Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Joshua Brady wrote: the FBI can call the NSA anytime they want without a tap order and get them to trigger ECHELON when your voice is apparant on any line. Not me, I wrapped my cellphone in tin foil. [EMAIL PROTECTED]darwin The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
but every feature has its cost in complexity and resources to build and maintain. resources are finite and complexity has super-linear cost. so i would much prefer that the vendors concentrate on the features *i* want g. and i am quite skeptical of features which non-paying non-customers want. Agreed. However, in this case it matches a fature I've wanted for years. Being able to mirror packets to a different port is pretty common for managed switches, and is rather useful sometimes in tracking abuse and similar. I *want* the same capability for my routers. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed. However, in this case it matches a fature I've wanted for years. Being able to mirror packets to a different port is pretty common for managed switches, and is rather useful sometimes in tracking abuse and similar. I *want* the same capability for my routers. ...but your particular routers already have this capability, and it's been there for quite a while too, haven't you read the documentation? :) http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos71/swconfig71-services/html/flow-monitoring-config17.html /leg
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then you'll have to conclude that a lot of managed switches are insecure since they include some form of packet mirroring capability. Not to mention most of the routers. They usually can make the copies to an IP tunnel also. Pete
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Tony Li wrote: I'm sorry, but this is simply an unsupportable statement. What is required of routers is that the provider be able to configure the device to make copies of certain packets to a monitoring port. Assuming that the monitoring port is duly managed, how does this qualify as insecure? Unfortunately, things are never as simple as they appear. The department of justice/fbi/dea/etc wish lists have been published/leaked with a suitable google search. Port mirroring may not be considered sufficient. I think the EFF is missing the important part of the wish list items. The wish list items aren't for wiretaps, but defining as many things as possible as non-content. Its important for network operators because they will end up doing a lot more work digging through packets for non-content information, and important for lawyers because it lessens the legal requirements for non-content information. What is the expectation of privacy of non-content information?
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 22:22:29 PDT, Tony Li said: It qualifies as insecure because if that rather dubious assumption fails to be true, you have a big problem. If any port on a router is not duly managed, you have a big problem. Right. But usually, security experts call something that's one typo away from being duly managed a problem waiting to happen rather than secure. On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 08:59:33 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Then you'll have to conclude that a lot of managed switches are insecure since they include some form of packet mirroring capability. See problem waiting to happen, above.. :) pgpN5qE33ay82.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Fiber cut in SJ
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Joe McGuckin wrote: On 8/5/05 8:12 PM, George William Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, an electrical contractor backhoed a large fiber link in downtown San Jose (address deleted due to security concerns) this morning, causing moderate damage. That's just plain silly. As if we (or even your imagined 'terrorist') don't know where the fiber runs around here. well.. theres lots of ducting going down streets but not that many folks know which of them are the major cable routes, i think keeping specific detail discrete is reasonable in a fire near where i am a couple years ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/10/23/arson_suspected_in_manchester_cable/ it seemed a bit of a coincidence that both the active and protect paths of a major sdh route got hit in this attack and it took out a lot of long distance circuits Steve
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Tony Li wrote: Practically, what this means is that the government will be asking broadband providers - as well as companies that manufacture devices used for broadband communications – to build insecure backdoors into their networks, imperiling the privacy and security of citizens on the Internet. I'm sorry, but this is simply an unsupportable statement. What is required of routers is that the provider be able to configure the device to make copies of certain packets to a monitoring port. Assuming that the monitoring port is duly managed, how does this qualify as insecure? hopefully sticking some header on that packet to determine input interface/lsp as well. hopefully also not dumping to a physical interface, but to a 'vpn' interface so truckrolls to kalamazoo don't have to happen each time 'elterrorista' moves from internet cafe' to internet cafe' please :) no real 'security' implications in the copy though, sure. (assuming appropriate controls on config changes exist, and controls on the exit point/storage of the copied data.
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Matt Ghali wrote: On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Joshua Brady wrote: the FBI can call the NSA anytime they want without a tap order and get them to trigger ECHELON when your voice is apparant on any line. Not me, I wrapped my cellphone in tin foil. shiny side out one hopes? Seriously though, I'm not a telco/phone person, but I was once told that the phone switch equipment does the tap 'automagically' to special ds-1 facilities inn LEA-land... which means the cell phone can be wrapped in anything you'd like. If the calls get completed a copy is silently made to the right folks (not the nsa, they aren't LEA).
