- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: remove from ListServe
by John R. Sosebee 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

At 01:08 PM 1/16/97 -0600, lance ray wrote: >Would you please remove my name from the ListServe. > Please send these unsubscribes to nanog-request(a)merit.edu with unsubscribe in the body of the mail I think you'll be processed more efficiently .. and they'll be a little less noise .. >Thank you in advance, > >-- >Carl Lance Ray >Critical Technologies INC >Bridgeton,Mo >lray(a)cris.com > John sosebee(a)bellsouth.net (770) 392-4300

1 0

remove from ListServe
by lance ray 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Would you please remove my name from the ListServe. Thank you in advance, -- Carl Lance Ray Critical Technologies INC Bridgeton,Mo lray(a)cris.com

1 0

RE: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
by Matthew Gering 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Seems to me the whole effort of setting up the organization and adding the extra header is simply for the sake of making spamming -- or rather not complying with a method for allowing spam to be filtered -- a prosecutable offense. I agree with the motive, but it seems a very round-about way. Also, it is a cludge solution for SMTP spamming, and does not setup any sort of structure for dealing with similar problems as the Internet evolves. I do highly agree with making this a civil, or contractual offense, and not a criminal act. I'd rather not see any government entity attempt any jurisdiction over the 'net, however justified the particular law seems. The problem with making it a civil offense around trademark and misrepresentation issues is that enforceability will vary greatly depending on the jurisdiction, especially trademark, and therefore does not scale well the the global Internet. Secondly I disagree with is making this enforcing body a private, membership-based organization -- it may be subject to abuse. What I think would work best, along the same lines and motivation, would be council of sorts, perhaps with the EFF and IETF as the principle members, that would draft a policy. That policy would be adopted by the public exchange points as part of the legal contract for NSP's to connect there, which would apply to the NSP, and everyone downstream of them. It would therefore be incorporated into any connection contract down the line. By incorporating it into the connection contract, it falls under contract law and is much more universal, and the abuser may be charged with breach of contract, which is tied to their connectivity. As for the particular fix for SMTP spamming, I would then suggest a priority header. [0 -- reserved] (emergency priority) [1-3 -- private email] [4 -- solicited distribution] (mailing lists, etc) [5 -- unsolicited distribution] (spam) SMTP server may do whatever it wishes with the header (ignore it, implement a priority based queue, filtering ,etc), and the header is not even required (but likely will be universally adopted to insure delivery after a grace period), the only contractual obligation is that it cannot be misrepresented. I don't quite get the whole dual port deal. Matt >

3 2

Re: Questions about Internet Packet Losses
by Barry Shein 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

(I've Bcc'd you but otherwise left your name off as this was private mail, but I figured if I typed this all in maybe it should be shared.) >So what, technically, do you think we should do that we aren't already >doing? Or are you suggesting that us technical people start becoming >more active in the policy side of things? At Usenix last week I ran a Spam BOF, the room was packed tho it wasn't a huge room. There was an interesting technical proposal which arose and went something like this: 1. We all (it doesn't have to be all) agree to start using an additional port for SMTP, say port 52. (25 backwards, the number doesn't really matter just so long as it's available and agreed upon and a so-called privileged port.) 2. We form a not-for-profit shell corporation whose name is something catchy, The Spam Protestors Alliance Matrix (SPAM). It exists for two reasons: To have a name (SPAM) which can be trademarked, and to have a charter which basically forbids spam (in more formal words.) This costs maybe $1,000 to set up and some volunteer work. (yes it can't really be "SPAM" because Hormel might rightfully protest, but something, The People's Unsolicited Commercial Email Action Committee and Koalition, PUCE, ACK!.) 3. In order for an email message to pass over port 52 it must have a header which reads: X-SPAM-CHARTER: This message conforms to the SPAM Charter or similar (X-PUCE-CHARTER:). Otherwise, it's just dropped on the floor. Remember that this is the new port. 4. Abuse of that header is a litigable trademark violation (we get this set up with lawyers, but akin to DC comics or the Good Housekeeping Seal.) Perhaps some membership dues are raised to help pursue violators, that would be a good idea, if most every ISP kicked in $100/year that'd be on the order of a coupla hundred thousand dollars/year. 5. Over time, perhaps a year or two, the community is warned that port 25 will also become subject to these rules. After, say, 6 months or so a warning is returned if the header is not present, after a year or so the mail to port 25 will just be dropped if it doesn't contain the header. Maybe two years or three, whatever. Obviously every site can continue to do what they like, they can ignore all this entirely if they prefer and accept everything, no one is being forced to do anything other than if you want your email to be seen at sites which conform to this you'll have to conform to the rules. They can simply filter into folders based on whether a msg conforms or not, etc. 6. Mail should be marked by the MTA (another header) as to whether it came in via port 25 or 52 for the interim so MUAs (mail reader programs) can, if they prefer, just drop those messages or sort them separately or whatever. 7. Other rules could be introduced, such as allowing commercial email if and only if it conforms to certain rules, such as some header present for sorting and filtering, and a license number which identifies the sender positively, whatever seems reasonable. (Again, fraud is a crime, and now there's an organization with some bucks to help pursue such crimes, I'd charge at least some nominal fee for a license number to help pay for enforcement, maybe another $100/year.) The basic trademark idea was Brad Templeton's (Clarinet founder and principal), the dual port idea came up more spontaneously, others added details though I don't know if they'd want to be credited here or not. I threw in some details and fleshed it out here. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs(a)world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD The World | Public Access Internet | Since 1989

