[liberationtech] The Hidden Internet of Iran: Private Address Allocations on a National Network
Sounds just like CGN. - Forwarded message from Collin Anderson - From: Collin Anderson Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:06:34 -0400 To: liberationt...@lists.stanford.edu Subject: [liberationtech] The Hidden Internet of Iran: Private Address Allocations on a National Network Reply-To: liberationtech Libtech, I want to share a working paper of mine that was posted to arXiv last night. This is part of an ongoing effort to start producing verifiable dataset on how Iran's Internet works, and was a surprising discovery that I wanted to share with everyone else -- in lead up to a broader output *The Hidden Internet of Iran: Private Address Allocations on a National Network* While funding agencies have provided substantial support for the developers and vendors of services that facilitate the unfettered flow of information through the Internet, little consolidated knowledge exists on the basic communications network infrastructure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the absence open access and public data, rumors and fear have reigned supreme. During provisional research on the country's censorship regime, we found initial indicators that telecommunications entities in Iran allowed private addresses to route domestically, whether intentionally or unintentionally, creating a hidden network only reachable within the country. Moreover, records such as DNS entries lend evidence of a 'dual stack' approach, wherein servers are assigned a domestic IP addresses, in addition to a global one. Despite the clear political implications of the claim we put forward, particularly in light of rampant speculation regarding the mandate of Article 46 of the 'Fifth Five Year Development Plan' to establish a "national information network," we refrain from hypothesizing the purpose of this structure. In order to solicit critical feedback for future research, we outline our initial findings and attempt to demonstrate that the matter under contention is a nation-wide phenomenom that warrants broader attention. http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.6398 Cordially, Collin -- *Collin David Anderson* averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C. -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech - End forwarded message -
[NANOG-announce] Maintenance Notification for Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 at 11am Eastern
Dear Colleagues, On Wednesday, October 3rd, 2012 at 11am Eastern Time, access to NANOG Meeting Registration, submissions to PC.NANOG.ORG, and access to the membership portal will be unavailable for 30-60 minutes. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the NANOG Communications Committee for more details, adm...@nanog.org. Randy Epstein NANOG CC Chair On behalf of the NANOG Communications Committee ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
[NANOG-announce] NANOG Election Update
Colleagues: The final stages of our annual NANOG Election process is underway. Today, October 1, 2012 is the last day to submit nominations to the NANOG Board of Directors. The NANOG Board is responsible for ensuring NANOG operates in a way that is consistent with our Bylaws, financially sound, and helps to ensure NANOG is an organization that meets the needs of the internet community and the NANOG Members. Please consider a self-nomination, or a nomination of someone you feel would be a strong candidate. Refer to http://www.nanog.org/governance/elections/2012elections/ for complete information. If you are not yet a member of NANOG, or have not yet renewed your membership, please consider doing so. As of this writing, NANOG has 315 members! There are additional benefits to membership, however, the most important is the control members have through their votes. Only members can vote, and are eligible to serve on the NANOG Board and NANOG Committees; thus helping to decide the direction of NANOG. Refer to http://www.nanog.org/membership_main.html for complete membership information. I hope you will consider becoming part of the process! Sincerely, Betty -- Betty Burke NANOG Executive Director 48377 Fremont Boulevard, Suite 117 Fremont, CA 94538 Tel: +1 510 492 4030 ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
Andreas Echavez wrote: Hey guys, Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? Yes. > It seems like the standard just died out. For us it would make a lot of sense for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as great. If anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 port?), I'd be interested to hear your experiences. I can't seem to find any high-density ones from major vendors. Well, I'm not sure about 48 port. I have several of these: http://www.extremenetworks.com/products/summit-x650.aspx which are 24 port 10Gbase-T switches. I got them in.. late 2008? 2009? Not sure offhand. From the same manufacturer there's the more recent http://www.extremenetworks.com/products/summit-x670.aspx also 1U, which appears to be 48 port or more and to have a copper version but I've not actually seen one. And both models are stackable.
