Re: DNS/Routing advice
Hi Dan, I could recommend you the use views in bind. This feature in bind you could answer according to the origen of the ask. With a good dns cfg you could resolve a big part of your problems. Regards, Daniel On Wednesday 11 September 2002 17:34, Dan Lockwood wrote: Everyone, I have a customer that is multihomed, to a public ISP and to another large network that uses 10.0.0.0 address space. The private address space also has services available via public address space and consequently is running a split DNS service, public and private. Because of firewalls and the placement of DNS servers this customer has a nasty routing situation and in order to make DNS work for the private numbers, has spoofed the domain of the private network. My question is this: are there any documents or RFCs that outline what is an acceptable practice for running DNS and what is not? Their kluge of a network causes continuous problems for both the upstream ISP and the private network to which they are connecting and we may find ourselves in a situation where we have to say that 'xyz' is an acceptable way of operating and 'abc' is not. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks! Dan Lockwood
Re: [OT: National Moment of Silence] - or lack thereof
Al Rowland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only drop in 'traffic' I've ever noticed was in my former life in the military. Retreat policy on base was that traffic pulled [cut] i think i was lucky i never had a car while i was living on base :) regarding the 'silence' yesterday - i was wondering if anyone saw a spike in traffic between the hours of 1730-2100 eastern time yesterday destined for addresses in the 64.12.95/24 range, the source addresses were spoofed, but internap managed to decipher that some were coming from singapore tel - i was dos'ed pretty hard last night and could use some help tracing it back tia joshua
RE: Console Servers
Cisco 2611's with serial cards are also a popular choice. For one thing, they run SSH, and are quite reliable and inexpensive. - Daniel Golding -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bender, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 8:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Charles Sprickman Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Console Servers -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Hi Try looking at this company's line of products: http://www.itouchcom.com/ they used to be Xyplex. We've had pretty good luck with these... Like other embedded systems, they are a good fit for those without patience for more science projects in the PoP. It seems that the iR 8000 is one of the few (only?) reasonably priced TS systems that have NEBS Level 3 cert... for those that require ILEC colo, or have special durability concerns. Regards, Andrew Bender taqua.com
Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
Thanks to everyone who helped out. cheers joe baptista http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat September 12, 2002 | By Joe Baptista Technology rags and industry pundits see IPv6 (Internet Protocol version 6) as the future of networking, but Daniel Golding a participant of the North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) thinks it's a solution in search of a problem. Many others have argued IPv6 is a problem in itself and it is unlikely the protocol will gain wide acceptance in the short term. IPv6 does solve many of the problems with the current version of IPv4 (Internet Protocol version 4). Its purpose is to expand address space and fix the IPv4 address depletion problem, which many techies claim, was due to mismanagement. The industry's goal is to use the very large address allocation pool in IPv6 to expand the capabilities of the Internet to enable a variety of peer-to-peer and mobile applications including cellular phone technology and home networking. IPv6, a suite of protocols for the network layer, uses IPv4 gateways to interconnect IPv6 nodes and comes prepackaged with some popular operating systems. This includes almost all Unix flavors, some Windows versions and Mac OS. Some vendors offer upgrades to older operating systems. Trumpet Software International in Tasmania Australia manufactures a Trumpet Winsock version that upgrades old Windows 95/98 and NT systems to the current IPv6 standard. IPv6 has suffered bad press over privacy issues. Jim Fleming, the inventor of IPv8, a competing protocol, sees many hazards and privacy flaws in existing IPv6 implementations. IPv6 address space in some cases uses an ID (identifier) derived from your hardware or phone that allows your packets to be traced back to your PC or cell-phone said Fleming. Potential abuse to user privacy exists as a hardware ID wired into the IPv6 protocol can be used to determine the manufacturer, make and model number, and value of the hardware equipment being used. Fleming warns users to think twice before they buy themselves a used Laptop computer and inherit all the prior surfing history of the previous user! IPv6 uses 128 bits to provide addressing, routing, and identification information on a computer interface or network card. The 128 bits are divided into the left 64 and the right 64. Some IPv6 systems use the right 64 bits to store an IEEE defined global identifier (EUI64). This identifier is composed of company id value assigned to a manufacturer by the