Is it time for the FCC to start actions against Internet Service Providers who improperly announce IP address blocks without proper authorization, such as they do for long-distance slamming complaints? http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/News_Releases/2000/nren0009.html Is this the only thing which will get major carrier's attention. It would be great if carriers could be trusted to correctly verify IP addresses before announcing them. But as we've seen in the long-distance world, too many carriers act as if they can get an extra buck, they'll do what every they need to do. When will we see the headline XXXX ISP to pay $NNN million for Internet route hijacking?
Sean Donelan wrote:
Is this the only thing which will get major carrier's attention. It would be great if carriers could be trusted to correctly verify IP addresses before announcing them. But as we've seen in the long-distance world, too many carriers act as if they can get an extra buck, they'll do what every they need to do.
The drive to "slam" is pushed by dollars. I can't think of any situation in which someone might profit from announcing address space without authorization. The problems facing the Internet are mostly due to laziness and lack of clue, enabled by an experimental infrastructure designed to support neither of these things. IP assumes non-hostile, non-lazy, and non-clueless nodes. Is there a consortium of big-time Internet operators? There should be - something where technical people with the ability to make changes within their organization get together a few times each year to discuss problems facing their individual networks and the Internet as a whole. This would enable the NSPs to shape the direction that Internet development and expansion takes. If such a consortium exists, it should be put to good use. If it doesn't, one should be created. Failing that - a push from within the community to clean things up - I fear that governmental intervention is the only solution. I only hope that when it comes down to regulating the Internet, it will be handled by a new authority responsible only for inter-network communications. I think that it would be a mistake to try to tack this responsibility onto the FCC or FBI. They're not international enough to handle issues fairly, for starters. I also haven't been impressed with any government agency's technological prowess. Mark
That depends what you consider IOPS to be. Take your choice: a) Secret internet routing cabal. So secret, no one can figure out what they do. b) An antitrust suit just waiting to happen c) Nothing worth mentioning Take your pick. :) - Dan Golding On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, J Bacher wrote:
On Sun, 12 Nov 2000, Mark Mentovai wrote:
Is there a consortium of big-time Internet operators? There should be -
Preferably not to the exclusion of all others.
At 8:35 PM -0500 11/13/00, Daniel L. Golding wrote:
That depends what you consider IOPS to be. Take your choice:
a) Secret internet routing cabal. So secret, no one can figure out what they do.
The cabal makes jokes "Officially there is no cabal." In reality the fact is that peering is a trust event. You are trusting the engineers at another (competitive) network with connectivity to yours. This also includes the ability to affect your network in the most extreme ways. I believe it became human nature to trust some of the early internet engineers. An engineer with a track record of running a stable network was worth of trust (ie peering). The opposite is also true. Any engineer/network that was constantly flapping would quickly be likely to be dropped as a peer. Does this seem unfair? -- Thank you, David Diaz Chairman, iCEO International Wire Communications, Inc. www.iwcinc.net 305-273-7978 email: davediaz@iwcinc.net pager: davediaz@bellsouthips.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'How you felt...when you heard my accusers, I do not know, but I nearly forgot who I was they were so persuasive. Yet as for truth one might almost say they have spoken not one word of truth. But what most astonished me in the many lies they told was when they warned you to take care not to be deceived by me "because I was a terrible clever speaker." They ought to have been ashamed to say it because I shall prove them wrong at once by facts when I begin to speak and you will see that I am not a bit clever speaker...unless of course they call one who speaks the truth a clever speaker.' -- Plato
Where do you go to get your NIC handle info updated? I've changed employers... -brad (Rural CNE)
Walters wrote:
Where do you go to get your NIC handle info updated? I've changed employers...
-brad (Rural CNE)
Assuming it's an InterNIC handle, you want http://www.networksolutions.com - otherwise, go to the website of the CORE reseller where you initially set up the handle. -- Steve Sobol, BOFH, President 888.480.4NET 866.DSL.EXPRESS 216.619.2NET North Shore Technologies Corporation http://NorthShoreTechnologies.net JustTheNet/JustTheNet EXPRESS DSL (ISP Services) http://JustThe.net mailto:sjsobol@NorthShoreTechnologies.net Proud resident of Cleveland, Ohio
Brad: I'm assuming you mean your Network Solutions handle.. Go to http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/makechanges/itts/handle and you can change it there. Good luck. -Eric -- Eric Whitehill ericw@xtratyme.com Network Engineer XtraTyme Technologies 320.864.8513 http://www.xtratyme.com On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Walters wrote:
Where do you go to get your NIC handle info updated? I've changed employers...
