Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lemonade-streaming-09
Spencer, agreed. I'll update the draft based on your comments, and update the repository, thanks, Neil On 10 Mar 2009, at 12:12, Spencer Dawkins wrote: Hi, Neil, Thanks for the quick response (so I can still remember writing the review :-)... Deleting stuff we agree on - I think my suggestion here 3.8. Media Server Use of IMAP Server If the media server is configured as an authorized user of the IMAP server, it SHOULD authenticate to the IMAP server using the credentials for that user. This document does not go into the details of IMAP authentication, but the authentication SHOULD NOT use the LOGIN command over a non-encrypted communication path. Spencer (minor, because I'm not your security reviewer): I'm struggling why this last statement is SHOULD NOT with no qualifications... if you tell me that this is normal practice in the e-mail community, I'll be quiet, but this would worry me if I saw it happening. You're right, I actually took this verbatim from an earlier version of the IMAP URL RFC, but I notice the latest version has removed this text. There is no particular need for it in this doc either, as the base IMAP RFCs cover the perils of using non-encrypted communication channels adequately enough, and as such it's not a security concern of this doc. So I lean towards removing the sentence completely, or simply lowercasing the SHOULD NOT. is removing the sentence. My biggest concern was whether the media server might be configured with MY IMAP credentials, and might decide it was a good idea to send MY IMAP credentials "in the clear". If that's possible, I'd hope for MUST NOT, but you're probably saying that this spec is not the right place to fight the battle of clear-text security credentials, even for IMAP, and I can see that being the case. Thanks, Spencer ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-lemonade-streaming-09
Spencer, thanks for these comments, I broadly agree with most of them. I've replied specifically inline below, and if you agree will update the draft accordingly. Neil On 6 Mar 2009, at 22:29, Spencer Dawkins wrote: I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-lemonade-streaming-09 Reviewer: Spencer Dawkins Review Date: 2009-03-06 IETF LC End Date: 2009-03-12 IESG Telechat date: (not known) Summary: Almost ready for publication as Informational. A couple of nits (forwarded for the editor, not part of Gen-ART reviews), and a couple of minor questions. Comments: 1. Introduction Email clients on resource and/or network constrained devices, such as mobile phones, may have difficulties in retrieving and/or storing large attachments received in a message. For example, on a poor network link, the latency required to download the entire attachment Spencer (nit): s/attachment/attachment before displaying any of it/, perhaps? The sentence seems to say the user won't download the entire attachment under any conditions, but that's probably not what it should say... I'm okay with changing this. may not be acceptable to the user. Conversely, even on a high-speed network, the device may not have enough storage space to secure the attachment once retrieved. 3.1. Overview of Mechanism The proposed mechanism has the following steps: 1. Client determines from MIME headers of a particular message that a particular message part (attachment) should be streamed to the user. Note that no assumptions are made about how/when/if the client contacts the user of the client about this decision. User input MAY be required in order to initiate the proposed mechanism. Spencer (minor): this MAY doesn't smell 2119 to me.. You're right, that should simply be a lowercase may. 3.2. Media Server Discovery There is also a scenario where media server discovery would improve the security of the streaming mechanism, by avoiding the use of completely anonymous URLs. For example, the client could discover a media server address that was an authorised user of the IMAP server for streaming purposes, which would allow the client to generate a URL, which was secure in that it could *only* be accessed by an entity that is trusted by the IMAP Server to retrieve content. The issue of trust in media servers is discussed more fully in Section 4 Spencer (nit): missing period after "4". Nod. Example values of the /shared/mediaServers METADATA entry: ":stream;;" ";;:stream" Spencer (minor): Hmm. The paragraph that talked about line wrapping in section 2 was specifically about S: and C:, and that doesn't apply here. Is this clear enough for the target reader? At a minimum, I see people indenting continuation lines in other specs... Well to be fair - this is showing the value of an entry stored on the IMAP server, not showing a protocol exchange. However I can add some text saying that the lines below are wrapped for clarity, and add an extra space at the start of the line. 3.7. Client Use of the Media Server MSCML IVR Service Since the playcollect request is used purely for its VCR capabilities, there is no need for the media server to perform DTMF collection, therefore the playcollect attributes "firstdigittimer", "interdigittimer" and "extradigittimer" SHOULD all be set to "0ms", which will have the effect of causing digit collection to cease immediately the media has finished playing. Spencer (minor): "immediately the" is missing a word... if I could guess which word, this would be a nit. "after" is the word we're looking for here I think :) 3.8. Media Server Use of IMAP Server If the media server is configured as an authorized user of the IMAP server, it SHOULD authenticate to the IMAP server using the credentials for that user. This document does not go into the details of IMAP authentication, but the authentication SHOULD NOT use the LOGIN command over a non-encrypted communication path. Spencer (minor, because I'm not your security reviewer): I'm struggling why this last statement is SHOULD NOT with no qualifications... if you tell me that this is normal practice in the e-mail community, I'll be quiet, but this would worry me if I saw it happening. You're right, I actually took this verbatim from an earlier version of the IMAP URL RFC, but I notice the latest version has removed this text. There is no particular need for it in this doc either, as the base IMAP RFCs cover the perils of using non-encrypted communication channels adequately enough, and as such it's not a security concern of this doc. So I lean towards removing the sentence completely, o
what happened to America's internet Future? - a pointer to an essay
that I hope you will enjoyHere with the first two paragraphs -Capitalism in the United States in the 21st century has not moved forward with the rest of the world. We are still embedded in the post World War II mindset of America as the great economic power at the peak of the industrial age. While many of our giant corporations are shrinking in size, in 2005 in American telecom there were two major exceptions to a trend in the technology area of downsizing driven by increasing commoditization as companies try to become more nimble in order to compete in a globalized economy.The two largest local phone companies swallowed the two largest American carriers. SBC merged with ATT and became the “new” ATT and Verizon took over MCI. Motivated they claimed by the goal of economies of scale, CEOs Whittacre and Seidenberg asserted that they could eliminate duplicative infrastructure and save money. What they did not explain was the cost of adding more debt to their core business and the expense of merging two huge and complex organizations with complex billing systems. They also ignored increasing enterprise customer anxiety as sources of redundant network infrastructure vanished. Some observers speculated that the real reasons for the mergers were the acquisition MCI and ATTs global IP backbone’s free traffic interconnection with the other major global players. In an increasingly all IP world, these resources had the potential to enable more cost-effective competition in the efforts of what some began to call Bell East and Bell West’s efforts to provide television over their IP networks efforts to compete with the MSO's cable modem service that will very likely fail.you mat read the entire essay athttp://www.cookreport.com/14.11.shtml =The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscriptioninfo: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml How to Stop America's Broadband decline and end LEC Mercantilism at: http://cookreport.com/14.11.shtml= ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
why optical developments since 2001 are bad news for Carriers
I have written some material that I think will be of interest to list members. While layer three is great there is a whole new world building out there at layer one and two with cheap user rolled optical nets. This new world will I believe affect IP and IP routing in important ways. Optical Revolution Increases Obsolescence of Legacy Carrier Networks Highly Efficient Layer One and Two Optical Networks Will Spell End of the Road for ATT, Sprint & MCI in Their Current Form Intelligent Acquisition Could Lead to Quick Write Offs of Obsolete Equipment & Result in Modernization of "Telco" Infrastructure An examination of the infrastructure of the leading optical research networks (SURFnet 6, CA*Net4, and TransLight) shows that we may well be headed towards optical networks owned, built, and operated by enterprises and other large entities that are sources of, and/or, sinks for data, with the public Internet and carrier backbone networks merely acting as inter-connecting vehicles for private bit carriage. We examine the emergence of new enterprise-owned and -operated networks. These will be composed of hybrid networks that, for certain Quality of Service and security-mandated applications set up lightpaths, when needed, and then tear them down. Best-effort Layer 3 IP services for email and web browsing will utilize a separate allocation of bandwidth elsewhere within the optical spectrum of physical glass. This new enterprise-owned optical network is likely to be one that could switch lightpaths back and forth on an as-needed basis sending payloads over dedicated lightpaths where appropriate and needed, while best-effort routing continues to function on its own over intranet or Internet routes, thus filling in the gaps between highly mission-critical and business-as-usual applications. For independent verification of our basic conclusions see Dark fiber: Businesses see the light. http://news.com.com/Dark+fiber+Businesses+see+the+light/2100-1037_3-5557910.html?tag=nefd.lede For complete Introduction and Executive Summary and Table of contents see http://cookreport.com/14.01.shtml -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml New report: Optical Research Net- works and an Enterprise Networks Revolution at: http://cookreport.com/14.01.shtml = ___ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Incoming Message
