April 2000 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Gigabit Traffic Monitoring
by k claffy 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

Does anybody know a product to do Gigabit Ethernet traffic monitoring, like CoralReef does for OC3/OC12 ? Rubens Kuhl Jr. rubens am not aware of anyone currently shipping such a monitor, (i'd pay good money to be wrong tho) although several companies are planning to add gig-e to their existing monitoring products. caida does have funding from darpa to develop a gigabit ethernet monitor, & we will make that system work w coralreef, but unfortunately i can't nail down a ship date at this time hopefully someone will point out a product i missed and i'll add it to the taxonomy k

2 2

Hurray for NANOG
by Dirk Harms-Merbitz 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

Turns out that @Home name servers were frantically trying to do a reverselookup on a customer of a customer's IP. We put in a dummy reverse that at least made the traffic levels go down. Question now is why a missing PTR record would make name servers go wild. Hurray for @home to respond! Hurray for NANOG! Dirk

1 0

@home
by Dirk Harms-Merbitz 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

Lovely on hold music. Arrgh. Dirk

1 0

more info on @home machines
by Dirk Harms-Merbitz 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

These are the attacking (or misconfigured) machines: ha2.rdc1.sdca.home.com (24.0.3.67) ha2.rdc1.sfba.home.com (24.0.0.67) ha2.rdc2.occa.home.com (24.2.8.67) Dirk traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 207.151.19.6 @ eth0 traceroute to 24.0.0.67 (24.0.0.67), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 cisco7513 (207.151.19.1) 0.536 ms 0.338 ms 0.285 ms 2 s4-1-1.lsanca1-cr3.bbnplanet.net (4.24.40.13) 5.319 ms 4.856 ms 3.163 ms 3 p2-0.lsanca1-ba1.bbnplanet.net (4.24.4.17) 2.178 ms 1.658 ms 1.612 ms 4 p7-0.lsanca1-br1.bbnplanet.net (4.24.4.2) 2.020 ms 1.642 ms 1.733 ms 5 p7-3.paloalto-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.24.5.210) 17.797 ms 17.118 ms 16.531 ms 6 p1-0.paloalto-nbr1.bbnplanet.net (4.0.5.65) 16.745 ms 16.965 ms 17.952 ms 7 4.0.6.86 (4.0.6.86) 14.980 ms 14.402 ms 14.570 ms 8 bb3-pos0-0.rdc1.sfba.home.net (24.7.72.22) 15.570 ms 14.697 ms 15.108 ms 9 ha2.rdc1.sfba.home.com (24.0.0.67) 16.440 ms * 15.619 ms traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 207.151.19.6 @ eth0 traceroute to 24.2.8.67 (24.2.8.67), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 cisco7513 (207.151.19.1) 0.560 ms 0.362 ms 0.344 ms 2 s4-1-1.lsanca1-cr3.bbnplanet.net (4.24.40.13) 213.252 ms 3.569 ms 1.480 ms 3 p2-0.lsanca1-ba1.bbnplanet.net (4.24.4.17) 1.733 ms 2.396 ms 1.726 ms 4 p7-0.lsanca1-br1.bbnplanet.net (4.24.4.2) 2.161 ms 1.513 ms 2.825 ms 5 p7-3.paloalto-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.24.5.210) 16.655 ms 17.304 ms 17.703 ms 6 p1-0.paloalto-nbr1.bbnplanet.net (4.0.5.65) 17.235 ms 17.956 ms 19.153 ms 7 4.0.6.86 (4.0.6.86) 15.063 ms 14.151 ms 17.301 ms 8 24.7.65.166 (24.7.65.166) 22.855 ms 22.358 ms 21.628 ms 9 bb1-pos6-0-0.rdc2.occa.home.net (24.7.72.10) 23.347 ms 23.046 ms 22.905 ms 10 ha2.rdc2.occa.home.com (24.2.8.67) 23.820 ms * 22.897 ms traceroute: Warning: Multiple interfaces found; using 207.151.19.6 @ eth0 traceroute to 24.0.3.67 (24.0.3.67), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 cisco7513 (207.151.19.1) 0.498 ms 0.319 ms 0.292 ms 2 s4-1-1.lsanca1-cr3.bbnplanet.net (4.24.40.13) 5.194 ms 4.348 ms 4.299 ms 3 p2-0.lsanca1-ba1.bbnplanet.net (4.24.4.17) 4.229 ms 2.394 ms 1.887 ms 4 p7-0.lsanca1-br1.bbnplanet.net (4.24.4.2) 2.233 ms 3.578 ms 3.772 ms 5 p7-3.paloalto-nbr2.bbnplanet.net (4.24.5.210) 16.826 ms 22.324 ms 19.027 ms 6 p1-0.paloalto-nbr1.bbnplanet.net (4.0.5.65) 17.654 ms 17.255 ms 18.619 ms 7 4.0.6.86 (4.0.6.86) 15.588 ms 15.728 ms 14.658 ms 8 24.7.65.166 (24.7.65.166) 24.642 ms 23.045 ms 23.811 ms 9 c1-pos1-0.sndgca1.home.net (24.7.64.70) 24.122 ms 24.254 ms 24.539 ms 10 bb1-pos5-1.rdc1.sdca.home.net (24.7.73.194) 25.227 ms 24.512 ms 25.602 ms 11 ha2.rdc1.sdca.home.com (24.0.3.67) 26.372 ms * 24.782 ms

