- Test - lists.nanog.org

RE: On Internet and social responsibility
by Roeland Meyer 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

|> From: measl(a)mfn.org [mailto:measl@mfn.org] |> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 10:57 AM |> |> On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote: |> |> > Personally, I have no problems with |> > US State telling me I can't do business with terrorists. Do you? |> |> Absolutely I do. I would have no problem with the USG placing |> people/countries/whatever on lists that I could use as a |> reference to make |> a *volutary* decision as to whether I wanted to do business |> with them, but to proscribe it is wrong. You are arguing morality in a legal context. Don't you know that those two have *nothing* to do with each other? |> First of all, I may not necessarily agree with the USG on |> all of these |> "entries", secondly, the lists are obviously not compiled in a manner |> designed solely to cut of the "bad guys". For example, we |> have China as a |> "most favored nation". Right there the whole idea of an |> impartial list falls apart... Impartiality was never claimed. |> Aside from the impartiality issue, I do not believe that the |> USG has a constitutional right to forbid me from engaging any |> person/place/thing in an otherwise lawful transaction. In that, you are dangerously wrong. Go ahead and sell a Sun e10K, with SSH source, into China. Let me know when they let you out of jail (never). Try to ftp ssh sources into Libya, but before you do, let me know where to send the flowers. Try to do *any* business with Iraq, tell me how large NSA goons come these days. This is not freedom of speech issue, it is a economic embargo issue. The Federal government has the constitutional right to control foreign trade. That's black letter law. That is, trade between US citizens and other countries. Just what do you think NAFTA was all about, piddeling in the Rio Grande? Try importing a shipful of cocaine. Try selling a case of 9mm <any make> hand guns, outside the country. -- IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking legal action based on anything I say or write, you are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of an attorney.

1 0

Way way way OT: gallows humor...
by herb＠tomobiki.urusei.net 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

Here is a monumental F-You design: http://friscoaggie.homestead.com/files/Jungle/newwtc.jpg /herb

1 0

Re: More history (on meaning of Pearl Harbor) [OT]
by Steven M. Bellovin 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

In message <Pine.LNX.4.10.10109142306300.30955-100000(a)arch.exigengroup.com>, Va dim Antonov writes: > > >If whoever bothered to invent that pseudo-quotation bothered to learn >hitory of WWII, he'd know that most military action had seen no American >involvement at all. The widely regarded as the turning point of WWII was >Stalingrad battle, after which Red Army began the advancement on all >fronts. > >US become involved in the continental WWII to prevent Soviets from >occupation of the entire Europe, not to win the war with Germany. It was >already going to be defeated (and it was the Red Army which took Berlin). > >>From the point of view of saving Europe from communism it was a brilliant >move - wait for both sides to become exhausted before getting in. By that >time the Red Army had no resources to fight both desperate Nazi and Allied >Forces (Japanese were no threat at all to USSR because it was protected >by huge very sparsely inhabited landmass, so they could be safely >ignored for a while), and this is how the modern political map of Europe >came to be. > >Of course, American school textbooks forget those small details and make >it look like that US nearly single-handedly defeated fascism. It didn't. Some of us have read a fair amount of history, and carefully check the footnotes to learn the sources of interesting statements. (Anything without footnotes isn't a serious history book.) You're certainly correct that Stalingrad was a major turning point. Your assertion about U.S. motives for invading Europe is rather more doubtful. Stalin was begging Churchill and Roosevelt to move on Western Europe, to take pressure off the Soviet Union. (References available upon request.) He was rather annoyed at how long it took the U.S. and Britain to act. The reasons for the delay are many, including a shortage of landing craft. (Churchill wanted more troops in Italy, to invade from the south of Europe after the collapse of Mussolini's regime; Eisenhower wanted the troops -- and landing craft -- to be ready for Normandy.) > >To get a sense of what was going on and who was fighting whom see > > http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm > >And if you ever wondered why America dropped A-bomb on Japan - it was to >prevent imminent occupation of Japan by the Red Army. After Germany >capitulated the Soviet armies were quickly shipped eastward, and were >quickly advancing (this you can also see on the world political map, >especially if you compare pre-war and post-war boundaries). The only way >to prevent People's Republic of Japan was to scare s*t out of Japanese to >force them to capitulate to Americans. That's an interesting statement. Another reading is that Stalin declared war on Japan because he knew that the U.S. was about to drop the atomic bomb. Apart from any espionage, Truman told Stalin just after the Trinity test, in July 1945. I haven't seen any history books that discuss your theory with references to documents from the former Soviet archives -- it would be interesting to look for such. As I recall (and I'd have to dig a bit to find citable sources for this assertion), the U.S. had been pressuring the USSR to participate in the war against Japan, but Stalin had refused. While it's certainly clear that defeating Germany was the priority -- in fact, that was the explicit agreement between the U.S. and the U.K. -- and no one could have expected the Soviet Union to intervene in the East before matters were under control in the West -- the war against Japan went on for 2.5 years after the battle of Stalingrad ended. We can certainly discuss whether or not the U.S. was justified in using the bomb against Japan -- that's been debated endlessly since the war -- but it's rather indisputable that the bomb was used as soon as it was ready. Hiroshima was hit less than a month after the Trinity test. > >The myth that American involvement in WWII made a significant difference >from the point of view of defeating fascism is just a myth. What US >involvement did is to check advancement of communists, not Nazis. Excluding, I assume, U.S. industrial production. > >No wonder, US immediately took place of the main enemy of the Soviet >Union. It still was worth it, Stalin was no better than Hitler. > >Sorry, fellow Americans, you _are_ brainwashed if you believe the drivel >they teach you as "history". "Fascist powers were doomed" because of >Pearl Harbor, sure. Until you check the figures and actually think for a >second or two. Educated Americans know about the relative casualty figures, I assure you. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb http://www.wilyhacker.com

