- Test - lists.nanog.org

E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
by John Neiberger 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

http://wired.com/news/print/0,1294,64043,00.html Yet another reason why we should develop a system where all Internet communications can be easily encrypted, whether it's email, VoIP, or whatever. It's not like it's horribly difficult now in some cases, but it does have its difficulties when it comes to implementation on a large scale. John --

9 8

Re: E-Mail Snooping Ruled Permissible
by Eric Brunner-Williams 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

Hey Bill, > Switches, routers, and any intermediate computers are fair game for > warrantless wiretaps. I looked at that and thought about the one-bit-delay in a ring, and started playing with fragments and error correction and reassembly and buffer size in the intermediate network element(s) and ... Not the sort of thing you'd want to hang whether or not a data stream was subject to the Act or not. Thanks for pointing out the scope of the dissenting opinion, that with the Act confined to no-temporary-store communications paths, goverment would be free to conduct taps w/o warrant, not just Councilman. Someone should tell the rocket scientists that work for Tommy Ridge that liability for duplication of classified data may be dependent on the RAM present in each intermediate node, and that if the amount of RAM is not sufficient to support buffer copy operations, the government will be more likely to successfully prosecute terrorist keyboarders. It is possible that the DHS network has way too much RAM to be safe. Eric

1 0

MCU/UUNet routing issues / packet loss this morning?
by Erik Amundson 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

Hello NANOG! Is anyone having routing issues or packet loss with MCI/UUNet today? I have an AS701 connection at my orginization, and we've had thousands of customer calls starting at about 2:13AM CDT. We've shutdown 701 as a peer because traceroutes seem to expose some packet loss and delay as soon as you enter UUNet's network. We're going to open a trouble ticket with MCI/UUNet, but I am wondering if other people are seeing the same issue? - Erik

1 0

Appeals court deals setback to spammers
by Henry Linneweh 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

One more feather in our cap :) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2001968539_spam30.…

3 2

Who controls the assignment of IP address, and under what terms?
by Blake Ellman 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

Thursday, July 01, 2004 Subject: Who controls the assignment of IP address, and under what terms? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This matter is an extremely important policy issue. It is our opinion that there is a virtual policy vacuum to address this issue. For those of you that been watching this matter, the litigation that NAC is involved in with the plaintiff is a simple contract dispute with many facts that are in dispute, and is irrelevant to the greater issues that are at stake. We are not looking to have a popularity contest with NAC vs. the plaintiff. Put us aside. This issue is much bigger then NAC. These are complex and technical matters that should not be decided in a court. These matters can not be decided overnight. These matters require significant input from the network operators. ARIN should solicit the network operators to comment (through meeting, mailing lists, RFC, etc.) on these issues and form a consensus as to a proper set of policies to regulate these matters. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The matters at stake are as follows: 1. Who is in control of IP address assignment: Do we want the assignment and transfer of IP addresses to be determined by ARIN or by the Judiciary (court system)? 2. Rights of the assigned: What rights does the ISP (or other assignee) have to control the use of IP addresses that are assigned to them by ARIN? When (and under what limitations) can the ISP assign, and revoke IP addresses? If a customer does not like the way an ISP assigns its IP addresses, can the customer appeal to ARIN to intervene, or does the ISP have the final say in the assignment of its own IP addresses? 3. Forcible transfer of IP address: Under what circumstances should a customer have a right to have the temporary or permanent usage of the IP addresses that are assigned to their ISP after they have left the ISP and are no longer doing business with them? a. If temporary transfer is to be allowed, what limitations should be placed on the temporary usage, or should we just let each court decide what it thinks is fair for each case? b. If temporary transfer is granted, does the ISP have a right to appeal? c. What is the time period allowed for the forcible temporary transfer of IP addresses to remain in the customer's "custody"? Is it as long as the customer says they need the space? How long is too long? d. Are there limitations as to the minimum quantity of the IP addresses that can be forcibly temporarily transferred? What if a dial-up customer has a single static IP address that they want to take with them, should that be allowed? What about a single co-lo customer with 100 IP addresses? Where do you draw the line? Who draws the line; the ISP, the court, ARIN, or anyone who wants to? 4. Abuse of the usage of the IP addresses: If an ISP is forced by ARIN or a court to allow the usage of their assigned IP addresses, how does it handle the policing of DMCA violations, SPAM, hacking and other abuse complaints? The ISP would have absolutely no leverage to make the customer comply with any TOS, AUP, criminal or civil laws. Do we think it is a good idea to have a situation where a spammer can have their service disconnected by their ISP and the spammer can simply go to the court to bring their IP addresses with them? 5. Liability and Cost: If the ISP loses control of their assigned IP addresses (but they are still assigned to the ISP), then not only can the ISP not control them, but they would still be forced to receive and process each abuse complaint, and still carry all legal liability for any actions taken by the customer that is using their IP addresses. Who is going to compensate the ISP for providing this service? Who is going to indemnify and protect the ISP from legal action from third parties that are harmed by the actions of the customer that is just "using" the IP addresses? a. What happens if the ISP is sued because the customer has DMCA violations that they refuse to correct? Who pays for the legal defense of the ISP to explain to the plaintiff that "although the IP addresses are assigned to the ISP, they really have no control over their own IP address space"? Does anyone think that the company that is suing you because of the DMCA violation understands or cares about your problems of who really owns the IP addresses? 6. Damage to ISP's network: If the customer makes a mistake in their routing configuration and causes damage to the ISPs network, who is going to compensate the ISP for the damage, and who is going to force the customer to stop causing the damage? Is there going to be a test of routing knowledge for every customer that wants to take their IP addresses with them? a. What happens if an ISP has their IP addresses blackholed because a customer is abusing (SPAM, hacking, whatever) the IP addresses that they have taken with them? How does the ISP defend themselves? How do they get off the RBL? How does the ISP make that customer stop? b. What happens when the customer's routing mistakes cause a denial of service to your other customers. How do you make them stop, how do you order other networks not to listen to their announcements when they have court (or ARIN) permission to announce your IP addresses? c. Who compensates the ISP if part or their entire IP address range is "polluted" by abuse from the customer? Will ARIN swap out the "polluted" IP addresses with the ISP for new clean IP addresses? Will ARIN withhold the assignment of new IP addresses because the "polluted" ones are not being sufficiently utilized once they are returned to the ISP? 7. Damage to Internet routing: The whole system of non-portable IP address space was done to protect the integrity of the routing and switching of the Internet. The current infrastructure in use throughout the Internet is not capable of supporting an environment where current non-portable CIDR blocks of IP address space can be broken up and distributed as many smaller blocks or individual IP addresses. If this were to be allowed by ARIN or ordered by the courts it could result in a routing breakdown of the entire Internet. For all of the above reasons I think that if these things are not decided very carefully it will have major repercussions for the entire industry. All network operators and other concerned parties must speak out in a very clear voice to ARIN and to the court. A copy of this document may also be found at: www.nac.net/ipaddresscontrol.pdf I thank everyone for their time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Blake Ellman President Net Access Corporation ---------------------- Net Access Corporation 1719 Route 10 East Parsippany, N.J. 07054 973-590-5000 www.nac.net ---------------------- - BE161 -