2 2

NANOG BGP tutorial
by Susan R. Harris 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Greetings - I'm pleased to announce a tutorial titled "Introduction to Networking With BGP," to be presented from 7:00-9:00 p.m. on Sunday evening, February 9, the evening before NANOG. Designed for new network operators and ISPs, the tutorial will provide information on practical BGP applications, hints, tips, tricks, and current implementations in today's ISP backbones. "BGP 101" won't be an-depth technical presentation, so if you're already familiar with BGP, you may not wish to attend. The tutorial will be held at the Hyatt. The presenter will be Consulting Engineer Paul Ferguson of Cisco's Business Development group, author of RFCs and Internet Drafts on topics ranging from network renumbering to ingress filtering. To attend the tutorial, you must also be registered for NANOG. If you plan on attending, please send a message to pam(a)merit.edu with the word 'tutorial' in the header. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Susan R. Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network, Inc. srh(a)merit.edu Phone: (313) 936-2100 Fax: (313) 747-3185 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Info on MAE-EAST
by sob＠academ.com 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Brett writes: > You miss my point, I know of a fair number of local ISP's that would love to > connect at MAE-Houston for the interconnects alone if the costs were within > reason. The $2000/month I mentioned is your 10mb line to the nap, that > however doesn't get you connected, thats just your loop cost, and for a > small fry like me.. thats too damn much, way to damn much. I guess I do miss your point since it in fact does get you connected to the switching fabric. At least, it did in the beginning. Perhaps things have changed and noone told me. -- Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob(a)academ.com Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.

