Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I'm not sure why exactly you want to know how much space goes to how many organizations Several days ago, it seemed to me that Stephen Sprunk suggested that it would only take a change of policy of a handful of large ISPs (I'm carefully using new words here), to think party's over and start converting their users to 10/8 addresses, and therefore 90% of the demand for new allocations dries up. On the other hand, if the 90% of allocations are going to (large) new entrants, and others with a less homogenous or convertible user base, the demand might not dry up so suddenly. We know that pretty much 10% of the requests is responsible for 90% of the address space. So apparently 90% of the address space is going to at most 10% of the LIRs. What we haven't established yet is whether this is the same 10% that already had 90% of the allocations (from last century), growing their empire, or new kids on the block. -- Roland Perry
Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom Vest [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes My prediction is that when the handful of mega-ISPs are unable to get the massive quantities of IPv4 addresses they need (a few dozen account for 90% of all consumption in the ARIN region)... I keep reading assertions like this. Is there any public, authoritative evidence to support this claim? If there is, is this 90% figure a new development, or rather the product of changes in ownership (e.g., MCI-VZ-UU, SBC-ATT, etc.), changes in behavior (a run on the bank), some combination of the two, or something else altogether? I would not be surprised to learn that consumption in the ARIN region includes all the legacy assignments. So the quoted metric may well be true, but as unhelpful as claiming that MIT has more address space than the whole of China (as some people do from time to time). In the current context, just because they have received large allocations in the past, does not mean these few dozen ISPs will necessarily need similarly large new ipv4 allocations in future. Operational comment: Look on the bright side, they may follow Comcast's example and deploy ipv6 instead! -- Roland Perry
Re: IPV4 as a Commodity for Profit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I would not be surprised to learn that consumption in the ARIN region includes all the legacy assignments. Many legacy assignments are now administered by the other RIRs http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space I should have said: ...includes all the legacy assignments in the ARIN region. -- Roland Perry
Re: A couple or advanced references...
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes BTW, about identity theft: if someone takes out a bank loan in my name, how is that my problem and not the bank's? Because of the time it takes you to persuade other banks [1] that the first bank's report that you are bad debtor was mistaken. Of course, there may be credit repair products you can buy to help you. [1] And even the first bank's debt collectors. -- Roland Perry
Re: Cox clamping VPN traffic?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tomas L. Byrnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes some odd-ball number like 43Kbps. There are slightly more Google hits for 44kbps throttling than 43kbps throttling. On balance, I think your observations are a co-incidence, and whatever throttling mechanism it is that the networks aren't deploying, appears at fairly random numbers in the 35-50kbps range. -- Roland Perry
Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I wouldn't be suprised if in a few years some EU/US law mandates IP number portability, just like people have with their cellphones. I doubt it. The portability of Internet Addressing arises from the use of DNS. You wouldn't expect anyone to mandate that IMEI, rather than cellphone number, was made portable between handsets, would you? Making analogies between phone numbers and IP addresses has its limits. -- Roland Perry
Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes So - if you can work backwards from license plate info, telephone numbers, and IP addresses, and get a good idea of who the person is, and there's general agreement that the first two are personal information that allows (at least speculative) identification of the person, why are people having trouble with the concept that the third is personally identifying information as well? Because they are IP engineers and they have lots of anecdotes about how an IP Address *might* be misleading when identifying an individual. If they worked in a car maintenance shop, they'd be able to tell you how licence plates *might* be misleading when identifying an individual. But in both cases they are missing the point: which is that EU Data Protection law looks at things from the opposite point of view. ie If an IP address might *sometimes* reliably identify an individual, then everyone has to err on the side of caution and treat *all* IP addresses as personal data. -- Roland Perry
Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matt Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Tunnels all over the place seems like the only way it'd even be halfway practical. It's more-or-less how phone number portability works anyway, from what (little) I know. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK it's done with something similar to DNS. The telephone system looks up the first N digits of the number to determine the operator it was first issued to. And places a query to them. That either causes the call to be accepted and routed, or they get an answer back saying sorry, that number has been ported to operator FOO-TEL, go ask them instead. -- Roland Perry
Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Tunnels all over the place seems like the only way it'd even be halfway practical. It's more-or-less how phone number portability works anyway, from what (little) I know. I don't know about the USA, but in the UK it's done with something similar to DNS. The telephone system looks up the first N digits of the number to determine the operator it was first issued to. And places a query to them. That either causes the call to be accepted and routed, or they get an answer back saying sorry, that number has been ported to operator FOO-TEL, go ask them instead. Not quite, the simplistic overview is that operators have an obligation to offer porting wherever practical, so operate ports on a accept-then-forward principal. If I port my number from CarrierA to CarrierB, then my calls still pass through A's switch, who transits the call to B without charging the end user. For the benefit of completeness, the regulator has mandated that this situation must change, as CarrierB's inward-port customers are not protected from the technical or commercial failure of CarrierA. The industry [www.ukporting.com] has responded and is building a framework to support all-call-query style lookups to handle number ports. Apologies, I should have made it clear that I was following up the remark about cellphone number portability. Described in 2002 (at the beginning of the discussion about migrating to the new system that's currently still being built): To deliver a call a routing enquiry is made to a Home Location Register (HLR) to determine where the subscriber is located and to obtain a routing number. The solution for mobile number portability, known as the Signalling Relay Function (SRF), is that the donor network sends the routing enquiry signal addressed to a ported number to the appropriate recipient network for treatment. In this way the recipient network can provide the routing number to complete the call. Although that is also apparently known as onward routing, even though the subsequent call traffic isn't routed onwards. -- Roland Perry
Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes in the UK it [phone number portability] 's done with something similar to DNS. The telephone system looks up the first N digits of the number to determine the operator it was first issued to. And places a query to them. That either causes the call to be accepted and routed, or they get an answer back saying sorry, that number has been ported to operator FOO-TEL, go ask them instead. What happens when a phone number is ported twice, from BAR-TEL to FOO-TEL and then to WAZ-TEL? Does the call follows the list? What if there is a loop? In the UK, for landlines there are generally only two operators available: BT and Virgin (the now sole brand for cable phones). So WAZ doesn't exist, all you can do is go back to BAR. For mobiles, I've never heard of a restriction so it's probably the case that the donor network stays the same, but the recipient records are updated to point to WAZ instead of FOO. The solution you describe does not look like the DNS to me. A solution more DNS-like would be to have a root (which is not an operator) somewhere and every call triggers a call to the root which then replies, send to WAS-TEL. That's the scheme which was proposed in 2002, and which I'm a bit surprised isn't yet deployed (watch the space called ukporting.com [1], apparently). However, the current mobile scheme isn't very far off that. [1] Why not ukporting.org.uk ?? -- Roland Perry
Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes What I find interesting here is the Jekyll/Hyde nature of it. European ISPs are required to keep expensive logs of the behavior of subscribers for forensic data mining, accessible under subpoena, for extensive periods like 6-24 months (last I heard it was 7 years in Italy, but that may now be incorrect), but the information is deemed private and therefore inappropriate to keep under EU privacy rules. ISPs are required to keep inappropriate information at their own expense in case forensic authorities decide to pay an occasional pittance to access some small quantity of it. Putting aside for a moment the issue of whose dollars pay for it there is no fundamental contradiction in the proposition that private sector information can be mandated to be kept for minimum periods, is confidential, but nevertheless can be acquired by lawful subpoena. Think about banking records, for example, which are confidential, routinely examined in criminal enquiries, and which have to be kept for various minimum periods by accountancy law. Operationally, the banks have had to invest in special departments to do just that, it's simply part of the cost of doing business. -- Roland Perry Internet Policy Agency
Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In the US, folks are fighting the RIAA claiming that an IP address isn't enough to identify a person. In Europe, folks are fighting the Google claiming that an IP address is enough to identify a person. I guess it depends on which side of the pond you are on. The European Data Protection perspective (which has been the same since 1999, and expressed quite robustly in 2000, no new ideas have suddenly appeared) is this: Many IP addresses *are* enough to identify a person. Although sometimes you need additional information. The law talks about identifying directly or indirectly, the latter as a result of having some *other* information available[1]. It's not a case of getting a hit based on IP address alone (which in any event needs at least a registry lookup to turn into a person's name). And therefore because *some* IP addresses indisputably identify people, you must put in place precautions to handle *all* such information appropriately (IP addresses don't come with a bit set to say I'm an identifiable user or I'm not). That's just the way European Law works. The American perspective might be (and I'm guessing here) that if only *some* IP addresses identify people, you should assume that *all* IP addresses are unreliable identifiers. [Many of the comments in this thread express somewhat of that view]. That might even be a good idea in a shoot-first ask-questions-later environment. My advice would be to try *not* to deploy such an environment :) [1] In the case of being a dial-up ISP, the RADIUS logs; others have mentioned the association between commercial wifi connections and their (roaming) subscribers. -- Roland Perry
Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J. Oquendo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Putting aside for a moment the issue of whose dollars pay for it there is no fundamental contradiction in the proposition that private sector information can be mandated to be kept for minimum periods, is confidential, but nevertheless can be acquired by lawful subpoena. Think about banking records, for example, which are confidential, routinely examined in criminal enquiries, and which have to be kept for various minimum periods by accountancy law. Operationally, the banks have had to invest in special departments to do just that, it's simply part of the cost of doing business. The difference with banking records and computer generated records is, you can literally track down whether by PIN on an ATM along with for the majority of times an image taken from a camera. Try doing this with IP generated information. While law enforcement subpoenas away information, there is no guarantee person X is definitively behind even a static IP address. Its hearsay no matter how you want to look at this. Outside of the fact that lawyers still up to this day and age can't seem to grasp an all-in-one argument to get IP address information thrown out, what's next? Perhaps law enforcement agencies forcing vendors to include enough memory on wireless devices to track who logged in on a hotspot? Everyone sees the need for all sorts of accounting on the networking side of things but how legitimate is the information when anyone can share MAC addresses, jump into hotspots anonymously, quickly break into wireless networks, venture into an Internet cafe paying cash, throw on a bootable (throwaway) distribution of BSD/Linux/Solaris, do some dirty deed and leave it up to someone else to take the blame. It's a bit like licence plates on a car. Seeing a bank robber jump into a car and then using the licence plate as a best guess where to find the perpetrator has a lot of reasons why it's not 100% accurate. Maybe the licence plate was entirely false, or perhaps cloned from another vehicle the model colour and age. But there are enough dumb crooks out there driving cars with real licence plates, that as a first approximation it's still worth insisting everyone *has* a licence plate, and some semblance of responsibility to keep real owner details on file. -- Roland Perry
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In this bit of Europe (UK), it's the opposite: the cable companies (CLEC style companies) tend to run unlimited (but within fair use) aggregate throughput policies, but the DSL operating companies have to impose aggregate throughput caps because the last mile connectivity is run by the national incumbent. Surely the incumbent doesn't impose a cost on the bandwidth along the local loop - the bottleneck (and cost per gigabyte) is the backhaul from their locally operated DSLAM to the ISP's own network. -- Roland Perry
Re: Why do some ISP's have bandwidth quotas?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Vassili Tchersky [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In Europe, the only ISPs where i've seen bandwith quotas was some cables operators Almost all ADSL operators in the UK operate bandwidth quotas. eg: Currently my ISP is selling 50/20/5/0.5 GB a month options. There are many reasons, the most powerful being price competition - the cheapest domestic ADSL is $18 a month (inc tax), ranging up to $50 a month for the highest quotas. -- Roland Perry
Re: FBI tells the public to call their ISP for help
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Weeks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes If Joe Sixpack has a Mac, calls his ISP for help, is told the ISP only supports Micro$loth, asks for escalation and can't get that (or even doesn't ask for escalation) I would think Joe would move to another ISP. Thus my earlier statement that the ISP which does this we-support-Micro$loth-only crazyness is doomed to failure. No, they are only doomed to service the 90% (or whatever) of the market that is running that particular software. I'm surprised no-one has said it's largely a training issue: you can have people on the helpline who are experienced at talking customers through issues on a well know and well understood (warts and all) platform, but when the customer is using something with minority market penetration it gets really difficult really quickly. -- Roland Perry
Re: Peering matrix information at IXPs
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ricardo V. Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I was wondering if there is any web page with pointers to IXP's peering matrices (such as http://www.swissix.ch/peermatrix.php)? https://www.euro-ix.net/member/m/peeringmatrix Is a mine of useful information. I'm sure someone will know how that's generated (sorry, I don't). -- Roland Perry
Re: UK ISPs v. US ISPs (was RE: Network Level Content Blocking)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Barry Shein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes It'd be a lot easier if we could come up with separate terms for common law common carrier versis CA1934 telecommunications common carrier. What you are looking for is probably a US equivalent of the European Union's Mere Conduit law. It's a relatively new (doesn't have historical baggage) law, and has the advantage of in effect being negotiated with telcos and ISPs during the drafting. Additionally there are sensible definitions for the liability of intermediaries in the circumstances of caching and hosting. The caching clause was particularly important from an operational point of view, because the threat was that a different approach (as initially promoted by rightsholders) would have either made caches an illegal beach of copyright, or mandated that cache owners get a licence from all copyright holders (perhaps through a central collecting agency set up for the purpose). Luckily[1], sense prevailed. http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/index_en.htm Topical to the current discussion, and also of crucial operational importance, a subsequent proposal in the UK for sysadmins to be individually licensed in order to obtain immunity[2] from reporting illegal material found on their systems, was lobbied into a more general amnesty for that kind of activity. [1] Actually, no luck involved at all, just sustained lobbying via a network of EU-based trade associations. [2] A bit like seeing a gun in the street and on handing it into the police being prosecuted for possession of an unlicenced firearm; strictly true (if having it in your hand is the definition of possession), but not in the public interest. -- Roland Perry Internet Policy Agency
