Re: ripe/ncc likes cookies
On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:50 PM, Andrew Latham lath...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: RIPE needs to fix on their web site: Please turn on the cookies on your browser to view this site. It doesn't have to be this way... it should not be this way randy Local law in EU which I assumed that most knew about http://www.cookielaw.org/about-this-message.aspx The law requires notification _IF_ you use cookies. It does _NOT_ require use of cookies which is what I believe the original objections were. Owen
Re: De-funding the ITU
The regulatory side of ITU-T is responsible for much of the damaging legacy Telecom attitude of revenue entitlement. I think defunding that and seeing what is developed in its place might well be a good thing. Owen On Jan 12, 2013, at 9:04 PM, Fred Baker (fred) f...@cisco.com wrote: On Jan 12, 2013, at 8:17 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: Please learn a little more about the ITU before doing so. There is more to the ITU than the dysfunctional ITU-T, and the political fallout from the US being seen as a big rich bully taking its wallet and going home is likely not worth the trivial amount of money involved. On that I would agree. ITU-D and ITU-R do a lot of good work. ITU-T does reasonable work, for the most part, in regulatory matters, which neither the IGF nor the IETF address. Frankly, if the ITU gets shut down, ITU-R, ITU-D, and the regulatory component of ITU-T will have to be re-created to accomplish those roles. Where we have travelled in circles with the ITU is in conflicting technical standardization and in the desire of ITU-T staff to take over certain functions from ICANN and the NRO. Shutting down the ITU would be in effect discarding the baby with the bathwater. http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-R/pages/default.aspx http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Pages/default.aspx
Re: De-funding the ITU
On Jan 13, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote: Even if there were no ITU we'd have to invent one, to paraphrase Voltaire's quip about God. There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee international settlements and other, similar, regulations. Why? The internet has operated just fine without such for quite some time now. And it would probably end up being about the same because who'd be involved but about the same people and organizations (particularly the PTTs et al)? Which is a good argument that such an organization has, in fact, become an anachronism. If you sincerely wanted to get rid of the ITU or pieces thereof the only way would be to form some alternative organization, perhaps with different policy and process rules, and use it to supplant them. If you don't believe that the internet is in the process of supplanting traditional telephony, you aren't paying attention. The internet has had such organizations for some time now. The petition specifically focuses on moving US funding from the ITU to those organizations (which does give me pause… I think I prefer the organizations in question not being purchased by the USG). Actually, no matter how you got rid of the ITU that's what you'd end up with because much of what they do would happen somehow, but without a real plan probably by even worse means like shadowy inter-PTT organizations arising without any accountability or transparency. Such organizations would be scattered and far less effective. I would rather take my chances against them than the current ITU structure. Owen
RE: OOB core router connectivity wish list
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se] On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Matthew Petach wrote: Thank goodness ethernet never has problems with negotiation going awry, and coming up with mismatched duplexes, and vendors never had to implement no negotiation-auto in their configs because you couldn't count on everyone's implementations working together just absolutely perfectly the first time on bootup. Yes, it sure is a good thing ethernet never has issues like that which would cripple your ability to get a box up and running at 2am. Has this happened to you with equipment designed and manufactured the past 5 years? This happened to me just last month. Jamie
Brocade XMR/MLX VLAN bit counters (Cacti graphs for brocade VLANS) (95% billing).
All, We are running into an issue with Brocade where we are finding it difficult to to graph VLAN interfaces for bits (in/out) across a tagged (trunk) interface. On Cisco this is not an issue. So what we end up with in Cacti is a blank (no data) graph. I have been all over these devices with snmpwalk etc (typical tool set). Has anyone found a fix or work around for this? Or perhaps I should be asking a different question….Is there a better tool/mindset for 95% billing since this is what we are doing with this info. -- Jim Wininger Don't find fault, find a remedy. - Henry Ford
Re: Brocade XMR/MLX VLAN bit counters (Cacti graphs for brocade VLANS) (95% billing).
