April 2010 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: VPN over Comcast
by gladney＠stsci.edu 27 Apr '10

27 Apr '10

Are you running IPSec over UDP? We've had problems in Maryland with IPSec over UDP to Comcast customer. Try switching to TCP. Gary ------Original Message------ From: Michael Malitsky To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: VPN over Comcast Sent: Apr 27, 2010 1:42 PM I will probably be laughed at, but I'll ask just in case. We are having particularly bad luck trying to run VPN tunnels over Comcast cable in the Chicago area. The symptoms are basically complete loss of connectivity (lasting minutes to sometimes hours), or sometimes flapping for a period of time. More often than not, a reboot of the cable modem is required. The most interesting ones involve the following: a PIX or ASA configured as an EZvpn client, connecting to a 3000 concentrator, authentication over RADIUS. When I go to look at the RADIUS logs, I see connections from the same box with small intervals. Timeout is 8 hours, so theoretically I should see 3 connections in a 24-hr period. In some cases, I see dozens, in the most egregious cases, thousands over a 24-hour period. I am taking that as an indicator of a really unstable Comcast circuit. We have not had this problem with any other ISP, anywhere in the country. I am pretty much down to telling customers to find another provider... Any thoughts or ideas on the matter will be appreciated. PS. To be fair (?) to Comcast, this is not a ubiquitous problem. It affects about 25% of the installations I get to see. Sincerely, Michael Malitsky Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

1 0

Starting up a WiMAX ISP
by Charles Bronson 27 Apr '10

27 Apr '10

Looking for advice... I live in central / western New York state (think villages and farms). There are a good number of hills but no mountains. I have solid LAN experience and experience facing a smaller network to the Internet. I was network admin for a medium size enterprise network (I.e. design and implementation including LAN, Internet connectivity, VPN, routers, DNS, mail, webservers, physical servers, etc). I would like to build a local ISP that can serve high speed internet access to the more rural areas whose only option is dial up access, well away from the CO. It would also be nice to compete with the cable company and DSL for customers in the villages. I have been researching information for design / implementation of WiMAX, equipment suppliers, contractors to help with installation of tower equipment and acquiring tower space, but have been coming up empty handed. What resources are available to help me bridge the gap from where I am to what I need to know to get started and what specific technologies would you recommend I bone up on? I know beyond the WiMAX specific information, I will probably need to cozy up to BGP, maybe MPLS for traffic between the core and towers? Also do you have any suggestions on where I can find suppliers and service vendors in this field? Networks are my passion and am willing to dig in, but I need some direction. Thanks for you help an insight. Charles Bronson