Re: UK ISP threatens security researcher
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Corlett [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In his blog post [1] he did admit to accessing other routers of Be's customers using the backdoor password; this is probably [2] a criminal offence in the UK. I'm not sure I have as much sympathy for him as you do. [2] IANAL It *is* a criminal offence under extensions to the original CMA1990 in the Police and Justice Act 2006. The maximum penalty was also increased to two years imprisonment. But the relevant sections of PJA 2006 are not in force yet, nor is there any authoritative prediction of when they will be. (If I had to guess, I'd say at least another six months). -- Roland Perry
Re: Virtual Global Task Force Conference Invitation
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joseph Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Well this is off topic. If you don't have the partnerships mentioned, then it rapidly becomes an operational issue when the police raid your premises at 5am and take away all the servers, because they suspect they contain illegal material. They might throw the CEO in jail too, but that's probably less of an immediate operational impact. But when he eventually gets out, he may ask you to make some operational changes to ensure it doesn't happen again! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Disher Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:51 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Virtual Global Task Force Conference Invitation [...] The aim of the VGT is to build an effective, international partnership of law enforcement agencies and Internet industry partners, to protect children from online child exploitation. -- Roland Perry
Re: Exotic meeting locations in North America
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The idea of regional meetings is mainly to have a scaled down NANOG to reach a much wider audience that does not have a large conference travel budget. This is rather similar to RIPE's meetings in Qatar, Moscow, Bahrain, Nairobi and Tallinn. I am just back from very successful Regional Meetings in Moscow and Bahrain, where it's true that the focus is local members, and where regional meetings of any kind are often a rarity. But Tallinn is the venue for RIPE 54, in the same vein as Istanbul (RIPE 52) and Stockholm (RIPE 50). -- Roland Perry Public Affairs Officer, RIPE NCC
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Randy Epstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I'm not exactly sure why these sites want to retain ID, but I think it goes along with the big weight that is connected to the gas station bathroom key. They want to make sure you return your cabinet keys (if any), temporary pass (if any), etc. Legal risk or not, can you think of a better way to get someone to return to the security desk to sign out? Ask for a $100 deposit in cash? -- Roland Perry
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Florida law, Title 13 section 322.32(2), Unlawful use of license says [i]t is a misdemeanor of the second degree ... for any person ... [t]o lend his or her driver's license to any other person or knowingly permit the use thereof by another. Use as *what*? I allowed liquor stores to use my licence to prove I was over 21. There were even signs which suggested this was compulsory. And while they were using it like that, had I lent it to them, or does some other verb more accurately describe the situation? -- Roland Perry
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Florida law, Title 13 section 322.32(2), Unlawful use of license says [i]t is a misdemeanor of the second degree ... for any person ... [t]o lend his or her driver's license to any other person or knowingly permit the use thereof by another. That statute deals with someone else _using_ my license, but in no way implies that my license can't be _held_ by someone else. The title clearly states use. ;-) At the risk of being over-pedantic, the licence cannot be used by another person for the purposes of driving a car because it clearly does not apply to them (but only to the named and pictured person upon it). So I'll ask again: what sort of use does this statute prohibit? -- Roland Perry
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dominic J. Eidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes At the risk of being anti-over-pedantic: Ask a lawyer, not a list of network ops. That's what I usually do, but it sometimes helps to get the ordinary user's perspective as well. -- Roland Perry
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Etaoin Shrdlu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I used to object to our method of gathering social security numbers (since it was on a form that anyone adding a name could see) Now that you need a Social Security number to get a US Drivers licence (and I doubt many telco engineers walk to work), would the traceability issues be satisfied by taking the details from one of those? I assume the Feds can ask the State which SSN goes with which DL, if the need arises. -- Roland Perry
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Craig Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The fellow I chatted with at ATT said they are not allowed to hand over their badge because it would compromise their security. Sounds to me like NSTAC ought to be worried about a scheme to accredit co-lo operator security staff, as well as the visiting telco engineers. -- Roland Perry
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John A. Kilpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The fellow I chatted with at ATT said they are not allowed to hand over their badge because it would compromise their security. My tech said the same thing. That keycard could grant central office access On its own? No keycode or anything. What if he lost it? so he couldn't surrender it. But presumably it would need to be stolen. Wouldn't the tech notice that happening... Or is there some way the colo security guy can clone it undetected? -- Roland Perry
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brandon Butterworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes my passport says who I'm allowed to surrender it to and that doesn't include colo guards yet some want to retain it whilst you're on site should not be passed to an unauthorised person [1], which raises the issue of who authorises who (and back to my idea for accrediting colo security guards). On the other hand there are many countries [even inside the EU] where a hotel receptionist will insist on holding your passport overnight so you can be registered with the police. Who authorised them, rather than gave them an obligation? [1] US passports don't contain a similar clause. -- Roland Perry
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John A. Kilpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes But presumably it would need to be stolen. Wouldn't the tech notice that happening... Or is there some way the colo security guy can clone it undetected? While your point is valid, arguing something like that with an ATT tech would be like arguing with the TSA. Logic and reasoning are of no value in the conversation. The policy is the policy and you deal with it. I don't seek to argue it with an individual tech, but with whoever sets the corporate security policy. -- Roland Perry
Re: Collocation Access
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John A. Kilpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In fact he did have an ATT badge which he was not allowed to hand over either. The fellow I chatted with at ATT said they are not allowed to hand over their badge because it would compromise their security. My tech said the same thing. That keycard could grant central office access so he couldn't surrender it. I have to admit (now I've been sent some information off-list) that I didn't realise the co-lo security were holding onto the badge (or access card or whatever) the whole time the tech was on the premises. Yes, that would give more opportunities for bad things to happen. In many years of gaining access to secured buildings I've only ever had that happen once (passport exchanged for a visitor's pass, and back again at the end of the day). -- Roland Perry
Re: Boeing's Connexion announcement
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Colin Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In addition to all of the offered AC services others have mentioned, some planes have power outlets for vacuum cleaners, typically behind a small panel next to a door. Definitely don¹t use these hoover power supplies, UK train users will see these with a warning tag due to the excessive outgoing voltage you might get to your laptop. Although many UK trains that have been manufactured or refurbished in the last few years have clean AC sockets next to every pair of seats (even in coach). And some also have Wifi (to get a little closer on-topic). -- Roland Perry
Re: [Fwd: Kremen VS Arin Antitrust Lawsuit - Anyone have feedback?]
