- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: [Re: Yankee Group declares core routing obsolete (was Re: Anybody using GBICs?)]
by joshua sahala 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

"E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam(a)noc.everquick.net> wrote: > [cut] > > So STP is now the control plane protocol of choice? ;-) no, not at all - remember he said 'layer 3 switch', stp is no longer needed, just like those router things ;) /joshua > > Eddy > -- > Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division > Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building > Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national > Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita > _________________________________________________________________ > DO NOT send mail to the following addresses : > blacklist(a)brics.com -or- alfra(a)intc.net -or- curbjmp(a)intc.net > Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. > > "Walk with me through the Universe, And along the way see how all of us are Connected. Feast the eyes of your Soul, On the Love that abounds. In all places at once, seemingly endless, Like your own existence." - Stephen Hawking -

1 0

Re: Yankee Group declares core routing obsolete
by Scott Bradner 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

and the Yankee Group has an unblemished history of understanding the Internet and ISPs Scott (ps - unblemished with accuracy that is)

1 0

Verizon abuse contact
by John Obi 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

Hello folks, I reported exploited hosts in Verizon network to their abuse department since one week now. I only get auto reply but no real person did take action till this moment. If there is Verizon person who can help, please contact me off list. Thanks, -J __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

1 0

RE: Fed. Govt and IEEE ban contributions to/from Cuba, Libya, Iran, Syria
by Irwin Lazar 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

Thought it might be useful to pass on a copy of a letter from the IEEE President that was published in the last issue of "Spectrum" ------------- On Serving Members In Embargoed Countries In January of 2002, the IEEE took action to fulfill the U.S. Treasury Department trade regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). The IEEE informed members residing in several sanctioned countries that they were not able to take advantage of member benefits and services except for print subscriptions to IEEE publications. The IEEE has received numerous inquiries from members and others on this issue. In response, 2003 President Michael Adler offers the following open letter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Colleagues, I am writing this open letter to help IEEE members and our other colleagues around the world understand the IEEE position regarding the U.S. Department of Treasury's restrictions on serving members in embargoed countries and how the IEEE Board of Directors is dealing with this sensitive matter. This situation is now entering its third year. Stated concerns include criticism of the IEEE's handling of this issue, including the suggestion that the IEEE's actions have been arbitrary and in conflict with the IEEE Code of Ethics. For those of you who are directly impacted because you live in the embargoed countries, we understand that you are angry. For those members who have taken the time to share their views, we appreciate your concern. We do not like this situation either. The IEEE has been in contact with OFAC to resolve these difficulties. Until now, we have made few public statements on this matter. But given the slow pace of progress, it is now more important than ever for the IEEE to speak out publicly on our position. This message is a start. The IEEE believes in a world of unfettered exchange of scientific and technical information for educational and research purposes. Last February the IEEE Board of Directors voted to reaffirm its belief that no government should restrict the right of scientists, engineers, or academicians to exchange ideas and participate in scholarly activities on a global basis. In an effort to uphold our beliefs, the IEEE is investing considerable resources in aggressively trying to overcome the obstacles created by the OFAC regulations. In September 2002, we met with OFAC to discuss our concerns about the OFAC regulations and their impact on the IEEE. In December, the IEEE took the necessary steps to clarify the OFAC guidelines concerning our publishing activities. We stated the reasons that the IEEE firmly believes that the peer review and editing of technical journal articles should be permissible under the current regulations. We have asked that they agree with our interpretation outright, or at least issue us a license to permit these activities as an exception. While we are optimistic that OFAC will see the logic of our argument, they have not responded as of my writing of this letter, even though they have had more than nine months to consider our petition. It is important to note that our publishing activities are only one of several issues that the IEEE must address as we pursue resolution of this OFAC situation. The slow pace of the government's response is very frustrating, but unfortunately beyond our control. While the IEEE works to uphold its beliefs, we must also do what is necessary to protect the organization and its volunteers. OFAC regulations clearly state that violations can result in fines and other civil and criminal sanctions for the individuals involved and the officers of the sponsoring organization. The determination of OFAC to enforce its rules has been demonstrated on numerous occasions, with fines being assessed to both corporations and individuals. The IEEE must adhere to our obligation to abide by the laws of all the countries in which it does business. To that end, one thing is clear: the IEEE will continue to comply with U.S. laws. Our failure to do so would place the IEEE at risk and would subject the organization to penalties from the U.S. government that could dramatically affect our ability to service our members worldwide. The IEEE will see this difficult issue through, no matter how long it takes. In addition to current efforts, it may also be necessary to assemble a coalition of other professional organizations and interested parties to work and discuss these issues with the U.S. government in order to make changes to the OFAC regulations. The IEEE Board of Directors will consider this and other approaches in its ongoing deliberations about how best to resolve the current situation. I am asking IEEE members, as well as our other colleagues, to support the IEEE as we work to preserve the rights of its members and of the scientific and technical community worldwide to engage in open scholarly research and communications. It is only through our collective efforts that we will be able to effect the necessary changes that will allow the IEEE to provide all our services to those currently in the embargoed countries. Sincerely, Michael S. Adler 2003 President

