- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefind er)
by Pendergrass, Greg 27 Feb '04

27 Feb '04

OT I know, but this has to be the quote of the week: "Working the ICANN process is like being nibbled to death by ducks, it takes forever, it doesn't make sense, and in the end we're still dead in the water." said Tom Galvin, VeriSign's vice president for government relations. With oratory like that how can they possibly loose? ;) GP -----Original Message----- From: Deepak Jain [mailto:deepak@ai.net] Sent: 26 February 2004 21:51 To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder) Since no one else has mentioned this: http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040226/tech_verisign_2.html > Vodafone Global Content Services Limited Registered Office: Vodafone House, The Connection, Newbury, Berkshire RG14 2FN Registered in England No. 4064873 This e-mail is for the addressee(s) only. If you are not an addressee, you must not distribute, disclose, copy, use or rely on this e-mail or its contents, and you must immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and all copies from your system. Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be legally privileged.

1 0

ICANN/Registry Agreement:
by Deepak Jain 27 Feb '04

27 Feb '04

Doesn't sitefinder give one registry superior access to the registry's resources than the others, etc, etc? --- http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-apph-16apr01.htm VeriSign Equivalent Access Certification VeriSign, as Registry Operator ("VGRS"), makes the following certification: 1. All registrars (including any registrar affiliated with VGRS) connect to the Shared Registration System Gateway via the Internet by utilizing the same maximum number of IP addresses and SSL certificate authentication. 2. VGRS has made the current version of the registrar toolkit software accessible to all registrars and has made any updates available to all registrars on the same schedule. 3. All registrars have the same level of access to VGRS customer support personnel via telephone, e-mail and the VGRS website. 4. All registrars have the same level of access to the VGRS registry resources to resolve registry/registrar or registrar/registrar disputes and technical and/or administrative customer service issues. 5. All registrars have the same level of access to VGRS-generated data to reconcile their registration activities from VGRS Web and ftp servers. 6. All registrars may perform basic automated registrar account management functions using the same registrar tool made available to all registrars by VGRS. 7. The Shared Registration System does not include any algorithms or protocols that differentiate among registrars with respect to functionality, including database access, system priorities and overall performance. 8. All VGRS-assigned personnel have been directed not to give preferential treatment to any particular registrar. 9. I have taken reasonable steps to verify that the foregoing representations are being complied with. This Certification is dated this the __ day of __________, _____.

4 4

A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder
by David Monosov 27 Feb '04