You_are_dismissed.hta Description: Binary data ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Site changes
MoreInfo.cpl Description: Binary data ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Hidden message
Smoke.hta Description: Binary data ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Hi
Counter_strike.hta Description: Binary data ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
telecom recovery unlikely as long as best effort is industry's only business model
Since mid March I have been leading a private mail list and came out with a conclusion last weekend that there can be no telecom recovery as long as the industry relies solely on the best effort business model which I believe is not economically sustainable. This has led to two articles on my June-July issue conclusions this week in the trade press. Something that has never happened to me before. :-) The first is ISP Planet and the second Broadband Edge. Here are the urls http://www.isp-planet.com/perspectives/2004/cook_internet.html (monday) http://bbedge.mblast.com/presentation/page798-878156.asp (today) Finally my summary, table of contents and list of contributors is at http://cookreport.com/13.04.shtml Enjoy the weekend. -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Report on economic black hole of best effort networks at: http://cookreport.com/13.04.shtml E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] = ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Msg reply
Your_complaint.cpl Description: Binary data ___ Ietf mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Re: Msg reply
See attach. [Filename: Attach.pif, Content-Type: application/octet-stream] The attachment file in the message has been removed by eManager.
Re: Death of the Internet - details at 11
While one aging application does not constitute 'the Internet', this should be taken as an early indicator of things that are happing, with more to come. http://www.fourmilab.ch/speakfree/eol/ Like it or not, the IETF must stop wasting time and effort building new structures on a crumbling framework. A quick scan of the IESG document queue shows that the vast majority of the workload is still not seriously focused on making IPv6 the default protocol. Agreed. http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimatur/ is the really spooky essay. Excerpted in my December issue. Read the Digital Imprimatur if you haven't already. I will take another look at IPv6 before long and would welcome any **private** suggestions on how best to do that. Happy new year, Tony -- ===== The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Googin on real time global corp. http://cookreport.com/12.11.shtml Purchase 10 years of back issues at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free World Dial up 17318 =
Re: More frustrating that not having [ietf] (Fw: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender)
I share your frustration. Yes this is another casualty of the spam wars. This is my isp...not me. Bankrupt in june these folk added every ip block that they could find on every spam black hole list to their null routing tables and in short order place in japan, nepal, new zealand and mexico could no longer reach me. I have an alternate email that dot forwards on my home pages and by january 1 i hope to have moved completely...web and email service, to a different ISP. I find this more frustrating. I have a dynamic IP address, because fixed IP address ADSL isn't very common here in Australia. So I use DYNDNS to map my domain MX records. I can't get matching PTR records. I'm assuming my mail bounced because I don't have matching PTR and MX records. Why should email assume fixed IP addresses for email delivery, or rather, matching PTR and MX records ? Begin forwarded message: Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:11:28 +1030 (CST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mail Delivery System) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender This is the Postfix program at host nosense.org. I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned below could not be delivered to one or more destinations. For further assistance, please send mail to If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the message returned below. The Postfix program <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host mail.netaxs.com[207.8.186.26] said: 550 5.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... 203.102.233.19 is unwelcome here Reporting-MTA: dns; nosense.org Arrival-Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:10:54 +1030 (CST) Final-Recipient: rfc822; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: failed Status: 5.0.0 Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host mail.netaxs.com[207.8.186.26] said: 550 5.7.1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... 203.102.233.19 is unwelcome here Received: from Dupy2.nosense.org (19.cust6.nsw.dsl.ozemail.com.au [203.102.233.19]) by nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 262643F02A; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:10:54 +1030 (CST) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 01:10:53 +1030 From: Mark Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Organization: The No Sense Organisation X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; x-Spamnix=checked Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I just match on either the "Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" header, or the ML specific email address I've created. I'm using Sylpheed though, it seems to be more flexible on matching header fields than most other email clients I've used in the past. On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:13:13 -0500 Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:00:38AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: >> >> I don't- IMHO it's stupid to waste the precious bits in the subject >> line to say "[ietf] " because there is no need for such. The messages >> can be filtered better using other thods as well, and humans can look >> at the headers.. > >I agree, for filtering everything's in the header already. > >Tim I do not use eudora to forward list mail to separate mail boxes. therefore if i don't start list filtering into seperate mail boxes, i am forced to guess where a piece of mail might be ietf since adding 6 characters to ever subject headers is judged unhelpful and > unacceptable? There is no sure way at all to tell from a subject line whether its IETF and to complain about adding 6 ascii characters to a subject line wasting bits if it gives several thousand humans a hint as to whether to open and read, or delete unopened, or delete mail to spam mail box seems to be strange. But this point of view i guess is why the list keepers have not yet and probably never will do what most of the other lists that I receive do. -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Googin on real time global corp. http://cookreport.com/12.11.shtml Purchase 10 years of back issues at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free World Dial up 17318 = -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Googin on real
Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 08:00:38AM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: I don't- IMHO it's stupid to waste the precious bits in the subject line to say "[ietf] " because there is no need for such. The messages can be filtered better using other thods as well, and humans can look at the headers.. I agree, for filtering everything's in the header already. Tim I do not use eudora to forward list mail to separate mail boxes. therefore if i don't start list filtering into seperate mail boxes, i am forced to guess where a piece of mail might be ietf since adding 6 characters to ever subject headers is judged unhelpful and unacceptable? There is no sure way at all to tell from a subject line whether its IETF and to complain about adding 6 ascii characters to a subject line wasting bits if it gives several thousand humans a hint as to whether to open and read, or delete unopened, or delete mail to spam mail box seems to be strange. But this point of view i guess is why the list keepers have not yet and probably never will do what most of the other lists that I receive do. -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Googin on real time global corp. http://cookreport.com/12.11.shtml Purchase 10 years of back issues at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free World Dial up 17318 =
Re: Adding SpamAssassin Headers to IETF mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...we are planning to turn on SpamAssassin on all IETF mail... good would it be asking too much to add [ietf] to the subject line of each message? -- = The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Googin on real time global corp. http://cookreport.com/12.11.shtml Purchase 10 years of back issues at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free World Dial up 17318 =
Why Does the US Have Expensive & Obsolescent Broadband?