Re: Data Center Flooring
If you are thinking of VCT, try stained+polished concrete. Naturally grounded for low-humidity spaces, supports >3500PSI point loads, and much better looking. >> I know in the past there have been talks about datacenter flooring. (Even >> Carpet if I recall). What I am wondering is does the actual datacenter >> flooring need to be like Static Dissipating. (Found something that does >> that for about $10.00 a Sqr foot). Or can it just be non static generating >> or like non conducting. Not quite sure the wording to use here. >
Re: Data Center Flooring
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, Mark Keymer wrote: I know in the past there have been talks about datacenter flooring. (Even Carpet if I recall). What I am wondering is does the actual datacenter flooring need to be like Static Dissipating. (Found something that does that for about $10.00 a Sqr foot). Or can it just be non static generating or like non conducting. Not quite sure the wording to use here. We normally spec out VCT static dissipative floor tiling for our technical spaces that are not on raised flooring. jms
Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
In article , Andreas Echavez wrote: >Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? It >seems like the standard just died out. Well, our new supermicro servers come with 10Gbase-T standard on the motherboard. >For us it would make a lot of sense >for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as great. If >anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 port?) Arista, http://www.aristanetworks.com/ Mike.
RE: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
10Gbase-T doesn't make much sense for a new virtual environment. Once you factor in the cost of the cabling and power, you probably would have been better off with DAC or FET interconnects. Also 10Gbase-T does not necessarily work with Legacy wiring, depending upon how it was run. Large bundles of wire cause crosstalk issues on legacy cabling, this is the reason for large jackets on 6A. http://www.siemon.com/us/learning/alien-crosstalk-guide.asp I'm not saying it won't work for your scenario as I am not familiar with your environment, just keep it in mind that with most environments, DAC is a cheaper and provides better latency for your storage traffic. -Original Message- From: Jima [mailto:na...@jima.tk] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 3:33 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T Gotcha. With SFP+ I think the only nod to backward compatibility would be 1gbit RJ-45 SFPs, which can get a little spendy in large numbers (although so can DACs). As for distance, I admit I haven't encountered any DACs longer than 15 meters (~49 feet) -- not that I'm positive they don't exist. Jima On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10pm, Andreas Echavez wrote: > Mostly backwards compatibility; simplicity. We're planning for some > super-high-density virtualization/storage projects mixed in with lower > bandwidth gear, and sticking to one type of cable for everything would > be convenient. I thought DAC had some distance limitations as well. > > This is all speculation though, I don't have any personal experience > with the 10Gbase-T stuff either. I have no idea what to expect > performance-wise. > > -A > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jima wrote: > >> > Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? >> > It seems like the standard just died out. For us it would make a >> > lot of >> sense >> > for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as >> great. >> If >> > anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 >> > port?), >> I'd >> > be >> > interested to hear your experiences. I can't seem to find any >> high-density >> > ones from major vendors. >> >> Is there something unique about your environment that wouldn't allow >> you to use 10gbit SFP+-based switches with DAC (Direct Attach Copper) >> cables? >> Those seem fairly well supported. >> >> Jima >> >> >> > ** Sterne Agee Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries request that you do not transmit orders and instructions regarding your Sterne Agee account by e-mail. Transactional details do not supersede normal trade confirmations or statements. The information contained in this transmission is privileged and confidential. It is intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reliable but is not considered all-inclusive. Opinions are our current opinions only and are subject to change without notice. Offerings are subject to prior sale and/or change in price. Prices, quotes, rates and yields are subject to change without notice. Sterne Agee & Leach, Inc. member FINRA and SIPC, is a registered broker-dealer subsidiary of Sterne Agee Group, Inc. Generally, investments are NOT FDIC INSURED, NOT BANK GUARANTEED, and MAY LOSE VALUE. Please contact your Financial Advisor with information regarding specific investments. Sterne Agee reserves the right to monitor all electronic correspondence. **
