Re: Automatic abuse reports
I expect this from the doofus in $pain_in_the_butt_county but I am surprised when I see this behavior from large companies and I really don't understand it. Having a working abuse/response system is beneficial to us all including the gorillas. There is a cost to us if we're spending expensive engineering time, and network resources to deal with the traffic. Also there is an intangible affect on our customers opinion of our service. The only thing I can think of is that they are making the decisions about how important their abuse desk is based solely on the cost of running that desk. They are seeing it as a cost center and not thinking about it's long term benefit to the entire network. I can't think of a way to remove the incentive for this short term thinking. If I were the big cheese of the internet? 1. Transit providers would properly implement RFC 2827 filtering facing their downstream single homed customers. If you only connect to me and I send you x.x.x.0/24 down your T1 I shouldn't be getting y.y.y.0 traffic from you. This is easy to do. 2. Tier 1 backbone providers should be willing to de-peer non responsive global networks. I've lost faith in regulations to actually curb the flow but the tier 1 providers may have the leverage to encourage good behavior. For example if $pain_in_the_butt telco in $pain_in_the_butt country has to start paying for transit to get to $big_tier_1 then maybe they would clean up their act. The problem with this is I can't think of a financial way to get buy in to for idea from the business types in these companies. 3. There needs to be more responsible network citizenship among the providers large enough to have an AS number. It's harder to do ingress filtering if your customers are running BGP, I can see reasonable cases where a customer might throw traffic at me from source addresses that I didn't expect. At this point you should require your customers to police their internal network and be willing to give up on their revenue if they refuse to do so. Perhaps requiring a 24 hour human response to abuse@ emails as a condition of having an AS from an RIR or as a requirement for turning up a BGP connection? We expect a good NOC for a peer but care less about a customer in most cases. 4. Large eyeball networks would see the value in protecting their own people and would implement RFC2827 as close to their customers as possible. As soon as you can drop that packet on the floor the better. The giant zombie bot armies are a pain to them to. Thats all I can think of at 4am, I bet you can see why nobody would ever appoint me big cheese of the internet. Sam Moats On 2013-11-13 00:57, Hal Murray wrote: William Herrin b...@herrin.us said: That's the main problem: you can generate the report but if it's about some doofus in Dubai what are the odds of it doing any good? It's much worse than that. Several 500 pound gorillas expect you to jump through various hoops to report abuse. Have you tried reporting a drop box to Yahoo or Google lately? On top of that, many outfits big enough to own a CIDR block are outsourcing their mail to Google. Google has a good spam filter. It's good enough to reject spam reports to abuse@hosted-by-google I wonder what would happen if RIRs required working abuse mailboxes. There are two levels of working. The first is doesn't bounce or get rejected with a sensible reason. The second is actually gets acted upon. If you were magically appointed big-shot in charge of everything, how long would you let an ISP host a spammer's web site or DNS server or ...? What about retail ISPs with zillions of zombied systems?
Re: Automatic abuse reports
I can't speak directly for them, as I'm not an official company spokesperson, but this conversation has got my dander up enough that I can't keep my big mouth shut. I know of at least one 500 pound gorilla (with zillions of retail customers, and their share of 500 pound gorillas as customers (and everything in between)) that has a working and effective abuse@ address, one that can and does aggregate and pass on abuse complaints, and that can and does suspend service over failure to fix. On occasion, I understand even significant customers have been not just suspended but terminated over failure to follow the ToS/AUP. The company in question accepts abuse complaints in ARF, MARF, X-ARF and IODEF format, among others, and (I cannot emphasize this enough) does act on them. Anyone who suggests roundfiling abuse@ complaints is (IMNSHO) actively working to make the problem worse, not better. Anyone who thinks that all networks do roundfile abuse@ complaints would seem to be making an over-generalization. Note, once again, that these are my opinions, and not my employers', so much so that I can't even tell you directly who my employer is. Not that it's hard to find out, but I'm so very much not speaking in an official capacity here. -- Paul
Re: Automatic abuse reports