RE: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
I think the EFF is missing the important part of the wish list items. The punch list is law. If you are talking about the applicability of CALEA, that's different. The wish list items aren't for wiretaps, but defining as many things as possible as non-content. Its important for network operators because they will end up doing a lot more work digging through packets for non-content information, and important for lawyers because it lessens the legal requirements for non-content information. What is the expectation of privacy of non-content information? ObNANOG: Archicture, operation, cost. CALEA doesn't dictate architecture. Political issues aside, and attempting to stick with operations as this is NANOG, the major issue for carriers regardless of size is that this that compliance is an expense. The cost of an implementation for a medium sized carrier is upwards of 1MM. Maintenance runs at ~200K per year for a similiar installation not coupling in legal and operations costs. That is IF you even get an order. The brunt of the work is at the tier1's. This is like DDOS. LEC's have to do it, but they frequently misinterpret the requirements and scale and end up spending money they never had to. Misinterpretation is a big problem for CALEA, technically speaking. -M
RE: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Matt Ghali wrote: On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Joshua Brady wrote: the FBI can call the NSA anytime they want without a tap order and get them to trigger ECHELON when your voice is apparant on any line. Not me, I wrapped my cellphone in tin foil. shiny side out one hopes? Seriously though, I'm not a telco/phone person, but I was once told that the phone switch equipment does the tap 'automagically' to special ds-1 facilities inn LEA-land... which means the cell phone can be wrapped in anything you'd like. If the calls get completed a copy is silently made to the right folks (not the nsa, they aren't LEA). Sort of. It has to be provisioned like any other service, (that's most of the X.25 portion that people were talking about) but it's a protocol(J-STD) enabled between the carrier and the LEA. It can be DS1, or it could be VPN. The capture is near real time content and data. -M
Re: /8 end user assignment?
I think i did not make myself clear. The corrections off-list are valid..:) However the modems are accessed by the providers using RFC1918 space and not public IP space. This is true it does not mean they are natting the users..however they are using large amounts of RFC1918 space to either save address space in general or save the costs associated with the additional address space they would consume if they did not use the RFC1918 space. William Warren wrote: Actually the cable modems and Dsl modems usually have a 10.x address they are used by the ISP's to access their internal firware. Also on traces that I have done on both cable and dsl the first hop is invariably a RFC1918 address. snip -- My Foundation verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- Grab the tape CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/
RE: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
That is IF you even get an order. The brunt of the work is at the tier1's. This is like DDOS. LEC's have to do it, but they frequently misinterpret the requirements and scale and end up spending money they never had to. Misinterpretation is a big problem for CALEA, technically speaking. First time anyone has every accused tier 1's of spending money they didn't need too. Folks may find it useful to review Electronic Surveillance Needs for Public IP Network Access Service Electronic Surveillance Needs for Carrier-Grade Voice over Packet (CGVOP) Service to see the wish list directly from the horse's mouth. This is unrelated to the previous punch list items.
fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
interesting that nanog is chattering so seriously about the calea thing (which does concern me), but seems to be unconcerned about another ruling that would seem to be a major anti-competitive change threatening the businesses of a few hundred members of this list http://news.com.com/2061-10785_3-5820294.html. or maybe i am misreading the ruling. randy
RE: DACS Equipment
I have a number of mux DS-3s coming in - right now they drop straight into aggregation routers. What I like to do is drop them into a local DACS and comb them out to DS-1s and then re-mux them back on to internal DS-3s. This will let me move circuits around digitally inside our equipment. You're looking for digital cross connect, for the most part. You should take a look at the Cisco line i.e. 15454 et. al. You can bring in ds3, groom on the backplane, and send out ds3. I've used the 15454 et. al. in production and for your stated purpose it's more economical than buying some big iron. You may also want to consider your physical layer architecture if you do this i.e. interconnecting vs. cross connecting so that you have test access where you need it. IIRC, the 15454 et. al. will do passive monitoring at a line level and will SNMP alert on outages down to the smallest mux' unit. Very nice for the IP NOC. -M
