- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

24ghz unlic operations
by Christian Kuhtz 03 Mar '06

03 Mar '06

Anyone here operating p2p links in 24GHz unlic band? Please contact me off list. Thanks!

1 0

Cogent Outage
by David Coulson 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

Apparently Cogent had a fiber cut between Santa Clara and Houston which is screwing their network up pretty nicely (I'm seeing 60m of latency between two routers in Chicago). Their internal ticket # is 387128. Is this the second or third this year for them? David

2 1

needing switch options
by Matt Hess 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

I need to find a few options for switches.. My requirements are based on heavy voip traffic so the switch needs to support a very high pps rate while not as much in the Gbps realms - we're using small codecs. We are looking at supporting > 1M subscribers. Initially, we will be handling media but down the road most of the media will not need to be passed on/across our network. I'd like to get some recommendations from the list as to vendor/models that have been deployed and excellent performance / cost has been achieved. I've looked at the 3com 8807 and the 7757 kits already - I'm not sure they would fit the bill (low pps, fabric speed iffy, fabric fail-over time questionable - that's my impression from reading on their site). Replies off list would probably be best and thanks in advance.

1 0

Important Statement to Review for Signing
by Seth Johnson 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

(Apologies for the political/non-strictly-technical substance of this post; but I think this group is populated by the right people who would understand the issue, sign the statement, and know who all else should be approached. -- Seth Johnson) Hello folks, Please review the important joint statement below, related to the WIPO Broadcaster's Treaty, and consider adding your signature if you are an American citizen. Also make sure those you know who should sign are also given the opportunity. Andy Oram has written a good letter to the US Delegation to WIPO on the subject: > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/etel/2006/01/13/the-problem-with-webcasting… CPTech Links on the Treaty: > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/bt/index.html#Coments Electronic Frontier Foundation Links: > http://www.eff.org/IP/WIPO/broadcasting_treaty/ IP Justice Links: > http://www.ipjustice.org/WIPO/broadcasters.shtml Union for the Public Domain Links: > http://www.public-domain.org/?q=node/47 The Latest Draft of the Treaty: > http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/sccr12.2rev2.doc A survey of relevant links: > http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/wipo_and_the_war_against_the_i.ht… If you choose to sign, please send your name along with an affiliation or appropriate short phrase to attach to your name for identification purposes, to mailto:seth.p.johnson@gmail.com. If your organization endorses the statement, please indicate that separately, so your organization will be listed under that header. Thank you for consideration. Seth Johnson Corresponding Secretary New Yorkers for Fair Use Joint Statement to Congress: Dear (Relevant Congressional Committees) (cc the WIPO Delegation): Negotiations are currently underway at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to develop a treaty giving broadcasters power to suppress currently lawful communications. The United States delegation is also advocating similar rights for "webcasters" through which the authors of new works communicate them to the public. Some provisions of the proposed "Treaty on the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations" would merely update and standardize existing legal norms, but several proposals would require Congress to enact sweeping new laws that give private parties control over information, communication, and even copyrighted works of others, whenever they have broadcast or "webcast" the work. The novel policy areas addressed by this treaty go beyond ordinary treaty-making that seeks worldwide adherence to U.S. policy. Instead, this initiative invades Congress prerogative to develop and establish national policy. Indeed, even as Congress is debating how best to protect network neutrality, treaty negotiators are debating how to eliminate it. The threat to personal liberties presented by this treaty is too grave to allow these new policy initiatives be handed over to an unelected delegation to negotiate with foreign countries, leaving Congress with the sole option whether to acquiesce. When dealing with policies that are related to copyright and communications, Congress's assigned