Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Eric A. Hall]

On 3/5/2005 12:02 AM, John Levine wrote:
>>>Vonage has fought tooth and nail to *not* be a regulated entity.
>>
>>It's too early in the technology life-cycle for them to be treated that
>>way. I mean, you can get a phone number anywhere the service provider has
>>a pop, and if you want to feed that into existing 911 service systems
>>you've got a lot of mapping issues to deal with, probably to the point
>>where it's not economically feasible
> 
> Packet8 offers E-911 on their VoIP product right now, for a $1.50/mo
> surcharge which is not out of line with the POTS E-911 charge.  You
> have to tell them where you live,
> and your phone number has to be local to your location.
  ^^

Thanks for proving my point.

Regulating as-is behavior is not feasible, ergo regulation means loss of
features or overhauled network(s), which is a bit unreasonable given where
we are in the lifecycle.

-- 
Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols  http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[John Levine]

>> Vonage has fought tooth and nail to *not* be a regulated entity.
>
>It's too early in the technology life-cycle for them to be treated that
>way. I mean, you can get a phone number anywhere the service provider has
>a pop, and if you want to feed that into existing 911 service systems
>you've got a lot of mapping issues to deal with, probably to the point
>where it's not economically feasible

Packet8 offers E-911 on their VoIP product right now, for a $1.50/mo
surcharge which is not out of line with the POTS E-911 charge.  You
have to tell them where you live, and your phone number has to be
local to your location.  Looks pretty feasible to me.

First the VoIP crowd says that it's an unstoppable juggernaut with
such compelling technical and economic advantages that it will
inevitably leave all of that old fashioned POTS telephony as road
kill.

Then in the next breath they're telling us that VoIP is such a frail,
delicate hothouse flower that the merest chilly breath of regulation
or E911 or USF or any of the other costs that real phones are subject
to would make it crumple and die on the vine.

I realize that if I were in the VoIP business, I'd be spouting that
nonsense, too.  What I don't undertand is why everyone else seems to
believe it.  VoIP is mostly a regulatory arbitrage play, not a
technological miracle.

Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor
"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Robert Blayzor]

Bill Nash wrote:
> At the root of it, it's deliberate anti-competitive behavior, and that's
> what the fine is for. I'm generally fine to have the government stay out
> of the internet as much as possible, but this move was the correct one,
> as it was on behalf of the end consumer. It's not the choice of port
> blocking that matters, it's the intent.


Wait a minute, since when is the Internet service I provide regulated by
ANY entity?  It's not, therefore I can run the network any way I see
fit.  If customers don't like it, they can choose another ISP; if they
can't choose another ISP, not my problem, I'm not a regulated entity,
you get my service or none at all.

While I don't run my network with that attitude, I certainlly have the
right to.

Lets take port blocking out of this.  Lets say I'm an ISP that offers
digital phone service to my customers.  Of course I'm going to provide
my customers with the best voice service possible, which means QoS for
my voice customers.  If Vonages service is basically unsable on my
network due to oversubscription/latency/packetloss on some legs/remotes
am I obligated now to provide voice quality?  No, I'm not.  My voice
works because my customers pay me for that, is that anti-competitive?
That's intentional as well...

Nobody says I have to carry Vonage traffic so long as I do not violate
any SLA's with the customers I provide service for.  Regardless if it's
not competitive, if you want to really get technical and bring in
regulation and law like the telcos do, Vonage should be paying ISP's to
transport and terminate their voice customers traffic.

Seems that Vonage wants to have their cake and eat it to when it comes
to regulation...

-- 
Robert Blayzor, BOFH
INOC, LLC
rblayzor\@(inoc.net|gmail.com)
PGP: http://www.inoc.net/~dev/
Key fingerprint = 1E02 DABE F989 BC03 3DF5  0E93 8D02 9D0B CB1A A7B0

Sleep: A completely inadequate substitute for caffeine.

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Eric A. Hall]

On 3/4/2005 5:45 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> Vonage has fought tooth and nail to *not* be a regulated entity.

It's too early in the technology life-cycle for them to be treated that
way. I mean, you can get a phone number anywhere the service provider has
a pop, and if you want to feed that into existing 911 service systems
you've got a lot of mapping issues to deal with, probably to the point
where it's not economically feasible, meaning no deployment. Heck, how
long did it take for cellular 911 to work right, and now we're demanding
the same level of service from a newbie market like VoIP right away?

The time will come soon enough where the market will be stable enough for
all of us to mandate certain requirements, and we'll get all the
regulation we need then. In the meantime, allowing the technology to
develop is the best strategy.

-- 
Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols  http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Eric A. Hall]

On 3/4/2005 4:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> There are two sides to the issue:
> 
> 1.)  FCC doesn't want companies preventing other companies from competing.
> 2.)  On the other hand, how do you tell a company what services it can or 
> can't block?

There's another factor here, which is that the gov't wants to encourage
technological innovation and advancement for numerous and sundry reasons
(many of them even good).

Generally speaking, it's right to favor deployment and growth of new
technologies and markets over old ones. All other things being equal
(which they never are), tilting the hand towards VoIP providers is the
right call.

-- 
Eric A. Hallhttp://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols  http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[Jeffrey Race]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:59:52 -0500, Christopher Woodfield wrote:
>Yes, I am aware that a battery backup in the VoIP adapter doesn't do 
>you much good if you don't have power on the cable/DSL modem and any 
>intermediate gear - or your wireless phone, for that matter...
>
>That said, this could be a feature that customers could be looking for 
>as IP connectivity becomes more of a utility-like service.

One just puts the whole system (dsl modem, router, voip adapter) on
a UPS.  I do it; it works.

Jeffrey Race




-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.7 - Release Date: 3/1/2005

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[Joel Jaeggli]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Christopher Woodfield wrote:
This does bring up a hardware design question...I'm wondering how difficult 
of an engineering/marketing problem it would be to design VoIP adapters with 
built-in backup batteries. How does the power consumption profile of a VoIP 
adapter compare to, say, a cellphone? What would this add to the cost of the 
device, and how long could the battery last?
I Like I suspect many people and any business I've ever encountered have 
an ups for my home router, switches, wireless accesspoints, and voip 
handset... if you have only a cordless phone you have approximately the 
same problem.

-C
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
Perhaps it varies by state, but I thought part of the E-911 service
regulations was that if you were offering (charging) for it, you had to
offer it as "lifeline" service which meant it had to survive power outage.
*shrug*
I guess the original regs weren't written with these things in mind!
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
John
Levine
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...


There was actually a story in USA Today a couple of days ago where a
family tried calling 911 on their VoIP service during a burglary only
to be told by a recorded message that they must "dial 911 from another
phone"...
I was surprised to see on Packet8's web site that they now offer E911 in a
lot of places.  You have to have a local phone number and pay an extra
$1.50/mo.  They remind you that if your power goes out, your phone still
won't work, but if you can call 911, it'll be a real 911 call.
This still has little to do with port blocking, but a lot to do with the
whole question of what level of service people are paying for vs.
what level they think they are paying for.
Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com,
Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.


--
-- 
Joel Jaeggli  	   Unix Consulting 	   [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Adi Linden]

So who's going to be the IP cop that decided which actions are
anti-competitive and which actions are 'customer care'?

