Re: PASSIVE [D]WDM... Like, Cisco 15216.
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Simon Lockhart wrote: I'm currently using the 15454 to wavelength convert OC48 signals, but have not to date seen a black-box wavelength convertor - I would also be interested to know if such a beast exists. I think if you want to do this, you're stuck with the Metro 1500 (or equivalent from someone else), which becomes very expensive quickly. Transmode http://www.transmode.com has both 1.25Ghz and 2.5Ghz units with where you pretty much can pick and choose your optics from 850nm MM, 1310, 1510, 1530, 1550 and 1570nm when you order. This is not a complete ITU grid from what I can find (I don't know exactly what ITU grid is but I found some specs) but rather for CWDM use. There should be quite a few manufacturers making units like these, I know the MRV people does it as well (or some company within MRV). -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
AS286 effectively no more..
Interesting how quietly one of the powerhouses in Europe has been shut down yesterday evening. Any notes on increased latency / routing issues wrt AS286 shutdown? --kauto Kauto Huopio - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Information Security Adviser Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority / CERT-FI tel. +358-9-6966772, fax. +358-9-6966515 CERT-FI duty desk +358-9-6966510 - http://www.cert.fi
Re: AS286 effectively no more..
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Huopio Kauto wrote: Interesting how quietly one of the powerhouses in Europe has been shut down yesterday evening. Any notes on increased latency / routing issues wrt AS286 shutdown? Does anyone know what happened to the Ebone/KPNQWEST European-wide DWDM system? I figure that if it was shut down, we would see more impact. Their IP network load I bet was quite easily handled by other operators considering the huge over-capacity situation we have had the past years. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AS286 effectively no more..
What is the legal position of an IRU deal if the cable owner goes belly up? Unless someone buys the equipment and agrees to theke the IRU:s on - they are worthless. - kurtis -
Re: AS286 effectively no more..
Does anyone know what happened to the Ebone/KPNQWEST European-wide DWDM system? I figure that if it was shut down, we would see more impact. It's beeing sold off in pices. Their IP network load I bet was quite easily handled by other operators considering the huge over-capacity situation we have had the past years. Uhm, how many pan-European _fiber_ owners is there? Not that many. Most of that over capacity was bought from KQ in Europe... Keep in mind that this is a game where everyone is dependent on everybody else. There isn't that much actual diverse fiber out there... - kurtis -
RE: AS286 effectively no more..
What is the legal position of an IRU deal if the cable owner goes belly up? Unless someone buys the equipment and agrees to theke the IRU:s on - they are worthless. How about duct IRU:s? --kauto
RE: AS286 effectively no more..
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: Unless someone buys the equipment and agrees to theke the IRU:s on - they are worthless. You can make fiber IRUs stick even if the company who bought the fiber goes belly up. IRUs (Indefeasible Rights of Use seems to be the acronym?) as far as I know, is just that, you actually own the fibers you IRUed for the time being. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AS286 effectively no more..
At 10:27 AM 25-07-02 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: Unless someone buys the equipment and agrees to theke the IRU:s on - they are worthless. You can make fiber IRUs stick even if the company who bought the fiber goes belly up. IRUs (Indefeasible Rights of Use seems to be the acronym?) as far as I know, is just that, you actually own the fibers you IRUed for the time being. Most IRU contracts I looked at before putting together ours did not specify a clause such as: Unless terminated earlier under Clauses 4.1, 4.2 or 4.3, this Agreement shall remain in force for a period of 15 (fifteen) years and shall be binding on the Supplier; any other legal entity which may replace the Supplier; the Supplier liquidator (should there be one) or anyone to whom the Supplier may transfer the rights and ownership of the underground fiber optic cables. Go look to see if your IRU contract has any clause about the supplier liquidator. -Hank -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
proposed changes in national cyber security
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_8.15.shtml#2 (2) NEW DEPARTMENT LIKELY TO GAIN AUTHORITY OVER CYBER SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION Both House and Senate bills would grant the Department of Homeland Security authority over cyber security and infrastructure protection. Specifically, the bills would transfer to the new department the functions of the following entities: * the National Infrastructure Protection Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (excluding the Computer Investigations and Operations Section); * the National Communications System of the Department of Defense; * the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department of Commerce; * the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center of the Department of Energy; * the Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General Services Administration. Following objections by the high-tech industry and others, the House bill would not transfer the Computer Security Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Senate bill as introduced would transfer that NIST component, along with the Energy Security and Assurance Program of the Department of Energy and the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration. Both bills would leave the FBI and CIA untouched by the reshuffling (with the exception of the FBI's NIPC, as noted above).
