Re: ASN registry?
At 10:45 AM 20-08-02 +1000, Philip Smith wrote: ARIN is in the midst of a process to move the pre-existing ASNs to RIPE and APNIC. See: http://www.arin.net/registration/erx/index.html Interesting is that AS1221 is not listed on that page. -Hank >Ralph, > >ARIN only handles the ASNs for North and South America, and the southern >half of Africa. And has the records for most of the historical stuff from >when before APNIC and RIPE NCC existed. > >Simple rule, if it isn't at ARIN, check APNIC and RIPE NCC databases. >Telstra is in Australia, Australia is in the AP region, therefore not >finding the entry in ARIN's db would sort of suggest to check APNIC next. > >Note that the delegation records for some of the ASNs assigned before >APNIC and the RIPE NCC existed have been moved to the latter databases. >Telstra is but one example. (I agree it might be more helpful if a query >on whois.arin.net displayed a message saying "go look at whois.apnic.net" >rather than saying "No match".) > >philip >-- > >At 15:24 19/08/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > >>I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, and until now >>it's always had information on those that I've checked. >>It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according to >>route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single complete database >>that has ASN assignment info? >> >>Ralph Doncaster >>principal, IStop.com
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
I was looking at the text of the DMCA and came across the following which makes me much less optimistic that a court will toss out the RIAA's request for an injunction: Section 512(j)(1)(B) If the service provider qualifies for the limitation on remedies described in subsection (a [Limitation for Transitory Communications]), the court may only grant injunctive relief in one or both of the following forms: (i) An order restraining the service provider from providing access to a subscriber or account holder of the service provider's system or network who is using the provider's service to engage in infringing activity and is identified in the order, by terminating the accounts of the subscriber or account holder that are specified in the order. (ii) An order restraining the service provider from providing access, by taking reasonable steps specified in the order to block access, to a specific, identified, online location outside the United States. However, the following section may offer some hope: Section 512(j)(2) Considerations.-The court, in considering the relevant criteria for injunctive relief under applicable law, shall consider- (A) whether such an injunction, either alone or in combination with other such injunctions issued against the same service provider under this subsection, would significantly burden either the provider or the operation of the provider's system or network; (B) the magnitude of the harm likely to be suffered by the copyright owner in the digital network environment if steps are not taken to prevent or restrain the infringement; (C) whether implementation of such an injunction would be technically feasible and effective, and would not interfere with access to noninfringing material at other online locations; and (D) whether other less burdensome and comparably effective means of preventing or restraining access to the infringing material are available. I think a backbone provider could argue (A) that a requirement that it block a site would be a significant burden unless all other backbone providers are also required to block the same site, (C) that blocking a single IP address or even a small range of IP addresses isn't likely to be effective for very long and blocking larger IP address ranges or an entire AS is likely to interfere with access to noninfringing material at other online locations, and (D) that at least attempting to work with the network provider that is actually providing service to the infringing site or working through more traditional international copyright enforcement mechanisms are less burdensome and possibly more effective means of preventing access to the infringing material. -Jeff >Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 15:31:03 -0400 >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: Jeff Ogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Major Labels v. Backbones >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >At 11:23 PM -0700 8/16/02, Jim Hickstein wrote: >>--On Friday, August 16, 2002 10:03 PM -0400 John Ferriby >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>If there are any legal eagles here, can a Common Carrier be a contributing >>>infringer? >> >>IANAL, but last I looked -- admittedly a long, long time ago -- >>ISPs were not afforded protection as common carriers (18 USC?), no >>matter how much they tried to act like them. Has this changed? > > >I agree that ISPs aren't common carriers in the legal sense, but an >ISP's liability under U.S. copyright law is limited for "transitory >communications". The following is taken from a December 1998 >publication "THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998--U.S. >Copyright Office Summary" (page 10, >http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf ): > >Limitation for Transitory Communications > >In general terms, section 512(a) limits the liability of service providers in >circumstances where the provider merely acts as a data conduit, >transmitting digital information from one point on a network to >another at someone else's request. This limitation covers acts of >transmission, routing, or providing connections for the information, >as well as the intermediate and transient copies that are made >automatically in the operation of a network. > >In order to qualify for this limitation, the service provider's >activities must meet the following conditions: > --The transmission must be initiated by a person other than the provider. > --The transmission, routing, provision of connections, or copying must > be carried out by an automatic technical process without selection of > material by the service provider. > --The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material. > --Any intermediate copies must not ordinarily be acces
Safety Alert: Fwd: Company Recalls DVM's
SRI FOR THE OT, but this is a Safety Alert! PASS IT ON... >Company Recalls Electrical Meters >Mon Aug 19, 2:37 PM ET > >WASHINGTON (AP) - About 40,000 digital multimeters are being recalled >because they can put users at risk of shock, >thermal burns and even electrocution. > >The meters, which measure voltage, resistance and current, can take >longer than normal up to 18 seconds to display >readings of voltages over 500 volts. The delay could be misinterpreted >to mean there is not a high voltage. > >Fluke Corp., of Everett, Wash., has received a total of four reports >from Canada and Australia in which meters gave a >delayed response, although no injuries have been reported, the Consumer >Product Safety Commission said Monday. > >More than 17,000 of the meters were sold in the United States. Those >included in the recall are yellow and black, have the >numbers 175, 177 or 179 written on the front and have a serial number of >79,000,000 or below. > >Meters should be returned for a free repair. The company can be reached >at 1-800-260-4819.