How many service providers oversubscribe their internet feed. Just because
the advertisement says 384k upstream and 2Mbps downstream doesn't mean
this is a guaranteed rate available 24x7 to any destination. In most cases
there is some bandwidth management box somewhere that provides a fair
share of bandwidth to all of the ISPs customers. I am really curious at
which point shaping of traffic is viewed as anti-competitive...

Adi

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Thor Lancelot Simon]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:54:33PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
> 
>   I'm curious how you'd feel if your local telephone company started
> preventing you from calling its competitors. How about if you suddenly

Your local telephone company is a regulated entity.  It's required to
complete your calls regardless of which other carrier they terminate
on.

Vonage has fought tooth and nail to *not* be a regulated entity.  But
now it's turning around and complaining that other non-regulated
entities are employing the same freedom from regulation that Vonage
enjoys in a way that Vonage finds inconvenient.

Meanwhile, Vonage has been pretty much entirely out of service for
the entirety of this afternoon, for all subscribers.  Something very
similar happened yesterday.  If Vonage were a regulated telephone
carrier, it would be subject to millions of dollars of fines --
essentially, the regulatory regime would force it to give back to
its customers the money it will doubtless not give back to them of
its own good will (it would be suicidally stupid business practice
to give it back unless they ask, after all, and most won't ask).

But Vonage has used a complaisant FCC as a stick to beat another
non-regulated entity with in order to force it to behave the way
Vonage wants.

This is all very effective but it does stink to high heaven.  We
can argue about whether it is best to have telecom regulation or
not have telecom regulation, but "exactly as much regulation as
Vonage happens to want, where and when Vonage happens to want it"
is certainly neither equitable nor good.

Thor

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Bill Nash]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Nathan Allen Stratton wrote:
The fact is, the company was preventing it's users from using technology
offered by said company's competitors.
No, they are just preventing companies that are using port X, most
providers have figured out how to make VoIP work on any port.

It's a portable scenario, and it doesn't matter which port you block.
Flip it around:
HTTP can transit on any port. Block port 80 and see how long you last.
Here's another take on it. Don't think of this in terms of tracing packet 
routes. Trace the path of SLAs, AUPs, and peering agreements between 
Vonage and those blocked customers.

Madison River buys transit from someone. At some point, their contractual 
obligations for that peering arrangement are passing on elements of other 
peering agreements, which in turn pass on still more. This is the 
essential layer of cooperation and good faith that make the internet 
work.

On the other end, Vonage, or any Voip provider, for that matter, has 
purchased peering and transit with the reasonable expectation that they 
can pass end-to-end traffic, unfiltered. It would not be entirely 
unreasonable to see a peering agreement terminated for this behavior. I am 
not a lawyer, and I am not privy to the details of the peering agreements 
for the networks between Vonage and their end customers, but it's their 
faith in the basic nature of peering agreements that make their entire 
business model viable.

- billn

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Nathan Allen Stratton]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Seems to me that said company "BroadVoice?" was attempting to prevent the
> use of VoIP in an effort to prevent competition
> with it's current phone customers.  It's kind of a tough issue to deal
> with, if you think about it.

Hold, BroadVoice is a VoIP service provider I work for, I was just saying
I am speaking as Nathan, not as BroadVoice.

> There are two sides to the issue:
>
> 1.)  FCC doesn't want companies preventing other companies from competing.
> 2.)  On the other hand, how do you tell a company what services it can or
> can't block?
>
> The fact is, the company was preventing it's users from using technology
> offered by said company's competitors.

No, they are just preventing companies that are using port X, most
providers have figured out how to make VoIP work on any port.

-Nathan

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Bill Nash]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Nathan Allen Stratton wrote:
I don't speak for BroadVoice, but this seams to be to be stupid. Why
should the government get involved in ISPs blocking ports? If customers
don't like it, go to a new provider, what country is this??
Frankly, I don't see the point, any provider that requires 5060 or any
other port to offer VoIP services deserves to be shutoff by networks
blocking those ports. It is just to easy to talk to CPE on any port.
At the root of it, it's deliberate anti-competitive behavior, and that's 
what the fine is for. I'm generally fine to have the government stay out 
of the internet as much as possible, but this move was the correct one, as 
it was on behalf of the end consumer. It's not the choice of port blocking 
that matters, it's the intent.

I'm a Vonage customer myself, because I like the flexibility and control 
it provides me over my phone service. I'm also a Cox broadband customer. 
With Cox being a telephone provider, the instant they decide to begin 
filtering VOIP in order to reduce competition for their product, you can 
bet I'm going to voting with my dollar.

Any CPE based customer is paying for a connection to the Internet. Unless 
they're subscribing to a specifically limited or structured access service 
(like AOL, for example), they have a reasonable expectation to use the 
service to do.. customer-like things. Knowingly subscribing to a service 
that will allow me to connect, outbound only, to tcp ports 80 and 443, 
with all mail going to a specific MTA, I would not reasonably expect to be 
utilizing that style of service for VOIP, and that would be fine. This is 
not, however, the style of service I'm paying for, and far less than my 
provider has already agreed to provide me with.

This extends all the way to transit peering agreements, as well. I don't 
recall ever seeing one that says "We agree to transit all traffic except 
VOIP." What would be the point? I wouldn't agree to buy incomplete transit 
any more than I'd try to sell it.

To have a company that also provides telephone service to specifically 
block a competiting service, which customers are paying them to transit, 
is a breach of contract at best, and outright criminal at worst.

- billn

RE: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[David Schwartz]

> I don't speak for BroadVoice, but this seams to be to be stupid. Why
> should the government get involved in ISPs blocking ports? If customers
> don't like it, go to a new provider, what country is this??

I'm curious how you'd feel if your local telephone company started
preventing you from calling its competitors. How about if you suddenly
discover your car won't drive you to a competitor's dealership due to a
lockout included by the manufacturer (that you neither knew about nor agreed
to when you bought it).

It is only in the Internet business and the software business that a
company can sell you a product with no representations that it will actually
do anything and with you having essentially no recourse if it doesn't meet
your expectations. If I pay for Internet access, I expect to get it. And if
you're not actually providing Internet access, don't clima to.

The Internet is not ports, it's not machines, it's not protocols. We 
could
change all that and it could still be the Internet. The Internet is a
philosophy, and the results of that philosophy. It's about making a good
faith best effort to connect to and exchange information with anyone else
who makes a similar effort.

Let's not lose sight of the big picture. I sympathize with the "if you
don't like it go elsewhere" view, but I also believe that people should
provide the service they agreed to be provide, and when they fail to do so
without justification, they should be penalized for their fraud.

DS

Network automation?

[Brent Chapman]

[Apologies to those of you seeing this twice; I'm reposting it without a 
wayward References: header that inadvertently tracked this into an unrelated 
discussion, which I suspect many folks may have already suppressed.  -Brent]

What's the state of the art for automated network configuration and management? 
 What systems and tools are available, either freely or commercially?  Where 
are these issues being considered and discussed?

I'm not simply talking about network status monitoring systems like HP 
OpenView, or device configuration monitoring systems like RANCID, although 
those are certainly useful.  Instead, I'm talking about systems that will start 
from a description of how a network ought to be configured, and then interact 
with the various devices on that network to make it so; something like cfengine 
for network devices.

Over the last 15 years or so, much of the research in the system administration 
field has focused on automation.  It's now well accepted that a well-run 
operation doesn't manage 10,000 servers individually, but rather uses tools 
like cfengine to manage definitions of those servers and then create instances 
of those servers as needed.  In the networking world, though, most of us seem 
to be still manually configuring (and reconfiguring) every device.