powers and responsibility under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution become particularly important. We urge two important steps. First, the new proposed regulations should be published in the Federal Register, with an invitation to the public to comment. Second, the appropriate House and Senate committees should hold hearings to more fully explore the impact of these novel legal restrictions on commerce, freedom of speech, copyright holders, network neutrality, and communications policy. Americans currently enjoy substantial freedoms with respect to broadcast and webcast communications. Under the proposed treaty, the existing options available to commercial enterprises and entrepreneurs as well as the general public to communicate news, information and entertainment would be limited by a new private gatekeeper who adds nothing of value to the content. Communications policies currently under discussion at the FCC would be impacted. Individuals and small businesses would be limited in their freedom of speech. Copyright owners would find their freedom to license their works limited by whether the work had been broadcast or webcast. The principle of network neutrality, already the subject of congressional hearings, would be all but destroyed. As able as the staff of the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Library of Congress may be, it was never intended that they alone should stake out the United States national policy to be promoted before an unelected international body in entirely new areas abridging civil liberties. Congress should be the first to establish Americas national policies in this new area so that our WIPO delegation will have sufficient guidance to achieve legitimate objectives without impairing Constitutional principles such as freedom of speech and assembly, without impairing the value of copyrights, and without granting to private parties arbitrary power to suppress existing freedoms or burden new technologies. We cannot afford for Congress to wait for the Senate to be presented with a fully formed treaty calling for the enacting of domestic law at odds with fundamental American liberties foreign to American and international legal norms, and that would bring to a close many of the benefits of widespread personal computing and the end-to-end connectivity brought by the Internet. We ask Congress to use its authority now to shape these important communications policies impacting constitutionally based copyright laws and First Amendment liberties. Signed, (Affiliations for individual signers are for identification only. Endorsing organizations are listed separately.) William Abernathy, Independent Technical Editor Scottie D. Arnett, President, Info-Ed, Inc. Jonathan Askin, Pulver.com John Bachir, Ibiblio.org Tom Barger, DMusic.com Fred Benenson, FreeCulture.org Daniel Berninger, VON Coalition Eric Blossom, GNU Radio Joshua Breitbart, Media Tank Dave Burstein, Editor, DSL Prime Michael Calabrese, Vice President, New America Foundation Dave A. Chakrabarti, Community Technologist, CTCNet Chicago Steven Cherry, Senior Associate Editor, IEEE Spectrum Steven Clift, Publicus.Net Roland J. Cole, J.D., Ph.D., Executive Director, Software Patent Institute Gordon Cook, Editor, Publisher and Owner since 1992 of the COOK Report on Internet Protocol Walt Crawford, Editor/Publisher, Cites & Insights Cynthia H. de Lorenzi, Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy Cory Doctorow, Author, journalist, Fulbright Chair, EFF Fellow Marshall Eubanks, CEO, AmericaFree.tv Harold Feld, Senior Vice President, Media Access Project Miles R. Fidelman, President, The Center for Civic Networking Richard Forno (bio: http://www.infowarrior.org/rick.html) Laura N. Gasaway, Professor of Law, University of North Carolina Paul Gherman, University Librarian, Vanderbilt University Shubha Ghosh, Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Paul Ginsparg, Cornell University Fred R. Goldstein, Ionary Consulting Robin Gross, IP Justice Michael Gurstein, New Jersey Institute for Technology Jon Hall, President, Linux International Chuck Hamaker, Atkins Library, University of North Carolina - Charlotte Charles M. Hannum, consultant, founder of The NetBSD Project Dewayne Hendricks, CEO, Dandin Group David R Hughes, CEO, Old Colorado City Communications, 1993 EFF Pioneer Award Paul Hyland, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility David S. Isenberg, Ph.D., Founder & CEO, isen.com, LLC Seth Johnson, New Yorkers for Fair Use Paul Jones, School of Information and Library Science, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill Peter D. Junger, Professor of Law Emeritus, Case Western Reserve University Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive