June 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
by Paul Vixie 19 Jun '04

19 Jun '04

> Just curious. How much would it differ from > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=icannwatch-20&path=tg/detail… > > and > > http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/icann.pdf as i said, it can't be written by an ambulance-chaser or nobody will pay attention.

1 0

RE: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists]
by Hannigan, Martin 19 Jun '04

19 Jun '04

It's not just a funding bill. It provided $500MM for carrier network upgrades and for switch software compliance. That fund has been exhausted from what I have been told. It also clearly defined technical expectations that carriers and manufacturers have to live up to. All that being CALEA compliant means is that you are capable, as required, to provide service to a legal order i.e. pin register, trap, trace, DTMF extration, flash hook operations ala three way calling, CALLER ID, and voice intercept. There's no "secret sauce" to CALEA. CALEA doesn't expand LEA's authority, it puts them on an even playing field with suspected criminals with regards to access. -M -- Martin Hannigan (c) 617-388-2663 VeriSign, Inc. (w) 703-948-7018 Network Engineer IV Operations & Infrastructure hannigan(a)verisign.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Sean Donelan > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 1:49 AM > To: Stephen Sprunk > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes > Subject: Re: [Fwd: [IP] Feds: VoIP a potential haven for terrorists] > > > > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > I'm told that most CALEA warrants only authorize a pen > register, not an > > CALEA and wiretaps are independent subjects. You can have CALEA > obligations even if you never, ever implement a single wiretap. On > the other hand you may need to implement many wiretaps even though > you have no CALEA obligations. > > For example, hotels and universities have traditionally been > considered > not to have CALEA obligations. However, both hotels and > universities must > comply with court orders if law enforcement wants to wiretap > one of their > phones. Should CALEA be extended to hotels and universities? > Are hotels > and universities broadband Internet providers when they offer Internet > service in student dorm rooms or hotel rooms? > > In reality, CALEA is a funding bill; it has very little to do with > technology. Imagine if law enforcement thought DNA testing was too > expensive, so Congress passes a law requiring all doctors to purchase > DNA testing equipment and provide free DNA tests to law enforcement. > DNA is a complicated subject. Few police officers are qualified to > analyze DNA. Instead law enforcement pays for professional DNA testing > when it needs DNA testing. > > The FCC comment period has closed. Everyone had an > opportunity to submit > comments on the topic to the FCC. > > Consult your own attorney if you want real legal advice. >

1 0

Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
by Peter H Salus 19 Jun '04

19 Jun '04

I will admit to only thinking about this for a few days. However, it seems to me that the Harvard material is rather narrowly focussed both on a temporal and on a topical level. I am an admirer of Froomkin's essays, and have published at least one of them (in the distant past when Matrix News was published). I haven't really looked at Ruling the Root, because I was turned off by Dave Crocker's review in IPJ. But, anyway, as it appeared in 2002, I imagine it contains little of the recent Verisign/Netsol "business." However, I should most likely give Mueller more leeway, as I really liked his telephony book. Peter

1 0

Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
by Peter H Salus 19 Jun '04

19 Jun '04

Paul (et al.), If you can find a willing publisher and an organization able to supply some funds, I would be delighted to work on a "real" history of Internet "governance" since RFCs 881-883. (Most of the funds would be for travel, Xeroxing, etc.) Peter --------------------------------------------------------- Peter H. Salus, Ph.D. 40 IH 35 N #4A3 Austin, TX 78701 consultant & author peter(a)netpedant.com +1 512 478-7562

3 2

ARIN whois server offline ?
by Mike Tancsa 19 Jun '04

19 Jun '04

Reachability to the network seems OK, but the server seems to time out. marble% whois -h whois.arin.net 220.175.8.27 whois: connect(): Operation timed out marble% marble% traceroute whois.arin.net traceroute to whois.arin.net (192.149.252.43), 64 hops max, 44 byte packets 1 iolite4-fxp2 (199.212.134.10) 0.114 ms 0.105 ms 0.090 ms 2 tor-hespler-360-mica (64.7.143.42) 3.105 ms 3.365 ms 3.691 ms 3 h66-59-189-97.gtconnect.net (66.59.189.97) 4.509 ms 4.644 ms 3.871 ms 4 216.18.63.93 (216.18.63.93) 15.021 ms 14.774 ms 15.044 ms 5 POS4-0.PEERA-CHCGIL.IP.GROUPTELECOM.NET (66.59.191.86) 14.175 ms 14.009 ms 14.556 ms 6 p4-6-2-0.r01.chcgil01.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.10.97) 14.892 ms 14.477 ms 14.667 ms 7 p16-2-0-0.r01.chcgil06.us.bb.verio.net (129.250.5.70) 14.680 ms 14.497 ms 14.477 ms 8 POS5-2.BR3.CHI2.ALTER.NET (204.255.174.233) 15.266 ms 15.298 ms 14.956 ms 9 0.so-5-2-0.XL2.CHI2.ALTER.NET (152.63.68.6) 15.469 ms 14.989 ms 15.546 ms 10 0.so-0-0-0.TL2.CHI2.ALTER.NET (152.63.68.89) 15.618 ms 15.804 ms 16.736 ms 11 0.so-3-0-0.TL2.DCA6.ALTER.NET (152.63.19.170) 34.436 ms 34.240 ms 34.352 ms 12 0.so-7-0-0.CL2.DCA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.32.181) 34.680 ms 35.498 ms 35.267 ms 13 194.ATM5-0.GW4.DCA1.ALTER.NET (152.63.37.65) 35.113 ms 35.455 ms 35.452 ms 14 arin-gw2.customer.alter.net (65.207.88.74) 110.848 ms 37.177 ms 38.229 ms 15 *^C marble% -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike(a)sentex.net Providing Internet since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada www.sentex.net/mike