Luke A. Kanies does a good job of explaining the logic behind this approach in 
an article he wrote a few years ago at

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2001/12/20/sysadmin.html

The key benefits that he sees from automation are:

1) Reducing the amount of time a given task requires.
2) Reducing the opportunity for error in a given task.
3) Reducing turnaround time for a given task.
4) Enhancing and perpetuating configuration consistency across multiple systems.
5) Providing a limited kind of process documentation.

I concur with him about all of those.  I think these benefits (particularly the 
4th one, consistency) are critical if your goal is to offer a reliable service 
(increasing MTBF and decreasing MTTR).

So, like I asked at the top, where are we on this?


-Brent
-- 
Brent Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Great Circle Associates, Inc.
http://www.greatcircle.com/
+1 650 962 0841

Re: DNS cache poisoning attack?

[Florian Weimer]

> Any additional info. on this or whether it is just localized or
> widespread?

Either it's not truly global, or the redirection does not happen at
the DNS level, or both.  We don't see it on our sensors.

Re: vonage routing issues

[Rachael Treu]

..snip snip..
On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:17:11PM -0500, Jon Lewis said something to the 
effect of:
> I got interrupted typing this, and I see that in the past 40 minutes
> routing has changed...now it ends with
> 
> 13. 0.so-5-0-0.XL1.NYC9.ALTER.NET  0%4442   41   42 42
> 14. 0.so-0-0-0.XR1.NYC9.ALTER.NET  0%3342   42   42 42
> 15. 181.ATM7-0.GW4.NYC9.ALTER.NET  0%3342   41   41 42
> 16. ???

fwiw...I'm trying the same trace from nodes within CoreNAP and pnap spaces
and am seeing the same thing.

However, my Vonage at home has functioned without interruption, as far as
I am able to tell.  I suppose I may have covens of angry family members who 
have been trying unsuccessfully to call me with thrilling tales of gall stones 
and lazy boyfriends, but I have heard nothing to suggest that is the case. 

Then again, my personal delivery of Vonage seems to include the nifty 
"Surprise!  Half-duplex!" feature that leaves me suddenly able to hear the 
other party without the other party being able to hear me (this, 
coincidentally, throws a big wrench into mitigating the aforementioned family 
fun calls), and that has been on the rise this week. 

ymmv,
--ra

--
k. rachael treu, CISSP  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?..

> 
> and I get "The document contains no data" from www.vonage.com.  Earlier it
> was painfully slow, but would eventually mostly load.
> 
> Anyone know what's going on or where the problem is?
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if Vonage's "your blocking us" news stories have
> just been coverup for network stability/capacity issues.
> 
> --
>  Jon Lewis   |  I route
>  Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
>  Atlantic Net|
> _ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Dominic J. Eidson]

It's worth pointing out that the companies in the article, are Vonage and
Nuvia - not BroadVoice.


 - d.

-- 
Dominic J. Eidson
"Baruk Khazad! Khazad ai-menu!" - Gimli
---
   http://www.the-infinite.org/

Re: US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[trainier]

Seems to me that said company "BroadVoice?"
was attempting to prevent the use of VoIP in an effort to prevent competition
with it's current phone customers.  It's
kind of a tough issue to deal with, if you think about it.

There are two sides to the issue:

1.)  FCC doesn't want companies
preventing other companies from competing.
2.)  On the other hand, how do
you tell a company what services it can or can't block?

The fact is, the company was preventing it's users from using technology
offered by said company's competitors.
There are parts of this country from which you don't have "other isp"
options.  

You mentioned something about ports.  I highly doubt that BroadVoice
used ports to deny the service.
I'm sure the blocks were at least a little bit more complicated than just
blocking out ports.

It's a very interesting issue.  For once, I tend to agree with the
FCC on this one.

Regards,

Tim Rainier





Nathan Allen Stratton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
03/04/2005 03:50 PM




To
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


cc



Subject
US slaps fine on company
blocking VoIP










http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70081/us-slaps-fine-on-company-blocking-voip.html

I don't speak for BroadVoice, but this seams to be to be stupid. Why
should the government get involved in ISPs blocking ports? If customers
don't like it, go to a new provider, what country is this??

Frankly, I don't see the point, any provider that requires 5060 or any
other port to offer VoIP services deserves to be shutoff by networks
blocking those ports. It is just to easy to talk to CPE on any port.

><>
Nathan Stratton                
                  BroadVoice,
Inc.
nathan at robotics.net              
                  Talk IS
Cheap
http://www.robotics.net              
            http://www.broadvoice.com

Re: vonage routing issues

[Michael Painter]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Neiberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: vonage routing issues


> 
> >>> Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/4/05 1:17:11 PM >>>
> >
> >Anyone else having reachability issues with Vonage?  The past two
> days,
> >about this time (~2pm), we've been unable to reach www.vonage.com and
> >customers with vonage phones have lost their service.
> >
> >My traces to them end with:
> >
> >13. 64.200.88.173  0%8832   31  
> 33 42
> >14. nycmny2wcx2-pos1-0-oc192.wcg.net   0%8837   37  
> 70176
> >15. ???
> 
> Interesting. I can't get to them, either. A trace from my site to
> theirs (via Sprint) ends here:
> 
> border23.ge2-0-bbnet1.nyc.pnap.net (209.191.128.92) [AS 10910] 
> 
> John

Fwiw, my trace ends at border23.ge2-0-bbnet1.nyc.pnap.net [209.191.128.92] as 
well, but I -can- browse to the site with IE.

--Michael

US slaps fine on company blocking VoIP

[Nathan Allen Stratton]

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70081/us-slaps-fine-on-company-blocking-voip.html

I don't speak for BroadVoice, but this seams to be to be stupid. Why
should the government get involved in ISPs blocking ports? If customers
don't like it, go to a new provider, what country is this??

Frankly, I don't see the point, any provider that requires 5060 or any
other port to offer VoIP services deserves to be shutoff by networks
blocking those ports. It is just to easy to talk to CPE on any port.

><>
Nathan Stratton   BroadVoice, Inc.
nathan at robotics.net Talk IS Cheap
http://www.robotics.net   http://www.broadvoice.com

Re: vonage routing issues

[John Neiberger]

>>> Jon Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 3/4/05 1:17:11 PM >>>
>
>Anyone else having reachability issues with Vonage?  The past two
days,
>about this time (~2pm), we've been unable to reach www.vonage.com and
>customers with vonage phones have lost their service.
>
>My traces to them end with:
>
>13. 64.200.88.173  0%8832   31  
33 42
>14. nycmny2wcx2-pos1-0-oc192.wcg.net   0%8837   37  
70176
>15. ???

Interesting. I can't get to them, either. A trace from my site to
theirs (via Sprint) ends here:

border23.ge2-0-bbnet1.nyc.pnap.net (209.191.128.92) [AS 10910] 

John
--

Re: vonage routing issues

[Michael Loftis]

I'm seeing the same problem here from two points, dropping dead 
inside/customer edge at ALTERalso can't get to their site.  I don't 
know about my Vonage phone at home though.  I can check it when I finally 
make it home tonight but by then it will probably clear upWhatever it 
is, it's not local.

vonage routing issues

[Jon Lewis]

Anyone else having reachability issues with Vonage?  The past two days,
about this time (~2pm), we've been unable to reach www.vonage.com and
customers with vonage phones have lost their service.

