Re: Removal of my brain
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hrmm How many of you realize who Bill Manning is ? While you are at it, go flame Vinton Cerf... I am sure he will learn from you, too..
Re: Removal of my brain
/signalnoise That said, I admit I probably hesitate a bit longer before flaming Dr. Cerf. :) If you've ever met them both, you would understand why. I have, on more than one occasion. My old address was @onecall.net Perhaps you saw our cars in the Indy 500 ? Vint does present a smaller target most days. :) Well, there *is* the Atkins diet. ;-) C-ya. /noisesignal? --bill -- TTFN, patrick
Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering
Todd Vierling wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Matthew Crocker wrote: I'm curious where in your contract you think Cogent guaranteed you connectivity to Level 3? My original contract was with NTT/Verio which Cogent purchased last year when Verio nuked their Boston POP. I'm having the contract dug out of the archives to look at what it says. IMHO I pay Cogent for Transit to the whole Internet, If I wanted partial transit or local peering I would order/contract and pay for that. Cogent is not currently providing me full transit service. I really don't care who pulled the plug, it is Cogents job to fix it for me as I am their customer. Isn't BGP supposed to work around this sort of thing? This comes down to a little more than just depeering -- at least in the BGP sense. There's active route filtering going on as well if connectivity is dead; after all, I can bet the house that at least one of Cogent's network edge peers has connectivity to Level3, and vice versa. /lurk Maybe not, the depeering L3 is involved in is sort of like blackmail, we can all thank the indicted ex-CEO of WorldCom, Bernie Ebbers, for the modern peering There can only be one rule set. Big guys double dip, and little guys are paying half the big guys double dip... great deal if you can con someone into accepting it, or are big enough to -force- them into accepting it. Case in point. L3 wants CoGent to kneel, and kiss the ring, nothing more, nothing less. They must smell blood in the water. From where I sit, I can see a plethora of routes that transit more than one tier1. And a few that transit three before hitting the origin. From a couple locations I see 3356 and 174 visible in *all* paths to the prefixes containing Level3 and Cogent in the path, respectively. Well, we know who -your- *transit* providers are * cough * So perhaps the question you should be asking is: Why didn't routes for these networks fall over to the other upstream peers which *are* capable of moving the packets? Surely MCI, ATT, Sprint, and others would carry the packets to the right place. I can see the paths right here Some providers, a legacy of course, are transit free, and rely on direct routes.. Soon, there won't be many of these left... and it will be a non-issue. There can only be *one* ! - WorldCom chant, Circa 1995. Most transit contracts only guarantee packet delivery to the edge of their own networks. I'm pretty sure Cogent is doing that. (Hell, they have lots of spare capacity now. :) Most also have a clause to cover the inter-AS links, making sure that they are not overloaded. What nature of clause? I consider deliberately filtering prefixes or origin ASs to be a violation of common backbone BGP use. Anyone who provides -peering-, instead of transit, actively filters routes, as SOP. Too bad there aren't Equal Access laws for tier1s. slyly evil grin Like I said, light a fire, and lets burn Bernie at the stake! I saw him fly up into the sky with the Devil himself ! * :-P (* no GOP affiliated ex-CEO's were harmed, or -actually- threatened, in the making of this post. Like FOX news, this post is classified as Entertainment and may or may not accurately portray actual facts.. ;-) lurk
Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
Richard Irving wrote: /lurk Maybe not, the depeering L3 is involved in is sort of like blackmail, we can all thank the indicted ex-CEO of WorldCom, Bernie Ebbers, for the modern peering There can only be one rule set. Because you were there at the time Ebbers was going around? Do you have any idea of how this works? I am going to go ahead and say no. Brzzzt! lost both points. My prior email was [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charter Nanog member. 8-) [Querying whois.arin.net] [whois.arin.net] Name: Irving, Richard B Handle: RI69-ARIN Company:One Call Internet Address:One Call Internet Inc. Address:701 Congressional Blvd. City: Carmel StateProv: IN PostalCode: 46032 Country:US Comment:Old Internet Fossil ;) RegDate:1995-11-29 Updated:2002-09-05 Phone: +1-317-805-3742 (Office) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the beginning it wasn't all sharks in suits, I swear!
Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
vijay gill wrote: There can only be *one* ! - WorldCom chant, Circa 1995. WorldCom didn't know what IP SFI was in 95. Perhaps you mean UUNET/MFS? Or, perhaps I mean Alternet, eh ? - A Rose by any other name
Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
vijay gill wrote: Brzzzt! lost both points. My prior email was [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charter Nanog member. 8-) Then perhaps you'd know better than to think that Bernie knew what peering even was? Apparently not. Yada-Yada. *DO* try to be less vitriolic, TIA.. Those of you who know think you know it all, irritate those of us who -really- do. - C'ya! :-P as-set: AS-ONECALL descr: ONECALL transit AS's, and VNAP pathways members:AS-INDNET, AS-INDYNET, AS11820, AS87, AS5072, AS1767, AS5689, AS6402, AS7206, AS7900, AS8169, AS10680, AS11069, AS11550, AS4, AS22311, AS11780, AS10694, AS12277, AS13394, AS12074, AS10403, AS10718, AS6571, AS6164, AS11126, AS27443, AS11106, AS21997, AS-IEI, AS-IONENET, AS-21903, AS8011, AS26212
Re: Peering vs SFI (was Re: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)
Sean Butler wrote: There can only be *one* ! - WorldCom chant, Circa 1995. WorldCom didn't know what IP SFI was in 95. Perhaps you mean UUNET/MFS? Or, perhaps I mean Alternet, eh ? - A Rose by any other name Or if you change 1995 above to 1997, which was when UUNET 1st announced the end of free of charge interconnections, then WorldCom would be correct, as they had just recently purchased UUNET. At least that's the date I have in the following paper I wrote a while back: http://www.2sparrows.org/Sean/rit/final%20thesis.pdf It's fairly outdated now but may be a good read for those that haven't been around that long and seem to be a bit confused on peering vs. transit and other such things. At least the 1st 1/2 of it before it ventures off into telco realms. /Sean I stand corrected, that was the moment. They say the memory is the first to go, and I can't remember what is second :-)
Re: Cisco to merge with Nabisco
Pendergrass, Greg wrote: Well, they already eat into your profits. In Nibbles, or in Bytes ? :P -Original Message- From: Wayne E. Bouchard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 01 April 2005 22:34 To: Fergie (Paul Ferguson) Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Cisco to merge with Nabisco Does this mean our routers will be edible? :-)
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
David Barak wrote: snip For crying out loud - this is UTAH, not the moon: the people there are just like people everywhere. Yeah, they tend to be a bit more socially conservative than the libertarian-leaning NANOG membership is used to, but it's not like they've got 2 heads and three arms - if you prick them, they'll bleed... From their hands, and feet, like in Stigmata ? Remind me not to visit Utah, on Easter. :} FWIW, they are doing articles right now, on how the evangelicals, thanks to Faith Based Initiative are using the money funneled into them, and their new close associations, to influence policy in US Government. So much for the Wall of Separation. :\ Prepare for a lot more of it to come down the road. The Schiavo case is a great example. From a legal standpoint, they have -nothing- to stand on... 20 judges have said so. The parents gave up, and signed the right of attorney over to the husband, years ago. End of _legal_ story. But, this administration, and a mob of RRR, don't really care about the law, as much as appearances, and grandstanding. So, the _exact_same_man_ who signed into law the Governments right to pop the plug on the poor, _irrespective_ of the wishes of the caregiver, -or- family, is leading the mob with pitchforks against just such an action. Go Figure. Like I said, The Moral Majority were Neither. so while I agree that this is a goofy law which was poorly written - there IS a demand for this type of service, and we'll see how it plays out. If there is a demand for the service, someone will be _more_ than happy to sell it to them, however, you -don't- need a law, just the demand. Just think, anyone who tries to offer this service, if he were to have an error, or a mistake, will face criminal charges, as well as the potential Civil Lawsuit, similar to Vonage. Double Jeopardy for trying to do the right thing. And something else to remember about those Blue Laws, they are usually old and antiquated.. not, passed in the last 6 months. Who would have thought the Dark Ages would have a revival, post 2000 ? -David Barak need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise! http://www.listentothefranchise.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Scott Weeks wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: : : Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would : require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed : pornographic and could also target e-mail providers : and search engines. : : http://news.com.com/Utah+governor+signs+Net-porn+bill/2100-1028_3-5629067.html?tag=nefd.top Politician lip flappage for votes. It has no chance of passing. I consider it proof positive, that our medical system is in dire need of an overhaul. Apparently, mental illness isn't being detected, and treated, as often as it should be. :P scott
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
Bill Woodcock wrote: The measure, SB 260, says: Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. Its entirely voluntary on the part of the consumer. It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. What !?! Surely you Jest! So, it is voluntary on _both_ sides, _and_ it was made into a _law_ ? Can anyone confirm this ? Of course no one would be so foolish as to try to legislate the operation of the Internet without having read RFC 2119, and anyone familiar with that document would understand the difference between MAY not and MUST NOT. :-) -Bill
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
pashdown wrote: On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:59:20PM -0600, Rachael Treu wrote: snip This bill is a waste of time and money. It also does further damage to the Utah tech industry, portraying it as an idiotic backwater. The finger isn't pointing at the -Techs- being the illiterates, but the Politicians. Please do not generalize and think everyone here agrees with the methods promoted by a select few. The Moral Majority were Neither.
Re: Utah considers law to mandate ISP's block harmful sites
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: fwd: Re: [registrars] Re: panix.com hijacked
Don't panic ? ;) Lou Katz wrote: Is there anything that us folks out in the peanut gallery can do to help, other than locally serving the panix.net zone for panix.com?