5 5

help
by 马强 26 Apr '10

26 Apr '10

在2010-04-26，nanog-request(a)nanog.org 写道： >Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog(a)nanog.org > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-request(a)nanog.org > >You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-owner(a)nanog.org > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] > (Mikael Abrahamsson) > 2. Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mark Smith) > 3. Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Doug Barton) > 4. Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mark Smith) > 5. Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) (Jack Bates) > 6. Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Jack Bates) > 7. Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] > (Mikael Abrahamsson) > 8. Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) (Seth Mattinen) > 9. Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) (Roy) > 10. Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] (Mark Smith) > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Message: 1 >Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:37:57 +0200 (CEST) >From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> >Subject: Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] >To: Doug Barton <dougb(a)dougbarton.us> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004260435340.6768(a)uplift.swm.pp.se> >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > >On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote: > >> On 04/25/10 16:42, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> That's what Link Local is for. >>> >>> fe80::<EUI-64>%<interface> >>> >>> For example, if the CPE is connected to the customer's network on eth0 >>> and the CPE mac address is 00:45:4b:b9:02:be, you could go to: >>> >>> http://[fe80::0245:4bff:feb9:02be]%eth0 >> >> ... and regardless of the specific method, the vendors already document >> the procedure for connecting to the web interface for IPv4, there is no >> reason to believe that they could not or would not do the same for IPv6 >> if necessary. > >Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will work >in real life? Using link-local for this kind of end-user administration of >their equipment is doomed to fail. There needs to be a procedure for >devices which are going to get DHCP-PD from the provider, that they have a >certain prefix they use until they actually get the real PD prefix, so end >user dns etc works so it's easy to do administration of the device. > >We can't expect end-users to do the above procedure. > >-- >Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 2 >Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930 >From: Mark Smith > <nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> >Subject: Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] >To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer(a)hezmatt.org> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <20100426123151.78654a64(a)opy.nosense.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000 >Matthew Palmer <mpalmer(a)hezmatt.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote: >> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400 >> > Richard Barnes <richard.barnes(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad >> > > ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6. >> > >> > My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about >> > robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's >> > internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being >> > available and being assigned global address space. That's what the >> > global only people are saying. >> > >> > (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP >> > login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got >> > address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...) >> >> I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to >> that one -- the link-local address. >> > >Ever tried to ping a link local address? > >If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it >some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is. > > >> - Matt >> >> -- >> "You are capable, creative, competent, careful. Prove it." >> -- Seen in a fortune cookie >> > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:03:29 -0700 >From: Doug Barton <dougb(a)dougbarton.us> >Subject: Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] >To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <4BD50281.9040106(a)dougbarton.us> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >On 04/25/10 19:37, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Doug Barton wrote: >> >>> ... and regardless of the specific method, the vendors already document >>> the procedure for connecting to the web interface for IPv4, there is no >>> reason to believe that they could not or would not do the same for IPv6 >>> if necessary. >> >> Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will >> work in real life? > >Sorry, I knew that I shouldn't have helped perpetuate this thread, which >(IMO) is already way off topic. > > >Doug > >-- > > ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. > -- Propellerheads > > Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with > a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 4 >Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:43:17 +0930 >From: Mark Smith > <nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> >Subject: Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] >To: Matthew Palmer <mpalmer(a)hezmatt.org> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <20100426124317.1d02d49c(a)opy.nosense.