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Clay Fiske [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Some people may know your phone number off the top of their heads, but most will have to look it up. They will look mine up by reading my business card, reading my adverts, calling up my web page (OK, they are just an online advert), or looking at my email sig (OK, not the one I use here). But none of these says call 411 to get my number. In fact, I'm usually unlisted, to avoid getting unwanted calls from strangers. -- Roland Perry
Re: New Laptop Polices
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Scott Morris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Not that I have a whole lot to add (other than we're spending lots of time talking about something only affecting UK --: US flights at this moment)... Actually, it was affecting UK-anywhere flights (including anywhere-US that transits UK). And a subset was affecting US-UK (including US-anywhere transiting UK). The rules have been changed now, still no liquids/creams, but you can have a *single* carry-on that includes any manner of electrical items and is no bigger than 17.7x13.7x6.2 (it's round numbers in cm). The rationing is to limit the number of things they have to examine, rather than because the airplane bins are too small. Handbags, laptops etc have to go *inside* the one bag mentioned above; what they haven't explained is whether pocket contents have to as well. -- Roland Perry
Re: New Laptop Polices
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Lyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Are laptops being questioned now in the UK when going through security? I would assume that they are probably wiping every laptop and doing the explosive check that they do... No, in the UK they aren't checking laptops, they are insisting they all go in the hold. And to answer another question: That includes Disk drives and memory cards (and all other electrical items). The UK's objective is mainly having a very short list of what's allowed, to speed up searching at security by reducing the quantity of items. Plus liquids, even when purchased inside the airport, being added to a blacklist for Transatlantic flights *both* ways. You may find more scrutiny of electrical items if your travel originates outside the UK, but the main issue here is the complete ban, outbound. -- Roland Perry
Re: Detecting parked domains
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes AFAICT, the main challenge is to define what parked means in the context of your application. It seemed quite obvious to me: he's talking about domain squatting. Parking is just a euphemism. I have domains (and over time most of mine have once been in this condition) which I've registered (for me, and no speculation involved) but not yet got around to publishing a website for. I also have several where the published (and useful) website is just one page (harking back to a previous suggestion for a test of parking). None of my sites has ever had any advertising (nor are likely to). -- Roland Perry
Re: [Way OT] Re: Geo location to IP mapping
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Try http://www.hostip.info it is reasonable accurate in most cases and hell it is for free. It depends what you need it for of course but it is far better than nothing. The problem with this one is that they are still gathering data and they depend on user input, but it looks pretty accurate to what I have found out. The problem with their user input is that the result they return is typically the ISP NOC location (in my case 200 miles south of me, about halfway across the country). If I correct this, then suddenly all my ISP's users appear to be located in the same town as me. Which is probably more wrong than them all appearing to be where they've guessed the NOC location to be. -- Roland Perry
Re: Geo location to IP mapping
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I just tried that, says I'm 100 miles south of where I really am. That's quite a long way out in a small country like England. 1.3ms is longer in small countries like England? I'm virtually certain it's not being done by propagation delay. What they've apparently done is look up the RIPE database, and found that my ISP has registered an address, with postcode, for the hostmaster function. They've reported the major town associated with the two most significant (out of six) characters of that postcode (Hemel Hempstead), although the address is actually in a smaller town twenty miles to the west (Stoke Mandeville). To complicate the issue, the ISP is formed by the acquisition of several smaller ISPs, and it seems unlikely (from my knowledge of the local topology) that the physical NOC is at the hostmaster's address. Finally, the tail from the NOC to my house (which appears as one hop) is over a connection into British Telecom's ADSL backbone, and then over the BT internal network which supports their wholesale ADSL product, as far as my local telephone exchange (which I can see out of my office window) and a short length of local copper. There's nothing in either the RIPE database, or timing of packets, which could say where in the country that tail is delivered. The ISP has my billing address, of course. -- Roland Perry
Re: Geo location to IP mapping
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I just tried that, says I'm 100 miles south of where I really am. That's quite a long way out in a small country like England. I live in London and use BT Broadband. But geolocation shows me being in Ipswich up in East Anglia, a long way from London. I assume this is because the geolocation only knows that I use an IP address from a DHCP pool managed in Ipswich. Martlesham, probably, which has an Ipswich postcode. The end result is that most of England's population lives in Ipswich. Only BT *Retail* ADSL customers, I'm a wholesale customer via a different ISP, and a different misleading location. -- Roland Perry
Re: Geo location to IP mapping
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ashe Canvar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Thanks for all your replies. I came across http://www.hostip.info/use.html, which looks good, at least from a API/ ease of use prespective. I just tried that, says I'm 100 miles south of where I really am. That's quite a long way out in a small country like England. -- Roland Perry
Re: Overview: (What If?) ccTLD Delegation Question
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joe Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes So, basically, following the instructions at http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-establishment-procedures-19mar03.htm, I need to be sure I legally acquire the island from a nation for the express purpose of running my own country (the sales agreement says I am no longer part of them). After I establish my national government (I held an impromptu straw-poll in the office, and we chose Joetopia as the name of my island nation), I need to petition the UN to be recognized as a nation and be listed in their report. After that, I automatically get a 2-letter nation code and can petition ICANN for a ccTLD of my 2-letter code. I can then choose to run .jt (or whatever my ccTLD ends up being) from any place I desire. You could also try asking the Isle of Man (.im) Guernsey (.gg) and Jersey (.je) how they managed to get a ccTLD without being an ISO country. I won't mention .eu, as that will probably start a furore. -- Roland Perry
Re: Cisco moves even more to china.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Curtis Maurand [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The way to fix things is to remove the incentives to move the jobs overseas in the first place. So are you suggesting wages (and standard of living) in America are reduced to the level of those in the 3rd world? -- Roland Perry
Re: Cisco moves even more to china.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes If you really want to try and stop the wave, go ahead, but I think you should do that work elsewhere. I'm all in favour of enhancing the wave; but who is worst off, the American engineer who fears the day he can't afford the payments on his Hummer, or the chap driving the Bangalorian engineer for a dollar a day? -- Roland Perry
Re: European Nanog?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes You can state what you like, but the income from the NCC is what mostly funds the other RIPE activities, in which case its all the same to me, does the EOF live on a RIPE.NET server? Yes. Who funds those servers? more to the point, who decided meeting content? essentially daniel karrenberg does. I thought it was a committee of the Workgroup chairs (apart perhaps from the first day). -- Roland Perry
