-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi there, Just wondering how's internet2 community/partners protecting themselves from lawsuits of illegal use of music/movie downloads. In general, how are they protecting themselves from malicious code infection spreading at internet2 speed? How are the devices coping up with filters in place, if any? Like to hear what nanog community and the people who are involved w/ internet2 connectivity think. Any insight and /or pointers to any papers will be appreciated. regards, /vicky -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCbp19pbZvCIJx1bcRApbRAKCNWtZP/f+5TPwzB0gkU7tLmgpq9gCgiR+H bsR8d1Ai9zWFnUQeXPPB7fs= =ebza -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote:
In general, how are they protecting themselves from malicious code infection spreading at internet2 speed? How are the devices coping up with filters in place, if any?
What is "internet2 speed"? As far as I can see Internet2 is a 10G based national network. What is so special about that in this day and age? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
What is "internet2 speed"? As far as I can see Internet2 is a 10G based national network. What is so special about that in this day and age?
I think the difference is the average connection speeds of the "end users" of the network. It's not at all uncommon today for a provider with a 10G+ backbone to have 100Mbs or less average connection speed, whereas I2 end users are often on campus networks at gig-E or faster. So the speeds mentioned are the realized speeds in p2p and malware spreading applications, or at least that is my assumption based on the original poster's question.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I made that up :-) Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is. regards, /vicky Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: | On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote: | | |>In general, how are they protecting themselves from malicious code |>infection spreading at internet2 speed? How are the devices coping up |>with filters in place, if any? | | | What is "internet2 speed"? As far as I can see Internet2 is a 10G based | national network. What is so special about that in this day and age? | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCbq2DpbZvCIJx1bcRAgOjAKCuprmc0AVDET7d7qokD+3IlrScngCg22Pj vV0ZVZS8egBkpmIprN3h9f4= =9zJe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Apr 26, 2005, at 5:17 PM, Daniel Roesen wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:07:15PM -0700, Vicky Rode wrote:
Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is.
It is?
Parts. Other parts have better connectivity than I2 nodes. You can't really say anything about the _entire_ Internet. -- TTFN, patrick
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 since you deviated from my original post... http://www.icir.org/floyd/ccmeasure.html regards, /vicky Daniel Roesen wrote: | On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 02:07:15PM -0700, Vicky Rode wrote: | |>Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is. | | | It is? | | | Regards, | Daniel | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCbtTopbZvCIJx1bcRAhoYAKDbWlRfn24TrCf1qiL4onXZDZSoSwCgqkEN NxQzrae8KtOS60CQDPyJKEA= =g+6Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Maybe you should checkout some performance measurement numbers/papers from ACM (www.acm.org) which should help answer some of your questions. We are doing some interesting measurement research (qos related) and unfortunately I don't have any data to share. Then again, I'm not saying that Internet is going to crash and burn, its doomed and that one should switch to I2. All I'm asking is for some insight about potential risk of I2 abuse, that's all. Not that this link answers your question, since you asked hopefully this ~ will keep you busy for few hours. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/comp/net/wan-mon/netmon.html regards, /vicky Randy Bush wrote: |>Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is. | | | cool. and your measurements of internet congestion are? cites, please. | | randy | | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCbtOZpbZvCIJx1bcRAkWTAKDgkf+gKJ4klHh/aVKJ9gh+9wQ58wCgvVG8 RBNfdo1cb3WdpZyUwBWauD8= =I8AO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Maybe you should checkout some performance measurement numbers/papers from ACM (www.acm.org) which should help answer some of your questions.
having been an acm member since '67, i am aware of the volume published. give me a specific cite, please.
am well aware of les's work for many years. have always argued with him of the accuracy of his pinger. you might find http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0105/casner.html relevant randy
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:18:08PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote:
Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is.
If your ISP has congested links you should complain and switch if not fixed promptly.
WTF.. She asked a simple question and five people are slamming her for no apparent reason. --Adam
On 4/26/05, Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 11:18:08PM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote:
Basically I meant to say not congested as the current Internet is.
If your ISP has congested links you should complain and switch if not fixed promptly.
WTF.. She asked a simple question and five people are slamming her for no apparent reason.
Actually, I interpreted it as someone asking a question while obviously imbibing too often from the I2 kool-aid pitcher. My attitude towards I2 is that it is a really, really nice private WAN that I have the joy of funding indirectly through NSF grant awards and such - oh, and it has a really catchy name. That doesn't make it "better," "less congested" or "faster" than "the Internet." As Patrick already pointed out, it is difficult to say anything about the Internet as a whole. On 4/26/05, Vicky Rode <vickyr@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Then again, I'm not saying that Internet is going to crash and burn, its doomed and that one should switch to I2. All I'm asking is for some insight about potential risk of I2 abuse, that's all.
That's good to know, because if the internet were to crash and burn, Abilene would be right behind it. As far as I can see from the outside, there's nothing beind done on I2 that couldn't be done on "the Internet" with fat enough pipes and quality-of-service. -doug
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Vicky Rode wrote:
Just wondering how's internet2 community/partners protecting themselves from lawsuits of illegal use of music/movie downloads.
In general, how are they protecting themselves from malicious code infection spreading at internet2 speed? How are the devices coping up with filters in place, if any?
Like to hear what nanog community and the people who are involved w/ internet2 connectivity think.
I don't differentiate between my Internet2 connectivity & my other connectivity regarding network abuse issues. Each is a conduit for good & bad stuff, & each has a NOC when I need it. ________________________________________________________________________ Jay Ford, Network Engineering Group, Information Technology Services University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 email: jay-ford@uiowa.edu, phone: 319-335-5555, fax: 319-335-2951
participants (9)
-
Adam McKenna -
Daniel Roesen -
Douglas Dever -
Jay Ford -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Randy Bush -
Scott Call -
Vicky Rode