- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: London incidents
by Brad Knowles 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

At 10:40 AM +0100 2005-07-11, Michael.Dillon(a)btradianz.com wrote: > Some of the problems on the mobile networks were the > result of a protocol to reserve mobile capabilities for > the emergency services. The police have the authority to > switch cells to emergency service and then people with > specially registered SIM cards in their mobile can > take priority. Presumably, some amount of capacity is > also held in reserve for these people as well. Yes, a certain amount of capacity can be placed on reserve for the holders of priority access SIMs. You only get those issued to you by the government. This can include critical emergency services personnel, selected government officials, important members of the financial services community, etc.... I don't know the specifics of how much capacity is reserved, but this sort of thing has been done on telecommunications networks for a long time. Back before cell phones existed, you could have "flash" traffic on the DDN or even the PSTN, and when placing a flash call the phone system would disconnect anyone that stood in your way of getting the connection you wanted. You had to be using special telephone equipment, or connected to a special operator with the right equipment, and you had damn well better be sure that your call was worthy of knocking anyone else off the network, but the capability was there. Even the President would normally make his calls at lower than "flash" priority. There were lower levels of priority that you could also use, but "flash" was the top one that I heard about. > I had moved the weekend before and my landline was not > yet installed. Also, I live near a large hospital. I noticed > that my mobile didn't function at all even late on Thursday > unless I left home and travelled a kilometer or two from > the hospital. Presumably, the cells in this suburban > location had also been switched to emergency service. Could be, but I'd be willing to bet it was more a matter of the cell just being overloaded. Traffic reservation for priority access SIMs is only going to take a small amount of the bandwidth available. The problem is that even normal heavy traffic can overload a cell, and what was seen during the time you're talking about was anything but "normal heavy". -- Brad Knowles, <brad(a)stop.mail-abuse.org> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755 SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.

5 5

Cell phone links disabled in New York tunnels
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

For those of you living and/or working in the NYC metro area, Reuters reports that: [snip] Cellular phone service has been shut off in four busy New York commuter tunnels since last week's deadly blasts in London, officials said on Monday. No specific reason was given for the move but cell phones have been used to trigger bombs in the past. Cell phone service is disabled in the Holland and Lincoln tunnels that connect Manhattan to New Jersey under the Hudson River, the Midtown Tunnel to the city's Queens borough and the Battery Tunnel to Brooklyn, officials said. The move came immediately after the bombings in London on Thursday, said a spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which oversees operation of the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. [snip] http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyid=… - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

RE: ATT CDPD
by Kuhtz, Christian 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

> > AT&T doesn't use CDMA... so they wouldn't be running 1xRTT. EDGE, > > perhaps? > > Yes. AT&T also announced plans to get into the next layer, > UMTS, which uses the concept of code division multiple access > (CDMA), but isn't the same as Quallcomm CDMA > (IS-95/IS-2000/CDMA2000). I don't know offhand which of the > GSM-core technologies are/will be deployed by them at this > time, as they aren't the carrier I currently use. > > (To my knowledge, however, AT&T does offer GPRS, which is > slow, but if using at least two timeslots, still faster than > IS-95 CDMA non-1X data. 8-) Actually, you should be able to get EDGE from T or its new parent. It has been productized for a while. Thanks, Christian -- "Sometimes a phone is just a phone." ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 162

1 0

E-Mail authentication fight looming: Microsoft pushing Sender ID
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Not wanting to throw gasoline on an already raging e-mail authentication fire, but it _does_ look like a fight is gearing up between Domainkeys Identified Mail (DKIM), a joint effort between Cisco, Yahoo and a number of other vendors, and Microsoft's Sender ID scheme. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=872527 [and] http://www.scmagazine.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=newsDetails&newsUID=207… - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

10 14

"US govt interference is a big deal, says Europe"
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Regarding the statement by the Dept. of Commerce a couple of weeks ago, as John Leyden writes in The Register this morning, it has a few poeple upset: "Despite an increasing number of newspaper articles- all from US media organisations-claiming that the internet community is happy to let the US government continue its role, a recent meeting of registries from across Europe begs to differ." http://www.theregister.com/2005/07/11/centr_root/ And althought everyone knew this would rankle a lot of people, there's no shortage of comments about it over on /. http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/05/07/11/1539242.shtml?tid=95&tid=219 - ferg ps. And, ironicallt, all of this is boiling up during ICANN's meeting in Luxembourg this week... -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

