- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address
by blitz 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

>This is a good example of an area where governments can intervene and do >some good. Ugh..I contend they never improve a situation, only make it worse. >1. Local governments can prohibit fuel storage and generators at telecom >sites. Telecom/Datacom sites would leave. period. You would be at a distinct disadvantage to the providers who DID have backup power. You would leave just after your customers did. >2. Local governments can make it easy for telecom site operators to set up >local generators and store fuel at sites that are near the telecom sites >but not too near. You have to run either fuel lines or power cables, take your choice. Imagine the local's reaction to a "Im going to build a big noisy diesel generator plant, right,...here..." I'd imagine in dense build situations like NYC its really hard to do anything more than is being done. This of course cries for decentralization and moving out and running rings. >Right now, people put the generators and the fuel in the same building >because it is virtually impossible to install your own neighborhood power >cabling. But there are few disaster scenarios in which a PoP would be >undamaged at the same time as the nearby powerstation is out of action or >disconnected. Transformer failure, underground cable failure, water main failure, street collapse, all come to mind. Most failures are of the more pedestrian types. If the entire town goes dark, most customers are dark as well. > If the local power cable takes a different route from the >power utility's cable then backhoe disease is avoided. If the local >powerstation blows up, we are happy because the PoP is still running on >utility power unlike the current situation. > >In fact, a single municipality could plan this as an integral part of >their telecom infrastructure so that there are multiple telecom hotels >spread far enough apart to avoid fate sharing and each one of them could >be served by two local power stations, each of which serves several >telecom hotels. These would also be spread apart to avoid fate sharing >with utility power substations and cabling. Problem is there isn't a whole lot of new planned building going on, most "hotels' are retrofits of older structures, their location such because of their proximity to the customer base/infrastructure. Youre stuck with what's available, and then limited by the particular building's design etc. In an ideal world there would be redundant power, water, sewer, fuel, served at two or more entrance points at each building, everyone would connect to each other via multiple access points on opposite sides of their buildings..everything else is a mitigation of the lack of a perfect solution. >If you were offered a colo facility that supplied AC power from one >utility and two local generator substation sources, would you rate this >better or worse than a colo facility that contained its own in-house >generators and fuel storage tanks? Unless the costs/difficulty of providing multiple connections to different substations goes dramatically down for some reason, you're going to be stuck with the incumbent power provider and a genny. Local control over your means of backup power generation, for maintenance and reliability is always preferential. If it doesn't work, and its my fault, its one thing, if it doesn't work when I need it and its someone else's job to provide it, all that happens is shysters get rich. >P.S. What if the colo facility offered built-in water chillers for cooling >with all the water piped downhill, down the block to a cooling tower? >Would this be better or safer than existing systems? Could it possibly be >built this way without municipal government involvement? Doubt it. Any time major construction of that type comes into play, municipalities want their piece. Marc

2 1

Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack
by sgorman1＠gmu.edu 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