Broadview Networks
Has anyone else had the unpleasant experience of dealing with Broadview?? I'd love to hear some horror stories
Re: Fwd: Re: Secure Cabinets
There was a GSA approved container [i.e. "safe" to you laymen] that was built to hold Milnet routers, yet have ventilation and cable access. Uou might find it a little rich and a little heavy for your needs... -- A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED] & no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead20915-1433
Re: ASN registry?
Ralph, ARIN only handles the ASNs for North and South America, and the southern half of Africa. And has the records for most of the historical stuff from when before APNIC and RIPE NCC existed. Simple rule, if it isn't at ARIN, check APNIC and RIPE NCC databases. Telstra is in Australia, Australia is in the AP region, therefore not finding the entry in ARIN's db would sort of suggest to check APNIC next. Note that the delegation records for some of the ASNs assigned before APNIC and the RIPE NCC existed have been moved to the latter databases. Telstra is but one example. (I agree it might be more helpful if a query on whois.arin.net displayed a message saying "go look at whois.apnic.net" rather than saying "No match".) philip -- At 15:24 19/08/2002 -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: >I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, and until now >it's always had information on those that I've checked. >It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according to >route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single complete database >that has ASN assignment info? > >Ralph Doncaster >principal, IStop.com
Re: ASN registry?
S! Don't tell folks that there were delegation registries that predated RIPE, APNIC, ARIN (created in that order). --bill
RE: ASN registry?
At 04:10 PM 8/19/2002 -0400, Andy Dills wrote: >Interesting. So then, how did that happen? > >as-block:AS1 - AS1876 >descr: ARIN ASN block >remarks: These AS numbers are further assigned by ARIN >remarks: to ARIN members and end-users in the ARIN region >admin-c: ARIN1-RIPE >tech-c: ARIN1-RIPE >mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT >mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT >changed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20010423 >source: RIPE Was most likely allocated before APNIC was in existence. -Steve
Re: Corporate PGP for network operators
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Sean Donelan wrote: > Ok, extremely dumb question. But I'm sure lots of other people have > already solved this one. > > Network operators have been using various PGPs to exchange confidential > information for many years. I have my own personal PGP key for my own > use and a nice Unix box of my own. There are licensed versions, freeware > versions, guerilla versions, and so forth. NAI is no longer selling a > commercial version of PGP Desktop for Microsoft Windows/NT. Phil Zimmerman > points people to the OpenPGP alliance http://openpgp.org/members/ > > What do commercial network operators, who are required to use Microsoft, > use for business PGP mail besides NAI? I.E. if we need to exchange PGP > mail, what package is least likely to crash Outlook and Windows. Three months later, here's a useful answer for you, Sean: http://www.pgp.com (NAI has sold off most of the product line to a new startup.) --Len.
RE: ASN registry?
I thought Australia was aunic.net At 13:56 8/19/02 -0600, you wrote: >maybe you're forgetting Australia... think APNIC...
RE: Sniffers/Analysers
Ethereal - free, and decent. Shomiti Surveyor - expensive, requires special hardware for line rate (and excess) traffic generation, and difficult as could be to use. But very powerful. Basically, it depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to analyze what's going on on the LAN, I see nothing wrong with Ethereal/tcpdump/. But for actual testing, you need Surveyor or something similar. Just my $0.02 Jon -Original Message- From: Dr. Mosh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 5:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Sniffers/Analysers Anyone have recommendations for LAN analysers? (besides building a box and using tcpdump) Personal experiences, recommendations, etc...? Private reply works. Thanks -- -- http://www.zeromemory.com - metal for your ears.
Sniffers/Analysers
Anyone have recommendations for LAN analysers? (besides building a box and using tcpdump) Personal experiences, recommendations, etc...? Private reply works. Thanks -- -- http://www.zeromemory.com - metal for your ears.
Re: Secure Cabinets
Andrew Dorsett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hey everyone, I know this is slightly off topic but I'm hoping that someone > from Verisign or the like will respond. I am looking for a VERY secure > computer cabinet to replace an open rack I have now. I'm looking for almost > vault like qualities. Is anyone willing to make recommendations on a vendor? Mosler (now a division of Diebold) makes (or at least used to make) a Class 5 GSA security container that will likely fit your needs. It's a variant of the map-and-plan safe which you can see at http://www.mosler.com/govt.html with the addition of a baffled blower and vent, conduit passthrough, 19" rackmount rails, and (optionally) a back door. They're known in the vernacular as a "crypto safe", which should give you an idea as to their usual application. Call the government sales folks; don't expect the commercial sales folks to know what it is you're talking about. Now, a class 5 security container isn't a vault, but it's far and away better than just about anything you can get from MTP, Chatsworth, and friends. (Federal Specification AA-F-358 calls for entry protection of 10 man-minutes forced entry, 20 man-hours surreptitious entry, and 30 man-minutes covert entry, with specified man-portable tools) Last time I talked to Mosler about buying some (this was pre-buyout, hence the hedge in the first paragraph about whether they still make them), I got a quote in the $3300 - $3500 range IIRC. This would have been with a Mosler MR(K)302 mechanical combination lock. If I'm not mistaken, in the government arena mechanical combination locks are deprecated, and that the current lock of choice is the Mas-Hamilton X-08 (which is a pretty righteous device in its own right; see http://www.mas-hamilton.com/x08.html). Unfortunately, one of these may push the price up to the $3900-$4000 range -- still a fine price if you ask me... Hope this helps, ---Rob
Re: Secure Cabinets
Have space to put a cage around it? Bri On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Andrew Dorsett wrote: > > > Hey everyone, I know this is slightly off topic but I'm hoping that someone > from Verisign or the like will respond. I am looking for a VERY secure > computer cabinet to replace an open rack I have now. I'm looking for almost > vault like qualities. Is anyone willing to make recommendations on a vendor? > > Thanks, > Andrew > > -- > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >
Re: ASN registry?
