- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Yankee Group declares core routing obsolete (was Re: Anybody using GBICs?)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

>: > Plainly stated, routers no longer have a home in the core of the network. >: > "You might have found a router there five years ago, but most certainly >: > you have a switch today," said Yankee Group vice president Zeus Kerravala. >: >: What brand of switch is this guy selling? And what is he smoking? Sure >: would be interesting to find out :) >Vendor F *choke* *splutter* When will they learn that routers and switches are no longer differentiated by internal implementation details, i.e. software vs. hardware implementation? Nowadays both categories are implemented identically as a combination of hardware (where speed counts) and software (where flexibility and interoperability come first). Besides, there is no "THE core of THE network". Different networks have different core characteristics to deal with (size, customer base) and therefore choose different products. The old Internet, where everyone used more or less the same devices, is gone. Todays Internet is much bigger, more diverse, and engineered by people who have a lot higher skill level based on hard-won experience. Why do businesses keep supporting these "cheerleader" analyst groups who want to treat everything as some sort of fashion fad? --Michael Dillon

2 1

RE: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Kuhtz, Christian 31 Oct '03

31 Oct '03

> Kuhtz, Christian wrote: > > Seems several commercial clients (such as Cisco's VPN client) offer > > workaround for that (tunneling IPSEC in a TCP session). > Works great. > Yup. there are various proprietary solutions that require us > to trash out an expensive and *working* VPN-1 solution, buy > an equally expensive and unfamilar solution, and retrain our > salesforce in the use of the new software - just to work > around NAT. Nice, isn't it? It is. And you can continue daydreaming and believe NAT will go away if you continue to whine about it. Or you can accept that it exists and deal with it because you got a business to run and don't have the luxury of jumping on one foot until IPv6 is everywhere (and somebody has convinced the telco's that it's really necessary to upgrade all their gear and the involved expense to support it natively). And I bet then still somebody will build an IPv6 NAT box for some bizarro reason. ***** "The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.61"

4 3

Re: Re: IPv6 NAT
by Narelle 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

<insert rant on somewhere after observable trigger point> > Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> wrote: > In fact, Michael, there is no reason someone can't do everything you > describe with IPv4 if they are using unique address space. Now this is the point where my annoyance level goes up with the rampant aversion to IPv6 I see even in a community proud of its adoption of technology. I realise the "NA" in nanog stands for "an IP address and bandwidth rich region of the world", but frankly the IPv4 address policies and access levels are starting to get right up my nose. The premises *you* are working on simply do not hold in the nations where data comms is really starting to take off. Think Asia. Have a good hard look at how IP telephony on a large scale - even in NA and Au - is going to have to be rolled out: - encryption engines all over the place, with multiple encryption adds and removes - multiple identity verification checks - NAT and un-NAT points potentially at more than one place along the way - firewalls and filters changed everywhere - proprietary fixes and weird new stupid protocols migcom?? - multiple compression points when we should be looking at ways of flagging this in the headers and preserving type v6 *has* IPSec, QoS and the concept of any to any built in. It's *not* a work around. It's how it works. We are making things much harder for ourselves increment by increment. We are lining ourselves up for massive amounts of rework in a few years time. By that time I will be getting too old to think it through and by that time you children who have lived all your lives in a NATted v4 world won't understand what it's like to stroll down the information street or meet in a public place or library! Maybe you already don't! We need to stop pretending we live in a world of secured networks and build security back into the whole proposition! v6 gives us that opportunity. While I'm at it I'll remind people that extranets work much more nicely when in uniquely numbered space. So even in the quasi private space we've stuffed up. Yeah sure, MPLS partly fixes this, but it still causes unwanted complexity along the way. And these stupid little poxy - sorry pRoxy - home "routers" (1) that proxy everything fine one day and lose their configs, or goodness knows what the next, and you go from six (2) home computers connected to one or none, are absolute rubbish! I'm starting to think we're seriously missing out. <end rant> :-) Narelle Clark narellec(a)optusnet.com.au getting in touch with her inner bofh (1) these things are bridges and they don't even bridge properly, regardless of what it says on the packaging, let alone terminate PPP over whatever it claims to be today. Can someone tell these fools that PPP stands for 'POINT to POINT' protocol? Not kludge over multiple media??? (2) six home computers does not mean a business, nor high bandwidth use. It means a *family*. We are a multilingual (OS wise) household. They are not new and the computers have more Internet experience than many "techies" I see.

1 0

'Net security gets root-level boost
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/1027ddos.html -Hank

5 4

Re: [Re: Yankee Group declares core routing obsolete (was Re: Anybody using GBICs?)]
by joshua sahala 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

"E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam(a)noc.everquick.net> wrote: > [cut] > > So STP is now the control plane protocol of choice? ;-) no, not at all - remember he said 'layer 3 switch', stp is no longer needed, just like those router things ;) /joshua > > Eddy > -- > Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division > 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 : > blacklist(a)brics.com -or- alfra(a)intc.net -or- curbjmp(a)intc.net > Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. > > "Walk with me through the Universe, And along the way see how all of us are Connected. Feast the eyes of your Soul, On the Love that abounds. In all places at once, seemingly endless, Like your own existence." - Stephen Hawking -

1 0

Re: Yankee Group declares core routing obsolete
by Scott Bradner 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

and the Yankee Group has an unblemished history of understanding the Internet and ISPs Scott (ps - unblemished with accuracy that is)

1 0

Verizon abuse contact
by John Obi 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

