June 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

from Dave Farber's list: Ireland to regulate peering
by Steve Bellovin 16 Jun '03

16 Jun '03

(apologies if this appears twice) >From: Alex French <alex(a)evilal.com> >Subject: Ireland to regulate peering .... >In brief: New rules being put in place by the Irish telecoms regulator >will regulate IP peering between ISPs as if it were a voice interconnect. >I'd love to hear from any other IPers who know if this is being proposed >anywhere else in Europe. As far as I know, this is unprecedented. > >The Irish telecoms regulator (ComReg) has announced a new set of licensing >rules for telcos. The bad part is that the rules have been greatly >expanded to include regulation of "all electronic communications >networks", including (apparently) ISP networks and VPN operators. > >ComReg is planning to apply the principles of voice interconnect to all >network types; this means that "operators of public communications >networks shall have a right, and when requested by other [operators], an >obligation to negotiate interconnection with each other for the purpose of >providing publicly available electronic communications services." In >effect, IP networks will have to peer with each other on request. > >Even worse, the "interconnect" (i.e. peering) prices will be subject to >review by the Irish regulator if either party feels that they're not being >offered a fair deal. > >The cherry on the cake is that ISPs can be designated as having >"Significant Market Power" (this used to be defined as having 25% of a >market, but the criteria are now more nebulous). If you have SMP, you must >publish your network cost accounting as prove that the peering prices you >charge are cost-oriented (cost + a reasonable ROI) > >As I see it, this will lead to the collapse of the current peering/transit >negotiation process that ISPs have successfully used all over the world >for years. I don't even see how this would benefit smaller ISPs, since the >new rules are likely to discourage larger companies from entering this >market at all. At the very least, the regulation of peering rates has got >to hurt competition. > >The relevant documents are available at http://www.comreg.ie. Specific >links are > >http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=101003 >http://www.comreg.ie/whats_new/default.asp?ctype=5&nid=100998 > --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)

6 6

Rescheduled: P2P file sharing national security and personal security risks
by Sean Donelan 16 Jun '03

16 Jun '03

June 10, 2003 NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED FULL COMMITTEE HEARING The Senate Committee on the Judiciary scheduled for Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., on .The Dark Side of a Bright Idea: Could Personal and National Security Risks Compromise the Potential of P2P File-Sharing Networks?. has been rescheduled for Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Building. By order of the Chairman I wonder if anyone is going to mention that Microsoft Network Neighborhood file sharing is a form of P2P file sharing.

5 4

RE: IPv6
by Mark Segal 15 Jun '03

15 Jun '03

>So, how does IPv6 go from the shores of Japan and the minds of geeks across America to being the primary protocol >used on the net? Microsoft ships their new OS with IPv6 enabled by default. :) Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Network Planning FCI Broadband Tel: 905-284-4070 Fax: 416-987-4701 http://www.fcibroadband.com Futureway Communications Inc. is now FCI Broadband

4 3

Re: IPv6
by Nick Hilliard 15 Jun '03

15 Jun '03

Brad Knowles wrote: > I was working at DISA at the height of the GOSIP stuff. I remember > the internal discussions and arguments. I'm fortunate enough to have > known a guy who was instrumental in helping to finally kill the damn thing. We all have our OSI horror stories. > Should we hope that the same won't happen to IPv6? Less likely. At least there is general consensus among pretty much everyone - with the exception of a small number of cranks - that IPv6 is good. This is not something which could have ever have been said about the ISO model, which governments loved and everyone else loathed. IPv6's major implementation problem is going to be apathy. After all, things are working fine at the moment, and who cares that some day there might be a big ip address crunch? Nick