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:31:51 +0930 >Mark Smith <nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> >wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:32:30 +1000 >> Matthew Palmer <mpalmer(a)hezmatt.org> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 08:20:33AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote: >> > > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400 >> > > Richard Barnes <richard.barnes(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad >> > > > ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6. >> > > >> > > My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about >> > > robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's >> > > internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being >> > > available and being assigned global address space. That's what the >> > > global only people are saying. >> > > >> > > (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP >> > > login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got >> > > address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...) >> > >> > I've been using IPv6 for about 18 seconds, and even *I* know the answer to >> > that one -- the link-local address. >> > >> >> Ever tried to ping a link local address? >> >> If you've been using IPv6 for only 18 seconds, probably not. Try it >> some time, hopefully you'll work out what the issue with using LLs is. >> > >To make it easier, here's a clue: > >$ ip -6 route show | grep fe80 >fe80::/64 dev eth1 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 >fe80::/64 dev tun6to4 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1472 advmss 1412 hoplimit 4294967295 >fe80::/64 dev pan0 proto kernel metric 256 mtu 1500 advmss 1440 hoplimit 4294967295 > > >(eth1 is my wired/wireless LAN, tun6to4 is my IPv6 6to4 tunnel, and pan0 is my bluetooth LAN) > > >> >> > - Matt >> > >> > -- >> > "You are capable, creative, competent, careful. Prove it." >> > -- Seen in a fortune cookie >> > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 5 >Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:23:32 -0500 >From: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> >Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) >To: Seth Mattinen <sethm(a)rollernet.us> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <4BD51544.5030707(a)brightok.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > >Seth Mattinen wrote: >> On 4/25/10 4:33 PM, Tony Hoyle wrote: >>> On 25/04/2010 22:06, Larry Sheldon wrote: >>> >>>> The whole idea that DHCP should only be used for (and is absolute proof >>>> of the status of) despised-class customers is just nuts. >>> >>> I've never seen DHCP used on residential DSL circuits.. it's all PPP (oA >>> mostly, and oE if you want) in this country (which the telco picks up >>> and sends as L2TP to the DSL provider). I get alocated my /26 and it >>> doesn't matter which LNS I connect to or how I get there (indeed I can >>> talk L2TP directly to the provider to connect over 3G etc.). >>> >> >> I have, once, with routed bridged encapsulation instead of PPP. >> > >I personally love it, as do my customers who don't care much for cpe's >that do NAT or having to configure PPP on their devices. Individual >vlans or more traditional pvc for each customer, and massive router >configs make for fun. Perhaps someday vendors will support it better, >but I enjoy the low overhead and stupid cpe. > >Oh, and did I mention the customers using switches instead of routers >get to enjoy IPv6? > >Jack > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 6 >Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 23:27:18 -0500 >From: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> >Subject: Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] >To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <4BD51626.4010004(a)brightok.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> Does anyone actually believe that the above is user-friendly and will >> work in real life? Using link-local for this kind of end-user >> administration of their equipment is doomed to fail. There needs to be a >> procedure for devices which are going to get DHCP-PD from the provider, >> that they have a certain prefix they use until they actually get the >> real PD prefix, so end user dns etc works so it's easy to do >> administration of the device. > >Last 3 cheap routers. BIG STICKER: INSTALL SOFTWARE BEFORE YOU PLUG THIS >ROUTER IN! I doubt many users even use the old "goto >http://192.168.1.1/" anymore. That being said, there are private >addressing schemes in IPv6 as well. No reason one could be bound to a >cpe router with an easy to type address. > > >Jack > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 7 >Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 06:43:14 +0200 (CEST) >From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> >Subject: Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] >To: Jack Bates <jbates(a)brightok.net> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1004260640450.6768(a)uplift.swm.pp.se> >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > >On Sun, 25 Apr 2010, Jack Bates wrote: > >> Last 3 cheap routers. BIG STICKER: INSTALL SOFTWARE BEFORE YOU PLUG THIS >> ROUTER IN! I doubt many users even use the old "goto http://192.168.1.1/" >> anymore. That being said, there are private addressing schemes in IPv6 as >> well. No reason one could be bound to a cpe router with an easy to type >> address. > >Yeah, and when I try that on my linux box it won,t install the software >for some reason. we need solutions that are cross platform and open, let's >not help microsoft any further, thank you. > >-- >Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 8 >Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 21:53:15 -0700 >From: Seth Mattinen <sethm(a)rollernet.us> >Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) >To: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <4BD51C3B.5000002(a)rollernet.us> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > >On 4/25/10 9:23 PM, Jack Bates wrote: >> Seth Mattinen wrote: >>> On 4/25/10 4:33 PM, Tony Hoyle wrote: >>>> On 25/04/2010 22:06, Larry Sheldon wrote: >>>> >>>>> The whole idea that DHCP should only be used for (and