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Does anyone else find it ironic that removing the requirement that allowed competition was done in order to promote competition? I feel boned, how about you? :) Welcome to the United Corporate States of America (if there was ever any doubt) It must be nice to own a congresscritter or two (or two dozen) and the FCC board for good measure. We've always been at war with Middleastia, and our corporate patrons are working in your best interest. I would _love_ to see an accounting of all of the tax incentives, monetary perks, and business anti-trust exemptions that have been handed to the BOCs since ATT split up. These companies have been given literally billions of dollars to build next generation networks, and have only ever made any moves in that direction when forced to compete. On my office wall I have a framed advert from Newsweek in 1982 advertising the low low rate of $1.35 a minute interstate long distance from the Bell System. Yet another reason to welcome you back to 1984. I do wonder what, if any, consumer reactions are going to guide the BOCs. I mean is Joe Internet going to get all riled up when his ISP he's had for 5 years sends him email telling him he's being moved to Qwest or SBC without his consent? Is SBC going to care? Is there going to be a business case for web and email hosting with someone other than your forced access provider? Is there any legal incentive for SBC/Qwest/Comcast to allow that access? -S
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
I mean is Joe Internet going to get all riled up when his ISP he's had for 5 years sends him email telling him he's being moved to Qwest or SBC without his consent? well, dunno about joe, but the jane to which i am married had a fit. dealing with an isp was a known deal, these telco idiots are sub-useless. after two months of trying, she cancelled the new forced rboc dsl service, and is thinking of cutting the telco line entirely and getting cable ip service and running her own voip over it (to my asterisk in colo). among other amazing silliness, the telco dsl uses a windoze app to 'log on'. randy
Cisco mulls buying Nokia?
I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't really April 1st A Reuters newswire article, via Yahoo! News, reports that: [snip] Cisco Systems Inc. is considering buying the world's top mobile handset maker Nokia in a bid to gain its wireless infrastructure technology, the Business newspaper reported on Sunday. The paper, which did not reveal the source of its information, said U.S.-based Cisco had traditionally concentrated on acquisitions of niche technology players, but its Chief Executive John Chambers is believed to be interested in merging with a wireless infrastructure company. Nokia has been identified as the most likely target, the paper said. Cisco, the largest maker of Internet equipment, is worth around $123 billion, while Nokia's market value is around $71 billion. The paper said Cisco's mainstay networking market was fast changing with the convergence of fixed-line and wireless networks, and Cisco needed a merger to acquire the technology to create intelligent wireless applications, which Finnish-based Nokia could provide. Cisco was not immediately available for comment. A Nokia spokeswoman in Helsinki declined to comment. [snip] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050807/bs_nm/telecoms_cisco_nokia_dc - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
All of us independant isp guys are busy polishing up our resumes.. --- Andy interesting that nanog is chattering so seriously about the calea thing (which does concern me), but seems to be unconcerned about another ruling that would seem to be a major anti-competitive change threatening the businesses of a few hundred members of this list http://news.com.com/2061-10785_3-5820294.html. or maybe i am misreading the ruling. randy
Re: /8 end user assignment?
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, William Warren wrote: I think i did not make myself clear. The corrections off-list are valid..:) However the modems are accessed by the providers using RFC1918 space and not public IP space. This is true it does not mean and there was a mention at IETF by Alian of comcast (formerly of FT I thought?) that comcast was looking at an immediate ipv6 rollout: because net 10 is not big enough... 'immediate' on some scale not 'ten years out' (no timeframes mentioned, sorry) they are natting the users..however they are using large amounts of RFC1918 space to either save address space in general or save the costs associated with the additional address space they would consume if they did not use the RFC1918 space. William Warren wrote: Actually the cable modems and Dsl modems usually have a 10.x address they are used by the ISP's to access their internal firware. Also on traces that I have done on both cable and dsl the first hop is invariably a RFC1918 address. snip -- My Foundation verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- Grab the tape CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Henry Linneweh wrote: Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?)
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? randy
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote: Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :)
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 11:09 -1000, Randy Bush wrote: will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? The choice for broadband will be either the cable company or the phone company, in those areas with both. In other areas, it will be just the phone company. : ( -Doug
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :) and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an economy of private ownership and government control? randy
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote: Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :) and, for this morning's pop quiz, what is the classic term for an economy of private ownership and government control? oligarchy! wait... no... uhm... it's that game with the cute littke dog and car as pieces! I'd like to buy a hotel!