My traces to them end with:

13. 64.200.88.173  0%8832   31   33 42
14. nycmny2wcx2-pos1-0-oc192.wcg.net   0%8837   37   70176
15. ???

One of my clients complaining about this said that today in a
traceroute, they saw a loop going from sprint->pnap->wcg->sprint->pnap->xo

I got interrupted typing this, and I see that in the past 40 minutes
routing has changed...now it ends with

13. 0.so-5-0-0.XL1.NYC9.ALTER.NET  0%4442   41   42 42
14. 0.so-0-0-0.XR1.NYC9.ALTER.NET  0%3342   42   42 42
15. 181.ATM7-0.GW4.NYC9.ALTER.NET  0%3342   41   41 42
16. ???

and I get "The document contains no data" from www.vonage.com.  Earlier it
was painfully slow, but would eventually mostly load.

Anyone know what's going on or where the problem is?

I'm starting to wonder if Vonage's "your blocking us" news stories have
just been coverup for network stability/capacity issues.

--
 Jon Lewis   |  I route
 Senior Network Engineer |  therefore you are
 Atlantic Net|
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

RE: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Joe Johnson]

Most proxy caches are jokes nowadays, anyway.  In middle school, the local
district used a Microsoft Proxy server that blocked all sites except a
whitelist. When it took over 45 seconds to check a site against the
whitelist (and by that time, all but a few students knew the one and only
name and password, anyway).

Then by High School, they moved to Bess from N2H2 and realized that giving
teachers names and passwords was a mistake (it took 1 week to be as
effective as the old proxy, which still worked anyway). Then they revoked
all user accounts on the proxy servers and blocked external proxies, just in
time for Terminal Services to allow people to remote to their home PC and
browse at their leisure (no, port blocking never came to their mind, and no
one mentioed it to them).

Sincerely,
 
Joe Johnson
www.JoeLovesDreamweaver.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


P.S.: Gary, I am sure I want to use Outlook.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gary
E. Miller
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 1:35 PM
To: Michael Loftis
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites


-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Yo Michael!

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:

> > Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"?
>
> In the same way the FCC allowed TV to so graciously implement the 'V-CHIP'
> technology?

Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip?

In the case of content filtering I do know of businesses and libraries that
pretend to do it.

RGDS
GARY
-
---
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCKLhq8KZibdeR3qURAqxAAJ9inxcUpOcvtFBMKWZjVf3mfGTGZACfdZO/
Yg1go8xcSZIfo6qXseuMnXs=
=1LHM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Eric Gauthier]

> Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip?
> 

Though I've personally never met him, I think Eric Cartman has:

http://members.tripod.com/~JB/southpark/vchip.wav
http://www.moviesounds.com/sp/vchip.mp3

Eric :)

DNS cache poisoning attack?

[Fergie (Paul Ferguson)]

Any additional info. on this or whether it is just localized
or widespread?

http://isc.sans.org/diary.php
[Updated March 4th 2005 18:11 UTC]

- ferg

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Gary E. Miller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Yo Michael!

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Michael Loftis wrote:

> > Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"?
>
> In the same way the FCC allowed TV to so graciously implement the 'V-CHIP'
> technology?

Does anyone actually know anyone that has actually used the V-Chip?

In the case of content filtering I do know of businesses and libraries
that pretend to do it.

RGDS
GARY
- ---
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCKLhq8KZibdeR3qURAqxAAJ9inxcUpOcvtFBMKWZjVf3mfGTGZACfdZO/
Yg1go8xcSZIfo6qXseuMnXs=
=1LHM
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[Robert Bonomi]

> From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Fri Mar  4 11:44:17 2005
> From: Christopher Woodfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:45:54 -0500
>
>
>
> On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
>
> >
> > Perhaps it varies by state, but I thought part of the E-911 service
> > regulations was that if you were offering (charging) for it, you had to
> > offer it as "lifeline" service which meant it had to survive power 
> > outage.
> > *shrug*
> >
> > I guess the original regs weren't written with these things in mind!
>
> This does bring up a hardware design question...I'm wondering how 
> difficult of an engineering/marketing problem it would be to design 
> VoIP adapters with built-in backup batteries.

Relatively trivial.  Or you could just plug it into a UPS.

>   How does the power 
> consumption profile of a VoIP adapter compare to, say, a cellphone? 

Look at the typical "wall wart" that powers it.  Draw is "a few watts".

Compare this to the battery rating for a cell-phone. (a few amp-hours, at
a few volts -- run-times in the *multiple* "tens of hours")

Cell-phone is "order of magnitude", at least, lower in power consumption.

VOIP adapters _could_ be designed (at higher cost) to consume considerably
less power, but present-day cost/benefit analysis dictates against doing so.

> What would this add to the cost of the device,

Meaningless question, as stated.  Something on the order of "10 seconds" can 
be handled by simply adding a SuperCap -- cost measured in pennies. OTOH,
to ride out a 72-hour power-failure probably adds $100 or more.

>and how long could the 
> battery last?

How much battery are you willing to pay for?  

However, it isn't _only_ the VOIP adapter that has to have back-up power,  

*EVERY* piece of gear 'upstream' of it has to be powered, too.
This includes, at a minimum the following CPE:
the VOIP adapter,
any hub/switch/routers in the circuit,
any dedicated "firewall" hardware,
and the DSL/cable "modem" CPE, itself.

"Cable" connections may have in-line amplifiers/repeaters between the
customer location and the "head-end" -- gotta have back-up for the power
feed (going down the cable, itself) for those devices.

*PLUS* back-up power for the 'head end' gear -- DSLAM at the C.O., or cable
the concentrator. --  as well as the routers that switch the traffic to the
'backbone'.

Now, the CPE can be simply plugged into a stand-by UPS with reasonable
battery capacity, and you'll get as much run-time as you're willing to
pay for.Assuming you've only got a VOIP adapter, and a cable/DSL 
modem to deal with -- call it 20 watts total --  then a UPS rated for
1000 watts, with a run-time of 10 minutes at full load, will probably run
at least 10-15 _hours_ powering only the VOIP adapter and cable/DSL modem.

Of course, having the CPE powered is _worthless_ if the immediate upstream 
gear has lost power.  

I can't see how Vonage, or *any* other "3rd party" (i.e. anybody other than 
the provider of the gear for the infamous 'last mile' connectivitiy) can
_hope_ to claim service 'survivability' in the event of a power failure.

Considering that the "Packet8"s, etc. have *no* contract whatsoever with that
last-mile provider, they can't even 'specify requirements'.

They can "encourage" the customer to put the CPE on UPS, but that's all.

Getting somewhat "far afield" from 'network operations', but this issue
also arises with regard to "real telephone service" offered by the CABLE TV
companies.  All too frequently _this_ service relies on CPE that draws 
'utility' power.  It is frequently the case that they fail to mention to
the customer the "desirability" of putting _that_ equipment on UPS.  With
the resultant loss of dial-tone in the event of _power_ failure.

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[Robert Blayzor]

Carry my VoIP traffic or else!!