IEEE Registration Authority. The 64-bit identifier is a concatenation of the 24-bit company identification value and a 40-bit extension identifier assigned by the organization with that company identification assignment. The 48-bit MAC address of your network interface card may also be used to make up the EUI64. In the early stages of IPv6 development, Bill Frezza a General Partner with the venture capital firm, Adams Capital Management warned software developers that if privacy issues are not properly addressed, the migration to IPv6 will blow up in their face! Leah Gallegos agrees that while expanding the address space is necessary the use of the address for ID and tracking is horrific. Gallegos the operator of the top-level domain .BIZ and a Director of the Top Level Domain Association cautions network administrators that they should refuse to implement IPv6 unless these issues are properly addressed. Privacy concerns prompted the creation of new standards, which provide privacy extensions to IPv6 devices. Thomas Narten and Track Draves of Microsoft Research published a procedure to ensure privacy of IPv6 users. Narten, IBM's technical lead on IPv6 and an Area Director for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), agrees IPv6 address can, in some cases, include an identifier derived from a hardware address. But Narten points out that a hardware address is not required. In cases where using a permanent identifier is a problem, said Narten RFC 3041 addresses should be used. RFC 3041 titled Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6 was published this past January 2001 by the IETF. It is an algorithm developed jointly by Narten and Draves which generates randomized interface identifiers and temporary addressees during a user session. This would eliminate the concerns privacy advocates have with IPv6. Unfortunately RFC 3041 is not widely implemented. But Narten expects major vendors to incorporate his privacy standard and offered that Microsoft implemented privacy extensions and apparently intends to make it part of their standard stuff. Narten also assisted in the drafting of recommendations for some second and third generation cellular phones recently approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group. That document recommends that RFC 3041 be implemented as part of cellular phone technology but he did not know what direction cell phones manufacturers were taking. I suspect
Re: Equinix to join role of chapter 11's?
Jane, leave the chapter 11 speculation to the analysts. I can understand how chapter 7 is reason for operational concern, but come on. What are you trying to do, set a record for the most off-topic posts over the course of a week? (Of course, Susan likes to play favorites, so it's not like you're in danger of getting booted off or anything.) I have a bet with my boss that Booz Allen Hamilton will file for chapter 11 before Equinix. Sal Sabella Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
Re: Equinix to join role of chapter 11's?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a bet with my boss that Booz Allen Hamilton will file for chapter 11 before Equinix. You lose. Sal Sabella Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
RE: Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
This is scarcely the first time that a reporter has taken quotes from NANOG and spliced them together into a news story. Analysts do it too. I guess one of the weaknesses of this kind of forum is that the kooks (Jim Fleming) come off looking as credible as those who have a clue (like Stephen Sprunk or Dave Israel in this case). Now, please pardon me while I write do not talk to reporters on the blackboard, 500 times. - Daniel Golding Jeroen Massar Said.. Joe Baptista wrote: Thanks to everyone who helped out. But you didn't actually read now did you? Oh well you are a reporter nobody can blame you for doing work ;) But to pull some things straight: IPv6, a suite of protocols for the network layer, uses IPv4 gateways to interconnect IPv6 nodes and comes prepackaged with some popular operating systems. Cool, so *NATIVE* IPv6 doesn't exist? Many transitional techniques use intermediate IPv4 hops to connect IPv6 islands, that doesn't mean everything uses it. http://unfix.org/projects/ipv6/IPv6andIPv4.gif IPv6 has suffered bad press over privacy issues. Jim Fleming, the inventor of IPv8, a competing protocol, sees many hazards and privacy flaws in existing IPv6 implementations. Competing? There is yellno such thing as Jim Flemings IPv8/yell There is IPv8* but that is PIP (The P Internet Protocol) which is *NOT* the thing Mr. Fla^Heming is spamming about all the time. * = http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers Maybe Mr. Fleming could write up a draft of his 'standard' sometime? I could start shouting that you are bad and that Man.v2 is much better now does that help anywhere? And one can easily change his/her local EUI so where's the problem there? One also mostly comes from the same /48 so where is the problem. Another obstacle raised by NANOG operators is that there is currently no commercial demand for IPv6 at this time. Which is true in the .US and mostly true in europe, but in Asia there is demand and IPv6 is happening. And that America is lagging behind ah well ;) Next time when you ask things, use them in your articles... Greets, Jeroen
IP over in-ground cable applications.