Hello folks, I reported exploited hosts in Verizon network to their abuse department since one week now. I only get auto reply but no real person did take action till this moment. If there is Verizon person who can help, please contact me off list. Thanks, -J __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

1 0

RE: Fed. Govt and IEEE ban contributions to/from Cuba, Libya, Iran, Syria
by Irwin Lazar 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

Thought it might be useful to pass on a copy of a letter from the IEEE President that was published in the last issue of "Spectrum" ------------- On Serving Members In Embargoed Countries In January of 2002, the IEEE took action to fulfill the U.S. Treasury Department trade regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The IEEE informed members residing in several sanctioned countries that they were not able to take advantage of member benefits and services except for print subscriptions to IEEE publications. The IEEE has received numerous inquiries from members and others on this issue. In response, 2003 President Michael Adler offers the following open letter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Colleagues, I am writing this open letter to help IEEE members and our other colleagues around the world understand the IEEE position regarding the U.S. Department of Treasury's restrictions on serving members in embargoed countries and how the IEEE Board of Directors is dealing with this sensitive matter. This situation is now entering its third year. Stated concerns include criticism of the IEEE's handling of this issue, including the suggestion that the IEEE's actions have been arbitrary and in conflict with the IEEE Code of Ethics. For those of you who are directly impacted because you live in the embargoed countries, we understand that you are angry. For those members who have taken the time to share their views, we appreciate your concern. We do not like this situation either. The IEEE has been in contact with OFAC to resolve these difficulties. Until now, we have made few public statements on this matter. But given the slow pace of progress, it is now more important than ever for the IEEE to speak out publicly on our position. This message is a start. The IEEE believes in a world of unfettered exchange of scientific and technical information for educational and research purposes. Last February the IEEE Board of Directors voted to reaffirm its belief that no government should restrict the right of scientists, engineers, or academicians to exchange ideas and participate in scholarly activities on a global basis. In an effort to uphold our beliefs, the IEEE is investing considerable resources in aggressively trying to overcome the obstacles created by the OFAC regulations. In September 2002, we met with OFAC to discuss our concerns about the OFAC regulations and their impact on the IEEE. In December, the IEEE took the necessary steps to clarify the OFAC guidelines concerning our publishing activities. We stated the reasons that the IEEE firmly believes that the peer review and editing of technical journal articles should be permissible under the current regulations. We have asked that they agree with our interpretation outright, or at least issue us a license to permit these activities as an exception. While we are optimistic that OFAC will see the logic of our argument, they have not responded as of my writing of this letter, even though they have had more than nine months to consider our petition. It is important to note that our publishing activities are only one of several issues that the IEEE must address as we pursue resolution of this OFAC situation. The slow pace of the government's response is very frustrating, but unfortunately beyond our control. While the IEEE works to uphold its beliefs, we must also do what is necessary to protect the organization and its volunteers. OFAC regulations clearly state that violations can result in fines and other civil and criminal sanctions for the individuals involved and the officers of the sponsoring organization. The determination of OFAC to enforce its rules has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, with fines being assessed to both corporations and individuals. The IEEE must adhere to our obligation to abide by the laws of all the countries in which it does business. To that end, one thing is clear: the IEEE will continue to comply with U.S. laws. Our failure to do so would place the IEEE at risk and would subject the organization to penalties from the U.S. government that could dramatically affect our ability to service our members worldwide. The IEEE will see this difficult issue through, no matter how long it takes. In addition to current efforts, it may also be necessary to assemble a coalition of other professional organizations and interested parties to work and discuss these issues with the U.S. government in order to make changes to the OFAC regulations. The IEEE Board of Directors will consider this and other approaches in its ongoing deliberations about how best to resolve the current situation. I am asking IEEE members, as well as our other colleagues, to support the IEEE as we work to preserve the rights of its members and of the scientific and technical community worldwide to engage in open scholarly research and communications. It is only through our collective efforts that we will be able to effect the necessary changes that will allow the IEEE to provide all our services to those currently in the embargoed countries. Sincerely, Michael S. Adler 2003 President

1 0

Re: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Miquel van Smoorenburg 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

In article <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.44.0310291228200.29539-100000(a)login1.fas.harvard.edu>, Scott McGrath <mcgrath(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >And sometimes you use NAT because you really do not want the NAT'ed device >to be globally addressible but it needs to have a link to the outside to >download updates. Instrument controllers et.al. I don't understand. What is the difference between a /24 internal NATted network, and a /64 internal IPv6 network that is firewalled off: only paclets to the outside allowed, and packets destined for the inside need to have a traffic flow associated with it. As I see it, NAT is just a stateful firewall of sorts. A broken one, so why not use a non-broken solution ? We can only hope that IPv6 capable CPE devices have that sort of stateful firewalling turned on by default. Or start educating the vendors of these el-cheopo CPE devices so that they will all have that kind of firewalling enabled before IPv6 becomes mainstream. Mike.

7 8

Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings
by Sean Donelan 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Fred Baker wrote: > Personally, I don't ask my ISP or my IT department to randomly change the > configuration of my computer. I am very happy for them to suggest changes, > but *if* I agree, *I* want to install them when it is convenient for *me*, > not when it is convenient for *them*. There is a difference. In most cases the corporate laptop is owned by the corporation, not the employee. Shouldn't the corporate organization be able to change its own computers whenever it chooses, regardless of the desire of its employees. On the other hand, the ISP does not own the customer's computer. And despite EULA which say it not sold only licensed to the customer, most people view their computer as their property not the ISP's.

3 2