Hi James, We have been using Observium and never look back http://www.observium.org/wiki/Main_Page Cheers, Edy On 1/14/2013 10:00 PM, James Wininger wrote: All, We are running into an issue with Brocade where we are finding it difficult to to graph VLAN interfaces for bits (in/out) across a tagged (trunk) interface. On Cisco this is not an issue. So what we end up with in Cacti is a blank (no data) graph. I have been all over these devices with snmpwalk etc (typical tool set). Has anyone found a fix or work around for this? Or perhaps I should be asking a different question….Is there a better tool/mindset for 95% billing since this is what we are doing with this info. -- Jim Wininger Don't find fault, find a remedy. - Henry Ford
Re: Brocade XMR/MLX VLAN bit counters (Cacti graphs for brocade VLANS) (95% billing).
On 14 Jan 2013, at 4:00 PM, James Wininger jwinin...@ifncom.net wrote: All, We are running into an issue with Brocade where we are finding it difficult to to graph VLAN interfaces for bits (in/out) across a tagged (trunk) interface. On Cisco this is not an issue. So what we end up with in Cacti is a blank (no data) graph. I have been all over these devices with snmpwalk etc (typical tool set). Has anyone found a fix or work around for this? Or perhaps I should be asking a different question….Is there a better tool/mindset for 95% billing since this is what we are doing with this info. I second Pui's suggestion for taking a look at Observium, it's got a vastly more NOC-friendly build than what Cacti's reigning philosophy appears to be. Might not be perfect for everyone, but certainly worth a bit of time to check out. As for your Cacti problem, it's likely the 64-bit counters thing. Cacti's templates don't default to 64-bit counters. -J
Re: De-funding the ITU
There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee international settlements and other, similar, regulations. Why? The internet has operated just fine without such for quite some time now. The Internet is held together with spit and duct tape, and sucks for connections that need a stable low-jitter channel, we've all noticed. It has no principle of universal service. The Internet does what it does surprisingly well, but it's not the same kind of network as the phone system. We all know of the abuses that can come with mandatory interconnection and settlements, but the solution is not to cut off the poor countries.
Re: De-funding the ITU
On 14/01/2013 15:27, John Levine wrote: The Internet does what it does surprisingly well, but it's not the same kind of network as the phone system. We all know of the abuses that can come with mandatory interconnection and settlements, but the solution is not to cut off the poor countries. less well developed countries often have their telecoms requirements serviced by an incumbent monopoly, often involving government ownership and usually involving little or no functional regulation. 20 years ago, the ISP that I worked for was paying about $20,000/meg/month for IP transit. It didn't drop to where it is now because of ITU regulations, interconnection settlements or by maintaining the government-owned monopoly of the time. I'm struggling to understand why people view these things as solutions to a problem, rather than the root cause. Nick
Re: Brocade XMR/MLX VLAN bit counters (Cacti graphs for brocade VLANS) (95% billing).
On 1/14/13 9:00 , James Wininger wrote: All, We are running into an issue with Brocade where we are finding it difficult to to graph VLAN interfaces for bits (in/out) across a tagged (trunk) interface. On Cisco this is not an issue. So what we end up with in Cacti is a blank (no data) graph. Depending on the specific hardware you're using, you may be out of luck - early generations of MLX/XMR line cards don't support per-vlan statistics; you need to have the new 8x10GE cards (or a few others of the current generation) to have those counters available. -e
Re: Brocade XMR/MLX VLAN bit counters (Cacti graphs for brocade VLANS) (95% billing).
Sneaky hack: Slap an in+out rate limit on the vlan with high settings (i.e. same as port/lag speed) and just graph the OID of the rate limit counter :-) Might need to take a multiplier calculation/CDEF into account based on the number of ports you have in the lag. The new 8x10 cards have built in ve counters indeed which makes it a lot easier On 1/14/13 5:37 PM, Erik Muller wrote: On 1/14/13 9:00 , James Wininger wrote: All, We are running into an issue with Brocade where we are finding it difficult to to graph VLAN interfaces for bits (in/out) across a tagged (trunk) interface. On Cisco this is not an issue. So what we end up with in Cacti is a blank (no data) graph. Depending on the specific hardware you're using, you may be out of luck - early generations of MLX/XMR line cards don't support per-vlan statistics; you need to have the new 8x10GE cards (or a few others of the current generation) to have those counters available. -e -- Jeroen Wunnink Network Engineer Atrato IP Networks jeroen.wunn...@atrato-ip.com Phone: +31 20 82 00 623
Re: Brocade XMR/MLX VLAN bit counters (Cacti graphs for brocade VLANS) (95% billing).
