DMCA/Chilling Effects

[Tom (UnitedLayer)]

(taking something from the EFF Thread earlier and making it more relevant)

I'm sure most of the network operators here have at some time or another
dealt with a DMCA, Subpoena or a C&D order.

That being said, has having dealt with those issues lessened your
interest in dealing with "free speech" type organizations?
Has it affected your network policies at all?
Is it something that affects the business side more than the operational
side of your networks?
Does anyone participate in the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse?
(www.chillingeffects.org)

Please respond in private and I'll post a summary in a few days if there's
enough interest.

---
Tom SparksUnitedLayer
Office: 415-294-4111  AS23342

Re: EFF whitepaper

[J.D. Falk]

On 11/16/04, Fred Heutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 

> I doubt that the participants in this discussion who are getting
> so huffy about the EFF position are ready to tolerate a
> situation where unknown third parties can arbitrarily block
> any email they send or receive, without informing them,
> regardless of content.
> 
> Think about how that maps to the present situation.

I can certainly understand how end users or senders would feel
that way, and many ISP's need to start doing a much better job
of communicating their policies to their customers -- that's 
certainly not restricted to e-mail.  However, using the EFF's 
hard-won and extremely critical influence to restrict an ISP's 
ability to manage their own systems doesn't seem like a good 
long-term solution to that problem.

-- 
J.D. Falk   okay, what's next?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Stupid "where to find" question.

[Dan Mahoney, System Admin]

Hey all,
I know it's slightly off topic but...
If anyone can contact me off-list with suggestions as to where to find 
rackmount shelves (front and rear mount) for a specific brand of cabinet 
(chatsworth) for "relatively inexpensive" I'd appreciate it.

-Dan Mahoney
--
"I'm sorry, that is [EMAIL PROTECTED], but they did not say 'Exsqueeze Me' A Long 
Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away."
-Richard Bozzello, on Jar Jar Binks
Dan Mahoney
Techie,  Sysadmin,  WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144   AIM: LarpGM
Site:  http://www.gushi.org
---

Re: anycast roots

[Matt Larson]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephane Bortzmeyer) wrote:
> 
> > It is not easy to find by itself (you have to do a lot of traceroutes)
> > so, if you have access to this information, it would be quite useful.
> > 
> > (I'm one of the persons who see a lot of jitter for
> > j.root-servers.net with Randy Bush's experiment.)
> 
> Well, either my probes don't pick up the jitter, or I'm guessing the
> naming convetion for j wrongly.
> 
> I see
> 
> jns1-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
> jns2-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
> jns3-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
> jns4-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
> jns5-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
> jns6-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
> 
> (same from AS8495/AS8220 and AS8763)
> 
> in alternating fashion, but I would assume "jns1" through "jns6" are
> just the individual servers of a setup called "hgtld".

Correct.  At the moment, most J root instances are colocated with
com/net name servers.  The instance you're reaching is colocated with
h.gtld-servers.net, which is in Amsterdam.

Matt
--
Matt Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
VeriSign Naming and Directory Services

Re: anycast roots

[Paul Vixie]

> > as far as i know, the root-servers.org web site is 100% accurate, 
> 
> Following the recent discussion about "anycast jitter" with
> j.root-servers.net, I believe one information is missing: wether the
> node is global or local (BGP NO_EXPORT).

note that BGP NO_EXPORT is but one of several ways to make a "local node".
for many of our peers, "keep this to one's own network and one's customers"
is the default, and they have to strip off our NO_EXPORT community in order
to achieve this.  but your question is understandable on that modified basis.

> It is not easy to find by itself (you have to do a lot of traceroutes)
> so, if you have access to this information, it would be quite useful.

the www.root-servers.org main page is pretty crowded already.  adding an
indication of global-vs-local for each city could be pretty distracting;
especially since those rootops who anycast usually have their own separate
web site describing their efforts, which are more easily kept up to date
and which, being root-specific, are generally less crowded.

some rootops even prefer to keep this level of detail out of the public eye,
possibly because it's the kind of thing that makes ddos attacks easier to
plan.  speaking for f-root only, we don't mind that the world knows which
of our anycast nodes are global and which are local.  but the other rootops
will have to speak for themselves, and they will probably not choose to use
the www.root-servers.org web page to signal this level of detail.  (remember,
these are the kinds of details that can change every week or every day.)
-- 
Paul Vixie

Re: Cable and Wireless partners with Reliance to set up datacenters in

[Gordon Cook]

Daniel Senie:
Was anyone truly surprised C&W failed in the US marketplace? They 
seem only able to make money when they're the government-sanctioned 
monopoly. It'll be interesting to see if they can handle competition 
in India any better than they did in the US.
Last march I did a long interview with Farooq Hussain about the 
economics of peering and Cable and Wireless's role in the collapse of 
the tier one peering proposition.  Farooq was absolutely scathing in 
his indictment of Cable and Wireless' arrogant behavior.  Apparently, 
they (C&W) learned nothing and are now waltzing into an indian 
partnership where the indian partners don't know anymore.