Re: Route analysis from today's AS9121 incident - preso in Seattle?
ren wrote: Dear NANOG Program Committee, Request: May we please have a presentation by Renesys on today's AS9121 incident at the Seattle NANOG 15-17 May 2005? soapbox So... remember the previously posted comment that most router melt downs are from human error ? Prophetic, isn't it ? It is sort of like when the Newbie unix Engineer comes up and says I can't get -so and so- application to work right... And your aged -nix Guru, without even looking up, says It is probably a permissions error. and he is right. The true artform of the craft, is to realize that the maintenance, and day to day operations of complex computer systems -isn't- a battle against logic and math, like we were originally taught But, in sooth, is a battle against human error, in all its myriad of forms. /soapbox Reason: This morning, 24-Dec-04, I gather AS9121 originations were spread throughout the prefix space. We, the peering community, noticed substantial instability throughout our peers as more specifics were accepted via peers without filtering. Given holiday staffing it took several hours longer to restore from max prefix states than it should have, and this is a problem hundreds of NOCs dealt with not just a handful. It would be of use to discuss what happened, the prevention methods available and how to help feed the data collection for real time analysis. The Las Vegas NANOG is perhaps too soon so I am asking that this presentation be considered for the NANOG to follow in Seattle. I'm requesting this in the open with the understanding past requests for Renesys data presentations have been turned down by the program committee. The 'can't prefix filter peers' problem has to be solved. NANOG is the right forum for this topic. Sincerely, -ren
Re: New Computer? Six Steps to Safer Surfing
Sean Donelan wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: snip good stuff for space The infection rate among all computers is abysmal. It just happens to be higher among computers with AV and/or firewalls. AV/Firewalls don't seem to be making people safer from trojans, spyware, adware, etc. So perhaps we need to look for other ways to improve things. Why does it it happen? I don't have the answers. /lurk Hrmm.. So what your suggesting is that once these systems have their protection on, they just go about having safe computing whenever, and wherever, they want.. without caution, or trepidation. Over and over, -shamelessly-. And this leads, ultimately, to a higher infection rate. I guess we could proselytize abstinence from computing, altogether. After all, not computing at ALL, is the only 100% effective method of avoiding infection. But, history shows us that sooner or later, the urge to compute grows -so- strong.. ..we burn with the basic drive.. and, finally, over come with frustration, intrigue, and desire all at once, alas, we give in... we are, after all, only human. Humans do have these intrinsic fundamental needs that cannot safely be ignored. And, from what studies show us, -once we give in-, it is better to -have- protection, than no protection at all, even if that protection isn't 100% perfect, but only high 90's in effectiveness. So, perhaps the moral lesson is to teach -both-. Not abstinence, -apart- from protection... nor protection, without the rev limiter of proper prudence But, a balance between practicing proper prudence, -and- donning appropriate protective precautions. :P (I would say no pun intended, but ;) lurk Are AV and firewalls too hard for the average user to install and maintain? Many of them are improperly configured, mis-installed, mis-managed, etc? Does a false sense of protection make things worse? Do people with AV/firewalls engage in riskier behaivor because they think they are protected? Do people without AV/firewalls tend to install less software of all types (good, bad and the ugly)? Do people without AV/firewalls take other protective measures, e.g. disable unused services, patch more frequently, don't use the administrator account, don't use Windows (e.g. Mac, Unix, etc)? Do AV/firewalls miss the infection vector used by trojans, spyware, adware? Commercial AV vendors have only recently started adding other forms of malware protection to their products. Most trojans, spyware and adware is installed by the user. Through social engineering the user is encourage to click on every button. A user managed firewall's effectiveness is limited by the user managing it. Do people buy AV/firewalls after they were already infected, but never properly cure the original infection? Essentially every brand-name computer with a copy of Microsoft Windows sold in the USA includes at least a 90-day AV product. Are there fewer infections during the first 90 days? Is it darwin, and only the strong computers of any type survive. Do computers without AV/firewalls die faster when infected, and are either cured or disappear; while computers with AV/firewalls tend to linger when infected without being cured. It seems to be very difficult to convince people with AV/firewalls that their computer could be infected. They tend to try to deny it much longer. I'd be interested in seeing the study you're quoting .. I'd encourage researchers and grad students to look into it. Security vendors are quick to sell new pills, but where are the studies that show their products' safety and effectiveness in the real world? If you are proposing all OEM's or broadband vendors include AV and firewall with their products, show me the study that shows it makes a difference.
Re: Anycast 101
Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote: I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the percentage of link failures over router failures is much, much higher. - ferg I'll go out on a limb and suggest... you weren't working in BGP during 1995-1998. :P (Or RIP in 1992-1993, DVMRP in 1997-1999:) -- William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In 25+ years, I've not found that router failure was a major or even interesting problem. Link failures are probably 80%. -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anycast 101
Hannigan, Martin wrote: Overall, fat fingers account for the larger percentage of all outages. Send that man a C-gar! :) lurk -M
Re: tli back at cisco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is huge! I guess Cisco delivered a dump trunk full of hundos to Tony's house. :) That, or they finally got the nail out of the door, from his last resignation. :P -- Original message -- http://www.nwfusion.com/edge/news/2004/1209li.html - ferg
Re: Peering best practices advice needed.
Rolo Tomassi wrote: Hi all, Please forgive the simplistic nature of the query.. Basically my company is multi-homed with 2 different providers in the UK, and advertising a /18. Now some colleaguges in another part of the world want to break that /18 into two /19's and advertise one /19 and we advertise the other. This is fine, however we are NOT running IBGP in the core, therefore the UK customers in the /19 will not be able to reach the other /19 as there would be a loop detected through EBGP. Pardon my simplistic solution, try dropping the /18, and -only- advertise the corresponding /19 from each region. Now someone mentioned that we could use AS-LOOP-IN feature which will overcome this problem and allow us to route to each other via EBGP. I really think this is a bad idea but until we get an internal link - I dont see a way forward. So... anyone doing this currently in their network or have any best practices way round this. I want our company to be good Netizens but still be able to pass traffic between the 2 /19's. See above. K.I.S.S. (No offense intended ;) Any help would be greatly appreciated. Rolo ! _ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
Re: Peering best practices advice needed.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is what he is doing, however if he is advertising the two /19's, from two disconnected sites with the same ASN, they will not be able to reach each other as BGP will interpret this as a path loop. Yup. I would presume, as they aren't connected, nor running iBGP, they would be running different ASN's. Anything else hurts. On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 12:56:13PM -0500, Richard Irving wrote: Rolo Tomassi wrote: Hi all, Please forgive the simplistic nature of the query.. Basically my company is multi-homed with 2 different providers in the UK, and advertising a /18. Now some colleaguges in another part of the world want to break that /18 into two /19's and advertise one /19 and we advertise the other. This is fine, however we are NOT running IBGP in the core, therefore the UK customers in the /19 will not be able to reach the other /19 as there would be a loop detected through EBGP. Pardon my simplistic solution, try dropping the /18, and -only- advertise the corresponding /19 from each region. Now someone mentioned that we could use AS-LOOP-IN feature which will overcome this problem and allow us to route to each other via EBGP. I really think this is a bad idea but until we get an internal link - I dont see a way forward. So... anyone doing this currently in their network or have any best practices way round this. I want our company to be good Netizens but still be able to pass traffic between the 2 /19's. See above. K.I.S.S. (No offense intended ;) Any help would be greatly appreciated. Rolo ! _ Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
Re: Fw: [IP] Senate Hearing on ICANN Set for Thursday
Should be interesting. :) Matthew McGehrin wrote: - Original Message - Date: September 27, 2004 3:18:34 PM EDT http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1324 ICANN Oversight and Security of Internet Root Servers and the Domain Name System (DNS) Communications Hearing Thursday, September 30 2004 - 2:30 PM - SR - 253 Webcast: Click here to view a live webcast of this hearing. Description: Members will hear testimony examining the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), international cooperation in management and governance of the Domain Name Syatem (DNS), and the security of the Internet's root servers and the DNS. 508 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg | Washington, DC 20510-6125 | Tel: 202-224-5115 Privacy Policy
Re: Backbone IP network Economics - peering and transit
Deepak Jain wrote: If direct connecting != peering then definitely. Maybe we need to say differentiate between: - Connected transit - Remote transit - Connected peering - Remote peering And agree that, by default, transit ~= remote transit peering ~= direct peering Without getting too complicated. transit is always direct connection to a single AS, and indirect to all others. For simplicity's sake, single-homed customer ASes behind the transit AS are not considered apart from the transit AS. It is indirect for the rest of the internet, including the sum of all peering (read: direct connection without any indirect connections) connectivity. peering is a always direction connection to a single AS and no indirect connections are expected. Again, single-homed customer ASes are considered part of the peering AS. Slight error, there.. While the first always is true, the second statement may not be. customers of peers are visible between two AS's peering. ASes that can only be reached from a single AS can only be reached by those with a direction connection to the upstream AS. --- This model [good or bad] allows people who pay for customer-only routes from a transit provider they can't settlement-free peer with be considered in the same breath as true peers. For technology concerns, I think this is valid. For business reasons there is probably some difference. DJ
Re: Internet law
Joe Abley wrote: On 30 Dec 2003, at 11:07, John Obi wrote: when will we see the FBI, and other local police in the other countries send the script kiddies to the JAILL so we can use the internet without too much pain? You're asking how long it might take for every government in every single jurisdiction in the world to pass a coherent set of laws about something that the average person knows nothing about, and to enforce them in a compatible way? Here's a vague guess: take the time it would take to agree a useful set of laws in just one jurisdiction, then raise it to the power of twenty. Worse still, as the US found (prior to law changes, post Darpa years), prosecuting Script Kiddies is counter productive.. you take the brightest most inquisitive minds of our time, and ruin their future... Incarceration indoctrinating them in the dark side of life, and the record preventing them from escaping it... thus their untapped potential is either wasted, or worse still, corrupted, and -then- tapped. Brilliant Strategy, eh ? So, after a little thought, We took to confiscating their gear, and denying them access for a year (more or less)... Which of course, made them crazy to -get- access, and after that year, you -couldn't- separate them from their tools of learning. Many went on to be some of the sharpest technicals in the field. :P Life is Counter Intuitive. Joe
Re: Request for submissions: messy cabling and other broken things
Oh... Had to take a potshot, didn't we ? FWIW, we are near filled now, and we managed to Keep the Faith... Alex Yuriev wrote: http://new.onecall.net/timages/dsxcabling.jpg http://new.onecall.net/timages/cat5patch.jpg Isn't it amazing how clean cabling in nearly empty collos and mmrs looks? The real Key is to let the s/Soup/Cabling/g Nazi keep control of the situation... And keep the Suits out of it, no matter how much they whine. Oh, we just need to slap up a temporary... NEIN! NIX! Das is Verbotten! NO SOUP FOR YOU! ;) Alex
Re: Request for submissions: messy cabling and other broken things
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now that you've educated the world about messy cabling jobs that should _not_ be done, perhaps you or someone else should now post _CLEAN_ cabling jobs that everyone should follow examples of :-) http://new.onecall.net/timages/dsxcabling.jpg http://new.onecall.net/timages/cat5patch.jpg Just a couple humble suggestions. Thanks for the good pictures btw. Some of them are actually funny hehe On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:12:20PM -0800, Eric Kuhnke wrote: Sometimes illustrating the way a job should *not* be done is a powerful educational tool. I have collected a gallery of messy and ridiculous cabling jobs: http://gallery.colofinder.net/shameful-cabling my favorite (not horrible, but funny): http://gallery.colofinder.net/shameful-cabling/cables Anonymous submissions can be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] , equipment labels and faces will be blurred if requested.
