey of Multicast operators and providers. The survey is intended to better understand the current state of multicast to better inform the work of the Mboned, and I would like to encourage network operators with multicast support to fill it out. The survey is at http://www.multicasttech.com/survey/MBoneD_Survey_v_1_5.txt http://www.multicasttech.com/survey/MBoneD_Survey_v_1_5.pdf The survey responses will be "anonymized"; the survey "anonymizer" is Lucy Lynch and replies should be sent to her at llynch(a)darkwing.uoregon.edu. Survey results will be made publicly available (with, of course, the exception of the respondent's identities). There is a deadline of September 1, 2006, for responses. Please respond if you feel if it is appropriate, and fell free to distribute it to anyone who you feel is relevant. We encourage responses from all multicast providers, including commercial, educational and research providers. I would appreciate any assistance in this matter. Regards Marshall Eubanks / Mboned Co-chair.

1 0

RE: Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1
by WONG, Yuen-Fung 12 Jul '06

12 Jul '06

> Do you not prefix-list customers? That'd have solved this, eh? The problem is: the route is coming from our upstreams / peers. that means they also did not filter it out....... :( -yf

2 1

RE: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal
by Joseph Jackson 11 Jul '06

11 Jul '06

> Behalf Of Florian Weimer > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:58 AM > To: Mark Newton > Cc: Seth Johnson; nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal > > > * Mark Newton: > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:39:50AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > > * Mark Newton: > > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:58:48AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > > (I've wondered for quite some time if "net > neutrality" implies > > that > > > Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their > > corporate > > > networks, by the way.) > > eBay and > Google aren't > > selling transit. > > > > > > Neither is your local cable company. 8-) > > > > Eh? Of course they are. They're selling transit to their > cable modem > > customers, surely? > > Quote from a typical terms of service agreement: > > | (b) Subscriber will not resell the Service, or any portion > thereof, or > | otherwise charge others to use the Service, or any portion thereof. > | The Service is for personal use only, and Subscriber agrees > not to use > | the Service for operation as an Internet Service Provider, > to host web > | sites for other parties or for any other business enterprise or to > | connect the Cable modem to any server or to any computer outside of > | the Subscriber's premises. > | > | (c) Without Time Warner Cable 's prior written approval, Subscriber > | shall not post or transmit through the Service any material that > | constitutes or contains advertising or any solicitation > with respect > | to products or services, nor shall Subscriber transmit bulk e-mail > | without prior written permission from Time Warner Cable. > > IP transit has no such restrictions. > We currently buy ip transit service from Cox Cable. You can also get a buisness cable modem service from them and resell transit on it. Tho this might only apply to the Las Vegas market.

1 0

Best practices inquiry: filtering 128/1
by WONG, Yuen-Fung 11 Jul '06

11 Jul '06

Sometimes earlier this year someone announced this 128/1 and caused heavy loading to our routers to rebuild the CEF. Would anyone filter out this route (and other similar routes such as 0/1, 128/1, 0/2, 64/2, .... up to /4, for example) as bogus routes? Thanks. --yf

8 8

RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
by Joseph Jackson 11 Jul '06

11 Jul '06

I agree. I think this isn't a bad service. If people want to run it more power to them. > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Golding [mailto:dgolding@tier1research.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:22 PM > To: 'Stephane Bortzmeyer'; 'Steve Sobol' > Cc: Joseph Jackson; nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: RE: Sitefinder II, the sequel... > > > That's absolutely ridiculous. Enterprise IT organizations > make decisions on behalf of their userbase all day. Frankly, > I'd be shocked if many tried this out - most enterprises run > their own DNS servers as part of an Active Directory scheme. > In any case, those workstations belong to the enterprise and > they can point them to whatever DNS servers they want. > > For most end-users, their Internet access provider already > selects their DNS caching server. ISPs are within their > rights to do this - I'm surprised most broadband ISPs haven't > done exactly what OpenDNS is doing to generate revenue. > > I'm sure if you look really hard, you can find something else > to be outraged about. OpenDNS isn't it. I'm at a loss to > explain why people are trying so hard to condemn something like this. > > - Daniel Golding > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] > On Behalf > > Of Stephane Bortzmeyer > > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:09 AM > > To: Steve Sobol > > Cc: Joseph Jackson; nanog(a)nanog.org > > Subject: Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:19:51PM -0700, Steve Sobol > > <sjsobol(a)JustThe.net> wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > > > > > There's a big difference, of course, between > INTENTIONALLY pointing > > > your computers at DNS servers that do this kind of thing, > and having > > > it done for you without your knowledge and/or consent. > > > > As Steven Bellovin pointed out, most OpenDNS users will not > choose it: > > it will be choosen for them by their corporate IT department or by > > their Internet access provider. > > >