See http://www.cookreport.com/13.03.shtml  and 
http://www.cookreport.com/13.05.shtml
--
=
The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
609 882-2572 (PSTN) 415 651-4147 (Lingo) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscription
info: http://cookreport.com/subscriptions.shtml Worldcall to use ISDN 
interconnec-
tion to offer equivalent of ILEC UNE  platform at: 
http://cookreport.com/13.09.shtml 
=

Re: anycast roots

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:05:20AM -0500,
 Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote 
 a message of 36 lines which said:

> I have no idea about Verisign's scheme, but in case anybody notices 
> similar distribution of queries across F root servers, it may help to 
> know that:
> 
>  xxxNa.f.root-servers.org
>  xxxNb.f.root-servers.org
>  xxxNc.f.root-servers.org
>  etc
> 
> are hosts all located at the same site "xxxN". 

OK, I understand. So, like Elmar Bins, I was seeing "intra-site"
jitter, which is normal (it is only seen with UDP queries, probably
because the Verisign load balancer is stateful and remembers the
binding for TCP) and no "inter-site" jitter, which would be more
serious. But I'm quite at this edge of the Internet, so let's wait for
more reports with Peter Boothe's tool. And just be sure to "sanitize"
the results before jumping to the wrong conclusion, like I did.

Re: Cable and Wireless partners with Reliance to set up datacenters in

[Daniel Senie]

At 11:34 PM 11/16/2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
reference discussions about blocking VOIP from earlier this week (last
week?) gov'ts sometimes are made to put in place dumb laws that can not be
enforced in order to intimidate people and try to maintain the business of
legacy/incumbent carriers :(
C&W being a legacy / incumbent carrier in several countries themselves, it 
will be interesting to see how they cope with this :)
In Panama, they are the incumbent being "protected" by the ban on VOIP.
Was anyone truly surprised C&W failed in the US marketplace? They seem only 
able to make money when they're the government-sanctioned monopoly. It'll 
be interesting to see if they can handle competition in India any better 
than they did in the US. 

Re: anycast roots

[Joe Abley]

On 17 Nov 2004, at 08:37, Elmar K. Bins wrote:
in alternating fashion, but I would assume "jns1" through "jns6" are
just the individual servers of a setup called "hgtld".
I have no idea about Verisign's scheme, but in case anybody notices 
similar distribution of queries across F root servers, it may help to 
know that:

 xxxNa.f.root-servers.org
 xxxNb.f.root-servers.org
 xxxNc.f.root-servers.org
 etc
are hosts all located at the same site "xxxN". Service is distributed 
between those hosts at that site in the manner of:

  http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2004-1.html
Service is distributed between sites in the manner of:
  http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/isc-tn-2003-1.html
I would expect people to see high affinity to a particular site for a 
particular client, and much lower affinity between individual hosts 
within a site (but still plenty to allow DNS over TCP to function 
properly). It will be interesting to see Randy's results.

Today (2004-11-17) the only global nodes are SFO2 and PAO1; all the 
rest are local nodes (where "global" and "local" are described at 
). Both global 
nodes live in the same AS.

Joe

Re: anycast roots

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 02:37:25PM +0100,
 Elmar K. Bins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote 
 a message of 34 lines which said:

> in alternating fashion, but I would assume "jns1" through "jns6" are
> just the individual servers of a setup called "hgtld".

That's a reasonable guess. Someone from Verisign to confirm/infirm?

Re: anycast roots

[Elmar K. Bins]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephane Bortzmeyer) wrote:

> It is not easy to find by itself (you have to do a lot of traceroutes)
> so, if you have access to this information, it would be quite useful.
> 
> (I'm one of the persons who see a lot of jitter for
> j.root-servers.net with Randy Bush's experiment.)

Well, either my probes don't pick up the jitter, or I'm guessing the
naming convetion for j wrongly.

I see

jns1-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
jns2-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
jns3-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
jns4-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
jns5-hgtld.j.root-servers.net
jns6-hgtld.j.root-servers.net

(same from AS8495/AS8220 and AS8763)

in alternating fashion, but I would assume "jns1" through "jns6" are
just the individual servers of a setup called "hgtld".

Yours,
Elmi.

--

"Begehe nur nicht den Fehler, Meinung durch Sachverstand zu substituieren."
  (PLemken, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)

--[ ELMI-RIPE ]---

Re: anycast roots

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 11:00:54PM +,
 Paul Vixie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote 
 a message of 18 lines which said:

> as far as i know, the root-servers.org web site is 100% accurate, 

Following the recent discussion about "anycast jitter" with
j.root-servers.net, I believe one information is missing: wether the
node is global or local (BGP NO_EXPORT).

It is not easy to find by itself (you have to do a lot of traceroutes)
so, if you have access to this information, it would be quite useful.

(I'm one of the persons who see a lot of jitter for
j.root-servers.net with Randy Bush's experiment.)

Re: anycast stability experiment

[Daniel Karrenberg]

The RIPE NCC dnsmon (http://dnsmon.ripe.net) has collected such data for
all root servers from dozens of places for about two years already.  You
are welcome to the raw data.  NB: The further back in time the more work
it will be for us to dig out raw data. 

Differences to your set-up:

- most probes are not near the "edges" of the net, for most definitions of 
"edge"
- probing times are properly randomised
- the mean probing interval is 60s
- UDP only

[Continuous but not scientifically rigorous examination of the data
shows that your bet is a pretty safe one. In other words: for practical 
purposes routing is stable at all proble locations. So the data is 
in fact pretty boring. If it weren't as boring, k.root-servers.net 
would not be anycast the way it is.]

Daniel