27 Feb '04

Sorry for barging in to this fine mailing list like this; long time reader, first time contributor. We, as the Internet engineering community, have made a great mistake. Actually, it wasn't even one large mistake, but a series of small ones. Engineers are busy people, and most us work under the constraints of the organizational entities we serve (be it ISPs, non-internet corporates, or even non-profits). Few of us have time for politics; even fewer have the desire and motivation for politics, and those of us who do try usually end up facing a brick wall of stubbornness, lack of understanding of the underlying technical issues, or just a deaf ear. In the meanwhile however, the Internet has made its way into many homes, businesses, and organizations. Today, one can easily state that the Internet has become a social framework, a business infrastructure, and most of all, a critical global communication network. The way the Internet works affects great and many people, in great and many ways; the Internet has power - and where there is power, there are struggles to take control over that power, and exploit it. This is apparently one of the beauties of democratic capitalism (under which I will be so bold to presume many of us live). Yet, with capitalism in mind, as a society we come together and place limitations, protocols, and procedures in order to limit the extent on which a single capitalist or a corporate entity can disrupt the life, safety, and freedom of society at large for their private agenda. Most democratic capitalistic countries have strict controls over issues such as environment, business practices, and public safety (I don't think many of us would like to visit a shopping mall built with no other considerations in mind besides the cost of construction materials, as we realize some engineering principles need to be put into practice during construction for the building to be considered reasonably safe.) Our mistake is that of ignorance. With all this said, and in nothing more than my own humble opinion, I would like to bring the following to your attention: The current situation with VeriSign is unacceptable, regardless of SiteFinder (even though the former serves a good example as for *why* it is unacceptable). The DNS (applicable RFC and IETF documents) provides very clear definition of country-specific top level domains, such as ".nl", ".jp", or even ".tv". It is the full right of the governing body of each country to assign a commercial or non-commercial entity to manage the assignments of such domains in a way in which their political system sees fit. The United States of America has the '.us' top level domain for that specific purpose. Many people argue that ".com", ".net", and ".org" are of American origin (and date back to ARPAnet and DoD), this is a sensible and true argument, however - real life practice is such that those 3 top level domains are used by various internet-connected entities worldwide. There is *no reason whatsoever* the control over those entities will be in the hands of a commercial entity. They constitute an integral part of the "Internet fabric" at least as much as the TCP/IP protocol itself from the social and usability POV. They are global, and integral to the correct operation of the Internet at large. In fact, those 3 domains exist "in cyberspace"; they do not have geographic or political borders, and the management of those TLDs has to be in the hands of a non-profit organization which is interested in *technical and organizational management*, not in making a dollar. If there are (and we can all see there are, else VeriSign wouldn't have such a successful stock) dollars to be made on those top level domains, or more specifically - the .net and .com domains currently managed by VeriSign, those dollars should be contributed back to the Internet community - and used to resolve technical and organizational issues (and there are many of those, from spam to security, or even basic coordination of effort), rather than benefit a handful of capitalistic shareholders. Root servers, and the .net, .com (as well as .org) domains belong to the world now; Welcome to the global democracy, brought to you by the ability to send packets across the globe at the speed of light. We all rely on them, and their management should be done in a way appropriate for their status. There are many capable organizations worldwide which could assume such a task. ISC (previously mentioned in this context) would indeed be a fine choice as it has proven itself to be reliable and politically independent over time. I would recommend all of you to rally your organizations and companies behind you, and advocate a change toward the previously mentioned direction. Power is a dangerous thing, especially in the wrong hands. We will all suffer to different extents for many years down the line if nothing is done today to put things straight. It's time to put an end to quasi-science, quasi-politics, and power struggles in favor of strict engineering with social and technical considerations in mind. We all know it's the only way to make it right. --- David 'wEEkAY' Monosov david dot monosov at futureinquestion dot net

10 14

Re: Converged Networks Threat (Was: Level3 Outage)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

>> This is possible today. Build your own routers using >> the right microkernel, OSKIT and the Click Modular Router >> software and you can have this. When we restrict ourselves >> only to router packages from major vendors then we are >> doomed to using outdated technology at inflated prices. >Tell you what Michael, build me some of those, have it pass my labs >and I'll give you millions in business. Deal? The problem with your lab is that you have too many millions to give. In order to win those millions people would have to prove that their box is at least as good as C and J in the core of the largest Internet backbones in the world. That is an awfully big hurdle and attempting it costs so much money that anyone would be a fool to try it unless they already had millions in the bank. History shows that if you can build a mousetrap that is technically better than anything on the market, your best route for success is to sell it into niche markets where the customer appreciates the technical advances that you can provide and is willing to pay for those technical advances. I don't think that describes the larger Internet provider networks. --Michael Dillon

8 10

Re: Lawsuit on ICANN (was: Re: A few words on VeriSign's sitefinder)
by John Neiberger 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

>>>> Neil J. McRae <neil(a)DOMINO.ORG> 2/26/04 3:03:52 PM >>> > >> http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040226/tech_verisign_2.html > >can't say I'm surprised. Another nail in the Verisign coffin. They must have taken a page from the recently-released book "How to Shoot Your Company in the Foot," by SCO. * John -- The information contained in this electronic communication and any document attached hereto or transmitted herewith is confidential and intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any examination, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy this communication. Thank you. --

1 0

Re: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
by sgorman1＠gmu.edu 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