That seems to be the closest to a complete db, but I noticed it doesn't necessarily have the same info as ARIN. For example ARIN's listing for 1239 has a lot more details than the RADB entry. >From the responses so far, it seems that it is necessary in some cases to query ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC to find the info you are looking for. Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I usually use radb as it seems to referance other whois servers: > > whois -h whois.radb.net as1221 > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > > > > I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, and until now > > it's always had information on those that I've checked. > > It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according to > > route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single complete database > > that has ASN assignment info? > > > > Ralph Doncaster > > principal, IStop.com > > > >
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, JC Dill wrote: > >rigorous fight against the RIAA since they would mostly be defending > >the rights of people and organizations that they don't do business > > If one voluntarily caves in, they will almost certainly see their sales > plummet. Would you buy bandwidth from a provider who has caved in to a also keep in mind that most of the large backbones are also common carriers - if not for Internet, certainly for telephone - so they might well fight the issue on principle ** The Center for Civic Networking PO Box 600618 Miles R. Fidelman, President & Newtonville, MA 02460-0006 Director, Municipal Telecommunications Strategies Program 617-558-3698 fax: 617-630-8946 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://civic.net/ccn.html Information Infrastructure: Public Spaces for the 21st Century Let's Start With: Internet Wall-Plugs Everywhere Say It Often, Say It Loud: "I Want My Internet!" **
RE: ASN registry?
> > > aut-num AS1221, inverse > > as-name ASN-TELSTRA > > descrTelstra Pty Ltd > > descrLocked Bag No. 5744 > > descrGPO, Canberra, ACT, 2601 > > country AU > > admin-c GH105-AP, inverse > > tech-c DW187-AP, inverse > > remarks AS assigned by the former InterNIC > > mnt-by MAINT-AS1221, inverse > > changed [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2131 > > source APNIC > > Interesting. So then, how did that happen? > Old network. > as-block:AS1 - AS1876 > descr: ARIN ASN block > remarks: These AS numbers are further assigned by ARIN > remarks: to ARIN members and end-users in the ARIN region > admin-c: ARIN1-RIPE > tech-c: ARIN1-RIPE > mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT > mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT > changed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20010423 > source: RIPE > > > Is that just a general mess at the top where, in general, ARIN is in > charge but not always? Or just a special situation? > > Andy mh > > Andy Dills 301-682-9972 > Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net > > Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access > > >
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
On 08:43 AM 8/19/02, Jeff Ogden wrote: >I am also concerned that the backbone providers might not put up a >rigorous fight against the RIAA since they would mostly be defending >the rights of people and organizations that they don't do business >with directly. I can imagine that Worldcom may feel that it has >better things to do with its money and its lawyers' time these days. >But that might lead to a less that desirable outcome for everyone. >Sorry, I don't mean to pick on Worldcom here, the same could be said >for any of the backbone providers that have been targeted. And, >perhaps, since several backbone providers have all been targeted, >they will work together to put up a rigorous fight on behalf of us >all. I sure hope so. If one voluntarily caves in, they will almost certainly see their sales plummet. Would you buy bandwidth from a provider who has caved in to a demand that they not carry traffic to/from certain named offshore networks? At what point would they then draw the line on where they will transit your packets? If they were willing to cut off another network because of a specific type of traffic frequently sent to/from that network, we would have a small fraction of the spam problem we have today because the backbones would just sever access to overseas networks that are notorious for spew spam. I'm sure that having a 'spam free' network would be much more of a selling point than having a network that can't reach a network full of MP3s. jc
RE: ASN registry?
>That's a little odd, considering that's included in a range of AS' that >RIPE shows as delegated to ARIN. Anyone have any ideas? > aut-num AS1221, inverse [...] remarks AS assigned by the former InterNIC [...] source APNIC mh >Derek > -Original Message- > From: Kris Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:56 PM > To: 'Derek Samford'; 'Andy Dills'; 'Ralph Doncaster' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ASN registry? > > maybe you're forgetting Australia... think APNIC... > > > -Original Message- > > From: Derek Samford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:51 PM > > To: 'Andy Dills'; 'Ralph Doncaster' > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: ASN registry? > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf > > Of > > > Andy Dills > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:42 PM > > > To: Ralph Doncaster > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: ASN registry? > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, and > > until > > > now > > > > it's always had information on those that I've checked. > > > > It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according to > > > > route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single complete > > > database > > > > that has ASN assignment info? > > > > > > Well, when I can't find it quickly, I usually check RIPE, > > as the RIPE > > > whois will tell you which region the ASN is delegated to, and which > > > registrar to check with. And according to RIPE, 1221 is most > > definitely in > > > the lower range controlled by ARIN. No idea why ARIN doesn't have a > > record > > > for it...they only carry records for ASN 16779, which is > > Telstra-USA. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > I noticed that as well. But a quick google shows that Telstra is most > > definitely AS1221. Maybe they forgot to renew one of their AS Numbers? > > > > Derek > > > >
RE: ASN registry?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Michael Hallgren wrote: > aut-num AS1221, inverse > as-name ASN-TELSTRA > descrTelstra Pty Ltd > descrLocked Bag No. 5744 > descrGPO, Canberra, ACT, 2601 > country AU > admin-c GH105-AP, inverse > tech-c DW187-AP, inverse > remarks AS assigned by the former InterNIC > mnt-by MAINT-AS1221, inverse > changed [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2131 > source APNIC Interesting. So then, how did that happen? as-block:AS1 - AS1876 descr: ARIN ASN block remarks: These AS numbers are further assigned by ARIN remarks: to ARIN members and end-users in the ARIN region admin-c: ARIN1-RIPE tech-c: ARIN1-RIPE mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-NONE-MNT changed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 20010423 source: RIPE Is that just a general mess at the top where, in general, ARIN is in charge but not always? Or just a special situation? Andy Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
RE: ASN registry?