Why Does the US Have Expensive and Obsolescent Broadband? COOK Report, Comparing US and Canada, Scrutinizes Current State of Regulatory Gridlock Introduction - Eyes Wide Shut For the full story http://cookreport.com/12.10.shtml The talk is all about investment in broadband. But the reality is the use of lobbying and lawyers to twist the framework of regulations so that cablecos and telcos are free to sell expensive and obsolescent broadband. This issue of the COOK Report scrutinizes the current state of regulatory gridlock in the USA. It looks to Canada to answer questions like why Bell Canada's cost for DSL is only 10.95 Canadian and most American prices are nearly $40. We claim that building a broadband infrastructure is important. The tardy telcos say that they need encouragement given the huge expense of the buildout. However, the poor quality, broadband DSL offered is likely so cheap to deliver that the result is a subsidy of the inefficiencies of the old phone network. The goal is supposed to be radical change. The result is likely more of the same. As we shall show, policy is built on a wing and a prayer because we simply have no way to find out what DSL actually costs companies like Verizon and SBC to deliver. This issue of the COOK Report describes how and why telecom regulation in the US was successful until the collapse of the bubble at the end of the century. In discussions with Scott McCollough and Francois Menard it then explains the steps that the Powell FCC is taking to give the ILECs and Cablecos in the US what they want. Starting with the cable networks American policy, destroying incentive to innovate, is now founded on giving free reign to the TV content monopoly with its huge captive installed Internet base so that it can pay down some of its debt and have a cash flow large enough to pay the demands of the sports channels for increased viewing fees. These people who have no clue that Internet is something other than another form of entertainment and have no regulatory oversight are investing capital in the wage demands of sports figures and entertainers rather than in infrastructure and tools necessary to enable individual Americans to compete in the global economy. Japan, Korea and perhaps China are instead following policies that will enable them to do in telecommunications and information technology in general in the first half of this century what Americans did in the last half of the century just ended. Watching the deployment of global broadband it is hard to see the United States as anything else except the 21st century "new" Roman Empire with Washington running the printing presses and our public and regulatory policy captive to the local phone companies that are unwilling and perhaps fiscally unable to cast off their 19th century roots. Extend to us the freedom that you have offered to the cable networks they say. While once staid and traditional Japan engages in creative destruction (or reconstruction) of its copper local loop with soon to be offered 40 megabit per second DSL, in the US, the two mega (SBC & Verizon) and two semi mega (BellSouth and Qwest) local phone companies invest in armies of lawyers to co-opt the FCC and the PUCs in each of the states fighting for their right to deliver what is usually sub-megabit-per-second, "so called" DSL broadband to American homes. It should not be surprising that the market for DSL equipment innovation is Korea, and Japan. And Europe. Not the imperial US where the LECs invest in lawyers rather than innovation. While in Canada the LEC and cableco's are effectively competing, in the US they have a tacit agreement not to compete with the telco's beginning to drop the price of DSL significantly below cable modem which, rather than cut its prices, increases its bandwidth download from a possible maximum of 1.5 to a possible maximum of 3 megabits per second . Consequently, a small business like The COOK Report is stuck paying $43 a month to a Comcast that thinks the Internet is just a different form of TV and delivers abysmal service. Were it not for Vonage, we'd happily go back to dial up. The situation is laden with irony. Given different priorities stemming from less backward looking imperial leadership, there is no technological reason that, on short urban cooper loops, the ILECs could not be delivering 10 to 20 megabit per second DSL in American cities. American ILECs acknowledge that DSL can reach 80 to 90 percent of their customers. But the wait is going to be a long time because there is no competition. As readers of our interview with Pedestal Networks will see, the coverage extension is achieved by installation in small LEC owned remote cabinets known as serving area interfaces. There is no way that an ILEC will give a competitor access to those interfaces. And with the FCC's intent to declare bro
Our findings on the emptying out of Title II
gulation, telcos requested and received forbearance from regulating the otherwise common carrier and hence regulated aspects of DSL. 21. The problem here was that with dial up ISPs did not need to be to have access to and make changes to the physical guts of the network. They could effectively attach CPE (modems) at each end. Why Title II for DSL Matters to ISPs 22. However with DSL equipment had to be located in central offices or remotes and attached at many places to the copper plant to make it work. To do DSL a CLEC had to interface in a much more tightly coupled way with the copper plant than before. The copper plant had to be "tuned" to deliver the service in a way that dial up did not demand. The copper plant could be tuned by the LEC or some portion of it tuned and interconnected with by the CLEC. Then the LEC or CLEC would sell DSL transport to the ISP. 23. With access to the physical network necessary in a way that it was not before the change of technology, the telco has lots of new charges that it can levy against those CLECs who would like to be able to independently offer the service. Collocation charges, interconnection charges, engineering study and design charges. 24. ISPs do not get to collocate, interconnect, or obtain UNEs. They are ESPs, not carriers. Only carriers have 251/2 rights. ESPs buy service from LECs. DSL Transport is a telecommunications service; the ISP uses the LEC's DSL service, which is a bundle of the loop and DSLAM and requires another service (ATM, frame relay, Gig-E) to get to the cloud. The ISP is buying a service from the LEC. Computer Inquiry. The ISP then adds its information service on top of the telecom service and provides high speed Internet access to customers. 25. CLECs - be they companies like COVAD or 'affiliates like SBC ASI -- obtain a DSL capable loop, collocate in a CO or remote and install the DSLAM. They get UNEs and collocation under 251/2. The LEC then provides a telecommunications service to the ISP, which adds its information service on top of the telecom service and provides high speed Internet access to customers. For points 26 - 39 see http://cookreport.com/12.10.shtml -- ===== The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Independent ISPs Likely Demise? http://cookreport.com/12.09.shtml Purchase 10 years of back issues at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314 E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] or use [EMAIL PROTECTED] Free World Dial up 17318 =
Announcing Availability of free Cook Report back Issues
Well over a year ago someone on Nanog asked me why I didn't give away back issues. I said I planned to give them away at the Creative Commons web site. I sent a bunch to them on a CD rom but as far as I know nothing happened. OK - The wait is over and more than 10 years of back issues are now available at no cost. Two from just over a year ago instantaneously. The rest by registration or on a CD from Cafe Press. At http://cookreport.com/ you will find pointers to the following changes. 1. COOK Report Back issues available three different ways. (a) You can down load past issues from April 1992 through June July 2002 by registering and having me assign a username and password. (b) The issues of April - May and June July 2002 are instantly down loadable without registration via 2 links at the top of the home page. (c) Back issues on a cd rom including the august october 2002 issue not available on the website are also available at http://www.cafeshops.com/cookreportinter.6936314 2. There are also some very nice endorsements. 3. There are two small forums one where you can make comments and a second one way mail list from me that you can sign up for. In the next 30 days I may install an actual blog - namely Greymatter http://noahgrey.com/greysoft/ I would welcome comments on what folk find. -- = The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA 609 882-2572 (PSTN) 703 738-6031 (Vonage) 17318 (FWD) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtmlFiber & Wireless as First Mile Technology - Fiber Business Models & Architecture, July- September 2003, 130 pages available at http://cookreport.com/12.04-06.shtml =
Re: Root Server DDoS Attack: What The Media Did Not Tell You