Re: Request for submissions: messy cabling and other broken things
Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: Richard Irving wrote: http://new.onecall.net/timages/cat5patch.jpg Is that one really Cat. 5 compliant? (Tails out of the sheath look too long one some of them.) Routine Spin Downs created that (extended) Telco standard, we just carried it over to Data structured wiring, as well. :\ Whole lot prettier than some of the other pictures though. http://new.onecall.net/timages/dsxcabling.jpg Looks like an old-fashioned Western job--dint think anybody still working knew how to do that. 8-)
Re: Request for submissions: messy cabling and other broken things
Sharif Torpis wrote: uh-oh, what's this? http://new.onecall.net/timages/wanrack.jpg Hehehe.. :} The -old- building, and Telecom WAN room, circa early 1990's, late 1980's, and a bank of auto-ops from before the time when there was such a thing as a 1U server. new.onecall.net is actually a misnomer, the actual -new- site (www) has minimal detail Programmers keep the old web site around, under the name new, (Programmer Humor, eh ?) which has a few pictures snapped during the building of the -=new=- facility. :P
Does any know where the link is for
I seem to recall someone doing a paper on ICMP and traceroute -at times-, as not always being indicative of actual network performance... Does anyone remember who, or where, that link is ? Thanks in Advance. :)
Re: This may be stupid but..
Vadim Antonov wrote: The only problem - they have no clue about the profession they're recruiting for and tend to judge applicants not by them saying reasonable things but by their self-assuredness and by keywords in resume. And Statistics show, the less knowledgeable you are in this field, the more cock sure of yourself you are, and the opposite hsa been proven true, as well. (Time and time again in help desks around the world, every single day.. ;) Recruiters ... (snip) In the end, they screen out all geeks and you end up with a bunch of polished liars. Vadim, you are getting as jaded as Bill. :P (Albeit accurate!) Better use networking and referrals, and Internet-based resources. --vadim On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, John Brown (CV) wrote: so negotiate with the recruiter. benifits of a recuriter are: * they take the twit calls * they read thru the resumes and sort the junk out * they do the screening * they do the reference and background checks * they have more resources to find people than you do this saves you time and money on your end. time better spent building customer base, solving customer problems, etc. and if you do a good contract with the recruiter, if the person you hire is sacked, they find you a new one at no cost :) On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 05:16:46PM -0500, Fisher, Shawn wrote: If this question is inappropriate for this list I apoligize in advance. I have several open engineering positions that I am trying to fill without the use of a recruiter. My thoughts on using a recruiter is they end up extracting a fee from the employer that would be better put to the future employee. My question, what is the most effective way to recruit quality engineers? Does anyone have experience or opinions to share? TIA, Shawn
Re: ISPs' willingness to take action
John Ferriby wrote: I'm really surprised to hear the assertion that people are leaving unfirewalled Exchange servers out on the net. Is this actually common?/shudders... I don't think that the small shops know any better. It's a matter of education, and in most of the cases I've seen the education has been painful. In most cases it isn't the even the shops, it is the suits who cut the check, -insisting-. In XYZ megacorporation we ran Xchange... harrumph So, if you know how to use a Hammer, every problem is just another nail. Including the nail with the neat spirals down the side. VPN technologies are either too weak, like PPTP, too expensive or difficult to grasp like IPsec, or too new like the HTTPS tunnels. Breaking out an old saying, and reapplying: Something Old [IPChains], Something New [HTTPS], Something Borrowed [AIX/Linux], Something Blue [RS-6000]. YMMV, adjust to suit conditions, or is that suit conditions ? :P You can't Hack that to which you cannot Connect. I don't recall the source, but it was recently reported that 40% of the exchange server base is still on the v5.5 platform. Using that as a general indication, many of these shops probably won't plan to upgrade anytime soon. A study of suits in the industry shows better than 77% will suggest Xchange when asked for a safe reliable email application server. Another study will show almost -none- ( 5%) of them will have actual hands on experience -administrating- said server or -any- experience other than that of an end user. Interestingly the majority of suits will try to drive the neat nail with the spirals into the wood, with the hammer, for some reason. Strangely, about 43% will -claim- success at the attempt, irrespective, fudging the paperwork for appearances. Go figure! :\ -John FYI: Statistics show that the same personality characteristics that make for an excellent liar, also makes for a good leader. So much so, it can be said, Most Good Leaders are Excellent Liars. (FWIW, Statistics -also- show that almost 70% of them had to -cheat- to get their college degree...) Well, that certainly go -miles- in explaining politics, eh ?, Pardon, I digress... :) And finally, a study demonstrated, The more knowledgeable of the field (computers) you are, the more likely you are to be humble when proffering your opinion. Conversely, it was also been demonstrated, The -=less=- knowledgeable you are in the industry, the more likely you are to accept your own opinion as the end all, or authoritative on the subject. :* .TIA. PPS: Sadly, Only -some- of the above statistics are made up. :O :* :P
Re: Alternative Satellite news feed needed
If you are at an exchange, we can do the old days type usenet peering... We (operators) used to have a full mesh along the core prior to Cidera Much of that is disassembled It will now probably be re-assembled. (Heavens knows I am FWIW. :) Anyone interested , private mail! Keep the S/N ratio on Nanog down. Jeffrey Wheat wrote: Since Cidera is going offline again, I am in need of seeking an alternative. Does anyone know of a non-land line based news feed? With the tremendous amount of news that we pull a day, I am not willing to spend the kind of money that would be required to sustain the same amount of traffic over leased lines. Thanks in advance, Jeffrey --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.516 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003
Re: News of ISC Developing BIND Patch
Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: Hello Whoever , On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: manufacturer assigned macs are guaranteed to be globally unique. A specific enterprise reconfiguring the mac is akin to an enterprise using RFC1918 space. I have to agree with Mr. Shore here . Mac addresses are NOT unique from ALL manufacturers '.' . I do beleive that there was a a brand (maybe not USA) that the cadr came without mac-address hard assigned on the card , You HAD to , using their configuration tool assign one . JimL There was actually a fly by nighter that had one of the earliest EISA based 100mps FD FE in the early 90's, where ALL there cards had the SAME MAC, the people issuing ranges had only assigned them the ONE... So, they burned it on all their cards! Really. Obviously, you could only use one per network... :P And, FWIW, old VAX gear had assignable MAC's But, other than freak cases, the original point is true.. today most MAC's are globally unique. HSRP not withstanding. (To every rule, there is an exception, including this one.)
Re: News of ISC Developing BIND Patch
* sigh * s/there/their/ s/mps/mbs/ s/:)/:}/ 8-) Richard Irving wrote: Mr. James W. Laferriere wrote: Hello Whoever , On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: manufacturer assigned macs are guaranteed to be globally unique. A specific enterprise reconfiguring the mac is akin to an enterprise using RFC1918 space. I have to agree with Mr. Shore here . Mac addresses are NOT unique from ALL manufacturers '.' . I do beleive that there was a a brand (maybe not USA) that the cadr came without mac-address hard assigned on the card , You HAD to , using their configuration tool assign one . JimL There was actually a fly by nighter that had one of the earliest EISA based 100mps FD FE in the early 90's, where ALL there cards had the SAME MAC, the people issuing ranges had only assigned them the ONE... So, they burned it on all their cards! Really. Obviously, you could only use one per network... :P And, FWIW, old VAX gear had assignable MAC's But, other than freak cases, the original point is true.. today most MAC's are globally unique. HSRP not withstanding. (To every rule, there is an exception, including this one.)
Re: Hijacked email
Please people, of all the great feedback these joe jobbed addresses are receiving, from the anti-virus software... it really wouldn't hurt to include the -=IP=- (and possibly headers) of the system that contacted your server. Rather than simply complain, it would allow us to track down, and triangulate the -=real=- perp, an infected M$ machine or two (million). Thanks in Advance for useful data ! :D JMHO. Omachonu Ogali wrote: For our Postfix viewers out there... header_checks: /^X-MailScanner: Found to be clean$/REJECT You're infected, but you probably won't see this message anyway. body_checks: /X-MailScanner: Found to be clean/ REJECT Please, stop sending me bounces/infection notices for spoofed virus spam. The last rule is kinda evil as it will block all mail with that line in the body (both incoming and outgoing), so know what you're doing before you blindly cut and paste.
Re: virus or hacked?
Oh I don't know. Many here do a pretty good impression of that unique combination of skills prior to that first cup of coffee :P [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:45:46 EDT, Claire Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: How catty. We all start somewhere, or have you forgotten? You *do* have to admit it's an unusual combination of skills to: a) have enough clue to get subscribed to NANOG-post *AND* b) not be able to identify Windows Messenger spam
Re: Blocking port 135?