That's a little odd, considering that's included in a range of AS' that RIPE shows as delegated to ARIN. Anyone have any ideas? Derek > -Original Message- > From: Kris Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:56 PM > To: 'Derek Samford'; 'Andy Dills'; 'Ralph Doncaster' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ASN registry? > > maybe you're forgetting Australia... think APNIC... > > > -Original Message- > > From: Derek Samford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:51 PM > > To: 'Andy Dills'; 'Ralph Doncaster' > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: ASN registry? > > > > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf > > Of > > > Andy Dills > > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:42 PM > > > To: Ralph Doncaster > > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: Re: ASN registry? > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, and > > until > > > now > > > > it's always had information on those that I've checked. > > > > It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according to > > > > route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single complete > > > database > > > > that has ASN assignment info? > > > > > > Well, when I can't find it quickly, I usually check RIPE, > > as the RIPE > > > whois will tell you which region the ASN is delegated to, and which > > > registrar to check with. And according to RIPE, 1221 is most > > definitely in > > > the lower range controlled by ARIN. No idea why ARIN doesn't have a > > record > > > for it...they only carry records for ASN 16779, which is > > Telstra-USA. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > I noticed that as well. But a quick google shows that Telstra is most > > definitely AS1221. Maybe they forgot to renew one of their AS Numbers? > > > > Derek > > > >
RE: ASN registry?
[...] > > the lower range controlled by ARIN. No idea why ARIN doesn't have a > record > > for it...they only carry records for ASN 16779, which is Telstra-USA. > > > > Andy > > > I noticed that as well. But a quick google shows that Telstra is most > definitely AS1221. Maybe they forgot to renew one of their AS Numbers? aut-num AS1221, inverse as-name ASN-TELSTRA descrTelstra Pty Ltd descrLocked Bag No. 5744 descrGPO, Canberra, ACT, 2601 country AU admin-c GH105-AP, inverse tech-c DW187-AP, inverse remarks AS assigned by the former InterNIC mnt-by MAINT-AS1221, inverse changed [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2131 source APNIC mh > Derek
RE: ASN registry?
maybe you're forgetting Australia... think APNIC... > -Original Message- > From: Derek Samford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:51 PM > To: 'Andy Dills'; 'Ralph Doncaster' > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: ASN registry? > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf > Of > > Andy Dills > > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:42 PM > > To: Ralph Doncaster > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: ASN registry? > > > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > > > > > > > I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, and > until > > now > > > it's always had information on those that I've checked. > > > It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according to > > > route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single complete > > database > > > that has ASN assignment info? > > > > Well, when I can't find it quickly, I usually check RIPE, > as the RIPE > > whois will tell you which region the ASN is delegated to, and which > > registrar to check with. And according to RIPE, 1221 is most > definitely in > > the lower range controlled by ARIN. No idea why ARIN doesn't have a > record > > for it...they only carry records for ASN 16779, which is > Telstra-USA. > > > > Andy > > > I noticed that as well. But a quick google shows that Telstra is most > definitely AS1221. Maybe they forgot to renew one of their AS Numbers? > > Derek > >
RE: ASN registry?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Andy Dills > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 3:42 PM > To: Ralph Doncaster > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: ASN registry? > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > > > > I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, and until > now > > it's always had information on those that I've checked. > > It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according to > > route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single complete > database > > that has ASN assignment info? > > Well, when I can't find it quickly, I usually check RIPE, as the RIPE > whois will tell you which region the ASN is delegated to, and which > registrar to check with. And according to RIPE, 1221 is most definitely in > the lower range controlled by ARIN. No idea why ARIN doesn't have a record > for it...they only carry records for ASN 16779, which is Telstra-USA. > > Andy > I noticed that as well. But a quick google shows that Telstra is most definitely AS1221. Maybe they forgot to renew one of their AS Numbers? Derek
Re: ASN registry?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote: > > I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, and until now > it's always had information on those that I've checked. > It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according to > route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single complete database > that has ASN assignment info? Well, when I can't find it quickly, I usually check RIPE, as the RIPE whois will tell you which region the ASN is delegated to, and which registrar to check with. And according to RIPE, 1221 is most definitely in the lower range controlled by ARIN. No idea why ARIN doesn't have a record for it...they only carry records for ASN 16779, which is Telstra-USA. Andy Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLCwww.xecu.net Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access
RE: Major Labels v. Backbones
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Benjamin J. Carrasco wrote: > place. In my opinion, the RIAA is not unlike a predator that has > acquired an insatiable appetite; it needs to be placed on a very short > leash. The RIAA is one of the few organizations that have etched out a > policy that is overtly alienating the very consumers its members need to > survive. What I find more interesting is the fact that the RIAA and MPAA have both been convicted multiple times of price fixing and other illegal monopolistic practices. Yet almost nobody knows about this. They have done an excellent job of supressing media reporting on it. And these same organizations are working closely with specific congressmen to ram radical new monopoly-protecting legislation through congress... Thats like congressmen working alongside convicted bank robbers to write pro-gun laws. -Dan -- [-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
RE: ASN registry?