So does this mean we also need a regulator to make sure fiber providers "fess up to the actual diversity of their physical paths". The "R" word is not one to be tossed around lightly. When does it apply and when does it not, or does it never apply. The more critical you get get the more "R" creeps in, but who defines critical and when does that rise above a threshold to induce "R"? ----- Original Message ----- From: Roland Perry <nanog(a)internetpolicyagency.com> Date: Thursday, February 26, 2004 12:20 pm Subject: Re: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat) > > In article <200402261652.i1QGq3ln018676(a)turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, > Valdis.Kletnieks(a)vt.edu writes > >We often can't get the owners of the fiber to 'fess up to the actual > >physical path, when we're trying to build out diversity. > > > >What makes you think the Ambulance Service will have the competency > >to have any *clue* where their dial tone actually comes from and > goes to? > > You need a Regulator[tm] which insists that the Ambulance Service > demonstrates that they understand these issues, or revoke their > licence. > A bit like you do for the wetware behind the steering wheel (or > the life > support system in the back). > -- > Roland Perry > >

1 0

Microsoft on security holes
by Brian Bruns 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

I just saw this on slashdot, so for those of you who don't read slashdot, enjoy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3485972.stm Yeah, its a little bit off topic, but with the recent amount of viruses, worms, trojans, etc going around the Internet that are causing havoc with general day to day operations of ISPs, this is quite an interesting read. Basically, Microsoft is claiming that security exploits only come out after patches. Uh huh, yeah right. (waiting for his list AUP violation notice, again) -- Brian Bruns The Summit Open Source Development Group Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources http://www.sosdg.org The Abusive Hosts Blocking List http://www.ahbl.org

1 0

Re: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

> So now we have a partial X and partial >Y network, X goes down, and chances are your network got hammered >like an icecube in a blender set to Frappe. If IP networks become the single layer 2/3 telecommunications technology in the world then we can never let that Frappe happen. We will have to find ways to deliberately build networks using vendor X and vendor Y in such a way that the sum total is more reliable than a pure X or a pure Y network. --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Converged Networks Threat (Was: Level3 Outage)
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

> Wouldn't it be great >if routers had the equivalent of 'User mode Linux' each process >handling a service, isolated and protected from each other. The >physical router would be nothing more than a generic kernel handling >resource allocation. Each virtual router would have access to x amount >of resources and will either halt, sleep, crash when it exhausts those >resources for a given time slice. This is possible today. Build your own routers using the right microkernel, OSKIT and the Click Modular Router software and you can have this. When we restrict ourselves only to router packages from major vendors then we are doomed to using outdated technology at inflated prices. --Michael Dillon

2 1

Re: Level 3 statement concerning 2/23 events (nothing to see, move along)
by Pete Templin 26 Feb '04

26 Feb '04

If an IP-based system lets you see the status of the 23 hospitals in San Antonio graphically, perhaps overlaid with near-real-time traffic conditions, I'd rather use it as primary and telephone as secondary. Counting on it? No. Gaining usability from it? You betcha. Brian Knoblauch wrote: > If you're counting on IP (a "best attempt" protocol) for critical > data, you've got a serious design flaw in your system... > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Pete > Templin > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:10 > To: Colin Neeson > Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Re: Level 3 statement concerning 2/23 events (nothing to see, move > along) > > > > > Are you sure no one died as a result? My hobby is volunteering as a > firefighter and EMT. If Level3's network sits between a dispatch center > or mobile data terminal and a key resource, it could be a factor > (hospital status website, hazardous materials action guide, VoIP link > that didn't reroute because the control plane was happy but the > forwarding plane was sad, etc.). > > And if the problem could happen to another network tomorrow but could be > prevented or patched, wouldn't inquiring minds want to know? Your life > might be more interesting when the fit hits the shan if you have the > same vulnerability. > > Colin Neeson wrote: > > >>Because, in the the grand scale scheme of things, it's really not that >>important. >> >>No one died because of it, the normal, everyday events of the world >>went >>on, >>unaffected by a Level 3 outage... >> >>Might be nice to know what happened, but my life will certainly not be >>less interesting by not having that knowledge... > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > This message was scanned by GatewayDefender > 9:13:43 AM ET - 2/25/2004 > > > > __________________________________________________________ > This message was scanned by GatewayDefender > 9:25:39 AM ET - 2/25/2004 > >

16 23