> CAIDA tells us that over 25% of the Internet must be removed before > connectivity degrades. I'm quite a cynic, but I doubt the CIA > could pull off that kind of damage, much less al Qaeda Before we go yelling FUD about the media lets make sure we are not dissmeinating false information ourselves. The CAIDA analysis only looked at the 52,505 most connected IP addresses. Last time I checked there were a few more IP addresses than that on the Internet. Further, the 25% number was when the entire giant component disappeared not when connectivity "started" to degrade. The Internet is not "bombproof" and it is not "fragile", but somewhere in between. How far in which direction is up for debate, but lets at least try to make to debate intelligent and informed. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk(a)cisco.com> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:04 pm Subject: Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack > > Thus spake <Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com> > > When was the last time you took a sample and tested for the > presence of > > fertilizer *BEFORE* you let the truck driver put that diesel > into your > > generator tanks? > > Worst case, you'd detect this during your periodic generator test :) > > > The best defence against all of these potential terrorist > attacks is to do > > what the military does, i.e. spread out. Never put more than a > fraction of > > your eggs in one basket. Use the network to connect diverse and > widespread> assets so that they can function as a unit even though > they are physically > > separated. > > Isn't that the reason that IP was designed the way it was? > > 9/11 showed us that, despite the relatively concentrated POPs in > NYC, the > Internet was still the only communications medium that survived the > attack --and it was largely unaffected, even for users located in NYC > itself! > > CAIDA tells us that over 25% of the Internet must be removed before > connectivity degrades. I'm quite a cynic, but I doubt the CIA > could pull > off that kind of damage, much less al Qaeda. > > > This philosophy works whether your assets are combat soldiers > > or network PoPs. And again, there is a role for government here. > How about > > tax reductions for companies who harden their networks by > removing single > > points of failure that are vulnerable to terrorist attack? > > Oh yes, let's create a tax credit system which will essentially > become an > arbitrary means for government officials to reward friends in the > privatesector in return for kickbacks. That'll definitely solve > the problem (which > has been shown not to exist). Look how well it's worked for > healthcare and > oil companies! > > S > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk(a)cisco.com> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 5:04 pm Subject: Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack > > Thus spake <Michael.Dillon(a)radianz.com> > > When was the last time you took a sample and tested for the > presence of > > fertilizer *BEFORE* you let the truck driver put that diesel > into your > > generator tanks? > > Worst case, you'd detect this during your periodic generator test :) > > > The best defence against all of these potential terrorist > attacks is to do > > what the military does, i.e. spread out. Never put more than a > fraction of > > your eggs in one basket. Use the network to connect diverse and > widespread> assets so that they can function as a unit even though > they are physically > > separated. > > Isn't that the reason that IP was designed the way it was? > > 9/11 showed us that, despite the relatively concentrated POPs in > NYC, the > Internet was still the only communications medium that survived the > attack --and it was largely unaffected, even for users located in NYC > itself! > > CAIDA tells us that over 25% of the Internet must be removed before > connectivity degrades. I'm quite a cynic, but I doubt the CIA > could pull > off that kind of damage, much less al Qaeda. > > > This philosophy works whether your assets are combat soldiers > > or network PoPs. And again, there is a role for government here. > How about > > tax reductions for companies who harden their networks by > removing single > > points of failure that are vulnerable to terrorist attack? > > Oh yes, let's create a tax credit system which will essentially > become an > arbitrary means for government officials to reward friends in the > privatesector in return for kickbacks. That'll definitely solve > the problem (which > has been shown not to exist). Look how well it's worked for > healthcare and > oil companies! > > S > > >

1 0

RE: WAS: Even the New York Times withholds the address
by James Smith 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

IIRC, the tanker used to refuel the SR-71 Blackbird had separate tanks for JP-4 (for itself) and JP-3 (for the Blackbird)... James H. Smith ex-SAC KC-135 fixer-upper -----Original Message----- From: Al Rowland [mailto:alan_r1@corp.earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:38 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: OT: WAS: Even the New York Times withholds the address Actually, there are different grades of jet fuel as well as diesel. JP4 is 'common' but JP3 also has the characteristic of extinguishing fires and requires an accelerant to ignite. It was used in SR-71s among others. Best regards, ______________________________ Al Rowland -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog(a)merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Scott Granados Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 9:28 AM To: Johannes Ullrich Cc: Sean Donelan; nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address Diesel can even exstinguish flame in some cases. It is a much different anamal than aircraft fuel. There are concerns yes but not a good compairison. On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Johannes Ullrich wrote: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/nyregion/19FUEL.html > ... > > While almost everyone on this list knows which building is the > > subject of the article, we can discuss the issue without discussing > > the particular building. > > > > On-site fuel storage is one of those double-edge swords. > > The article is comparing the relatively 'inert' diesel fuel to the > aircraft fuel that caused the devastation at the WTC. Did the authors > of this article ever hear about heating oil tanks? > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > jullrich(a)euclidian.com Collaborative Intrusion Detection > join http://www.dshield.org >

1 0

RE: Even the New York Times withholds the address
by Jurbala, Daryl 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

The page loaded pretty slow. Must be cloudy today. Daryl G. Jurbala Sr. Network Engineer WorldNet Technology Consultants, Inc. Tel: +1.610.288.6200 FAX: +1.508.526.8500 http://www.wtci.net

1 0

Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack
by sgorman1＠gmu.edu 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

It is a great example of how well Al-Quedah manipulates the media. There are more ways to wreak havoc than script kiddies and DOS attacks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Howe" <DaveHowe(a)gmx.co.uk> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1:58 pm Subject: Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack > > at Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:00 AM, Dan Hollis <goemon(a)anime.net> > was seen to say: > > "There are millions of Muslims around the world involved in hacking > > the Pentagon and Israeli government sites," said Bakri." > I wonder how they could tell amongst all the millions of script > kiddieztrying the same thing? > > > > >

