- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder
by Andrew Dul 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

-------Original Message------- > From: "Edward Lewis" <Ed.Lewis(a)neustar.biz> > Subject: Re: ARIN, was Re: 72/8 friendly reminder > Sent: 24 Mar 2005 12:20:08 > > At 17:01 +0000 3/24/05, Andrew Dul wrote: > > >I agree, I'd certainly like to see more people actively participate in the > >process. If nanog folks believe that the ARIN membership is not getting the > >right stuff done... How do we fix this problem? How do we get more > >operators involved and active in the RIRs? > > In the spirit of cart and horse, it's not about getting more > operators involved in ARIN. It's about getting operators to use ARIN > as a resource in the proper way. (I'm addressing operators here as > this is NANOG.) I think its also about getting operators who aren't active participants in ARIN or NANOG to use the numbering resources in a "good" way. In my mind that probably means creating systems to reduce the misconfiguration issues which started this thread in the first place. > ARIN staff has begun work on documenting the registry service level > agreements, there was a presentation on this in October. There has > been little discussion on this by anyone since the presentation. If > WhoIs is out, reports fly on NANOG. But has anyone ever tried to > quantify what level of service is expected of ARIN's computing > facilities? Or an even better question...what should be in whois? There are some who feel that whois as we know it today should go away? Is that what the operators want? What if there were legal forces that created an environment where ARIN couldn't publish whois information. > >I think colocating 1 ARIN meeting/per year with Nanog in the fall has been a > >help. > > I would caution that "attending meetings" is neither a sign of > contribution nor a sign of progress. Don't get me wrong, making > meetings easier to attend is good, but we shouldn't attend meetings > because it is easy, fun or entertaining. I prefer to have fun at > home. There is something about being at the meeting that at least forces me to pay attention to part of what is going on. It is real easy to ignore email storms, but face to face interaction has value IMO. > >We could of course create a huge beuarcratcy with lots of people to study the > >issues and make policy, but that hasn't been the way the Internet has > >developed and is counter to what many operators think is best for the > >Internet. That also requires money. Is that what people want? I don't > >think so, but I could be wrong. > > One the one hand, what built the Internet isn't what will maintain > it. A bureaucracy will be needed, the challenge isn't to prevent it > but to build the best one possible. True, I was trying to keep the flame-thrower set to low. It seems to me that anytime someone brings up the idea of "organizations" with structure/policy/rules/etc people get real nervous. There is an inherient "trust" issue that I think exists among operators. "Don't trust authority", but there has to be some set of rules that we will live by as the Internet becomes more & more critical to making everything work worldwide 24x7x365. Andrew

1 0

Vonage sold over not clearly informing customers re 911 service lacking
by Sam Hayes Merritt, III 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/03/23/internet.phones.911.ap/index.ht…

4 3

RE: 72/8 friendly reminder
by Hannigan, Martin 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of > Randy Bush > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:45 AM > To: Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: 72/8 friendly reminder > > > > > In any case, it is not important how the message > > gets communicated to ARIN. What is important is for > > network operators to *TELL* ARIN what they need ARIN > > to do. One way to talk to ARIN is through the public > > meetings and another way is to email one of the > > trustees. > > and one is to send an email to arin's external relations or ops > folk, which i did a while ago. i suspect they also read this > list. They do. They're also pretty good about responding. -M<

1 0

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the
by Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