1 0

Re: New Federal Law (COPPA)
by Robert Cannon 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

Someone followed up with the following question: HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHICH SITES TARGET CHILDREN: The FTC has stated the following: "To determine whether a Web site is directed to children, the FTC will consider several factors, including the subject matter; visual or audio content; the age of models on the site; language; whether advertising on the Web site is directed to children; information regarding the age of the actual or intended audience; and whether a site uses animated characters or other child-oriented features. " See COPPA Sec 1302(10); 16 CFR § 312.2 (Definitions), If the FTC could make it up as they go along, they would be vulnerable to an attack that their rules are arbitrary and capricious, a violation of the Administratove Procedures Act. As enforcement proceedings take place, the description above will be further amplified. -B www.cybertelecom.org ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

NetSol Demographics for the rest of us
by Henry R. Linneweh 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

Dot Com Statistics http://www.nsol.com/statistics/ -- Thank you; |--------------------------------------------| | Thinking is a learned process so is UNIX | |--------------------------------------------| Henry R. Linneweh

1 0

Re: New Federal Law (COPPA)
by Robert Cannon 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

Answers to a couple of questions: CAN I COLLECT THE AGE OF THE VISITOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER I WILL COLLECT PERSONAL INFORMATION. Yes. COPPA restricts the gathering of personal information from children. Age, in and of itself, is not listed as "personal information" by COPPA or the FTC rules. This means that you can ask the visitor to submit information on age and, if the visitor is under age, refuse to collect any further information from that visitor. WHAT ABOUT LYING KIDS? Children would never lie. (okay, have you stopped laughing). If you target children (if you are Disney), you are under COPPA (lying children is irrelevant). If you do not target children, and if a child lies that they are 13 or over, then you are arguably not liable. The law states that you must have *actual* knowledge. You lack *actual* knowledge. The FTC emphasizes in its Order releasing the final rule that we are talking about *actual* knowledge. I see nothing in the law or FTC explanation that creates any further burden on your (the website) part. DOES A SITE THAT DOES NOT TARGET CHILDREN HAVE TO CREATE A PARENTAL CONSENT PROGRAM? If the site is not an online service directed at children nor does it have actual knowledge that it is collecting personal information from a child then it is not under COPPA. If the site does have such actual knowledge, it can elect (a) not to collect information from children under the age of 13 (see discussion above) or (b) not to collect age information. For example, I maintain a mailing list at Cybertelecom - all I ask is for people's e-mail address - I have no knowledge of ages and therefore do not fall within the scope of COPPA. Thus you certainly can use e-mail address for password verification as long as there is no age knowledge attached to that. If you collect age information, and elect to collect information from children who are under age 13, then you must comply with COPPA. If you collect information from children under age 13, it IS NOT illegal. You simply have to comply with the requirements of the law (some people are writing as if the mere act itself of collecting the information is per se illegal). CAN I RUN A CONTEST THAT IS ILLEGAL IN FLORIDA? I am not sure why you cant run an illegal in Florida contest as long as you do not target children or you do not have actual knowledge of age. However, FTC did implement rules specifically concerning children and contests. These rules state "An operator is prohibited from conditioning a child's participation in a game, the offering of a prize, or another activity on the child's disclosing more