It's a list... But it includes the asn-name and registering nic-handle. ftp://ftp.arin.net/netinfo/asn.txt Regards, Mark -- Mark Segal Director, Data Services Futureway Communications Inc. Tel: (905)326-1570 > -Original Message- > From: Ralph Doncaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: August 19, 2002 3:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: ASN registry? > > > > I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, > and until now it's always had information on those that I've > checked. It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according > to route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single > complete database that has ASN assignment info? > > Ralph Doncaster > principal, IStop.com >
ASN registry?
I've always used whois.arin.net to check ASN registrations, and until now it's always had information on those that I've checked. It doesn't have anything for 1221, which according to route-views.oregon-ix.net is Telstra. Is there a single complete database that has ASN assignment info? Ralph Doncaster principal, IStop.com
Re: Secure Cabinets
Hello Andrew, Monday, August 19, 2002, 12:11:02 PM, you wrote: AD> Hey everyone, I know this is slightly off topic but I'm hoping that someone AD> from Verisign or the like will respond. I am looking for a VERY secure AD> computer cabinet to replace an open rack I have now. I'm looking for almost AD> vault like qualities. Is anyone willing to make recommendations on a vendor? You may want to take a look at the cabinets offered by Lampertz: http://www.lampertz.com/DuS.htm Some hosting companies are using them for secure hosting. allan -- Allan Liska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.allan.org
Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Tim Thorne wrote: > I'm not even sure if shutting listen4ever down is on the RIAA agenda. > Wouldn't the easiest course of action be to file suit against Verisign > and have their DNS nuked? that would be the logical approach. or they could get an order against the usg and block it at A.root-servers. no need to bring in a private company when the usg root can block all queries to it. the best approach may be to hit the usg dept of commerce with the order - they control the root. it maybe difficult for verisign as the registrar for listen4ever.com is MELBOURNE IT, so the US government maybe the fast track method to square this. regards joe baptista
Re: 95th percentile
I have a home grown program that gives 95th percentile from mrtg data files... and can display it on the mrtg page as an odometer (using fly) or text for a monthly report. Because of mrtg data reduction, it isn't exact (weighted on the most recent three days), but it does its best to compensate for that. ...Barb At 11:29 AM 8/19/02 -0700, you wrote: >Sorry for the slightly off topic question but very briefly. > >What tools are people using for 95th percentile billing. Anything unix >based maybe around mysql would be great. Or do most people grow their >own? > >Thanks > >Scott
Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >SO, wouldn't canceling China Telecom BGP through AT&T CW and UUnet do >nothing except cause some BGP advertisement changes at Internap ? I'm not even sure if shutting listen4ever down is on the RIAA agenda. Wouldn't the easiest course of action be to file suit against Verisign and have their DNS nuked? Tim
Re: 95th percentile
I actually didn't see anything but its probably my own bad search:) I'll try again. Thanks On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry for the slightly off topic question but very briefly. > > > > What tools are people using for 95th percentile billing. Anything unix > > based maybe around mysql would be great. Or do most people grow their > > own? > > > > Thanks > > > > Scott > > > > > > Are you looking for anything other than was posted to the nanog > list last year in the Apr-Jun timeframe? > > --bill >
Re: 95th percentile
> > > Sorry for the slightly off topic question but very briefly. > > What tools are people using for 95th percentile billing. Anything unix > based maybe around mysql would be great. Or do most people grow their > own? > > Thanks > > Scott > > Are you looking for anything other than was posted to the nanog list last year in the Apr-Jun timeframe? --bill
95th percentile
Sorry for the slightly off topic question but very briefly. What tools are people using for 95th percentile billing. Anything unix based maybe around mysql would be great. Or do most people grow their own? Thanks Scott
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:59:03 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >The industry needs one or more clueful persons willing to act as expert >witnesses in these types of court cases. Because of Dave Farber's role in >the early Internet, the legal community views him as an authority on the >subject. At this point I think there are a lot of people whose knowledge >is more current and more thorough and these people could help the courts >make better decisions if they would step up and offer their services as >expert witnesses or as advisors to the legal teams arguing these cases. > >Michael Dillon Ideally, someone with some cluefullness in international affairs could explain that the U.S., because of Hollywood and the record industry, is particular concerned about intellectual property. But other countries are concerned about other things. China wants to stop the spread of Democratic ideals. France wants to stop holocaust denial. Once the U.S. courts adopt the principle that you can attack anything you can reach to suppress the spread of content you don't like, where will it end? I'm not saying that I don't oppose piracy and wanton copyright violations. I'm just saying that sometimes in international affairs, you have to give something up to win something greater. You want to coax other countries into allowing you to trade in their countries, you have to give up some protective tarrifs. I'm afraid other countries won't see a difference between us using our courts to enforce our laws and them using their courts to enforce their laws. Here it's a matter of which is more important. Is real global freedom of political speech more important that the music industry? Does anybody need to think twice about that? DS
Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
