March 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Internic whois
by Hank Nussbacher 31 Mar '03

31 Mar '03

Can someone in charge of Internic fix their whois search page to no longer reference TLDs they don't handle (page last updated Oct 2001): http://www.internic.net/whois.html "Whois Search Whois (.aero, .arpa, .biz, .com, .coop, .edu, .info, .int, .museum, .net, and .org):" Thanks, Hank

1 0

Wierd...
by McBurnett, Jim 30 Mar '03

30 Mar '03

Okay, Here is a wierd one... 69.6.32.100 - allocated by Arin accessed through Hong Kong. HMMMM... Global Crossing? do you have a routing issue? Anyway, Later, J 03/30/03 22:14:24 Fast traceroute 69.6.32.100 Trace 69.6.32.100 ... 1 10.129.32.1 40ms 50ms 30ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 2 172.22.32.1 20ms 90ms 20ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 3 172.22.32.106 21ms 10ms 10ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 4 12.124.58.105 20ms 40ms 70ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 5 12.123.21.78 50ms 40ms 50ms TTL: 0 (gbr6-p80.attga.ip.att.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 6 12.122.12.25 20ms 40ms 70ms TTL: 0 (tbr1-p013601.attga.ip.att.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 7 No Response * * * 8 12.123.9.53 60ms 30ms 40ms TTL: 0 (ggr1-p370.wswdc.ip.att.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 9 208.51.74.181 30ms 50ms 30ms TTL: 0 (so2-1-0-622M.br1.WDC2.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 10 208.178.174.53 50ms 31ms 40ms TTL: 0 (pos2-0-155M.cr1.WDC2.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 11 203.192.134.118 330ms 230ms 240ms TTL: 0 (so1-0-0-622M.cr2.HKG1.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 12 203.192.134.126 271ms 260ms 230ms TTL: 0 (so1-0-0-622M.ar1.HKG1.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 13 203.192.137.154 300ms 230ms 291ms TTL: 0 (iAdvantage2.ge-0-1-0-878-1000m.ar1.HKG1.gblx.net bogus rDNS: host not found [authoritative]) 14 69.6.1.3 260ms 290ms 251ms TTL: 0 (No rDNS) 15 No Response * * * 16 No Response * * * 17 No Response * * * 18 No Response * * * 19 No Response * * * 20 No Response * * * 21 No Response * * * 22 No Response * * * 23 No Response * * * 24 No Response * * * 25 No Response * * * 26 No Response * * * 27 No Response * * * 28 No Response * * * 29 No Response * * *

1 0

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
by Kevin Loch 30 Mar '03

30 Mar '03

----- Original Message ----- From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson(a)greendragon.com> Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 am Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True > (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any > telecommunications service. > > [no encryption, no steganography, no remailers, no NAT, no tunnels] > [no Kerberos, no SSH, no IPSec, no SMTPTLS] "place of origin or destination" could mean street address, not IP address or email address. In the context of the rest of the law, it is likely they meant physical location. Especially since it refers to "service" and not just "telecommunications". KL

1 0

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
by McBurnett, Jim 30 Mar '03