So, you don't like the smell of fried chicken ? We keep an old overclocked 486-33, with a quadrupler around, making it run at about 100mhz.. for just this purpose... Complete the Chicken ritual, at Midnight, of course. Unprotect port 25, let alt.freak know... Route all mail to /dev/null Whip the chicken on to the old processor, and wait till the spam hits Fried chicken in 5 minutes or less. Mmm. :D Christopher L. Morrow wrote: On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Sean Donelan wrote: In reality blocking port 135 is almost never sufficient. Its slightly better than waving a dead chicken over your PC. its far less stinky than the chicken option though, you must admit that.
Re: Cisco Vulnerability Testing Results
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have this brilliantly simple idea that somehow everyone forgets, while they tout all the new advanced stuff. Do not introduce yet another name for filtering that works only in some cases. Fix the filtering code so we can filter *anything* at *any packet rate* on *any interface* that pass *any traffic* without bringing the router to its knees. Already done, however, the only prototype source code is still in test mode, in the same facility as the WMD, in Iraq David Kelly has been dispatched by Tony Blair, It -=should=- be here any minute now... :\ Alex
CNN.com - Senator: Trash illegal downloaders' PCs - Jun. 18, 2003
Just to continue the discussion of the RIAA oriented Laws, and how they seem to supersede American Constitutional rights Haven't these people heard of Multi-User Systems ? Excerpt: Senator: Trash illegal downloaders' PCs http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/06/18/download.music.ap/index.html I think these people think gross infringements will be prevented by the Constitution. They keep forgetting that the USA Patriot attempts to -=supersede=- your basic constitutional protections, in such matters. As such, basic constitutional rights have -=no=- protection from -=Patriot=-. or, subsequent Electronic legislation. (AFAICT)
Re: Rescheduled: P2P file sharing national security and personalsecurity risks
IMHO:
No more, or less, than SMTP.
It is -that- simple.
(Of course, SMTP is how China got
Nuclear Secrets out of America :( )
FWIW: This is more tempestuous reactions at High Levels,
that would normally have been laughed off.
Except P2P's are annoying the Recording Industry execs,
and they have $$$ on the line, so.
$$$ has a way a bringing things to light that would
otherwise simply have been ignored
But, for this to make it to the NS Risk Assessment groups just
demonstrates the licentious influence between the Current
Administration Policies and Money Men.
After all, how many meetings are there going to
be assessing the risk SMTP has on National Security ?
Or, as you mentioned, MS file sharing...
And, remember, SMTP is -already- proven guilty of said Risk,
and a far more -probable- culprit in future compromises... !
Reality Check.
My .02c
.Richard.
My, what interesting times we live in,
and darn it, important people noticed me! :{
Sean Donelan wrote:
June 10, 2003
NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
The Senate Committee on the Judiciary scheduled for Wednesday, June 11,
2003, at 2:00 p.m., on .The Dark Side of a Bright Idea: Could Personal
and National Security Risks Compromise the Potential of P2P File-Sharing
Networks?. has been rescheduled for Tuesday, June 17, 2003 at 2:00 p.m.
in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Building.
By order of the Chairman
I wonder if anyone is going to mention that Microsoft Network Neighborhood
file sharing is a form of P2P file sharing.
Re: .mil domain
Precedent, Randy, Precedent ! UUnet and few others a long time ago had a differing definition of peering that most of us thought, at the time... But were so BIG, we accepted their routes, anyway. * shrug * A secret black list is a real bugger if: No one is allowed to mention it exists. If you get on it, there is now way off, no right of redress. No one can -tell- you you are on it. No one can tell you if you -aren't-. And if you -somehow- figure out your on it, they can't admit it, or the -reason- you are on it, or take you off even if they wanted. Any and all of the above. On a lighter note, the US Senate recently unsealed the American McCarthy Hearing records. :O:* :} Randy Bush wrote: In recent times, a lot of .mil have thrown up a whole bunch of null routes to large sections of international address space. Good luck getting them removed as this means they have a different definition of the internet than the one to which i, and i suspect others, are used, why should i and others accept their routes? randy
Re: An A record is an MX record and is a missing MX....
Adam McKenna wrote: On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 05:25:35PM -0500, Richard Irving wrote: It isn't exactly completely RFC compliant, but, it is only a -=Request=-, eh ? It is in fact required that an MTA fall back to the A record for a domain if an MX record does not exist. See RFC 2821, Section 5, Address Resolution and Mail Handling. Agreed, but nothing -requires- an MTA Agent have an MX record, in the first place it is just a best CBP. Not having one means you don't comply with ALL the RFC, but you are still RFC compliant. Not the same thing, FWIW. Obviously some admins I have encountered are starting to host mailservers for sub-domains and domains without MX entries on their DNS zone records. Relying on the A record alone. Lemmings make a mad dash towards a cliff, every so often, en masse This is a fallacy perpetrated by Disney. No, that they are committing suicide is a fallacy. That they jump up and begin migrating to lower population density regions is fact... and they just happen to suicide in the process. But, heck, ignore this one citation, and reference recent notions that war is possibly programmed into our gene's similar concept. Similar irrational mass behavior. Remember American Prohibition ? (aka: 21'st Amendment) rode in on the idea that Absinth was Evil Incarnate, and yes, the young were being lead to Hell itselfDamned! They were drinking Absinth, listening to no less than the Devil's -=Own=- Music! Imagine that, kids listening to Devil Music! (Ozzie, where are you ? War Pigs comes to mind...) Yes, Kids listening to Devil Music ! A cry not unheard among the generations, and perhaps one you have even heard yourself. Of course, helping to put it into context of those times, as opposed to your (probably) more recent context: Do you -=still=- concur that JAZZ is the Devil's music ? So, it was irrational behavior of the Masses, eh ? * shrug * Like I said, Lemmings ever so often jump up, and make a mad dash.. http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm However, I feel that perhaps this discussion does NOT belong on NANOG. head to Nanog off topic, if you would like to continue the discussion ;) --Adam
Re: Foxnews / MSNBC Akamai issue?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was this ultimately an Akamai issue? I had a hard time getting to Fox News Today, as well. :) .Richard. [This was actually just a posting test, please ignore... :) ] http://www.pravda.ru/ Anyone else seeing DNS issues today?
Re: An A record is an MX record and is a missing MX....
Gerardo Gregory wrote: snip Since then I have learned that some MTA's will look for an A record if it cannot find an MX record and use the A record instead. Once upon a time that was near all Micr0$loth did... Is this acceptable (in a best case scenario) as a correct method? It isn't exactly completely RFC compliant, but, it is only a -=Request=-, eh ? But, FWIW, since when is a system =-without-= proper fall backs, a best case scenario ? Obviously some admins I have encountered are starting to host mailservers for sub-domains and domains without MX entries on their DNS zone records. Relying on the A record alone. Lemmings make a mad dash towards a cliff, every so often, en masse * shrug * Go figure. :P Gerardo A. Gregory :)
Re: is this true or... ?
How do like this recent rounds of bureaucrats attempting to make lawsh-r-m ? A: IMHO:This should be officially declared, out of their jurisdiction. of such small municipalities... it is sort of like having a Nurse make the judgment call during a delicate heart surgery. It takes a specialist, really There is a reason most laws that -do- exist are at a Federal level...(in the U.S.)... Match the Law with the Scope of the problem. B: Most of these laws make about as much sense as the Old Blue Laws, that we are just now getting around to repealing.. (Can't have sex with the wife on Sunday) Why create more idiotic laws ? After our region voted all out (7-0) to pass laws outlawing Spam. and created a bill that would incarcerate about half of the daily usenet posters, and network operators, for routine operations... and outlaw anonymity on the net... Someone showed them how to use Spam Assassin. It made Front Page News. * dohh! * The real solution lie in the IEEE, IETF, and/or the IESG, and possibly will be included in IPV6 The interim solution lie in software packages, and Firewalls And, fundamentally, if the USA Patriot Act didn't teach us at least one thing, it should have taught us to NOT attempt to -=legislate=- the value of Pi to 4.0. It simply should be out of their jurisdiction, since the physical reality is beyond their ability to change, and/or comprehend. Besides, JMHO, don't make a -law-, per se... make it actionable. ;) Why send idiots to jail, and ruin their future When you can simply make them reimburse you for your trouble ? They remain productive members of society, and you are recompensed for your troubles.. ..Giving you that warm fuzzy glow of Retribution, you so deserve. :D Its not like we don't have -=Entire States=- going into bankruptcy because the attempted application of the Police State that is the wet-dream of the current administration, -=didn't=- overburden the system You See, you can only incarcerate up to a certain percentage of the community, until the burden to support the incarcerated over-whelms the remaining free members of that society. Not to mention, certain types of laws will result in young people being exposed, and converted, to the wrong element, early in life. We would be better off -=not=- exposing them to such treatment in the first place.. ( Most hacking law breakers are juveniles, when it comes to the internetcuriosity and the Cat, eh ?) Adding -more- un-enforceable laws, that not only over-burden the system further, but permanently modify the behavior of countless numbers of people for the worse, over relatively trivial issue's... will eventually end up as Blue Law, a waste of our time, and money. Fundamentally Detrimental to the Very System, itself. Steven M. Bellovin wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven M. Be llovin writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven M. B e llovin writes: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Toma s Daniska writes: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 freedom-to-tinker.com, which is the source cited by your link, is indeed Ed Felten's. And I trust Ed. It's been pointed out to me that the Texas bill, at least (I found it at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=NUTHYMWBJWUFCQ_QU ERY_HANDLE=126838CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=4CQ_SAVE[bill_number]=HB02121INTCQ_TLO_DOC _TEXT=YES but there may be session state -- it's bill HB 2121) only criminalizes the conduct if it's done with intent to harm or defraud a communications service provider. Now, given the anti-NAT and anti-VPN tendencies of some broadband ISPs, I'm not necessarily thrilled, but it's not quite the same as was originally suggested. After talking to Ed Felten and reading more of the bill, I'm no longer certain about my clarification. The originally-cited text is in Section 6; the part about intent to cause harm is in Section 4. Section 6 also criminalizes concealing origin or destination information from lawful authority -- use crypto, go to jail? --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of Firewalls book)
Re: is this true or... ?
Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, blitz wrote: If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are At 15:09 3/28/03 +0100, you wrote: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 Uhm, I don't think you can blame the legislators for this one. Almost identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the Righteous Vigilante Right was running around championing this concept Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam And then, with tears streaming from their eyes, knowing their innocent darling Pat has been corrupted, and -damned- for all eternity... They become determined to lead us all to the One True Path of righteousness... The Universal WorldWide Creation of Pat's Law. (Pause for Hysterical Sobbing for the Now Damned soul) (Que: Triumphant Angelic Music) With Such bogus Rhetoric as their foundation, as: You want our children to be -=safe=-, don't you ? (Scratch Record, stop music abruptly!) Most people are dumbfounded when encountering such Rhetoric... for some reason, they can't seperate the answer to the logical trap posed in the wording that they have stepped into, from the -=real=- answer to the problem Most people internally cognate the answer Yes to the above question, and then can't understand why they find themselves agreeing with the RVR's proselytizer * dohh * I.E: Do you beat your wife, often ?! :* The real way to combat such morally reprehensible manipulation of logic of the verbal exchange is to identify the underlying fallacy. So, instead of Yes, answer: Of course we do, Schmuck, that is why we oppose such a negligent abuse of power and the subsequent creation of ludicrous laws... by emotionally blinded idiots, such as yourself... and seek a -real- solution, instead of attempting to legislate something you simply don't understand, ineffectively. Yup. Find the Fallacy, and soon one understands why the RVR's really should seek -=therapy=-, not political office. So, in conclusion: You want to be Safe -and- Free, don't you ? :P .Richard. Historical Quote: Any resemblance between this post, and current political practices, are purely intentional. = So, has Babylon Fallen, Yet ? ;)
Re: is this true or... ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said: Sean Donelan wrote: identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the Righteous Vigilante Right was running around championing this concept Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf Follow the money. *SIGH* Ah, yes. The -=one=- motive more powerful than even self preservation of the species... * Greed * Did you know that in Africa, there is a humane monkey trap that has been used for countless ages... Sun Flower seeds in an empty coconut shell, securely mounted. With a narrow opening in the top of the shell, the monkey reaches in, and grabs a handful of seeds.. But, with its hand -full- of seeds, it cannot withdraw it from the Narrow Opening in the top of the coconut You have to check these traps often, though... The Monkey will starve to death, rather than release the hand full of seeds. Did you know that man's genomes are roughly 98% Simian ? :D Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
Re: is this true or... ?
Nathan E Norman wrote: On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:07:24PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said: Sean Donelan wrote: identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the Righteous Vigilante Right was running around championing this concept Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf Follow the money. *SIGH* You mean Richard Irving was _wrong_ ??? Wow. It would be a miracle, eh ? Agreed. But, Alas, you confuse a hypothesis, with a conclusion. Better luck next time. :P -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible to accomplish complex actions. -- Doug Gwyn Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
Re: is this true or... ?
I think this is bringing it back on topic, Ms. Harris Ejay Hire wrote: Methinks what they are aiming for is trying to prevent spammers from hiding their origin using open relays/open proxies/stealthware. Agreed, However: The Highway to Hell is paved with Good intentions. With the proper application of clue, maybe we'll have something to wield against the spammers. Like new base software from the IETF. * cough * Otherwise, we will -still- be missing the clue I don't question the intentions, I question the structural integrity of the composition of the pavement, and where the road is -=leading=-. (Back on topic, Ma'am ? ;) -Original Message- From: Tomas Daniska [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: is this true or... ? http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.
Re: UK ISPs not cooperating with law enforcement- COPA Enforcement BAN
Another interesting point of Roberts Rules of Procedure for Internet Operational Protocols, so to speak... COPA has been struck down again. Your AUP's may have to be updated. ;) [Sorry NSP-SEC's for being redundant.. :*, shh...] Injunction against Enforcement of COPA, March 6, 2003. http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/ Excerpt: Court Strikes Down Censorship Law (Again). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has, for the second time, ruled that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) is unconstitutional. In a decision (pdf) issued on March 6, 2003, the court found that the law violates the First Amendment because it improperly restricts access to a substantial amount of online speech that is lawful for adults. The decision follows a Supreme Court decision that sent the case back to the appeals court, which had previously ruled that COPA was unconstitutional. EPIC is co-counsel in the case. = Supreme Court Maintains Ban on COPA Enforcement. = The Supreme Court on May 13, 2002, issued a decision on Congress's latest attempt to censor the Internet. The Court did not decide any of the core legal questions, but ordered a lower court to decide the case on a wider range of First Amendment issues. Meanwhile, a majority of justices appeared to have grave doubts about the law's ultimate constitutionality, and the Court left in place an injunction barring enforcement of the law. The case has to do with a law passed by Congress in 1998 called the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), a broad censorship law that severely restricts any speech on the Web that is harmful to minors, and imposes steep fines and prison terms for violators. We don't make the laws people, we just abide by them. Sean Donelan wrote: It difficult to tell from the article whether UK ISPs are refusing to cooperate with lawful requests from UK police, or if UK police are trying to get ISPs to give information without proper authorization. http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=119873
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
Honestly people, to summarize all this... Legislation is not the correct knee jerk response to technical challenges... Lawyers and Politicians just -think- it is Perhaps related to perceiving themselves as important to the problem, eh ? And, that also happens to create a situation where they get paid to be involved, eh ? Science really doesn't care about what is politically correct, or who you are, all it really cares about is mathematics, and reality. Only politicians think it bends to their whim... (See the attempt to legislate the value of PI) The reality is, if we outlaw probing, we will be arresting thousands of innocents, as 80% (if not more, this stat is made up, but based upon real world observation ) of the probes in the internet are caused by trojans and worms So, Grandma Kettle, sitting out in her cornfield, on GTE DSL is going to go to jail, because her grandson downloaded a neat program he saw on the internet or, clicked on the attachment that arrived in the e-mail whose subject was the beginning of a cute little joke about snow white, and some dwarves By that standard we would be arresting the Microsoft database administrators, for participating in the most recent SQL based worm. (Once penetrated, the MS servers probed other servers to self-propogate, just like other compromised servers..) The sheer volume of false probe positives could busy out -any- size agency created to enforce such a law. Legislating something rarely makes the situation better, when it comes to science.I sugges the answer is found in ACL's, and the technical arena, not the political.. And, also, I suggest PI should remain 3.14(etc.), no matter what the politicians say. Michael Lamoureux wrote: andy == Andy Dills [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: andy On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Charlie Clemmer wrote: At 03:52 PM 2/28/2003 -0500, Andy Dills wrote: Why is probing networks wrong? Depends on why you're doing the probing. andy If so, why outlaw the act of probing? Why not outlaw probing andy for the purposes of...? What's the offset into the probe packets to the intent of the this probe field? And would you trust it if there were one anyway? If you're randomly walk up to my house and check to see if the door is unlocked, you better be ready for a reaction. Same thing with unsolicited probes, in my opinion. Can I randomly walk up to your car to see if it's unlocked without getting a reaction out of you? andy This is different. Metaphors applying networking concepts to andy real world scenarios are tenuous at best. andy In this case, your door being unlocked cannot cause me andy harm. However, an unlocked proxy can. Heh, so I guess you could make it his gun and the safety. Does that change your answer? ;-) andy Legit probes are an attempt to mitigate network abuse, not andy increase it. If there was a sanctioned body who was trusted to andy scan for such things, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But andy there's not, so it's a vigilante effort. What's a legit probe? One where the owner gave you permission in advance to run the scan? I can't think of another definition of that phrase. andy You don't have to. This is why I never understood why people andy care so much about probing. If you do a good job with your andy network, probing will have zero affect on you. All the person andy probing can do (regardless of their intent) is say Gee, I guess andy there aren't any vulnerabilities with this network. This is a completely naive statement. There are 0 networks that I'm willing to believe have 0 vulnerabilities on them. There may be 0 that you know about, but that doesn't mean there aren't more vulnerabilities which aren't public knowledge lurking in sendmail or bind or ssh or ssl or apache or any number of other services you have running. IMHO, Michael
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
There is NO legal advice in this post. Jack Bates wrote:(SNIPO) Should we outlaw a potentially beneficial practice due to its abuse by criminals? Okay. What happens if you make a mistake and overload one of my devices costing my company money. That is usually a civil issue, not criminal. (.edu, .mil and .gov can be exceptions to the rule) [ Older laws protecting the internet, prior to it being public were allowed to linger for just that effectFWIW] And Vixie isn't unique in quoting these California Statutes Does anyone have an actual pointer to these things, please ? I realize they don't apply to anywhere but California, but it would make interesting reading... I guarantee you, the law will look favorably on damages. That is the problem with probing. See above, that remains a Civil issue, in most cases. Sometimes the probe itself can be the damage. Programmers are human. Humans make mistakes. Sometime probes can provide great benefits to all involved, as well. How about the case of the MAPS test for email relay function, available to the public ? Programmers are perfect. Absolutely NOT True... It is just relative to the rest of the world, we just APPEAR to be perfect. :* :P -Jack
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
In this case, your door being unlocked cannot cause me harm. However, an unlocked proxy can. Legit probes are an attempt to mitigate network abuse, not increase it. If there was a sanctioned body who was trusted to scan for such things, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But there's not, so it's a vigilante effort. Not completely Vigilante, many of the Network providers reserve the right to manage (including probe) any network block that they -=announce=-... if not, they simply won't announce it. (While I have experienced many a probe, I have neither heard of anyone actually being declined from announcement, nor have I been part of such an experience, FWIW, but the right is reserved.) That activity is considered by many, proper administrative due diligence, or managed network service. Now, if Genuity were to start probing UUnet blocks, then that becomes a little more Vigilante... although, in most cases, not illegal. (AFAICT) [Any comments construed as legal advice, are purely do to an errant perception on the part of the reader... illigitimi non carborundum]
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
Len Rose wrote: Scanning is always a precursor to an attack, or to determine if any obvious methodology can be used to attack. At least that's how it has been historically viewed. See my other post. MAPS assists users in closing their innocent relay capable systems. And, FWIW, pro-active probing -can- provide a great service to the less than clueful end users. Scenario: MR. ISP A, we received over 300mbs from your network last week, as it participated in a 1500-bot attack of K ROOT SERVER... We have determined, via access list, that the following IP's appear to be the source of this attack, and we suspect have been compromised by the koo-koo-ka-chooo worm. We have not confirmed the identity of the worm, as the attack worm has yet to be identified, and isolated, conclusively. However, we have found all sources that participated in this attack had port 6667 and ports open. This lead us to hypothesize that it was the koo-koo-ka-choo worm... Several of these sites are under your Administration Attached, please find the list of infected servers Any information regarding this worm, and the servers subsequent sterilization, would be appreciated. Signed, The Admininstration of -=Your=- NSP. In my opinion there is no legitimate reason to scan a remote host or network without the permission of the owners. Otherwise it is in fact excessive behaviour. See above.
