November 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Sheesh, regulators
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 12 Dec '04

12 Dec '04

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2004/09/11/stories/2004091102660400.htm ISPs may be stopped from offering private leased line services Thomas K. Thomas New Delhi , Sept. 10 INTERNET Service Providers (ISPs) are in for a major setback with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) proposing to restrict them from offering private leased line services. While the telecom regulator is considering to ask the state-owned Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL) to resume provision of leased line resources to ISPs, the latter may be allowed to use it only for providing Internet-based services. This will come as a big blow to Internet operators who get a significant part of their revenue from corporate leased line services like virtual private network (VPN). The fight between BSNL and ISPs over the issue has been hanging fire for the last few months. The high point came when BSNL stopped offering leased line services to ISPs on grounds that they were misusing the infrastructure to offer services that were beyond the scope of their licence. BSNL had argued that ISPs, who do not pay any entry fee or licence fee, should not be allowed to offer corporate leased line service as it was infringing on the turf of long distance operators. Companies such as Sify, HCL Infinet and Tata Internet had made representation to the regulator against the stance taken by BSNL. The telecom regulator has taken a position favouring BSNL by saying that the public sector company was justified in its demand, as ISPs were not eligible to provide services such as VPN. This service is used by large corporates to network all their branch offices spread across the country. However, a TRAI report on the issue said that BSNL was fair in demanding that ISPs can use the leased lines only for Internet purpose and not resell it, because they were not entitled to do the business of reselling bandwidth leased from other telecom service providers. The telecom regulator has also sought the views of the Department of Telecom (DoT) on the issue and would give its final directive in the next few weeks. DoT officials said that the department was looking at allowing ISPs to offer VPN services but only after paying an entry fee to level the playing field with long distance players.

2 1

"Make love, not spam"....
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Techdirt has an article this morning that discusses how Lycos Europe is encouraging their users to run a screensaver that constantly "pings servers suspected to be used by spammers" and also suggests that "In other words, it's a distributed denial of service attack against spammers by Lycos." The Techdirt article referenced is on Heise Online: http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/53697 I'd be curious to hear what NANOG readers thoughts are on this. Techdirt is located at http://www.techdirt.com/ - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

8 7

How to monitor BGP route stability ?
by Joe Shen 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

Hi, Is there any tool to monitor BGP route stablity? thanks Joe __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Log on to Messenger with your mobile phone! http://sg.messenger.yahoo.com

4 3

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Paul Vixie 02 Dec '04

02 Dec '04

> > ... > > Actually, the policy also specifies that you must not be an end-site. well, you sure caught me this time. in august 2002 when the /32 in question first came to isc, i had not read the policy. so i don't know if it was different from the current policy. i assume it was, because i know that we qualified, officially, under the rules at the time the /32 came to us. > I'd be particularly interested in knowing what ISC said who would be their > 200 other organizations who they intended to allocate the address space > (their employees?), and how ISC would not be an end-site. > > This is a more generic issue, of course. of course. in august 2002 there were no v6 isp's. isc is multihomed, so it's difficult to imagine what isp we could have taken address space from then, or now. we do allocate /48's to various open-source organizations who get their transit from us, but it could take us some years to add 200 of these. if arin's allocation policy for ipv6 does not take account of multihomed non-allocating enterprises then either that policy will change, or the internet exchange point business model will be dead. speaking as a co-founder and former president of PAIX, i don't like that idea at all. speaking as someone who's had too much coffee today, it seems possible that the preponderance of arin's membership could prefer a pure transit world to a mixed transit/IXP world. but since woody has been on the arin board for a while now, i don't think that such a decision could have been taken quietly. i hope that if nothing else, this proves that the issues are more complex than which policies arin followed when allocating 2001:4f8::/32. (and note, as before, that i'm not speaking for arin.)

35 84

Re: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;)
by Owen DeLong 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

Bundusch Germania Politzei Forgive my lack of German spelling/grammar, but, hopefully I came close. Owen --On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 18:45 +0100 Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> wrote: > * Owen DeLong: > >> Why is my organization any less relevant on the global scale than >> say: > > May personal favorite is > > AS3280 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3281 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3282 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3283 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3284 BGS (German Border Police) > AS3285 BGS (German Border Police) > > Perhaps the "B" in BGP has confused them?

3 2

Re: who gets a /32 [Re: IPV6 renumbering painless?]
by Miquel van Smoorenburg 01 Dec '04

01 Dec '04

In article <cistron.1100794375.3557.3.camel(a)firenze.zurich.ibm.com>, Jeroen Massar <jeroen(a)unfix.org> wrote: >The business case of about 80% of the ISP's is Pr0n & W4R3z (or what >spelling is 'in' this year?) > >But.... it is not illegal to make adverts for say "Downloading the >newest movies over a cool 8mbit DSL line". But downloading it itself is >of course. Might be analogous to providing a busservice to the crack >dealers mansion. [OT] That depends on the jurisdiction. In many parts of the world, downloading is NOT illegal. But making copyrighted files available for download is illegal (without the proper autorization, ofcourse). Mike.