Jerry Kang, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Dennis S. Karjala, Jack E. Brown Professor of Law, Arizona State University Dan Krimm, Independent Musician Michael J. Kurtz, Astronomer and Computer Scientist, Harvard- Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Michael Maranda, President, Association For Community Networking Kevin Marks, mediAgora Anthony McCann, www.beyondthecommons.com Sascha Meinrath, Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network, Free Press Edmund Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director, U.S. Public Interest Research Group Lee N. Miller, Ph.D., Editor Emeritus, Ecological Society of America John Mitchell, InteractionLaw Tom Moritz, Chief, Knowledge Managment, Getty Research Institute Andrew Odlyzko, University of Minnesota Ken Olthoff, Advisory Board, EFF Austin Andy Oram, Editor, O'Reilly Media Bruce Perens (bio at http://perens.com/Bio.html) Ian Peter, Senior Partner, Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd Malla Pollack, Law Professor, American Justice School of Law Jeff Pulver, Pulver.com Tom Raftery, PodLeaders.com David P. Reed, contributor to original Internet Protocol design Jerome H. Reichman, Bunyan S. Womble Professor of Law Lawrence Rosen, Rosenlaw & Einschlag; Stanford University Lecturer in Law Bruce Schneier, security technologist and CTO, Counterpane David J. Smith, Specialist of Distributed Content Distribution and Protocols, Michigan State University Michael E. Smith, LXNY Richard Stallman, President, Free Software Foundation Fred Stutzman, Ph.D. Student, UNC Chapel Hill Peter Suber, Open Access Project Director, Public Knowledge Jay Sulzberger, New Yorkers for Fair Use Aaron Swartz, infogami Stephen H. Unger, Professor, Computer Science Department, Columbia University Eric F. Van de Velde, Ph.D., Director, Library Information Technology, California Institute of Technology Tom Vogt, independent computer security researcher David Weinberger, Harvard Berkman Center Frannie Wellings, Free Press Adam Werbach, President, Ironweed Films Stephen Wolff, igewolff.net Brett Wynkoop, Wynn Data Ltd. John Young, Cryptome.org Endorsing Organizations: Association For Community Networking (AFCN) The Center for Civic Networking Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Contact Communications The COOK Report on Internet Protocol Cryptome.org Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network Dandin Group FreeCulture.org Free Press Free Software Foundation Illinois Community Technology Coalition Internet Archive Ionary Consulting IP Justice isen.com, LLC mediAgora New Yorkers for Fair Use Old Colorado City Communications Podleaders.com Pulver.com Rosenlaw & Einschlag U.S. Public Interest Research Group Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy Wyoming.com -- [separate one-page attachment] WHY PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF THE PROPOSED BROADCASTER TREATY IS NEEDED If Congress were to hold public hearings, or if the US delegation to WIPO were to publish the current proposal for public review and comment, myriad voices from various segments of society could come forward to show that the proposed Broadcaster's Treaty: * Is written to look like existing copyright treaties, but it is not based on the constitutional requirements for copyright protection, such as originality, and in fact is antagonistic to copyrights * Is promoted as a way of standardizing existing signal protection, but in fact extends well beyond signal protection by giving broadcasters and webcasters a monopoly, for 50 years, over the content created by others the moment it is broadcast or transmitted over the Internet * Gives broadcasters greater rights than producers of original works * Accords exclusive rights to non-authors in direct violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution * Attacks the principle of network neutrality which serves as the basis by which the Internet has fostered a profound expansion in human capacities and innovation * Grants privileges that extend beyond broadcast signals to actually give broadcasters control over works conveyed within a broadcast -- including copyrighted and public domain works * Blocks fair use and other copyright provisions that enable the public to make use of and benefit from published information * Chills freedom of expression by extending unwarranted controls over broadcast publication * Benefits broadcasters at the expense of the web, the public and future innovation * Creates a de facto tax on copyrights, freedom of speech, communications and technological progress, all for the benefit of broadcasters and webcasters who have added nothing to deserve such a windfall.