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
Joe St Sauver wrote: There is NO legal advice in this post. Really! In Oregon, see ORS 164.377(4): Any person who knowingly and without authorization uses, accesses or attempts to access any computer, computer system, computer network, or any computer software, program, documentation or data contained in such computer, computer system or computer network, commits computer crime. Define without authorization, and also knowingly. Was the port open to the public internet ? If so, it sounds pretty authorized to me, therefore undermining knowingly, afaict. Or, otherwise, with a few exceptions, almost every web site I have ever surfed has been without authorization. Like I said, intention has to come into the picture in this case, it is in the form of knowingly. Do you open your unauthorized ports to the public internet ? Unauthorized on wide open internet usually infers that there is an access scheme in place to -prevent- unauthorized access, and activity that attempts to undermine that security scheme -then- becomes illegal, AFAIK. The absence of such an access scheme, on open internet, would infer an implied authorization... as in the case of the millions of WWW pages we all access daily. After all, protocol ports do not publish themselves. Now, to add a twist, did I probe you from authorized space, and gain illegal access, undermining your (inadequate) security scheme ? Well, then I must have been authorized, or you wouldn't have allowed me in from this auhtorized space, eh ? Oh, I was in authorized space, but I wasn't authorized, and I didn't know ? Oh, well there goes the knowing thing again. .JMHO. .Richard. == While some of this information could be considered legally valid coming from a technical expert, it isn't to be construed as legal advice. Get a lawyer for actual legal advice. http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/164.html Regards, Joe
Re: anti-spam vs network abuse
E.B. Dreger wrote:
Actually, when one leaves honeypots and/or tarpits, getting
probed can be rather fun...
Second this !
:D
Did you ever hear of the guy who wrote a C based 'bot trap
and brought down both a big name search engine mining bot,
and a providers (major) Unix server ?
LOL!
He apparently didn't like the idea that the bot
had the right to mine his site for data and so,
a few lines of C, and Tada!
Deadlock, on endless nested directories.
Dueling Servers at Dawn !
He had to write a letter of apology to his service provider,
and to the search engine. I think it can still be found online
somewhere
:{
Eddy
--
Brotsman Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or you are likely to
be blocked.
Re: Homeland Security Alert System
conf t router warning you cannot configure a router with this one Martin Hannigan wrote: I have my duct tape and plastic, but haven't applied it to the windows. I hear it is more effective, if you wrap the plastic around your head, and seal it with the duck tape Never had a -single- complaint, from users of this methodology. as long as they don't cheat. :P Nothing gets through ... (of course, including air..) But this -=is=- a time of WAR, we MUST be willing to make sacrifices :* FACT: Did you know that Government studies show 100% of terrorists, participating in fatal terrorist attacks, were shown to have been breathing -=air=-, right prior to the accident. That's right, AIR! =-All=- of them do it. Well, We've got them NOW! :\ There are liars, damned liars, and statiticians. :O :* ;) .Richard. === Famous President Bush words: Bush 1: Read my lips, -NO- ... -NEW- ... -TAXES-! Bush 2: There can -ONLY- ... -BE- ... -=ONE=- ... -POSSIBLE- ... -OUTCOME-! Next time, cough up money for the -real- acting class guys, the William Shatner class is too cheap, and everyone graduates sounding alike. * shrug * ;)
Re: Is there a line of defense against Distributed Reflective attacks?
Vadim Antonov wrote: Caution this won't program a router: The police can then put down the rabid computer, permanently. Good in theory... in practice police has more important things to do. Like catching pot smokers. Not -=too=- much problem soon, thanks to the USA Patriot act. In conjunction with the new Mother^^HomeLand Security design, The DEA will be considered part of the HomeLand Security team. This means they will have access to all the extra-constitutional monitoring/invasion of privacy activity that we deploy against citizens^terrorists for National Defense, in such Patriotic programs as CoinTelPro. I.E.: Tap your phone, monitor your email/internet activity, sneak and peak into your house, access you financial transactions, (bank and credit card), access your doctor's files, question your lawyer, arrest you without Miranda, incarcerate you indefinitely without a phone call, or a trial, and finally and best of all, the brand new Torture a confession information gathering methods... (See: Chavez v Martinez ) all without a -=warrant=-. (I hear probable cause has actually been -stretched- to include politically active people. It seems such people -change- the laws, and government, hence are a matter of National Security. So, therefore, being a Democrat now qualifies you for CoinTelPro, just like Nixon originally decided in Watergate.) After all, Homeland security will be sharing it's data with every member of the Division, as part of it's charter, and the Intelligence Agencies will be used to gather it, (-=against=- theirs). It's a matter of National Security, you know. Gotta Keep you safe from those Pot Smokers, after all! Why, We can't have Saddam Bin Laden hiding out in North Korea with Nuclear Plague devices, and doing doobs with an American Citizen.. plotting our Mass Destruction, Now can we ?! ;) PPS: Don't worry Citizen, the Executive Branch funded Churches will have plenty of -=other=- things for you to do, that are wholesome, and healthy. Like egg tossing, and gunny sack races, in the Name of Jesus. - The Church Lady :P --vadim Only Criminals don't want to be monitored - Nazi Youth Slogan. http://www.aclu.org http://www.whitehouse.org
Re: Trends in network operator security
They took the _medical records_ of _half a million_ US _soldiers_ and their families. Regardless of the identity-theft aspect, it's hard to imagine them not seeing a lucrative aftermarket for that batch of data. And just think, courtesy the USA Patriot act, next time it won't just be -military- records they get, it will be yours. America is starting to look more and more like the movie Minority Report. -Bill
Re: White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet (fwd)
The -real- challenge is to create a system -capable- of monitoring the entire internet Today there isn't enough horsepower to accomplish such a thing, except by exception to the rule, rather than the rule. In analogy: We can adjust the flows of the Hoover (remember him ?) Damn, we cannot however stop to count bacteria in each and every drop, using today's technology. As I recall, didn't Hitler have basically the same problem in WWII ? Now we have to ask ourselves: What can we learn from history ? David Lesher wrote: [This just jumped into the operational arena. Are you prepared with the router port for John Poindexter's vacuum? What changes will you need to make? What will they cost? Who will pay?] http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/technology/20MONI.html?pagewanted=printposition=top December 20, 2002 White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet By JOHN MARKOFF and JOHN SCHWARTZ The Bush administration is planning to propose requiring Internet service providers to help build a centralized system to enable broad monitoring of the Internet and, potentially, surveillance of its users. The proposal is part of a final version of a report, The National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace, set for release early next year, according to several people who have been briefed on the report. It is a component of the effort to increase national security after the Sept. 11 attacks. The President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board is preparing the report, and it is intended to create public and private cooperation to regulate and defend the national computer networks, not only from everyday hazards like viruses but also from terrorist attack. Ultimately the report is intended to provide an Internet strategy for the new Department of Homeland Security. ..