is absolute proof >>>>> of the status of) despised-class customers is just nuts. >>>> >>>> I've never seen DHCP used on residential DSL circuits.. it's all PPP (oA >>>> mostly, and oE if you want) in this country (which the telco picks up >>>> and sends as L2TP to the DSL provider). I get alocated my /26 and it >>>> doesn't matter which LNS I connect to or how I get there (indeed I can >>>> talk L2TP directly to the provider to connect over 3G etc.). >>>> >>> >>> I have, once, with routed bridged encapsulation instead of PPP. >>> >> >> I personally love it, as do my customers who don't care much for cpe's >> that do NAT or having to configure PPP on their devices. Individual >> vlans or more traditional pvc for each customer, and massive router >> configs make for fun. Perhaps someday vendors will support it better, >> but I enjoy the low overhead and stupid cpe. >> >> Oh, and did I mention the customers using switches instead of routers >> get to enjoy IPv6? >> > >Don't forget the increased MTU without PPP eating some of it. > >~Seth > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 9 >Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 22:03:01 -0700 >From: Roy <r.engehausen(a)gmail.com> >Subject: Re: DHCP Use (was Re: ) >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <4BD51E85.3020609(a)gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > >On 4/25/2010 5:11 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> On 4/25/10 4:33 PM, Tony Hoyle wrote: >> >>> On 25/04/2010 22:06, Larry Sheldon wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The whole idea that DHCP should only be used for (and is absolute proof >>>> of the status of) despised-class customers is just nuts. >>>> >>> >>> I've never seen DHCP used on residential DSL circuits.. it's all PPP (oA >>> mostly, and oE if you want) in this country (which the telco picks up >>> and sends as L2TP to the DSL provider). I get alocated my /26 and it >>> doesn't matter which LNS I connect to or how I get there (indeed I can >>> talk L2TP directly to the provider to connect over 3G etc.). >>> >>> >> I have, once, with routed bridged encapsulation instead of PPP. >> >> ~Seth >> >> >> > > >My old company does it this way. Made life very easy. Most consumer >grade routers come set for DHCP out of the box so it is plug and play. > > > > > >------------------------------ > >Message: 10 >Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:54:05 +0930 >From: Mark Smith > <nanog(a)85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org> >Subject: Re: [Re: > http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01] >To: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> >Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >Message-ID: <20100426145405.7947d206(a)opy.nosense.org> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > >On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 16:42:31 -0700 >Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 25, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Mark Smith wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400 >> > Richard Barnes <richard.barnes(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad >> >> ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6. >> >> >> > >> > My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about >> > robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's >> > internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being >> > available and being assigned global address space. That's what the >> > global only people are saying. >> > >> Your internet connectivity, by definition, depends on an internet link >> being available. No link, no connection. Simple as that. >> >> Now, if you're talking about multihoming, I, as one of the global only >> people, am suggesting that you get your global addresses from ARIN >> and advertise it to both of your upstreams. >> >> I know this is not popular with many of the ISPs out there because there >> is a cost to that and a scale factor that still has yet to be addressed in the >> IP routing paradigm. However, I think that will happen anyway. >> >> Alternatively, even if you want to do some funky NAT-based solution, >> there's nothing wrong with using GUA on the internal side of the NAT >> to your PA prefixes outside. That way, when you get the opportunity to >> remove that NAT cruft from your environment, you already have usable >> addresses and you don't have to renumber. >> >> > (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP >> > login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got >> > address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...) >> >> That's what Link Local is for. >> >> fe80::<EUI-64>%<interface> >> >> For example, if the CPE is connected to the customer's network on eth0 >> and the CPE mac address is 00:45:4b:b9:02:be, you could go to: >> >> http://[fe80::0245:4bff:feb9:02be]%eth0 >> > >Would you want to be asking residential customers (your other half, >mother, father, sister etc. - not a tech like you) to work that out and >then type that in? Would you want to be running the helpdesk that >supports those customers, considering the chance of error there is >(selecting the wrong interface, typos etc. etc.) > >The IPv6 Internet needs to be at least as user friendly as IPv4, so >asking residential customers to type in anything harder than an IPv4 >address is unacceptable. > >Adding in an interface name to a literal IPv6 address is effectively >specifying a subnet, without specifying a subnet. ULAs (announced in >RAs) make this easier, because you're not creating the requirement for >applications to have to understand both literal LL IPv6 addresses as >well as qualifying interface names. > >Regards, >Mark. > > > >------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >NANOG mailing list >NANOG(a)nanog.org >https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > >End of NANOG Digest, Vol 27, Issue 158 >**************************************