On Mar 23, 2005, at 12:37 PM, RSK wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0800, Andreas Ott wrote: >> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ > > If this write-up is accurate, It's not. From the http://www.aunty-spam.com website: IBM Not Spamming Spammers! FairUCE is About Fair Use, Not Abuse! Did you hear? IBM is spamming spammers! It’s all over the Internet, and tongues are a’wagging! Except, it ain’t so. IBM is not spamming spammers. Whether you think that spamming spammers is right or wrong, IBM ain’t doing it, and shame on CNN for getting it so wrong, and making IBM look so irresponsible, and in league with the likes of Lycos’ “Make Love Not Spam” DOSsing Screensaver program, and the notorious Mugu Maurauder bandwidth sucking program. You can’t really blame the folks who read CNN’s horribly wrong piece for spreading the rumour, after all it was quite sensationalist: “Spamming spammers? IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the computers that sent them. March 22, 2005: 12:22 PM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - IBM unveiled a service Tuesday that sends unwanted e-mails back to the spammers who sent them. The new IBM (Research) service, known as FairUCE, essentially uses a giant database to identify computers that are sending spam. E-mails coming from a computer on the spam database are sent directly back to the computer, not just the e-mail account, that sent them.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. About the only thing which the article got right is that the program is called “FairUCE". FairUCE, according to IBM’s own FairUCE website, readily available for anyone to read (cough…CNN reporters..cough), is a “spam filter that stops spam by verifying sender identity instead of filtering content". Let’s say that again: FairUCE is a spam filter that stops spam by verifying sender identity instead of filtering content. If FairUCE can’t verify sender identity, then it goes into challenge-response mode, sending a challenge email to the sender, to which the sender must reply, to demonstrate that it is not a spambot sending the mail in question, but a real live person. Here is IBM’s explanation of how the FairUCE system works: “Technically, FairUCE tries to find a relationship between the envelope sender’s domain and the IP address of the client delivering the mail, using a series of cached DNS look-ups. For the vast majority of legitimate mail, from AOL to mailing lists to vanity domains, this is a snap. If such a relationship cannot be found, FairUCE attempts to find one by sending a user-customizable challenge/response. This alone catches 80% of UCE and very rarely challenges legitimate mail.” Now, being kind, it’s possible that the good folks at CNN mistook the sending of the challenge for “spamming the spammer".... (Rest at http://www.aunty-spam.com/ibm-not-spamming-spammers-fairuce-is-about- fair-use-not-abuse/) Anne

3 2

Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

Well, here's an update: Utah Internet Porn Law May Face Challenge By The Associated Press "SALT LAKE CITY - Internet service providers that operate in Utah must offer customers a way to block porn sites under a law signed this week. ISPs complained that the law adds nothing to the fight against pornography, and said a legal challenge is likely." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1212&e=3&u=/ap/20050324/ap… - ferg -- David Barak <thegameiam(a)yahoo.com> wrote: so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of service, and we'll see how it plays out. -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

1 0

Tier-2 reachability and multihoming
by G Pavan Kumar 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

Hi there, I have been working on characterizing the internet hierarchy. I noticed that 27% of the total possible tier-2 provider node pairs are unreachable i.e., they dont have any tier-1 node connecting them nor a direct peering link between them. Multihoming can be used as a predominant reason for the reachability of tier-3 nodes which are customers of these nodes, but what about the reachability of tier-2 nodes themselves and its customers which cannot afford to multihoming? How does BGP solve this reachability problem when it gets a request to a prefix unreachable? 1 tier-1 / 2 4 tier-2 / \ / \ 5 6 7 8 tier-3 here, nodes 2 and 4 have no reachability, 1 / | 2 3 4 / \ \/ \ 5 6 7 8 now, node 7 is reachable from 2 and its lower level nodes, but what about node 4 and 8, and as a typical case, suppose nodes 4 and 8 have no multihoming whatsoever, what then? Regards, pavan

3 2

Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
by Fergie (Paul Ferguson) 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

C|Net: "Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines." http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.h… - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net

32 50

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the
by Henry Linneweh 24 Mar '05

