March 2015 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: FCC form 477 geocoding
by Scott Weeks 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

--- tetherow(a)shwisp.net wrote: From: Sam Tetherow <tetherow(a)shwisp.net> Lat/Lng to Census Block via FCC http://data.fcc.gov/api/block/2010/find?latitude=$latitude&longitude=$longi… -------------------------------------- HTTP Status 404 - Not Found type Status report message Not Found description The requested resource (Not Found) is not available. Apache Tomcat/6.0.30 scott

2 1

M3AAWG 34 in Dublin - public call for papers
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

fyi > From: "Alec Peterson" <alec(a)messagesystems.com> > To: "technical(a)mailman.m3aawg.org" <technical(a)mailman.m3aawg.org> > Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 11:32 PM > Subject: [Technical] M3AAWG 34 Call for Papers > > > The 34th General Meeting of the Messaging Malware Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group (M3AAWG) will be held in Dublin, Ireland from June 8-11, 2015. You may find information about all of our upcoming meetings at http://www.maawg.org/events/upcoming_meetings. The Technical Committee is currently seeking proposals for sessions for our upcoming meeting in Dublin. Sessions may involve single speakers or panels with up to four participants and are typically 60 minutes long. A successful proposal is of a technical nature that is relevant to the operationally-focused participants of M3AAWG. Topics of relevance include but are not limited to: > + DANE / DNSSEC > + DMARC / (DMARC.org) [http://DMARC.org] > + IPv6 (other than mailbox provider perspective) > + Pervasive Monitoring / Encryption Efforts (Messaging Security) > + Unique Attack and/or Mitigation Analysis > + Emerging Threats > + Viruses, Worms, Trojans, and other Malware > + Exploit Kits > + Pay-Per-Install Campaigns > + Cybercrime Underground Economy > + Targeted Attacks > + Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs) > + Security Issues involving the 'Internet of Things' > + Security Issues involving Critical Infrastructure > + Social Engineering > + Phishing and Other Scams > + The evolution of mobile malware (e.g., NotCompatible) > + Mobile penetration of non-mobile networks barriers > + The rise of Over-the-Top sources of mobile messaging abuse > Please submit your session proposals to https://www.maawg.org/submissions by May 1, 2015 at the latest. Travel assistance is available for special cases. All participants must adhere to the M3AAWG Conduct Policy at https://www.maawg.org/page/m3aawg-conduct-policy. Media will be permitted into sessions only with the speakers’ advance consent. The contents of this CFP are public. Please feel free to redistribute this document. > Alec > > > ALEC H PETERSON > cto > tel +1 443 656 3322 > twitter @ahpeterson > email alec(a)messagesystems.com > >

1 0

Symmetry, DSL, and all that
by Fletcher Kittredge 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

Not a very informative discussion. Points of fact... >From Verizon's January filings regarding 2014Q4: 1. Verizon has about eight million FIOS customers. 2. "Fifty-nine percent of FiOS consumer Internet customers subscribed to data speeds of at least 50Mbps, up from 46 percent one year earlier." >From a Verizon press release last summer, all FIOS speeds are now symmetric. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/07/verizon-fios-finally-symmetrical-up… ADSL development proceeded the development of the consumer Internet. The original patent was filed in 1988. DSL was designed originally to deliver video in an ISDN/ATM world. For that reason, it was asymmetric. -- Fletcher Kittredge GWI 8 Pomerleau Street Biddeford, ME 04005-9457 207-602-1134

7 12

CFP: IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP)
by Srihari Nelakuditi 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

