September 2014 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Multicast Internet Route table.
by S, Somasundaram (Somasundaram) 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

Members I have few questions related to Multicast deployment in the internet today. 1: Does all the ISP's provide Multicast Routing by default? 2: Is there any placeholder where one can get to know the Multicast Internet Route table (usage, stability etc) just like Unicast Route table (http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net)?

12 13

RE: Prefix hijacking, how to prevent and fix currently
by Sriram, Kotikalapudi 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

>Please help me understand the argument. > >> Some Org. D can maliciously announce a subprefix under Org. C's >> prefix, and get away with it due to the 'Loose' mode. > >So C is advertising valid 192.0.2.0/24 >Is D advertising valid 192.0.2.0/23? > >This is unfixable problem? If D is advertising invalid or unknown, C >would still work and win, as longest prefix match is done first to the 'valid' >population, if search is found, other populations are not searched. The example that I gave was not that. In my example, C has legitimate ownership of the less specific (e.g., 192.0.2.0/23). D is malicious and attempting to hijack a subprefix (e.g., 192.0.2.0/24). Importantly, C has a created a ROA for 192.0.2.0/23 only to protect its address space, but currently *does not advertise* this prefix or any part of it. So D's more specific announcement (hijack) is 'Invalid' in this scenario, but the 'Loose' mode operation would accept/install D's route. Am I right about that? If yes, that is the side effect or CON that I was trying to highlight. >> I think, 'Loose mode', if used at all, should not be used beyond a short grace period. >We need to be pragmatic and ready to compromise. Right now deploying >RPKI puts you in competitive disadvantage, loose mode would remove the >business risk and make it easier to justify deployment. I agree about making some compromises. But we need to bear in mind the side effects such as the above in the transition period. For example, to mitigate the above stated CON, the operator (C in our example) should go ahead and announce its prefix (e.g., 192.0.2.0/23) in BGP even though he/she may not currently intend to set up any servers/services in that address space. Further, at a later/more mature stage of RPKI, when most operators have implemented the paragraph I cited from RFC 7115, then routers can drop 'Loose' mode. Sriram

3 4

Re: Prefix hijacking, how to prevent and fix currently
by Saku Ytti 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

On (2014-09-02 14:44 +0000), Sriram, Kotikalapudi wrote: Hi Sriram, > Importantly, C has a created a ROA for 192.0.2.0/23 only to protect > its address space, but currently *does not advertise* this prefix or any part of it. > So D's more specific announcement (hijack) is 'Invalid' in this scenario but > the 'Loose' mode operation would accept/install D's route. > Am I right about that? If yes, that is the side effect or CON that I was trying to highlight. Absolutely, thanks I now understood you and we're on the same page. Loose only protects routed networks, it do not protect hijacked non-routed prefixes. > Further, later in a mature stage of RPKI, when nearly all operators have > implemented the paragraph I cited from RFC 7115, then routers can drop 'Loose' mode. Yes, many may have sufficient confidence to turn off loose mode at later time. All of them would be able to gather data during loose-period about actual occurrence of false positives. Perhaps that is always 0 or at least has been 0 for past several years, this might be make it easy to give accurate data of factual business risks. -- ++ytti

1 0

Re: Prefix hijacking, how to prevent and fix currently
by Sriram, Kotikalapudi 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

>> Loose mode RPKI: >> - verified or unknown less-specific route is preferable to failing more-specific >Or said otherwise when choosing route from Adj-RIBs-In to Loc-RIB longest >match is not done to whole population, population is first divided to >'verified', 'unknown' and 'failed' routes, and longest match is done for each >sub-population in order, until match is found. Of course, a PRO you are seeking to achieve is: If Org. A is parent and upstream of Org. B, and Org. A has created a ROA for its own less specific, while no ROA has been created (due to negligence, oversight, etc.) for the suballocation (more specific) of Org. B, and if Org. A happens *not* to announce its less specific, then Org. B's announcement of the more specific from its own AS will be treated softly. That is, Org. B's announcement will be 'Invalid' but nevertheless the route is accepted/installed by any receiving AS that is using the 'Loose' mode. This is the benign/beneficial use of 'Loose' mode. But the CON here is: For instance, Org. C owns a prefix but has not yet deployed any services using it. Org. C created a ROA (perhaps even an ROA with AS0) purely with the intent to make sure that no one else can get away with announcing any subprefix (more specific) under its prefix unless they have a ROA for the subprefix. The 'Loose' mode obviously defeats this. Some Org. D can maliciously announce a subprefix under Org. C's prefix, and get away with it due to the 'Loose' mode. So there will be this tension between the PRO and CON of your 'Loose' mode. I think, 'Loose mode', if used at all, should not be used beyond a short grace period. Beyond the grace period, network operators and their customers will be well advised to adhere to the following from RFC 7115: "Before issuing a ROA for a super-block, an operator MUST ensure that all sub-allocations from that block that are announced by other ASes, e.g., customers, have correct ROAs in the RPKI." Sriram