Louis Touton is Vice President and General Counsel of ICANN. yes true ICANN has had a root server advisory committee from early days, working on root server placement to improve resilience; would you be kind enough to offer a url that points to what this group has done? they had a CRADA to do something. I am unaware that they ever did anything. but perhaps I missed the announcement. the security and stability advisory committee was created in the wake of 9/11 and has increased the priority of root server security evaluation. Vint said "has increased the priority of root server security evaluation" This is an interesting comment. Again Vint please be concrete. What precisely have they done? Where is their report? Have they ever actually had a meeting? URL. Press releasesome definite citation please. -- ==== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtmlSummary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Info on Economics of Peering, Transit & IXs November - December 118 pages available at http://cookreport.com/11.08-09.shtml
Re: Comments and alternatives to draftt-huston-ietf-pact-00(long)
this has to be a new record for the ietf's broken mail list software. I have now received 12 copies of johns 23 kbs 11:52 am essay -- The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtmlSummary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Info on Economics of Peering, Transit & IXs November - December 118 pages available at http://cookreport.com/11.08-09.shtml
Report on Peering and Transit Economics (etc)
I have published an extremely detailed report on the economics, technology, and politics of peering and transit. At http://cookreport.com/11.08-09.shtml you will find the complete introductory article, contents and list of 25 contributors to the effort. The report centers on interviews with Bill Woodcock, an essay / critique by Farooq Hussain and an edited version of the 6 weeks of discussion by the 25 contributors. I include here the executive summary from the report. This summary is not on my web site and I am not posting it elsewhere. Executive Summary Whither the Policy, Technology, and Economics of the Interconnection of the Internet? The collapse of the industry and of the price of bandwidth is bringing significant changes into the ways in which ISPs and the remnants of the Old Guard of Tier 1 backbones interconnect. Some people who are affected have made some significant steps in using NetFlow data in developing tools that are being refined into what can function as bandwidth cost management systems. We identify several explorations being taken in this direction and explore what looks to be the most refined developed by Bill Woodcock with the assistance of Alex Tudor at Agilent Labs. Bill has developed a philosophy of interconnection that appears to have a sound business model behind it. Bill's approach was developed from the point of view of a small ISP that needs to understand with as much precision as possible what it does cost to get its bandwidth delivered. His model says that ISPs that are multi-homed and have their own leased line customers need to peer as much and as cheaply as possible. They also need to have two reliable transit providers in case one fails. As long as their peering can cut over to transit if it fails, he points out that economics would seem to demand delivery of as much bandwidth by cheap peering as possible to cut down on the requirement for expensive transit bandwidth. ISPs need to avoid local loop charges from their LECs and acquire their own back haul to an exchange for inexpensive peering and if possible a different exchange or exchanges for more reliable transit. In order to figure how to most cost effectively architect their networks they need to take and manipulate NetFlow samples of their traffic in order to identify potential new peers via a study of the traffic being delivered by their transit providers. If they have automated tools to take samples from appropriate points, they can over time get clear pictures of how their traffic is evolving through actual NetFlow path analysis. But Woodcock's colleagues seem to agree that he has done something unique. He explains it in writing for the first time in this issue of the COOK Report. Namely he does what he calls synthetic path analysis by tacking his actual path data and doing a series of "what if" transformations on that data. With the help of Alex Tudor from Agilent labs he explains using actual data from January 31 2002 how this synthetic analysis can be applied so that for the first time an ISP, by plugging circuit cost data into its modeling software, can know how much it really does cost to deliver its bits. These ideas are new. While our experts agreed that perhaps 100 ISPs may be doing some form of actual NetFlow data analysis, virtually no one except Woodcock had done the synthetic path analysis. Avi Freedman in his position as Chief Network Scientist at Akamai has had ample occasion to use network routing and DNS to figure out data flows. After studying Bill Woodcock's explanation found that he had evidence from his own related experience that indicated Bill's approach seemed valid. He points out that since 1999 he has been doing a "what if" analysis on "Akamai flows" similar to Woodcock's synthetic path analysis on router flows. Our 50,000 word eight week long discussion involving 25 different people contains a quite interesting dialog between the Avi and Bill as they compare their approaches to the problem and conclude that the ideas appear to be valid. However, we must also point out that Bill's synthetic path analysis is not meant to be the sole criterion on which to base peering and transit decisions. Once they have identified potentially good peers, ISPs will find that factors of geography and costs of interconnection at various exchanges may become decisive factors in making their final decisions. Although the largest carriers generally prohibit their technical people from participating in this kind of discussion, we were fortunate to get participation from large representatives of both the cable modem and DLS worlds (namely Adelphia and SBC). At the most general level these larger players seem to acknowledge the validity of Woodcock's ideas. However, one things get specific, they maintain that differences in the sizes of the
Re: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"
Keith you have put your finger squarely on the nub of what is wrong with this RFC . I recommend to you and other list members the essay of Yochai Benkler. Grab the whole essay with the following URL. Benkler asks that we consider what we are doing. Building the perfect shopping mall or the great agora. His question is the same as yours. i quote my own summary from COOK Report volume 11, nos. 3-4, pp. 5-6 Consider Benkler's challenge in his two year old essay: "From Consumers to Users: Shifting the Deeper Structures of Regulation Toward Sustainable Commons and User Access." The complete paper is found at: http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v52/no3/benkler1.pdf In April of 2000 he closed this article with the following eloquent plea. "Once legislatures conceive of those whose welfare they serve as users, rather than as consumers, the relevant focus of regulation should shift to enabling the widest possible range of users to use the resource for active communication, not simply for passive reception." This we contend is the critical question never asked. Why are we building these communications systems? To provide services and make money of course. But what is it that we expect the system to do? Enable a new generation of couch potatoes like the television of the last major communications revolution? Or, since we now know and understand that this technology makes possible, will we ask that the legal power of the state be invoked to ensure that those who pay for it will be able to run their own web sites, host their own discussion forums, publish their own research and opinions or run their own electronic store fronts? Who Will Own the Printing Press? Benkler's analysis shows that these are the most fundamental and basic questions. Ones that must be answered before a legal and regulatory approach is applied to the technology. If we answer that we are going to build a legal and regulatory framework that enables users rather than consumers, our entire approach must change in radical ways to be in keeping with the goals that we wish to use the law and regulation to achieve. Two years ago Benkler pointed out that the approach being undertaken was to enable consumers. He suggested that, perhaps, it was being done perhaps out of ignorance. After two more years of life on the fast track aimed at the creation of Internet-couch-potatoe-consumers, we can no longer claim ignorance of what we are allowing our politicians and the FCC to do. Consider again Benkler's call to arms: "Today, as the Internet and the digitally networked environment present us with a new set of regulatory choices, it is important to set our eyes on the right prize. That prize is not the Great Shopping Mall in Cyberspace. That prize is the Great Agora-the unmediated conversation of the many with the many. [snip] An open, free, flat, peer-to-peer network best serves the ability of anyone-individual, small group, or large group-to come together to build our information environment. It is through such open and equal participation that we will best secure both robust democratic discourse and individual expressive freedom." > > well, keith since we cannot amend RFCs maybe you should prepare >one of your own? > >maybe. > >> I am not sure that the idea of killing intellectual property is >>the right one either. >> We all know there is something wrong with the current set up but I >>am no sure that >> the wholesale dispatch of Intellectual Property concepts is the >>right answer either! > >nor did I quite suggest doing that. > >however, there seems to be a strong and alarming tendency for global >legal frameworks on >IPR to discourage, rather than encourage, the notion that the >Internet is for everyone. >or perhaps they encourage the notion that the Internet is for >everyone to be a consumer >of works that are produced and controlled by a few large companies, >rather than a vehicle >which enables everyone to share their ideas, expressions, and >experiences with others. > >Keith -- The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtmlSummary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Whither License Exempt Wireless? 112 page - June July issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.03-4.shtml