1 0

(Fwd) FW: Urgent! AOP Alert 97:03
by Sean Rolinson 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Hello all, This sounds quite ridiculous to me. And I hope I am not the only one that thinks so. Sean Rolinson snowdog(a)charm.net ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 97 12:51:47 UT From: "Chip Alexander" <Chip_MSN(a)msn.com> To: snowdog(a)charm.net Subject: FW: Urgent! AOP Alert 97:03 Have you seen this yet? Chip -----Original Message----- From: aop(a)cris.com Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 1997 5:15 PM To: AOP Members Subject: Urgent! AOP Alert 97:03 ============================================================ AOP Alert Wednesday, January 15, 1997 ============================================================ The following is a legislative alert from the Association of Online Professionals, the leading association of Internet Service Providers and other professionals who manage online services. Please give it the widest possible distribution: ============================================================ AOP Opposes Network Solutions ARIN Proposal ============================================================ This week, Network Solutions, Inc. proposed the formation of a new entity that would charge ISPs from $2,500 to $20,000 per year for registration of Internet IP addresses. This fee would be in addition to fees already charged for registration of domain names. Under the proposal, an American Registry for Internet Numbers would be created as a non-profit entity to collect the fees and assign the addresses. The new entity would replace the government- sponsored InterNIC IP group. Companies who wish to participate in policy-making as members of the group would pay an additional $1,000 per year. Information regarding the proposal may be found at http://www.arin.net. The Association of Online Professionals has serious concerns about the proposal, and urges all North American Internet service providers and their subscribers to oppose the measure until these concerns are addressed: ** There is no indication in the proposal as to why the fees are needed. ** The proposed non-profit has no published goals, mission or other information beyond its structure and fees. ** The fee structure will cost the industry millions of dollars, yet there is no information as to how the money will be spent or how it will benefit the Internet. ** The assertions that the fees would not affect subscribers are incorrect, as these fees would have to be passed on to consumers. ** The assertions that ISPs can afford the fees as a cost of doing business reflects a poor understanding of the current economics of Internet access services. The proposed fee structure would have a devastating effect on small ISPs as well as non-profit, hobbyist and public access providers. ** It is unclear under what authority Network Solutions would impose the fees. The Internet exists as a public resource, and as such should not be subjected to the arbitrary control of any small group of individuals or entities. AOP has generally supported efforts to bring organization and structure to the Internet, including the imposition of fees to cover the cost of assigning and maintaining domain names. However, AOP cannot support the current proposal until more information is provided and a meaningful dialogue established to ensure that the proposal is more than an attempt to wrest control of the Internet for a select group of self-proclaimed authorities. Please do the following immediately: 1) Contact InterNIC with a request that the proposal not be implemented. Send the comments to naipr(a)internic.net. 2) Urge your subscribers and business associates to reject the proposal. AOP will make every effort to obtain answers to the questions raised, and will strive for meaningful conversations with Network Solutions on these issues. If you have comments that would help us build a consensus for these discussions, please direct them to exec(a)aop.org. ===================================================================== Dave McClure (703) 924-9692 (703) 924-9594 Fax Executive Director (703) 264-1750 BBS Telnet aop.org Assn of Online Professionals http://www.aop.org info(a)aop.org ===================================================================== _______________________________________________________________________ Sean Rolinson Systems Administrator snowdog(a)charm.net Charm Net Inc. Baltimore, DC, N. Va's Access to the Internet (410) 558-3900 Voice (410) 558-3901 Fax email: info(a)charm.net (410) 558-3300 Data (202) 956-5110 Data login: guest 'no pword' http://www.charm.net/ TIP#2527 Personal http://www.rolinson.org/ _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Vadim Antonov 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. IT SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS A POSITION OR A STATEMENT OF MY EMPLOYER. Ok, it looks like Bay Networks made a sweet deal with Chinese commies. Essentially, they will provide technology for the state propaganda network and censored Internet. Their "partnership" with censors of a communist regime is repugnant. Using the modern technology to build a giant brainwashing machine is very scary. Some companies will do anything for a buck, though. How about boycotting their products in U.S. and other democratic countries? --vadim Chinese intranet to launch in February January 15, 1997 Web posted at: 12:40 a.m. EST HONG KONG (Reuter) -- Bay Networks Inc. and the China Internet Corp., controlled by Beijing's state news agency, have formed a partnership to create a nationwide intranet in China, the companies said Tuesday. The companies declined to disclose the value of the deal that will establish a network covering more than 50 cities, 20 of them by the end of 1997. An intranet is an internal network that uses Internet global computer network technology. Access in and out of the intranet is possible -- intranets can be linked to the Internet proper -- but access can be controlled. The first phase connecting Hong Kong, Shanghai, Beijing and the southern city of Guangzhou is to be launched next month, offering tailored information mostly in Chinese to government entities, joint ventures and corporations in China. Copyright 1997 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