I saw the same issue for getting OpenFlow stats, you need the new 8x10 or 100GE cards afaict. On Jan 14, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Jeroen Wunnink | Atrato IP Networks jeroen.wunn...@atrato-ip.com wrote: Sneaky hack: Slap an in+out rate limit on the vlan with high settings (i.e. same as port/lag speed) and just graph the OID of the rate limit counter :-) Might need to take a multiplier calculation/CDEF into account based on the number of ports you have in the lag. The new 8x10 cards have built in ve counters indeed which makes it a lot easier On 1/14/13 5:37 PM, Erik Muller wrote: On 1/14/13 9:00 , James Wininger wrote: All, We are running into an issue with Brocade where we are finding it difficult to to graph VLAN interfaces for bits (in/out) across a tagged (trunk) interface. On Cisco this is not an issue. So what we end up with in Cacti is a blank (no data) graph. Depending on the specific hardware you're using, you may be out of luck - early generations of MLX/XMR line cards don't support per-vlan statistics; you need to have the new 8x10GE cards (or a few others of the current generation) to have those counters available. -e -- Jeroen Wunnink Network Engineer Atrato IP Networks jeroen.wunn...@atrato-ip.com Phone: +31 20 82 00 623
Re: De-funding the ITU
I'm of the camp that says that, in large measure, the only beneficial elements of international telecommunications agreements have been to define an international band plan for the radio spectrum. That was, afterall, the principal reason these treaties were signed, to prevent chaos within the spectrum. (That was also the genesis of the FCC. Too bad it didn't confine itself to that.) I'm sure there have been other useful things to come about but the have been abd continue to be considerably overshadowed by the detrimental effects of excessive meddling. -Wayne On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 04:14:56PM +, Nick Hilliard wrote: On 14/01/2013 15:27, John Levine wrote: The Internet does what it does surprisingly well, but it's not the same kind of network as the phone system. We all know of the abuses that can come with mandatory interconnection and settlements, but the solution is not to cut off the poor countries. less well developed countries often have their telecoms requirements serviced by an incumbent monopoly, often involving government ownership and usually involving little or no functional regulation. 20 years ago, the ISP that I worked for was paying about $20,000/meg/month for IP transit. It didn't drop to where it is now because of ITU regulations, interconnection settlements or by maintaining the government-owned monopoly of the time. I'm struggling to understand why people view these things as solutions to a problem, rather than the root cause. Nick --- Wayne Bouchard w...@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Re: De-funding the ITU
A point of clarification: On 1/14/13 7:46 PM, Wayne E Bouchard wrote: I'm of the camp that says that, in large measure, the only beneficial elements of international telecommunications agreements have been to define an international band plan for the radio spectrum. That was, afterall, the principal reason these treaties were signed, to prevent chaos within the spectrum. (That was also the genesis of the FCC. Too bad it didn't confine itself to that.) There are at least three sets of treaty texts. The first is the output of the ITU Plenipotentiary conference, which consists of its Constitution and Convention and a number of resolutions, the second are the ITRs (over which we just had the fractious affair in Dubai), and the third are the Radio Regulations. You refer to the 3rd set of text and you clearly are not alone in terms of your thoughts about the ITRs since 55 countries did not sign them. Eliot
Re: De-funding the ITU
On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:27 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee international settlements and other, similar, regulations. Why? The internet has operated just fine without such for quite some time now. The Internet is held together with spit and duct tape, and sucks for connections that need a stable low-jitter channel, we've all noticed. It has no principle of universal service. The Internet does what it does surprisingly well, but it's not the same kind of network as the phone system. We all know of the abuses that can come with mandatory interconnection and settlements, but the solution is not to cut off the poor countries. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that defunding the ITU would cut off the poor countries. Quite the contrary, actually. I believe that the combination of the ITU and the back-pocket distribution of settlement checks has held back the improvement of digital connections to poorer countries. Owen