We Should be Overcoming ICANN by Listening to Paul Baran
r needed to be an authority to give permission to communicate. Given the many kinds networks that choose to connect to the Internet, it has never been possible to reach from one point every single other point on the Internet. Nevertheless, the Internet still works just fine thank you. The Overcoming ICANN manifesto hints at all manner of sinister disasters waiting to happen. And yes those who favor the total control model, the adult supervision model and the Really Great Shopping Mall have reason to be afraid. Their vision is breaking apart as it should. The rest of us have no reason to fear. Not, as long as we wake up, look at what the architecture is telling us and vote with our DNS for the inclusive roots. The "adult" supervisors fooled us once. We now have plenty of evidence not to let them fool us again. Should they do so we would have proven ourselves to be the children they perceive us to be. We must not permit them to replicate their previous errors, but send them back instead to study the wisdom of the inventor of the packets that started it all - Paul Baran. -- The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtmlSummary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml The Future of the Industry - Googin & Odlyzko on telco viability - April may issue available at http://cookreport.com/11.02.shtml
one copy sent to list but THREE returned
I sent but a single copy of 'empowering' to the list. It returned THREE to me. If everyone else got 3, my apologies. If anyone can inform me as to what happened i'd appreciate it. -- ==== The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription info & prices at http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtmlSummary of content for 10 years at http://cookreport.com/past_issues.shtml Empowering the Customer or Empowering the Telco? Information on just published 458 page report at http://cookreport.com/empowering.shtml
Empowering the Customer or Empowering the Telco - State of the Internet 2002 (abridged) Published annually to the IETF list
Empowering the Customer or Empowering the Telco State of the Internet 2002: Assessing the Technical, Economic and Policy Consequences Behind the Collapse of 2001 In its examination of the impact of Internet technology on global telecommunications during 2001, this report will bring into focus changes that are reshaping one of the world's largest and most critical industries in ways unforeseen only a year ago. Neither the Internet nor the phone companies are going away. However, while technology continues to reshape possibilities for industry markets, it is having economic impacts in 2002 that will increase the risks and opportunities for informed managers, financial planners and policy makers. As the reverberations from the collision of the tectonic plates of Internet and "telco" seek to establish some new equilibrium, the architecture of the Internet is shifting and becoming more complex. Issues of control seem more and more important. To the extent that a nethead versus bellhead philosophy is still meaningful the difference between the two is reflected less in the technology being used and more in ideas about where control is to be located. Trends: Technology and Economics The most significant technology trend that we see is one that will present managers, investors and policy makers with a choice pointed out by the title of this report. Empower the user. Or empower the telco. Choices are being made. The technologists are driving control of lambdas into the hands of end users. Peer-to-peer, as software and infrastructure, is enabling the formation of communities of users at the network's edges. Here the goal is generally to make the center and anything associated with it disappear. Huge fortunes are being wagered on the web based client server model. The bell heads and walled garden guardians may find out too late that their centralized content control model is not the only way to do business. The impact of technology on network architecture will be the most important trend to watch in 2002. But, as many have found out to their dismay, we can no longer make intelligent decisions in telecommunications absent a thorough understanding of the industry's economic picture. Indeed analysis of technology trends done without understand of their economic impact, are, in this climate, of limited use. Therefore, the remainder of this summary will turn to economic issues. The COOK Report started publication a decade ago as the Internet was in its early stages of commercialization. Ten years and a trillion dollars in global investment later we have witnessed dramatic changes in global telecommunications. But what we have now is not what any reasonable person would call "success." The old technology did not collapse under the onslaught of a triumphant new global packet network bringing vast amounts of inexpensive bandwidth to every home and business. One reason it did not was that the technologists were so certain of the superiority of their product and were so good at driving the hype that got them their early stage capital investment they were able to sail forward without a long term viable business model for what they were doing. Build it and you will be saved - somehow. The provisioning of vast amounts of cheap bandwidth was seen as a sustainable business model for the Internet. The problem is that ten years on the bandwidth business model has not proven to be a viable one. The question is whether bandwidth is something on which a business model can be built? Or is bandwidth, like a highway, just an enabler? We started out a decade ago talking about the information super highway and then proceeded to try to build multiple global privatized versions. Imagine if Ford had spent tens of billions building a global interstate for its cars. While GM. Daimler-Chrysler and Honda and Toyota had each done the same thing. What has been built are highways with largely identical performance and capable of huge indiscriminate through-put of "vehicles" or packets. They have lead to an unsustainable business model. "Become a customer of my commodity system." "No. Not his. Mine. I just doubled the speed and I will sell you access for 20% less. I only had to borrow another billion dollars against my non existent profits." Yes we have a train wreck. Any wonder? But remember after all the investors were being sold a product that moved at 'Internet speed' and hyped as a global, winner-take-all, economy-of-scale, build out where one year in Internet time was said to equal seven ordinary years and where there would be a 'winner" with first mover advantage. The new Internet world was hyped as one where regulation was unneeded because it would slow the rate of adoption of the new technology. Consequently, all the big pl
contents July COOK Report on Ethernet in the first mile
The COOK Report on Internet July 2001 (Vol. 10, No. 4) CONTENTS Tools For Access And Scaling: Ethernet In The First Mile, 10 Gig In Backbone, ENUM In PSTN -- Jonathan Thatcher & Howard Frazier Explain Standards Goals Of EFM, Discuss How Ethernet Is Changing The Access Space Impacting Product Development, Time Lines, & Broadband Infrastructure, pp. 1 -23 The Future Of Telecom As Customer Owned Assets, p. 23 ENUM Pushes Convergence By Facilitating Voip Access To Global PSTN Numbers Rutkowski's Opposition Deflects IETF - ITU Plans Mail List Debate Shows Significance Not Well Understood, pp. 24 - 43 Where ICANN Would Like To Push the Internet, p. 43 End Notes: Dave Hughes Blasts Alaskan Telephone Association Before FCC -- A Look At FCC Resources For Small ISPs -- A Critique Of Tauzin Dingell, pp. 44 - 47 Executive Summary, pp. 48-50 ====== COOK Report Summary or [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a distribution list for the monthly free summary of the COOK Report on Internet. You should expect to receive the monthly summary that is usually between 7 and 15 thousand characters long. You may get one or two other messages a month. This list is intended for distribution and not discussion. Anything posted to the list will bounce to me. I regard this as an experiment and reserve the right at my discretion to change list policy. To subscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'subscribe cookrepsum' in the body. To unsubscribe send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe cookrepsum" in the body Full text of executive summary is also available at http://cookreport.com/10.04.shtml -- The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 9 years of the COOK Report at http://cookreport.com For info on new report go to http://cookreport.com/lightipgige.shtml . 'Light IP & Gig E" serves as tutorial on on going economic model of Internet infrastructure - $375.00