2 1

Re: telehouse - 25 broadway
by Sean Donelan 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

On Sat, 15 September 2001, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > Not to mention, cooling the radiator won't help at all, considering it's > the water pump that failed. It was a suggestion based on incomplete information. Originally I didn't know whether it was overheating due to debris and dust clogging the radiator or mechanical failure. You are correct, it wouldn't help a failed water pump. If Telehouse lets us know what specific parts (model/part number) they need, I can check our spare parts inventory for a possible loaner.

4 3

Keeping the lines of communication open
by Sean Donelan 16 Sep '01

16 Sep '01

As things have slowed down, I've had a chance to read some of the other threads. These are my personal opinions. I've been an observer of communications through several wars, bombings and natural disasters over the last 12 years. And sometimes I've been very close to disasters, and worked as a volunteer. There have been several threads about turning off communications, taking action against communication providers perceived as supporting the enemy, or how the attackers used the freedom of communications against us. I propose, even if the attackers used our own communications, in fact by maintaining communication service we may have helped save more lives. Instead of cutting off communications, the best response is to keep as much operating as possible. Yes, its possible the terrorists might be using the circuit, but it is also possible the link is rescue effort or even a person trying to get a warning out. Dubbing the voice of the spokespeople associated with the terrorists may be a symbolic gesture. Cell phones and air phones allowed passengers call loved ones and authorities, but also kept the passengers informed about the other attacks in progress which may have changed what they did. Things might have been different if technical measures prevented passengers from using cell phones on airlines, or if cell phone providers had blocked those calls. Immediately after the attacks, communications once again helped victims and rescuers. Cell phones and e-mail were used before and after the towers collapsed. Rescue efforts are continuing by trying to locate beepers and cell phones of the victims. Network traffic went up, and many of the news sites had initial problems. Sites like Google, Yahoo, and ISPs mirrored information from the major news sites on local web sites. Although it may be a technical violation of the DMCA, several people simulcasted radio, television, even close captioning over the net. Although we'd like to think the government has better communications links such as NAWAS, in practice the commercial communications links carry most of the information and informed the public and even public officials. One of the problems with government communications, is no one has enough clearance to know the whole story, so the public communication networks often serve as the primary information source even within government. Its not a coincidence that every Emergency Operations Center watches the commercial news networks. The USA has maintained communication links with Cuba, USSR, even Hitler (invoking Godwin's law) through both cold and hot wars. I'm sure some people will say this is somehow different. But a hundred years of electronic communications, and a thousand years of communications has shown in almost every case the country which seal itself off from communications with the outside world has eventually destroyed itself. Propaganda may be a concern, but history shows its hard to fool all the people all the time. Propaganda works best when there isn't an alternative source of truthful information. One reason why countries acting as hosts for terrorists try to limit communications is outside information sources makes their internal propaganda less effective.

1 0

On Internet and social responsibility
by Vadim Antonov 15 Sep '01

15 Sep '01

Found on a website hosted in US by a US service provider: > Manpower resources of > Muslims and powerful ideological stimulus of resistance, the > control above the basic power resources of the world, the > geographical position and an area of movement, finally will > destroy USA. War will come in the house of each American. ******************************************************** > And it already will be the collapse of that America, which we > know and which is realized by Americans. The first disturbing > symptoms of arising enmity and split of America already is > available. This is from the inverview with the spokesman of well-known terrorist Shamil Basaev, known for personally taking hostage hundreds of patients in a hospital, among other things (the spokesman is Movladi Udugov, the guy who threatened to drop an airplane on Kremlin). http://www.kavkaz.org/english/news/2001/09/14/news4.htm Hosted by XO Communications - do not bother them, i already alerted their staff. Guys, why should a North American provider give a place for this propaganda? Call FBI, have them trace the connections of whoever pays for that site. [If you decide to read the entire article - the "so-called peacemaker" Boris Nemtsov mentioned there is a prominent pro-Western politican in Russia, and (used to be, changed his mind after WTC attack) a leading proponent of negotiations with Chechen militants. A shining illustration of what you get for trying to negotiate with terrorists.] Please, if you host websites, take a closer look at what you are hosting; you may help to find leads for the investigation. --vadim

