- Test - lists.nanog.org

[liberationtech] The Hidden Internet of Iran: Private Address Allocations on a National Network
by Eugen Leitl 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

Sounds just like CGN. ----- Forwarded message from Collin Anderson <collin(a)averysmallbird.com> ----- From: Collin Anderson <collin(a)averysmallbird.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:06:34 -0400 To: liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu Subject: [liberationtech] The Hidden Internet of Iran: Private Address Allocations on a National Network Reply-To: liberationtech <liberationtech(a)lists.stanford.edu> Libtech, I want to share a working paper of mine that was posted to arXiv last night. This is part of an ongoing effort to start producing verifiable dataset on how Iran's Internet works, and was a surprising discovery that I wanted to share with everyone else -- in lead up to a broader output *The Hidden Internet of Iran: Private Address Allocations on a National Network* While funding agencies have provided substantial support for the developers and vendors of services that facilitate the unfettered flow of information through the Internet, little consolidated knowledge exists on the basic communications network infrastructure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the absence open access and public data, rumors and fear have reigned supreme. During provisional research on the country's censorship regime, we found initial indicators that telecommunications entities in Iran allowed private addresses to route domestically, whether intentionally or unintentionally, creating a hidden network only reachable within the country. Moreover, records such as DNS entries lend evidence of a 'dual stack' approach, wherein servers are assigned a domestic IP addresses, in addition to a global one. Despite the clear political implications of the claim we put forward, particularly in light of rampant speculation regarding the mandate of Article 46 of the 'Fifth Five Year Development Plan' to establish a "national information network," we refrain from hypothesizing the purpose of this structure. In order to solicit critical feedback for future research, we outline our initial findings and attempt to demonstrate that the matter under contention is a nation-wide phenomenom that warrants broader attention. http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6398 Cordially, Collin -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C. -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ----- End forwarded message -----

2 1

[NANOG-announce] Maintenance Notification for Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 at 11am Eastern
by Randy Epstein 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

Dear Colleagues, On Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 at 11am Eastern Time, access to NANOG Meeting Registration, submissions to PC.NANOG.ORG, and access to the membership portal will be unavailable for 30-60 minutes. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the NANOG Communications Committee for more details, admins(a)nanog.org. Randy Epstein NANOG CC Chair On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

[NANOG-announce] NANOG Election Update
by Betty Burke <betty＠nanog.org> 02 Oct '12

02 Oct '12

Colleagues: The final stages of our annual NANOG Election process is underway. Today, October 1, 2012 is the last day to submit nominations to the NANOG Board of Directors. The NANOG Board is responsible for ensuring NANOG operates in a way that is consistent with our Bylaws, financially sound, and helps to ensure NANOG is an organization that meets the needs of the internet community and the NANOG Members. Please consider a self-nomination, or a nomination of someone you feel would be a strong candidate. Refer to http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2012elections/ for complete information. If you are not yet a member of NANOG, or have not yet renewed your membership, please consider doing so. As of this writing, NANOG has 315 members! There are additional benefits to membership, however, the most important is the control members have through their votes. Only members can vote, and are eligible to serve on the NANOG Board and NANOG Committees; thus helping to decide the direction of NANOG. Refer to http://www.nanog.org/membership_main.html for complete membership information. I hope you will consider becoming part of the process! Sincerely, Betty -- Betty Burke NANOG Executive Director 48377 Fremont Boulevard, Suite 117 Fremont, CA 94538 Tel: +1 510 492 4030 _______________________________________________ NANOG-announce mailing list NANOG-announce(a)nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

1 0

RE: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
by Tribble, Wesley 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

10Gbase-T doesn't make much sense for a new virtual environment. Once you factor in the cost of the cabling and power, you probably would have been better off with DAC or FET interconnects. Also 10Gbase-T does not necessarily work with Legacy wiring, depending upon how it was run. Large bundles of wire cause crosstalk issues on legacy cabling, this is the reason for large jackets on 6A. http://www.siemon.com/us/learning/alien-crosstalk-guide.asp I'm not saying it won't work for your scenario as I am not familiar with your environment, just keep it in mind that with most environments, DAC is a cheaper and provides better latency for your storage traffic. -----Original Message----- From: Jima [mailto:nanog@jima.tk] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 3:33 PM To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T Gotcha. With SFP+ I think the only nod to backward compatibility would be 1gbit RJ-45 SFPs, which can get a little spendy in large numbers (although so can DACs). As for distance, I admit I haven't encountered any DACs longer than 15 meters (~49 feet) -- not that I'm positive they don't exist. Jima On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10pm, Andreas Echavez wrote: > Mostly backwards compatibility; simplicity. We're planning for some > super-high-density virtualization/storage projects mixed in with lower > bandwidth gear, and sticking to one type of cable for everything would > be convenient. I thought DAC had some distance limitations as well. > > This is all speculation though, I don't have any personal experience > with the 10Gbase-T stuff either. I have no idea what to expect > performance-wise. > > -A > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jima <nanog(a)jima.tk> wrote: > >> > Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? >> > It seems like the standard just died out. For us it would make a >> > lot of >> sense >> > for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as >> great. >> If >> > anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 >> > port?), >> I'd >> > be >> > interested to hear your experiences. I can't seem to find any >> high-density >> > ones from major vendors. >> >> Is there something unique about your environment that wouldn't allow >> you to use 10gbit SFP+-based switches with DAC (Direct Attach Copper) >> cables? >> Those seem fairly well supported. >> >> Jima >> >> >> > ************************************************************************************************** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence. **************************************************************************************************

