May 2005 - Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP
by Hannigan, Martin 02 May '05

02 May '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > David Lesher > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:58 PM > To: nanog list > Subject: Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP > > > > Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered: > > > > > > > > > > When somebody in the office picks up a phone and dials > EXTERNAL-911 how > > do the emergancy services know they are in one building > rather than another > > office across town? > > The PBX intercepts the call and uses special trunks to the PSAP; > it also has to send data telling where the caller is. There are no special trunks to the PSAP from a PBX. What Sean appears to be saying is he recommendeds getting a POTS line as a backup to a ds1 for 911, but it's a tad-bit more complicated than that and involves equipment types and tarriffs of CLECs vs. ILECs in router determination. I agree with him on that mostly, but there's more to think about. SMB's are not that sophisticated, are cost sensitive, and typically don't have the equipment to handle that as well, or, the expertise. YMMV. -M<

2 1

Re: a call for peace (Re: SMTP AUTH)
by paul＠vix.com 02 May '05

02 May '05

i quoted somebody as saying: > >> :0 > >> * ^From:.*<dean(a)av8\.com > >> /dev/null and was told by an actual procmail user the following: > That regex needs some work (the left-angle bracket excludes messages sent > with a bare address), and: > > > it does no good for me to filter out the crackpots if the rest of > > you are just going to keep on replying to same. > > if you can rely on at least some people to group-reply to mailing > lists as nature intended (which you didn't do, which is why I know > about this thread), then > > > :0 > > * (^From|To|Cc):.*dean@av8\.(com|net) > > /dev/null > > does a better job. The following does very nicely for me, for the > record :-) > > > # Valley of the Kooks > > > > :0 > > * ^(From|To|Cc):.*baptista@(pccf\.net|dot-god\.com) > > /dev/null > > > > :0 > > * ^(From|To|Cc):.*jwkckid1@ix\.netcom\.com > > /dev/null > > > > :0 > > * > > ^(From|To|Cc):.*(jimfleming|jfleming)@(prodigy\.net|anet\.com|ameritech\.net) > > /dev/null > > > > :0 > > * (^From|To|Cc):.*dean@av8\.(com|net) > > /dev/null it's all klingon to me, but that's what i heard.

2 1

Contact for blacklist.sequoia.ops.asp.att.net RBL?
by David Hubbard 02 May '05

02 May '05

Anyone know who at att.net runs the blacklist.sequoia.ops.asp.att.net RBL? When they block based on it, they tell the sender to contact their ISP and give no method of contact for themselves. Thanks, David

1 0

Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 02 May '05

02 May '05

I've been there -- I know how I feel about it -- but I'd love to know how ISP operations folk feel about this. Links here: http://www.vnunet.com/news/1162720 ...and, of course, here: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/2005/04/schneier-isps-should-bear-security.html Off list, if you'd like. Or not. - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

26 59

Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
by Paul Vixie 02 May '05

02 May '05

i wrote: > >see http://www.isc.org/personalcolo/ for the longer version of this rant, and clearly my espresso hadn't hit yet, because that was wrong. someone said: > Hey Paul, > > FYI, that link doesn't work. :) and of course, the real link is <http://www.vix.com/personalcolo/>. sorry!

1 0

Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
by dlr＠bungi.com 02 May '05

02 May '05

[In the message entitled "Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden" on May 1, 12:25, "Jay R. Ashworth" writes:] > Ok, so here's a question for your, Dave: > > do you have a procedure for entertaining requests to be excluded from > your replies from people with legitimate needs to operate MTA's, who > have been given (let us say) static addresses by their providers which > fall within a range you understand to be dialup? > > (I'm assuming you include cable and DSL end-user address pools; this is > the sort of thing I'm asking about.) Of course, Jay. First off, static addresses don't belong on the DUL (unless the ISP chooses to list them). Second, any address can be removed by the ISP (even if it is a /32 in the middle of an otherwise all dynamic /16). End-users are directed to have their ISP contact us, as we *do not* take the end-users word for it. A quick note to dul(a)mail-abuse.com will get it handled. --

3 2

Re: SMTP AUTH
by Dean Anderson 02 May '05

02 May '05

Using SORBS? just how much credibility do you want to lose? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 23:30:00 -0400 From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(a)cirrus.av8.net> To: dean(a)av8.com Subject: Returned mail: see transcript for details The original message was received at Sun, 1 May 2005 23:29:56 -0400 from dakota.av8.net [130.105.19.131] ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- <jmaimon(a)ttec.com> (reason: 553-5.3.0 <jmaimon(a)ttec.com>... Spam BlockListed - see: http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.36.66) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to smtp2.mx.ttec.net.: >>> DATA <<< 553-5.3.0 <jmaimon(a)ttec.com>... Spam BlockListed - see: http://www.dnsbl.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/lookup?IP=130.105.36.66 <<< 553-5.3.0 <<< 553-5.3.0 Your email server is detected as being on a blocklist. <<< 553-5.3.0 To have the block on your system checked and perhaps <<< 553-5.3.0 lifted, forward this message without attachments to <<< 553 5.3.0 <whitelistme(a)ttec.com> and wait for a response. 550 5.1.1 <jmaimon(a)ttec.com>... User unknown <<< 503 5.0.0 Need RCPT (recipient)