> Or maybe, the four providers named are the same 4 being used by Internap at > that node, so effectively terminating the announcement from all 4 directions > to Internap solves the problem. There is a "historical" precedent that supports this theory. For those who can set their Way-Back Machines far enough to remember, Opus once had a brief career as a paparazzi. While photographing Madonna, he was punched in the node by Sean Penn. The camera manufacturer was sued, though, on the basis that they had the money. The application of logic to this situation is laudable; as many of you know, I'm a big fan of logic myself. It would seem, though, that the brand of logic being applied at the RIAA is not technology logic (our favorite, clearly), but a logic designed to encompass as many people in their definition of infringement as they can. The more entities they can encompass, the more "control" they can exert. Shutting down a specific website probably has much less appeal than establishing a precedent to force backbones to filter. What's truly sad in this case is that if the RIAA (and MPAA) would spend a little bit of time listening to what people want and thinking about how to implement it, instead of furiously entrenching themselves in the 1970s, *real* content delivery as the next "killer app" might lift our little corner of the tech industry out of the muck. If they spend all their energy playing whack-a-mole, though, they'll just continue to contribute to the stagnation (and hopefully progress will pave them over sooner rather than later). kc pointed out some very thoughtful commentary by Janis Ian on this topic, URLs are: http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html http://www.janisian.com/article-fallout.html The notion of a "risk-free" trial of the content delivery business concept using the out-of-print catalog is very appealing. Stephen
RE: Major Labels v. Backbones
> The thing that I find most disturbing with this latest approach to > enforcement by the RIAA is that they have targeted backbone providers > who probably don't have any business or other relationship with the > parties that are alleged to be infringing the RIAA's rights. Just as I believe that the problem lies in the indiscriminate ignorance with which Internet and intellectual property laws are being crafted. It is unfortunate that there is such a great lack of judiciary knowledge and an over abundance of ambitious lawmakers seeking to immortalize themselves by fabricating ludicrous laws (I consider Dingell to be their unofficial poster child). Although these laws seem to threaten the vitality of network service providers, there seems to be little resistance or lobbying that is necessary to prevent them in the first place. In my opinion, the RIAA is not unlike a predator that has acquired an insatiable appetite; it needs to be placed on a very short leash. The RIAA is one of the few organizations that have etched out a policy that is overtly alienating the very consumers its members need to survive. > Sorry, I don't mean to pick on Worldcom here, the same could be said > for any of the backbone providers that have been targeted. And, > perhaps, since several backbone providers have all been targeted, > they will work together to put up a rigorous fight on behalf of us > all. I sure hope so. The RIAA is clearly attempting to take advantage of all carriers plagued by the current financial and market conditions. With the lack of adequate attention (or representation for that matter), the odds are more in their favor to establish a precedent that can then be used to terrorize everyone else. Every time I hear the RIAA, or anyone else for that matter, make a reference to the DMCA my blood curls. -Ben
RE: Re: Secure Cabinets
http://www.mtpartners.com/home.htm > -Original Message- > From: Benjamin J. Carrasco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 1:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Re: Secure Cabinets > > > > Andrew, > > I am looking for a cabinet that I can install in my own > server room to > > protect my machines from prying fingers and other > illegal access. > This > > cabinet needs to have vault like qualities and not just > be some glass > and > > metal thrown together. Maybe something like two key opening > procedures, > > etc. > > I'd suggest looking at Metal-Tech Partners, we've had > pretty good experiences with their products. You will > probably be interested in their all metal seismic line of > cabinets. There is a pretty wide assortment of > industrial grade steel doors that surpass the strength of > cabinets like Chatsworth. They also offer dual locking > mechanisms that can consist of a center combination lock, > and top and bottom key-based locks. We have had them > customized in the past to alternate the top and bottom > key-base locks (by default, one key is necessary to open > both locks). A side from building a makeshift colo in an > abandoned missile silo, it should provide both a > comfortable level of physical security. I can not for the > life of me remember what their URL is. > > -Ben > > > > <>
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Jeff Ogden wrote: > > The thing that I find most disturbing with this latest approach to > > enforcement by the RIAA is that they have targeted backbone providers > > who probably don't have any business or other relationship with the > > parties that are alleged to be infringing the RIAA's rights. Just as > > bad is the fact that if one of the backbone providers chooses or is > > required to filter or block a site, then that site will become > > unavailable to the backbone provider's downstreams and the > > downstreams won't have had any say in the matter. And, if the same > > filtering and blocking isn't done by all networks, the sites will be > > available to some people and not to others. Sure seems like a real > > mess. > > Indeed, to be effective all ISPs with international connectivity from the US > could bring this route in and they must all block the routes else it will be > possible to reroute either automatically by BGP reconvergence or by > intentionally taking bandwidth from a non-compliant ISP. > > And as you say theres a lot more ISPs that those listed with a fair number of > them being non-US companies so how to enforce?? In interesting idea for the mix is: What if the site in question also vhosted content that in the US is clearly protected speech on the same IP... The providers would be no less able to block it, but would a court order them to do so.. considering the collateral damage. What if this content were on Freenet, and you couldn't say for sure where exactly it was hosted? Even if the 'bad' content is limited to one IP.. Is is acceptable to block every host in that same announcement? Are the providers expected to deaggregate the netblock? If they intentionally continue to announce the route, but insert ACLs to block the traffic, are the providers not commiting fraud?
