[funsec] The Great IPv6 experiment (fwd)
I am unsure what to say. -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:14:34 +0200 From: Lubomir Kundrak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: funsec [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [funsec] The Great IPv6 experiment This is kind of... interesting. [snip] We're taking 10 gigabytes of the most popular adult entertainment videos from one of the largest subscription websites on the internet, and giving away access to anyone who can connect to it via IPv6. No advertising, no subscriptions, no registration. If you access the site via IPv4, you get a primer on IPv6, instructions on how to set up IPv6 through your ISP, a list of ISPs that support IPv6 natively, and a discussion forum to share tips and troubleshooting. If you access the site via IPv6 you get instant access to the goods. [snip] More on http://www.ipv6porn.com/ -- Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team) ___ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
Re: [funsec] The Great IPv6 experiment (fwd)
Gadi Evron wrote: I am unsure what to say. The idea is quite old and I'm happy to see that what started and continued as a joke is actually being tried out to see if it would really work. Hope they get it up and running soon. Pete -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:14:34 +0200 From: Lubomir Kundrak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: funsec [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [funsec] The Great IPv6 experiment This is kind of... interesting. [snip] We're taking 10 gigabytes of the most popular adult entertainment videos from one of the largest subscription websites on the internet, and giving away access to anyone who can connect to it via IPv6. No advertising, no subscriptions, no registration. If you access the site via IPv4, you get a primer on IPv6, instructions on how to set up IPv6 through your ISP, a list of ISPs that support IPv6 natively, and a discussion forum to share tips and troubleshooting. If you access the site via IPv6 you get instant access to the goods. [snip] More on http://www.ipv6porn.com/
Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of congestion than the efficiency part of congestion. TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not per-flow? Tony. -- f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/ IRISH SEA: SOUTHERLY, BACKING NORTHEASTERLY FOR A TIME, 3 OR 4. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos
On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of congestion than the efficiency part of congestion. TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not per-flow? How would you define user in that context? Stephen
Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote: On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Tony Finch wrote: On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of congestion than the efficiency part of congestion. TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not per-flow? How would you define user in that context? Given that we're trusting the user's OS to implement congestion control, it seems reasonable to trust it to define per-user in a sensible way. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/ IRISH SEA: SOUTHERLY, BACKING NORTHEASTERLY FOR A TIME, 3 OR 4. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote: Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of congestion than the efficiency part of congestion. TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not per-flow? How would you define user in that context? Operators always define the user as the person paying the bill. One bill, one user. Its fun to watch network engineers' heads explode.
shameful-cabling gallery of infamy - does anybody know where it went?
http://gallery.colofinder.net/shameful-cabling had a great collection of What not to do photos, but it has apparently evaporated in the mists of time. Anybody know if it's at a new location, or is the Wayback Machine my only hope? (ISTR it also had an adjacent cabling done right gallery - does that survive?) pgpc2VmLOBJ9I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call forDemos
And given that it is travelling between users who may or may not have trust established between them and intermediate systems which may or may not have trust established with each other or the endpoints, we got ourselves a bit of a pickle here. And trust is far bigger than trust in a security sense (where the only presently massively adopted working model is end-to-end with any intermediate systems being completely oblivious -- unless markings for example are exposed on the wrapper..) Sensible it is only within a single administrative control domain, as cross domain isn't just a technical but a business challenge (economic and political). What would an evo of TCP solve over, say, DCCP? Or just using straight unadulterated UDP? Without meaning to offend anyone, sure does smell a bit like Ph.D. thesis generator mode to me. Best Regards, Christian -- Sent from my BlackBerry. -Original Message- From: Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 15:09:52 To:Stephen Stuart [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote: On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Tony Finch wrote: On Mon, 3 Sep 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of congestion than the efficiency part of congestion. TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not per-flow? How would you define user in that context? Given that we're trusting the user's OS to implement congestion control, it seems reasonable to trust it to define per-user in a sensible way. Tony. -- f.a.n.finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dotat.at/ IRISH SEA: SOUTHERLY, BACKING NORTHEASTERLY FOR A TIME, 3 OR 4. SLIGHT OR MODERATE. SHOWERS. MODERATE OR GOOD, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call forDemos
Lmao. Thanks, Sean, I just snorted my cup of freshly brewed coffee. Ouch. :-) --Original Message-- From: Sean Donelan Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen Stuart Cc: nanog Sent: Sep 4, 2007 10:30 AM Subject: Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call forDemos On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Stephen Stuart wrote: Operators are probably more interested in the fairness part of congestion than the efficiency part of congestion. TCP's idea of fairness is a bit weird. Shouldn't it be per-user, not per-flow? How would you define user in that context? Operators always define the user as the person paying the bill. One bill, one user. Its fun to watch network engineers' heads explode. -- Sent from my BlackBerry.
Re: Congestion control train-wreck workshop at Stanford: Call for Demos
On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: More seriously -- the question is whether new services will cause operator congestion problems that today's mechanisms don't handle. and, it includes the questions of what operators will be willing to deploy. One of the questions on the table, for example, is whether the network might be willing to characterize available capacity on links in datagrams that traverse them, either in an IP option or some interior header such as an IPv6 hop-by-hop option. The canonical variants there are XCP and RCP. As I understand it, the conference organizers want to do something about TCP, but the examples of why it should be done that they are bringing up related to video and other applications. So this is going to have to extend to some variation on a session layer (SIP, for example), and potentially protocols like dccp.
Re: [funsec] The Great IPv6 experiment (fwd)
Crap. Now people are going to start asking if the ipv6 platform does ipv6 forwarding in hardware or software. :| DJ Petri Helenius wrote: Gadi Evron wrote: I am unsure what to say. The idea is quite old and I'm happy to see that what started and continued as a joke is actually being tried out to see if it would really work. Hope they get it up and running soon. Pete -- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:14:34 +0200 From: Lubomir Kundrak [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: funsec [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [funsec] The Great IPv6 experiment This is kind of... interesting. [snip] We're taking 10 gigabytes of the most popular adult entertainment videos from one of the largest subscription websites on the internet, and giving away access to anyone who can connect to it via IPv6. No advertising, no subscriptions, no registration. If you access the site via IPv4, you get a primer on IPv6, instructions on how to set up IPv6 through your ISP, a list of ISPs that support IPv6 natively, and a discussion forum to share tips and troubleshooting. If you access the site via IPv6 you get instant access to the goods. [snip] More on http://www.ipv6porn.com/
