Re: Fourth cable damaged in Middle Eest (Qatar to UAE)
Hi, anyone with a source of unadulterated information from an operational point of view about this cuts. A search on the Net is springing up a lot of speculative whodunits. Reason is, how will the affected regions get round this issue before the repairs are done. First thought would be to set up satellite links, not as good but better than nothing. Raymond Sean Donelan wrote: On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Todd Underwood wrote: there has has been a lot of speculation that this is all some US prelude to war with iran. while i don't claim to know much about whether that makes any sense, i do know that if they're trying to disconnect iran from the internet, they're doing a lousy job: An extremely poor job if that was the intent. According to SLAC, throughput to Iran actually improved. https://confluence.slac.stanford.edu/display/IEPM/Effects+of+Fibre+Outage+through+Mediterranean If the intent was to cut off Iran, they're picking the wrong cables. TAE goes across the northern part of Iran http://taeint.net/en/network/middle/ FLAG via UAE, SE-ME-WE-3 (not 4), ITOUR and KAFOS Sometimes concicidences are concidences.
Re: ARPANet Co-Founder Predicts An Internet Crisis (slashdot)
This sounds like the latest noise about global warming and how we are all going to disappear if we do not go green soon. Not to trivialize the issue but its getting to the point where it sounds like fear mongering. The crisis of the internet scenario mentioned here sounds the same Sounds like box pushing to me. Raymond Leigh Porter wrote: A friend of mine who is a Jehova's Witness read something about the Internet and the end of the world in Watchtower recently. Could it be the same thing do you think? Perhaps they got it right this time? -- Leigh Porter Andrew Odlyzko wrote: Isn't this same Dr. Larry Roberts who 5 years ago was claiming, based on data from the 19 largest ISPs, or something like that, that Internet traffic was growing 4x each year, and so the world should rush to order his latest toys (from Caspian Networks, at that time)? http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/roberts.caspian.txt All the evidence points to the growth rate at that time being around 2x per year. And now Larry Roberts claims that current Internet traffic is around 2x per year, while there is quite a bit of evidence that the correct figure is closer to 1.5x per year, http://www.dtc.umn.edu/mints Andrew Odlyzko On Thu Oct 25, Alex Pilosov wrote: On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: Dr. Larry Roberts, co-founder of the ARPANET and inventor of packet switching, predicts the Internet is headed for a major crisis in an article published on the Internet Evolution web site today. Internet traffic is now growing much more quickly than the rate at which router cost is decreasing, Roberts says. At current growth levels, the cost of deploying Internet capacity to handle new services like social networking, gaming, video, VOIP, and digital entertainment will double every three years, he predicts, creating an economic crisis. Of course, Roberts has an agenda. He's now CEO of Anagran Inc., which makes a technology called flow-based routing that, Roberts claims, will solve all of the world's routing problems in one go. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/25/1643248 I don't know, this is mildly offtopic (aka, not very operational) but the article made me giggle a few times. a) It resembles too much of Bob Metcalfe predicting the death of the Internet. We all remember how that went (wasn't there NANOG tshirt with Bob eating his hat?) b) In the words of Randy Bush, We tried this 10 years ago, and it didn't work then. Everyone was doing flow-based routing back in '90-95 (cat6k sup1, gsr e0, first riverstoned devices, foundry ironcore, etc). Then, everyone figured out that it does not scale (tm Vijay Gill) and went to tcam-based architectures (for hardware platforms) or cef-like based architectures for software platforms. In either case, performance doesn't depend on flows/second, but only packets/second. Huge problem with flow-based routing is susceptibility to ddos (or abnormal traffic patterns). It doesn't matter that your device can route 1mpps of normal traffic if it croaks under 10kpps of ddos (or codered/nimda/etc). -alex [not mlc anything] [mlc]
Re: How to Handle ISPs Who Turn a Blind Eye to Criminal Activity?
Hi first of all I kinda picked the thread mid stream so apologies if what is here has been dealt with by others As an ISP if I receive a complaint of what may be illegal activity coming from a customer on my network I can respond to the complaint and say I will look into it but what action do I take. if someone on the internet is the complainant, do I have the right to ask for evidence of the said illegal activity ( I am not in law enforcement) Or do I forward the complaint to the relevant authorities , Cyber crime teams too busy dealing with the good old crimes of drugs, terrorism etc but using the internet to do their sleuthing and then leave it at that and until the relevant authorities come back to me do I leave the situation as is and does that mean I am turning a blind eye? assuming of course that I have taken the necessary measures of cleaning out malicious stuff, spam malware etc. On the other hand there is the issue of being what may be called responsible cyber citizen and do the needful and terminate the client if the illegal activity does not stop. There is also the issue that many ISPs networks cross geographic boundaries with different legislation so if complainant in country A says that ISP has customer (in country B) carrying on illegal activity, ISP may contact customer in country B and tell them the same but if in country B that activity is deemed normal how does the ISP proceed? Terminating that client would amount to breach of contract in country B and ISP may end being sued by client in Country B. Raymond Macharia JP Velders wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:23:15 GMT From: Paul Ferguson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How to Handle ISPs Who Turn a Blind Eye to Criminal Activity? [ ... ] Sometimes I think to myself that ...ISPs have Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policies, so they have the scope and tools they need to boot a 'customer who break the rules. But all too often, it would appear, the potential loss of revenue seems to win out over enforcing those policies. This is something most CSIRTs/CERTs/Abuse/Security people run into. At some point they will have an issue with an entity they're providing service to that management will veto. In most cases having a good chat with management about it, before they're sweet-talked too much by the other side helps getting your point across, or - in business terms - makes it managements responsability. I've seen various scenarios played out like that, and others where the license to disconnect was squarely backed by management. And as you say, if the ISP boots them, they just set up shop elsewhere. Although I try to educate, this is a matter of life on the Internet. So, back to my original question: If you alert an ISP that bad and possibly criminal activity is taking place by one of their customer, and they do not take corrective action (even after a year), what do you do? Well, depends on the level of information and your contacts in the operational / security field. Being a member of an NREN CSIRT I can either directly or indirectly participate in local, regional and worldwide bodies where people like us come together. How that plays out, or how you *want* that to play out, is something you cannot predict. But sometimes other people will have advise about whom to contact within Law Enforcement, other people will chime in, other people have direct contact with clueful people etc. But first and foremost; you try to protect my constituents. (through technical, legal, procedural etc. means) Kind regards, JP Velders -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHEiu0IHoRBHmf0YQRAnI/AKCQ2ZXCrWqXhNRFPWyW7XLjzbrn/gCfaXYY Ae24xpME0Q+hjU5tRRfie8g= =5JJH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Standard prefix length filtering
You should not have any issues with a /22, most providers will accept /24 as the maximum length. refer to http://www.nanog.org/filter.html Regards Raymond chk 543 wrote: Is there a standard prefix length most providers filter on, or is there a way to find out what each provider filters on? We have been assigned a /22 and are wondering if we will have any issues with this block. Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.