Call for Papers IEEE ICNP 2015 http://icnp15.cs.ucr.edu/ ICNP, the IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols, is the premier conference on network protocols, covering all aspects of network protocol research, including design, analysis, specification, verification, implementation, and performance. Sponsored by the IEEE, ICNP 2015 is the 23rd edition of the conference, to be held in San Francisco, CA, USA from Nov. 10-13, 2015. ====================================================================== Important dates Paper Submission May 8, 2015, 7:59 PM EST (FIRM) Acceptance Notification June 30, 2015 Camera Ready Version Aug 15, 2015 ====================================================================== We invite papers with significant, original research contributions to the field of network protocols for submission. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: * All aspects of network protocol research including design, specification, verification, implementation, measurement, testing, and analysis * Domain-specific solutions, including protocols for network security, Internet of Things, routing, user privacy, network management, and data centers * Application-layer protocols for peer-to-peer systems, social networks, and emerging systems * Contributions to network architecture, e.g., specific algorithms and protocols for software defined networks, network virtualization, or future Internet architectures ICNP 2015 will select an accepted full paper for the best paper award. Up to two of the best papers from ICNP will be fast-tracked in the IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, with a streamlined journal review process. Acceptance of fast-tracked papers in ToN is not guaranteed, but is more likely than a regular submission. Submission Guidelines * All papers should adhere to the IEEE Computer conference paper formatting requirements (IEEEtran.cls) and should not exceed 10 pages with font size no smaller than 10 pt (details can be found on the submission guidelines and formatting page). * ICNP uses a double-blind review process. The identity of authors and referees will not be revealed to each other. To ensure double-blind reviewing, author names and affiliations should not appear in the paper; bibliographic references should be made in such a way as to preserve author anonymity; acknowledgement with identifiable names and funding sources should be removed. Note that own work should be cited as a third person. Papers violating this double-blind review policy will be rejected without review. * Authors need to indicate on their paper’s submission page all TPC members with whom they have conflicts of interest. * Every paper MUST be presented by an author at the conference. The author list MUST remain the same as when the paper was submitted for review, and any changes in the author list or title is forbidden without prior written permission from the TPC Co-Chairs. At least one author of an accepted paper is expected to register at the full rate of the conference and to present the paper at the conference, in order for the paper to appear in the conference proceedings and be submitted to the IEEE digital library. Papers not presented by an author at the conference will not be published in the proceedings or submitted for inclusion in the IEEE digital library. Integrity Policy Submitted papers should not be previously published nor under review by another conference or journal. In some cases, the ICNP chairs may share information about submitted papers with other conference chairs and journal editors to ensure the integrity of papers under consideration. Authors are prohibited from informing any TPC member of any identifiable information (such as titles) of their submissions. Also, papers containing plagiarized material will be subject to the IEEE plagiarism policy and will be rejected without review. Organizing Committee General Co-Chairs: Srikanth V. Krishnamurthy, University of California, Riverside Prasant Mohapatra, University of California, Davis TPC Co-Chairs: Aditya Akella, University of Wisconsin, Madison Vishal Misra, Columbia University Steering Committee: Kevin Almeroth, University of California, Santa Barbara Ken Calvert, University of Kentucky Sonia Fahmy, Purdue University Mohamed Gouda, University of Texas, Austin Timothy G. Griffin, University of Cambridge Teruo Higashino, Osaka University David Lee, HP Labs K.K. Ramakrishnan (Chair), University of California, Riverside Krishan Sabnani, Bell Laboratories ======================================================================

1 0

[NANOG-announce] NANOG 64 - San Francisco - Call for Presentations is Open!
by Tony Tauber 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Greetings NANOG Folks, NANOG 63 in San Antonio is still a fairly fresh memory (for those who were there). NANOG will hold its 64th meeting in San Francisco, CA on June 1-3, 2015, hosted by Netflix. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 64 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet, . Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. Key dates to track if you wish to submit a presentation: Key Dates For NANOG 64 Event/Deadline Date Registration for NANOG 64 Opens March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Opens for NANOG 64 March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #1: Presentation Abstracts Due March 30, 2015 (Monday) CFP Topic List and NANOG Highlights Page Posted April 13, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #2: Presentation Slides Due April 27, 2015 (Monday) Meeting Agenda Published May 4, 2015 (Monday) Speaker FINAL presentations to PC Tool <https://pc.nanog.org/> May 29, 2015 (Friday) On-site Registration May 31, 2015 (Sunday) Lightning Talk Submissions Open (Abstracts Only) June 1, 2015 (Monday) NANOG 64 submissions are welcome on the Program Committee Site <https://pc.nanog.org/> or email me if you have questions. See the detailed NANOG64 Call for Presentations <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog63/callforpresentations> for more information. You can also view the NANOG events calendar <https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o…> (including the key dates above and more) import in ICS format <https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o0u68%…> . Thanks, Tony Tauber Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