10 9

Re: Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
by Vadim Antonov 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Tony Li wrote: >Perhaps you should consider both sides of the situation. As you know, >there is no serious networking infrastructure in China now. Well, there was enough to scare the government into overt censorship. Initially, the academic Chinese Internet was not censored at all (i know that for sure, Sprint provided the circuit, and configured their routers). >Will creating one decrease or increase the free flow of information? Guess. I've seen state-run networks in a communist country; thanks. They're value-subtracted. The problem is the same as with "voluntary" key escrow -- once they get that in place and taking care of needs of loyal citizens, there won't be any need for the carriers not controlled by the government. So they will be outlawed. South Korea is a perfect example of what is going to happen. You look at the forbidden Web site -- you go to jail. >Censorship is not >perfect, and China will not have the resources to censor all packets >anywhere in the country. Actually, the issue is not as much censorship but extensive logging and monitoring. And censorship can be pretty efficient. Soviet censors certainly made sure that only few people have read anything by Solzhenitsyn. The regime fell when "ordinary" people learned the truth and were horrified. >So does this network give them a tool to further >control the people? Or a bigger headache for them to try to control? This is a state network. If they can't keep up they can slow it down. They did that with postal mail for decades. Also, do not forget that digital communications are much easier to alanlyze -- even trivial keyword matching is very efficient. >I should point out that the government already has installed satellite TV to >pretty much every corner of the country. However, the receivers are all >state-controlled. Would you rip this out? What satellite do they point at? Where the feed comes from? >Is no CNN better than censored CNN? A lot better. The old truism is that the most effective lie is entirely composed from truth. Soviet TV used to show quite a lot of Western footage -- with "creative" translation and editing. Needless to say, often the meaning was quite opposite to that of the original. The doctored news is one of the oldest and one of the most effective tools of propaganda -- you can't argue with facts, particularly when you don't even know about existance of the facts. >IP networking is an inherently democratic medium: everyone can speak [and >usually does ;-( ]. Moving more bits implies that the number of uncensored >bits increases. Would you send anything critical of the regime if you knew that everything you write is going right into the secret police's dossiers? Self-censorship is actually more dangerous than the state censorship. It quickly reduces people to the state of scared animals. A lot of older folks in Russia feel very uncomfortable when somebody starts talking about politics in the same room. >IMnsHO, the installation of this network will be the nail in the coffin of >the Chinese government. I'm more than happy to see them drive it in. I wish it was like that. However, it just doesn't work this way. The only reason for the existence of that network is the desire of the state to control the flow of the information. If it is successful, the state will have more power. If it is not successful, it's tax money spent on inane project instead of improving living of the people. And in any case it's primary use (as stated in the news report) is to disseminate official news (aka propaganda). >p.s. I'm related to Chinese communists. My father is a communist. --vadim

2 1

RE: Info on MAE-EAST
by Rodney Joffe 16 Jan '97

16 Jan '97

Michael Dillon said: > How many exchange points have shared media, i.e. hub and spoke topology, > and how many rely exclusively on a mesh of cross-connects? Is there any > data to show whether or not the mesh of cross-connects will scale high > enough to be usable for major NAP's? If so, it would not be difficult > to set up such an exchange point in which people basically pay for rack > space, power and the installation of cross-connects. Then Paul Vixie said: >Hmmm. According to what I learnt in school, the cost of a connected network >like a GIGAswitch or Catalyst or DELNI with N participants is: > > (N x interface_cost) + (N x port_cost) >...while the cost of a connected network made up of wire peers is: > (2 x sum(N - 1) x interface_cost) > (snip for space) > > >That means with 19 ISP's in a GIGAswitch-free room, there are 342 FIP's at >a cost of, what, US$12000 each after discount? I'll betcha I can buy quite >a few GIGAswitches for US$4.1M. Oops, that's not a fair comparison, since >with a GIGAswitch I also need 19 FIP's. Figure that a fully configured >GIGAswitch retails without discount for US$80K and that 19 FIPs are going >to run another US$228K. That's still a *lot* less than 2*sum(n-1). > >This also assumes that we all have VIP2 cards and want to burn 9 7513 slots >just on local peering, and it further assumes that a 7513 won't just simply >melt if all the interfaces ever get hot at the same time. > >The breakeven is between N=3 and N=4. On the Internet, N never stays small. > >(And that breakeven assumes that the 4 people have to buy the whole >GIGAswitch with noone like MFS to underwrite the costs of the unused ports; >that means four people in a room together could SAVE MONEY buying the GIGA- >switch.) > >Gah. So I say: Here's a novel thought: how about reverting to the original model for the NAPs? We have an 11,000 sq ft ex DOD (built like a brick *&^%house) datacenter near MAE East ( 8201 Greensboro Drive in McLean). We have MFS (including OC12 to MAE East), MCI Metro and Bell Atlantic sonet terminated in house. And we have raised floor, computer grade HVAC, conditioned power, UPS and generator, and will have 24x7 remote hands (no 2-6 hour response times). If you want to collectively come up with an architecture (assuming the hub and spoke/gigaswitch/cross-connect factions can agree on something), we'll fund the purchase and installation of the equipment (similar to MPIX in Phoenix, a cost-recovery only model). We'll also offer free facilities to the long distance companies to terminate in the facility (you may have to encourage them to do so), so that the $2,000 6ft cable disappears. And the local loops. Obviously *we'* will benefit from not having to run a local loop to the interconnect. In exchange we'll make colo facilities available that are significantly better than the current underground parking facilities, and at better rates. Anyone interested? Rodney Joffe Genuity Inc., a Bechtel company http://www.genuity.net http://hopscotch.genuity.net

1 0