2 1

How do you handle client contact for network abuse/malware compaints etc.?
by Nicole Harrington 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

Hello As a sort of addendum to the thread of "Quarantine your infected users spreading malware" I am curious how other handle contact to the users/clients for network security incidents. The question I have is; When someone reports an incident to you about one of your clients (a user or server owner) possibly being infected, having an owned box being used for hacking into other servers or being used to spread malware, how much information do you send/forward on to that user/client to support your case. Is it normal practice to simply forward on unaltered logs sent in by those complaining or do you sanitize them a bit to protect the people notifying you? Do you even send them at all at first or do you simply inform them that a complaint has been received. In short, how much information do you pass on to support yourself and when. Thanks Nicole Harrington -- |\ __ /| (`\ | o_o |__ ) ) // \\ - nmh(a)daemontech.com - Powered by FreeBSD - ------------------------------------------------------ "The term "daemons" is a Judeo-Christian pejorative. Such processes will now be known as "spiritual guides" - Politicaly Correct UNIX Page

4 3

New IP to ASN Mapping Services
by Stephen Gill 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [ Apologies to those who receive this post in multiple forums. ] Team Cymru is happy to announce the availability of various service options dedicated to mapping IPv4 numbers to BGP prefixes and ASNs. These services come in various flavors, including: * Whois, DNS, HTTP, HTTPS Each of the services is based on the same BGP feeds from 50+ BGP peers, and is updated at 4 hour intervals. Using a single IP or ASN one can obtain any of the following information: * BGP Origin ASN * BGP Peer ASN * BGP Prefix * Prefix Country Code (assigned) * Prefix Registry (assigned) * Prefix Allocation date * ASN Country Code (assigned) * ASN Registry (assigned) * ASN Allocation date * ASN Description The country code, registry, and allocation date are all based off of data obtained directly from the regional registries including: ARIN, RIPE NCC, AFRINIC, APNIC, LACNIC. The information returned relating to these categories will only be as accurate as the data present in the RIR databases. The ASN descriptions are based off of data obtained from cidr-report. For a summary on how to use these services please visit the following web page: <http://www.cymru.com/BGP/asnlookup.html> If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions please feel free to contact us at: team-cymru(a)cymru.com. - -- Cheers, Steve, Team Cymru. http://www.cymru.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBRAcT63px0HyV1krbEQL4kwCfVtXJyDTNY21pAr0SB7b74IvvxmAAnjkE Dea4giltBwL7k9GbkQdcbM8E =15Dj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Quarantine your infected users spreading malware
by Gadi Evron 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

Many ISP's who do care about issues such as worms, infected users "spreading the love", etc. simply do not have the man-power to handle all their infected users' population. It is becoming more and more obvious that the answer may not be at the ISP's doorstep, but the ISP's are indeed a critical part of the solution. What their eventual role in user safety will be I can only guess, but it is clear (to me) that this subject is going to become a lot "hotter" in coming years. Aunty Jane (like Dr. Alan Solomon (drsolly) likes to call your average user) is your biggest risk to the Internet today, and how to fix the user non of us have a good idea quite yet. Especially since it's not quite one as I put in an Heinlein quote below. Some who are user/broadband ISP's (not say, tier-1 and tier-2's who would be against it: "don't be the Internet's Firewall") are blocking ports such as 139 and 445 for a long time now, successfully preventing many of their users from becoming infected. This is also an excellent first step for responding to relevant outbreaks and halting their progress. Philosophy aside, it works. It stops infections. Period. Back to the philosophy, there are some other solutions as well. Plus, should this even be done? One of them has been around for a while, but just now begins to mature: Quarantining your users. Infected users quarantine may sound a bit harsh, but consider; if a user is indeed infected and does "spread the joy" on your network as well as others', and you could simply firewall him (or her) out of the world (VLAN, other solutions which may be far better) letting him (or her) go only to a web page explaining the problem to them, it's pretty nifty. As many of us know, handling such users on tech support is not very cost-effective to ISP's, as if a user makes a call the ISP already losses money on that user. Than again, paying abuse desk personnel just so that they can disconnect your users is losing money too. Which one would you prefer? Jose (Nazario) points to many interesting papers on the subject on his blog: http://www.wormblog.com/papers/ Is it the ISP's place to do this? Should the ISP do this? Does the ISP have a right to do this? If the ISP is nice enough to do it, and users know the ISP might. Why not? This (as well as port blocking) is more true for organizations other than ISP's, but if they are indeed user/broadband ISP's, I see this as both the effective and the ethical thing to do if the users are notified this might happen when they sign their contracts. Then all the "don't be the Internet's firewall" debate goes away. I respect the "don't be the Internet's firewall issue", not only for the sake of the cause but also because friends such as Steven Bellovin and other believe in them a lot more strongly than I do. Bigger issues such as the safety of the Internet exist now. That doesn't mean user rights are to be ignored, but certainly so shouldn't ours, especially if these are mostly unaffected? I believe both are good and necessary solutions, but every organization needs to choose what is best for it, rather than follow some pre-determined blueprint. What's good for one may be horrible for another. "You don't approve? Well too bad, we're in this for the species boys and girls. It's simple numbers, they have more and every day I have to make decisions that send hundreds of people, like you, to their deaths." -- Carl Jenkins, Starship Trooper, the movie. I don't think the second part of the quote is quite right (to say the least), but I felt bad leaving it out, it's Heinlein after all... anyone who claims he is a fascist though will have to deal with me. :) This isn't only about users, it's about the bad guys and how they out-number us, too. They have far better cooperation to boot. There are several such products around and they have been discussed here on NANOG before, but I haven't tried them myself as of yet, so I can't really recommend any of them. Can you? I'll update on these as I find out more on: http://blogs.securiteam.com This write-up can be found here: http://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/312 Gadi. -- http://blogs.securiteam.com/ "Out of the box is where I live". -- Cara "Starbuck" Thrace, Battlestar Galactica.

