March 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
by Cottrell, Les 08 Mar '03

08 Mar '03

We have been talking to the radio astronomy people. We are aware they have such needs, however, I am unclear whether they have succeeded in transmitting single stream TCP application to application throughput of 900Mbits/s over 10,000km on a regular basis. Perhaps you could point me to whom to talk to. I am aware of the work of Richard Hughes-Jones of Manchester University and others and the Radio Astronomy VLBI Data Transmission (see for example http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/~rich/VLBI_web/) since we have shared notes and talked together a lot on the high performance issues. My understanding is that for today they use special high performance tapes to ship the data around, and are actively looking at using the network. -----Original Message----- From: alex(a)yuriev.com [mailto:alex@yuriev.com] Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2003 12:23 PM To: Jason Slagle Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; fingers; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ... > On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > A) The amount of arrogance it takes to declare a land speed "record" when > > there are people out there doing way more than this on a regular > > basis. > > Single stream at 900mbs over that distance? Where? Talk to folks that deal with radio telescopes. Alex

2 1

Building Cited for Housing Fuel Tanks Catches Fire [NYT]
by David Lesher 08 Mar '03

08 Mar '03

X-URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/nyregion/07HUDS.html?pagewanted=print&pos… March 7, 2003 Building Cited for Housing Fuel Tanks Catches Fire By CHARLES V. BAGLI An electrical fire broke out in the basement of an office tower in TriBeCa yesterday, four months after building inspectors said they had discovered illegal diesel fuel tanks installed on the upper floors of the tower. .... The building is one of a half-dozen Manhattan towers that were the subjects of an investigation in November by fire and building officials. The six, known as telecom hotels, house the computers, cables and equipment of international telecommunications and Internet tenants, all of which require backup generators run by diesel fuel to keep the equipment cool. The stored fuel is potentially lethal in an accident or a terrorist attack. The New York Times is withholding the addresses of the buildings at the request of city officials, who cited their importance to international telecommunications and their potential as terrorist targets. According to the violations, inspectors found that five diesel fuel tanks and seven large diesel generators had been installed illegally on upper floors of the TriBeCa building. At the bottom of each citation, the inspector wrote: "Conform fuel storage tanks to code at once." ...... -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

5 7

Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
by Dave Israel 08 Mar '03

08 Mar '03

On 3/7/2003 at 14:57:22 -0500, Eric Germann said: > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/07/speed.record/index.html > > Comments folks? Yeah. Give me a million dollars, plus fiber from here to anywhere, and let me muck with the TCP algorithm, and I can move a gig-e worth of traffic, too. -Dave

17 21

Clueful Engineer at C&W Needed - OC-3 Problem
by Gordon Ewasiuk 08 Mar '03

08 Mar '03

36hrs, 4 escalations, and an OC-3 that's still down. If there are any clueful C&W IP Engineers out there, please reply offlist. Ticket #030306-106485.

1 0

Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
by Dave Israel 08 Mar '03

08 Mar '03

On 3/7/2003 at 15:50:40 -0500, Steve Goldstein said: > At 8:34 PM +0000 3/7/03, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > >So whats good about this? > > 923 Mbps with TCP. --S According to CNN: "Scientists were able to get 93 percent efficiency out of their record-setting connection because they didn't have to share bandwidth, they received donated equipment in excess of $1 million and they changed the setting of Internet protocols to allow faster data transfers, Newman said." So, you turn down/off all the parts of TCP that allow you to share bandwidth properly, crank up the window and packet sizes, and suddenly, TCP is pretty damn efficient for a one-way transfer. There's no real "science" here. This is a geek publicity stunt. -Dave

2 1

RE: Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practic e (please comment)
by cproctor＠epik.net 08 Mar '03