Re: White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet (fwd)
Freud, your slip is showing ? :P Robert E. Seastrom wrote: Richard Irving [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In analogy: We can adjust the flows of the Hoover (remember him ?) Damn, we cannot however stop to count damn is an expletive, dam is a noun. :) ---rob
Re: White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet (fwd)
Wayne E. Bouchard wrote: On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 11:12:43AM -0500, David Lesher wrote: But it is good for a laugh. Or a cry. :) :* :( FWIW, One American Government Legislative body, all full of itself, had all but passed an act requiring the value of PI to be legislated to 3, from 3.1415..~etc Suits don't like to be bothered with details, eh ? ...Never forget A Divine Comedy, really isn't. -Wayne http://www.urbanlegends.com/legal/pi_indiana.html --- Wayne Bouchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Engineer http://www.typo.org/~web/resume.html
Re: White House to Propose System for Wide Monitoring of Internet(fwd)
Christopher L. Morrow wrote: Cough! Sure, or they could ask carriers to tap lines for them silently... in fact they can do that today with a court order. Nope. USA Patriot Act, No Court Order Needed. :( Civil Liberties for Tax Refunds, Takers ? :P A COO I know is actually enthused, all he can say is Do you know how much money that means to me ?! Dohh! The Myopia of the Rich, eh ? He also spouted the philosophy, one day: Give the money to the Rich, and they can put it into the Bank... and the rest of you can borrow it it will stimulate the economy. A verbatim quote. ( He is GOP, FWIW. ) * shudder * So, we can borrow it -=without=- a source of income ? -Chris
Re: Risk of Internet collapse grows
I thought we agreed, no politics or, =functional= public disruption strategies! :D .Richard. == A historic moment, the very first head of homeland security, makes a patriotic speech at a GOP convention: http://www.webcorp.com/video/mcarth2a.avi (Click Twice, QID ;) Vadim Antonov wrote: On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It depends which exchange point is hit. There are a couple of buildings in London which if hit would have a disasterous affect on UK and European peering. Why hit buildings when removing relatively small number of people will render Internet pretty much defunct. It does not fly itself (courtesy to the acute case of featuritis developed by top vendors). Feeling safer? --vadim
Trouble loading page
Hrmmm... Is anyone else having trouble loading this page ? The trace looks good, must be the content and my browser ? http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=11361c=130 Thanks in Advance. .Richard. :cointelpro: First they came for the democrats, I didn't care, as I wasn't one... Those who don't learn from History...shoot, too late! ;) Title: American Civil Liberties Union : CO Springs Police Conducted Surveillance for Denver Spy Files, ACLU Reveals Latest News ACLU Asks Court to Order Government to Account for its Use of Vast New Surveillance Powers ACLU Seeks Information on Governments Use of Vast New Surveillance Powers More Government surveillance News >> Related Information Press Releases Action Items Newswires Publications Legal Documents Legislative Documents Additional Resources Privacy & Technology : Government surveillance CO Springs Police Conducted Surveillance for Denver Spy Files, ACLU Reveals November 21, 2002 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEDENVER--The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado today released documents revealing that the Colorado Springs Police department spied on peaceful critics of government policy and sent its information directly to the Denver Police Department for its controversial "spy files.""Earlier this year we learned that individuals could not attend a peaceful rally in Denver without fear that their names would wind up in a criminal intelligence file," said Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado. "Now it appears that peaceful protesters in Colorado Springs are subject to the same kind of illegitimate political surveillance.""At a time when the Pentagon is proposing an Orwellian data-mining program to track the most intimate details of our lives, how many more Colorado cities are keeping files on peaceful protest activities that have absolutely no connection to criminal activity?"Last March, the ACLU disclosed that Denver police were monitoring peaceful rallies, conducting surveillance of peaceful protest activities, and keeping criminal intelligence files on the free speech activities of law-abiding advocacy organizations, in some cases branding them falsely in the files as "criminal extremist." An ACLU class-action
Re: Trouble loading page
Subject: RE: Trouble loading page Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 16:39:00 -0600 From: Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar (UMKC-Student) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Richard Irving [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks, that fixed it! Dohh! :}
Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack
Hrmm... Al-Quaida is the one selling FUD all over America ? I can't decide if it is actually Al Quaida, the current Political Regime, or simply newspaper reporters making the news with a common modus aperandi. (FUD) Remember, Great stories don't happen, reporters -make- great stories! :* The only thing bothering me is it -all- still reeks of yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre. ...and then passing corresponding legislation. To Paraphrase the -OLD- KGB: Quick Comrade, we will protect you, sign here What ? You want to be Safe, Comrade, don't you ? s/Comrade/Citizen/ I repeat my earlier post: FUD is an inappropriate way to manage a Nation. * shrug * On a side note: How many people knew the moment that the President said: There can -=only=- be ONE outcome... He was going to eat his words ? It is sort of like a consultant saying: All you have to do is. :( You just -know- your in for it ;) .Richard. = Only Criminals don't want to be Monitored - Nazi Youth Slogan. In America we believe in psychics... After all, someone had enough premonition to name legal due process... Habeas Corpus... Corpus, proved to be an example of one. :P And a Rep from my Old Stomping Grounds: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul41.html router conf t router# Abbie Hoffman (cr) router who ? router ^z Nixon was right, he always said eventually history would prove him out: Watergate is LEGAL! I am going offline, Susan, promise, bye! * S * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It is a great example of how well Al-Quedah manipulates the media. There are more ways to wreak havoc than script kiddies and DOS attacks. - Original Message - From: David Howe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1:58 pm Subject: Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack at Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:00 AM, Dan Hollis [EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say: There are millions of Muslims around the world involved in hacking the Pentagon and Israeli government sites, said Bakri. I wonder how they could tell amongst all the millions of script kiddieztrying the same thing?
Re: Even the New York Times withholds the address
Don't laugh too hard at this stored energy idea... We back up ~2500 Kva with a -=Flywheel=- System! (And Generator) CAT-UPS, don't leave home without it. :) Yesterday's Ludicrous Fiction is Tomorrow's Reality! blitz wrote: One last addition to this idiotic water idea.. since the water doesn't get Yes, I -am- actually on topic for a change.
Re: Bin Laden Associate Warns of Cyberattack
Yes, I remember all too well, Vadim... We called that McCarthyism, here in America... (Strange, I just had an attack of DejaVu, I wonder why ? ;) However, I have to rev limit my political posts, Vadim... This is NANOG, and politics -are- off charter, as I was recently reminded (Article 6 of the Charter) apparently , even if it involves the internet. So, alas, I must restrain myself, and drop political elements to back channel chatter. However, thank you for your reminder. Those who fail to learn from History are Doomed to repeat it! :\ .Richard. First they came for the dissidents, and I didn't care, as, I wasn't a dissident... Vadim Antonov wrote: On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Richard Irving wrote: To Paraphrase the -OLD- KGB: Quick Comrade, we will protect you, sign here What ? You want to be Safe, Comrade, don't you ? s/Comrade/Citizen/ Naive :) They didn't have to ask to sign anything - you had to, to get a better job, education, etc. Not that those signatures meant anything, as they could just issue an invitation which you couldn't refuse. --vadim
Re: PAIX
Warning , this post won't configure a router. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 12:36:54 -0500 David Diaz wrote: People seem to prefer cost of quality at this time. Good Fast Cheap Honey, part of our success is that I don't accept the above. Sooner or later, you will have to compete with someone who believes: Good Fast Cheap we do all three. Huh, must be in marketing or sales, perhaps a CEO, even. * shrug * Hey, while we are at it, What is the difference between a Suit and an Engineer ? The Engineer -knows- when he is lying. :P Now, the Honey comment ? Sounds like a rather sticky wicket, not my style, I think I'll pass. However, You -=can=- tell the poster isn't from Baltimore, though... I think I heard once that the Baltimore City slogan is Welcome Home, Hon! :D router Conf t router # silobeth.shilobeth...seilobath... router # oh, forget it! router # ^Z :\ morning coffee I know, Susan... I know. I won't quit my day job. Exiting, stage left. ... .. . (No offense intended to anyone, really...) (just lightening up the conversation) (C'Ya)
Re: PAIX
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup, I am a CEO. 1-900-psy-kick Call now, Mon, we're a waiting for ya! I am also (still) one of the most experienced and best educated IP engineers around. And humble, too. :\ [Said to a list where Van Jacobson and Vixie have been known to lurk] Dilbert, a cartoon about engineers, is so funny because it is so true. In the final analysis, Dilbert is as much of a weasel as any of the other characters. Admit it, You just like his Tie! :P On a more serious note, FWIW, did you know PacBell was the source of Scott's Inspiration ? He worked on some of the first privately available ISDN lines... and attended some of the earliest public NANOG's. He said after working there for almost 10 years, he decided it was Suicide, or Dilbert. The Rest is History. :D http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/news_and_history/html/about_scott_adams.html .cheers. Hey, I just realized that DogBert and Pres Bush are both short... Coincidence ? http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/news_and_history/images/origin4.gif regards, fletcher lurk mode on Susan, put down that keyboard... I am moving on...promise.
JUNO.COM
Pardon the interruption of White noise on the channel.. But, if anyone clueful at JUNO.COM is abroad, please contact me offline. I now return you to the usual. Thanks In Advance!
Re: Equinix to join role of chapter 11's?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a bet with my boss that Booz Allen Hamilton will file for chapter 11 before Equinix. You lose. Sal Sabella Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com
Re: Sprint peering policy
This crossed my desk, thought someone might find it relevant.. (I am not sure who wrote it... ;) router conf t # REMAINING U.S. CEOs MAKE A BREAK FOR IT Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:28:04 -0600 REMAINING U.S. CEOs MAKE A BREAK FOR IT Band of Roving Chief Executives Spotted Miles from Mexican Border San Antonio, Texas(Reuters) - Unwilling to wait for their eventual indictments, the 10,000 remaining CEOs of public U.S. companies made a break for it yesterday, heading for the Mexican border, plundering towns and villages along the way, and writing the entire rampage off as a marketing expense. They came into my home, made me pay for my own TV, then double-booked the revenues, said Rachel Sanchez of Las Cruces, just north of El Paso. Right in front of my daughters. Calling themselves the CEOnistas, the chief executives were first spotted last night along the Rio Grande River near Quemado, where they bought each of the town's 320 residents by borrowing against pension fund gains. By late this morning, the CEOnistas had arbitrarily inflated Quemado's population to 960, and declared a 200 percent profit for the fiscal second quarter. This morning, the outlaws bought the city of Waco, transferred its underperforming areas to a private partnership, and sent a bill to California for $4.5 billion. Law enforcement officials and disgruntled shareholders riding posse were noticeably frustrated. First of all, they're very hard to find because they always stand behind their numbers, and the numbers keep shifting, said posse spokesman Dean Lewitt. And every time we yell 'Stop in the name of the shareholders!', they refer us to investor relations. I've been on the phone all damn morning. YOU'LL NEVER AUDIT ME ALIVE! they scream. The pursuers said they have had some success, however, by preying on a common executive weakness. Last night we caught about 24 of them by disguising one of our female officers as a CNBC anchor, said U.S. Border Patrol spokesperson Janet Lewis. It was like moths to a flame. Also, teams of agents have been using high-powered listening devices to scan the plains for telltale sounds of the CEOnistas. Most of the time we just hear leaves rustling or cattle flicking their tails, said Lewis, but occasionally we'll pick up someone saying, 'I was totally out of the loop on that. Among former and current CEOs apprehended with this method were Computer Associates' Sanjay Kumar, Adelphia's John Rigas, Enron's Ken Lay, Joseph Nacchio of Qwest, Joseph Berardino of Arthur Andersen, and -=every=- Global Crossing CEO since 1997. ImClone Systems' Sam Waksal and Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco were not allowed to join the CEOnistas as they have already been indicted. So far, about 50 chief executives have been captured, including Martha Stewart, who was detained south of El Paso where she had cut through a barbed-wire fence at the Zaragosa border crossing off Highway 375. She would have gotten away, but she was stopping motorists to ask for marzipan and food coloring so she could make edible snowman place settings, using the cut pieces of wire for the arms, said Border Patrol officer Jenette Cushing. We put her in cell No. 7, because the morning sun really adds texture to the stucco walls. While some stragglers are believed to have successfully crossed into Mexico, Cushing said the bulk of the CEOnistas have holed themselves up at the Alamo. No, not the fort, the car rental place at the airport, she said. They're rotating all the tires on the minivans and accounting for each change as a sale. :D
Re: Sprint peering policy
Paul Vixie wrote: Space SNIP knowing that the pain can be transformed from can't exchange traffic pain into must pay money pain tends to reinforce this perception. Imagine that. :\ when this situation has existed in other industries, gov't intervention has always resulted. even when the scope is international. i've not been able to puzzle out the reason why the world's gov'ts have not stepped in with some basic interconnection requirements for IP carriers. Because Bernie and Crowd convinced the World Gov'ts that everyone would play fair without intervention. They promise, cross your heart, hope you die. Trust me is NY slang for FU, FWIW. * shrug * Carnegie once said... :\
Re: Sprint peering policy
Daniel Golding wrote: A vague sense of unfairness or unhappyness is the worst of reasons to regulate an industry. - Daniel Golding How about an industry being the origin of the 3 largest recorded fraud/bankruptcies in American History ?