Greetings, Can anyone recommend a method for integrating TCP/IP with an existing analog cable television network. The cable companies do this quite well; however, it's not immediately clear to me how I would multiplex the IP traffic and the existing video and deliver it to a home. My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. This way, integrating the video and data portion are easy, however the resident would need to buy a mpeg2 set-top-box to split out the video and internet. Thank you very much for your consideration. Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com
Re: IP over in-ground cable applications.
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Christopher J. Wolff wrote: Greetings, Can anyone recommend a method for integrating TCP/IP with an existing analog cable television network. The cable companies do this quite well; however, it's not immediately clear to me how I would multiplex the IP traffic and the existing video and deliver it to a home. Ya, build a new two-way HFC network. My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. This way, integrating the video and data portion are easy, however the resident would need to buy a mpeg2 set-top-box to split out the video and internet. Thank you very much for your consideration. The issue is you only have 125 CMTS channels to deal with and most network have way to many homes passed per head end to make mpeg2 over IP practical solution. Nathan Stratton nathan at robotics.net http://www.robotics.net
RE: IP over in-ground cable applications.
Nathan, If your MPEG2 video were multicast streams, wouldn't that be a much more effective utilization of bandwidth? Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nathan Stratton Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:29 AM To: Christopher J. Wolff Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IP over in-ground cable applications. On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Christopher J. Wolff wrote: Greetings, Can anyone recommend a method for integrating TCP/IP with an existing analog cable television network. The cable companies do this quite well; however, it's not immediately clear to me how I would multiplex the IP traffic and the existing video and deliver it to a home. Ya, build a new two-way HFC network. My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. This way, integrating the video and data portion are easy, however the resident would need to buy a mpeg2 set-top-box to split out the video and internet. Thank you very much for your consideration. The issue is you only have 125 CMTS channels to deal with and most network have way to many homes passed per head end to make mpeg2 over IP practical solution. Nathan Stratton nathan at robotics.net http://www.robotics.net
Re: IP over in-ground cable applications.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 11:24:15AM -0700, Christopher J. Wolff wrote: The cable companies do this quite well; however, it's not immediately clear to me how I would multiplex the IP traffic and the existing video and deliver it to a home. Well, the traditional solutions involve some combination of digital TV (which you allude to in the next paragraph) and/or frequency division multiplexing, which has existed for quite some time. Note that FDM is what makes cable TV possible to begin with. As far as the cable is concerned, there isn't much of a difference between another TV channel and data. My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. This way, integrating the video and data portion are easy, however the resident would need to buy a mpeg2 set-top-box to split out the video and internet. Thank you very much for your consideration. I'm not sure this is really any easier than existing analog FDM techniques. --msa
Re: IP over in-ground cable applications.
Christopher J. Wolff wrote: My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. This way, integrating the video and data portion are easy, however the resident would need to buy a mpeg2 set-top-box to split out the video and internet. Thank you very much for your consideration. Most satellite video is already mpeg2, why would you want to touch the bitstream? all you need is add the IP headers. Pete
RE: IP over in-ground cable applications.