Re: De-funding the ITU
On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:27 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: The solution is not to cut off the poor countries. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that defunding the ITU would cut off the poor countries. Quite the contrary, actually. I believe that the combination of the ITU and the back-pocket distribution of settlement checks has held back the improvement of digital connections to poorer countries. Exactly. The ITU bleeds poor countries dry, by keeping communications costs exorbitantly high, while appeasing them with settlements. The Internet doesn't need to bribe destitute people with settlements, because it's five orders of magnitude less expensive: affordable enough that they can get online in the first place. http://oecdinsights.org/2012/10/22/internet-traffic-exchange-2-billion-users-and-its-done-on-a-handshake/ The ITU has $181M/year. It'll do just fine without our money. No sense in throwing good money after bad. -Bill
Re: De-funding the ITU
On 14/01/2013 19:23, Bill Woodcock wrote: The ITU bleeds poor countries dry, by keeping communications costs exorbitantly high, Whoa. What bleeds poor countries dry is bad management of national resources, coupled with inherent kleptocracy, massive corruption and stifling regulation. In short: endemic mismanagement - and this extends way beyond the reach of just the telecoms infrastructure within the country. The ITU's impact in this serves only to provide some post-facto justification for preserving the status quo, nothing more. If any country wants to ditch the dinosaur model, they are free to do so and the ITU has no say in this whatever. And the countries which have done so have ended up with vastly improved infrastructure as a result, despite the efforts of those dinosaurs to convince the politicians with scary horror stories of what bad and evil things will happen if they lose their monopoly in the marketplace and are exposed to actual competition! The Internet doesn't need to bribe destitute people with settlements, because it's five orders of magnitude less expensive Exactly - and the fix for this is to deal with national policy mismanagement rather than international. Once you have enough fibre into a country to allow competitive access to the market, the international pricing issues become line noise. Nick
Re: Postini Exiting ISP Business?
On 08/01/13 9:06 AM, Ray Wong wrote: The lack of customer service is, somewhat sadly, fairly typical of Google's offerings. Once you get into dealings with Google's actual business units it's a little better, but still always a challenge to reach a human being who can actually give you straight answers and simplify things. Actually, pretty typical IME of almost every company that's run by the Tech people (top execs not withstanding, they've always favored promoting/hiring techier people to oversee pretty much everything... even sales types get the tech screen interviews, just with lower grading standards) to forget how to actually treat customers. +1 (Yes, I see the irony in that.) I've been saying this about Google for years. This problem first became evident when gmail was still in beta, when major problems went unfixed for over a year, when gmail itself was still in beta almost 5 years after they went public with it. While Google is good at a lot of things, and very good at some things, they are horrible at customer service. I use Google for many things, but I don't RELY on them for much. I would be very cautious about relying on them as your sole source for a critical enterprise service like email spam filtering. jc
Re: De-funding the ITU