personal information than is reasonably necessary to participate in such activity." § 312.7 As far as Children surfing the web, they have freedom to surf sites that (a) do not collect information (b) do not collect age information or (c) cater to children and implement the policy (Disney, PBS, Nickelodean, educational sites). That is a pretty big universe. When one person says that the feds are trying to use "us" as Internet police (an accusation on other issues that is quite accurate), I am not sure what you mean here. This legislation is specifically directed at those who actually collect data from children: "operators". Networks themselves who are not "operators" of the data collecting websites are not impacted. Thus only those engaged in the actual activity of concern are the focus of the new regulation - not neutral third party networks. Hopefully all of this points to the importance of paying attention to the regulatory process in Washington DC - it is very easy for you to participate these days and get your views heard. -Robert Cannon www.cybertelecom.org Not legal advice. If it were, there would be a bill. I assure you. ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

1 0

Re: Question about strain on the A root server
by Shawn McMahon 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

On Sat, 22 Apr 2000, "Nick Patience" wrote: > > NSI seems slightly unsure as to the main reason for the increase in hits, > but speculates that one of the reasons may be > says the main reason for this is that ISP's are using different caching > techniques and more & more searches are going right to the top of the > tree > than before. > > What do people on this list feel about this as a reason? It seems a > little > woolly to me. It seems rational to me. I know I used to forward off to my upstream and rely on their cache, but now I just dig it straight from the root servers and rely on my own cache. Probably less efficient, but takes a point of failure out of the loop. It's difficult getting your upstream to admit to DNS problems sometimes.

2 1

Re: New Federal Law (COPPA)
by Robert Cannon 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

One website that collects personal data had a field for Date of Birth. If you entered a DOB that meant that you were underaged, the webpage refused to go further. Thus, the webpage could collect the data where individual was of legal age but would just automatically refuse if under age. This doesnt seem too hard. -B www.cybertelecom.org ------Original Message------ From: Andrew Brown <twofsonet(a)graffiti.com> To: John Hall <j.hall(a)f5.com> Sent: April 22, 2000 3:26:39 AM GMT Subject: Re: New Federal Law (COPPA) i was actually implying that if you asked and found out they were 12, you've just broken the law. the only problem (as i see it) is there's no way for you to collect the age information *without* possibly breaking the law. ______________________________________________ FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com Sign up at http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

6 5

Re: New Federal Law (COPPA)
by Ron Buchalski 24 Apr '00

24 Apr '00

This is great, but I wonder how long it will be before ISPs and web hosting providers are considered liable if a kid lies about his/hee age, reasoning that the liar is underage and isn't considered responsible for him/herself. It's still up to parents to make sure that their kids are surfing the Internet responsibly, but I don't know that the law assumes this in order to protect ISPs. -rb >From: Robert Cannon <rmcannon(a)mail.com> >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Re: New Federal Law (COPPA) >Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 09:48:06 -0400 (EDT) > > >One website that collects personal data had a field for Date of Birth. If >you entered a DOB that meant that you were underaged, the webpage refused >to go further. Thus, the webpage could collect the data where individual >was of legal age but would just automatically refuse if under age. This >doesnt seem too hard. ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1