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/70081/us-slaps-fine-on-company-blocking-voip.html


-- 
Robert Blayzor, BOFH
INOC, LLC
rblayzor\@(inoc.net|gmail.com)
PGP: http://www.inoc.net/~dev/
Key fingerprint = 1E02 DABE F989 BC03 3DF5  0E93 8D02 9D0B CB1A A7B0

Hey! It compiles! Ship it!

Re: Bank One 159.53.0.0/16 contact?

[Jared Mauch]

On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 01:02:30PM -0500, David Hubbard wrote:
> Anyone have a clueful contact at Bank One?  Their
> ARIN POC info is some generic switchboard that is
> completely unrelated to their allocation and who
> refuses to connect you to anyone in datacomm if
> you don't know a specific contact name to ask for.
> They told me that they'd be happy to write down
> what was supposedly being attacked by Bank One's
> network, although they found that hard to believe,
> and get me a response from a manager if one felt
> it was appropriate though but that may take a day
> or two.  Nice...

I had no problem contacting the whois contact in the
past for Bank One. I used the domain whois contact instead of the
in-addr whois contact.

I was expecting a bad experience, but was quite surprised, I
received a call back when the person returned from lunch who
was responsible for the problem.

- jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Michael Loftis]

--On Friday, March 04, 2005 11:06 AM -0500 Patrick W Gilmore 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"?
In the same way the FCC allowed TV to so graciously implement the 'V-CHIP' 
technology?  I doubt it.  Aside fromt he normal bents of Utah, I bet 
'someone' is lobbying the Utah officials.  Lots of money to be made, and 
lost.

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[John R Levine]

> This does bring up a hardware design question...I'm wondering how
> difficult of an engineering/marketing problem it would be to design
> VoIP adapters with built-in backup batteries. How does the power
> consumption profile of a VoIP adapter compare to, say, a cellphone?
> What would this add to the cost of the device, and how long could the
> battery last?

Funny you should ask.  POTS phones used to contain their own batteries,
but in the mid-1890s they switched to the current system that powers the
phone from the central office because maintaining the batteries was a
logistical nightmare.

I realize that things have advanced a little in the past century, but my
UPS still needs new batteries every year.  Since VoIP adapters have to
power POTS phones, their power needs are going to be those of POTS phones
rather than cell phones, and that means the battery has to provide enough
power to make the phone ring.

It's a fairly important part of the cableco system that their adapter with
the batteries is on the outside of the house so they can send guys around
to replace the batteries without the subscribers' help.  I don't see how
it'd ever be practical to get users of parasitic VoIP to maintain their
batteries since they'd only notice that the batteries had failed when the
power was out.

Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[William Allen Simpson]

Nanog Deform wrote:
First of all So what. Second what does this have to do with network
operations? This discussion went from ISP's blocking porn to gay
marriage.
 

Actually, gay marriage wasn't mentioned  Living together isn't
marriage, and most common law marriage statutes have long ago gone by
the boards.
The topic is ISP enforcement of local/regional/state/national "morality". 

And I thought it a nice heads-up on the difficulty of technical
enforcement measures, with an example of a "blue" state where 40% of
the citizens ignore the law  Despite some self-appointed moral
arbiters trying to send them to jail.
The Lynn Rivers Show (WEMU locally) had a nice segment today on
victimless crimes, with the heads of the Libertarian Party and NORML. 

Under the Utah law, we'd have to block access to lp.org and norml.org.

Nanog Deformer
(self appointed moderator)
 

Somebody not observing the NANOG rules on pseudonymous posting. 

Could a real moderator block this nitwit, please?
--
William Allen Simpson
   Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

--
William Allen Simpson
   Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

RE: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[John R Levine]

> There are EMTAs cable modems with VoIP ATA's that have 4 hr battery in the
> market already.

Sure.  Many cable providers offer a superior form of VoIP that's
engineered to act like real phone service with reserved bandwidth to their
own switches and backup power for all the pieces on the way along with
E911 and the other features we expect from real phone service.

It needs a name of its own to distinguish it from the parasitic VoIP that
Vonage, Lingo, et all offer.

> > This still has little to do with port blocking, but a lot to do with
> > the whole question of what level of service people are paying for vs.
> > what level they think they are paying for.

Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://iecc.com/johnl, Mayor
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

Re: .US TLD Owners Lose Privacy

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine]

Oki all,

For those of you in the Lower-48, plus Alaska and Hawai'i, I sent this to
my local ISP association. You can ignore it, ridicule it, or adapt it to
your state and pretend to have written it. I don't mind either way.

If you do want to try it chez vous, and you want my help (or hinderence,
depending on perspective) drop me a line.

Eric

--- Forwarded Message

Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:05:46 -0500
From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at midcoast.com
Subject: [Maineisp] DoC opens .us to spam, forward from WiReD/NANOG,
and some commentary
X-BeenThere: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Maine ISP Association 
List-Unsubscribe: ,

List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: ,

Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at midcoast.com

Folks,

By way of background, this is part of the "whois foodfight" in the policy
area of ICANN and the DNS. The working assumption is that every domain is
either of interest to an intellectual property owner (infringement) or to
a law enforcement officer (pedi-porn), and vastly lower down the rational
food chain that every domain is used in some form of UCE scheme (spam).

These are all deeply problematic assumptions, but that hasn't made any
impression on the actors at ICANN, or the less than best-and-brightest
at the DOC/NTIA which owns .us.

I wrote the proposal for NeuStar to operate .us in 2001, which the DOC/NTIA
selected, so I'm modestly clueful on the operational and policy issues.

What this means here in Maine is that no one can now register domain names
of the form:

"michal-heath-is-a-big-fat-idiot.me.us"
or
"the-monopoly-ilec-blows-chunks.me.us"
or
"workarounds-for-nannyware-pending-constituional-challenge.me.us"

without providing the semblence of a personal (or corporate) identifier,
consisting of a personal (or corporate) name, and contact information, as
well as an email address which is not that of a 3rd-party proxy such as
attornies and registered agents, which will be accessible to anyone who
wants to "look behind the veil", without restriction.

I can't fix the retardation at ICANN or the DOC/NTIA, but I can ask you
all to think about whether you want the Maine Legis to remain silent on
the sanity of assuming that every domain name registrant is infringing
on a trademark, or a publishing pedophile, or otherwise engaging in some
conduct that necessitates the registrant providing an address for legal
service, their identity, and expose a mail address (your product) to the
address harvesters for resale to spam-based marketing operations (your
problem).

If you haven't passed out already from my boring prose, and you'll do me
the kindness of reading another paragraph, where this is heading is moving
the policy oversight for me.us, that is, the marketing of "Maine" as a
state on the internet from the DoC/NTIA to Maine, and the operations for
me.us from Virginia to Maine.

Then we can use John Baldacci or Steve Rowe, who presumably couldn't be
bothered who thinks Michael Heath is a big fat idiot, or has unflattering
things to write about Verizon or TimeWarner, or discusses breast feeding,
to "proxy" registrations, preserving free political and commercial speech,
until due cause for "lifting the veil" is argued, and at some non-trivial
standard of proof.

Plus we innoculate our local policy makers from a highly contagious case
of bird brain flu on issues like spam, privacy and jurisdiction.

Thanks for your patience, really.
Eric

- --- Forwarded Message


>From WiReD:

"The U.S. Commerce Department has ordered companies
that administer internet addresses to stop allowing
customers to register .us domain names anonymously
using proxy services."