[NANOG-announce] Fwd: CFP Test
by Tony Tauber 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Greetings NANOG Folks, NANOG 63 in San Antonio is still a fairly fresh memory (for those who were there). NANOG will hold its 64th meeting in San Francisco, CA on June 1-3, 2015, hosted by Netflix. The NANOG Program Committee is now seeking proposals for presentations, panels, tutorials, tracks sessions, and keynote materials for the NANOG 64 program. We invite presentations highlighting issues relating to technology already deployed or soon-to-be deployed in the Internet, . Vendors are encouraged to work with operators to present real-world deployment experiences with the vendor's products and interoperability. Key dates to track if you wish to submit a presentation: Key Dates For NANOG 64 Event/Deadline Date Registration for NANOG 64 Opens March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Opens for NANOG 64 March 2, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #1: Presentation Abstracts Due March 30, 2015 (Monday) CFP Topic List and NANOG Highlights Page Posted April 13, 2015 (Monday) CFP Deadline #2: Presentation Slides Due April 27, 2015 (Monday) Meeting Agenda Published May 4, 2015 (Monday) Speaker FINAL presentations to PC Tool <https://pc.nanog.org/> May 29, 2015 (Friday) On-site Registration May 31, 2015 (Sunday) Lightning Talk Submissions Open (Abstracts Only) June 1, 2015 (Monday) NANOG 64 submissions are welcome on the Program Committee Site <https://pc.nanog.org/> or email me if you have questions. See the detailed NANOG64 Call for Presentations <https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog63/callforpresentations> for more information. You can also view the NANOG events calendar <https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o…> (including the key dates above and more) import in ICS format <https://www.google.com/calendar/ical/newnog.org_n52e4de4cce58v1lv41m6o0u68%…> . Thanks, Tony Tauber Chair, Program Committee North American Network Operator Group (NANOG) _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)mailman.nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

FW: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
by Naslund, Steve 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

>That's simply wrong - at least for folks who do any work related stuff at home. > >Consider: I've just edited a large sales presentation - say a PPT deck with some embedded video, totaling maybe 250MB (2gbit) - and I want to upload that to the company server. And let's say I want to do that 5 times during 12 >hour day (it's crunch time, we're doing lots of edits). BUSINESS CLASS SERVICE - You can get it but you have to pay for it. Also, not the average user's case. I know this. My support line does not ring with many (hardly any) people complaining about upload speed. Get over it, it is a provable fact. Is any service provider on here seeing this? > >On average, we're talking 20gbit/12 hours, or a shade under 500kbps, if we're talking averages. On the other hand, if I try to push a 2gbit file through a 500kbps pipe, it's going to take 4000 seconds (67 >minutes) -- that's rather painful, and inserts a LOT of delay in the process of getting reviews, comments, and doing the next round of edits. > >On the other hand, at 50mbps it takes only 40 seconds - annoying, but acceptable, and at a gig, it only takes 2 seconds. > Peak, average, whatever. Your local loop does not care. It does not have a "burst speed", it has a maximum transfer rate limited by the physics and electronics attached to it. You might want it to go faster and as a service provider I wish it would go faster because I would love to have lots of free bandwidth to sell you. If you want 50 mbps or 1 gbps on your ADSL circuit I can't help you at all. In fact, no one can because IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TODAY. If you want gig Ethernet service at home break out your checkbook (and a shovel). >So, tell me, with a straight face, that "what matters is average transfer rate to the user experience." > >Miles Fidelman Straight face on- The user cares if his average data rate meets his needs more than he cares if he has a high upload speed the once a month he needs that. If your bottom line argument is that you need more bandwidth for less cost, then welcome to everyone else's world. Steven Naslund Chicago IL

2 1

Routing objects
by Justin Wilson - MTIN 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Anyone out there messed with routing objects lately that would care to let me bounce a few sanity check things off them? Maybe someone bored wanting to talk to a fellow geek on Skype or phone for a few minutes. Thanks, Justin Justin Wilson j2sw(a)mtin.net http://www.mtin.net <http://www.mtin.net/> Managed Services – xISP Solutions – Data Centers http://www.thebrotherswisp.com <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/> Podcast about xISP topics http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> Peering – Transit – Internet Exchange