1 0

Re: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Miquel van Smoorenburg 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

In article <cistron.Pine.LNX.4.44.0310291228200.29539-100000(a)login1.fas.harvard.edu>, Scott McGrath <mcgrath(a)fas.harvard.edu> wrote: >And sometimes you use NAT because you really do not want the NAT'ed device >to be globally addressible but it needs to have a link to the outside to >download updates. Instrument controllers et.al. I don't understand. What is the difference between a /24 internal NATted network, and a /64 internal IPv6 network that is firewalled off: only paclets to the outside allowed, and packets destined for the inside need to have a traffic flow associated with it. As I see it, NAT is just a stateful firewall of sorts. A broken one, so why not use a non-broken solution ? We can only hope that IPv6 capable CPE devices have that sort of stateful firewalling turned on by default. Or start educating the vendors of these el-cheopo CPE devices so that they will all have that kind of firewalling enabled before IPv6 becomes mainstream. Mike.

7 8

Re: AOL fixing Microsoft default settings
by Sean Donelan 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Fred Baker wrote: > Personally, I don't ask my ISP or my IT department to randomly change the > configuration of my computer. I am very happy for them to suggest changes, > but *if* I agree, *I* want to install them when it is convenient for *me*, > not when it is convenient for *them*. There is a difference. In most cases the corporate laptop is owned by the corporation, not the employee. Shouldn't the corporate organization be able to change its own computers whenever it chooses, regardless of the desire of its employees. On the other hand, the ISP does not own the customer's computer. And despite EULA which say it not sold only licensed to the customer, most people view their computer as their property not the ISP's.

3 2

Re: ISPs' willingness to take action
by Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

>* But customers of broadband ISP aren't going to want to pay more than $40 a >month for any such thing you add, You are right about the average customer. But this mythical beast is composed of some less than average customers who just want plain vanilla cheap service and some more than average customers who are ready and willing to pay for a service that adds value. Let's foist this problem off on the marketing department and ask them why we don't have a plain vanilla unprotected Internet service for advanced users and a deluxe high priced service including filtering and free AV software for the segment that is willing to pay for value add? >"You >let that virus come into my computer" ... "It came over YOUR network!!!!". Do people phone up the city to complain because the burglar drove over municpal roads to get to their house? I'm surprised that a first level support department isn't equipped with a set of "correct" analogies to help educate (and calm) the customers. >We had some users that were happy we had cut them off, and told them that >they had a problem (virus or otherwise). That is becoming the norm. Filtering port 135 or 92 byte pings is a service that customers don't want. They are justified in complaining if you implement such a service. But when the customer starts to violate the AUP (even unknowingly) they are disrupting other users and should be shut off. The correct analogy is when disruptive customers get ejected from a bar by the bouncer. Or when the police give a traffic ticket to the little old lady doing 30 mph on the freeway. --Michael Dillon

3 2

RE: [arin-announce] IPv4 Address Space (fwd)
by Greg Maxwell 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Kuhtz, Christian wrote: > Excuse my rambling and what some may consider heresy even :), but.. > One question to ask is whether IPv6's approach is the right one, furthering > a particular way of doing things rather than really reinventing itself. Do > I really need global awareness of address space? Why isn't address space a > tool, services is what you're really after, and why not build an those who do not understand end-to-end are doomed to reimplement it, poorly.

8 8

peer/transit circuits
by ning.shi＠bell.ca 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

Hi folks, I am looking for some advice on how to place the peer/transit circuits on the edge routers. Would like to find the best practice that would provide enough diversity without having an operation nightmare. e.g. putting peer and transit circuits on different routers will make the routing policy easier since peer and transit will have different policies. however, if I lost the transit router then all transit is gone. Any advice/reference would be appreciated. Regards, -ns

2 1

Fed. Govt and IEEE ban contributions to/from Cuba, Libya, Iran, Syria
by Eric Kuhnke 30 Oct '03

30 Oct '03

The only effect this will have is to further alienate many skilled engineers and promising students, who are already at a great disadvantage due to language barriers. http://listserv.utk.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0310&L=jesse&D=1&O=D&P=4946 http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/wonews/oct03/1003ofac.html "Treasury Department ruling puts IEEE on the spot, but could affect other groups, too 15 October 2003On 30 September, the U.S. Treasury Department (Washington, D.C.) informed the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) that it must continue to limit membersrights in four countries embargoed by the United States: Cuba, Iran, Libya, and Sudan. The ruling means, among other things, that the IEEE, the worlds largest engineering association (and the publisher of this magazine), cannot edit articles submitted by authors in those countries, making it effectively impossible for most such work to appear in IEEE publications. " ============================================ Excerpt from the second URL: It is noteworthy to mention that at least in the case of Iran, where this ban has had the most effect; Iranian IEEE members submit dozens of papers for publication to IEEE publications on an annual basis. Since the establishment of the first Student Branch in 1997 in Iran, much effort has been made to introduce IEEE and its goals to the Iranian community. Iranian Student Branches have been very successful in organizing technical activities. More than 50 conferences, workshops, and short courses have been organized during the last few years, all of which are well attended by students and professionals. ========================================== "Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

1 0