You would need multicast speakers (routers, etc) along the cable route to effectively multiple your bandwidth at all. Since cable is already multicasting (1 stream to many/all) I don't think I see any advantage. Unless, of course, you expect cable customers to be broadcasting to other cable customers (say their own home video content)... Then MPEG2 Multicast would be your friend. Deepak -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christopher J. Wolff Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:34 PM To: 'Nathan Stratton' Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IP over in-ground cable applications. Nathan, If your MPEG2 video were multicast streams, wouldn't that be a much more effective utilization of bandwidth? Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nathan Stratton Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:29 AM To: Christopher J. Wolff Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IP over in-ground cable applications. On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Christopher J. Wolff wrote: Greetings, Can anyone recommend a method for integrating TCP/IP with an existing analog cable television network. The cable companies do this quite well; however, it's not immediately clear to me how I would multiplex the IP traffic and the existing video and deliver it to a home. Ya, build a new two-way HFC network. My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. This way, integrating the video and data portion are easy, however the resident would need to buy a mpeg2 set-top-box to split out the video and internet. Thank you very much for your consideration. The issue is you only have 125 CMTS channels to deal with and most network have way to many homes passed per head end to make mpeg2 over IP practical solution. Nathan Stratton nathan at robotics.net http://www.robotics.net
Re: IP over in-ground cable applications.
In article cistron.002d01c25a89$997890b0$1809d440@Cartman, Christopher J. Wolff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anyone recommend a method for integrating TCP/IP with an existing analog cable television network. http://www.google.com/search?q=docsis Mike.
Re: IP over in-ground cable applications.
It is not quite clear to me what you have in mind - do you want to send exclusively IP television over the cable system, or do you want to fit IP into an existing system ? Current cable systems have separate parts of the spectrum reserved for analogue or digital television channels and the inbound and outbound IP. DOCSIS is a standard for sending data over a HFC system - see http://www.cablemodem.com/ There is lots of hardware for this from different vendors. If you want a new technology system, I would recommend multicast IP MPEG-2 over EPON - maybe in conjunction with MPLS - see http://www.iec.org/online/tutorials/epon/topic04.html If you are interested in setting up these multicasts or for content to put inside of this walled garden, please let me know :) I do not think that this is really germane to NANOG. Regards Marshall Eubanks Christopher J. Wolff wrote: Nathan, If your MPEG2 video were multicast streams, wouldn't that be a much more effective utilization of bandwidth? Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Nathan Stratton Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 11:29 AM To: Christopher J. Wolff Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IP over in-ground cable applications. On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Christopher J. Wolff wrote: Greetings, Can anyone recommend a method for integrating TCP/IP with an existing analog cable television network. The cable companies do this quite well; however, it's not immediately clear to me how I would multiplex the IP traffic and the existing video and deliver it to a home. Ya, build a new two-way HFC network. My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. This way, integrating the video and data portion are easy, however the resident would need to buy a mpeg2 set-top-box to split out the video and internet. Thank you very much for your consideration. The issue is you only have 125 CMTS channels to deal with and most network have way to many homes passed per head end to make mpeg2 over IP practical solution. Nathan Stratton nathan at robotics.net http://www.robotics.net -- 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: IP over in-ground cable applications.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 03:04:35PM -0400, Deepak Jain mooed: You would need multicast speakers (routers, etc) along the cable route to effectively multiple your bandwidth at all. Since cable is already multicasting (1 stream to many/all) I don't think I see any advantage. Unless, of course, you expect cable customers to be broadcasting to other cable customers (say their own home video content)... Then MPEG2 Multicast would be your friend. I don't think the answer is as simple as that. It really depends on the number of subscribers per last-hop multicast box, and on the number of channels you offer / popularity distribution of the channels. If you've got 5 channels and 10,000 subscribers per box, multicast saves you nothing. If you've got 1000 channels and 100 subscribers per box, ... -Dave -- work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] me: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MIT Laboratory for Computer Science http://www.angio.net/ I do not accept unsolicited commercial email. Do not spam me.
Re: Equinix to join role of chapter 11's?