1 0

Large Ontario DC busted for hosting petabytes of child abuse material
by Suresh Ramasubramanian 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

18 million dollars revenue in three months so certainly pretty large sized. Any idea which DC this is? http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/police-could-charge-a-data-center-in…

8 8

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
by Rogers, Josh 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

Correct. For those (who don¹tt already know) that are interested in learning about this, do some reading on Diplex Filters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplexer) which are used to ³split² the RF spectrum apart so that the lower portion and the higher portion can be amplified independently, before recombining the two portions. I believe this was done to accomplish unity gain in each direction independently. Also, I¹d like to note that there have been a few comments in this thread that lead me to believe some folks are confusing asymmetrical routing paths with asymmetrical speeds. Don¹t confuse the two as they have nearly nothing to do with one another. -Josh On 3/2/15, 6:00 AM, "nanog-request(a)nanog.org" <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> wrote: >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 08:08:27 -0500 >From: Clayton Zekelman <clayton(a)mnsi.net> >To: Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> >Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> >Subject: Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality >Message-ID: <32D3C16D-0F4D-45BA-99F8-D41FE23D472C(a)mnsi.net> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > >Yes, so when cable modems were introduced to the network, they had to be >designed to work on the EXISTING infrastructure which was designed to >deliver cable TV. It's not some conspiracy to differentiate higher priced >business services - it was a fact of RF technology and the architecture >of the network they were overlaying this "new" service on top of. > > > >Sent from my iPhone > >>On Feb 28, 2015, at 10:28 PM, Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> wrote: >>>On February 28, 2015 at 18:14 clayton(a)mnsi.net (Clayton Zekelman) wrote: >>>You do of course realize that the asymmetry in CATV forward path/return >>>path existed LONG before residential Internet access over cable >>>networks exited? >>You mean back when it was all analog and DOCSIS didn't exist? >>>Sent from my iPhone >>>>On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:38 PM, Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> wrote: >>>>Can we stop the disingenuity? >>>>Asymmetric service was introduced to discourage home users from >>>>deploying "commercial" services. As were bandwidth caps. >>>>One can argue all sorts of other "benefits" of this but when this >>>>started that was the problem on the table: How do we forcibly >>>>distinguish commercial (i.e., more expensive) from non-commercial >>>>usage? >>>>Answer: Give them a lot less upload than download bandwidth. >>>>Originally these asymmetric, typically DSL, links were hundreds of >>>>kbits upstream, not a lot more than a dial-up line. >>>>That and NAT thereby making it difficult -- not impossible, the savvy >>>>were in the noise -- to map domain names to permanent IP addresses. >>>>That's all this was about. >>>>It's not about "that's all they need", "that's all they want", etc. >>>>Now that bandwidth is growing rapidly and asymmetric is often >>>>10/50mbps or 20/100 it almost seems nonsensical in that regard, entire >>>>medium-sized ISPs ran on less than 10mbps symmetric not long ago. But >>>>it still imposes an upper bound of sorts, along with addressing >>>>limitations and bandwidth caps. >>>>That's all this is about. >>>>The telcos for many decades distinguished "business" voice service >>>>from "residential" service, even for just one phone line, though they >>>>mostly just winged it and if they declared you were defrauding them by >>>>using a residential line for a business they might shut you off and/or >>>>back bill you. Residential was quite a bit cheaper, most importantly >>>>local "unlimited" (unmetered) talk was only available on residential >>>>lines. Business lines were even coded 1MB (one m b) service, one >>>>metered business (line). >>>>The history is clear and they've just reinvented the model for >>>>internet but proactively enforced by technology rather than studying >>>>your usage patterns or whatever they used to do, scan for business ads >>>>using "residential" numbers, beyond bandwidth usage analysis. >>>>And the CATV companies are trying to reinvent CATV pricing for >>>>internet, turn Netflix (e.g.) into an analogue of HBO and other >>>>premium CATV services. >>>>What's so difficult to understand here? >>>>-- >>>> -Barry Shein >>>>The World | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | >>>>http://www.TheWorld.com >>>>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, >>>>Canada >>>>Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 >>>>*oo* >>-- >> -Barry Shein >>The World | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | >>http://www.TheWorld.com >>Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, >>Canada >>Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.

1 0