IPv6 filterers watch out: eBay gets 2001:0:500::/41
Hi, As the below is of course a 'good to see they are going at IPv6' thing this one is of course nice. But there is an additional point in it which might cause folks to check up on their filtering: it's a /41. Just to make clear again, ARIN IPv6 PI allocs can be of size /40 - /48. So better check your filters if this can get through when they get around doing so ;) My suggestion: use the relaxed filters (2000::/3 = /16 - /48). When crunch-time comes that there are 1m routes, you can always filter more specifically, but as we are still < 1000 routes, give yourself and your routers some slack... Enjoy the weekend (we have sun in Dublin *wow*, jump in garden :) ! Greets, Jeroen -- 8<--- OrgName:eBay, Inc OrgID: EBAY Address:2145 Hamilton Ave City: San Jose StateProv: CA PostalCode: 95008 Country:US NetRange: 2620::0500::::: - 2620::057F::::: CIDR: 2620::0500:::::/41 OriginAS: AS11643 NetName:EBAY-6-0 NetHandle: NET6-2620-500-1 Parent: NET6-2620-1 NetType:Direct Assignment NameServer: SJC-DNS1.EBAYDNS.COM NameServer: SJC-DNS2.EBAYDNS.COM NameServer: SMF-DNS1.EBAYDNS.COM NameServer: SMF-DNS2.EBAYDNS.COM Comment: RegDate:2007-06-08 Updated:2007-06-08 --->8 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
eBay == 2620:0:500::/41, oops (Was: IPv6 filterers watch out: eBay gets 2001:0:500::/41)
Eric Vyncke wrote: > Beware the subject line is wrong, it assumes that eBay is using Teredo ;-) > > (you scared me for a while!) Oops, indeed, some other people also noted this already. And it is good to see that people read subject lines, as due to recent nanog-banter I would almost have believed that nobody did. Of course it should not really matter which exact prefix they got, as long as folks keep their filters up to date. Greets, Jeroen (who blames the sunlight in his screen in the early morning :) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In this case I would suggest that it is in ISPs best interests to get involved with network content blocking, so that ISPs collectively become deep experts on the subject. We are then in a position to modify these activities in a way that is beneficial to ISPs and their customers (who happen to be voters too). And we are in a position to advise government on future actions as well. If ISPs choose not to get involved, then they are less likely to be listened to by government partly because they have less credibility and partly because they simply don't understand the issue and therefore fail to communicate effectively. UK ISP associations have developed a centralized blocking solution with IWF providing the decision making of what to filter. 90% of the UK broadband users accept the same "voluntary" decisions about what to filter. On the other hand, US ISP associations have advocated for decentralized blocking solutions, leaving the decision to parents and multiple content filtering companies. US ISP associations have been active in this area since the early 1990's, although US ISP associations seem to only last so long before they disappear and a new association springs up. Is a centralized filtering solution better or worse than a decentralized filtering solution? Schools, libraries, families, etc in the US choose which content filter product to use, which vary greatly how well they work and what they choose to filter. Since its "voluntary," some US families choose not to have any content filters. Other US families choose to filter much more than other families. Cisco, Juniper, Streamshield, NetNanny, etc sell identical products around the world. If an ISP anywhere in the world wants to offer either a centralized or decentralized filtering solution, the products are available. Likewise, if an individual is concerned about what his or her family sees, they can use without their ISP, the products are available.
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
IMHO, unless it's something blatantly illegal such as kiddie porn and the like I don't think content filtering is the responsibility of the ISP's. Besides all of the conspiracy theories that are bound to surface, I think forcing ISP's to block content is a bit like forcing car makers to police what can be played on the radio. I think that giving parents the option of manually turning off porn sites would be an improvement. Although still not within the responsibility of the ISP they are in the best place to implement such a technology. However, I don't like the idea of a mandatory global traffic filtering initiative. Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/09/2007 04:43 PM To nanog@merit.edu cc Subject UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking) On Fri, 8 Jun 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In this case I would suggest that it is in ISPs best interests to get > involved with network content blocking, so that ISPs collectively become > deep experts on the subject. We are then in a position to modify these > activities in a way that is beneficial to ISPs and their customers (who > happen to be voters too). And we are in a position to advise government > on future actions as well. If ISPs choose not to get involved, then they > are less likely to be listened to by government partly because they have > less credibility and partly because they simply don't understand the > issue and therefore fail to communicate effectively. UK ISP associations have developed a centralized blocking solution with IWF providing the decision making of what to filter. 90% of the UK broadband users accept the same "voluntary" decisions about what to filter. On the other hand, US ISP associations have advocated for decentralized blocking solutions, leaving the decision to parents and multiple content filtering companies. US ISP associations have been active in this area since the early 1990's, although US ISP associations seem to only last so long before they disappear and a new association springs up. Is a centralized filtering solution better or worse than a decentralized filtering solution? Schools, libraries, families, etc in the US choose which content filter product to use, which vary greatly how well they work and what they choose to filter. Since its "voluntary," some US families choose not to have any content filters. Other US families choose to filter much more than other families. Cisco, Juniper, Streamshield, NetNanny, etc sell identical products around the world. If an ISP anywhere in the world wants to offer either a centralized or decentralized filtering solution, the products are available. Likewise, if an individual is concerned about what his or her family sees, they can use without their ISP, the products are available.