Re: European Nanog?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ken Gilmour [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Does anyone know of a list like nanog for Europe? I would be interested in subscribing... If your network is member of LINX or AMS-IX you will find there some private lists which discuss a European flavour of many of the things I see on NANOG. -- Roland Perry
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Daniel Karrenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes RIPE NCC policies and procedures are *extremely* careful not to prescribe any inter-domain routing practises and go out of their way to stress that operators have the authority about that. RIPE also makes general recommendations, which have nothing to do with the RIPE NCC. The golden networks recommendations are in this category. They are also just that: recommendations. I think Rodney was worried that RIPE-NCC wasn't following the rule, which he thought odd if RIPE-NCC was part of RIPE. We've had several attempts, including yours just now, to debunk the latter. -- Roland Perry
Re: RIPE Golden Networks Document ID - 229/210/178
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Rodney Joffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes For those who care, based on responses and some analysis, it appears that very few networks do follow the ripe-229 recommendations regarding golden networks, including, oddly enough, parts of RIPE itself. Did you mean parts of RIPE-NCC? Sorry to be so pedantic, but this thread started off with a mild diversion caused by confusion between RIPE and RIPE-NCC. -- Roland Perry
Re: XP SP2 other than windows update
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] ca.us, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I hadn't heard they were keeping it off akamai. Me neither. Although I had it for a while I downloaded it from the Microsoft web site again twice today (did not bother to look where it resolved), from home and office, and it came each time in less than 15 minutes for the full network install file. I have broadband, and most file downloads arrive at the full 512K. A week ago the SP2 install took over an hour, though, and when I checked the url again yesterday it started arriving at around 120kbps. -- Roland Perry
re: Senator Diane Feinstein Wants to know about the Benefits of P2P
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Battle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Akamai or not, microsoft is overwhelmed by the demand for SP2, and today is giving the message listed below on windowsupdate: Download and install it now - Currently not available We are currently experiencing a high level of demand for Windows XP Service Pack 2, so please check back later for availability. We apologize for any inconvenience. If you prefer to obtain SP2 another way, the easiest way to get Service Pack 2 is to turn on the Automatic Updates feature in Windows XP and it will be downloaded when you are connected to the Internet without you having to take any further action. So then I thought about getting it from the torrent at sp2torrent.com, but sadly microsoft has made them remove the torrent... I have a solution, but it's expensive. A url for the whole 266MB download (and not the smaller selective download that Windows Update would provide). If anyone's that desperate, email me. I only used it after waiting a week with the Automatic Updates switched on, and nothing arriving. -- Roland Perry
Re: Senator Diane Feinstein Wants to know about the Benefits of P2P
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], David A. Ulevitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Microsoft isn't hiding the link: http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/6/5/165b076b-aaa9-443d-84f0-73cf11fdcdf8/WindowsXP-KB835935-SP2-ENU.exe linked from: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/winxpsp2.mspx (well, click get the service pack and then download) I suppose my beef here is that they go on to say: DO NOT CLICK DOWNLOAD IF YOU ARE UPDATING JUST ONE COMPUTER: A smaller, more appropriate download is now available on Windows Update. Except it isn't. (Nor was it a week ago). I'm an IT professional, but only one of my PCs is running XP. And it's a full-price retail copy, not a bundled-OEM or upgrade. Hence me feeling left out when I'm told that IT professionals have already been allowed their Windows-update. As we are told that this is in part a security update, anyone running a network should be worried at the difficulty some of their users are having getting hold of it. -- Roland Perry
Re: XP SP2 other than windows update
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes You can order a Free CD on the Microsoft web site. Although it says 4-6 weeks, people report they are getting a CD in the mail in about a week. Is distribution from all their worldwide offices, or will users outside the USA have to wait for international delivery? -- Roland Perry
Re: XP SP2 other than windows update
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] ca.us, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Every IT professional I know has had SP2 available three different ways for two weeks: 1) Somewhere on a server for support staff to begin to experiment with and for a small set of guinea pig users to install. 2) On a CD made after the download. On my CD I also have SP1 for Office 2003. Part of being an IT professional includes maintaining an updated set of CDs carried at all times. 3) On a slipstreamed install CD for new installs. Optionally, 4a) On an SP2 image on a RIS server 4b) On a ghost images The final SP2 has been available on M$ site even for people that don't have an MSDN subscription. Anyone that wants to call themselves an IT professional _does_ download and try major updates _before_ they are made available to end users, period. Perhaps it makes more sense when I say that I only have two users, and one of them is myself (and yes, I do have an SP1 CD). Long ago I used to Microsoft's biggest customer in Europe (I think Olivetti was the second biggest), the first major shipper of Windows /386 in the World, and well aware of the issues when rolling out new software to lots of users. The last couple of months I've been in hospital, and missed most of the hoo-ha over SP2, but now that it's officially released I was really surprised I didn't get an automatic update. -- Roland Perry
Re: XP SP2 other than windows update
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steven Susbauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes That's understandable as they would be blamed if someone downloaded a compromised version (strange how they didn't mind Sp1 mirroring...). I would have thought that they would have checksummed the file to a known value, so that any kind of corruption during downloading would be detected. -- Roland Perry
Re: Research - Valid Data Gathering vs. Annoying Other
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Robert Bonomi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Because the -only- 'authorized use is those things whiich I expressly let past my firewall. Ergo, if the firewall blocks it, it _IS_ an 'unauthorized access' attempt. Do you publish the firewall rules, so that people can make sure they don't accidentally make unauthorised attempts? Or are they supposed to guess what you allow through? Which would seem a little harsh if the penalty for guessing wrong is goinging straight to jail. -- Roland Perry
Re: sms messaging without a net?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dan Hollis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The only method that comes to mind is to buy a GSM modem which has SMS messaging capability. I have a Nokia GSM modem on a PCMCIA card for my laptop. Usually for dial-up access to the Net when on the move. But it also sends and receives SMS - and obviously a much better UI on the laptop than a phone. It's about 3 years old now, I've seen them on ebay for peanuts. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=14408item=631282 2524rd=1 ps. It only needs an Orange SIM if you want data at more than 9.6K, SMS will work with any SIM (afaik). -- Roland Perry
Re: Yahoo to MSN problems
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes We are sorry that you are experiencing delay in receiving messages at your hotmail.com or msn.com email address. Yahoo! has contacted MSN and has determined that the source of the problem resides on their end. They are aware of the issue, but do not yet have an estimate of when the problem will be fixed. My USA-based ISP has been reporting issues related to delivering email to Hotmail/MSN addresses, on and off for several months. I don't believe I have a single real correspondent (out of several thousand) who uses such an address, but as a long term anti-spam campaigner, who has received huge amounts of email with forged hotmail addresses, I'd be interested to hear more detail about what's really going on here. -- Roland Perry
Re: Postmaster, hostmaster etc....
