May 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Off-Topic: Sunday night beer @ Zeitgeist, NANOG31
by Michel Py 16 May '04

16 May '04

> Rob Nelson > Um. State, City, Zip Code? :) California, San Francisco, 94103-1117 Michel.

1 0

Off-Topic: Sunday night beer @ Zeitgeist, NANOG31
by Jeff Rizzo 16 May '04

16 May '04

If anyone's interested in hanging out Sunday night at a cool place that's _not_ in Union Square, a few of us are meeting at Zeitgeist, which is at 199 Valencia (at Duboce) in the Mission. It's about two blocks off Market Street, you can take the F Market streetcar (not a cable car, mind you!) to get there... I'll be there starting around 6pm Sunday evening. There's also some non-nanog NetBSD types showing up. There's lots of good restaurants in the area (see Woody's guide for details on some - Ti Couz is a couple blocks away, but Valencia is home to _tons_ of restaurants) and beer should be a little less expensive than in any given Union Square bar. :-) -- Jeff Rizzo http://boogers.sf.ca.us/~riz

2 1

fwd: CiSCO IOS 12.* source code stolen
by John Kinsella 15 May '04

15 May '04

For those not on bugtraq...I can't hit securitylab.ru, so would be curious if anybody has more info or confirmation... John ----- Forwarded message from Alexander Antipo <alexander(a)Antipov.info> ----- From: "Alexander Antipo" <alexander(a)Antipov.info> To: <bugtraq(a)securityfocus.com> Subject: CiSCO IOS 12.* source code stolen Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 22:49:50 +0400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 More information (in Russian, of course) and some little stolen code can be found here: http://www.securitylab.ru/45221.html ----- End forwarded message -----

3 2

Re: Pay-As-You-Use High-Speed Internet?
by Jonathan M. Slivko 15 May '04

15 May '04

Well - you could, to save costs, put a T3 (or multiple T3's) into a specific area that you want to serve and then distribute it from there via Ethernet. This is what we're currently doing with a residential/commercial building. -- Jonathan Daniel Senie wrote: > At 05:22 PM 5/14/2004, you wrote: > >> Hello Fellow NANOG'ers, >> >> I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable? The >> company that I work for developed a piece of technology which, through >> rate-limit statements, allow customers to buy/sell bandwidth "on >> demand". Now, I was thinking: "Why can't we take this technology that >> we've tested successfully in a colo environment and adapt it a little >> bit for personal/buisness-class ISP's to allow them to bill for the >> bandwidth that a customer uses, and only that with the exception of a >> base monthly fee (to cover the DSL/T1 loop, e-mail services, support, >> etc.) of a few dollars. > > > The access line (T-1, etc.) loop charge is substantially larger than the > bandwidth charge. Get the phone companies to price the lines better, and > it might make sense. > > >> Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for >> what they use - it would be a much better system for allowing people >> who don't neccessarily need to get on the Internet at high-speed, get >> on high-speed which will not only increase revenue for the ISP's, but >> also for the customer who can now use DSL/T1 access in a much more >> effective way. >> >> Questions? Comments? Suggestions? >> >> -- Jonathan >> >> -- >> Jonathan M. Slivko >> Network Operations Center >> Invisible Hand Networks, Inc. >> help(a)invisiblehand.net >> 1-866-MERKATO (USA) >> 1-812-355-5908 (Intl) >> <http://www.invisiblehand.net> -- Jonathan M. Slivko Network Operations Center Invisible Hand Networks, Inc. help(a)invisiblehand.net 1-866-MERKATO (USA) 1-812-355-5908 (Intl) <http://www.invisiblehand.net>

2 1

Re: Pay-As-You-Use High-Speed Internet?
by Jonathan M. Slivko 14 May '04

14 May '04

George, We do too - it's just a composite of the 5 minute interval samples taken at the switch/router. -- Jonathan George wrote: > Ok. > We do this.. > we charge,,,,,,,, in 1 month intervals :) > George > > > Jonathan M. Slivko wrote: > >> >> Hello Fellow NANOG'ers, >> >> I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable? The >> company that I work for developed a piece of technology which, through >> rate-limit statements, allow customers to buy/sell bandwidth "on >> demand". Now, I was thinking: "Why can't we take this technology that >> we've tested successfully in a colo environment and adapt it a little >> bit for personal/buisness-class ISP's to allow them to bill for the >> bandwidth that a customer uses, and only that with the exception of a >> base monthly fee (to cover the DSL/T1 loop, e-mail services, support, >> etc.) of a few dollars. >> >> Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for >> what they use - it would be a much better system for allowing people >> who don't neccessarily need to get on the Internet at high-speed, get >> on high-speed which will not only increase revenue for the ISP's, but >> also for the customer who can now use DSL/T1 access in a much more >> effective way. >> >> Questions? Comments? Suggestions? >> >> -- Jonathan >> -- Jonathan M. Slivko Network Operations Center Invisible Hand Networks, Inc. help(a)invisiblehand.net 1-866-MERKATO (USA) 1-812-355-5908 (Intl) <http://www.invisiblehand.net>