23 56

the need for shim6
by Edward B. DREGER 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

I hesitate to make an analogy, lest the analogy wars begin... Sometimes I am forced to use a telephone. I periodically get dead air or a fast busy. Sadly, my phone skills are rusted. Can someone please tell me how I select the switches and trunks through which my call is routed? Thanks. Oh, and for those who might suggest "calling card": It doesn't work as often as one might hope. There have, however, been times where PCS to CC to local number gets through when PCS to local does not. It appears that endpoints generally trust networks to... well... run the network. Don't like it? Build your own network. Now we're back to PI space and table size. Moore's Law! (Anyone up for corollary to Godwin's Law in which the trigger is "Moore's Law"?) In the "radical proposal" thread, the bottom line was that providers would rather have big[ger] routing tables than cooperate. Fine. It appears that we're now pitting routing table size against handing over control to endpoints. Detection of sarcasm and hyperbole is left as an exercise to the reader. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc(a)brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq(a)intc.net -*- sam(a)everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.

1 1

second v6 multihoming paper
by Lucy E. Lynch 02 Mar '06

02 Mar '06

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~ajf101/irp-ajf101-multihoming.pdf the money quote: "The lack of a standardised solution to multihoming remains a large issue frustrating wider-scale deployment of IPv6, as many large sites rely on multihoming for connection reliability and optimality. The proposed multihoming solutions presented in this paper can be broadly grouped into two categories: those that support connection survivability, and those that do not. Those that do, however, are invariably more complex, and require significant protocol changes, thus breaking the "simplicity" aim as given in RFC3582 [23]. Therefore, it can be said that no proposed solution yet meets these goals. Having said that, it is difficult to see how such a solution, that is both simple and comprehensive, can be built, working in the new environment that is IPv6. After at least five years of proposals, nothing that solves all goals has yet been suggested." Some of you may already know Alan Ford as a v6ops co-author: http://www.potaroo.net/ietf/all-ids/draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-0… and he also worked on the re-numbering presentation at the paris IETF http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05aug/slides/v6ops-7.pdf - lel

1 0

APC NetworkAir FM series
by JB Nanog 01 Mar '06

01 Mar '06

Wanted to know thoughts on the APC Network FM series for cooling datacenters? If this is the wrong place for this topic, I apologize. Thanks

1 0