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], McBurnett, Jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes how do some ISP's handle it? You host hundreds or thousands of domains. most with no webmaster etc... does it matter for the small company domain? Most hosted domains I've met come with unlimited email addresses, so that email to webmaster... will be sent through to the user, along with all the other email. Some allow users to filter on the local part, and pick up designated email addresses separately. But most of those also have a bucket for all the remaining ones. At that stage its the user's responsibility to make sure they pick up all the emails. -- Roland Perry
Re: Mail to postmaster
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Adi Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes These days we're still at about 2000 postmaster emails per day. Anyone has any sensible ideas of how to process mail to postmaster so only relevant stuff is forwarded to a human being? That's about the same number as I get spam emails to all my email addresses combined. I wash them through a Windows (sorry) utility called K9, which classifies them by content, and also some [black|white]list rules, and has a reader that allows you to cycle through the stored emails at a single mouse click. A bit of speed-reading and it's possible to double-check the 50% least-spammy ones in about ten minutes. It's not absolutely the best software (it tends to systematically over-classify as spam if almost all your received emails are spam), but it helps a lot. http://keir.net/k9.html -- Roland Perry
Re: dealing with w32/bagle
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeff Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Okay, so what are several ways to share files with a friend, where you don't share any accounts or passwords, and where only your friend will be able to access them? Putting the files into an obscurely named and unlinked directory of a website will normally be as good as necessary. The sender still has to mess with ftp, unless he has a web-based uploading system at his disposal (see fotopic.net for an example user interface). If you are prepared to concede that both parties must be subscribed to the same online community (be it Yahoo-Groups-alike or a messenger product) then the possibilities are endless, and many are not beyond granny's capabilities. -- Roland Perry
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
USB in this scenario would be synonymous with PCI, in regards to the type of technology that interfaces with the cpu. Yes. 3) Just because a device has two physical mediums of connectivity, dosent make it a ?converter?. My coworkers argue that a USB Ethernet adapter is an ?Ethernet to USB Converter?. Perhaps they are being confused by the existence of things like USB/Serial and USB/Parallel converters (I have one of the former here, for when I need to plug my GPS receiver into my laptop), but in fact these are adapters, just like the PCI/Serial and PCI/Parallel cards you might buy to fit in a PCI slot [although most PCs have this functionality on the motherboard, so extra cards are unnecessary]. Another way of telling that they are adapters (even the USB/Serial one) rather than converters, is that that they need Windows Drivers, which are added by the standard plug-n-pray system when you first attach that device to the PC. A genuine converter (like 9-25 pin serial) doesn't need a driver. If this is true, then the following could be said: a. A PCI Ethernet Adapter is a ?converter? because it ?converts? Ethernet to PCI. You are on the right track here - both the PCI and USB items are adapters. Neither are converters. c. Lastly ( I love this one ), An integrated Ethernet adapter on a motherboard is a ?converter? because it ?converts? ethernet to uhh ?? processor? Right? It's a few years since I designed a PC, but I think you'll find that motherboard adapters like are actually connected to the PCI bus, but internally across the PCB, rather than via a separable connector (and at early stages in their evolution using the exact same chip soldered to the motherboard as would have been on the plug-in card). -- Roland Perry
Re: First Post! Annoying Debate at Work.
I suspect what the convertor does is take the frame, and send it out the USB in whatever format it needs to be data intact. It sends highly processed(/extracted) data to a device driver running on the PC. Just like an ethernet adapter on a PC-card would. If it were in any sense still ethernet data, there would have to be an ethernet card inside the PC on the 'inside end' of the USB. And there isn't. (Apart from anything else, the ethernet cable might running at up to 100MBps, and the USB at perhaps a tenth of that on a good day). -- Roland Perry
Re: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
[1] Should VoIP include 911/999 service, and how does one resolve the various geographic location issues associated with this. I'm glad that got people talking :-) [snip - one of the many issues; I think you route the call to India and have someone ask the user where they are, then re-route the voice based on the answer. But first you need to de-dupe the numbers that are Emergency in one country and a normal service in another; say 911 was the weather forecast in Greenland... ] Personally I don't think the regulators have a clear enough grasp of the technical issues to be prescribing solutions for this issue. Some do. And specifically in the UK they have a joint committee with industry to get properly to grips with the technology. -- Roland Perry
How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] net, Pendergrass, Greg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes if you want to call an ambulance you DON'T use the internet And you also need a way to persuade the Ambulance Service not to terminate their calls via VoIP, or send dispatch instructions via public-IP over GSM (or whatever) to their vehicles. Or the IP bits need to be assured as good enough that it doesn't matter. It's perhaps three years since I heard that there was real possibility of some of the above. That stable door may be more open than you think. -- Roland Perry
Re: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes We often can't get the owners of the fiber to 'fess up to the actual physical path, when we're trying to build out diversity. What makes you think the Ambulance Service will have the competency to have any *clue* where their dial tone actually comes from and goes to? You need a Regulator[tm] which insists that the Ambulance Service demonstrates that they understand these issues, or revoke their licence. A bit like you do for the wetware behind the steering wheel (or the life support system in the back). -- Roland Perry
Re: How relable does the Internet need to be? (Was: Re: Converged Network Threat)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I think we will need also to make it illegal (to control the liability issues) to need emergency assistance in a place whose only link is via public-IP. This is an interesting issue, and one which is currently being debated in the UK (where a newly reformed regulator is taking a fresh look at VoIP)[1]. Most end users that I've discussed it with (geeks to a man) say it's not society's problem if they (the geeks) choose to limit their availability of emergency assistance[2], when buying a new toy like VoIP (and throwing away their POTS). I'm not sure that I entirely agree. Less well informed users probably need someone making that decision for them. (Just call me Nanny.) [1] Should VoIP include 911/999 service, and how does one resolve the various geographic location issues associated with this. [2] By, for example, having no 911/999 service available *at all* from their chosen provider, and relying on a mobile phone or a neighbour with POTS. -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The users that are the problem anyway will vote for convinience with their wallets. If they wouldn´t, they would not be buying the systems that conviniently allow them to execute and install code in the first place. It would be financially suicidal to make a piece of software to bother the user. It doesn't cost the user any extra to include such a feature in the next version of Windows, and in all the Critical Updates downloaded starting tomorrow. [Obviously it costs MS something to do the software development.] -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Petri Helenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes You get millions of people calling asking how to disable the annoying feature that they got when they updated the computer. In addition they will tell other people not to upgrade because it gets more annoying to use email and the earlier way was more convinient. That's a user interface design issue. People seem happy enough with popups from virus checkers saying suchandsuch a file is infected - what do you want to do about it, all I'm proposing is something similar for potentially harmful files. You already get something similar for (eg) driver files not signed as XP-compatible. Does that put people [support desks, users, potential upgraders] off XP? I agree there may be a scaling issue, although I see fewer wanted-executables annually than I have non-XP drivers installed, which is also pretty much an annual exercise. Of course, if it did gain acceptance maybe the black hats would simply deliver their infections differently. -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Niels Bakker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Can a driver reach the fuel injector controls during normal operation of the vehicle? No, because safety laws prevent this possibility (due to dumb drivers). -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Terry Baranski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Society as a whole could benefit from people taking more responsibility for themselves -- the Internet doesn't seem any different in this regard. Which is fine (some would argue) as long as their irresponsibility affects only them, and not the rest of society. As for this business of opening (aka executing etc) files which users have been sent. One useful first line of defence would be for client software to insist that the name of the sender be typed into a box, as some kind of confirmation that the sender was known to the user. -- Roland Perry