-brad (Rural CNE)
On Sun, Nov 12, 2000 at 08:55:12PM -0500, Mark Mentovai wrote:
Sean Donelan wrote:
Is this the only thing which will get major carrier's attention. It would be great if carriers could be trusted to correctly verify IP addresses before announcing them. But as we've seen in the long-distance world, too many carriers act as if they can get an extra buck, they'll do what every they need to do.
The drive to "slam" is pushed by dollars. I can't think of any situation in which someone might profit from announcing address space without authorization. The problems facing the Internet are mostly due to laziness and lack of clue, enabled by an experimental infrastructure designed to support neither of these things. IP assumes non-hostile, non-lazy, and non-clueless nodes.
With respect to "converting customers", no its not going to happen. The technology operates differently. However, there have been instances where a company just started using a block of reserved IP space (squatting) hoping that, after a while, if it wasn't noticed, the courts would decide that its really theirs. In this case, I think the various *NICs should inject reserved space into the routing table such that things like this can't happen. I can see various fines resulting from this type of abuse. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bouchard [Immagine Your ] web@typo.org [Company Name Here] Network Engineer http://www.typo.org/~web/resume.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Wayne Bouchard wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bouchard [Immagine Your ] web@typo.org [Company Name Here] Network Engineer http://www.typo.org/~web/resume.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very appropriate domain name considering the fact that you misspelled "Imagine" in your signature line. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
As far as I know, the plan was to elect Al Gore and then to bring the FCC to regulate everything. That plan seems to be changing now that George W. Bush has been elected. Unfortunately, William Daley (the former U.S. Secretary of Commerce), one of the architects of ICANN, is busy trying to get the vote changed. Others are obviously busy with their plans...and ICANN is meeting in Los Angeles this week.
http://www.internetpolicy.org/board/index.html http://www.gip.org/about/members.asp
Tuesday, November 7, 2000 http://www.gip.org/publications/papers/draftberlinworkshop.asp *Attendance is by Invitation Only* Introduction: GIP Chairman John Patrick, Vice President for Internet Technology, IBM Keynote Speakers: David Farber, Chief Technologist, U.S. Federal Communications Commission, & Professor of Computer Science, University of Pennsylvania. Moderator: Vint Cerf, Senior Vice President for Internet Architecture & Engineering, WorldCom. Panelists: Fred Baker, Fellow, Cisco Systems, and Chairman, IETF Keynote Speaker: Esther Dyson, chairman, EDventure (Retiring Chairman, ICANN) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Miscellaneous/News_Releases/2000/nrmc0001.html @@@@ http://www.fcc.gov/realaudio/tr072700.txt CHAIRMAN KENNARD: Any other questions from the bench? Hearing none, we'll move to the next panel. Thank you both very much. We really appreciate your taking the time to do this. And I wanted to publicly acknowledge and thank Esther Dyson's work with ICANN. That is a tremendous public service, not only for the country, for the world, and we're very appreciative of your work. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.algore.com/internet_and_technology/www_accomp.html "Vinton Cerf, Nicknamed the "Father of the Internet:" "I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator." Cerf is currently a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom." ... "Dave Farber, Professor of Telecommunications at the University of Pennsylvania: "Without [Gore] there is a good chance it [the Internet] would not be where it is today," said Dave Farber." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://msdn.microsoft.com/downloads/sdks/platform/tpipv6/start.asp ----- Original Message ----- From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> To: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 7:06 PM Subject: MCI WORLDCOM TO PAY $3.5 MILLION
Is it time for the FCC to start actions against Internet Service Providers who improperly announce IP address blocks without proper authorization, such as they do for long-distance slamming complaints?
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/News_Releases/2000/nren0009.html
Is this the only thing which will get major carrier's attention. It would be great if carriers could be trusted to correctly verify IP addresses before announcing them. But as we've seen in the long-distance world, too many carriers act as if they can get an extra buck, they'll do what every they need to do.
When will we see the headline
XXXX ISP to pay $NNN million for Internet route hijacking?
participants (11)
-
Daniel L. Golding -
David Diaz -
Eric Whitehill -
J Bacher -
JIM FLEMING -
John Fraizer -
Mark Mentovai -
Sean Donelan -
Steve Sobol -
Walters -
Wayne Bouchard