"The move does not affect owners of .com and .net
domains. But it means website owners with .us domains
will no longer be able to shield their name and
contact information from public eyes."

http://wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,66787,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

- - - ferg



- --- End of Forwarded Message

___
Maineisp mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lbs.midcoast.com/mailman/listinfo/maineisp

--- End of Forwarded Message

RE: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[Scott Morris]

Actually, many of the EMTAs in the cable world derive AC power from the
coax...  Powered inline just like all the amps are.  At least the ones that
hang outside your house...

But with the Vonage idea of stuff inside your house that can't be done...
Old federal laws about the concept that the electric company is the only one
who can deliver power into your house.

Scott
 

-Original Message-
From: Deleskie, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:47 PM
To: 'Christopher Woodfield'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'John Levine'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: More on Vonage service disruptions...


There are EMTAs cable modems with VoIP ATA's that have 4 hr battery in the
market already.  

-Jim
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Woodfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 12:46 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'John Levine'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...



This does bring up a hardware design question...I'm wondering how difficult
of an engineering/marketing problem it would be to design VoIP adapters with
built-in backup batteries. How does the power consumption profile of a VoIP
adapter compare to, say, a cellphone? 
What would this add to the cost of the device, and how long could the
battery last?

-C

On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Scott Morris wrote:

>
> Perhaps it varies by state, but I thought part of the E-911 service 
> regulations was that if you were offering (charging) for it, you had 
> to offer it as "lifeline" service which meant it had to survive power 
> outage.
> *shrug*
>
> I guess the original regs weren't written with these things in mind!
>
> Scott
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of John Levine
> Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...
>
>
>> There was actually a story in USA Today a couple of days ago where a
>> family tried calling 911 on their VoIP service during a burglary only
>> to be told by a recorded message that they must "dial 911 from another
>> phone"...
>
> I was surprised to see on Packet8's web site that they now offer E911 
> in a
> lot of places.  You have to have a local phone number and pay an extra
> $1.50/mo.  They remind you that if your power goes out, your phone 
> still
> won't work, but if you can call 911, it'll be a real 911 call.
>
> This still has little to do with port blocking, but a lot to do with 
> the
> whole question of what level of service people are paying for vs.
> what level they think they are paying for.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
> Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, 
> http://www.johnlevine.com,
> Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.
>
>

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Table Analysis]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 05 Mar, 2005

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  156980
Prefixes after maximum aggregation:   91812
Unique aggregates announced to Internet:  75951
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 19079
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   16598
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:7747
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:2481
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 80
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.5
Max AS path length visible:  19
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:15
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:0
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 12
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   1381365024
Equivalent to 82 /8s, 85 /16s and 245 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   37.3
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   58.9
Percentage of available address space allocated:   63.2
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:   73122

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:31360
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   15191
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:   29402
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:15308
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:2215
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:651
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:329
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.4
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 15
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  176401600
Equivalent to 10 /8s, 131 /16s and 172 /24s
Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 65.5

APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
   23552-24575
APNIC Address Blocks   58/7, 60/7, 124/7, 126/8, 202/7, 210/7, 218/7,
   220/7 and 222/8

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 87515
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:52984
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:66773
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 24478
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9907
ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:3583
ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 947
Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 4.3
Max ARIN Region AS path length visible:  17
Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet:   240188416
Equivalent to 14 /8s, 80 /16s and 252 /24s
Percentage of available ARIN address space announced:  71.6

ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106
   2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153
   3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466
   7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407
   18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591,
   26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791
ARIN Address Blocks24/8, 63/8, 64/6, 68/7, 70/7, 72/8, 198/7, 204/6,
   208/7 and 216/8

RIPE Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 29849
Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation:20530
Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks:26772
Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 17751
RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 6363
RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:3361
RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:1073
Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 5.1
Max RIPE Region AS path length visible:  19
Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet:   193577808
Equivalent to 11 /

Bank One 159.53.0.0/16 contact?

[David Hubbard]

Anyone have a clueful contact at Bank One?  Their
ARIN POC info is some generic switchboard that is
completely unrelated to their allocation and who
refuses to connect you to anyone in datacomm if
you don't know a specific contact name to ask for.
They told me that they'd be happy to write down
what was supposedly being attacked by Bank One's
network, although they found that hard to believe,
and get me a response from a manager if one felt
it was appropriate though but that may take a day
or two.  Nice...

Thanks,

David

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[Christopher Woodfield]

Replying to myself...
Yes, I am aware that a battery backup in the VoIP adapter doesn't do 
you much good if you don't have power on the cable/DSL modem and any 
intermediate gear - or your wireless phone, for that matter...

That said, this could be a feature that customers could be looking for 
as IP connectivity becomes more of a utility-like service.

-C
On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Christopher Woodfield wrote:
This does bring up a hardware design question...I'm wondering how 
difficult of an engineering/marketing problem it would be to design 
VoIP adapters with built-in backup batteries. How does the power 
consumption profile of a VoIP adapter compare to, say, a cellphone? 
What would this add to the cost of the device, and how long could the 
battery last?

-C
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
Perhaps it varies by state, but I thought part of the E-911 service
regulations was that if you were offering (charging) for it, you had 
to
offer it as "lifeline" service which meant it had to survive power 
outage.
*shrug*

I guess the original regs weren't written with these things in mind!
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of John
Levine
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...


There was actually a story in USA Today a couple of days ago where a
family tried calling 911 on their VoIP service during a burglary only
to be told by a recorded message that they must "dial 911 from 
another
phone"...
I was surprised to see on Packet8's web site that they now offer E911 
in a
lot of places.  You have to have a local phone number and pay an extra
$1.50/mo.  They remind you that if your power goes out, your phone 
still
won't work, but if you can call 911, it'll be a real 911 call.

This still has little to do with port blocking, but a lot to do with 
the
whole question of what level of service people are paying for vs.
what level they think they are paying for.

Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, 
http://www.johnlevine.com,
Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Nanog Deform]

First of all So what. Second what does this have to do with network
operations? This discussion went from ISP's blocking porn to gay
marriage.

Joine efnet and #politics if you want to talk about gay people, but
please spare us of the drama.

I would have just ignored this thread if it wasn't disguised as possibly useful.

This is the problem with nanog, its no longer useful or operational.
Most of the contributors to nanog have been wasting their time the
last xxx weeks being girly men arguing about laptops for
presentations.

I bet the blackhats are having a good time watching you bicker and
fight and not pay attention to the real issues of network operations.

Nanog Deformer
(self appointed moderator)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 12:01:38 -0500, William Allen Simpson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Richard Irving wrote:
> 
> >   I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked,
> > -here-, your account is now _disabled_.
> >
> > You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like.
> >
> >   :P
> >
> >   This is another attempt to legislate something that
> > can be solved, or should be solved, with technology.
> >
> >  After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws
> > have worked.
> >
> >   * cough *
> >
> >   The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low,
> > in my book.
> >
> >   This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed
> > in one state,  (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State)
> > that declared same sex couples living together,
> > instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine,
> > and incarceration.
> >
> >   Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?
> >
> Umm, we have a longstanding law here in Michigan that defines *any* sex
> couples living together as criminals, and the legislature raised the fine
> from $300 to $1,000 a few years ago, in a 3 am lame duck session just
> before the Republican governor left and became the head lobbyist for the
> National Association of Manufacturers.
> 
> --
> William Allen Simpson
> Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
> 
>

RE: Network automation?

