August 2004 - Test - lists.nanog.org

great networks
by Network Guru 13 Aug '04

13 Aug '04

Hello, I have the responsibility of buidling a great network team for international /domestic projects and I am looking for quality networking guys to work for me. If you are based out of India or in the US, please do get in touch with me offline Regards, --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!

3 2

RE: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
by Bevan Slattery 13 Aug '04

13 Aug '04

Micheal, At 04:30 PM 13/08/2004, Michel Py wrote: >Trying to patent the wheel is not good for credibility, nor is using the >very same stinky methods as the scam artists. Appreciate the hospitable welcome to the NANOG list. For future reference your concern and feedback has been noted and filed accordingly. [b] ______________________________________ PIPE Networks/IX Services Australia disclaimer The above email should be read in conjunction with our standard disclaimer/terms which can be found at : http://www.pipenetworks.com/docs/disclaimer.htm

1 0

RE: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
by Michel Py 12 Aug '04

12 Aug '04

> Andre Oppermann wrote: > If you remember the very old story on Slashdot where > some guy in Australia managed to secure a patent on a > "circular transportation device" (a.k.a. "Wheel") it > will explain many things... ;-) I mean no disrespect to people from down under, but I have heard several times that if Al Gore was Australian he would have secured a patent that he invented the Internet... Michel.

1 0

RE: Current street prices for US Internet Transit
by Michel Py 12 Aug '04

12 Aug '04

Bill, In order to compare apples to apples, clarifying the measuring unit of the commit would be nice, IMHO: > William B. Norton wrote: > if you commit to 1M per month 1M per month of what exactly? Is this average for the month or subject to 95th percent tile? Michel.

1 0

XO Mail engineers?
by Drew Weaver 12 Aug '04

12 Aug '04

It has come to my attention that XO has "done away" with some of concentric's email systems and have replaced them with new "XO SMTP servers" these new XO SMTP servers aren't allowing people who don't have their mail hosted at XO to relay mail through them even though they are XO DSL customers, you guys may want to rethink your policy on this. It is generally the responsibility of the ISP to provide the outgoing mail transport for your connected users. -Drew

15 23

Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
by Robert Bonomi 12 Aug '04

12 Aug '04

> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT) > From: Henry Linneweh <hrlinneweh(a)sbcglobal.net> > Subject: Re: BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia? > > --- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve(a)telecomplete.co.uk> > wrote: >> >> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Henry Linneweh wrote: >>> >>> --- "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve(a)telecomplete.co.uk> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Petri Helenius wrote: >>>> >>>>> We have had running code for this since early this year, so depending >>>>> on the date they filed, prior art exists well documented. >>>> (blueprints obviously predate running code) >>>> >>>> everyone has gone patent crazy, every time a new concept is developed some >>>> company applies for patent. is this the future or rfcs then? >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >> >>> Well if it will harm the community, would it be possible to auto copyright >>> rfc's, so that the authors of a concept can prevent someone from sipping >>> their effort off? RFCs -- like aything else -- _are_ copyrighted, under current law. However, almost all, if not all, of them contain express permission for anyone to copy/reproduce them. Copyright of a process description, furthermore, does *NOT* preclude someone from -using- the the process that was so described. Aside from those 'inconsiderate' facts getting in the way, you don't have a bad idea. :) >>> Ignorance at the top doesn't mean we can't be like always leading the >>> way...... >>> >>> -Henry >>> >>> > >> one issue with that might be that the patents are >> taken out on variations of the >> core idea, imho the variations are not new ideas but >> legally they seem to get >> away with it >> >> Steve > > ok so then in the copyright let us see if can cover > all variations of the original concept as belonging to > the original author or author's as a test case for > adaption and modificaiton to copyright law. I strongly > believe in the protection of original idea's in > reference to rfc's Sorry, copyright doesn't work that way. The _expression_ the concept is protected. *NOT* the underlying concept itself. To protect a 'process', or 'mechanism', you are into the realm of _patent_ law.

1 0

BGP-based blackholing/hijacking patented in Australia?
by Niels Bakker 12 Aug '04

12 Aug '04

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,10394549%5E15306%5E%5Enbv%5… 2004-08-10 (via InfoAnarchy) "Pipe has applied for a patent for its method of blocking access to deceptive websites linked to fraudulent emails that direct users to fake bank websites to capture bank account and password details. [..] "Pipe Networks managing director Bevan Slattery said Pipe had been testing a method of enabling banks, ISPs and law enforcement agencies to notify Pipe of new phishing emails. "Pipe could then distribute updated internet routing information to ISPs via the border gateway protocol, so internet users could not reach the fraudulent website." The implications of this are scary. Hijacking of IP space by a private company, supported by the government? -- Niels. -- Today's subliminal thought is:

11 13

Teen pleads guilty in Internet attack
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 12 Aug '04