Sent from my iPad On Jan 14, 2013, at 11:03 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 14/01/2013 19:23, Bill Woodcock wrote: The ITU bleeds poor countries dry, by keeping communications costs exorbitantly high, Whoa. What bleeds poor countries dry is bad management of national resources, coupled with inherent kleptocracy, massive corruption and stifling regulation. In short: endemic mismanagement - and this extends way beyond the reach of just the telecoms infrastructure within the country. The ITU's impact in this serves only to provide some post-facto justification for preserving the status quo, nothing more. If any country wants to ditch the dinosaur model, they are free to do so and the ITU has no say in this whatever. And the countries which have done so have ended up with vastly improved infrastructure as a result, despite the efforts of those dinosaurs to convince the politicians with scary horror stories of what bad and evil things will happen if they lose their monopoly in the marketplace and are exposed to actual competition! I don't agree. The ITU's impact in part is to provide a continuing source of revenue to motivate, promote, and preserve this status quo. While the ITU has no legitimate say in it, the ITU provides significant economic incentives against ditching the dinosaur as you called it. There's a reason that ITU representatives hand-deliver settlement checks to many of these countries. Those countries that have done so have largely done so because they got lucky with visionary regulators that were motivated more by doing right by the country and its citizens rather than maximizing personal immediate gains. In many cases, this was the result of a higher level official overriding the telecom minister (or equivalent) and opening competition over the objections of said telecom minister (or equiv.). The Internet doesn't need to bribe destitute people with settlements, because it's five orders of magnitude less expensive Exactly - and the fix for this is to deal with national policy mismanagement rather than international. Once you have enough fibre into a country to allow competitive access to the market, the international pricing issues become line noise. Even in trying to be pro-ITU, you have admitted that they are a proximate preserver of this problem. As such, defunding them seems a rational step in the direction of solution. It's not a panacea, but it's one step in the right direction. Owen
Notice: Fradulent RIPE ASNs
After a careful investigation, I am of the opinion that each of the following 18 ASNs was registered (via RIPE) with fradulent information purporting to represent the identity of the true registrant, and that in fact, all 18 of these ASNs were registered by a single party, apparently as part of a larger scheme to provide IP space to various snowshoe spammers. Evidence I have in hand strongly links this scheme and these ASNs and their associated IPv4 route announcements to Jump Network Services, aka JUMP.RO. Furthermore, all of these ASNs are apparently peering with exactly and only the same two other ASNs in all cases, i.e. GTS Telecom SRL (AS5606) and Net Vision Telecom SRL (AS39737). These peers and the fradulent ASNs listed below are all apparently originated out of Romania. AS16011 (fiberwelders.ro) AS28822 (creativitaterpm.ro) AS48118 (telecomhosting.ro) AS49210 (rom-access.ro) AS50659 (grandnethost.com) AS57131 (speedconnecting.ro) AS57133 (nordhost.ro) AS57135 (fastcable.ro) AS57176 (bucovinanetwork.ro) AS57184 (kaboomhost.ro) AS57415 (highwayinternet.ro) AS57695 (effidata.ro) AS57724 (id-trafic.ro) AS57738 (mclick.ro) AS57786 (hosting-www.ro) AS57837 (romtechinnovation.ro) AS57906 (momy.ro) AS57917 (nature-design.ro) At present, the above 18 ASNs are currently announcing routes for a total amount of IP space equal to 1,022 /24s, which is the rough equivalent of an entire /14 block. These IPv4 route announcements are listed below, sorted by IPv4 (32-bit) start address. Additional potentially relevant background information: http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/attackers-buying-own-data-centers-botnets-spam-122109 http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence/ROK9107/world-company-register-eu-business-register/rogue-ases-as43332-as44414-as44520-as49173-as49643 http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings/jump.ro Current route announcements: 31.14.30.0/24 31.14.32.0/24 31.14.33.0/24 31.14.34.0/23 31.14.36.0/22 31.14.40.0/22 31.14.44.0/24 31.14.45.0/24 31.14.46.0/23 31.14.48.0/24 31.14.49.0/24 31.14.50.0/23 31.14.52.0/22 31.14.56.0/21 31.14.64.0/24 31.14.65.0/24 31.14.66.0/23 31.14.68.0/22 31.14.72.0/21 31.14.80.0/20 31.14.112.0/20 31.14.144.0/20 37.153.128.0/22 37.153.132.0/22 37.153.140.0/22 37.153.144.0/21 37.153.152.0/22 