1 0

RE: (UPDATE) Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
by Michel Py 01 Jul '04

01 Jul '04

> Matthew Crocker wrote: > From my understanding the customer has their own IP space > allocated by ARIN and has had that space for over a year. > They have already had adequate time to transition to their > own space. Agree: they could have their ARIN space routed to their equipment and begun the renumbering process a year ago. In my experience, ARIN does allocate enough space to get the job done, and they also do allow for enough time using both the current PA block and the newly allocated space to complete a migration that has been reasonably planned. It is the customer's responsibility to plan for renumbering, not the provider's. The fact that non-portable addresses can't be kept is not new nor secret. > The Internet routing table should not suffer due to the > laziness of one customer. My point also. People tend to think that one more route in the routing table is no big deal. This is absolutely wrong, because these onesies and twotsies are what makes the routing table too big already. > Black holing is a drastic step but I think decisive action needs > to be taken the Internet at large to protect the routing table. Agree. > I know I would *love* to gain ownership of some of my space I > have from Sprint. I'm too lazy to move out of that space but I > do continue to by bandwidth from Sprint (have been doing so for > 10 years now). If this holds up, maybe I'll try and sue > Sprint ;) *this is a joke.... I'm not that irresponsible to > the 'net* Problem is that not everybody thinks like you, which is why we must act before this gets out of hand. > Sabri Berisha wrote: > This is more than the court prohibiting NAC from > terminating this customer (on their request!).. Indeed. > The TRO says: >> (f) NAC shall permit UCI to continue utilization through any >> carrier or carriers of UCI's choice of any IP addresses that >> were utilized by, through or on behalf of UCI under the April >> 2003 Agreement during the therm thereof (the "Prior UCI >> Addresses) and shall not interfere in any way with the use of >> the Prior UCI Addresses. > I don't know about you, but I read this as a court converting > non-portable address space to portable address space, This is clear to me as well. > without looking at the consequenses for ARIN, NAC and network > operators around the world who need to utilize more RAM in > their routers to store additional routes simply because they > are to ignorant to follow the technical guidelines and policies > of ARIN. Or too lazy. The issue is not about moving, the issue is about UCI not willing to renumber because they were stupid enough to a) build a business on PA address that can't be renumbered b) sign a contract that allowed NAC to quick them out in 45 days. If NAC tariffs and services were as alleged pricey and bad, UCI should have found another provider and moved a long time ago. Instead, they want a free ride on renumbering and are trying to have a court that does not even have jurisdiction over the matter to legislate from the bench in order to transform PA space into PI. This is doubly unacceptable, first because the court's role is to interpret the law, not to make them and second because it would trigger large number of copycat lawsuits from people that want portable space, but don't qualify for it or don't want to pay for it. > Doug White wrote: > Hopefully this whole affair will be a wake-up call to providers > who put revenue ahead of sound policy enforcement, assuming they > have enforceable policies in effect. Indeed. This is valid for providers who do have sound policy enforcement as well: detecting an undesirable customer before signing a contract might be difficult, as the sales force will typically not perform sanity checks before signing new customers. And then, as we can see, getting rid of the customer might prove more challenging than originally thought. > Patrick W Gilmore wrote: > The TRO of and by itself is ... troublesome, but not a > threat to the Internet. If this becomes common practice, > we are all in trouble. That's why it _is_ a threat, Patrick. Michel.

