March 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Vonage SUED over not clearly informing customers re 911 service lacking
by Network.Security 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

Re: "Your Call Will Go To A General Access Line at the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). This is different from the 911 Emergency Response Center where traditional 911 calls go." In talking with my local PSAP about VoIP services and this particular issue, they (PSAPs collectively) are fairly displeased with Vonage-like services and how it introduces delay into their process which is all about time sensitive information. With the advances in E911, cell phone location services, etc. which all increased the speed of identifying caller location and identity, residential VoIP services have set things back a fair amount. The "General Access" line that Vonage's text mentions means different things to different PSAPs and some (mine anyway) prioritize calls coming in on this line to the lowest queue and with some areas it may not even be answered outside of core operating hours or during high-call periods. I'm not saying (nor do I hope the PSAPs are either) that Vonage should cease and desist service because of the 911 issues, rather greater partnership needs to be initiated to insure that VoIP service and POTS have the same priority for 911 and that all possible information is transmitted in a timely manner for 911 dispatchers to get the right services to you as fast as possible. I read on a Vonage customer forum about "testing" your 911 service with them, I don't know that I'd advocate that as the PSAPs will likely be ticked. But again, it emphasizes a point about collaboration between Vonage and the areas it supports to insure customer safety. If you are a Vonage customer, I'd urge you to verify your 911 info with them. Sure you'll hopefully never need the service, but if your house is on fire or your child is choking or whatever the unfortunate event is, will you really be able to give them your full address and call-back number in a time of crisis? I hope so... Sorry about the soapbox, I have strong feelings on this one... - Scott Scott.altman(a)target.com Paid-on-call firefighter and network guy

3 2

Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
by David Barak 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

--- William Allen Simpson <wsimpson(a)greendragon.com> wrote: > So, Utah law _already_ means no links to Planned > Parenthood et alia. > Planned Parenthood is quite alive and well in Utah. Contraceptives are freely advertised on TV and given out on campus at the U of U. All of the other stuff you're seeing is either: 1) unenforcable old blue laws similar to how Native Americans need to be escorted by police in Massachussetts (i.e. they never got around to fixing old bad law, but noone cares anymore) 2) political posturing by elected officials (also relatively common in other parts of the world. c.f. US Congress, both parties) 3) Something which, while it COULD be extended to mean something ridiculous, will NOT be. For crying out loud - this is UTAH, not the moon: the people there are just like people everywhere. Yeah, they tend to be a bit more socially conservative than the libertarian-leaning NANOG membership is used to, but it's not like they've got 2 heads and three arms - if you prick them, they'll bleed... so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of service, and we'll see how it plays out. -David Barak need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise! http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

6 5

Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
by David Barak 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

--- William Allen Simpson <wsimpson(a)greendragon.com> wrote: > Why other businesses? For example, no drug > companies or pharmacies > can have their businesses in Utah; they sell > contraceptives, and > generate information too sensitive for the tender > eyes of minors. This is not correct - on network TV in utah, and on the "family-friendly" cableco feed, you can see the various prophylactic manufacturers' ads. Many of the statements I've seen here are very "doom and gloom" about Utah - honestly, folks, it's not THAT bad. -David Barak need geek rock? Try The Franchise! http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

3 2

Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
by Andrew Dul 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

-------Original Message------- > From: "Edward Lewis" <Ed.Lewis(a)neustar.biz> > Subject: Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder > Sent: 24 Mar 2005 12:20:08 > > At 17:01 +0000 3/24/05, Andrew Dul wrote: > > >I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in the > >process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not getting the > >right stuff done... How do we fix this problem? How do we get more > >operators involved and active in the RIRs? > > In the spirit of cart and horse, it's not about getting more > operators involved in ARIN. It's about getting operators to use ARIN > as a resource in the proper way. (I'm addressing operators here as > this is NANOG.) I think its also about getting operators who aren't active participants in ARIN or NANOG to use the numbering resources in a "good" way. In my mind that probably means creating systems to reduce the misconfiguration issues which started this thread in the first place. > ARIN staff has begun work on documenting the registry service level > agreements, there was a presentation on this in October. There has > been little discussion on this by anyone since the presentation. If > WhoIs is out, reports fly on NANOG. But has anyone ever tried to > quantify what level of service is expected of ARIN's computing > facilities? Or an even better question...what should be in whois? There are some who feel that whois as we know it today should go away? Is that what the operators want? What if there were legal forces that created an environment where ARIN couldn't publish whois information. > >I think colocating 1 ARIN meeting/per year with Nanog in the fall has been a > >help. > > I would caution that "attending meetings" is neither a sign of > contribution nor a sign of progress. Don't get me wrong, making > meetings easier to attend is good, but we shouldn't attend meetings > because it is easy, fun or entertaining. I prefer to have fun at > home. There is something about being at the meeting that at least forces me to pay attention to part of what is going on. It is real easy to ignore email storms, but face to face interaction has value IMO. > >We could of course create a huge beuarcratcy with lots of people to study the > >issues and make policy, but that hasn't been the way the Internet has > >developed and is counter to what many operators think is best for the > >Internet. That also requires money. Is that what people want? I don't > >think so, but I could be wrong. > > One the one hand, what built the Internet isn't what will maintain > it. A bureaucracy will be needed, the challenge isn't to prevent it > but to build the best one possible. True, I was trying to keep the flame-thrower set to low. It seems to me that anytime someone brings up the idea of "organizations" with structure/policy/rules/etc people get real nervous. There is an inherient "trust" issue that I think exists among operators. "Don't trust authority", but there has to be some set of rules that we will live by as the Internet becomes more & more critical to making everything work worldwide 24x7x365. Andrew