There are good guys out there :-), and some are gorilla sized thats why I obfuscated the names in my response. No offense intended to the goood ones. Sam Moats On 2013-11-13 05:48, Paul Bennett wrote: I can't speak directly for them, as I'm not an official company spokesperson, but this conversation has got my dander up enough that I can't keep my big mouth shut. I know of at least one 500 pound gorilla (with zillions of retail customers, and their share of 500 pound gorillas as customers (and everything in between)) that has a working and effective abuse@ address, one that can and does aggregate and pass on abuse complaints, and that can and does suspend service over failure to fix. On occasion, I understand even significant customers have been not just suspended but terminated over failure to follow the ToS/AUP. The company in question accepts abuse complaints in ARF, MARF, X-ARF and IODEF format, among others, and (I cannot emphasize this enough) does act on them. Anyone who suggests roundfiling abuse@ complaints is (IMNSHO) actively working to make the problem worse, not better. Anyone who thinks that all networks do roundfile abuse@ complaints would seem to be making an over-generalization. Note, once again, that these are my opinions, and not my employers', so much so that I can't even tell you directly who my employer is. Not that it's hard to find out, but I'm so very much not speaking in an official capacity here. -- Paul
IP transit providers @ 625 RL
Hi, anyone knows about carrier companies which provides IP transit service and has are located in Cologix data center at 625 Rene Levesque, Montreal, Canada. Thanks in advance for your help. Karim
OT: Below grade fiber interconnect points
Has anyone ever used a below grade vault for housing fiber cross connects? We have to move a fiber interconnect facility due to the current building being demolished. If you have I would be interested in talking to you. If there are more appropriate lists, I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks, -Roy Hockett Network Architect, ITS Communication Systems University of Michigan Tel: (734) 763-7325 Fax: (734) 615-1727 email: roy...@umich.edu
new collector: route-views.soxrs.routeviews.org
Not much there yet, but we are operational and would love to get a few more peers. Serbian Open eXchange http://www.routeviews.org/soxrs.html Thanks, -- John Kemp (k...@routeviews.org) RouteViews Engineer NOC: n...@routeviews.org MAIL: h...@routeviews.org WWW: http://www.routeviews.org
Re: OT: Below grade fiber interconnect points
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Roy hockett wrote: Has anyone ever used a below grade vault for housing fiber cross connects? We have to move a fiber interconnect facility due to the current building being demolished. If you have I would be interested in talking to you. If there are more appropriate lists, I would appreciate any suggestions. When you say below grade vault, do you mean something that's only accessible through a manhole? I haven't done this specifically, however if the vault does not have a controlled environment, you could be dealing with massive headaches related to dust/dirt contamination, moisture penetration, etc. I work in a large-campus .edu environment, so I'm some of the headaches you're probably trying to avoid. Also, be aware that access to the vault could be an issue. There are OSHA regs related to what sort of training and safety equipment someone who will be working in an underground vault must have. I'm assuming that the fiber will be cross-connected to a new location prior to the building being demolished. Not knowing your outside plant or circumstances, would it be feasible to fusion-splice a new tail onto the fiber that was going to the building that's being demolished, or (ideally) pulling a new piece of fiber to the new building, so you don't have to deal with potentially dodgy splices? jms
Re: OT: Below grade fiber interconnect points
Usually it would spliced outside at the manhole where the fiber meet to go in the building. Depends on the way you want to connect them etc. Thomas L Graves Sent from my IPhone On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Roy hockett wrote: Has anyone ever used a below grade vault for housing fiber cross connects? We have to move a fiber interconnect facility due to the current building being demolished. If you have I would be interested in talking to you. If there are more appropriate lists, I would appreciate any suggestions. When you say below grade vault, do you mean something that's only accessible through a manhole? I haven't done this specifically, however if the vault does not have a controlled environment, you could be dealing with massive headaches related to dust/dirt contamination, moisture penetration, etc. I work in a large-campus .edu environment, so I'm some of the headaches you're probably trying to avoid. Also, be aware that access to the vault could be an issue. There are OSHA regs related to what sort of training and safety equipment someone who will be working in an underground vault must have. I'm assuming that the fiber will be cross-connected to a new location prior to the building being demolished. Not knowing your outside plant or circumstances, would it be feasible to fusion-splice a new tail onto the fiber that was going to the building that's being demolished, or (ideally) pulling a new piece of fiber to the new building, so you don't have to deal with potentially dodgy splices? jms
Re: Recovery mode on Juniper M7i