2 1

FCC Help Wanted
by Joly MacFie 02 Sep '14

02 Sep '14

https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/379628100 Job Title:Telecommunications Policy and Technology Specialist (Internet) Agency:Federal Communications Commission SALARY RANGE: $124,995.00 to $157,100.00 / Per Year DUTIES: As Telecommunications Policy and Technology Specialist (Internet), he/she serves as a senior expert consultant and advisor with regard to wireline and wireless broadband technologies used in communications networks, Internet technologies, Internet networking, and traffic exchange evolution issues. Provides expert technical and policy advice on the technology, design, and operations of Internet networks, including changes in network design and traffic exchange practices and policies resulting from emerging commercial practices and strategies. Performs investigative analyses and original research with respect to critical and unprecedented network operations, service provision, traffic exchange, and content delivery issues that involve emerging technologies, services, and commercial incentives; evaluates technical, social, legal, institutional and other related implications of proposed policy decisions on technology adoption, deployment, network operations, communications services provision; and provides input into Commission proceedings that implement those proposed policy decisions. Drafts recommendations, decision memoranda, notices of inquiry, notices of proposed rulemaking, orders, and public notices concerning the technical and business/financial aspects of designing, building, operating, and exchanging traffic among Internet backbone networks, and content delivery and other Internet networks. Drafts correspondence and reports concerning controversial technical aspects of pending or future issues that may warrant Commission actions, requesting additional information as necessary. Initiates correspondence responsive to inquiries from the public, other government agencies, other parts of the FCC, and Congress. Initiates communications with the public (including service providers, trade associations, and consumer groups) concerning technological, business, and operational issues of specific interest or concern to the Commission. Provides guidance and leadership over unusually complex newly emerging technical matters, including those of a precedent-setting nature. Provides expert technical and policy analysis for the Division on any issues relating to advanced communications systems, including broadband systems and the Internet, as assigned by the Division Chief or designees. Facilitates decision and action on such matters by drafting briefing material or rulemaking documents and by briefing the Division and/or Division management on policy or action alternative issues. ________________________________ QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED: Specialized Experience: Applicants must have a minimum of one year of specialized experience equivalent to at least the GS-14 grade level in the Federal service. For this position, specialized experience includes the following: 1) Experience applying knowledge of network management and operations, network architecture, Internet technologies and services, broadband technologies, data communications, and communications network technology; 2) Experience in a variety of communications networks and systems including Internet and broadband networks; 3) Experience performing investigative analyses and original research with respect to unprecedented network operations and service provision issues that involve emerging technologies; and 4) Experience presenting complex technical and policy information to various audiences. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

5 4

Re: Fwd: [ PRIVACY Forum ] An Iranian Grand Ayatollah Issues Fatwa Stating High Speed Internet is against Sharia
by Larry Sheldon 01 Sep '14

01 Sep '14

On 9/1/2014 00:35, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Cause it's a long weekend, and why shouldn't it be whackier than normal. > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- >> From: "PRIVACY Forum mailing list" <privacy(a)vortex.com> >> To: privacy-list(a)vortex.com >> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:34:16 PM >> Subject: [ PRIVACY Forum ] An Iranian Grand Ayatollah Issues Fatwa Stating High Speed Internet is against Sharia >> An Iranian Grand Ayatollah Issues Fatwa Stating High Speed Internet is >> against Sharia >> >> (Iran Human Rights): >> http://www.iranhumanrights.org/2014/08/makarem-internet/ >> >> A Grand Ayatollah in Iran has determined that access to high-speed and >> 3G Internet is "against Sharia" and "against moral standards." In >> answer to a question published on his website, Grand Ayatollah Nasser ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Is that odd? -- The unique Characteristics of System Administrators: The fact that they are infallible; and, The fact that they learn from their mistakes.

1 0