table of contents - june cook report on internet
The COOK Report on Internet June 2001 (Vol. 10, No. 3) CONTENTS Netera Offers CWDM Gig E Backbone -- SUPERNET to Bring Fiber to Entire Province --Focus on Alberta in Assessing Canadian Development in Current Economic Downturn -- A Canadian US Policy Technology Overview and Comparison, pp. 1-15 How to Tell the Difference Between a Switch and a Router, pp. 15 Texas.net - Business Oriented ISP Serves State's Four Major Metro Areas -- Focus on Leased Lines, Usenet Outsourcing and Management Services for Web Farms -- So Far Has Not Needed to Follow Net Access' Dark Fiber Model, pp. 16- 23 BGP Routing System Scaling Problems -- IETF Sets Out to Redesign BGP4 -- A Known Problem: Noel Chiappa in Pages of April 1997 COOK Report Called for Redesign of BGP, pp. 24 - 26 How Media Companies are Conspiring with Hardware Companies to Misuse Copy Protection in Order to Cripple What Consumers Have Rights to Do -- An Excellent Survey, by John Gilmore, pp. 27 - 30 Executive Summary, pp. 30 - 32 == COOK Report Summary or [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a distribution list for the monthly free summary of the COOK Report on Internet. You should expect to receive the monthly summary that is usually between 7 and 15 thousand characters long. You may get one or two other messages a month. This list is intended for distribution and not discussion. Anything posted to the list will bounce to me. I regard this as an experiment and reserve the right at my discretion to change list policy. To subscribe by sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'subscribe cookrepsum' in the body. To unsubscribe send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with 'unsubscribe cookrepsum" in the body Full text of executive summary is also available at http://cookreport.com/10.02.shtml -- **** The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 9 years of the COOK Report at http://cookreport.com For info on new report go to http://cookreport.com/lightipgige.shtml . 'Light IP & Gig E" serves as tutorial on on going economic model of Internet infrastructure - $375.00
Light, PI Gig E - 2001 Annual Report seehttp://cookreport.com/lightipgige.shtml
Light, IP and Gigabit Ethernet A Road Map for Evaluation of Technology Choices Driving the Future Evolution of Telecommunications - 2000 COOK Report Interviews - Introduction to the 6th in an annual series. Contrary to some opinions, the COOK Report finds that the Internet revolution is not spelled dot com. The revolution is in fact to be found in a total revamping of the transport of bits. While the dot com empires of 1999 collapsed in 2000 the cost effectiveness of pushing the Internet Protocol over glass yielded more dividends than ever before. A growing amount of telecom traffic has migrated to a growing amount of fiber. The pure Internet play throws out SONET effectively doubling available fiber in the case where redundant loops were used. Whereas lighting each new fiber used to call for new bays of OC-48 SONET equipment at perhaps $100,000 a bay and up, a strand can now be lit at a gigabit by a $7,000 Ethernet switch on each end. While gigabit Ethernet over glass is the current preferred Internet way, ten gigabit Ethernet transport will be arriving by year's end. If 40 lambdas per strand were high end in 2000, 160 is likely to be common by year's end. With the completion of multiple metro fiber build outs, end-to-end fiber may now be taken or granted by most business customers. The explosion of bandwidth as the result of more fiber and technology that squeezes more bandwidth from each strand has meant that, in some instances, the delivery of a gigabit costs about what a T-1 did a decade ago. The bottom line is that telecommunications which is prepared to forego traversing the legacy PSTN is now upwards of 1000 times cheaper than that which powers a circuit-switched voice call. While corporate managed VPNs have been able to avoid the PSTN for some time, a new development has emerged in Canada where customer management of optical wavelengths using the OBGP protocol holds the promise that by year's end users of Canada's new public sector gigabit Ethernet over fiber infrastructure will be avoiding carrier clouds entirely. At the basic levels of both transport and network management the Internet revolution is shaping up to tell the PSTN that it is no longer needed. In telephony meanwhile protocols are being developed that will allow the diversion of large amounts of PSTN traffic to the Internet. ENUM is the major such protocol. This will allow Internet carriers to offer and deliver many services to PSTN attached phones that the PSTN itself cannot negotiate. Other protocols such as instant messaging are shaping up as coordinators for PSTN activity and off on switches that can control Internet connected devices. Fiber to the home is becoming more common and companies like World Wide Packets are gearing up to make gigabit Ethernet termination equipment that will give connected families, telephone, fax, high end video, ordinary TV and data off of the same line. Canarie the Canadian advanced internet agency has some interesting ideas about these developments stating that Divergence rather than Convergence may be the key to low cost fiber to the home. Here is a narrative paraphrase of the language of a slide from the presentation 'Optical Communities' in September 2000. When people first started looking at Fiber to the Home (FTTH), they deemed it to be too expensive because it assumed all services would be converged - date, voice and video. They noted that expensive terminal equipment would be required to segregate voice, data and video services at the home. Meanwhile voice traffic has largely gone wireless. Note that lifeline voice can significantly increase system costs by demanding high reliability and depending for this on DC battery power, 911 services. Perhaps it is time to conclude that the big driver for residential broadband is not voice or video. It is the Internet. Very soon Internet will carry video and second line voice. So instead of building a converged network such as FSAN, HFC, etc build an Internet network only. Divergence rather than Convergence may be the key to low cost FTTH. While the power of the new systems is awesome, there are additional issues that will keep very interesting the life of anyone who must evaluate these changes and plan a winning strategy for the future. While one better be aware of the key differences in the power of the technology when compared to the circuit switched world's way of doing things, one also needs to understand that progress has, in this case, waded out into new and uncertain territory. There are some growth and scaling issues where the answers are not yet clearly understood. For example readers should consider Bill St. Arnaud's paper on scaling issues of Internet growth. < http://www.canet3.net/library/papers/scaling.html> If the suppositions in this paper prove to be correct, then the role of backbones will h
100th Issue of The COOK Report on Internet (September 2000)
cabal, it extended once again the terms of four of the original
directors through the annual meeting in November 2002. It decided to
study the question of whether it should even have an at large
membership. In its efforts to make certain that no one outside the
original cabal would ever have a voice it entered the following
paragraph into its by laws: "The Corporation shall not have members
as defined in the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law
("CNPBCL"), notwithstanding the use of the term "Member" in these
bylaws, in a selection plan adopted by Board resolution, or in any
other action of the Board. Instead, the Corporation shall allow
individuals (described in these bylaws as "Members") to participate
in the activities of the Corporation as described in this Article II
and in a selection plan adopted by Board resolution, and only to the
extent set forth in this Article II and in a selection plan adopted
by particular router, when that ISP needs to move up to something like
defining an end-to-end service for a particular customer, there is a
big void. Providing such solutions are challenges that happen both
within and between Board resolution."