Data Center Flooring
We recently took possession of a building which part of it was used for a teleco room by a Cellular company. The floor looks like crap. So we were thinking about maybe just putting another new flooring on top. Currently it has some type of tile looking flooring. I have been told the the entry way into the building is Anti-static. However No idea on the actual data center flooring. I know in the past there have been talks about datacenter flooring. (Even Carpet if I recall). What I am wondering is does the actual datacenter flooring need to be like Static Dissipating. (Found something that does that for about $10.00 a Sqr foot). Or can it just be non static generating or like non conducting. Not quite sure the wording to use here. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated on or off the list. Sincerely, -- Mark Keymer
Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
Gotcha. With SFP+ I think the only nod to backward compatibility would be 1gbit RJ-45 SFPs, which can get a little spendy in large numbers (although so can DACs). As for distance, I admit I haven't encountered any DACs longer than 15 meters (~49 feet) -- not that I'm positive they don't exist. Jima On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:10pm, Andreas Echavez wrote: > Mostly backwards compatibility; simplicity. We're planning for some > super-high-density virtualization/storage projects mixed in with lower > bandwidth gear, and sticking to one type of cable for everything would be > convenient. I thought DAC had some distance limitations as well. > > This is all speculation though, I don't have any personal experience with > the 10Gbase-T stuff either. I have no idea what to expect > performance-wise. > > -A > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jima wrote: > >> > Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? It >> > seems like the standard just died out. For us it would make a lot of >> sense >> > for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as >> great. >> If >> > anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 port?), >> I'd >> > be >> > interested to hear your experiences. I can't seem to find any >> high-density >> > ones from major vendors. >> >> Is there something unique about your environment that wouldn't allow >> you >> to use 10gbit SFP+-based switches with DAC (Direct Attach Copper) >> cables? >> Those seem fairly well supported. >> >> Jima >> >> >> >
Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
Mostly backwards compatibility; simplicity. We're planning for some super-high-density virtualization/storage projects mixed in with lower bandwidth gear, and sticking to one type of cable for everything would be convenient. I thought DAC had some distance limitations as well. This is all speculation though, I don't have any personal experience with the 10Gbase-T stuff either. I have no idea what to expect performance-wise. -A On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jima wrote: > > Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? It > > seems like the standard just died out. For us it would make a lot of > sense > > for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as great. > If > > anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 port?), I'd > > be > > interested to hear your experiences. I can't seem to find any > high-density > > ones from major vendors. > > Is there something unique about your environment that wouldn't allow you > to use 10gbit SFP+-based switches with DAC (Direct Attach Copper) cables? > Those seem fairly well supported. > > Jima > > >
Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
> Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? It > seems like the standard just died out. For us it would make a lot of sense > for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as great. If > anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 port?), I'd > be > interested to hear your experiences. I can't seem to find any high-density > ones from major vendors. Is there something unique about your environment that wouldn't allow you to use 10gbit SFP+-based switches with DAC (Direct Attach Copper) cables? Those seem fairly well supported. Jima
Re: So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
Check out the Force 10 S4810 switch. On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Andreas Echavez wrote: > Hey guys, > > Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? It > seems like the standard just died out. For us it would make a lot of sense > for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as great. If > anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 port?), I'd be > interested to hear your experiences. I can't seem to find any high-density > ones from major vendors. > > Thanks, > Andreas > -- Best Regards, Kenneth McRae *Sr. Network Engineer* kenneth.mc...@dreamhost.com Ph: 323-375-3814 www.dreamhost.com