ATT CDPD
by Ronald W. Jean 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Can anyone tell me the status of CDPD in the ATT network? Thanks RonJ

5 6

fuel tanks at 60 Hudson draw community concerns
by Steven M. Bellovin 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/nyregion/11fuel.html? Building's Extra Fuel Tanks Raise Concerns in TriBeCa By JENNIFER MEDINA Published: July 11, 2005 Saying that a dangerous amount of diesel fuel is stored in a 25-story building in TriBeCa, elected officials and residents called on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday to rescind a variance that permits its storage. The fuel, they warned, could lead to a major fire if there were a terrorist attack or other disaster. The city's Department of Buildings granted a variance to the owners of the tower at 60 Hudson Street late last month, allowing the owners to store 80,000 gallons of diesel fuel, much of it below - but some actually in - the building. ... --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

1 0

Opentransit IPv6 route-server
by German Martinez 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Hello, Just to let you know that our route-server is now IPv6 capable. Feel free to provide any comments/suggestions: telnet://route-server.opentransit.net Thanks! German

1 0

Re: Yahoo and Cisco to submit e-mail ID spec to IETF
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Okay: "...two other methods for e-mail authentication have been approved by the IESG for publication as "experimental" RFC's..." Mea culpa, - ferg -- "william(at)elan.net" <william(a)elan.net> wrote: > p.s. Of course, this development comes on the heels of two > other methods for e-mail authentication already published > by the IETF as "experimental" RFC's: "Sender Policy Framework > (SPF) for Authorizing Use of Domains in E-Mail" and Microsoft's > "Sender ID: Authenticating E-Mail". That is false information. They have not been published as "experimental" RFCs, only approved for publication. Publication may come later and yet may not happen at all. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

1 0

FW: DNS .US outage
by Church, Chuck 11 Jul '05

11 Jul '05

Guess I wasn't going crazy. Forwarded to me by a read-only lister. Might be worth trying if prob still exists for anyone. Chuck Church Lead Design Engineer CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation 1210 N. Parker Rd. Greenville, SC 29609 Home office: 864-335-9473 Cell: 703-819-3495 cchurch(a)netcogov.com PGP key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D -----Original Message----- From: Mark Moseley [mailto:moseleymark@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:17 PM To: Church, Chuck Subject: Re: DNS .US outage Hi. I don't have 'write' access to the nanog group so I'm writing you directly. I saw the exact same behaviour. After some banging-head-against-wall at 3am, I noticed that if I turned *off* "query-source * port 53" in Bind (i.e. it was using port 53 as the source port for queries to make firewalling easier), it magically started working again. Don't know if you're using Bind or Windows DNS, but all I could tell is that when Bind was configured to query *from* port 53, I couldn't get the .us TLDs to answer me, but when using a random ephemeral port (of named's choice), it worked just fine. I don't know if they are (or were, haven't check since then) blocking queries with a source port of 53, but whatever the case it worked for some reason. If this works for you, please feel free to re-post to nanog (unless of course, the outage has gone away and they've fixed their stuff over at the .us TLD servers). One thing to note is that when you use dig or nslookup or whatever, it'll also be using some ephemeral port, so it'll work, even when the lookups from source port 53 wouldn't. Again, I haven't checked since that night to see if that's gone away, so it might be a moot point now. On 7/6/05, Church, Chuck <cchurch(a)netcogov.com> wrote: > > Anyone else having issues with .US right now (~12AM EST)? NSlookup, etc > show various .us destinations as unknown domains... > > > Chuck Church > Lead Design Engineer > CCIE #8776, MCNE, MCSE > Netco Government Services - Design & Implementation Team > 1210 N. Parker Rd. > Greenville, SC 29609 > Home office: 864-335-9473 > Cell: 703-819-3495 > cchurch(a)netcogov.com > PGP key: > http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x4371A48D >

2 1