[Greenhagen, Robin]

http://www.titan-central.com/

These guys pitched to us about 18 months ago.  It looked quite nice, but
not really priced for Enterprise level money, not Service Provider
money.  It would probably worth reinvestigating.

Robin Greenhagen
GSI


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brent Chapman
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 11:15 AM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Network automation?


What's the state of the art for automated network configuration and 
management?  What systems and tools are available, either freely or 
commercially?  Where are these issues being considered and discussed?

I'm not simply talking about network status monitoring systems like 
HP OpenView, or device configuration monitoring systems like RANCID, 
although those are certainly useful.  Instead, I'm talking about 
systems that will start from a description of how a network ought to 
be configured, and then interact with the various devices on that 
network to make it so; something like cfengine for network devices.

Over the last 15 years or so, much of the research in the system 
administration field has focused on automation.  It's now well 
accepted that a well-run operation doesn't manage 10,000 servers 
individually, but rather uses tools like cfengine to manage 
definitions of those servers and then create instances of those 
servers as needed.  In the networking world, though, most of us seem 
to be still manually configuring (and reconfiguring) every device.

Luke A. Kanies does a good job of explaining the logic behind this 
approach in an article he wrote a few years ago at

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2001/12/20/sysadmin.html

The key benefits that he sees from automation are:

1) Reducing the amount of time a given task requires.
2) Reducing the opportunity for error in a given task.
3) Reducing turnaround time for a given task.
4) Enhancing and perpetuating configuration consistency across 
multiple systems.
5) Providing a limited kind of process documentation.

I concur with him about all of those.  I think these benefits 
(particularly the 4th one, consistency) are critical if your goal is 
to offer a reliable service (increasing MTBF and decreasing MTTR).

So, like I asked at the top, where are we on this?


-Brent
-- 
Brent Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Great Circle Associates, Inc.
http://www.greatcircle.com/
+1 650 962 0841

Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...

[Christopher Woodfield]

This does bring up a hardware design question...I'm wondering how 
difficult of an engineering/marketing problem it would be to design 
VoIP adapters with built-in backup batteries. How does the power 
consumption profile of a VoIP adapter compare to, say, a cellphone? 
What would this add to the cost of the device, and how long could the 
battery last?

-C
On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:25 PM, Scott Morris wrote:
Perhaps it varies by state, but I thought part of the E-911 service
regulations was that if you were offering (charging) for it, you had to
offer it as "lifeline" service which meant it had to survive power 
outage.
*shrug*

I guess the original regs weren't written with these things in mind!
Scott
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of John
Levine
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 9:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More on Vonage service disruptions...


There was actually a story in USA Today a couple of days ago where a
family tried calling 911 on their VoIP service during a burglary only
to be told by a recorded message that they must "dial 911 from another
phone"...
I was surprised to see on Packet8's web site that they now offer E911 
in a
lot of places.  You have to have a local phone number and pay an extra
$1.50/mo.  They remind you that if your power goes out, your phone 
still
won't work, but if you can call 911, it'll be a real 911 call.

This still has little to do with port blocking, but a lot to do with 
the
whole question of what level of service people are paying for vs.
what level they think they are paying for.

Regards,
John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for
Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, 
http://www.johnlevine.com,
Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

Network automation?

[Brent Chapman]

What's the state of the art for automated network configuration and 
management?  What systems and tools are available, either freely or 
commercially?  Where are these issues being considered and discussed?

I'm not simply talking about network status monitoring systems like 
HP OpenView, or device configuration monitoring systems like RANCID, 
although those are certainly useful.  Instead, I'm talking about 
systems that will start from a description of how a network ought to 
be configured, and then interact with the various devices on that 
network to make it so; something like cfengine for network devices.

Over the last 15 years or so, much of the research in the system 
administration field has focused on automation.  It's now well 
accepted that a well-run operation doesn't manage 10,000 servers 
individually, but rather uses tools like cfengine to manage 
definitions of those servers and then create instances of those 
servers as needed.  In the networking world, though, most of us seem 
to be still manually configuring (and reconfiguring) every device.

Luke A. Kanies does a good job of explaining the logic behind this 
approach in an article he wrote a few years ago at

http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2001/12/20/sysadmin.html
The key benefits that he sees from automation are:
1) Reducing the amount of time a given task requires.
2) Reducing the opportunity for error in a given task.
3) Reducing turnaround time for a given task.
4) Enhancing and perpetuating configuration consistency across 
multiple systems.
5) Providing a limited kind of process documentation.

I concur with him about all of those.  I think these benefits 
(particularly the 4th one, consistency) are critical if your goal is 
to offer a reliable service (increasing MTBF and decreasing MTTR).

So, like I asked at the top, where are we on this?
-Brent
--
Brent Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Great Circle Associates, Inc.
http://www.greatcircle.com/
+1 650 962 0841

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[William Allen Simpson]

Richard Irving wrote:
  I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked,
-here-, your account is now _disabled_.
You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like.
  :P
  This is another attempt to legislate something that
can be solved, or should be solved, with technology.
 After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws
have worked.
  * cough *
  The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low,
in my book.
  This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed
in one state,  (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State)
that declared same sex couples living together,
instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine,
and incarceration.
  Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?
Umm, we have a longstanding law here in Michigan that defines *any* sex
couples living together as criminals, and the legislature raised the fine
from $300 to $1,000 a few years ago, in a 3 am lame duck session just
before the Republican governor left and became the head lobbyist for the
National Association of Manufacturers.
--
William Allen Simpson
   Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Richard Irving]

Roy Engehausen wrote:
You missed a very important line in the article:
"Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable 
access to sites on the list or face felony charges."

In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to "opt-in" 
to a filter.  Doesn't sound illegal to force an ISP to provide a feature.

  I have a way. You want the Internet sites on this list blocked,
-here-, your account is now _disabled_.
You won't -ever- have to worry about accessing sites you don't like.
  :P
  This is another attempt to legislate something that
can be solved, or should be solved, with technology.
 After all, we have -all- seen how well the anti-UCE laws
have worked.
  * cough *
  The last 5 years of politics, have set a record low,
in my book.
  This law ranks right up there, with the law recently passed
in one state,  (in the past year, and, of course, a Red State)
that declared same sex couples living together,
instead of being married, as criminals, subject to a fine,
and incarceration.
  Did someone spike the legislative punch bowl, or _what_ ?

Roy
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
 

"The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a
bill that would require Internet providers to block
Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also
target e-mail providers and search engines."
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-5598912.html?tag=nefd.top 

  

Someone might consider pointing them to the law from the state of PA that
did similar things... Then point them at the overturning of that law.
 

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Patrick W Gilmore]

On Mar 4, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Roy Engehausen wrote:
You missed a very important line in the article:
"Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to 
disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges."

In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to "opt-in" 
to a filter.  Doesn't sound illegal to force an ISP to provide a 
feature.
Would "unplug your cable" qualify as a "way to disable access"?
--
TTFN,
patrick

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Roy Engehausen]

You missed a very important line in the article:
"Internet providers in Utah must offer their customers a way to disable 
access to sites on the list or face felony charges."

In other words you must provide a mechanism for a customer to "opt-in" 
to a filter.  Doesn't sound illegal to force an ISP to provide a feature.

Roy
Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
 

"The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a
bill that would require Internet providers to block
Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also
target e-mail providers and search engines."
http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-5598912.html?tag=nefd.top
   

Someone might consider pointing them to the law from the state of PA that
did similar things... Then point them at the overturning of that law.
 