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote: Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :) In that case look to Australia for precedent -- and don't hold your breath. TV
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Tom Vest wrote: On Aug 7, 2005, at 5:18 PM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Randy Bush wrote: Yes there is a major concern that the government has just ellminated every isp that is currently permitted to use another carriers dsl lines to provide service's. will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? that which is set by the gov't rulings? :) In that case look to Australia for precedent -- and don't hold your breath. phew! I know one happy phone company/ilec employee!
Re: Cisco mulls buying Nokia?
Strange... Explicit reference to how this would enable Cisco to gain purchase into the wireless space, but no mention of the impact on the popularity of Nokia platforms with a competing firewall vendor, Check Point. Any thoughts on VoIP? ymmv, --ra On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 08:11:13PM +, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) said something to the effect of: I had to check the date to make sure it wasn't really April 1st A Reuters newswire article, via Yahoo! News, reports that: [snip] Cisco Systems Inc. is considering buying the world's top mobile handset maker Nokia in a bid to gain its wireless infrastructure technology, the Business newspaper reported on Sunday. The paper, which did not reveal the source of its information, said U.S.-based Cisco had traditionally concentrated on acquisitions of niche technology players, but its Chief Executive John Chambers is believed to be interested in merging with a wireless infrastructure company. Nokia has been identified as the most likely target, the paper said. Cisco, the largest maker of Internet equipment, is worth around $123 billion, while Nokia's market value is around $71 billion. The paper said Cisco's mainstay networking market was fast changing with the convergence of fixed-line and wireless networks, and Cisco needed a merger to acquire the technology to create intelligent wireless applications, which Finnish-based Nokia could provide. Cisco was not immediately available for comment. A Nokia spokeswoman in Helsinki declined to comment. [snip] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050807/bs_nm/telecoms_cisco_nokia_dc - ferg -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/ -- rachael treu gomes [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Cisco mulls buying Nokia?
Voice over WiFi? - ferg -- Rachael Treu Gomes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Strange... Explicit reference to how this would enable Cisco to gain purchase into the wireless space, but no mention of the impact on the popularity of Nokia platforms with a competing firewall vendor, Check Point. Any thoughts on VoIP? ymmv, --ra -- rachael treu gomes [EMAIL PROTECTED] ..quis custodiet ipsos custodes?.. (this email has been brought to you by the letters 'v' and 'i'.)
Re: Fiber cut in SJ
Stephen, The point I'm trying to make is that over classifying everything as 'secret' or 'confidential' at this late date is useless. The horse is already out of the barn. You can omit the site of a fiber backhoe accident from an email and say it's due to security concerns, but I can call any telecom vendor who sells SONET or metro ethernet services and get them to fax me a map of their network. At the very minimum all I have to do is keep an eye out for USA markings on the street. Or I could call USA and the next day people with paint cans would be marking up the street, showing me exactly where to dig. If someone wants to cause trouble, the information they need is freely available. The so-called security provisions most telecom companies use are just enough to deter curious teen-agers. On 8/7/05 8:15 AM, Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Joe McGuckin wrote: On 8/5/05 8:12 PM, George William Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, an electrical contractor backhoed a large fiber link in downtown San Jose (address deleted due to security concerns) this morning, causing moderate damage. That's just plain silly. As if we (or even your imagined 'terrorist') don't know where the fiber runs around here. well.. theres lots of ducting going down streets but not that many folks know which of them are the major cable routes, i think keeping specific detail discrete is reasonable in a fire near where i am a couple years ago: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/10/23/arson_suspected_in_manchester_cable/ it seemed a bit of a coincidence that both the active and protect paths of a major sdh route got hit in this attack and it took out a lot of long distance circuits Steve -- Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications 994 San Antonio Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-213-1302 Cell: 650-207-0372 Fax: 650-969-2124
Re: power strip with individually monitorable outlet current
On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 14:47 -0400, Justin Kreger wrote: At the now defunct redundant.com we used baytech strips with the ds-3 (not the circuit) modules to snmp enable the strips. We were able to control each port, and monitor load on each port. http://www.baytech.net/ I think we used the RPC22s and the DS-3 console server combo. It was a few years ago so my memory of what we did is a bit fuzzy. Regarding how accurate the modules are, the baytech gear would only be accurate to the tenths if my memory serves me, but they may have improved that since mid '03. A while ago I found that I needed power usage stats also (these new P4 Zeons suck up a lot of power :). I got some baytech PDUs with LEDs and console access (forget which specific model). Looked very cool. Except that I am in Los Angeles county. LA takes a dim view of selling equipment that is not UL certified. Apparently it is illegal to both sell and operate :( After several months of We should have it soon, I bought APC units. The APCs (AP7901) are very nice. snmp and ftpable stats. They even do ssh! No individual per ports stats, and only to 1/10th amp. But no more popped circuit breakers from new servers. http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=AP7901 -Justin On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Mike Leber wrote: There have been suggestions of good SNMP monitorable power strips here before, however I'm looking for a power strip with individually monitorable outlet current (via SNMP). I've searched google for quite a while and can't seem to separate out such a beast from all the remote power management strips that just monitor aggregate usage. I have an application where I need to record the variation in power consumption for individual devices over time. I need to monitor about 30 devices in 4 cabinets (8 devices per cabinet or so) in and have a budget of $4000. I'd like to be able to see current in milliamps or 10 milliamp increments. I'm looking for an off the shelf device. If anybody can help me I'd certainly appreciate it. +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+ -- Christopher McCrory The^W One of the guys that keeps the servers running [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pricegrabber.com Let's face it, there's no Hollow Earth, no robots, and no 'mute rays.' And even if there were, waxed paper is no defense. I tried it. Only tinfoil works.