Have you really? Because you have continued to post off-topic messages to the NA NOG list, we have removed your posting privileges for a period of six mon ths. Susan Harris, Ph.D. Merit Network/Univ. of Mich. On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jane, leave the chapter 11 speculation to the analysts. I ca n understand how chapter 7 is reason for operational concern, but come on. What are you trying to do, set a record for the most off-topi c posts over the course of a week? (Of course, Susan likes to play favorites, so it's not like you're in danger of getting booted off or anything.) I have a bet with my boss that Booz Allen Hamilton will file for chapter 11 before Equinix. Sal Sabella Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
Re: IP over in-ground cable applications.
Christopher J. Wolff wrote: Can anyone recommend a method for integrating TCP/IP with an existing analog cable television network. Yes Chris, it's called DOCSIS. I would think that a CIO of a company named Broadband Labs would have a lab in which to experiment with cable. My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. What about the neighborhoods with above-ground cable, how would you deliver service to them? Sal Sabella Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
RE: IP over in-ground cable applications.
Hi Sal, Thanks for the response. The 'Broadband' in Broadband Laboratories actually refers to the Microwave flavor of last-mile and long-haul data transmission. As a general operating philosophy, we eschew wired last-mile network solutions (DSL, Cable) as inefficient, costly to capitalize, and costly to maintain. For example, the local cable company spent over $100m for an HFC buildout of our local market which only covered 30% of the metropolitan area. I could probably cover 25 of the top metropolitan markets with that kind of capital :) Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IP over in-ground cable applications. Christopher J. Wolff wrote: Can anyone recommend a method for integrating TCP/IP with an existing analog cable television network. Yes Chris, it's called DOCSIS. I would think that a CIO of a company named Broadband Labs would have a lab in which to experiment with cable. My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. What about the neighborhoods with above-ground cable, how would you deliver service to them? Sal Sabella Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
Re: IP over in-ground cable applications.
At 02:28 PM 9/12/2002 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christopher J. Wolff wrote: Can anyone recommend a method for integrating TCP/IP with an existing analog cable television network. Yes Chris, it's called DOCSIS. I would think that a CIO of a company named Broadband Labs would have a lab in which to experiment with cable. My current thoughts on this are to digitize the satellite video into mpeg2 and deliver it over TCP/IP through the in-ground cable. What about the neighborhoods with above-ground cable, how would you deliver service to them? What does above-ground vs. below ground have to do with delivering MPEG2?? I have digital cable with MPEG2 video, my cable Internet access (DOCSIS compliant), and analog cable stations even though the cable in my neighborhood is underground (as are all the utilities) and immediately outside my neighborhood by the main road all the utilities appear to go back up onto poles to get anywhere. It might just be a misleading illusion but I think it runs above ground to get to the cable company's office as do the phone lines which I know for a fact. The cable company that services the area where I work is talking about rolling out digital cable soon and all of the people in their service area have above ground utilities including cable. Am I obsessing and were you just being sarcastic or is there a technical reason why you stated this? Vinny Abello Network Engineer Server Management [EMAIL PROTECTED] (973)300-9211 x 125 (973)940-6125 (Direct) PGP Key Fingerprint: 3BC5 9A48 FC78 03D3 82E0 E935 5325 FBCB 0100 977A Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com (888)TELLURIAN
RE: IP over in-ground cable applications.
Thanks for the response. The 'Broadband' in Broadband Laboratories actually refers to the Microwave That makes sense. I have a question you might be able to answer. I've got some Cerent and Sycamore boxes, and I'm trying to locate a GE Advantium line card. We're fixing to sell Advantium wavelenghts on the same glass as gig-e and OC-x's, catering primarily to the hospitality and food services industry, by Q1 2003. You could even say I bet on it with my boss. Know where I can buy one? Also, what type of performance have you seen with Advantium vs. conventional microwave-based transport technologies? Sal Sabella Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
RE: IP over in-ground cable applications.