1 0

where is whois.arin.net?
by Jon Lewis 19 Jun '04

19 Jun '04

whois.arin.net appears to have been down for at least the past hour or two. Anyone know what happened or an ETR for it? ARIN seems to block ping/traceroute at their border, but www.arin.net is still usable. The web frontend to whois at www.arin.net seems nonfunctional at this time as well. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________

1 0

Network Performance Testing Equipment
by Vicky 18 Jun '04

18 Jun '04

Hi there, Just wondering what folks out there have used or are using (such as smartbits, etc) for measuring the performance (benchmark) limits for engineering and qa testing. I'm looking at doing end-to-end performance testing to monitor throughput for networking gear. Any insight to this topic will be appreciated. regards, /vicky

4 3

Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
by Gordon Cook 18 Jun '04

18 Jun '04

>Anything I/we can do to help the cause? > >Bob Martin yes..... I almost missed this one. There are few entities for which i have more contempt than ICANN. But verisign heads the more contempt than ICANN list by several orders of magnitude. in my estimation it would like to control telecom by control of the numbers associated therewith. In addition to the present issue which owen de long described here masterfully last fall, verisign's alliance with EPC global at some point in the future could give it huge power in supply chain rfid numbering systems. Finally there is something doing in the voip area that i am not clear on at all but which i didn't like the sound of when i read the description. I am tying to stay away from this cesspool. It brings no income - only grief. But, knowing what i know, i am remiss if i don't stick my head up here. I go waaayyyy back with network solutions to 1994 actually and i keep damned good archives. If I can assist Paul or the anti-verisign part of this case in building the details of the history of who did what to whom, I gladly will do so > >Quoted from different thread: > >>(note that verisign has amended their complaint against icann (since the >>court dismissed the first one) and i'm now named as a co-conspirator. if >>you reply to this message, there's a good chance of your e-mail appearing >>in court filings at some point.) >>-- Paul Vixie -- ============================================================= The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Report on economic black hole of best effort networks at: http://cookreport.com/13.04.shtml E-mail cook(a)cookreport.com =============================================================

3 3

Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
by John Neiberger 18 Jun '04

18 Jun '04

>>OK, I have obviously missed something here... I know that the courts dismissed >> the original complaint against ICANN, but what has happened since, and what i >>s this about some conspiracy? Are they trying to say that users of the anti-Si >>teFinder BIND patch are conspirators? > >No -- but the easiest thing to do is to read the amended complaint, >which is linked-to from ICANN's home page. It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with actions that they know will give them a horrible reputation. Does the potential for short-term financial gain outweigh the benefits of a good long-term reputation? Verisign, SCO, and Postini come to mind as examples. I can't stand the current spam filtering/AV email service that we use right now (Mailwatch...ugh.), but should we change to Postini--a supposedly superior service--knowing how slimy some of their actions have been? That's a rhetorical question, of course, but I think it makes the point. I prefer to do business with good companies with good products, not bad companies with good products. John --

4 3

Postini, Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
by John Neiberger 18 Jun '04

18 Jun '04

>It never ceases to amaze me that some companies will move forward with >actions that they know will give them a horrible reputation. Does the >potential for short-term financial gain outweigh the benefits of a good >long-term reputation? Verisign, SCO, and Postini come to mind as >examples. > >I can't stand the current spam filtering/AV email service that we use >right now (Mailwatch...ugh.), but should we change to Postini--a >supposedly superior service--knowing how slimy some of their actions >have been? That's a rhetorical question, of course, but I think it makes >the point. I prefer to do business with good companies with good >products, not bad companies with good products. Based on some offline comments I've decided to clarify my remarks. I don't think Postini is necessarily slimy and I shouldn't have mentioned them in the same sentence as Verisign and SCO, who are verifiably slimy. I should have phrased my remarks differently because I don't _know_ that Postini is slimy yet. Postini's patent issue (do a Google search to get more info) is suspicious, and _possibly_ indicative of a slimy tactic. However, there may be some completely valid reasons for their actions and I suppose we shouldn't judge them too harshly yet. Regardless of their reasons, it gives the appearance that they're not satisfied with simple competition and may try to negatively affect the competition through legal means. If they do that, then they're slimy. Until then, I suppose we (I) shouldn't make hasty judgments. John --

3 2