1 0

Vonage sold over not clearly informing customers re 911 service lacking
by Sam Hayes Merritt, III 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/03/23/internet.phones.911.ap/index.ht…

4 3

RE: 72/8 friendly reminder
by Hannigan, Martin 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Randy Bush > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:45 AM > To: Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: 72/8 friendly reminder > > > > > In any case, it is not important how the message > > gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is for > > network operators to *TELL* ARIN what they need ARIN > > to do. One way to talk to ARIN is through the public > > meetings and another way is to email one of the > > trustees. > > and one is to send an email to arin's external relations or ops > folk, which i did a while ago. i suspect they also read this > list. They do. They're also pretty good about responding. -M<

1 0

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

On Mar 23, 2005, at 12:37 PM, RSK wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0800, Andreas Ott wrote: >> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ > > If this write-up is accurate, It's not. From the http://www.aunty-spam.com website: IBM Not Spamming Spammers! FairUCE is About Fair Use, Not Abuse! Did you hear? IBM is spamming spammers! It’s all over the Internet, and tongues are a’wagging! Except, it ain’t so. IBM is not spamming spammers. Whether you think that spamming spammers is right or wrong, IBM ain’t doing it, and shame on CNN for getting it so wrong, and making IBM look so irresponsible, and in league with the likes of Lycos’ “Make Love Not Spam” DOSsing Screensaver program, and the notorious Mugu Maurauder bandwidth sucking program. You can’t really blame the folks who read CNN’s horribly wrong piece for spreading the rumour, after all it was quite sensationalist: “Spamming spammers? IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them. March 22, 2005: 12:22 PM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - IBM unveiled a service Tuesday that sends unwanted e-mails back to the spammers who sent them. The new IBM (Research) service, known as FairUCE, essentially uses a giant database to identify computers that are sending spam. E-mails coming from a computer on the spam database are sent directly back to the computer, not just the e-mail account, that sent them.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. About the only thing which the article got right is that the program is called “FairUCE". FairUCE, according to IBM’s own FairUCE website, readily available for anyone to read (cough…CNN reporters..cough), is a “spam filter that stops spam by verifying sender identity instead of filtering content". Let’s say that again: FairUCE is a spam filter that stops spam by verifying sender identity instead of filtering content. If FairUCE can’t verify sender identity, then it goes into challenge-response mode, sending a challenge email to the sender, to which the sender must reply, to demonstrate that it is not a spambot sending the mail in question, but a real live person. Here is IBM’s explanation of how the FairUCE system works: “Technically, FairUCE tries to find a relationship between the envelope sender’s domain and the IP address of the client delivering the mail, using a series of cached DNS look-ups. For the vast majority of legitimate mail, from AOL to mailing lists to vanity domains, this is a snap. If such a relationship cannot be found, FairUCE attempts to find one by sending a user-customizable challenge/response. This alone catches 80% of UCE and very rarely challenges legitimate mail.” Now, being kind, it’s possible that the good folks at CNN mistook the sending of the challenge for “spamming the spammer".... (Rest at http://www.aunty-spam.com/ibm-not-spamming-spammers-fairuce-is-about- fair-use-not-abuse/) Anne

3 2

Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

Well, here's an update: Utah Internet Porn Law May Face Challenge By The Associated Press "SALT LAKE CITY - Internet service providers that operate in Utah must offer customers a way to block porn sites under a law signed this week. ISPs complained that the law adds nothing to the fight against pornography, and said a legal challenge is likely." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1212&e=3&u=/ap/20050324/ap… - ferg -- David Barak <thegameiam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of service, and we'll see how it plays out. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

Tier-2 reachability and multihoming
by G Pavan Kumar 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

Hi there, I have been working on characterizing the internet hierarchy. I noticed that 27% of the total possible tier-2 provider node pairs are unreachable i.e., they dont have any tier-1 node connecting them nor a direct peering link between them. Multihoming can be used as a predominant reason for the reachability of tier-3 nodes which are customers of these nodes, but what about the reachability of tier-2 nodes themselves and its customers which cannot afford to multihoming? How does BGP solve this reachability problem when it gets a request to a prefix unreachable? 1 tier-1 / 2 4 tier-2 / \ / \ 5 6 7 8 tier-3 here, nodes 2 and 4 have no reachability, 1 / | 2 3 4 / \ \/ \ 5 6 7 8 now, node 7 is reachable from 2 and its lower level nodes, but what about node 4 and 8, and as a typical case, suppose nodes 4 and 8 have no multihoming whatsoever, what then? Regards, pavan

3 2

Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

C|Net: "Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines." http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.h… - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

32 50