5 4

RE: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP
by Hannigan, Martin 01 May '05

01 May '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Chris Boyd > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 6:42 PM > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP > > > > > On May 1, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > so, how does this work when you dial into the internet in > (or use your > > DSL) in newark and the termination point for L3 is in Philadelphia? > > That > > seems like more than 1sq mile... > > > > In the dial up case, you could/should know the originating number, so > location can be determined from that. Right, this is standard CNAM/LIDB behavoir. > In the DSL case, the ATM PVC can often be mapped back to a DSLAM port > and thus a wire pair with a known termination. Correct again, but there's still and assigned number isn't there? The above would apply. > > Whether the provisioning and management systems are up to the task of > providing this information quickly enough for emergency services, I > don't know. http://news.com.com/Vonage,+SBC+in+talks+over+911+help/2100-7352_3-5683817.… Now, as I understand it, the Pulver order[1], which makes voip companies 'information providers' may be at issue here. IANAL[2], so I can't speak to that, but as a CLEC, you have a right to access the E911 infrastructure. To keep it simple, if you have a phone number, you have the capability to ID the calling-station to EMS, except, if you have VOIP or cell, and when E911 is turned on for VOIP, there may have to be some sort of declaration as to "stationary" like an ILEC ds0, or dynamic, like a cell phone. The information has to be entered into the databases, and you have to have the access to those databases. I think you'll see voipco's rushing to insure e911 as a competitive edge since it's somewhat of a roadblock, even if it's psychological. There are other issues to grapple with related to full deployment and acceptance beyond E911, but that would be a big step. 1. Talk to Jeff Pulver about the Pulver Order 2. IANAL = I am not a lawyer Best, Martin

2 1

Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP
by Robert Bonomi 01 May '05

01 May '05

> From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Sun May 1 17:41:59 2005 > From: Chris Boyd <cboyd(a)gizmopartners.com> > Subject: Re: FCC To Require 911 for VoIP > Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 17:41:40 -0500 > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > > > > On May 1, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > so, how does this work when you dial into the internet in (or use your > > DSL) in newark and the termination point for L3 is in Philadelphia? > > That > > seems like more than 1sq mile... > > > > In the dial up case, you could/should know the originating number, so > location can be determined from that. In rural areas, the 'precision' of *that* data is "highly variable". I know farmers who have 'private wire' strung from the house (where the PSTN terminates) to various outbuildings. In fact, I have an uncle who farms in S.W. Iowa, *right*on* the IA-MO border. The house is in Iowa, but he's got barns in the next county (which is also a different state!). It's all contiguous, so running the wire was no problem. (note: this wire went in _before_ cell-phones existed.) > In the DSL case, the ATM PVC can often be mapped back to a DSLAM port > and thus a wire pair with a known termination. > > Whether the provisioning and management systems are up to the task of > providing this information quickly enough for emergency services, I > don't know. With DSL, you don't have to chase the wire-pair in 'near real-time'. The ATM PVC, or at worst the DSLAM port, uniquely identifies the customer. the customer records have the 'service address'. Even simpler, the source IP address, if static, directly identifies the customer, And, if dynamic, it just takes a dip into the authentication database to extract the customer ID. And pulling the customer record gets the service address. Of course, this is all *no*help*, when the customer has set up a wi-fi link with some "Pringles can antennas" (or better) and is actually several miles away from the DSL termination. The "correct" way to deal with the entire problem is to put a flag in the PSAP location database that says, _loudly_, on the E-911 console "This is a roving number. It does NOT have a fixed location. You must ASK THE CALLER where they are. 'Best guess', *but*only*a*guess*, on location is ..." The 'try to solve it with technology' approach would be for the SIP head- end to query the custeomer for his location any time it sees a _change_ of IP address for the customer equipment.

1 0

Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden
by Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu 01 May '05

01 May '05

On Sun, 01 May 2005 21:23:11 +0200, Brad Knowles said: > At 1:07 PM -0400 2005-05-01, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > > > I don't think *anybody* seriously expects the bus company to deny passage to > > people who happen to be burglars using public transportation to get to the ir > > next work site.... > > If they're wearing Balaclavas, full body armor, and carrying > AK-47s, along with large sacks slung over their shoulders (either > full or empty), then yes -- I would expect the bus driver to do > everything he could to try to avoid picking them up. But you see - that's because *those* passengers likely pose a threat to the people *on the bus*. The fun starts when you start making passengers turn out their pockets and you try to figure out if that guy dressed like a mechanic heading home from work has a piece of bent metal in his pocket - is it an Allen wrench or a lockpick (note that many SQL-injection attacks *are* that level of subtlety - so it's not an outrageous comparison), and figure out what their intentions are once the get off the bus... (And remember - the TSA is trying to go that route. They now ban lighters because somebody tried to light a shoe bomb with matches. Is that how you want to run your network? ;)

1 0