.US TLD Owners Lose Privacy

[Fergie (Paul Ferguson)]

>From WiReD:

"The U.S. Commerce Department has ordered companies
that administer internet addresses to stop allowing
customers to register .us domain names anonymously
using proxy services."

"The move does not affect owners of .com and .net
domains. But it means website owners with .us domains
will no longer be able to shield their name and
contact information from public eyes."

http://wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,66787,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

- ferg

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Christopher L. Morrow]

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:

>
>
> "The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a
> bill that would require Internet providers to block
> Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also
> target e-mail providers and search engines."
>
> http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-5598912.html?tag=nefd.top

Someone might consider pointing them to the law from the state of PA that
did similar things... Then point them at the overturning of that law.

Hardware Vendor in NY

[Dan Mahoney, System Admin]

Hey Guys,
I know this is a little off-topic, but would anyone close to the NYC/Long 
Island area know of somewhere local that would carry 1u-compatible power 
supplies?  I need one on a fairly urgent basis, and I figure with all the 
infrastructure, someone *has* to have run into this issue before.

Or, would anyone know a better list to ask on?
Thanks for any help offered.
Reply off-list if you think that's better advised.
-Dan Mahoney
--
unless is a pr0no book he wont even come close to the bandwidth quota
-Racer-X, concerning DanMahoney.com's web hits.
Dan Mahoney
Techie,  Sysadmin,  WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144   AIM: LarpGM
Site:  http://www.gushi.org
---

Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Robert Bonomi]

> Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2005 14:32:41 GMT
> To: nanog@merit.edu
>
> "The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a
> bill that would require Internet providers to block
> Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also
> target e-mail providers and search engines."
>
> http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-5598912.html?tag=nefd.top
>



The statute will be *dead* on on a Federal 1st Amend. challenge, if enacted,

-- 
Q. What has an I.Q. of 200?
A. The state legislature.  *Collectively*.

(*good* sig-monster! :)

Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block "harmful" sites

[Fergie (Paul Ferguson)]

"The Utah governor is deciding whether to sign a
bill that would require Internet providers to block
Web sites deemed pornographic and that could also
target e-mail providers and search engines."

http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+weighs+antiporn+proposal/2100-1028_3-5598912.html?tag=nefd.top

- ferg

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] or
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

The Cidr Report

[cidr-report]

This report has been generated at Fri Mar  4 21:44:37 2005 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of an AS4637 (Reach) router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.

Check http://www.cidr-report.org/as4637 for a current version of this report.

Recent Table History
Date  PrefixesCIDR Agg
25-02-05152805  104910
26-02-05152937  104810
27-02-05152870  104885
28-02-05152958  104995
01-03-05153081  105022
02-03-05152941  105120
03-03-05153056  105312
04-03-05153278  105356


AS Summary
 18980  Number of ASes in routing system
  7746  Number of ASes announcing only one prefix
  1452  Largest number of prefixes announced by an AS
AS7018 : ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
  90449152  Largest address span announced by an AS (/32s)
AS721  : DNIC DoD Network Information Center


Aggregation Summary
The algorithm used in this report proposes aggregation only
when there is a precise match using the AS path, so as 
to preserve traffic transit policies. Aggregation is also
proposed across non-advertised address space ('holes').

 --- 04Mar05 ---
ASnumNetsNow NetsAggr  NetGain   % Gain   Description

Table 153373   1054164795731.3%   All ASes

AS4323  1047  223  82478.7%   TWTC Time Warner Telecom
AS18566  7737  76699.1%   CVAD Covad Communications
AS4134   872  206  66676.4%   CHINANET-BACKBONE
   No.31,Jin-rong Street
AS721   1123  567  55649.5%   DNIC DoD Network Information
   Center
AS22773  478   26  45294.6%   CXA Cox Communications Inc.
AS7018  1452 1003  44930.9%   ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
AS27364  465   45  42090.3%   ARMC Armstrong Cable Services
AS6197   868  462  40646.8%   BNS-14 BellSouth Network
   Solutions, Inc
AS3602   498  137  36172.5%   SPCA Sprint Canada Inc.
AS6478   501  158  34368.5%   ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
AS17676  403   79  32480.4%   JPNIC-JP-ASN-BLOCK Japan
   Network Information Center
AS9929   350   39  31188.9%   CNCNET-CN China Netcom Corp.
AS4766   574  281  29351.0%   KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom
AS1239   924  666  25827.9%   SPRN Sprint
AS14654  2606  25497.7%   WAYPOR-3 Wayport
AS9443   378  126  25266.7%   INTERNETPRIMUS-AS-AP Primus
   Telecommunications
AS4355   297   60  23779.8%   ERSD EARTHLINK, INC
AS9583   607  374  23338.4%   SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited
AS6140   376  145  23161.4%   IMPSA ImpSat
AS25844  244   15  22993.9%   SASMFL-2 Skadden, Arps, Slate,
   Meagher & Flom LLP
AS6198   457  229  22849.9%   BNS-14 BellSouth Network
   Solutions, Inc
AS15270  255   35  22086.3%   PDP-14 PaeTec.net -a division
   of PaeTecCommunications, Inc.
AS2386   819  611  20825.4%   ADCS-1 AT&T Data
   Communications Services
AS9304   246   39  20784.1%   HUTCHISON-AS-AP Hutchison
   Global Communications
AS11456  310  106  20465.8%   NUVOX NuVox Communications,
   Inc.
AS5668   455  261  19442.6%   CIH-12 CenturyTel Internet
   Holdings, Inc.
AS6167   266   79  18770.3%   CELLCO Cellco Partnership
AS22909  339  152  18755.2%   CMCS Comcast Cable
   Communications, Inc.
AS6147   205   20  18590.2%   Telefonica del Peru S.A.A.
AS6517   308  123  18560.1%   YIPS Yipes Communications,
   Inc.

Total  16150 6280 987061.1%   Top 30 total


Possible Bogus Routes

24.138.80.0/20   AS11260 AHSICHCL Andara High Speed Internet c/o 
Halifax Cable Ltd.
24.246.0.0/17AS7018  ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
24.246.128.0/18  AS7018  ATTW AT&T WorldNet Services
64.17.32.0/24AS5024  BRIDGE-75 BridgeNet, LC
64.17.33.0/24AS5024  BRIDGE-75 BridgeNet, LC
64.17.37.0/24AS5024  BRIDGE-75 BridgeNet, LC
64.57.160.0/19   AS3561  SAVVI-3 Savvis
64.92.128.0/19   AS35

Re: Heads up: Long AS-sets announced in the next few days

[Henk Uijterwaal]

I think this nicely summarizes it.  If you answer these questions,
most people will be happy,
Henk
At 02:19 04/03/2005, Randy Bush wrote:
lorenzo,
i think we're ratholing here.  can you tell us in simple words
  o what you are trying to learn with your experiment and why
it will help us understand or better manage our networks
(thanks rodney)
  o why the way you are doing it is safe and will not affect
the packets we're trying to move for our customers in negative
ways
thanks
randy
--
Henk Uijterwaal   Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre  http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096  Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam  1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The NetherlandsThe NetherlandsMobile: +31.6.55861746
--
Look here junior, don't you be so happy.
And for Heaven's sake, don't you be so sad. (Tom Verlaine)