April 2014 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Dealing with auditors (was Re: We hit half-million: The Cidr Report)
by Larry Sheldon 01 May '14

01 May '14

On 4/30/2014 11:30 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:40:43 -0000, Jamie Bowden said: > >> You're not funny. And if you're not joking, you're wrong. We just went over >> this on this very list two weeks ago. > > And in that discussion, we ascertained that what the PCI standard actually > says, and what you need to do in order to get unclued boneheaded auditors to > sign the piece of paper, are two very different things. > > Yes, the PCI standard gives a list of 4 options and then continues on to > say that other creative solutions are acceptable as well. But if you > discover mid-engagement that your auditor *thinks* it says "Thou shalt NAT", > you have a problem. > > Anybody got recommendations on how to make sure the company you engage > for the audit ends up sending you critters that actually have a clue? (Not > necessarily PCI, but in general) I am no longer active on the battlefield but as of the last time I was, it can't be did. For years I managed various aspect of a UNIVAC 1100 operation and the audits thereof. EVERY TIME, we were dinged badly because we didn't look like an IBM shop (some may be surprised to learn that different hardware and different operating systems require very different operating procedures (and it appeared to us that some of the things they wanted us to do would weaken us badly, others just simply didn't make any sense, and we got dinged for things we DID do, because they were strange. Later years I was in a small 1100-many HP9000 shop--same thing only different. (That was also the environment with a medical school and hospital with Internet-accessible heart monitors on Windows 95.) I think there has been some drift away from IBMishness as The Gold Standard, but it still looks like there is no allowance for the real world in computing and networking. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

6 6

Rancid with Maipu devices
by Anurag Bhatia 30 Apr '14

30 Apr '14

Hello everyone! I was wondering if anyone is using Rancid with Maipu devices? I am slightly stuck because default clogin gives error on "terminal length 0" and widith command in Maipu cli. Also, I tried adding "no more" which is being executed but still overall script is failing. Did anyone got around this? If so, it would be helpful if you can share your customized script for Maipu. Thanks. -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia> Skype: anuragbhatia.com PGP Key Fingerprint: 3115 677D 2E94 B696 651B 870C C06D D524 245E 58E2

1 0

North NJ LATA 224
by Alex Rubenstein 30 Apr '14

30 Apr '14

Anyone selling IP over ATM / Frame Relay in North NJ Verizon LATA 224 that could carve a PVC real fast?

1 0

The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
by Patrick W. Gilmore 29 Apr '14

29 Apr '14

Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss? In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can "choose". How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market? -- TTFN, patrick http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-plann… Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.

12 15

dedicated server providers in Mexico?
by Carlos Kamtha 29 Apr '14

29 Apr '14

Hi everyone, I am currently not happy with out MX server provider, and so, inquiring with anyone that can give a recommendation based on experience? I found this list via google. http://www.webhostingsearch.com/dedicated-server/mexico.php I wondering if anyone can speak to any of the providers on this list (outside of 1n1). offlist.. Feedback as always greatly appreciated. Cheers, Carlos.

3 2

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
by Larry Sheldon 29 Apr '14

29 Apr '14

I just posted a completely empty message for which I apologize. > Larry is confused. He can claim he is not, but posting to NANOG does > not change the facts. Then again, just because I posted to NANOG > doesn't prove I'm right either. Worst of all, this thread is pretty > non-operational now. In a private message I asked if he could name a single monopoly that existed without regulation to protect its monopoly power. >> So believe as you please. I'm going to believe that the FCC allowing > monopolies (regulated or not) to charge content providers as they > please will be bad for me and about 300 million other Americans. "FCC allowing monopolies" -- suppose the FCC and other regulators and aiders and abettors got out of the the monopoly business? > Besides, what has this to do with my original questions? Which were "Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?" and "How is this good for the consumer?" and "How is this good for the market?" My answer was an attempt to say that if you don't have any government entities allowing and protecting (two pretty much interchangeable terms, I prefer the latter) monopolies the answer to the first question is "Huh? What?" and to the second and third "Best service for the best price is pretty good for everybody. Except the losers that can't rip you off without the FCC protection." -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

8 11

Question for service providers regarding tenant use of public IPv4 on your infrastructure
by Cliff Bowles 29 Apr '14

29 Apr '14

(accidentally sent this to nanog-request earlier, sorry if there is a double post) We are an enterprise and we do not yet have a sophisticated service-provider model yet for billing, capacity-management, or infrastructure consumption. We have a few vBlocks that we consume internally for IT/business needs. Recently, the decision was made to start offering our infrastructure to partner businesses to deploy their apps on, which will then be made available to their customers. The ingress/egress, the virtualization and even the orchestration part are essentially covered. We've tackled the security part as well. However, we have some tenants that want to egress to the internet locally rather than backhaul the traffic to their premise. Naturally, we could ask each tenant to provide their own internet for this, but the business wants to explore a dedicated, customer-only internet and chargeback/showback. My question is: how are cloud providers handling the use of their IP space when they don't have full control over what their tenants are doing? More specifically, if you own a large block of IPs, how do you prevent business impact (or other tenant impact) if one tenant does something that causes an upstream ISP to blacklist/block? We don't want to put more controls in path between the tenant and the internet, we just want to know how to manage upstream relations. I've heard that some ISPs don't block a specific IP when they see malicious behavior; they do a WHOIS and block the whole range. That would, of course, impact multiple tenants. I'm guessing Amazon and other similar providers have some arrangements with peering ISPs and law-enforcement to ensure that there is consultation before action is taken? Or do ISPs put some level of security between their tenants and the internet to prevent this? I've been told that the majority do not have any intelligent filtering beyond bogon-lists. I'd imagine that would cause huge operational overhead and frustrate the tenants. If you've tackled this issue as part of your business, I'd appreciate any feedback. Thanks in advance. CWB ________________________________ This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.

3 2

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
by Larry Sheldon 28 Apr '14

28 Apr '14

On 4/28/2014 12:32 PM, Barry Shein wrote: > > On April 27, 2014 at 21:56 LarrySheldon(a)cox.net (Larry Sheldon) wrote: > > On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goemon(a)anime.net wrote: > > > If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they > > > should lose common carrier protections. > > > > I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers. > > Here we go again! > > There is more than one commonly used meaning for "common carriers". Please list only the meanings that involve "protections" that should be removed. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

1 0

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
by Larry Sheldon 28 Apr '14

28 Apr '14

h/t Suresh Ramasubramanian FCC throws in the towel on net neutrality http://www.zdnet.com/fcc-throws-in-the-towel-on-net-neutrality-7000028770/ Forward! On to the next windmill, Sancho! -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

18 34

Re: The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post
by Larry Sheldon 28 Apr '14

28 Apr '14

On 4/27/2014 8:59 PM, goemon(a)anime.net wrote: > If the carriers now get to play packet favoritism and pay-for-play, they > should lose common carrier protections. I didn't think the Internet providers were common carriers. -- Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics of System Administrators: Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to learn from their mistakes. (Adapted from Stephen Pinker)

3 3