Re: Dumb users spread viruses
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charles Sprickman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes So why the apparent lack of junkware? [on the Mac] I presume this is because the marketers believe in the 80:20 rule, and the Mac is well inside the 20. -- Roland Perry
Re: Unbelievable Spam.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ejay Hire [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Personally, I don't like spam, but I tolerate the messages that slip through to my mailbox as a penalty for my own laziness in not tightening down my spam rules. Today I got one that I couldn't believe. --snip-- Spam Hosting - from 20$ per mounth. Fraud Hosting - from 30$ per mounth. Stoln Credit Cards, Fake ID, DL's. Spam For free only from 1.02.2004 to 5.02.2004. --snip-- It's just wrong in my opinion, and exacerbated by the fact that it was spammend to our abuse account. Their /24 just fell off of my piece of the internet. Have I just been blind to this all along, or are the spammers getting bolder? Remember, all spammers lie. But what were these spammers lying about? -- Roland Perry
Re: What's the best way to wiretap a network?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kurt Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (Although I now what the NA...stands for I have to ask) Plenty of NANOs will have bits of network in the EU (or indeed within the remit of the Cybercrime Convention which the USA has signed but not ratified). So the EU part is only the tapping requirement? The charging scheme is local? Or did I miss all of this? EU law tends to say things about privacy, human rights, and so on. It outlaws wiretaps, but then has exemptions to allow individual states to pass wiretap laws if they feel there's a law enforcement need. Nothing about cost recovery. The Cybercrime Convention (a Treaty of the Council of Europe - which is not the EU - and not a law in its own right) has an article (#21) *requiring* ratifying states [1] to implement wiretapping, but is also silent on the cost recovery issue, which would be a matter for the individual state's legislature. [1] Only 4 relatively minor states so far, so the Treaty isn't even in force yet: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/searchsig.asp?NT=185CM=DF= -- Roland Perry
Re: What's the best way to wiretap a network?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kurt Erik Lindqvist [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes From the initial discussions in Sweden around the new electronic communications act, it seems as if the operators are obliged to provide tapping free of charge. If this turns out to be the case, I guess it is pretty much the same all over Europe as the law is supposed to be based on a EU framework. There's nothing in the new EU Communications Framework (or indeed elsewhere in EU law) that controls whether or not operators can charge for wiretaps. It's a country by country thing. Complicated by some countries that claim to re-imburse, actually being chronically bad at paying the invoices. In the UK, for example, the current situation is that running costs are re-imbursed, and network upgrades to be wire-tap ready can benefit from a one-off grant (but new networks must be designed to be wire-tap ready at the operator's expense). -- Roland Perry
Re: i'd like to know your opinions on the com/net wildcard issue
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Kevin Oberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes When the signal is placed on the wire, it is very analog. the digital signal is modulated onto the wire and demodulated off of it and the box that connects to the phone line at each end is properly and fairly commonly called a DSL modem. Very true. There's more than you ever really wanted to know about the technology of DSL at: http://www.oftel.gov.uk/ind_groups/nicc/Public/reports/Intfr_i1.pdf -- Roland Perry
Re: Automatic shutdown of infected network connections
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mike Tancsa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes FYI, the last 3 Dell laptops we bought (2 weeks ago) all needed about 56MB of patches OOTB That's exactly the same as I needed for a copy of XP-Upgrade I bought in a high-turnover retail store (Staples, in USA) last week. -- Roland Perry
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Omachonu Ogali [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In which case, the telecommuters should use their organization's mail servers with SMTP authentication (yes, authentication, not pop-before-smtp). I'm a telecommuter, I'm also a freelance, so my organisation is me. I like the idea of running a reliable mail server with authentication, at my home base. Which is my home. I just have to get AOL not to define it as residential. -- Roland Perry
Re: Blaster author identified, about to be arrested...
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JC Dill [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes The FBI has identified a teenager as the author of a damaging virus-like infection unleashed on the Internet and plans to arrest him early Friday, a U.S. official confirmed Thursday. It always worries me when law enforcement send out a press statement that they are going to arrest a particular individual in the future. Where is he now and why won't he remove himself to somewhere a long way away, overnight? Obviously, there is something more complex happening here. -- Roland Perry
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Drew Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Then why not just pay a Virtual Mail hosting company to host a mail server for you via Imail or one of the other virtual email service packages out there. It is very inexpensive most of the time. That way you have the flexibility of having your own mail server, plus (most of the time) the server is hosted in a controlled environment (ie power, AC, network) et cetera, the benefits are endless. I do that for POP3, but suppliers of a similar service for outbound mail clearly need a new marketing department. -- Roland Perry
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joe Provo nanog- [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes AOL's specific definition is point 12 on their postmaster FAQ (http://postmaster.info.aol.com/faq.html). That's their definition of Residential IP, not Dynamic IP. if you have a server on a residential connection, check your service agreement. My own ISP has DSL products called Home Based Business (and provide static IP addressing). Residential and Business are not mutually exclusive. -- Roland Perry
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Richard Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes We can thank the usual suspects - Cogent, Qwest, ATT, Comcast - and in Europe: BT, NTL and possibly the world-abuse-leader, Deutsche Telekom (who run dtag.de and t-dialin.net) for this being the situation. Here's another tale of undeliverable email. It seems that [at least] one of those organisations you mention assigns IP addresses for its ADSL customers from the same blocks as dial-up. Which means that organisations using MAPS-DUL reject email from teleworkers (or indeed people running businesses with an ADSL connection) who run their own SMTP servers. -- Roland Perry
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Shouldn't customers that purchase IP services from an ISP use the ISPs mail server as a smart host for outbound mail? We block outbound port 25 connections on our dialup and DSL pool. [snip] there is no reason why a dialup user should be sending mail directly to AOL, or any mail server for that matter (besides their host ISP) Dial-up, I agree. DSL is a slightly different story. And I'm as much against Spam as anyone. -- Roland Perry
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes ISPs would need to contact AOL, provide valid contact into and accept some sort of AUP (I shall not spam AOL...) and then be allowed to connect from their IPs. AOL could kick that mail server off later if they determine they are spamming. Next time I'm lobbying about the cost of Spam, I'll have to remember to add in all this activity as well as the end user perspective (and the more traditional we need to buy bigger servers and pipes stuff). -- Roland Perry
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Everything is logged I have some policemen friends who will immediately add you to their Xmas card list! -- Roland Perry