1 0

Contact for AS4134 - China Backbone
by Anderson 26 Apr '10

26 Apr '10

Grettings, does someone know contact person at noc for AS4134 - China Backbone ? thank you very much. -- regards, anderson l. CBN Network Operation Center

1 0

South Africa network issues
by Mehmet Akcin 25 Apr '10

25 Apr '10

Anyone experiencing connectivity problems to South African networks at this moment? A fellow colleague informed SEACOM cable which is serving east Africa seems to be down. Let me know if you have more information on this subject. Mehmet

5 5

Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
by Roger Marquis 25 Apr '10

25 Apr '10

William Herrin wrote: >> Not to take issue with either statement in particular, but I think there >> needs to be some consideration of what "fail" means. > > Fail means that an inexperienced admin drops a router in place of the > firewall to work around a priority problem while the senior engineer > is on vacation. With NAT protecting unroutable addresses, that failure > mode fails closed. In addition to fail-closed NAT also means: * search engines and and connectivity providers cannot (easily) differentiate and/or monitor your internal hosts, and * multiple routes do not have to be announced or otherwise accommodated by internal re-addressing. Roger Marquis

21 44

Call for Papers - IEEE GLOBECOM 2010 Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security (WPS 2010, 6 - 10 December 2010, Miami, USA)
by Robert C. Hsu 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

============================================================ ** Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP. ** ============================================================ Dear Colleagues: Please disseminate this message in your networks / subscribed lists. We also invite you to contribute a paper to this conference. ************************************************************* IEEE GLOBECOM 2010 Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security WPS'10 (Miami, USA, 6-10 December 2010) http://grid.chu.edu.tw/wps2010/ ************************************************************* ------------------------------- 1. Introduction 2. Topics 3. Important dates 4. Paper format & submission 5. Organizing Committee 6. History of WPS ------------------------------- ================= 1. Introduction ================= Web and Pervasive Environments (WPE) are emerging rapidly as an exciting new paradigm including ubiquitous, web, grid, ubiquitous and peer-to-peer computing to provide computing and communication services any time and anywhere. In order to realize their advantages, it requires the security services and Applications to be suitable for WPE. If they are realized, a user will be able to remotely access and control all information and web appliances in the workplace as well as at home and office, easily and conveniently use various services to enable working at home, remote education, remote diagnosis, virtual shopping, network gaming, and high quality VOD with no limitations on space and time. WPS2010 is a successor of the 1st International Workshop on Application and Security service in Web and pervAsive eNvirionments (ASWAN-07, HuangShan, China, June, 2007), the 2nd International Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security (WPS-08, Hong Kong, March, 2008) and the 3rd International Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security (WPS-09, Galveston, Texas, March, 2009) WPS2010 workshop is intended to foster the dissemination of state-of-the-art research in the area of secure WPE including security models, security systems, application services and novel security applications associated with its utilization. Also, it offers the possibility to discuss protocols and protocol characteristics with those people that are using them for solving their scientific problems. We plan to publish high quality papers, which cover the various web and security issues and practical applications in WPE. =========== 2. Topics =========== Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * Security web-based collaboration applications and services * Model for secure web services * Wireless sensor networks / RFID application and security for WPE * Intelligent multimedia security services for WPE * Key management and authentication in WPE * Network security issues and protocols in WPE * Access control in WPE * Privacy Protection in WPE * Cryptographic algorithms for WPE * Data privacy and trustiness for WPE * Forensics Issue for WPE * Privacy and anonymity for WPE * Security in P2P networks and Grid computing in WPE * Trust management in WPE * Commercial and industrial applications for WPE =================== 3. Important Dates =================== Paper Submission: July 2, 2010 Decision notification: August 13, 2010 Camera-ready and registration due: August 31, 2010 ============================== 4. Paper format & submission ============================== Papers must be submitted electronically in Adobe PDF format to the submission system. http://edas.info/N8718 Papers must have authors' affiliation and contact information on the first page. Papers must be unpublished and not being considered elsewhere for publication. In particular, papers submitted to WPS2010 must not be concurrently submitted to GLOBECOM in identical or modified form. Prospective authors are encouraged to submit an IEEE conference style paper up to 5 pages (including all text, figures, and references) through EDAS submission system http://edas.info/N8718 One additional page will be allowed with additional publication fee. An accepted paper must be registered before the registration deadline. An accepted paper must be presented at the workshop. Failure to register before the deadline will result in automatic withdrawal of the paper from the workshop proceedings and the program. All accepted and presented papers will be included in the IEEE GLOBECOM proceedings and IEEE digital library. GLOBECOM has the right to remove an accepted and registered but not presented paper from the IEEE digital library. ======================= 5. Organizing Committee ======================= Workshop Co-Chairs: Jong Hyuk Park, Seoul National University of Technology, Korea Robert C. H. Hsu, Chung Hua University, Taiwan Mieso Denko, University of GUELPH, Canada, denko(a)cis.uoguelph.ca International Advisory Committee Mohammad S. Obaidat (Monmouth University, USA) Laurence T. Yang (St. Francis Xavier University, Canada) Jianhua Ma (Hosei University, Japan) Jiannong Cao (Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong) Weijia Jia (City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China) Program committee � Alexander Lazovik (INRIA, France) � Andrew Kusiak (The University of Iowa, USA) � Anna Cinzia Squicciarini (Purdue University, USA) � Antonio Coronato (ICAR-CNR, Italy) � Apostolos N. Papadopoulos (Aristotle University, Greece) � Avinash Srinivasan (Florida Atlantic University, USA) � Cho-Li Wang (The University of Hong Kong, China) � Claudio Sartori (Universita' di Bologna, Italy) � Do van Thanh (NTNU, Norway) � Fangguo Zhang (Sun Yat-sen University, China) � Gianluca Moro (University of Bologna, Italy) � Hiroshi yoshiura (University of Electro-Communications, Japan) � Huafei Zhu (Institute for Infocomm Research, A-star, Singapore) � Javier Garcia Villalba (Complutense University of Madrid, Spain) � Jongsung Kim, Kyungnam University, Korea � Jean-Henry Morin (Korea University, KOREA) � Jean-Marc Seigneur (University of Geneva, Switzerland) � Jian Yang (Macquarie University, Australia) � Katsaros Dimitrios (Aristotle University, Greece) � Ligang He (University of Warwick, UK) � Marco Aiello (University of Groningen, the Netherlands) � Massimo Esposito (ICARCNR, Italy) � Paolo Bellavista (University of Bologna, Italy) � Qi Shi (Liverpool John Moores University, UK) � Raymond Li (CISCO, USA) � Rodrigo Fernandes de Mello (University of Sao Paulo, Brazil) � Tetsu Iwata (Nagoya University, Japan) � Tore Jonvik (Oslo Unversity College, Norway) � TRAORE Jacques RD-MAPS-CAE (France Telecom R&D, France) � Trevor Jim (AT&T Labs Research, USA) � Xiaofeng Meng (Renmin University of China, China) � Yufeng Wang (Nanjing University of Posts and Telecommuni-cations, China) =================== 6. History of WPS =================== The 1st International Workshop on Application and Security service in Web and Pervasive Environments (ASWAN-07, HuangShan, China, June, 2007) http://www.chu.edu.tw/~aswan07/ The 2nd International Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security (WPS-08, Hong Kong, March, 2008) http://www.sersc.org/WPS2008/ The 3rd International Workshop on Web and Pervasive Security (WPS-09, Galveston, Texas, USA, March, 2009) http://grid.chu.edu.tw/wps2009/ ================================================== For additional information, please send e-mail to Prof. Robert C. H. Hsu (chh(a)chu.edu.tw) or Prof. Jong Hyuk Park (parkjonghyuk1(a)hotmail.com) ==================================================