1 0

Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
by Andreas Echavez 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

Mostly backwards compatibility; simplicity. We're planning for some super-high-density virtualization/storage projects mixed in with lower bandwidth gear, and sticking to one type of cable for everything would be convenient. I thought DAC had some distance limitations as well. This is all speculation though, I don't have any personal experience with the 10Gbase-T stuff either. I have no idea what to expect performance-wise. -A On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jima <nanog(a)jima.tk> wrote: > > Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? It > > seems like the standard just died out. For us it would make a lot of > sense > > for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as great. > If > > anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 port?), I'd > > be > > interested to hear your experiences. I can't seem to find any > high-density > > ones from major vendors. > > Is there something unique about your environment that wouldn't allow you > to use 10gbit SFP+-based switches with DAC (Direct Attach Copper) cables? > Those seem fairly well supported. > > Jima > > >

2 1

Strange MTR output - reversed/mixed/noisy
by Anurag Bhatia 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

Hello everyone, Sometimes back I changed my home's router. Right from that time I am getting very strange MTR output. It starts like normal and as soon as the trace is complete, it starts reversing and then I see 2nd hop replaced by 2nd last, and whole output clogs up badly. E.g here's an output with my Europe based server (see the embedded picture): [image: Inline image 1] Some observations so far: 1. Traceroute works fine 2. UDP based MTR works fine 3. Many times mtr output is OK for local servers with few hops and low latency. I have a feeling here that somehow TCP packets are returning late/delayed and the there's some mis-count or so. For ICMP or UDP it works well and for low latency near servers also it is mostly OK. Anyone having any idea what could be causing this strange output? Thanks! -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin <http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia>| Google+ <https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854>

1 0

Centurylink has eyes for TWTC
by Philip Lavine 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

Another merger? I guess MABell is not to far away.

1 0

Angled Polish Connectors and DWDM
by Aaron Glenn 01 Oct '12

01 Oct '12

dear peoples of NANOG, I've always held the -- possibly completely false -- notion that angled connectors (APC) were not idea for fiber spans carrying multiple dense/DWDM wavelengths. However, after copious amounts of googling and duckduckgo'ing I cannot find an opinion or tech note one way or the other. Are there situations when angled connectors are not to be used? Are they 'safe' or even recommended for any kind of DWDM application? I know they're not meant for mating directly with optics, but for panels, x-conns, and distribution frames...? I have this sinking feeling I've been misunderstanding angled connectors all these years. cluebats are appreciated. please be gentle. thanks, aaron

5 7

really nasty attacks
by Miguel Mata 30 Sep '12

30 Sep '12

Guys, on recent days I've seen an UDP attack a couple of times. The attack is fairly simple, a full load of UDP packets filled with "X". The attacks comes from various sites from the other side of the pond (46.165.197.xx, 213.152.180.yy). Has anyone seen this kind of attack? Basically, the attack aims to fill your pipe (150Mbps over an STM1... guess what...) Then the question goes like this: besides asking your upstream provider to block, drop or whatever on the offending traffic, and Kontaktieren Sie den Administrator, what else can be done? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide. Please contact me off list. I'll post a recap on due time. -- Miguel Mata Gerente de Operaciones Comunicaciones IBW El Salvador tel.: ++(503) 2278-5068 fax: ++(503) 2207-1310 mmata(a)ibw.com "La confianza es la mejor conexion"

45 59

IETF's PIM Working Group conducting deployment survey
by Adrian Farrel 30 Sep '12

30 Sep '12

Hi, After a snafu, the PIM working group has restarted its survey into PIM sparse mode deployments. Please see the email at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pim/current/msg02479.html for more information. responses will be anonymised. Many thanks to all operators who are able to respond. Adrian

1 0