37.153.160.0/21 37.153.168.0/22 37.153.172.0/23 37.153.174.0/23 37.153.176.0/20 37.156.0.0/22 37.156.4.0/22 37.156.8.0/21 37.156.16.0/23 37.156.18.0/23 37.156.20.0/23 37.156.22.0/23 37.156.24.0/23 37.156.26.0/23 37.156.28.0/23 37.156.30.0/23 37.156.36.0/24 37.156.37.0/24 37.156.38.0/23 37.156.48.0/21 37.156.56.0/22 37.156.100.0/22 37.156.104.0/22 37.156.108.0/22 37.156.112.0/20 37.156.128.0/20 37.156.144.0/22 37.156.148.0/22 37.156.152.0/21 37.156.160.0/21 37.156.168.0/22 37.156.172.0/23 37.156.180.0/23 37.156.184.0/22 37.156.188.0/22 37.156.208.0/22 37.156.216.0/22 37.156.224.0/24 37.156.225.0/24 37.156.226.0/23 37.156.228.0/23 37.156.230.0/23 37.156.232.0/23 37.156.234.0/23 37.156.236.0/23 37.156.238.0/23 37.156.240.0/21 37.156.248.0/22 37.156.252.0/22 46.102.128.0/20 46.102.144.0/20 46.102.160.0/21 77.81.120.0/23 77.81.126.0/24 77.81.160.0/22 84.247.4.0/22 84.247.18.0/23 84.247.40.0/22 85.204.18.0/24 85.204.20.0/23 85.204.30.0/23 85.204.36.0/22 85.204.54.0/23 85.204.64.0/23 85.204.66.0/24 85.204.76.0/23 85.204.96.0/23 85.204.104.0/23 85.204.120.0/24 85.204.121.0/24 85.204.124.0/24 85.204.132.0/23 85.204.152.0/23 85.204.176.0/21 85.204.194.0/23 86.104.0.0/23 86.104.2.0/24 86.104.4.0/24 86.104.9.0/24 86.104.10.0/24 86.104.96.0/21 86.104.115.0/24 86.104.116.0/24 86.104.118.0/23 86.104.121.0/24 86.104.122.0/23 86.104.132.0/23 86.104.192.0/24 86.104.195.0/24 86.104.212.0/23 86.104.215.0/24 86.104.240.0/22 86.104.245.0/24 86.104.248.0/23 86.105.178.0/24 86.105.195.0/24 86.105.196.0/24 86.105.200.0/22 86.105.225.0/24 86.105.227.0/24 86.105.230.0/24 86.105.242.0/23 86.105.248.0/22 86.106.0.0/21 86.106.8.0/23 86.106.10.0/24 86.106.11.0/24 86.106.12.0/24 86.106.24.0/24 86.106.25.0/24 86.106.90.0/24 86.106.95.0/24 86.106.169.0/24 86.107.8.0/21 86.107.28.0/23 86.107.74.0/23 86.107.104.0/24 86.107.195.0/24 86.107.216.0/21 86.107.242.0/23 89.32.122.0/23 89.32.176.0/23 89.32.192.0/23 89.32.196.0/23 89.32.204.0/24 89.33.46.0/23 89.33.108.0/23 89.33.117.0/24 89.33.168.0/21 89.33.233.0/24 89.33.246.0/24 89.33.255.0/24 89.34.16.0/22 89.34.94.0/23 89.34.102.0/23 89.34.112.0/21 89.34.128.0/20 89.34.148.0/23 89.34.200.0/23 89.34.216.0/23 89.34.236.0/22 89.35.32.0/24 89.35.56.0/24 89.35.77.0/24 89.35.133.0/24 89.35.156.0/23 89.35.176.0/23 89.35.196.0/24 89.35.240.0/21 89.36.16.0/23 89.36.32.0/23 89.36.34.0/24 89.36.35.0/24 89.36.96.0/21 89.36.104.0/21 89.36.178.0/23 89.36.182.0/23 89.36.184.0/21 89.36.226.0/23 89.36.236.0/22 89.37.48.0/21 89.37.64.0/22 89.37.76.0/22 89.37.102.0/23 89.37.107.0/24 89.37.129.0/24 89.37.133.0/24 89.37.143.0/24 89.37.240.0/21 89.38.26.0/24 89.38.216.0/22 89.38.220.0/22 89.39.76.0/22 89.39.168.0/22 89.39.180.0/23 89.39.216.0/22 89.40.40.0/24 89.40.66.0/24
Re: De-funding the ITU
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 7:27 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: There'd have to be some organization to negotiate and oversee international settlements and other, similar, regulations. Why? The internet has operated just fine without such for quite some time now. The Internet is held together with spit and duct tape, and sucks for connections that need a stable low-jitter channel, we've all noticed. It has no principle of universal service. The Internet does what it does surprisingly well, but it's not the same kind of network as the phone system. We all know of the abuses that can come with mandatory interconnection and settlements, but the solution is not to cut off the poor countries. I'm not sure that this mythical kind of network as the phone system allegedly is describes the reality of the phone network... That said, two comments: 1. I generally agree that the Internet has too much spit and duct tape, however; 2. Siccing the ITU on that problem - or allowing them near it - would be a disaster of a magnitude not often seen in human affairs. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Re: De-funding the ITU
1. I generally agree that the Internet has too much spit and duct tape, however; 2. Siccing the ITU on that problem - or allowing them near it - would be a disaster of a magnitude not often seen in human affairs. No disagreement there. The Internet isn't designed to be a phone network. Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of The Internet for Dummies, Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: De-funding the ITU
On 1/14/13 11:23 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
... The ITU ...