1 0

New VOIP Peering/Interconnection Mailing List Announcement
by Daniel Golding 14 May '04

14 May '04

Topics to be discussed: ENUM, TRIP, Voice Peering, QOS, BGP, SIP, VOIP Transit/Trunking, .tel, Inter-Asterisk Exchange (IAX), the ITU and anything else that may effect interconnection of VOIP and packet voice. This is a mailing list for voice folks, peering people, network engineers, and even business guys curious about how this technology will change things. Open exchange of ideas is the goal! Please feel free to forward this announcement freely. Post message: VOIP-Peering(a)yahoogroups.com Subscribe: VOIP-Peering-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com Web Interface (if you must :) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VOIP-Peering/ Thanks, -- Daniel Golding Network and Telecommunications Strategies Burton Group

6 7

Re: Pay-As-You-Use High-Speed Internet?
by Jonathan M. Slivko 14 May '04

14 May '04

James, > I'd rather keep paying more for unmetered service rather than pay by the > byte. I can host a popular site for a couple months, download a few cds, > upgrade all of my machines, without having to worry about explaining to > my wife why my monthly bill has doubled or tripled. > > For $850 a month, I have an unmetered T1. Though I usually only use > 15-20 gigabytes a month, on some months I can quadruple that. But I'm talking about using T3 connections to serve a building or an area. > > Basically, with metered service, first I'd become paranoid about usage, > then increasingly unhappy as time passed. I'd be very unsatisfied with > myself as I turned away projects like gnuarch because I didn't know how > much it would cost me to host them. Then, I'd become infuriated at you > for charging me for bandwidth that I didn't want in the first place -- > spams, web based ads, so forth and so on. As for turning away projects - you wouldn't have to. You can set a limit of how much you want to pay and buy bandwidth up to that limit. Also, the market fluctuates as the supply/demand goes up and down. As for spam, etc., nobody said that you had to download it from your ISP's mailserver. However, I do see your point. To be perfectly honest with you, thats not one of the concerns that our current customers have. > > I could just imagine saying to myself "I just downloaded the new Debian > CD. My bastard of a provider just charged me five bucks" That may be true - but also think about all the time that your *not* paying for the connection while your at work or out doing something else. > > Though I pay a lot now, I know that whether I'm using 20 gigs a month, > 80, or 400, the bill will remain the same predictable amount. I agree with you that knowing what your bill is, is very nice. However, if you had a T3 plugged into your apartment building for mass consumption, that would be nicer, wouldn't it? :) > > Now, if you want to sell me a T1 with a /28 for $600 a month (not > including local loop) , and then each month offer me a $570 rebate > for the bandwidth that I don't use -- well, now we can talk! > If we had facilities where you are, then i'm sure it wouldn't be a problem - but we wouldn't have to give you a rebate, as we wouldn't charge it to you in the first place :) -- Jonathan -- Jonathan M. Slivko Network Operations Center Invisible Hand Networks, Inc. help(a)invisiblehand.net 1-866-MERKATO (USA) 1-812-355-5908 (Intl) <http://www.invisiblehand.net>

1 0

New QoS Mailing List [nsp-qos]
by Vicky Rode 14 May '04

14 May '04

Mailing list for QoS discussions has been created. This is multi-vendor list accelerating the adoption of IP products and services that benefit from QoS capabilities. This list is intended to aid anyone deploying QoS solutions. Feel free to spread the word. Many thanks to Jared Mauch in setting this up. Subscribe: https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/nsp-qos regards, /vicky