Re: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] om, Hannigan, Martin writes: The place to get the authoritative word is direct from the AskCALEA folks here: http://www.askcalea.net/ - and of course you can discuss with your telecom lawyers. I haven't had a chance to read the final order yet. The NPRM is at http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/20040923nprm.pdf ; some objections -- quite persuasive, by my reading -- are at http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/20041221joint.pdf --Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: power strip with individually monitorable outlet current
The APCs (AP7901) are very nice. snmp and ftpable stats. They even do ssh! No individual per ports stats, and only to 1/10th amp. But no more popped circuit breakers from new servers. http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=AP7901 don't know the 7901, but i can sure vouch for the 7900 which joel recommended to me. it has saved me from using remote hands to whack a wedged server so many times. randy
RE: FCC Issues Rule Allowing FBI to Dictate Wiretap-Friendly Design for In ternet Services
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Hannigan, Martin wrote: Folks may find it useful to review [ SNIP ] The place to get the authoritative word is direct from the AskCALEA folks here: http://www.askcalea.net/ - and of course you can discuss with your telecom lawyers. Ah, the same people who wrote the documents I referenced earlier. I assume you have read them now.
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 02:21:59PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote: On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 11:09 -1000, Randy Bush wrote: will the ilec's start offering competitive services (not bw, but non-dynamic ips or small blocks to end-users?) if their competition has been eliminated by fcc ruling, what does 'competitive' pricing mean? The choice for broadband will be either the cable company or the phone company, in those areas with both. In other areas, it will be just the phone company. : ( The bottom line is that at a certain point there are a limited number times you can put a wire to everyone's house into the ground. Cable modems only make sense because the cable TV customer base to justify the build. At some point in the future we might actually come up with a workable IP over powerline technology, but again that will only make sense because of the existing customer base that wants electricity. Clearly this is a special situation where there is a natural monopoly given to whomever runs the wires. Maybe what we need is a certain class of company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public data infrastructures. They could have lots of government regulations to ensure that they are charging a fair price while still being guaranteed a profit, and they could provide the last mile service for all those ISPs out there who are the ones that can actually compete and innovate. We could call them telcos, and... oh wait, nevermind. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: fcc ruling on dsl providers' access to infrastructure
On 8/7/05 7:20 PM, Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe what we need is a certain class of company who will be responsible for running and maintaining the public data infrastructures. They could have lots of government regulations to ensure that they are charging a fair price while still being guaranteed a profit, and they could provide the last mile service for all those ISPs out there who are the ones that can actually compete and innovate. Yes, it's called structural separation. -- Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications 994 San Antonio Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-213-1302 Cell: 650-207-0372 Fax: 650-969-2124
Re: power strip with individually monitorable outlet current
Randy Bush wrote: The APCs (AP7901) are very nice. snmp and ftpable stats. They even do ssh! No individual per ports stats, and only to 1/10th amp. But no more popped circuit breakers from new servers. http://www.apc.com/resource/include/techspec_index.cfm?base_sku=AP7901 don't know the 7901, but i can sure vouch for the 7900 which joel recommended to me. it has saved me from using remote hands to whack a wedged server so many times. randy The 7900 is 15A while the 7901 is 20A. They are both part of a family of Rack PDUs. Roy Engehausen