1 0

(2nd) Call for Volunteers for Mailing List Administration Panel
by Randy Bush 11 Jul '06

11 Jul '06

There is an opening on the NANOG Mail List Administration Panel. According to the draft charter[1]: "... The NANOG list will be administered and minimally moderated by a panel selected by the Steering Committee." Accordingly, the Steering Committee is soliciting nominations for this open position, from now through 17:00 GMT Thursday, August 13, 2006. ** Procedure ** To volunteer yourself or nominate someone else, please send mail to steering(a)nanog.org with the following information, no later than 17:00 GMT Sunday August 13, 2006. - Your name - Nominee's name (if not you) - Nominee's email address - Nominee's phone number - Nominee's employer - Reasons why you believe the nominee is qualified to serve on the Mail List Panel. We will contact each of the nominees to verify interest and possibly request additional information. Once all nominations have been received, the Steering Committee, in cooperation with the Mailing List Panel, will select the new member from among the nominees. The result will be announced on the nanog-announce mailing list. ** Eligibility ** Anyone actively reading the nanog(a)nanog.org mailing list is eligible. A nominee may not be a member of the NANOG Program Committee or of the NANOG Steering Committee. ** Duties ** Basic duties include reading the mailing list and assisting with keeping things on-topic. The team also deals with abuse issues as they arise. ** Length of term ** The charter does not specify ML Panel member term lengths. Open discussion of this is being led by the NANOG Steering Committee. If you have any questions, please post to the meta-discussion list, nanog-futures(a)nanog.org, or email nanog-admin(a)nanog.org and steering(a)nanog.org. Finally, on behalf of the Mailing List Panel and the Steering Committee, we would like to thank everyone for their help in making NANOG a useful environment for operators. randy for the SC & Chris Malayter, for the MLC

1 0

Re: Net Neutrality Legislative Proposal
by Fergie 11 Jul '06

11 Jul '06

I disagree with your statement on NAT end-points not being "publicly accessible" -- that's certainly not true, and a myth that needs to be finally killed. The "statefulness" of the NAT gateway handles that -- it's a non-issue. I get really tired of hearing people perpetuate this mistruth. Of course, my comment on this has nothing to do with whatever the original thread was... - ferg -- Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> wrote: [snip] So I put all my customers behind a NAT device (or just a stateful packet filter). They are no longer publicly accessible, and hence not subject to the provisions of this section. Fixing that would probably require companies to open up their corporate networks, which is a non-starter. (I've wondered for quite some time if "net neutrality" implies that Ebay or Google must carry third party traffic on their corporate networks, by the way.) -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel...
by Joseph Jackson 11 Jul '06

11 Jul '06

If its their corp IT peopl. Oh well they should get over it. If isp vote with your dollars. -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer@nic.fr] Sent: Tue Jul 11 00:09:25 2006 To: Steve Sobol Cc: Joseph Jackson; nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: Sitefinder II, the sequel... On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:19:51PM -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol(a)JustThe.net> wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > There's a big difference, of course, between INTENTIONALLY pointing > your computers at DNS servers that do this kind of thing, and having > it done for you without your knowledge and/or consent. As Steven Bellovin pointed out, most OpenDNS users will not choose it: it will be choosen for them by their corporate IT department or by their Internet access provider.

2 1