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] py.sacramento.ca.us, Michel Py [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes eating some email from no reason, having limits in attachment size, you can't have a mailing list that way, etc. Isn't this where we started? One ISP I know decided to limit customers to 200 outgoing recipients a day. Great for stopping spammers, great for stopping anyone running a mailing list, or mailing to big cc: lists [1]. Hey, on a good day, I can even send 200 one-to-one emails. [1] I regularly get emails with 60-80 people listed, bad practice perhaps, but it's all some users seem to be able to implement. -- Roland Perry
Re: Fun new policy at AOL
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes If your ISP ... does a bad thing ... find another one. Great in theory, but the market is imperfect. Even if money (and the loss you'd incur from terminating your current ISP early) isn't the main issue. Many countries, even those with de-regulated comms markets, don't have a very wide choice. Ask for something a bit out of the ordinary (like a dial-up account with static IP), and the choice is reduced even further. That's why we must encourage all ISPSs to be good guys, because we don't want Government Regulators setting standards in these areas, do we? -- Roland Perry
Re: Microsoft distributes free CDs in Japan to patch Windows
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul A. Bradford [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hmm, and how would you protect the remote controlled MS firewall software from: 1. Vulnerabilities itself since MS is building it? 2. the remote control being hijacked by someone besides MS? 2a. Hey I'd love to be able to shut folks that were killing my network off until they update, but is it my right? It's not that different from (my perception of) the current technology used for XP Activation. Presumably an unactivated XP ise prevented from accessing the Internet (as well as being prevented from doing all the other normal user things), but is still capable of accessing the activation server. And is the mechanism of a hypothetical remote de- activation very far from what I was suggesting (maybe as a sort of ask the activation server for permission at regular intervals)? Are there any XP activation exploits yet? -- Roland Perry
Re: Microsoft distributes free CDs in Japan to patch Windows
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jack Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Automatic cutoff until update check every 7 days? That's the sort of thing, although I'd make different rules for different types of connection. From broadband users who can do it daily, to those connected by mobile phone (who are of no practical use to these virus/worm writers anyway) whenever they next get at least 28.8K . -- Roland Perry
Re: Microsoft distributes free CDs in Japan to patch Windows
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stephen J. Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes my perception of the past couple of weeks is that they are the busiest that i've ever seen for abuse activity (including filtering our own traffic and getting customers to fix their broken machines). and yet i'm seeing nothing in the way of media interest etc, when melissa came out a couple years ago it was on the news for a week.. did they get bored of covering yet another computer virus ? That's because things only (normally) get in the news if there's someone trying very hard to get it in the news. They will often have their own agenda. At the same time there are people paid large sums to make sure certain things *don't* get in the news. And then you have to factor in how hungry the media are for something extra to stop the adverts from bumping into one another [1]. Therefore reality, and what's in the news, are rarely the same. [1] A couple of weeks ago, the only, and I mean *only* story, reported by many USA news stations was the blackouts. Nothing else got a look-in. -- Roland Perry
Re: ... Niagara-Mohawk power grid was overloaded.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Eric A. Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes NEW YORK (CNN) -- A major power outage simultaneously struck dozens of cities in the United States and Canada late Thursday afternoon. TV news reporting that it was due to a lightning strike just south of Niagra. Seems to have cascaded rather badly. Bell Canada appealing to customers only to use cellphones and landlines for 911 emergencies. -- Roland Perry
Re: National Do Not Call Registry has opened
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tomas Daniska [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes quote Q: If I register my number on the National Do Not Call Registry, will it stop all telemarketing calls? A: No. Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most, but not all, telemarketing calls. Some businesses are exempt from the national registry and still can call you even if you place your number on it. Exempt businesses include: long-distance phone companies airlines banks and credit unions; and the business of insurance, to the extent that it is regulated by state law. All the above text has now disappeared from their site ! -- Roland Perry, LINX
Re: National Do Not Call Registry has opened
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I was thinking more along the line of a bot submitting every possible 10 digit phone number. Do the nation a favor. Which is, of course, what might happen with email addresses, if someone made the very bad decision to implement a plausible opt-out scheme for junk emails. -- Roland Perry
Re: from Dave Farber's list: Ireland to regulate peering
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Sean Donelan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes If I think a grocery store in Ireland is charging too much for potatoes, can I ask the Irish government to order the grocery store to change its price on potatoes? If the grocery store had a monopoly on selling potatoes in Ireland, and after an investigation into the costs of supplying potatoes to the retail market it was shown that they were profiteering, you might find they'd say yes. Although such mechanisms are normally reserved for utilities, and the Internet just came of age in as much as governments now regard it as an essential utility. Another recent example being: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-714188,00.html -- Roland Perry
Re: from Dave Farber's list: Ireland to regulate peering
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Steve Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In brief: New rules being put in place by the Irish telecoms regulator will regulate IP peering between ISPs as if it were a voice interconnect. I'd love to hear from any other IPers who know if this is being proposed anywhere else in Europe. As far as I know, this is unprecedented. This regime has probably been the case throughout Europe for ISPs that were locally licenced telcos, for four years [under the Interconnect Directive]. Not that many countries actually believed it or did anything. But there are now specific new Directives about this. The Irish telecoms regulator (ComReg) has announced a new set of licensing rules for telcos. The bad part is that the rules have been greatly expanded to include regulation of all electronic communications networks, including (apparently) ISP networks and VPN operators. Indeed, this is just one instance of implementation of the new European Telecoms Directives across Europe, due this July. To see a FAQ on the UK's version (interconnection in section 5): http://www.oftel.gov.uk/publications/eu_directives/2003/ispfaq0303.htm The cherry on the cake is that ISPs can be designated as having Significant Market Power (this used to be defined as having 25% of a market, but the criteria are now more nebulous). In practice, regulators will only intervene at all, if one of the ISPs has SMP. This is now almost impossible to achieve (tests of dominance apply) especially with the diversity of transit providers. An SMP ISP would have to dominate the *entire* market for wholesale transit in a country. -- Roland Perry, Director of Public Policy, LINX.
Re: UK ISPs not cooperating with law enforcement
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter Galbavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Policy was, many years ago, when we were 'all' at Demon that we would *never* hand out any logs until there was a court order. Period. At that point we would roll over and stick our paws in the air... subtle hints from the police and others were met with this policy. Yes, the current situation in the UK is that there are (for hacking enquiries, but not financial matters) no police powers other than a court order, but many CSPs (voice telcos especially) are sympathetic to special pleading from the police that revealing information about their customers is justified if it's the only way progress a criminal investigation. http://www.linx.net/misc/dpa28-3form.html The recent issue with Scotland Yard might suggest that this pleading had been unsuccessful, but they didn't then go and get a court order (for whatever reason). Of course, the RIP Act brings big brother truly to life now. If only the civil service would stop infighting long enough to implement it ;-) It was the Minister (Blunkett) who stopped the implementation, due to police politics... For once, the civil servants were innocent. -- Roland Perry | tel: +44 20 7645 3505 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Director of Public Policy | fax: +44 20 7645 3529 | http://www.linx.net London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7909 68 0005 | /contact/roland