Re: Sprint peering policy
Deepak Jain wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard Irving Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 1:15 PM To: Daniel Golding Cc: Paul Vixie; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sprint peering policy How about an industry being the origin of the 3 largest recorded fraud/bankruptcies in American History ? --- Why would bankruptcies be a good reason to introduce regulation into peering or the Internet business? To prevent Fraud/ Anti competitive practices ? Remember the formula, peer until the customer grows... then pull back peering and demand more money, thus causing a financial disaster in what had previously been a financially stable company... Then acquire them when they bankruptcy. Repeat as needed, until PEER == NULL. Then, when your company has gotten in over -it's- head, from too rapid a growth factor, and too much acquisition of debt of absorbed companies, withdraw as much money as you can and go under, sticking it to the American Public. Something or Someone has to break that cycle of pain. So, someone said tie peering to the bankrupcty ? See above. BTW, double dipping did -not- prove to be successful at offsetting this acquisition debt, so that method should be stopped, eh ? Most people would call it Anti-competitive practices, don't you think ? Remember: There can only be ONE! These bankruptcies have not disrupted Internet service particularly... Only because Judges intervened to keep them open until an alternative could be found. My and Your TAX money at work. Thanks a lot. And lets not forget, WorldCom has yet to complete it's cycle.. Further, by forcing companies already in financial jeopardy to start peering, I don't think you will be increasing stability at all. Maybe they wouldn't BE in financial jeopardy if they traded peering traffic for -=free=-, the way the internet was originally designed. The ramifications are NOT simple, they are complex and interrelated.. Like I said, Allen Greenspan, Bernie wasn't. Don't forget, A large number of these companies went down trying to create a net large enough to peer with Tier 1's when they shouldn't have needed that large a network, in the first place. By then the damage is done, the debt has been created, acquisition just adds into the cascade effect. If these companies go away, their customers will need to be acquired or transitioned to more stable players. Either way, the idea of peering with them is moot. Why ? You still haven't answered that basic question: = Now, someone explain how an internet provider convinced congress that =it didn't really have to carry its own -internet customers- packet from one =side of its -=own=- network to the other side, unless -=both=- =parties paid it money ? The argument should be who is paying for the wire, and does the bandwidth cost justify the -=port=-, not who will you -=peer=- witheh ? I shudder to think what working with France Telecom will be like if it gets renationalized. We weren't discussing renationalization, just regulation. Deepak Jain AiNET
Re: How low can Worldcom stock go?
And Just think, The perpetrator of this fraud was the guiding light for the American Internet fair peering practices policy. Imagine that. Now, someone explain how an internet provider convinced congress that it didn't really have to carry an -internet customers- packet from one side of its -=own=- network to the other side, unless -=both=- parties paid it money ? With the recent rash of chapter 11's and 13's perhaps we should be re-examining the peering practices in America... It appears this Ebbers Ethics thing isn't working. My .02c LURK LURK LURK - don't -=even=- ignore the markup Marc Pierrat wrote: Unfortunately this event will not only affect Worldcom, but the entire industry in a significant way. This is, afterall, one of the largest reported cases of fraud in US history. MP -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Deepak Jain Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:02 PM To: blitz; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: How low can Worldcom stock go? I am pretty sure a 5 quarter restatement will reduce its chances of future respectability. DJ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of blitz Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: How low can Worldcom stock go? Worldcom stands a chance of making money in the future, Adelphia has absolutely NO chance of ever regaining any sort of respectability. After all Wcom owns UUnet...they own the fat pipes.. Adelphia cries when it has to purchase a few T3's cause their cablemodem system is clogged... At 19:03 6/25/02 -0400, you wrote: Any bets where they will bottom out at? Lets see if they can beat Adelphia at $0.05 on 6/21/02 From WSJ Tech alerts. WORLDCOM UNCOVERED what appears to be one of the largest corporate frauds in history with the discovery of more than $3 billion in expenses that were improperly booked as capital expenditures. For more information, see: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1025044139757626480,00.html = = Eric GermannCCTec [EMAIL PROTECTED] Van Wert OH 45801 http://www.cctec.comPh: 419 968 2640 Fax: 603 825 5893 The fact that there are actually ways of knowing and characterizing the extent of one's ignorance, while still remaining ignorant, may ultimately be more interesting and useful to people than Yarkovsky -- Jon Giorgini of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Re: How low can Worldcom stock go?
Yeah OK... I am going to break an NDA and disclose ( Drum roll please.) The -=Secret=- Formula for There can only be ONE! [Label A:] Pull back peering from adjacent competitors Thus Forcing smaller competitors into Financial Difficulty (Due to lack of peering, and an ever increasing Monkey...) Then, acquire them at Bankruptcy for Pennies on a Dollar (Ka-CHING!) After acquisition, Pull back all -=their=- peering Thus closing the loop.. If (Competitors != NULL) goto [Label A:]; And finally, in the end, declare Bankruptcy yourself. Great Strategy! ... What! :O It worked for THEM! :P Scott Weeks wrote: Vivien: Don't get me started on what CW did to the Exodus backbone. OK, I won't EVEN get started on what CW did to Digital Island... :( :( :( (five years of heart-n-soul gone) blitz: IF you got a job, be thankful.. this isn't over yet. randy: some of the motivation is large players very consciously trying randy: to squeeze out smaller or competitive players in the chaos of randy: all the other noise. BU yes, yes, YES!!! /U/B dammit... scott ps. That's not html email. I use pine.
Re: list problems?
Note the expression -background- in Mathematics. While Einstein -later- graduated from SFP, please realize that that Einstein had problems in School... Wild Duck comes to mind, but the end result was that he then later -Taught Himself- Calculus and -then- Boot strapped himself into his future career. I still stand on the point. BTW, Benet had a degree or two, as well... As does Vixie, now and Stallman. But the Wild Ducks often catch a wave before age 33... and may or may not have time for niceties. Degrees often seem to come laterpost mortem, when they have more time, get a little older, and things settle down. And, more often than not, are awarded honorary degrees for the result of their work while riding the wave. Like I said -lead- the pack. LURK Is the above meta tag broken, or what ? Robert Beverly wrote: On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 11:17:11AM -0500, Richard Irving wrote: Einstein wouldn't have made it anywhere, without his background in Mathematics that he got from a Prominent Ivy League... Oh.. Shoot, did it again. Have you ever heard the expression Flat World Thinking ? Einstein was a Hero to many a Kid, -because- he was self taught. Einstein graduated from the prestigious Swiss Federal Polytechnic college in Zurich. His work on relativity was done afterward, at the Swiss Patent office, while folks at Harvard were still searching the Ether. A college degree is certainly not a prerequisite for intelligence, but can often provide inspiration, even if that takes the form of a dissatisfaction with the prevailing thinking. Cheers, rob
Re: list problems?
If you hadn't clipped this, it would have been a non-issue: LURK Is the above meta tag broken, or what ? :P Petr M. Swedock wrote: GAAH! #!$H$%#@!X! This discussion has left the operational and entered the realm of baleful minutia and noxious ego-gratification. Please stop, or take it offline. Peace, Petr -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://web.mit.edu/petr http://lids.mit.edu You can design simply, or you can design for simplicity. The first requires a fear of complexity only. The second requires an understanding of complexity. Choice is yours
Re: list problems?
/lurk Yeah! This PC and Internet revolution was founded by men with Advanced Degree's from Prominent Ivy League Colleges... Like Bill Gates... Oh No, wait... :O [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 22 May 2002, Leo Bicknell wrote: If you ever want to become a team leader, or a manger, manager or run a theoretical group you are going to need the math and English backgrounds that college provides. Yeah, Einstein wouldn't have made it anywhere, without his background in Mathematics that he got from a Prominent Ivy League... Oh.. Shoot, did it again. :\ IMHO: Recruiters who need degree's to identify competence can be replaced with a 5 dollar an hour secretary, and a black marker pen. Yes, No.. Eenie Meenie Minie Moe, the one with the most prominent degree... is the one with which we will go... dressed up right, in a light shirt and dark tie... after all, we sure don't want the other kind of guy. I mean, after all look at Vixie.. his shirt has so much starch... and you can't get him to take his Tie offor unbutton his dark suit Oh, Crud not again ! :D Ok.. Well, wait maybe Richard Stallman.. I... er... :P lurk
Re: Problems with a black hole list in the netherlands
Unfortunately, we received complaints -downstream-. If the gentleman involved had been even a little cooperative, we would even help remove a valid offender. Rock - US -Hard Place I need my morning coffee. TIA. Mark Radabaugh wrote: Were it not referenced by http://Relays.OsiruSoft.com./, It's his own personal block list - it's not meant for use by other ISP's. Ignore it - unless you really need to send them mail. I don't know of any other ISP's actually using it as a block list. Mark Radabaugh Amplex (419) 833-3635