3 4

Looking for transit
by Etaoin Shrdlu 15 Jun '03

15 Jun '03

Well, sort of. I have a bunch of old network hardware. I've recently disassembled a test network, and there are a lot of useful leftovers. Rob Thomas (of cymru.com, amongst others) would like it. I'd really like him to have it. Unfortunately, I'm in Southern California, and Rob is in Chicago. I can get the equipment to Las Vegas, during defcon (http://www.defcon.org, for the three of you who don't know what it is), which is August 1-3 this year. If there's anyone driving to defcon from the Chicago area, who could take it back there, or if there's anyone who is going from SoCal to Chicago, would you please consider volunteering? Rob's contributions are so worthwhile, I'd really like him to have the goods. Otherwise, I'll just be donating them to a local trade school. I've blind carbonned this to a few folk who are probably not on Nanog, and who may or may not be able to help. Please, reply privately. No sense in starting yet another off topic thread. Here's the part that sucks. Don't volunteer if you can't be vouched for in some way. Either Rob should know you, or someone well-known on Nanog should know you, or I should know you. I want it to go to Rob. Sorry for disturbing everyone, but I'm really hopeful that this'll work out. -- "They had discovered Mr. Slippery's True Name and it was Roger Andrew Pollack TIN/SSAN 0959-34-2861, and no amount of evasion, tricky programming, or robot sources could ever again protect him from them."

2 2

Re: IPv6
by Joe St Sauver 15 Jun '03

15 Jun '03

Hi, The real question when it comes to IPv6 is "What happens if I ignore it?" At one level, the obvious answer is "Nothing, the planets all continue to spin." It is clearly still a unicast IPv4 world out there. At another level: -- There are numerous free tunnel brokers out there; random users can and will get tunnelled v6 connectivity if native v6 connectivity isn't available. Some *might* assert that transcontinental/intercontinental tunnels aren't the best thing for the network (from a global perspective) for a variety of reasons... -- There are various 6to4 gateways out there, and they, too, are getting used. If you enable IPv6 on XP, for example, by default 6to4 gets turned up. Some might assert that 6to4 gateways provided by <fill in the blank> might not be the best thing for the network (from a global perspective) for a variety of reasons... -- While you ignore v6, some of your competitors aren't. They're getting address space, they're getting their router issues worked through, they're getting their DNS servers squared away, they're working out local addressing plans and figuring out application support strategies. They're getting experience before they need it for production requirements, and while it is still non-embarassing to be "just coming up to speed." -- Or consider IPv6 in higher education as an indication that IPv6 may be becoming ripe for easy deployment/may be beginning to become "real". At least for most of the ten or so measurement peers shown at http://amp.nlanr.net/active/cgi-bin/v6_sitesummary.cgi? amplet=amp-uoregon&date=103.6.15 you'll see v6 performance that's roughly comparable to v4 performance. Yes, this is across Internet2/Abilene, but at least for IPv6, Abilene has been peering with commercial v6 entities when everyone's in the right spot(s) and it makes sense to do so. I understand that in some cases hardware choices make v6 deployment hard (if not impossible), and that more v6-incompatible-hardware is unquestionably getting purchased out there as I write this. I understand that lots of applications still aren't ready. And I understand that customers aren't beating down your door saying, "Hey, when can I get IPv6?" (just as they probably haven't beaten down your door asking about IP multicast in a commercially meaningful way). On the other hand, I do believe that IPv6 is one of those technologies that will creep up on folks (if they aren't careful) simply because it does NOT require "top down" deployment to get a toehold, and the fact that ISPs AREN'T paying attention to it. For example, even if many folks carefully track/shape/police IPv4 P2P traffic, or block cusotmer servers, I'd be willing to bet that most folks pay zero attention to their current v6 traffic (whether native, tunnelled, or gatewayed)... And there *ARE* v6 P2P applications out there (the most notable of which is probably Microsoft's 3 degrees), although others are rumored to be porting their P2P applications to run dual stack. [There's a nice post about 3 degrees entitled "Operational experience with 3 degrees" by Christian Huitema at http://dict.regex.info/ipv6/v6ops/current/0183.html if folks are interested.] And if you aren't paying attention to "Teredo" as a technology, you might want to see http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/techinfo/administration/ p2p/overview.asp -- quoting from that piece, Teredo, also known as IPv4 network address translator (NAT) traversal for IPv6, is an IPv6/IPv4 transition technology that provides address assignment and host-to-host automatic tunneling for unicast IPv6 connectivity when IPv6/IPv4 hosts are located behind one or multiple IPv4 NATs. To traverse IPv4 NATs, IPv6 packets are sent as IPv4-based User Datagram Protocol (UDP) messages. [continues...] Regards, Joe St Sauver (joe(a)oregon.uoregon.edu) University of Oregon Computing Center