So what's the deal with 10Gbase-T
Hey guys, Does anyone here have experience running copper 10Gbase-T networks? It seems like the standard just died out. For us it would make a lot of sense for our applications -- even if throughput and latency aren't as great. If anyone out there knows of any *copper* 10 gig-t switches (48 port?), I'd be interested to hear your experiences. I can't seem to find any high-density ones from major vendors. Thanks, Andreas
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On 28/09/12 22:18, Seth Mattinen wrote: > Hand draw two squares, label them "our AS" and "your AS" with a line > between them labeled "GigE". Bonus points for pencil. Don't forget have coffee mug stamp otherwise its unofficial diagram
Re: RFC becomes Visio
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Jason Baugher wrote: > All they know is a consultant told them they needed to "do BGP" > with their ISP? what kind of consultant throws away the great billable hours that "design, configure, deploy, and test BGP session(s)" gives?! pretty sure I lived on setting up BGP sessions exclusively in '09... silly
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
t...@ninjabadger.net wrote: >> It depends on distance between senders and receivers. >> >> However, at certain distance it becomes impossible to use >> efficient (w.r.t. bits per symbol) encoding, because of >> noise of repeated EDFA amplification. > > <500km not enough? > > https://www.de-cix.net/news-events/latest-news/news/article/de-cix-chooses-adva-optical-networkings-100g-metro-solution/ > As it says: ADVA Optical Networking's 100G Metro solution is built on 4x28G direct detection technology and I wrote: Still, for 100GE, under some circumstances, 100GE with 4*25G may become less expensive than 10*10GE. 100GE over 500km could be fine. >> For 50Gbps lane, it becomes even harder and, for 100Gbps lane, >> it will likely to be impossible. > > Tell this to Ciena... ;) > > If you can afford Wave Logic 3 interfaces for your Nortel^WCiena 6500's, > you'll find some pretty impressive things are actually possible, > including 100G per 100GHz guide over very large distances (think > Atlantic-large). I'm afraid it uses 8 or 4 lanes. > Coherence appears to be the secret sauce in pushing the SnR boundaries, Just +3db, which is already counted, nothing more than that. >> http://www.peering-forum.eu/assets/presentations2012/JunpierEPF7.pdf >> >> But, it does not say much about >100G. > > Yes, that is the one. Slide #11 is the one I'm referring to, 'Projection > of Form Factor Evolution to 400G', which is relevant to the discussion > on optic densities and the push above 100G. As I wrote from the beginning that: (if same plug and cable are used both for 100GE and 10*10GE). physical form factors can be identical between 100GE (10*10G) and 10*10GE. Thus, the point of the slide #11 is not a valid counter argument against my point that trunked 40*10GE or 16*25GE is no worse than actually trunked 400GE with 40*10G or 16*25G. While slide #12 mentions 50Gbps per lane, it is too often impossible to be as practical as the Ethernet today. Masataka Ohta
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
On Mon, 1 Oct 2012, t...@ninjabadger.net wrote: If you can afford Wave Logic 3 interfaces for your Nortel^WCiena 6500's, you'll find some pretty impressive things are actually possible, including 100G per 100GHz guide over very large distances (think Atlantic-large). The amount of processing power and equipment in the transponder to achieve this is most likely out of scope for short term practical 400GE/1TBE that IEEE will put into standard. So serial lights on/off much faster than 25 Gbaud runs into serious physical limitations, as some physical effects increase 4-fold when you on/off blink 2 times as fast. That's why we do not have 100Gbaud 100GE, but instead 4x25Gbaud. Coherence appears to be the secret sauce in pushing the SnR boundaries, albeit I'm not going to pretend to even understand the physics involved, I was just lucky enough to speak to some people that do. :) Yes, for long-haul DWDM systems coherent detection is absolutely the way to go. For short and metro reach at low cost, that is probably going to be a bit further into the future. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