1 0

Hotmail bouncing email
by Greg Estabrooks 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

Is anyone else out there getting reports of hotmail randomly bouncing emails with just a message of "failed"? Over the last 2 weeks we've had a dozens of complaints of hosting customers spanning dozens of domains not receiving emails from hotmail users. Checking our logs shows the messages were never even attempted to be delivered and all forwarded in bounce messages literally just say "Delivery failed", yet we are still happily processing thousands of other emails from hotmail everyday. Now I'm wondering if this is restricted to us in someway or part of a larger problem.

4 4

level 3 issues this morning
by Welch, Bryan 24 Apr '10

24 Apr '10

FYI.... There is some routing flakiness going on with Level 3 this morning, which L3 confirms. Some routes sent to their network are dying, some not. We are having reach ability issues over them on the west coast. Bypassing level 3 for the moment. Bryan

1 0

Re: Recommendations for DDOS detection software?
by nanogf . 23 Apr '10

23 Apr '10

http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.andrisoft.com/files/WANGuard_P… --- major(a)mhtx.net wrote: From: Major Hayden <major(a)mhtx.net> To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Recommendations for DDOS detection software? Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 07:49:26 -0500 Hello there, Does anyone have any recommendations for DDOS detection software which runs on Linux? We're currently testing out Network Probe: http://objectplanet.com/probe/ We've written some custom "top talkers" scripts to analyze tcpdump data, but we'd like a more elegant solution with some basic alarm functionality. Thanks! -- Major Hayden _____________________________________________________________ Get your own *free* email address like this one from www.OwnEmail.com

1 0