1 0

RE: Companies that sell NEBS x86 servers
by Burton, Chris 30 Jun '04

30 Jun '04

Depending on the server size and processing power requirements HP has the "CC" line of servers. They are available for the most part with AC or DC power supplies in x86 configurations. http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/carrier_grade/ Chris Burton Network Engineer Walt Disney Internet Group: Network Services The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact Walt Disney Internet Group at 206-664-4000. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of james edwards Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 3:43 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Companies that sell NEBS x86 servers I have gotten quotes from alliancesystems & crystalpc for a x86 NEBS DC powered server. Can anyone suggest some other companies that sell x86 NEBS servers ? -- James H. Edwards Routing and Security At the Santa Fe Office: Internet at Cyber Mesa jamesh(a)cybermesa.com noc(a)cybermesa.com (505) 795-7101

1 0

(UPDATE) Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
by Alex Rubenstein 30 Jun '04

30 Jun '04

* Alex Yuriev wrote: > Judge grants the TRO. > Defendant waves arms on nanog-l. > > Moral - > > When a legal system is involved, use the legal system, not the > nanog-l. The former provides provides ample of opportunities to > deal with the issues, while the later only provides ample of > opportunities to do hand waving. I would like to make a few comments on this and other posts that have been made in response to my original post last night. First of all, there is no question that there is a contractual dispute between NAC and the Customer. There is a lengthy complaint filed by the Customer against NAC, alleging a variety of things. Next, the more important issue. While there is a dispute between NAC and the Customer, as mentioned above, I am *NOT LOOKING FOR COMMENTS ON THE ACTUAL LAWSUIT* from nanog-l. I am not waving my arms about the lawsuit, as Alex implies above. What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community, strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be able to use IP Space allocated to NAC. In other words, I am asking people to if they agree with my position, lawsuit or not, that non-portable IP's should not be portable between parties, especially by a state superior court ordered TRO. This issue has been misunderstood, in that there is belief by some that the Customer should be allowed some period of grace for renumbering. I want to remind people that this Customer has had ARIN allocations for over 15 months. Also, recall that Customer has terminated service with us, and we would still allow them to be a Customer of ours if they so choose. This fact is undisputed as evidenced by the filing of certain public documents. With the above being said, I solicit comments on the following certification: Those would like to make a certification on behalf of their business: http://www.nac.net/cert.pdf Those would like to make a certification on behalf of themselves: http://www.nac.net/pcert.pdf Forgetting the facts of the case, for the moment, I think we all agree with the terms of this certification. The above does not ask for anyone to form an opinion about the case. It asks Internet Operators, as a community, if portability of non portable space is bad. If you agree, I ask you to execute this certification as an amicus brief, and fax it to us at 973-590-5080. Thank you for your time on this matter, it is truly appreciated. Please do not take the above that I do not appreciate all the commentary. As I say above, my point is that I am not trying to have a trial in a public forum, but, more importantly, I am verifying that our opinion regarding IP portability is one that the community as a whole shares. -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --

15 18

EFF Publishes Patent Hit List
by Henry Linneweh 30 Jun '04

30 Jun '04

This is a very serious list, because it addresses the basic idea of being able to do business for everyone without being heald hostage by patents who work against the best interests of keeping the interent open.... http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64038,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

1 0

RE: Fwd: Please stop sending me emails
by Michel Py 30 Jun '04

30 Jun '04

Eddy, >> DB> --- Jason Silverglate <jason(a)pwebtech.com> wrote: > Edward B. Dreger wrote: > I find this part interesting and ironic. See: "Can > a customer take..." thread. I can clearly see the "ironic" part of it, but would you mind developing what the "interesting" part is? I fail to see it. In other words, spammers don't pay their bills (which is not new); they try by all possible means to dump the liability on someone else (which is not new either); they whine when they get email that they don't like (where I see the irony). Please forgive my feeble mind, what's "interesting" about it again? Michel.

2 1