December 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

FCC filings against Comcast
by Randy Epstein 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

FCC petitions are piling in against Comcast: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016064165 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020923751 Full disclose: I've signed one as well that should be filed tomorrow. Also: WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 -- The office of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., issued the following news release: Warning that a huge media monopoly would drive up cable television prices and stifle the free flow of information, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today urged the Department of Justice to block Comcast's planned takeover of NBC Universal. Regards, Randy

1 1

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
by Robert Bonomi 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:28:06 -0800 > From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell(a)ufp.org> > Subject: Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style > > In a message written on Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18:25AM +0800, Adrian Chadd= > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: > > > When was the last time USPS delivered you a 100 pound UPS unit over nig= > ht from across the country while letting you track it's progress? > >=20 > > Trouble is, now they can't. Why? Because they'd be threatening the jobs of > > hard working Fedex/UPS/etc. employees. > > It's crazier than you think. > > http://www.usps.com/news/2001/press/pr01_015.htm > > Express, Priority, and First Class mail flies FedEx, and has since > 2001. I's part of a larger deal which is also why you now see a > FedEx drop box at every post office. > > I guess it's coopertition. I think I just made up a word. :) > > So if it's illegal for you to put a letter inside a FedEx box, Bzzt! It's -not- illegal to put a letter inside a FedEx box. It just has to have the appropriate (USPS) postage on it, _as_well_ as paying the FedEx service/delivery fee. This is true if it is just the letter you're sending, or if it is a sealed letter -inside- a box/package being shipped.. Now _live_scorpions_, on the other hand, are someting that the USPS _will_ delive, but AFAIK no 'express' service will handle. (One discovers some of the strangest things when one actually sits down and *reads* the _complete_ rules/regulation on a subject. In this case, it's the "Domestic Mail Manual". Scorpions are 'addressed' in 601.9.3.10)

5 4

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
by Tim Franklin 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

----- "Owen DeLong" <owen(a)delong.com> wrote: > Personally, I think that enforced UNE is the right model. If you sell > higher level services, you should not be allowed to operate the physical > plant. The physical plant operating companies should sell access to the > physical plant to higher level service providers on an equal footing. To all intents and purposes what we have in the UK. BT, the old, formally government-owned, then privatised, effective last-mile monopoly, was split up. (I believe in return for some more government cash to build infrastructure, but I could be wrong on the order of events). BT OpenReach is now responsible for wires on poles / in the ground, CO space etc, and has to sell access to these to other divisions of BT (Wholesale, Residential) in the same arms-length way they sell them to other ISPs. It doesn't always work *quite* like that, especially in respect of actually getting space and power in COs, but the framework is there... Regards, Tim.

4 4

[OT]: WCCPv2 and >gige?
by Adrian Chadd 22 Dec '10

22 Dec '10

Hi all, I have a customer who is looking for examples of WCCPv2 deployments for traffic levels > 3 gige (and above, up to 10ge.) Now I know that theoretically there's no reason why this shouldn't be the case, but as I don't have a lab of 10GE capable Cisco L3 devices, I'm unable to verify that level of behaviour. So, is anyone using WCCPv2 redirection on gige and 10ge interfaces, and mind sharing with me the equipment/configuration/IOS version? Thanks, Adrian

1 0

RE: COX NOC Contact Number
by Luiz Rosas 21 Dec '10

21 Dec '10

Does anyone have COX NOC contact number?? Thx Luiz Rosas IP Network Engineer Astound/Wave Broadband San Francisco, CA 94124 415-349-2940 Office 650-642-4638 Mobile

1 0

NANOG Server Maintenance - 1700 EST
by Michael K. Smith - Adhost 21 Dec '10

21 Dec '10

Hello Everyone: Merit will be performing maintenance on the server providing for the NANOG mailing list at 5:00 PM EST today. The anticipated downtime is less than 5 minutes. If you have any questions please send let us know at admins(a)nanog.org. Regards, Mike On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee -- Michael K. Smith - CISSP, GSEC, GISP Chief Technical Officer - Adhost Internet LLC mksmith(a)adhost.com w: +1 (206) 404-9500 f: +1 (206) 404-9050 PGP: B49A DDF5 8611 27F3 08B9 84BB E61E 38C0 (Key ID: 0x9A96777D)

1 0

AS Numbers from a common 32-bit pool.
by bill manning 21 Dec '10

21 Dec '10

are y'all ready for this gift? --bill Begin forwarded message: > From: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)" <ernest(a)afrinic.net> > Date: December 20, 2010 3:16:42 PST > To: announce(a)afrinic.net > Subject: [AfriNIC-announce] AfriNIC to assign AS Numbers from a common 32-bit pool. > > Dear Colleagues, > > According to the "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to the > Regional Internet Registries (RIRs)" - > http://www.afrinic.net/docs/policies/AFPUB-2008-ASN-001.htm , IANA > will cease to make any distinction between 16 and 32-bit only > ASN blocks on 31 December 2010 when making allocations to RIRs. > > After this date, the RIRs will assign AS Numbers from an > undifferentiated 32-bit ASN allocation pool. > > Consequently, for any entity requesting an ASN, AfriNIC will cease > to present the ability to opt for a 16- or 32-bit ASN, and will > start issuing ASNs from a common 32-bit pool. > > We therefore urge all IP network operators to ensure that their > routing infrastructure is 32-bit ASN compatible. > > Kind regards, > > Ernest Byaruhanga. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > announce mailing list > announce(a)afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/announce

5 5

Help with GC/Level3 route issue
by Carlos G Mendioroz 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

Hi, I'm facing a problem that is becoming a nightmare. Some of our prefixes (ASN 10277) are being redistributed by Level 3 as being learned from/originated by Global Crossing. Thing is, we have no contact with GC nor Level3. I'd appreciate any kind advice as to who to contact regarding this. Sorry if this is not the right channel too. -- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron(a)acm.org>

2 2

Re: Some truth about Comcast - WikiLeaks style
by Seth Mattinen 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

On 12/20/2010 12:20, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > Amazing how that worked, even spelling "fransisco" (sic) wrong. > One letter off: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cable+overbuilder+san+francisco

3 3

Why do ISPs still not do packet source verification in 2010?
by William Pitcock 20 Dec '10

20 Dec '10

Hi, I am wondering why it seems that many ISPs still do not do packet source verification in 2010? Just last night I had to deal with a DoS attack that would have been impossible if more ISPs did packet source verification. I mean, it's 2010. We can do IP-level ACLs in hardware on most of the current routing platforms on the market. I know it can be done on Cisco, Brocade, etc. Not sure on the new NX-OS stuff, but the 6500 series chassis can do IP-level ACL in hardware. The ACLs aren't hard either, you set an ACL forbidding traffic from anything other than an access-list containing their allocated IP ranges... Grumble. (on the other hand, it's not like spoofing does any good anyway... if you're willing to work the netflow data and call your upstreams to get at their netflow data you can easily trace each bot in the botnet to it's origination network which can then look at their traffic flow data and shut it down...) William

2 1