7 16

Re: slowing down every 60 seconds due to BGP scaner
by Robert Boyle 15 Sep '01

15 Sep '01

>> BOOTFLASH: 7200 Software (C7200-BOOT-M), Version 11.1(19)CC1, EARLY >> DEPLOYMENT RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) > >Consider updating your bootflash to be somewhere near currrent >(something from 12.2T would be good, identical to the current version Good advice. >Presuming you aren't running low on memory (show mem sum) or trying >to >push a ton of packets through it, I'd say this is likely a >cutting-edge-code problem, not a platform problem, and a hardware >upgrade might not do anything to help you. I don't know anyone who >is (admits to?) using 12.2* in production. You say you need MSDP :) We are using 12.2(1) in production. It is stable except... CEF is wierd, PPP Multilink doesn't work, and there is a small memory leak with BGP. We NEED to run it for PPPoE support over ATM. It is realatively well behaved considering it is bleeding edge. -Robert

2 1

Sprint/Sprint PCS Network Status
by Sean Donelan 15 Sep '01

15 Sep '01

Since Sprint usually makes a statement only after they've fixed a failure, I'm guessing something else happened this morning, and is now fixed. Anyone with information about what Sprint fixed? Sprint/Sprint PCS Network Status SEPTEMBER 15, 2001 KANSAS CITY, MO. As of noon, CDT today, Sprint wireline switching facilities that support Sprint's telecommunications network are stable and processing voice and data traffic normally. In addition, Sprint PCS reports that progress is being made to restore wireless phone service to customers throughout the greater New York City metropolitan area. Four Sprint PCS cell sites remain out of service in the immediate disaster area. Many other sites across Manhattan are still without service primarily due to the loss of their landline connection provided to Sprint PCS by other telecom carriers. Service for most Sprint long distance and wireless customers remains normal across the rest of the United States. Some wireline voice and data customer sites in New York remain without service, again due to the loss of their landline connection provided to Sprint by other telecom carriers. Sprint associates continue to work with other telecom companies and government officials to restore full service as soon as possible.

1 0

FCC: Do anything you can do to help
by Sean Donelan 15 Sep '01

15 Sep '01

On Sat, 15 September 2001, Paul Vixie wrote: > > If anyone needs and kind of connectivity between the following buildings: > > Likewise, if anyone who needs temporary dark fiber between 60 Hudson > and 111 8th, I've identified some MFN strands. And, PAIX is ready to > provide temporary housing at 111 8th for any servers or nodes dispossessed > by the WTC attack. I expect all LEC, CLECs, wireline, wireless, carrier, non-carrier, traditional, next-generation, tier 1, tier 2, etc are willing and working to relocate and re-route anyone with service, systems, etc disrupted or destroyed by Tuesday's attacks. The FCC has told carriers "Do anything you can do to help." I would apply the same statement to non-regulated ISPs and alternative communication providers. If you need special assistance in getting circuits re-routed, or installed in a new location, talk to your provider. Consider many of the alternative providers, which had a lot of excess capacity before Tuesday's attack. For example, there are reports of several former dot-COM property management companies offering space in buildings previously occupied by dot-COM companies which went out of business earlier this summer.

1 0

Re: slowing down every 60 seconds due to BGP scaner
by rs＠seastrom.com 15 Sep '01

15 Sep '01

Marshall Eubanks <tme(a)multicasttech.com> writes: > IOS (tm) 7200 Software (C7200-IK8S-M), Version 12.2(2)T1, RELEASE SOFTWARE > (fc2) ... > BOOTFLASH: 7200 Software (C7200-BOOT-M), Version 11.1(19)CC1, EARLY > DEPLOYMENT RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1) Consider updating your bootflash to be somewhere near currrent (something from 12.2T would be good, identical to the current version your're running is best). I've tracked down a couple of particularly weird problems that turned out to be triggered by cruft that was inherited from the initial bootflash image. Now upgrading the bootflash is the first thing I do. Presuming you aren't running low on memory (show mem sum) or trying to push a ton of packets through it, I'd say this is likely a cutting-edge-code problem, not a platform problem, and a hardware upgrade might not do anything to help you. I don't know anyone who is (admits to?) using 12.2* in production. You say you need MSDP and SSM stuff that's only in this version; I don't know about source-specific multicast, but MSDP is supported in 12.0S... ---Rob

2 1