1 0

Re: Pay-As-You-Use High-Speed Internet?
by Jonathan M. Slivko 14 May '04

14 May '04

Yes, but part of the software is a billing component which tells you *exactly* how much bandwidth you've used and what the total cost of the bandwidth is. You can also set a budget limit in the application which would not allow the bandwidth purchased to exceed $x. -- Jonathan J.J.Bailey wrote: >>Hello Fellow NANOG'ers, >> >>I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable? The >>company that I work for developed a piece of technology which, through >>rate-limit statements, allow customers to buy/sell bandwidth "on >>demand". Now, I was thinking: "Why can't we take this technology that >>we've tested successfully in a colo environment and adapt it a little >>bit for personal/business-class ISP's to allow them to bill for the >>bandwidth that a customer uses, and only that with the exception of a >>base monthly fee (to cover the DSL/T1 loop, e-mail services, support, >>etc.) of a few dollars. >> >>Personally, I would like to see a scenario where everyone just pays for >>what they use - it would be a much better system for allowing people who >>don't necessarily need to get on the Internet at high-speed, get on >>high-speed which will not only increase revenue for the ISP's, but also >>for the customer who can now use DSL/T1 access in a much more effective way. >> >>Questions? Comments? Suggestions? > > > Sounds good in theory. Sometimes, though, people don't want billing > surprises. They find that knowing what the bill will be is more > valuable than the savings. Or, they are unwilling to get hammered by > an anomaly. > -- Jonathan M. Slivko Network Operations Center Invisible Hand Networks, Inc. help(a)invisiblehand.net 1-866-MERKATO (USA) 1-812-355-5908 (Intl) <http://www.invisiblehand.net>

1 0

[Fwd: [IP] New flaw takes Wi-Fi off the air]
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 14 May '04

14 May '04

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [IP] New flaw takes Wi-Fi off the air Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 19:25:28 -0400 From: Dave Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Reply-To: dave(a)farber.net To: ip(a)v2.listbox.com Delivered-To: dfarber+(a)ux13.sp.cs.cmu.edu Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:23:54 -0700 From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne(a)warpspeed.com> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] New flaw takes Wi-Fi off the air Sender: dewayne-net(a)warpspeed.com To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net(a)warpspeed.com> New flaw takes Wi-Fi off the air By Patrick Gray, Security Focus (drew.cullen(a)theregister.co.uk) Published Thursday 13th May 2004 21:29 GMT <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/13/wifi_security_flaw/> A newly-discovered vulnerability in the 802.11 wireless standard allows attackers to jam wireless networks within a radius of one kilometre using off-the-shelf equipment. Affecting various hardware implementations of the IEEE 802.11 wireless networking standard - including widely used 802.11b devices - the flaw was found in the collision avoidance routines used to prevent multiple devices from transmitting at the same moment. "When under attack, the device behaves as if the channel is always busy, preventing the transmission of any data over the wireless network," a security advisory (http://www.auscert.org.au/render.html?it=4091) released by AusCERT reads. The weakness allows miscreants to take down networks within five seconds, according to researchers at Australia's Queensland University of Technology's Information Security Research Centre (ISRC), which discovered the vulnerability. ISRC's leader of network and systems security research, Associate Professor Mark Looi, whose PhD students, Christian Wullems, Kevin Tham and Jason Smith discovered the flaw, said any organization that relies heavily on wireless infrastructure should take the threat seriously. "Anyone who's relying on the availability of a wireless network should really consider that their wireless network can be knocked offline at any time," said Looi. "They need to very seriously evaluate that network and decide if it's possible to move away from wireless technology." While previous denial of service attacks against wireless networks have required specialised hardware and relied on high-power antennas, the new attack will make knocking a wireless network off the air an option for a "semi-skilled" attacker using standard hardware. "An attacker using a low-powered, portable device such as an electronic PDA and a commonly available wireless networking card may cause significant disruption to all WLAN traffic within range, in a manner that makes identification... of the attacker difficult," The AusCERT advisory read. Because the flaw is in the 802.11 protocol itself, the vulnerability cannot be mitigated through the use of software or encryption schemes. Replacing wireless devices with those not affected by the flaw seems the only option, said Looi. "Mitigation strategies are few and far between," Looi said "Organisations could deploy wireless networks that don't use this technology, [but] it will be a very expensive exercise." The flaw is only present in devices using a Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) physical layer, including IEEE 802.11, 802.11b and 802.11g wireless devices operating at low speed. 802.11a and 802.11g wireless devices configured to operate at speeds above 20Mbps are not affected by the glitch, AusCERT senior security analyst Jamie Gillespie does not anticipate the wide exploitation of the vulnerability. "For the average corporate user, we're not expecting to see ongoing denial of service attacks. However, if you have remote equipment that is only connected through wireless it is possible that the connection could be disrupted," Gillespie said. "Some critical infrastructure providers may not deploy wireless... but if any do then they should be looking at mitigation strategies." The lack of a "measurable result" during an attack is likely to render the average attacker bored, Gillespie added. Unlike flaws discovered in the WEP encryption scheme, the newly-disclosed vulnerability will not allow an attacker to snoop on network communications. The ISRC findings will be presented to the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Wireless Telecommunication Symposium in California on Friday. Archives at: <http://Wireless.Com/Dewayne-Net> Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com> ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as suresh(a)hserus.net To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/

8 10