Sal, I'm not a big fan of GE period; too many recalls. However you might want to take a look at Jennair. Here's my favorite. http://www.jennair.com/ja/products/prod_detail.jsp?model=WW30430Pcs=0B V_UseBVCookie=Yes Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 3:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IP over in-ground cable applications. Thanks for the response. The 'Broadband' in Broadband Laboratories actually refers to the Microwave That makes sense. I have a question you might be able to answer. I've got some Cerent and Sycamore boxes, and I'm trying to locate a GE Advantium line card. We're fixing to sell Advantium wavelenghts on the same glass as gig-e and OC-x's, catering primarily to the hospitality and food services industry, by Q1 2003. You could even say I bet on it with my boss. Know where I can buy one? Also, what type of performance have you seen with Advantium vs. conventional microwave-based transport technologies? Sal Sabella Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
RE: IP over in-ground cable applications.
Sal, I've been called a lot of things, but moron isn't one of them. It's been fun playing. Regards, Christopher J. Wolff, CIO Broadband Laboratories, Inc. http://www.bblabs.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 3:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IP over in-ground cable applications. I'm not a big fan of GE period; too many recalls. However you might want to take a look at Jennair I had a bet with my boss that GE would bring good things to life. Please don't tell me I lost. Sal Sabella Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
RE: Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
The sad part is that absolutely clueless articles like this one get wider distribution than they deserve, and it takes even more travel and face time to refute the nonsense. In most cases it is hard to tell if the author is really as clueless as the resulting article would lead you to believe, or if they intentionally put in garbage to create an artificial sense of controversy which might lead to even greater distribution. Tony -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Daniel Golding Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 10:13 AM To: Jeroen Massar; 'Joe Baptista'; 'NANOG' Subject: RE: Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat This is scarcely the first time that a reporter has taken quotes from NANOG and spliced them together into a news story. Analysts do it too. I guess one of the weaknesses of this kind of forum is that the kooks (Jim Fleming) come off looking as credible as those who have a clue (like Stephen Sprunk or Dave Israel in this case). Now, please pardon me while I write do not talk to reporters on the blackboard, 500 times. - Daniel Golding Jeroen Massar Said.. Joe Baptista wrote: Thanks to everyone who helped out. But you didn't actually read now did you? Oh well you are a reporter nobody can blame you for doing work ;) But to pull some things straight: IPv6, a suite of protocols for the network layer, uses IPv4 gateways to interconnect IPv6 nodes and comes prepackaged with some popular operating systems. Cool, so *NATIVE* IPv6 doesn't exist? Many transitional techniques use intermediate IPv4 hops to connect IPv6 islands, that doesn't mean everything uses it. http://unfix.org/projects/ipv6/IPv6andIPv4.gif IPv6 has suffered bad press over privacy issues. Jim Fleming, the inventor of IPv8, a competing protocol, sees many hazards and privacy flaws in existing IPv6 implementations. Competing? There is yellno such thing as Jim Flemings IPv8/yell There is IPv8* but that is PIP (The P Internet Protocol) which is *NOT* the thing Mr. Fla^Heming is spamming about all the time. * = http://www.iana.org/assignments/version-numbers Maybe Mr. Fleming could write up a draft of his 'standard' sometime? I could start shouting that you are bad and that Man.v2 is much better now does that help anywhere? And one can easily change his/her local EUI so where's the problem there? One also mostly comes from the same /48 so where is the problem. Another obstacle raised by NANOG operators is that there is currently no commercial demand for IPv6 at this time. Which is true in the .US and mostly true in europe, but in Asia there is demand and IPv6 is happening. And that America is lagging behind ah well ;) Next time when you ask things, use them in your articles... Greets, Jeroen
Updated BGP monitoring
Hi, NANOGers. I have updated my BGP monitoring to include ASN analysis. This includes the count of unique ASNs, the count of ASNs that originate at least one prefix, the average path length, the maximum path length, and the bogus ASNs. You will find it all here: http://www.cymru.com/BGP/index.html The bogus ASN page, complete with a colorful graph, can be found here: http://www.cymru.com/BGP/asnbogusrep.html Comments and feedback are always welcome! My thanks to those who donate peering and gear to my monitoring efforts. :) Thanks, Rob. -- Rob Thomas http://www.cymru.com ASSERT(coffee != empty);
Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection
Yet, it is reasonable that people expect x % of their traffic to use IX's. If those IXs are gone then they will need to find another path, and may need to upgrade alternate paths. I guess the question is. At what point does one build redundancy into the network. I suspect its a balancing act between reducancy, survival (network) and costs vs revenues. not sure I'd call it a poor job for not planning all possible failure modes, or for not having links in place for them. On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 06:00:40PM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote: On fredag, sep 6, 2002, at 21:57 Europe/Stockholm, Tim Thorne wrote: OK, what if 60 Hudson, 25 Broadway, LinX and AmsIX were all put out of commission? To some extent - nothing for the above...if design right. The major networks should have designed their networks to route around this. If not - they have done a poor job. For others, the exchange points should be a way merely to off-load their transit connections. However - there is a point in what you are saying, from a national point of view - the exchange points should independently take care of traffic in the case a nation is isolated. But I don't think any of the above are designed for that in the first place... - kurtis -
Re: Vulnerbilities of Interconnection
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, John M. Brown wrote: I guess the question is. At what point does one build redundancy into the network. I suspect its a balancing act between reducancy, survival (network) and costs vs revenues. In 1982 ATT was still a monopoly, could spend whatever it took and the primary threat was missles from the Soviet Union. ATT had ten Class 1 Regional Centers in the country. Regional Centers were the top of the telephone network routing hierarchy fully connected to other regional centers. http://www.rand.org/publications/RM/RM3097/RM3097.appb.html I don't know how ATT came to the conclusion that 10 was the perfect compromise between cost, reliability and survivability. They had lots of smart people who knew networks working on the problem, so I'm assuming they had a decent justification to back up the choice.
Re: Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: http://www.kkc.net/baptista/ I strongly suggest you just quietly ignore Mr. Baptista. I can assure you that this is my last post on the subject no matter how he tries to bait me. It's the only technique that works with him. Poor D'Arcy - still bitter I see ;) But thats a substandard reference. Major Tom and Uncle Joe are still the best of friends - sort of anyway. Only five years ago major tom helped me liberate some $10,000 worth of hydrophonic marijuana grow equipment from the Adult SuperStore - a front for the outlaw biker community operated by Mark Savary. The story was a plant. Never believe what you read in old rags. Let us not forget my major accomplishments - the distructions of the freedom of information system in ontario (which you complained so much about) - which see; I warned the public http://web.elastic.org/~fche/mirrors/old-usenet/baptista and then i crashed it http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/orders/orders-m/m-618.HTM and then there was the day I liberated Wired Magazine of over $100,000 USG, which see http://www.kkc.net/eye/nv940331.htm And then there was the most famous event of them all. unfortunately I can't mention names because of the court order of judge brown. pity what happens when governments cover up the sexual exploitation of minors by senior governments officials. http://www.brentpayton.com/canada/Toronto%20Police%20Chief%20Sues%20for%20Libel.txt and then there was I can go on at length but i think it's best to say that I've had a good time in life. So try not to be bitter D'Arcy or you'll end up aging like those failed drag queens - and those high heels are not your style ;) http://www.google.ca/search?hl=enie=ISO-8859-1q=D%27Arcy+Cain+Baptistameta= I've been labeled so many times and have used it to my advantage. Which is why I never really pay much attention when people make claims like they do against fleming. In the old days reporting was about investigating the truth - not paying attention to libel and slander. Now a days I find reporters are basically PR queens on a budget. And that's why I got back into the business. I've complained so much about inaccurate reporting that i finally decided to do something about it. You should get active too. cheers joe
RE: IP over in-ground cable applications.
Let's try and limit the name calling to the playground, and stick to the mailing list charter. Unless either of you two has something topical to discuss, this discussion should be taken to private email and not the mailing list. Sameer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 8:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IP over in-ground cable applications. I've been called a lot of things, but moron isn't one of them. Want to make a bet on it with your boss? Moron. Sal Sabella