1 0

RE: IPv6
by Irwin Lazar 15 Jun '03

15 Jun '03

> IPv6's major implementation problem is going to be apathy. > After all, > things are working fine at the moment, and who cares that > some day there > might be a big ip address crunch? > > Nick > FYI: http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2221821 June 13, 2003 Pentagon Commits to IPv6 By Roy Mark The Pentagon announced Friday it is beginning a transition Internet Protocol Version 6 (Ipv6) to bring the Department of Defense (DoD) closer to its goal of net-centric warfare and operations. The new protocol will facilitate integration of the essential elements of DoD's global information grid, including its sensors, weapons, platforms, information and people.

1 0

(NSI) LAME-DELEGATION.ORG hijacking IP space ??
by John Brown 15 Jun '03

15 Jun '03

could someone explain this shorts# nslookup LAME2850.LAME-DELEGATION.ORG Server: ns1.chagres.net Address: 216.223.236.233 Aliases: 233.236.223.216.in-addr.arpa Non-authoritative answer: Name: LAME2850.LAME-DELEGATION.ORG Address: 1.1.1.1 or this shorts# nslookup LAME41178.LAME-DELEGATION.ORG Server: ns1.chagres.net Address: 216.223.236.233 Aliases: 233.236.223.216.in-addr.arpa Non-authoritative answer: Name: LAME41178.LAME-DELEGATION.ORG Address: 4.3.145.66 shorts# nslookup 4.3.145.66 Server: ns1.chagres.net Address: 216.223.236.233 Aliases: 233.236.223.216.in-addr.arpa Name: lsanca1-145-066.biz.dsl.gtei.net Address: 4.3.145.66 seems 4.3.146.66 is some DSL link in GTEI / BBN / Name today if NSI is going to use this as a way to deal with lame zones, fine, but how about using RFC 1918 space, or a public IP and a machine that returns NXDOMAIN..... instead of what looks like random IP allocations, some of which may cause pain for others... Hey, better yet, why not just learn how to DELETE host records from a zone ???

2 3

rr style scanning of non-customers
by Kuhtz, Christian 15 Jun '03

15 Jun '03

Hey gang, Some ISPs, such as RR, appear to be implementing what I personally would consider quite aggressive approaches to guarding their network by implementing "proactive" scanning of non-customers, similar to what's described at http://security.rr.com/probing.htm <http://security.rr.com/probing.htm> In this case, sending email to @rr.com appears to trigger this scanning business (mind you, this is not about the scanning their subs biz; I don't care to get into that in this thread). But, the question is.. How many people here are doing this sort of thing? And where does this stop, short of nmapping the entire box? Some time ago, when Code Red first came around, discussions raged as to how to deal with it and other infestations of customer owned/operated equipment. And this kind of is a different slant on the same issue. Except that it goes quite a bit further than your own prefixes. I'm not looking to start a flamewar, I'm interested in a discussion or consensus discovery of how far "proactive" tasks can/should/shouldn't go. Regards, Christian ***** "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."

7 9

Re: rr style scanning of non-customers
by John Brown 15 Jun '03

15 Jun '03

hope randy doesn't mind the xlate from private post to list post http://www.nsa.gov/snac/winxp/guides/wxp-1.pdf http://www.giac.org/practical/GSEC/Trevor_Cuthbert_GSEC.pdf http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/itpro/default.asp#section6 john brown On Sat, Jun 14, 2003 at 10:28:42PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > http://www.nsa.gov/snac/win2k/download.htm > > http://www.arstechnica.com/tweak/win2k/security/begin-1.html > > cool. how about xp? > > randy >

2 1