2 1

Re: CogentCo
by Mike (meuon) Harrison 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

> >It also appears to block Gnutella and similar protocols. > > You should never sign an IP access agreement that doesn't give you access to > the filtering rules that affect your traffic. Ideally, you should strongly We have not signed a thing. If I even attempted to explain the complex political fiasco that got us here, even Nanog members would be shocked. And as interested parties are on this list (I got a call already) and monitoring this discussion, I'll refrain. Theoretically, the other end of this 100mbps connection is Gig-E and is costing $20-30g/month.. we are testing it for suitability for our purposes... so far it is not making the grade. We've been spoiled by a UUnet and AT&T connection. :) For those that wanted the bad (140 lines of perl) speed check CGI, it's: http://speedy.higherbandwidth.net/speed.zip No, it's not secure or very bright.. It's a quick idiot check and is very useful, especially when it can use an suid'd MTR. And lastly, THANK YOU for all the testing, the marvelous traceroutes and data collected and the personal (mostly off-list) e-mails regarding Cogent. --Mike-- alpha/beta-testing metronetchattanooga.com

2 3

Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack
by sgorman1＠gmu.edu 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

Might be of interest: http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,76000,00…

5 4

Re: PAIX
by Jere Retzer 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

Stephen Sprunk wrote: >>>Any point in the US is within 25ms RTT (or less) of a major exchange; eliminating this 25ms of latency will have no effect on VoIP unless you're already near the 250ms RTT limit for other reasons.<<< 25 MS is assuming that the only delay is due to the speed of light. Add equipment, especially routers or other gear that requires manipulating packets and the delays add up quickly. I once read that the most people wil tolerate on a regular basis is around 150-180 ms. I think that is much too high for regular use

7 7

some of these are worse than others
by Paul Vixie 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

in the last few months since i most recently cleared out the database, my test network (a defunct /16) has received 3.8M http transactions containing 460K distinct worm bodies sent from 137K source addresses. the top 8, by quantity, are: srcaddr | count | first | last -----------------+--------+---------------------+--------------------- 61.137.107.137 | 300772 | 2002-11-05 13:29:26 | 2002-11-14 03:19:42 210.82.7.205 | 72755 | 2002-11-13 14:12:00 | 2002-11-14 11:23:07 210.12.30.12 | 32450 | 2002-11-01 08:34:09 | 2002-11-01 09:04:10 24.193.82.174 | 31996 | 2002-10-30 11:56:58 | 2002-10-30 13:07:11 131.204.108.181 | 22524 | 2002-11-18 17:33:04 | 2002-11-18 18:05:13 24.76.78.204 | 22305 | 2002-10-30 12:13:39 | 2002-10-30 13:26:52 80.11.57.19 | 11379 | 2002-11-01 09:34:01 | 2002-11-01 10:49:20 63.142.226.235 | 10178 | 2002-11-08 12:51:44 | 2002-11-08 13:42:06 if you see one of your own up there, please put your hands on some lineman's shears and Do The Right Thing.

3 2

Re: PAIX
by Jere Retzer 19 Nov '02

19 Nov '02

Vadim Antonov wrote: >I definitely would NOT want to see my doctor over a video link when I need >him. The technology is simply not up to providing realistic telepresense, >and a lot of diagnostically relevant information is carried by things like >smell and touch, and little details. So telemedicine is a poor substitute >for having a doctor on site; and should be used only when it is >absolutely the only option (i.e. emergency on an airplane, etc). If you are really ill, this is true but there are always gray areas that go into the decision whether the 'illness' is worth a visit. Physicians often order things for patients they know based upon a phone call or even e-mail if they feel reasonably comfortable. I think that there are lots of situations that a physician would recommend "just keep Johnny home for a couple days, give him plenty of fluids and [fill in the blank] ― call me in two days if he isn't feeling better." Having live video of Johnny is a pretty good supplement to voice, or for that matter the receptionist could record the video call for the physician and he could play it back when he has a few minutes. It's potentially even more important with elderly shut-ins, because bringing them in can be difficult and expensive and their immune systems are typically weaker so you should try to minimize their exposure to people with contagious diseases. Jere

3 2