Re: AS286 effectively no more..
You can make fiber IRUs stick even if the company who bought the fiber goes belly up. IRUs (Indefeasible Rights of Use seems to be the acronym?) as far as I know, is just that, you actually own the fibers you IRUed for the time being. As with everything in life, it will always depend on the contract you have with your supplier and the contracts that you supplier has with this suppliers and so on. For example if Bozotelco builds a huge fibre network all over the world but then goes bust before they paid the bill for the fibre - who owns the fibre ? :-) Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AS286 effectively no more..
--On Thursday, July 25, 2002 11:23:38 +0300 Huopio Kauto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the legal position of an IRU deal if the cable owner goes belly up? Unless someone buys the equipment and agrees to theke the IRU:s on - they are worthless. How about duct IRU:s? Some what more complex and depends on the set-up of the company. You will need access to the manholes to start with..:) - kurtis -
Re: AS286 effectively no more..
Does anyone know what happened to the Ebone/KPNQWEST European-wide DWDM system? I figure that if it was shut down, we would see more impact. Most people have made other arrangements, and most of the IP customers were ISPs themselves with other upstreams. We have seen some issues with less direct paths to some carriers, but nothing an email to peering@ couldn't solve. Their IP network load I bet was quite easily handled by other operators considering the huge over-capacity situation we have had the past years. Indeed. Regards, Neil. -- Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AS286 effectively no more..
Uhm, how many pan-European _fiber_ owners is there? Not that many. Most of that over capacity was bought from KQ in Europe... COLT, Telia, Dynergy, BT Ignite [I think], Level 3, LDcom, others. KQ was excellent at marketing themselves as the only company who had pan-European fibre but the reality is far different. Well, several of the companies you mention above where actually large customers of KQ. Although you are right in that they had pices of the network themselves. I agree with you that KQ marketing was a stroy in itslef, but for pan-European fiber assets, there are very few own it all. - kurtis -
RE: QoS/CoS in the real world?
Appart from that this to me looks like a marketing post Sorry I didn't see this note earlier, but wanted to make you aware that Masergy Communications is actually offering such a service on a native MPLS based IP network. We provide differentiated IP services via native MPLS based IP network ? Native to what? MPLS based IP network. We provide differentiated IP services via customer DSCP marking at the network edge. QoS is supported end to end through the Masergy core via promotion to the MPLS EXP marking. Uhm, I never figured out why we need MPLS to honor the DSCP markings. After reading further in the text it doesn't seem to me as if you are using any of the MPLS features either... Sorry - I couldn't resist... - kurtis -
Re: AS286 effectively no more..
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:53:55 +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Their IP network load I bet was quite easily handled by other operators considering the huge over-capacity situation we have had the past years. Contributory cause? http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1234733 (Quick summary - Worldcom accused of contributing to the Internet bubble by overstating traffic growth) msg04024/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: proposed changes in national cyber security
...which probably means it would become a centralized office that continues to spin its wheels (instead of several doing the same thing - I guess that's a move toward cost-cutting!) while lawmakers defer the problem by funding additional research reports and projects instead of funding immediate ventures to remedy existing problems and known vulnerabilities... When it comes to information security - or technology society in general - the USG still doesn't get it, despite all the hype and hoopla. rick infowarrior.org From: Fred Heutte [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 01:18:33 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: proposed changes in national cyber security http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_8.15.shtml#2 (2) NEW DEPARTMENT LIKELY TO GAIN AUTHORITY OVER CYBER SECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION Both House and Senate bills would grant the Department of Homeland Security authority over cyber security and infrastructure protection. Specifically, the bills would transfer to the new department the functions of the following entities: * the National Infrastructure Protection Center of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (excluding the Computer Investigations and Operations Section); * the National Communications System of the Department of Defense; * the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office of the Department of Commerce; * the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center of the Department of Energy; * the Federal Computer Incident Response Center of the General Services Administration. Following objections by the high-tech industry and others, the House bill would not transfer the Computer Security Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The Senate bill as introduced would transfer that NIST component, along with the Energy Security and Assurance Program of the Department of Energy and the Federal Protective Service of the General Services Administration. Both bills would leave the FBI and CIA untouched by the reshuffling (with the exception of the FBI's NIPC, as noted above).
Re: AS286 effectively no more..
Well, several of the companies you mention above where actually large customers of KQ. Although you are right in that they had pices of the network themselves. I agree with you that KQ marketing was a stroy in itslef, but for pan-European fiber assets, there are very few own it all. Yes one of the myths that I used to hear was that COLTs european network relied upon KQ, which it didn't. The other issue is local network access of course, its fine having these huge fibre networks that are point to point, but you need to have the local access network to connect corporates. -- Neil J. McRae - Alive and Kicking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: AS286 effectively no more..