12 Aug '04

For your perusal: Teen pleads guilty in Internet attack SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- A Minnesota high school senior pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to unleashing a variant of the "Blaster" Internet worm, which crippled more than a million computers last summer. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/08/12/internet.attack.ap/index.html - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

Current street prices for US Internet Transit
by William B. Norton 12 Aug '04

12 Aug '04

Hi all - As I'm putting together some Peering vs. Transit pricing models for an upcoming peering forum in NYC, I'd like to verify some current transit prices I am getting from the field. Here is what the peering coordinators are telling me... Sound about right to you guys? ISP Transit Commits and Prices (Tier 2 ISP buying from non-bottom feeder ISPs) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- if you commit to 1M per month you will pay about $125/Mbps if you commit to 10M per month you will pay about $ 60/Mbps if you commit to 100M per month you will pay about $45/Mbps if you commit to 1000M per month you will pay about $30/Mbps Round Number Costs for Local Loops into an IX 100M $1000/month 1000M $4000/month If you have any actual price quote #'s that I can generalize that would be great. If you can say too high, too low, about right based on the commits, that would help also. Please note that I'm not looking for the best price one could get, but rather an average street price a Tier 2 ISP or cable company (or network savvy Content company) would pay. These prices are going to used for modelling The Business Case for Peering v2, an update to the original white paper describing when peering makes sense financially... more on this later. Thanks! Bill

1 0

Fwd: Re: Are AOL's MXs mass rejecting anyone else's emails?
by Andrew Paprocki 11 Aug '04

11 Aug '04

This message was sent to me offline after my post to the list. This apparently solved our problems. Just sending back to the list so anyone else searching for this issue can find an answer. Thanks NANOG! -Andrew > ----- Begin Forwarded Message ----- > > To: andrew(a)ishiboo.com > From: ajensen(a)ntsi.us > Subject: Re: Are AOL's MXs mass rejecting anyone else's emails? > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:41:24 -0700 > > Andrew, > > I lurk on the NANOG list for interesting topics (can't currently post thru). I > started having this exact same problem in June with AOL. Spent an hour on the > phone with "Michael W" (linuxwolff(a)aol.com) and another couple hours doing > debuging via telnet to their servers before figuring it out. > > The problem in my case is that they seem to have put in place an email header > order filter (which gives back the 554 RLY:FA error if failed). Of course, the > web/mail masters didn;t seem to have any idea the mail admins did this. > > In my case, the problem is caused by the position of the "From:", "Mime:", and > "Content:" headers. The "From:" header MUST come before the other 2 in the > message flow, otherwise it is rejected. I don't know of any RFC which dictates > email header order... but apparently AOL is filtering on it... I forwarded this > info to them long ago and Michael said he would "add it to their notes". > > Below is the message I sent them with the details: > --- > >Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 12:22:35 -0700 > >From: ajensen(a)ntsi.us > >Subject: Bouncing email - believe to have found the problem > >To: linuxwolff(a)aol.com > > > > I think I have found the problem with the 554 RLY:FA error message. > > According > > to > > my logs, I have been able to successfully send you a few messages. > > > > The problem appears to lie in the processing of mail header order within the > > email message itself, not the SMTP "MAIL FROM" or "RCPT TO" commands. > > Previously when I sent out email, the headers of the email would look > > something > > like: > > > > Received from: <blah blah blah> > > To: <recipient@address> > > Subject: <subject> > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > > From: <tagged_sender@address> > > Message-Id: <20040610185105.88AD63B8114(a)www.ntsi.us> > > Date: <date string> > > > > <Message>... > > > > This was done through a PHP script using the "mail()" function, based on > > the > > example 4 in the PHP manual (http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.mail.php) > > (NOTE: in the example they have To/From/CC: and Bcc: headers following > > MIME/Content headers). This method still works fine through several other > > mail > > servers (cox.net, arizona.edu, af.mil) and had worked fine for the past year > > with aol.com. As of approximately Jun 9th, 4pm MST (or earlier, was working > > at > > 10am according to my logs), this no longer works with AOL servers. > > > > After some manipulation I have found that for the AOL servers, the From: > > header > > (regardless of the SMTP "MAIL FROM" command) MUST come before the MIME > > and/or > > Content headers within the email message. It appears that reordering the > > To/From/CC: headers does not affect the outcome, so long as the From: header > > precedes the MIME: and Content: headers of the message. > > > > Therefore, for a message to get through to an AOL user, the message must be > > formatted in the manner of: > > > > Received from: <blah blah blah> > > To: <recipient@address> > > Subject: <subject> > > From: <tagged_sender@address> > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Message-Id: <20040610185105.88AD63B8114(a)www.ntsi.us> > > Date: <date string> > > > > <Message>... > > > > > Adrian Jensen > ajensen(a)ntsi.us > Systems Administrator > National Traffic Safety Institute > Tucson, Az > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This mail was sent through webmail services for the > National Traffic Safety Institute and may contain > privileged and confidential information. Use or > interception by any intermediate agency or > individual is prohibited. > > > > ----- End Forwarded Message -----

1 0