RE: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
Or maybe, the four providers named are the same 4 being used by Internap at that node, so effectively terminating the announcement from all 4 directions to Internap solves the problem. Just an idea. DJ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Marshall Eubanks > Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 12:56 PM > To: Sean Donelan > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones > > > > A question : > > Doesn't Internap use BGP as part of its load balancing ? Don't they > sell / market this service ? Isn't each Internap node connected to > 4 > providers ? > > SO, wouldn't canceling China Telecom BGP through AT&T CW and UUnet do > nothing except cause some BGP advertisement changes at Internap ? > > Marshall > > Sean Donelan wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > > >>Ok here's a question, why are they sueing AT&T, CW, and UU? I see > >>Listen4ever behind 4134 (China Telecom), who I only see buying transit > >>through InterNAP. Wouldn't it be simpler for them to sue > InterNAP? I guess > >>it would sure be nice precedent, if they could make some big tier 1 > >>providers do their bidding to filter whoever they want whenever > they want. > >> > > > > The problem with BGP is you only see the "best" path more than one hop > > away. The network in question is reachable through transit > providers other > > than InterNAP, such as Concert. > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/17/business/media/17MUSI.html > > > > The New York Times says the companies named in the suit are AT&T > > Broadband (not AT&T's backbone?), Cable & Wireless, Sprint Corporation > > and UUNet technologies. > > > > "David Farber, a University of Pennsylvania computer scientist and an > > early architect of the Internet, filed an affidavit in the > case, saying > > it would be relatively easy for the Internet companies to block the > > Internet address of the Web site without disrupting other traffic. > > > > "It's not a big hassle," Mr. Farber said. "There's no way to stop > > everybody, but a substantial number of people will not be able to get > > access." > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards > Marshall Eubanks > > This e-mail may contain confidential and proprietary information of > Multicast Technologies, Inc, subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements > > > T.M. Eubanks > Multicast Technologies, Inc > 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 > Fairfax, Virginia 22030 > Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 > e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.multicasttech.com > > Test your network for multicast : > http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ > Status of Multicast on the Web : > http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html > > >
RE: Re: Secure Cabinets
Andrew, > I am looking for a cabinet that I can install in my own server room to > protect my machines from prying fingers and other illegal access. This > cabinet needs to have vault like qualities and not just be some glass and > metal thrown together. Maybe something like two key opening procedures, > etc. I'd suggest looking at Metal-Tech Partners, we've had pretty good experiences with their products. You will probably be interested in their all metal seismic line of cabinets. There is a pretty wide assortment of industrial grade steel doors that surpass the strength of cabinets like Chatsworth. They also offer dual locking mechanisms that can consist of a center combination lock, and top and bottom key-based locks. We have had them customized in the past to alternate the top and bottom key-base locks (by default, one key is necessary to open both locks). A side from building a makeshift colo in an abandoned missile silo, it should provide both a comfortable level of physical security. I can not for the life of me remember what their URL is. -Ben
Re: Dave Farber comments on Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
A question : Doesn't Internap use BGP as part of its load balancing ? Don't they sell / market this service ? Isn't each Internap node connected to > 4 providers ? SO, wouldn't canceling China Telecom BGP through AT&T CW and UUnet do nothing except cause some BGP advertisement changes at Internap ? Marshall Sean Donelan wrote: > On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > >>Ok here's a question, why are they sueing AT&T, CW, and UU? I see >>Listen4ever behind 4134 (China Telecom), who I only see buying transit >>through InterNAP. Wouldn't it be simpler for them to sue InterNAP? I guess >>it would sure be nice precedent, if they could make some big tier 1 >>providers do their bidding to filter whoever they want whenever they want. >> > > The problem with BGP is you only see the "best" path more than one hop > away. The network in question is reachable through transit providers other > than InterNAP, such as Concert. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/17/business/media/17MUSI.html > > The New York Times says the companies named in the suit are AT&T > Broadband (not AT&T's backbone?), Cable & Wireless, Sprint Corporation > and UUNet technologies. > > "David Farber, a University of Pennsylvania computer scientist and an > early architect of the Internet, filed an affidavit in the case, saying > it would be relatively easy for the Internet companies to block the > Internet address of the Web site without disrupting other traffic. > > "It's not a big hassle," Mr. Farber said. "There's no way to stop > everybody, but a substantial number of people will not be able to get > access." > > > -- Regards Marshall Eubanks This e-mail may contain confidential and proprietary information of Multicast Technologies, Inc, subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.multicasttech.com Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Status of Multicast on the Web : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
Fwd: Re: Secure Cabinets
> Andrew Dorsett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Hey everyone, I know this is slightly off topic but I'm hoping that someone > from Verisign or the like will respond. I am looking for a VERY secure > computer cabinet to replace an open rack I have now. I'm looking for > almost > vault like qualities. Is anyone willing to make recommendations on a > vendor? Whoops I guess I wasn't clear enough. I am not looking for hosting services, I am looking for a cabinet that I can install in my own server room to protect my machines from prying fingers and other illegal access. This cabinet needs to have vault like qualities and not just be some glass and metal thrown together. Maybe something like two key opening procedures, etc. Thanks, Andrew -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Secure Cabinets
Hey everyone, I know this is slightly off topic but I'm hoping that someone from Verisign or the like will respond. I am looking for a VERY secure computer cabinet to replace an open rack I have now. I'm looking for almost vault like qualities. Is anyone willing to make recommendations on a vendor? Thanks, Andrew -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:46, Owen DeLong wrote: *snip* > Please, the intent of that sentence is to say that the ISP cannot set > the > destination IP address for the content. The intervening backbones don't > do > that, they merely copy it to the next hop as the MAC addresses are > modified > to send it along it's way. The RECIPIENT is DETERMINED (set) by the > originator of the communication. There are two hosts which could be > argued > to participate in this process, and they are at the ends of the > conversation. > The routers in between do not meet the test. If this is the basis of your argument, multicast backbones would be a legal liability. How about a 1-800 conference circuit? The concept is the same, as is the level of content participation. The difference is the legal protection offered to the voice common-carrier is greater than what is offered to IP carriers. -- Jeff S Wheeler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Software DevelopmentFive Elements, Inc http://www.five-elements.com/~jsw/