Yes one of the myths that I used to hear was that COLTs european network relied upon KQ, which it didn't. The other issue is local network As ex-KQ I agree with you. But there where plenty of others. access of course, its fine having these huge fibre networks that are point to point, but you need to have the local access network to connect corporates. This is true, and this is something that KQ (among others) missed out on. - kurtis -
Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes... The courts. There is no possible way that this bill (as I read it) could, in any way, be conceived as even remotely constitutional. This is pure vigilante: the entertainment thugs aren't the police and don't have the rights or authority to do anything other than report abuses to the *proper* authorities. Peace, Petr
Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:48:36 EDT, Petr Swedock said: The courts. There is no possible way that this bill (as I read it) could, in any way, be conceived as even remotely constitutional. This is pure vigilante: the entertainment The fact that a law is unconstitutional on the face of it has rarely stopped it in the past - that's why the courts have the authority to throw out bad laws. Unfortunately, we better be ready for several years of pain while a test case makes it way up the judicial pecking order... msg04030/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: How secure should it be? (was RE: password stores?)
Ah, There's the rub. Access has a range from open to closed. The point you choose along that line directly effects cost and ease of use. Put another way, Careful what you ask for, you may get it. Best regards, _ Alan Rowland To quote another NANOG poster's sig file that applies to this discussion: Wrong questions are the leading cause of wrong answers. -Original Message- From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: How secure should it be? (was RE: password stores?) snip... Should we secure routers better, worse or the same as burglar alarms? While I agree there are settings which are insecure, its seems like we haven't figured out the optimum level of security yet. Which may be less than what the experts think.
Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret and the letter of the Bill of Rights. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed. --On Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:40 -0400 Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes... Regards Marshall Eubanks -- Joseph T. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... preserve, protect and defend the constitution ... -- Presidential Oath of Office
RE: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
First I agree that this is BAD on general principle but... IANAL but IMHO spewing cracked copies of say, Photoshop, or other copyright violations might be considered probable cause with the specific place/things being the share program and it's contents. Sharing the content of your favorite program/CD/DVD with the world has never met fair use. I had significant input in my life regarding the difference between can and may. IMHO significant numbers of net citizens have forgotten that difference. Just my 2¢. Best regards, _ Alan Rowland -Original Message- From: Joseph T. Klein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 12:16 PM To: Marshall Eubanks; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking I would argue that my home computer is the repository of my papers and effects. No place in the below law does it limit the restriction to the government only. Indeed any law passed giving sanction to any party having the right IMHO is in direct violation of both the spiret and the letter of the Bill of Rights. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The dogs of stupidy have been unleashed. --On Wednesday, 24 July 2002 12:40 -0400 Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thought this would be considered on-topic as guess who would have to clean up the resulting messes... Regards Marshall Eubanks -- Joseph T. Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... preserve, protect and defend the constitution ... -- Presidential Oath of Office
Re: AS286 effectively no more..
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 09:46:07AM +0300, Huopio Kauto wrote: Interesting how quietly one of the powerhouses in Europe has been shut down yesterday evening. Any notes on increased latency / routing issues wrt AS286 shutdown? On a much quieter note, how many people noticed that AS1673 and 140.223/16 disappeared a few weeks ago? It looks like Worldcom actually managed to integrate something! (Just before they finish going out of business, too...) --msa
RE: QoS/CoS in the real world?