08 Mar '03

I actually see several problems with this: 1.) Near as I can tell, Emergent Structures are observed phenomena. They are not tools for social engineering. 2.) You suggest pushing this at "appropriate bodies." Near as I know... there is no such animal. 3.) You say in the header that you're looking for comments. Based on what you write though you're not looking for comments. You're looking for contributors. You lead right off saying "Interested parties are invited to provide comments to correct, elaborate, or perfect my proposal, abstracted below, which I plan to offer as an Internet Draft momentarily." Someone commenting would be free to disagree. All of your statements begin with the assumption that there can be no flaw in the basic premise. 4.) I agree with previous posters that the phrasing and structure come off as zealotry. 5.) "Well-managed, ethical members of the internet industry already conduct their businesses, successfully and profitably, according to the principles specified in the Practice. The proposed Practice simply aims to raise the entire industry to the level of today's best players." Do you honestly mean to say that profitability is now a best common practice? Who are these "best players?" Near as I can tell.. the largest companies playing in this sector or none of these things. In fact I know of no company I'd say fit your definition of "best players." I'm curious who you consider to be your model for "best player." 6.) From what I know of enforcing our AUP, by many accounts the email address you're using is on a well known "spam enabler" (your words) and many would consider you a "spam supporter" for buying service from them. I don't agree, but that seems to be the perception in NANAE. 7.) In my opinion this line of reasoning is dangerous. I believe it is the slippery slope to the loss of freedom of speech and expression. There are many groups that already desire to censor and control the free exchange of ideas that the Internet makes possible. There are many more problems I see. I don't have the answer, but in my opinion this will serve only to alienate people who need to be involved in the discussion.

1 0

Re: 923 Mbps across the Ocean ...
by Peter Salus 07 Mar '03

07 Mar '03

>It would have been nice if the reporter bothered to mention that "Internet >speed records" are measured in terabit meters per second. An article >about "Internet speed records" that doesn't include the actual record, or even >a definition of the term "Internet speed record", is hardly deserving of placement on the front of cnn.com. Slow news day? I'm sorry to inform you guys that cnn.com just picked this up from the BBC, yesterday. And the Beeb got the spin wrong, too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2822333.stm Peter ----------------------------------------------------------- Peter H. Salus Chief Knowledge Officer, Matrix NetSystems Ste. 300 5001 Plaza on the Lake Austin, TX 78746 +1 512 697-0613 -----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment)
by Andy Dills 07 Mar '03

07 Mar '03

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003, Dr. Jeffrey Race wrote: > Whether it is implemented is not my business. I am the doctor > diagnosing the illness and prescribing the scientifically validated > cure, and warning the patient of the quack remedies on the market. > My job is done now (almost, I just have to reformat and submit as > I-D, maybe a few more hours). The problem is you're not defining a cure. You're defining rules for a quarantine. Quarantines work when you have a single, reliable, authoritative entity enforcing them...but when you allow people to decide if they want to respect the quarantine or not, it doesn't work. Unless there is some mechanism to enforce the respect of the quarantine you propose, beyond the supposed benefits of the quarantine, your proposal will not work. See, the benefits will never be universally accepted...most people would prefer a best-effort filtering solution that empowers the end-user to ultimately decide what they want to reject. Does that shift the cost to the receiving end? Yes. Is that better than preventing your customers from reaching large portions of the net? Most emphatically yes. If you look at it another way, why would an almost-tier 1 pay for transit? All it does is make them pay a price to be able to reach certain parts of the net. If losing money is such a motivator for stopping network abuse, your proposal would inherently link "the price of filtering" with "the price of being able to reach all of the net". Therefore, if people are willing to pay for transit, under the logic of your proposal, they should be willing to pay for filtering. Until people are perfect, filtering out the bullshit they spew will always be a technical band-aid for a social problem. The key is to push the decision making to the end-user, not to a central authority. > By way of background, I wrote a very famous book (War Comes to Long > An) on a matter of transcendent national importance, in 1972. It > also (by inference) prescribed some medicine. It got a lot of > criticism at the time, but it is now the canonical analysis of that > problem, used in universities and military/diplomatic training > institutions worldwide. It took several years for this to happen. > I know, from talks with friends in the White House, that MANY > people are alive today who would be dead had I not spent three > years of my life writing that book. Unfortunately, writing a well-respected book about a peasant revolt in South Vietnam doesn't bring any free credibility to this arena. If nothing else, you should realize the inherent flaws in attempting to enforce rules (perceived to be unjust) on people who do not wish it. > I have spent three years developing this draft BCP. It is a cure, > in fact the ONLY cure, for the spam menace. It will work. Whether > people want to take the cure is up to you and your colleagues. I am > just a drive-by spamming victim who got sick of the pointless debate > and decided to analyse the problem based on what I know of technology > and of human behavior (having studied both professionally; I am > trained as a social scientist from a well-known institution in > Cambridge Massachusetts but have spent most of my recent adult life in > technology; I was in the Army signal corps before that). This is > just a charitable effort on my part. I am not selling anything. I also studied at a well-known institution in Cambridge, although I was more interested in beers, bongs, and bitches (no disrespect intended to women, that was just the saying...people will do anything for an alliteration). Anyway, I respect the effort and the intent. What I'm trying to convey is that the total and willfull ignorance toward practicality is your fatal flaw. > My apologies for the personal discussion which I would not > ordinarily go into, but it is germane here so you all can understand > I have no vested interest in pushing software or hardware. This > effort is completely unrelated to my life work except in the sense > that I am a spam victim. No, we're painfully aware that you're an academic. That's actually the problem. If you were a hardware or software vendor, you might be proposing a solution that people can purchase and implement. You're proposing a radical paradigmatic shift of the way the internet works. The last paradigmatic shift that was actually implemented, that I can think of, was CIDR. And CIDR was _desperately_ needed, and universally accepted as THE solution. > There are lots of well-run networks that don't accept inbound spam > and don't enable outgoing spam. Their customers are happy and they > are making money. Correct. And those networks don't use your methods. > >Remember, it's a fine line. The network operators don't advocate > >abuse; > > Some do and gain lots of revenue from it. See the sad truth at > > <www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf> Surely, as an acadmeic, you realize the fault in citing your own papers (that haven't been rigorously investigated and upheld by the community) to prop up your own arguments? And unfortunately, there are serious flaws in the paper, far beyond the scope of what I'd care to get into. By far, most of what you attribute to malice would be more likely attributed to incompetence, to steal a quote from the brillliant .sig of somebody somewhere on one of these lists. > >the business end of cash-desperate networks are the driving > >force in this industry, not us. > > You have elegantly stated the Environmental Polluter business model: > internalize the revenue streams from the customers, and externalize > the losses imposed by spam-enabling actions and negligence. > > GE used to work on that business model. They are no longer dumping > effluents into the ground in Pittsfield Mass. This could happen > to the Internet! (with your help--go for it!) Except, nobody's health is affected by this...and the revenue impact is minimal also. Otherwise, that would have been the motivation to fix the problem long ago. Your propose to make the revenue impact much greater (through collateral damage), and I'm here to tell you that what you propose is the technical equivalent of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access