30 Mar '03

Well, if it is that big.. no IPSEC.. then I suspect Cisco, Checkpoint, and others to stand up ASAP.. This is no right.... As I see it a growing percentage of companies are moving to IPSEC VPNs and leaving dedicated ckts behind.. I can't believe that legislators would be so un-informed, and Cisco/the industry would be so out of touch.. J > -----Original Message----- > From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:wsimpson@greendragon.com] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 AM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True > > > > Jack Bates wrote: > > > > William Allen Simpson wrote: > > > It outlaws all encryption, and all remailers. > > > > I'm missing where it outlaws these? In fact, it outlaws > others (say your > > ISP) from decryping your encrypted data. > > > That is not correct. > > I'm very sensitive to these issues. As those of you that have been > around for awhile may recall, I was investigated by the FBI > for "treason" > merely for *WRITING* the specification for PPP CHAP and > discussing it at > the IETF (under Bush I). I don't expect it to be different > for Bush II. > > As Larry Blunk points out, to "possess" an encryption device > is a felony! > > Jack, you need to actually look at the text of the Act: > > (1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, > deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful > telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, > manufacture, > possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a > telecommunications device intending to use those devices > or to allow > the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or > having reason to know that the devices are intended to be > used to do > any of the following: > > (a) ... > > (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any > telecommunications service. > > [no encryption, no steganography, no remailers, no NAT, no tunnels] > [no Kerberos, no SSH, no IPSec, no SMTPTLS] > > (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, > intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, > transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any > telecommunications service without the express authority or actual > consent of the telecommunications service provider. > > [no NAT, no wireless, no sniffers, no redirects, no war driving, ...] > > (2) A person shall not modify, alter, program, or reprogram a > telecommunications access device for the purposes described in > subsection (1). > > [no research, no mod'ing] > > (3) A person shall not deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise > plans, written instructions, or materials for ... > > [no technical papers detailed enough to matter] > > (4) A person who violates subsection (1), (2), or (3) is > guilty of a > felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a > fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. All fines shall > be imposed > for each unlawful telecommunications access device or > telecommunications access device involved in the offense. Each > unlawful telecommunications access device or telecommunications > access device is considered a separate violation. > > [big penalties] > > > (a) "Telecommunications" and "telecommunications service" mean any > service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to > facilitate > the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or > reception of signs, data, images, signals, writings, sounds, or > other intelligence or equivalence of intelligence of any > nature over > any telecommunications system by any method, including, but not > limited to, electronic, electromagnetic, magnetic, optical, > photo-optical, digital, or analog technologies. > > [everything from a DVD, to the network, to the monitor, to t-shirts] > > -- > William Allen Simpson > Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B > 6A 15 2C 32 >

1 0

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why not nanog-legal ?)
by McBurnett, Jim 30 Mar '03

30 Mar '03

I am not for or against either.. just putting thoughts out there.. NANOG-Legal would be a good thing for the legal eagles, and a more consuming one for those of us already on numerous lists.. all in all, NANOG as a whole single list usually inspires more information sharing when taken whole, IMHO.... Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: William Devine, II [mailto:william@smartguys.net] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:15 PM > To: McBurnett, Jim; 'Jack Bates'; 'Rafi Sadowsky' > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why > not nanog-legal ?) > > > Why not a nanog-legal list ? > > wiliam > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > McBurnett, Jim > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 01:47 PM > To: Jack Bates; Rafi Sadowsky > Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) > > > > I agree...Partially > Legal issues are important, but those below a > management level, mostly don't care.. > I would not necessarily want another list to watch.. > But, it sometimes get's overly consuming to look at topics I care less > about... > > anyway, that's my 10 cents worth.. Inflation ya know.. > > Jim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net] > > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:41 PM > > To: Rafi Sadowsky > > Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; nanog(a)merit.edu > > Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) > > > > > > > > Rafi Sadowsky wrote: > > > > > > Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ? > > > > > > > The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, > > there are some that want to know what's going on in the > legal system, > > and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to > > keep track of > > legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic. > > > > -Jack > > > > > > > > >

2 1

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
by McBurnett, Jim 30 Mar '03

30 Mar '03

maybe I should have said Stateful inspection.. IE inspection of SMTP whereas it limits the commands that are allowed and makes protocol adjustments. thanks, J > -----Original Message----- > From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:11 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True > > > > JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:34:28 -0500 > JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim" > > > JM> NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the > JM> ignorant.. Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or > JM> Staples and get's a Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds > JM> NAT, and walla, his computer is no longer wide open to the > JM> world... Albeit not a stateful firewall, it is much more > > Actually, it _is_ stateful. It tracks state so it knows what > inbound traffic is directed to what IP:port on the inside, or > dropped if no match is found. > > Run 1:1 NAT and see how secure that is. Run a "public" IP > address with stateful rules that drop inbound traffic unless > outbound traffic happened "recently". Compare. > > NAT's "security" is a by-product of state that is necessary to > achieve 1:N mapping. > > > 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 > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) > From: A Trap <blacklist(a)brics.com> > To: blacklist(a)brics.com > Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. > > These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. > Do NOT send mail to <blacklist(a)brics.com>, or you are likely to > be blocked. > >