Kurtis, My apologies on the low SNR. The original question(s) centered around the customer requirements/applications/experience and I thought the product guys could speak to it better than I ... and certainly and without giving away any of our patent pending processes. :) I think native can be translated as to mean non-ATM. All core links are PPP/POS. MPLS does not imply or require DSCP, or vice versa. DSCP/EXP promotion ensures priority packets to be forwarded ahead of best effort at each hop thru the network. Could this be done other ways? Sure. The original question was how was/is this being done for customer traffic - this is how we do it in the core...along with queueing gymnastics. As for MPLS features, I think fast re-route qualifies. MPLS also provides traffic eng capabilities, as well as in-order packet delivery, which we've found to be useful for customer voice 'n video traffic. J -Original Message- From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 5:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: QoS/CoS in the real world? Appart from that this to me looks like a marketing post Sorry I didn't see this note earlier, but wanted to make you aware that Masergy Communications is actually offering such a service on a native MPLS based IP network. We provide differentiated IP services via native MPLS based IP network ? Native to what? MPLS based IP network. We provide differentiated IP services via customer DSCP marking at the network edge. QoS is supported end to end through the Masergy core via promotion to the MPLS EXP marking. Uhm, I never figured out why we need MPLS to honor the DSCP markings. After reading further in the text it doesn't seem to me as if you are using any of the MPLS features either... Sorry - I couldn't resist... - kurtis -
RE: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
I'd get on my cell phone and call the police. That's their job. Of course there is that little fact of having a legal right to the property in question in the first place. :) I fully agree this is Not Good (TM), hence the BAD in my response. Having said that, satellite providers periodically 'kill' hacked access cards on equipment in the user's home with no legal ramifications. How would this be significantly different? Waiving the fourth amendment flag is just FUD in this case. There's more than sufficient current law out there that applies in this case. The entertainment industry just wants an even easier answer. They're lazy. What's new? WorldComm, Adelphia, AOL, (you and me next?), have made this industry and its practices an easy target. Historically, market segments either clean up their own act, or government steps in. I believe this business is at that point now. How we act in the near future will greatly affect the amount of government involvement we'll see. Arguing in support of haz0r/warez networks won't help the cause. To put a different spin on the DCMA/17USC512 takedown letter issue, does this mean you support opt-out lists for Spam as apposed to opt-in? That's how the entertainment industry views our current process. There's a lot of disucssion on this list (actually OT but we see it here anyway) about identifying questionable E-mail traffic (spam). Is it really that much harder to identify questionable P2P traffic? Or are we all too busy listening to our MP3s playlists and watching the latest Starwars rip? Just my 2¢ Best regards, _ Alan Rowland -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 1:57 PM To: Rowland, Alan D Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking On Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:11:00 PDT, Rowland, Alan D [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: IANAL but IMHO spewing cracked copies of say, Photoshop, or other copyright violations might be considered probable cause with the specific place/things being the share program and it's contents. If your house was broken into, and your TV stolen, and you were walking along and saw it in your neighbor's living room through the window, would that give you the right to go in and reclaim it? Would it exempt you from having to pay for a new door to replace the one that got broken down? You might want to ask yourself why the now-standard 17USC512 takedown letter isn't sufficient. I wonder how many 'Hax0rs-R-Us' record labels are about to incorporate. Bad JuJu.
RE: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
I had significant input in my life regarding the difference between can and may. IMHO significant numbers of net citizens have forgotten that difference. therefore all of us need to give up our civil rights? the terrorists have won. randy
Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 02:37:15PM -0700, Rowland, Alan D wrote: I fully agree this is Not Good (TM), hence the BAD in my response. Having said that, satellite providers periodically 'kill' hacked access cards on equipment in the user's home with no legal ramifications. How would this be significantly different? Waiving the fourth amendment flag is just FUD in this case. Satellite access cards are technically the property of the individual companies and are not allowed to be sold, so if they want to send down some code which disables your access to their system they are allowed. Causing damage to someone's receiver on the other hand, would be bad mojo. However, someone's computer is NOT their property, nothing on it belongs to them (except maybe the copyrighted material of the clients they represent :P), not even a service you are getting from them. I can't imagine they would actually follow through with this though, all it takes is one incident where they cause financial harm to someone with an mp3 they misidentify and their highground is gone. Then again, I can't imagine congress being so massively stupid either, so I suppose anything is possible. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
Re: Draft of Rep. Berman's bill authorizes anti-P2P hacking
On Thu, 25 Jul 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: I can't imagine they would actually follow through with this though, all it takes is one incident where they cause financial harm to someone with an mp3 they misidentify and their highground is gone. Then again, I can't imagine congress being so massively stupid either, so I suppose anything is possible. One scenario I can imagine is the MPAA ddos'ing or h4x0ring a university hospital network because they found warez on some secretary's desktop PC. As a result, some databases get corrupted and patients die. Would this bill shield the MPAA from being liable for manslaughter? -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Re: PASSIVE [D]WDM... Like, Cisco 15216.
Mikael Abrahamsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There should be quite a few manufacturers making units like these, I know the MRV people does it as well (or some company within MRV). here's another: http://www.opticalaccess.com/products-ld.shtml Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with the company, I'm not even a satisfied customer, I'm just some guy who typed optical transponder DWDM into Google and shoveled through what came out. ---rob
ELF/Scalper-A Spreading?
Our border ACLs are catching about three thousand UDP/2100 hits every minute tonight. Is anyone else seeing this? It seems as if ELF/Scalper-A (the Apache/FreeBSD worm) is spreading. Drew Linsalata The Gotham Bus Company Internet Server and Carrier Neutral Co-Location http://www.gothambus.com