24 Mar '05

This software is free at http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/fairuce -henry --- "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell(a)isipp.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 23, 2005, at 12:37 PM, RSK wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0800, Andreas > Ott wrote: > >> > http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ > > > > If this write-up is accurate, > > It's not. From the http://www.aunty-spam.com > website: > > IBM Not Spamming Spammers! FairUCE is About Fair > Use, Not Abuse! > > Did you hear? IBM is spamming spammers! It�s all > over the Internet, and > tongues are a�wagging! Except, it ain�t so. IBM is > not spamming > spammers. > > > Whether you think that spamming spammers is right > or wrong, IBM ain�t > doing it, and shame on CNN for getting it so wrong, > and making IBM look > so irresponsible, and in league with the likes of > Lycos� �Make Love Not > Spam� DOSsing Screensaver program, and the notorious > Mugu Maurauder > bandwidth sucking program. > > You can�t really blame the folks who read CNN�s > horribly wrong piece > for spreading the rumour, after all it was quite > sensationalist: > > �Spamming spammers? > IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back > to the computers > that sent them. > March 22, 2005: 12:22 PM EST > > NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - IBM unveiled a service > Tuesday that sends > unwanted e-mails back to the spammers who sent them. > > The new IBM (Research) service, known as FairUCE, > essentially uses a > giant database to identify computers that are > sending spam. E-mails > coming from a computer on the spam database are sent > directly back to > the computer, not just the e-mail account, that sent > them.� > > Wrong, wrong, wrong. > > About the only thing which the article got right is > that the program is > called �FairUCE". FairUCE, according to IBM�s own > FairUCE website, > readily available for anyone to read (cough�CNN > reporters..cough), is a > �spam filter that stops spam by verifying sender > identity instead of > filtering content". > > Let�s say that again: FairUCE is a spam filter that > stops spam by > verifying sender identity instead of filtering > content. > > If FairUCE can�t verify sender identity, then it > goes into > challenge-response mode, sending a challenge email > to the sender, to > which the sender must reply, to demonstrate that it > is not a spambot > sending the mail in question, but a real live > person. > > Here is IBM�s explanation of how the FairUCE system > works: > > �Technically, FairUCE tries to find a relationship > between the envelope > sender�s domain and the IP address of the client > delivering the mail, > using a series of cached DNS look-ups. For the vast > majority of > legitimate mail, from AOL to mailing lists to vanity > domains, this is a > snap. If such a relationship cannot be found, > FairUCE attempts to find > one by sending a user-customizable > challenge/response. This alone > catches 80% of UCE and very rarely challenges > legitimate mail.� > > Now, being kind, it�s possible that the good folks > at CNN mistook the > sending of the challenge for �spamming the > spammer".... > > (Rest at > http://www.aunty-spam.com/ibm-not-spamming-spammers-fairuce-is-about- > > fair-use-not-abuse/) > > Anne > > > >

1 0

Re: IBM to offer service to bounce unwanted e-mail back to the
by MARLON BORBA 23 Mar '05

23 Mar '05

"Revenge" methods won't work against spam. Spammers may be using "owned" machines belonging to a "botnet". The sysadmins of the infected servers may not even to know that their systems are serving to spammers. So attacking back the spam sources, besides ethical and legal reasons, may be futile and just cause problems to a legitimate company/service provider/etc. The way to fight the problem, IMHO, is to attack the real cause of spam, i.e., to make spam an expensive advertising medium. According to a recent IDG research, one out of ten Internet users buy products from spammers. Spam has a low cost and an high ROI (better than several advertising media). So money flows to the spammers' pockets. Regards, Marlon Borba, CISSP. >>> "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell(a)isipp.com> 03/23/05 5:54 PM >>> On Mar 23, 2005, at 12:37 PM, RSK wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 10:24:37AM -0800, Andreas Ott wrote: >> http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/22/technology/ibm_spam/ > > If this write-up is accurate, It's not. From the http://www.aunty-spam.com website: IBM Not Spamming Spammers! FairUCE is About Fair Use, Not Abuse! Did you hear? IBM is spamming spammers! It's all over the Internet, and tongues are a'wagging! Except, it ain't so. IBM is not spamming spammers. [...]

1 0

RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
by Kathryn Kessey 23 Mar '05

23 Mar '05

...this bill... requires the attorney general to establish and maintain a database, called the adult content registry, of certain Internet sites containing material harmful to minors... ...$100,000 from the General Fund to the attorney general, for fiscal year 2005-06 only, to establish the adult content registry... They are going to create publicly accessible, highly available database service of the all the world's porn sites and maintain it with up to the minute data... with 100K. Right. Seems like a more rational answer to Utah's pr0n phobia is for a certain religious entity to publish their own net-nanny software/service for their parishioners. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of Rachael Treu Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 11:35 AM To: Bill Woodcock Cc: Richard Irving; Roy; Fergie (Paul Ferguson); nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 09:33:44AM -0800, Bill Woodcock said something to the effect of: > > > > It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. > > What !?! Surely you Jest! > > Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, > that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the > operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done > right now. Case in point. > > -Bill What do you mean?! I'm writing an email right now to my service provider, demanding that I get *only* porn. I want all pr0n, all the time. No need to wast bandwidth on this smtp garbage, or any other http-type hooey, for that matter. I want my OPoIP (only porn over IP)! I want it secured, even! Encrypted porn with an SLA I can wave SLA about if anything else slips through like pesky news or children's pages or something icky. Are you telling me my provider reserves the right to refuse me this service? <sniff> --ra ;) -- k. rachael treu, CISSP rara(a)navigo.com ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)

10 9