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
The industry needs one or more clueful persons willing to act as expert witnesses in these types of court cases. Because of Dave Farber's role in the early Internet, the legal community views him as an authority on the subject. At this point I think there are a lot of people whose knowledge is more current and more thorough and these people could help the courts make better decisions if they would step up and offer their services as expert witnesses or as advisors to the legal teams arguing these cases. Michael Dillon
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Jeff Ogden wrote: > > The thing that I find most disturbing with this latest approach to > enforcement by the RIAA is that they have targeted backbone providers > who probably don't have any business or other relationship with the > parties that are alleged to be infringing the RIAA's rights. Just as > bad is the fact that if one of the backbone providers chooses or is > required to filter or block a site, then that site will become > unavailable to the backbone provider's downstreams and the > downstreams won't have had any say in the matter. And, if the same > filtering and blocking isn't done by all networks, the sites will be > available to some people and not to others. Sure seems like a real > mess. Indeed, to be effective all ISPs with international connectivity from the US could bring this route in and they must all block the routes else it will be possible to reroute either automatically by BGP reconvergence or by intentionally taking bandwidth from a non-compliant ISP. And as you say theres a lot more ISPs that those listed with a fair number of them being non-US companies so how to enforce?? Steve > > I am also concerned that the backbone providers might not put up a > rigorous fight against the RIAA since they would mostly be defending > the rights of people and organizations that they don't do business > with directly. I can imagine that Worldcom may feel that it has > better things to do with its money and its lawyers' time these days. > But that might lead to a less that desirable outcome for everyone. > Sorry, I don't mean to pick on Worldcom here, the same could be said > for any of the backbone providers that have been targeted. And, > perhaps, since several backbone providers have all been targeted, > they will work together to put up a rigorous fight on behalf of us > all. I sure hope so. > > -Jeff Ogden > Merit > > At 10:58 PM -0400 8/16/02, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:03:37PM -0400, John Ferriby wrote: > >> A number of major music labels have joined forces and are seeking relief > >> from backbone providers, see: > > > >Ok here's a question, why are they sueing AT&T, CW, and UU? I see > >Listen4ever behind 4134 (China Telecom), who I only see buying transit > >through InterNAP. Wouldn't it be simpler for them to sue InterNAP? I guess > >it would sure be nice precedent, if they could make some big tier 1 > >providers do their bidding to filter whoever they want whenever they want. > > > >Might I suggest filtering the websites of the offending "major labels" as > >an appropriate retort? > > > >-- > >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) > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQB1AwUBPWETnlwK6AZ3LKU5AQGYRwL9HScdBvKZixMbw2SWtDd/eX0U/BOV2Keq YWB3NHwtsC8HCy8kLCy6MCjNZLd+y1s7VyRqcvVekSLUyx4wHlerJhCssz47PnCX /MgxIa98hTXknTa5HMGscXyH3QVo4e+q =nilE -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
"Majdi S. Abbas" wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 05:04:05PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote: > > > --The service provider must not determine the recipients of the material. > > > > One could argue (in theory) that a routing-table lookup > > may satisfy this. > > I'm not so sure. Generally speaking, a destination network is a > given ISP, not a given individual. And it's highly impractical for an ISP > to know the /individual/ a packet is destined for from the address. > IANAL, however... Please, the intent of that sentence is to say that the ISP cannot set the destination IP address for the content. The intervening backbones don't do that, they merely copy it to the next hop as the MAC addresses are modified to send it along it's way. The RECIPIENT is DETERMINED (set) by the originator of the communication. There are two hosts which could be argued to participate in this process, and they are at the ends of the conversation. The routers in between do not meet the test. > > > --The material must be transmitted with no modification to its content. > > > > Same theory here also, where one decrements ttl, since we are > > talking about ip packets here. > > I believe they're referring to copyrighted material which is > wholly contained in the payload of the packets involved. > Packet headers are _NOT_ content. the _CONTENT_ is the packet payload, which is _NOT_ modified by the backbone providers. > > Either way, this is an interesting test case and I do > > hope it receives immediate dismissal. This would be like asking > > the phone company to turn off phone service for people that arrange > > drug deals or similar. Not something that I see happening. > > I have to say I expect this one to be disposed of pretty quickly, > but we'll see... > > --msa One would hope, however, I have lost much faith in the US court system as a result of the presidential election and the Napster ruling. Afterall, the Napster ruling amounted to a ruling that a library could be ordered to shut down if a person used the card catalog provided by the library to find a book and then copied said book on the photocopier in the drugstore next door. Owen
Re: Major Labels v. Backbones
The thing that I find most disturbing with this latest approach to enforcement by the RIAA is that they have targeted backbone providers who probably don't have any business or other relationship with the parties that are alleged to be infringing the RIAA's rights. Just as bad is the fact that if one of the backbone providers chooses or is required to filter or block a site, then that site will become unavailable to the backbone provider's downstreams and the downstreams won't have had any say in the matter. And, if the same filtering and blocking isn't done by all networks, the sites will be available to some people and not to others. Sure seems like a real mess. I am also concerned that the backbone providers might not put up a rigorous fight against the RIAA since they would mostly be defending the rights of people and organizations that they don't do business with directly. I can imagine that Worldcom may feel that it has better things to do with its money and its lawyers' time these days. But that might lead to a less that desirable outcome for everyone. Sorry, I don't mean to pick on Worldcom here, the same could be said for any of the backbone providers that have been targeted. And, perhaps, since several backbone providers have all been targeted, they will work together to put up a rigorous fight on behalf of us all. I sure hope so. -Jeff Ogden Merit At 10:58 PM -0400 8/16/02, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: >On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 10:03:37PM -0400, John Ferriby wrote: >> A number of major music labels have joined forces and are seeking relief >> from backbone providers, see: > >Ok here's a question, why are they sueing AT&T, CW, and UU? I see >Listen4ever behind 4134 (China Telecom), who I only see buying transit >through InterNAP. Wouldn't it be simpler for them to sue InterNAP? I guess >it would sure be nice precedent, if they could make some big tier 1 >providers do their bidding to filter whoever they want whenever they want. > >Might I suggest filtering the websites of the offending "major labels" as >an appropriate retort? > >-- >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)