41 163

AOL Abuse/Email contact
by JDeane＠sungardfutures.com 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

If someone from AOL abuse and or email group could contact me off list to discuss mail delivery issues, it would be most appreciated. Attempts to resolve issues via generic contacts have proved fruitless. Regards, Jade Jade E. Deane Senior Network Engineer SunGard Futures Systems SunGard Systems International, Inc. jdeane(a)sungardfutures.com +1 (312) 577-6100

2 1

ATM SVC rerouting time
by Paul Khavkine 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hi folks. Does anyone know the time it takes or should take for an SVC to be rerouted in a small 4-6 switch ATM network running PNNI ? Is it part of the ATM spec or does it depend on the switch manufacturer ? Thanx Paul ************************************************ Paul Khavkine Network Administrator DISTRIBUTEL Communications. 740 Notre Dame West, Suite 1135 Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3C 3X6 1-514-877-5505 x 263 http://www.distributel.net ************************************************

3 4

RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI]
by Chris Burton 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

I was just throwing in the example of the private AS numbers to try and preempt anyone who might try to use that example if any on how transiting to 32-bit AS numbers would somehow cause a collapse of the world as we know it (It was not the best example). Let me qualify my statement; personally I don't think the policies in place should be anymore strict then they already are or changed in any fashion for the given circumstances (If the given circumstances change, well then I reserve the right to change my mind on the issue as do the governing bodies, and anyone else who wishes to change their mind); that being said I also do not believe the policies should be relaxed in any fashion (why add trouble if you do not have to). The current ASN policies are pretty cut and dry as to who can receive a non-private ASN and who cannot. I think overall you and I agree on this. Chris -----Original Message----- From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 12:49 PM To: Chris Burton; Pekka Savola Cc: Jeroen Massar; Cliff Albert; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large multi-site enterprises and PI] Actually, no need for trouble with the existing private ASNs. Afterall, RFC 1918 is not exactly taken from any particular end of the IPv4 space. The same situation can exist with private ASNs... They simply become a hole in the list. I don't think we need stricter ASN policies. I think the current policies are quite adequate. If you think that the current policies are not sufficiently strict, I'd be interested in knowing in what way you think they are insufficient. In any case, there isn't a land-rush for ASNs under current policy as far as I can tell, and, I don't think increasing the available bits will change that. Owen --On Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:38 -0800 Chris Burton <ChrisB(a)VMC.com> wrote: > The idea behind possibly making the policy stricter would be to > keep all of those "I want one too" people from getting an ASN number who > do not have a clear need and therefore conserve resources. Only because > you have the ability to give out ASNs does not me you should. Human > nature dictates for most people that if it is available they want one > also regardless of if the need exists. > > I have no problems with the phased move to 32-bit ASNs; it is a > logical step towards the future. I don't see what the big deal is; > although I do not write the code for the network equipment it seems that > the transition should be fairly transparent since the first 65536 ASN > numbers fit snuggly into the a 32-bit schema (there may be issues with > the private ASNs, but those also should fairly easy to transition) so > there shouldn't be much of a problem for existing users and none for new > users with the proper code/equipment. Future transitions to a 64-bit or > 128-bit ASN if the need should arise, again I do not see a major issue; > but this is just my opinion, YMMV. > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 9:44 PM > To: Chris Burton > Cc: Owen DeLong; Jeroen Massar; Cliff Albert; nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: RE: 16 vs 32 bit ASNs [Re: BBC does IPv6 ;) (Was: large > multi-site enterprises and PI] > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Chris Burton wrote: >> It is highly doubtful that the policies in place will become >> more relaxed with the introduction of 32-bit ASNs, the more likely >> scenario is that they will stay the same or get far stricter as with >> assignments of IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. > > I find this hard to believe. When there is 64K times as much the > resource, there is no way the policies would get stricter, because it > can easily and logically be argued that they don't need to be > stricter. > >> As you had mentioned though, in the near term this definitely would >> not be scalable, but who knows what is going to happen 10, 15, or >> more years from now. > > So, let's delay the move until we know how to make it more scalable. > >> I think your numbers may be a little off 2^32 = 4,294,967,296; >> current world population give or take a few million is hovering around >> 6,300,000,000 according to the US Gov. If everyone and the mother > would >> like an ASN (Which is highly unlikely) you would need just a few more > to >> make that work. > > Yeah, I know the calculations :). Everyone can already get an IPv4 > address too, right? All we need is an AS number NAT.. oops, it's there > already. > > Face it, with 32 bit ASNs, pretty much anyone could have an ASN if > they wanted to unless the policies were very strict, and it would be > very difficult to justify why it would have to be strict because there > is so vast resource to be used.

1 0

ping SBC abuse/security/noc
by Christopher McCrory 30 Nov '04

30 Nov '04

Hello... Can someone from SBC contact me off list. (or help out with contact info for $RealPerson). For the past six months one of SBC's users has been constantly hammering my web servers. Apparently with SBC DSL you can cycle your network interface every five minutes and get another IP address. This makes blocking malcontents an exercise in futility. I have emailed abuse@ and security@ for the last four months with no response other than the automagic "we received your email bla bla bla" (hopefully) Thanks -- Christopher McCrory "The guy that keeps the servers running" chrismcc(a)pricegrabber.com http://www.pricegrabber.com Let's face it, there's no Hollow Earth, no robots, and no 'mute rays.' And even if there were, waxed paper is no defense. I tried it. Only tinfoil works.

1 0