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
Sean Donelan wrote: UK ISP associations have developed a centralized blocking solution with IWF providing the decision making of what to filter. 90% of the UK broadband users accept the same "voluntary" decisions about what to filter. I have not seen any evidence presented that *any* "UK broadband users" either *know* about or "accept" the "voluntary" decisions of their ISP, made for them in their 'Net Nanny role. Could you point to the URL for this scientific polling data? On the other hand, US ISP associations have advocated for decentralized blocking solutions, leaving the decision to parents and multiple content filtering companies. US ISP associations have been active in this area since the early 1990's, although US ISP associations seem to only last so long before they disappear and a new association springs up. And that has not worked out well for us. No continuity, no effective lobbying organization. Where, oh where, are CIX, ISP/C, et alia?
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
On 6/10/07, William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sean Donelan wrote: > UK ISP associations have developed a centralized blocking solution with > IWF providing the decision making of what to filter. 90% of the UK > broadband users accept the same "voluntary" decisions about what to filter. > I have not seen any evidence presented that *any* "UK broadband users" either *know* about or "accept" the "voluntary" decisions of their ISP, made for them in their 'Net Nanny role. Could you point to the URL for this scientific polling data? I learned of it this week from NANOG and UKNOF.
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
Thus spake "Kradorex Xeron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From my view, ISPs should continue their role as "passing the packets" and not say what their users can or cannot view. It's when ISPs start interfering with what their users do is when we will run into legal, political and otherwise issues that I'm sure none of us want to see. IIRC, AOL got whacked by a court years ago because they censored some chat rooms and not others. The court held that since they censored some content, they lost their status as a common carrier and were liable for other content they didn't censor (either by intent or mistake). This was a particularly interesting case, since the implication was that ISPs who _don't_ censor content _are_ common carriers, which I don't think has otherwise been touched upon in the US. S Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do." K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
Re: [uknof] Re: [members] Network Level Content Blocking (UK)
[I have included the nanog list back here, as it was originally cross posted and there seem to now be divergent discussions in progress] On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 10:13:11PM +0100, Vince Hoffman wrote: > Ian Dickinson wrote: > > John Ekins wrote: > >> Some very big sites HAVE been on the list at times. This was clearly an > >> issue we took into account. Our system coped. > > > > Good for you. > > > >> I can't believe this is news to Pipex. This has been discussed at the > >> IWF and ISPA. And Pipex is a member of both. It has been discussed over > >> and over. The fact is small ISPs (like Brightview - 60,000 ADSL) and big > >> ISPs (BT, Virgin Media (NTL/Telewest) - millions) have implemented this. > >> They had the same issues and found a way to make it work. > > > > It's not news - I'm merely taking issue with your "zero-cost" stance, which > > I > > think is *potentially* misleading. > > > A colleague of mine informed me that receiving the IWF feed requires us > to be a member, a not totally insignificant cost (about £5k for us,) is > this correct? If so, combine it with colo, admin and hardware costs and > its certainly not "zero-cost" for us I think theres a bit too much focus being given to the implementation side of this problem. The Internet is currently a very cheap industry to set up in, compare to say becoming a telco in the 90s with large licensing fees and huge capex for startup. If the government says the Internet services need to provide X Y and Z at $ cost then so be it. I think the real issue is the technology and the perception it has. It is being imposed on operators to violate routing strategies and add these /32s which cannot scale, additionally inserting web caches many years after web caches ceased to be defacto with all the issues and reduced service level they come with. And after doing all this we are blocking on a tiny hand managed list, this doesnt even compare to early spam blocking systems and look how ineffectual they were! The scary part is this is being cited in parliamentary sessions as being the holy grail of child porn fighting. That is the real worry. Yes it is relatively expensive to implement, yes it can only be done through a series of hacks and violations to protocol and no it doesnt provide 1% of real protection or help to push forwards the anti child porn goals. So why are so many ISPs keen to sign up? Well any number of reasons - PR, political pressure, fear of being branded pro-child porn by the media. I think we as an industry can do so much better to find solutions to this problem without pandering to the first crazy idea that our PR mad government comes up with. Steve