1 0

Re: Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment)
by Peter Galbavy 07 Mar '03

07 Mar '03

McBurnett, Jim wrote: > To be blunt: > It seems that your opinion is: If a company wants to dump trash in > my email account > and they are able to find an ISP who is so blindly just taking a > payment and cares less > about what who they provide service to, so be it, I don't care. I did not even know that's what the proposal was about - I did say I objected to the whole having not even read it - simply because of the holier-than-thou wording of that specific paragraph. > Well to that sir, I say this: In the United States capitalism is a > way of life, but > YOUR freedom's only extend to the point at which they impeach upon MY > freedoms, at which > point you and every SPAMMER out there IS WRONG. I have sent several > letters as of recent > to my congressional representatives with the points that a business > cannot and should allow > their services to be used to force feed me unsolicited email. And > that any provider that > does may be fined... Why do many - especially the uneducated and ignorant ones I suppose ? - assume that everyone lives under US jurisdiction ? I dislike SPAM, I have my own tools to fight SPAM and I have been doing it for quite some time thanks. When some meta-literate comes along telling me that their proposal is perfection and that anyone not believing their preaching is the enemy, I get annoyed. Live with it. Peter

1 0

Re: Abstract of proposed Internet Draft for Best Current Practice (please comment)
by Dr. Jeffrey Race 07 Mar '03

07 Mar '03

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 14:05:31 -0000, Peter Galbavy wrote: >quote: >> Well-managed, ethical members of the internet industry already conduct >> their businesses, successfully and profitably, according to the >> principles specified in the Practice. The proposed Practice simply >> aims to raise the entire industry to the level of today's best >> players. > >I object to this wording; even without reading *any* other part of your >document, I am already very cautious about it's contents simply because of >the implication of your statement above. This is very much one of those >political "you're either with us or against us" declarations. > >So - if you don't so it 'our way' then you must be unethical and >badly-managed. At least Peter I don't blame you in the slightest for being cautious. However please look at the proposal and respond to its substance. In fact I include the above text, almost boilerplate now, because in earlier versions of the proposal floated on the lists of the various RIRs, I was scolded for offering a dreamlike proposal. I therefore now routinely state (the truth) that many firms, financially successful, operate exactly as I recommend. This is the potent counterexample to the oftheard complaint "We couldn't make any money if we had to crack down on abuse effectively". It's completely false, even though you often hear it. See <http://www.camblab.com/nugget/spam_03.pdf> for hard data. There seems to be some logical fallacy in your plaint. Ethical firm - successful, suppresses spam does not entail Does not suppress spam - unethical firm. There may be other reasons. Jeffrey Race

1 0