Optical BGP Proposed as Means of Wide Area Interconnection of
Bandwidth-Rich Edges Without Burdening Largest Backbones With
Additional Traffic Created by Gigabit Ethernet and Dark Fiber Driven
Local Bandwidth Explosion pp. 22-24
"OBGP is a proposed extension to BGP for the manipulation of optical
cross connects to permit them to be automatically setup and
configured as BGP speaking devices to support multiple direct optical
lightpaths between many different autonomous domains. OBGP may also
allow customers at the edge to control a subset of lightpaths within
another network's wavelength cloud so that they can manage their own
light path routing within that cloud." . . . . [We suggest
treating] 'each optical cross connect as an independent virtual BGP
router with only one input port and one output port. A virtual BGP
router can then be set up for each optical cross connect and separate
BGP sessions initiated with its peers." . . . . "The physical
characteristics of a lightpath give it an intrinsic capability of
being a "poor man's" logical switched path with a predefined Quality
of Service. " . . . . "The exchange of lightpaths may also allow
for a simpler mechanism to allow for settlement in peering and
transit between ISPs." . . . . "In future there may even be
wavelength commodity markets where ISPs can trade wavelengths and
adjacencies on the open market."
--
The COOK Report on Internet Index to 8 years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Have you done your part to keep
[EMAIL PROTECTED] the Internet free from ICANN's control?
Replace your machine's DNS numbers from http://dnsroot.org/ today
Apologies for double send !
I had one queued for IETF and stopped the transmission from eudora before it completed. Or so I thought! I had not finished my edits on it . The two pieces were not the same. But I sincerely regret letting the first escape eudora said it was still queued. Any way I sent it here primarily because I thought the Kathy Nicols interview would be interesting for those not in the diffserv WG. Rest assured I have no intention of adding ietf to my monthly distribution. again my apologies - this is not the place to suffer hand eye brain coordination lapse. ARGH - AND NOW FOR 20 MINUTES I CAN'T CONNECT WITH EARTH LINK'S SERVER.. ARGH - I AM TRYING **** The COOK Report on Internet Index to 8 years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) Battle for Cyberspace: How [EMAIL PROTECTED] Crucial Technical . . . - 392 pages just published. See http://cookreport.com/ipbattle.shtml
March COOK report Summary ONLY /Diff serv interview and 10 Gig Estandards/
implement the policy goals of the behavior aggregate. Two ISP may be able to solve cross ISP policy issues by sitting down with each other and selecting Diffserv compatible tools that would not have to be the exact same tool. It is Diffserv's intention to give them tools by which they can achieve common QoS outcomes by means that inside their respective networks may be quite different. ~~~ ALL RESPONSIBILITY DISINTERMEDIATED FROM DNS FIX NEW ICANN DOC SHARED REGISTRY SYSTEM ENABLES REGISTRARS, SHARED REGISTRY AND ICANN TO DISCLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL ACTIONS THAT INJURE REGISTRANTSpp. 20 - 26 In mid January Wired http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,33753,00.html published a delightful summary of the results of Beckwith Burr', ICANN's, and NSI's redesign of the DNS system. People were buying a domain name and paying for it at the time of purchase only to see it sold out from underneath them the very next day to someone else. For the little guy the Internet's domain name system had been put at risk by the Clinton Gore bureaucrats. No mater: the large, powerful and rich had the ICANN uniform dispute resolution policy and the even more Draconian cyber squatting legislation. ICANN had done a superb job of freeing the corporate trademark attorneys to do their thing. It had done this by creating a jury-rigged system where registrars could say that mistakes belonged to the registry which in turn could say it was playing by ICANN rules while ICANN disclaimed all responsibility for breakages in the system. According to Wired, "ICANN said it was not responsible for domain name discrepancies between registrars and their customers. The COOK Report reminds its readers that to be functional a domain name must be part of the registry database that determines what other names are taken and is responsible for getting the names into the root servers where down line DNS servers can find them. The operation of the new system has been rigged by ICANN so that, while the registry gets names to advertise, it gets no information about the owners of the names in whose interest it is doing the advertisement. This information is known to the Registrars whose agreements with ICANN give them enforceable rights vis-à-vis the Registry. But the customers who pay a registrar to act as the intermediary between them and the registry have no enforceable rights what so ever to the use of the domain names for which they pay. We do not know who designed and put in place this truly bizarre system. It was ICANN but the secret process by which it was done inside of ICANN has remained opaque to everyone on the outside. As far as we can tell, ICANN rules by having its Jones Day attorneys, Touton and Sims work with Esther Dyson and Mike Roberts to establish policy that disenfranchises every Internet user (who does not also pay the necessary fees to become a registrar) of any rights to receive the benefits of the products for which they have paid. The registrar is fee to do anything it chooses with the domain name that it sells to the registrant. The system is also dependent for its operation on a shared registry protocol that has been (according to the testimony of some outside experts who advised NSI on its design) implemented in such a way as to make any accountability to the registrants and even to the registrars unlikely. NSI has sought what non experts will take as endorsement from the IETF by asking for publication of the protocol as an informational RFC. One of the experts who advised NSI in the design has protested loudly against the move and asked NSI to free him from his non disclosure agreement so that he may publish his criticism to allow independent observers to make their own judgements. NSI has refused. By the end of the month it was clear that the entire shared registry system was a design failure. As early as late December complaints of break downs were becoming evident. On December 23 on the Domain policy list at NSI list member "A" complained " Most whois clients query the public NSI Registry database first which only updates *once per day* so it's quite possible for someone to do a domain query and be shown the old whois information of the old registrar. Nothing is wrong. To which list member "B" replied: No, nothing is wrong as far as the design goes. But of course that [just looking at the design] is not far enough, is it? Therefore leaving the ability for registrars to "Steal" domain names and/or create a domain name conflict from the get go. Doesn't say much for stability, does it? Our article summarizes debate from the IETF and Domain Policy lists that makes quite clear the absurdity that the White House and its ice president is visiting upon the Internet. Froomkin & Auerbach
IP Everywhere - state of the Internet 2000http://cookreport.com/ipeverywhere.shtml