2 1

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
by McBurnett, Jim 30 Mar '03

30 Mar '03

> > And to use NAT to circumvent this should be illegal. It is theft of > > service. The ISP has the right to setup a business model > and sell as it > > wishes. Technology has allowed ways to bypass or steal > extra service. > > This law now protects the ISP. There will be some ISPs that > continue to > > allow and support NAT. NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the ignorant.. Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or Staples and get's a Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds NAT, and walla, his computer is no longer wide open to the world... Albeit not a stateful firewall, it is much more effective than Norton or others, as it does not use the resources of the system. If this is illegal, then the law truely is contradictoriy. As I understand it, it says that a network operator has the right to protect themselves. A network can be defined as 1 or more computers connected to 1 or more other computers..... > The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of > NAT devices > where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices. HMMM - Cisco just bought Linksys-- This should prove interesting!!!! > Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where > prohibited > necessarily should be considered an illegal activity. Note that the > customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft" > is debatable. It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for > breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something > else to put someone in prison for such a breach. See note above... NAT- A poor man's type of firewall..... > I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits > the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications. Comcast, Verizon, > and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they > do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple > routable static > IP addresses). That is surprising.. IN SC I know charter does not say that.. As a Matter of fact, I have worked closely with several local Charter Engineers. And they have really been exactly opposite... > The Michigan law covers only commercial telecommunications service > providers that charge fees. It most definitely does not cover > anyone running a network. how do they define a network? If I have a computer at home and it talks to other computers.. Then don't I operate a network? Later, Jim

2 1

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
by Jack Bates 30 Mar '03

30 Mar '03

Jamie Lawrence wrote: > > Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, if you think those where good > laws. > I don't necessarily think they are good laws. What it comes down to is this. A person will do whatever they think they can get away with if the punishment is only losing their service. I personally think that ISPs should write in penalty costs for breaking TOS and AUP and set them high enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the way to scare people into doing what is right to begin with. > Extending this to criminalizing devices capable of doing NAT, or port > forwarding, or (seemingly, in some cases) encryption, or anonymous > remailers, is stupid and wrong. > I do think that the Act was poorly written and have stated such. There is too much room for abuse of the Act. They tried to incorporate too many things under one umbrella. And ISP should not be grouped with telco or even cable. It has it's own sets of problems, and those problems should be handled uniquely. Combining legislation has never been a good deal. > If you need to criminalize what you should be enforcing by contract, > your business has a problem. > People, especially home users, don't fear breach of contract, especially if they feel they might get away with it. They do fear the law and going to jail; reguardless of if it's enforced heavily or not. -Jack

3 3

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
by McBurnett, Jim 30 Mar '03

30 Mar '03

I agree...Partially Legal issues are important, but those below a management level, mostly don't care.. I would not necessarily want another list to watch.. But, it sometimes get's overly consuming to look at topics I care less about... anyway, that's my 10 cents worth.. Inflation ya know.. Jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:41 PM > To: Rafi Sadowsky > Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) > > > > Rafi Sadowsky wrote: > > > > Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ? > > > > The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, > there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, > and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to > keep track of > legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic. > > -Jack > > >

1 0

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
by Jack Bates 30 Mar '03

30 Mar '03

Jamie Lawrence wrote: > > "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the > notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the > public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged > with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face > of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange > doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals > nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock > of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit." > - Robert Heinlein, "Life Line", 1939. > > It's not a matter of guaranteeing profit. It is a matter of stopping theft. Please see the old laws protecting telephone and cable companies. Now they asked it to be extended to help protect ISPs. The only part I do have an issue with in the Act is the fact that it limits the use of NAT devices where an ISP does not allow them. However, I do not construe this as a serious problem, as people using the service shouldn't use such technologies in the first place. They are knowingly bypassing the terms of service. As for the other providers, the Act doesn't apply. While many whine and complain, I particularly like the protections on the copyrights, including the X-box. Most people didn't have the knowledge to make blank cartriges in the olds days and download the code to the cartriges to play a game. Everyone can download software and burn a CD. Smack in a mod chip and you're good to go. I may not like M$, but I have to respect their copyrights. -Jack

1 0