How shall states determine what harms are lawfully attempted, and what
harms are not lawfully attempted? Shall there be a treaty concerning
cyber strife between states, or shall cyber strife between states
be without treaty based limits?
If one answers that without is less attractive than with, what is the
means by which states arrive at treaties, without the ITU, or treaty
bodies similar to the ITU, whether regional, or global, in membership
and form?
Shall all predatory or intentionally injurious uses of
trans-jurisdictionally routed communications be {managed, reduced,
mitigated, ...} by private parties, which are, inter alia, for the
most part, for-profit corporations, with no, or negative, fiduciary
duty to police the net?
Flawed as the current institution is, and has been, for the duration
of the the connectionist vs connectionless struggle, proposing to
remove the state member organization without a proposal for an
alternative public purposed organization, not all of which are state
actors, means not have very useful starting points for the big
questions -- shall there be any limit on state actions? shall there be
any limit on non-state actions?
Eric
Re: Notice: Fradulent RIPE ASNs
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote: After a careful investigation, I am of the opinion that each of the following 18 ASNs was registered (via RIPE) with fradulent information purporting to represent the identity of the true registrant, and that in fact, all 18 of these ASNs were registered by a single party, apparently as part of a larger scheme to provide IP space to various snowshoe spammers. Evidence I have in hand strongly links this scheme and these ASNs and their associated IPv4 route announcements to Jump Network Services, aka JUMP.RO. Furthermore, all of these ASNs are apparently peering with exactly and only the same two other ASNs in all cases, i.e. GTS Telecom SRL (AS5606) and Net Vision Telecom SRL (AS39737). These peers and the fradulent ASNs listed below are all apparently originated out of Romania. Jump.ro is a very active LIR and domain registry on the Romanian market and is selling ASNs to whomever is interested and facilitates allocations of PI netblocks to those who can justify them. It might come as a surprise to you, but in Romania there are a lot of companies (even very small ones) with their own ASN and PI netblocks. This setup makes it extremely easy to switch ISPs with virtually no impact on network operations. If I'm not mistaken, companies use Netvision for cheap internet access. GTS is more expensive, but theoretically is providing high quality internet access with good SLAs. AS16011 (fiberwelders.ro) AS28822 (creativitaterpm.ro) AS48118 (telecomhosting.ro) AS49210 (rom-access.ro) AS50659 (grandnethost.com) AS57131 (speedconnecting.ro) AS57133 (nordhost.ro) AS57135 (fastcable.ro) AS57176 (bucovinanetwork.ro) AS57184 (kaboomhost.ro) AS57415 (highwayinternet.ro) AS57695 (effidata.ro) AS57724 (id-trafic.ro) AS57738 (mclick.ro) AS57786 (hosting-www.ro) AS57837 (romtechinnovation.ro) AS57906 (momy.ro) AS57917 (nature-design.ro) from all those websites it looks like they are all hosting companies. have you tried calling the numbers listed on the WHOIS registrant information on the ASN and you couldn't get to any one ? At present, the above 18 ASNs are currently announcing routes for a total amount of IP space equal to 1,022 /24s, which is the rough equivalent of an entire /14 block. These IPv4 route announcements are listed below, sorted by IPv4 (32-bit) start address. If you really believe that all those ASNs listed by you above are only used to host spammers, then by all means please contact ale...@cert-ro.eu - that is the Romanian CERT as they are active and will investigate the allegations you make. Additional potentially relevant background information: http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/attackers-buying-own-data-centers-botnets-spam-122109 http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/evidence/ROK9107/world-company-register-eu-business-register/rogue-ases-as43332-as44414-as44520-as49173-as49643 http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/listings/jump.ro So far I do not know a single web hosting company that it's customers never spammed anyone :)