s the system grows sufficiently complex with fewer and fewer people competent or even able to direct its course, some may ask when does chaos set in and take control? Or when does Internet coordination become merely a series of panic stricken interventions where the "coordinators" lurch from one crises to the next while trying to keep all the "vested" interests in their same positions of dominance? Already technology that our political leaders do not understand is driving the formation of public policy. Thus, democratic values independent of the technology are no longer the primary public policy goals. These are additional "disruptive" effects of the triumphant Internet. Those who dare to assume the role of enterprise strategist in the midst of these changes must understand that their successful stewardship will depend on their grasp not only of what Gilder calls the ascendant technologies. They must also develop at least two other skill sets. One is an understanding that, as Lessig has shown so well, the success and visibility of the Internet has brought to it a level of attention where the legislators and the regulators will impact it whether the rest of us like it or not. [For Lessig's Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace see http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml ] The other is a skill set that will help strategists to evaluate the stakes behind the questions of what will become the engineering agenda for the Internet. Compromises have been made in network management that can spell trouble further down the road. To scale network growth and cope with available IPv4 numbers, design decisions compromising end-to-end connectivity were made in the early 1990s. As the long IETF discussion published in the February 2000 COOK Report [and reprinted pp. 259-272 below] shows, there is a fallout from these decisions. The fallout is an incipient battle over how some of the intelligent edge devices of the network will communicate through the center to their intelligent counterparts at the opposite edges. The approaches taken now as to early implementation versus delay and revision of IPv6 will impact the diversity of the infrastructure of the future Internet. Arcane but very important debates like these will determine whether issues of control over end-to-end uniformity and network transparency take priority over everything else. Will time spent toward these ends mean that other more critical engineering concerns are ignored? A feared consequence is that the Internet's ability to continue to scale may be endangered. Technology Changes The year just ended saw a continuation of the bandwidth revolution begun by the real take off of WDM technologies in 1997. New developments in DWDM (Dense Wave Division Multiplexing) and optical switching have further multiplied the bandwidth available from a global binge of fiber deployment. A revolutionary drop in the cost of data storage combined with increased network speeds is making it possible to deliver data across a wide area network more quickly and more cost effectively than across the bus on the motherboard of a single computer. These changes made the dream of the network becoming the computer - a dream that was first articulated earlier in the decade -seem likely to become true. They also made possible the rise of a new application service provider industry. The year also saw the full flowering of new global telecom providers built on the inexpensive infrastructure made possible by the new technology. Qwest, Level 3, Metromedia, Williams, Enron, Global Telesystems, Global Crossing, Next Link, Teleglobe, and Above Net to varying degrees are all examples of these new telecom giants. While Teleglobe has been around for a number of years in a rather different form, and Williams is a reincarnation of an earlier venture, all of these new players with the exception of Metromedia have been profiled within the pages of the COOK Report. Questions of interconnection and peering are still critical. Equinix's neutral Internet Business Exchanges to be built globally under contract with Bechtel will be the most high profile model for fitting the new backbone players together and enabling cost effective interconnection. As bandwidth consumption and fiber deployment soar the purchase of bandwidth has become especially tricky. Prices of bandwidth bought in bulk over long periods of time are plummeting and options of purchase are increasing. (See Figure I Fiber Optic Cost Trends and Figure X Bandwidth Market Matrix from TeleGeography 2000 on pages 2. and 161.) It is a buyer's market but a dangerous one as AboveNet found out when 14 months ago it paid over 8 million dollars for a 25 year IRU on a trans Atlantic STM-1 only to see the price of such an IRU plummet to less than 3 million a year later. Options are available for those who make this kind of mista
Re: oh merde! Patrick F. and ICANN board error
>At 09:38 PM 1/4/00 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote: > > I carry a lot of ICANN data around in my head and I am generally > >pretty good at it. However my attention has been called to the fact > >that I screwed up on my association with Patrick as an ICANN board > >member. Following a few URL trails I see that he and Goeff Huston > >were IETF nominees but that ETSI and W3C placed their folk on the > >board and IETF would up with only Vint. > >For the record, there is a PSO in the middle of that. IETF, ETSI, ITU, and >W3C (the members of the PSO) each nominated various and sundry for the >three board seats alloted to the PSO, and nominees from ETSI, W3C, and IETF >were selected. ITU was, er, displeased. > > >Wiping red face. > >For all you talk about ICANN, if the PSO involvement escaped you, your face >deserves to be red. I am well aware of the PSO and that aspect did not escape me.what did escape me (in part i suppose because I was in nepal from oct 13 to nov 6 and totally off net from roughly the 18th of oct to november 3 (trekking near everest)) was that nomination by IETF of Cerf, Falstrom and Huston was not tantamount to election. please see http://cookreport.com/neptibalb.shtml for short photo essay and satire (the masked dancing of the monks at the tengboche monastery reminded me of ICANN). **** The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ? [EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml
oh merde! Patrick F. and ICANN board error
Wiping red face. I carry a lot of ICANN data around in my head and I am generally pretty good at it. However my attention has been called to the fact that I screwed up on my association with Patrick as an ICANN board member. Following a few URL trails I see that he and Goeff Huston were IETF nominees but that ETSI and W3C placed their folk on the board and IETF would up with only Vint. So apologies to Patrick for placing him on a hook where he does not belong. Since Vint as the IETF board member wasn't involved with creating the protocol, I'd imagine that it would be a lot harder for a lawyer to come after him Still I would think that he might have an interest in how this is handled. ICANN may feel that it gets off scot free on this one but from my reading of some of the domain lists, a lot of people are beginning to ask what the hell ICANN is good for if it does nothing to police the screw ups from NSI's defective shared registry design. **** The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ? [EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml
Re: Last Call: Registry Registrar Protocol (RRP) Version 1.1.0 to Informational
ently and easily and freely accessible to the >entire Internet community forever. There are many Informational RFCs >that have been published for these reasons. > >--Paul Hoffman, Director >--Internet Mail Consortium The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax)Is ICANN an IBM e-business ? [EMAIL PROTECTED] See also Lessig's Code: and Other Laws of Cyberspace http://cookreport.com/lessigbook.shtml