On 2012-10-01 08:57, Masataka Ohta wrote: Tom Hill wrote: Once you get your head (and wallet) around that, there becomes a case for running each of your waves at 2.5x the rate they're employed at now. The remaining question is then to decide if that's cheaper than running more fibre. It depends on distance between senders and receivers. However, at certain distance it becomes impossible to use efficient (w.r.t. bits per symbol) encoding, because of noise of repeated EDFA amplification. <500km not enough? https://www.de-cix.net/news-events/latest-news/news/article/de-cix-chooses-adva-optical-networkings-100g-metro-solution/ Still a hard one to justify though, I agree. For 50Gbps lane, it becomes even harder and, for 100Gbps lane, it will likely to be impossible. Tell this to Ciena... ;) If you can afford Wave Logic 3 interfaces for your Nortel^WCiena 6500's, you'll find some pretty impressive things are actually possible, including 100G per 100GHz guide over very large distances (think Atlantic-large). Coherence appears to be the secret sauce in pushing the SnR boundaries, albeit I'm not going to pretend to even understand the physics involved, I was just lucky enough to speak to some people that do. :) I've recently seen a presentation from EPF** (by Juniper) that was *very* interesting in the >100G race, from a technical perspective. Well worth hunting that one down if you can, as it details a lot about optic composition in future standards, optic densities/backplanes, etc. This one? http://www.peering-forum.eu/assets/presentations2012/JunpierEPF7.pdf But, it does not say much about >100G. Yes, that is the one. Slide #11 is the one I'm referring to, 'Projection of Form Factor Evolution to 400G', which is relevant to the discussion on optic densities and the push above 100G. Tom
Re: /. Terabit Ethernet is Dead, for Now
Tom Hill wrote: > Once you get your head (and wallet) around that, there becomes a case > for running each of your waves at 2.5x the rate they're employed at now. > The remaining question is then to decide if that's cheaper than running > more fibre. It depends on distance between senders and receivers. However, at certain distance it becomes impossible to use efficient (w.r.t. bits per symbol) encoding, because of noise of repeated EDFA amplification. > Still a hard one to justify though, I agree. For 50Gbps lane, it becomes even harder and, for 100Gbps lane, it will likely to be impossible. > I've recently seen a presentation from EPF** (by Juniper) that was > *very* interesting in the >100G race, from a technical perspective. Well > worth hunting that one down if you can, as it details a lot about optic > composition in future standards, optic densities/backplanes, etc. This one? http://www.peering-forum.eu/assets/presentations2012/JunpierEPF7.pdf But, it does not say much about >100G. Masataka Ohta
Re: RFC becomes Visio
Why not RFC 5514 over RFC 2410 encryption over RFC2549 enhanced RFC1149 with all sessions padded with a number (generated by a server compliant with RFC3091) of the packets described in RFC6592? Oh, and don't forget to set the bit described in RFC3514 as appropriate. Or, ya know, one could just draw up a quick document or a note stating the frivolous nature of such. Eric On 9/28/12, Robert Bonomi wrote: > >> Mike Lyon wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Seth Mattinen >> wrote: >> > On 9/28/12 11:08 AM, Joe Maimon wrote: >> > > Just got told by a Lightpath person that in order to do BGP on a >> > > customer gig circuit to them they would need a visio diagram (of what >> > > I >> > > dont know). >> > > >> > > Has anybody else seen this brain damage? >> > >> > Hand draw two squares, label them "our AS" and "your AS" with a line >> > between them labeled "GigE". Bonus points for pencil. >> > >> >> And super duper bonus points is you draw pigeons carrying packets between >> the two blocks and stating that you are RFC 1149 compliant. >> > > No, no, *NO*!! > > The proper approach is to ask the vendor for RFC 1149 trasport for the BGP > session, and whether it terminates in a shared cage, or if a fully private > one is required. Including an 'envionmental impact statement'. Explaining > that this info is required in order to produce an accurate Visio diagram. > > > > > -- Sent from my mobile device
Re: is CERNET part of the Internet?
Most networks have some sort of firewall (hopefully...) Isn't CERNET kind of similar to Internet2/NLR? Members own their network Free to join Serve education&research community Members encourage their users to use "the free network" instead of public network when possible Please correct me if I am wrong. Yang On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 5:23 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > I'm trying to figure out whether CERNET > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERNET > is part of the official Internet, or is behind the Great Firewall where > access to invididual networks on the public Internet must be explicitly > granted. Anyone in the know? > >
Charter Business IPv6 Contact?
Apologies, as this was discussed recently. There was an engineer from Charter Business who was setting up IPv6 trials for Charter Business customers recently. If he is still lurking the list, can I ask that you contact me off-list to discuss this? Thank You. Dale Elfes