I was able to access routers by flashing 1st router's image on remaining. Issue with other three as to best extent I can guess was that someone enabled root password in single user mode and so there was no way around to get to recovery console. Thanks everyone for useful replies. On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Jeff Sorrels jlsorr...@kanren.net wrote: Direct access to the bootstrap loader should bypass any access restrictions configured on the box. However, it sounds like the device is not dropping into single-user mode. I would suggest removing and wiping the CF card. Then boot from alternative media (USB) and snapshot on to the blank card. Cheers, Jeff On 11/6/2013 3:28 PM, Pedro Cavaca wrote: Maybe you're not doing anything wrong and someone tweaked the routers and marked the console as insecure, a previous owner maybe? http://superuser.com/questions/85536/securing-freebsd-in-single-user-mode http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=bootsektion=8 HTH. On 6 November 2013 21:11, Anurag Bhatia m...@anuragbhatia.com wrote: Hello everyone! Greetings of the day. I am kind of (badly) stuck with multiple routers and not able to recover the root password. It's Juniper M7i. I have followed the Juniper support page as given here - http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/ authentication-root-password-recovering.htmland strange enough that it worked with one of routers I have but failed on rest all. I am getting stuck on Step #12. As I give boot -s to get into single user mode of BSD, system next asks me for root password and hence I am out of luck to get into recovery mode. I tried pressing enter on that prompt as well but no luck. I am connecting to router via console and do have physical access to router(s). Was wondering if someone has seen similar issues and could guide on what I am doing wrong? Most of other help pages I have seen on net have same exact steps as given on that page. Thanks. -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21 | Twitterhttps://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia Skype: anuragbhatia.com -- Jeff Sorrels Network Administrator KanREN, Inc jlsorr...@kanren.net 785-856-9820, #2 -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21 | Twitterhttps://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia Skype: anuragbhatia.com
Re: OT: Below grade fiber interconnect points
You can stick a splice in a manhole. You don't want a patch panel or cross-connect in that sort of environment, keep that housed inside, somewhere. Jeff On 11/13/2013 7:53 PM, Thomas wrote: Usually it would spliced outside at the manhole where the fiber meet to go in the building. Depends on the way you want to connect them etc. Thomas L Graves Sent from my IPhone On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Roy hockett wrote: Has anyone ever used a below grade vault for housing fiber cross connects? We have to move a fiber interconnect facility due to the current building being demolished. If you have I would be interested in talking to you. If there are more appropriate lists, I would appreciate any suggestions. When you say below grade vault, do you mean something that's only accessible through a manhole? I haven't done this specifically, however if the vault does not have a controlled environment, you could be dealing with massive headaches related to dust/dirt contamination, moisture penetration, etc. I work in a large-campus .edu environment, so I'm some of the headaches you're probably trying to avoid. Also, be aware that access to the vault could be an issue. There are OSHA regs related to what sort of training and safety equipment someone who will be working in an underground vault must have. I'm assuming that the fiber will be cross-connected to a new location prior to the building being demolished. Not knowing your outside plant or circumstances, would it be feasible to fusion-splice a new tail onto the fiber that was going to the building that's being demolished, or (ideally) pulling a new piece of fiber to the new building, so you don't have to deal with potentially dodgy splices? jms
Re: Automatic abuse reports
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Sam Moats s...@circlenet.us wrote: about it's long term benefit to the entire network. I can't think of a way to remove the incentive for this short term thinking. The end users can, by inquiring about the abuse desk, before agreeing to sign up for service. In this manner Not having a good abuse desk becomes a cost center, in the form of suppressed opportunities for future revenue. Federal entities, etc, when soliciting for proposals from ISPs and service providersin addition to the Must have IPv6 support, could add a line Must have a highly-responsive abuse desk/abuse contact; with 4 professional references from email or network operators in the industry who have worked with the abuse desk; must aggregate and report matters of potential abuse or complaints regarding subscriber's outgoing mail or IP traffic within 3 hours on average, during business hours and within 5 hours 24x7 ... etc... -- -JH
Re: Automatic abuse reports
Don't have access to a normal PC right now but I agreed with this approach so much that I'm typing a response on a 10 button pad. Sam On 2013-11-13 21:33, Jimmy Hess wrote: On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Sam Moats s...@circlenet.us [1] wrote: about its long term benefit to the entire network. I cant think of a way to remove the incentive for this short term thinking. The end users can, by inquiring about the abuse desk, before agreeing to sign up for service. In this manner Not having a good abuse desk becomes a cost center, in the form of suppressed opportunities for future revenue. Federal entities, etc, when soliciting for proposals from ISPs and service providers in addition to the Must have IPv6 support, could add a line Must have a highly-responsive abuse desk/abuse contact; with 4 professional references from email or network operators in the industry who have worked with the abuse desk; must aggregate and report matters of potential abuse or complaints regarding subscribers outgoing mail or IP traffic within 3 hours on average, during business hours and within 5 hours 24x7 ... etc... -- -JH Links: -- [1] mailto:s...@circlenet.us
Re: Automatic abuse reports
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Sam Moats wrote: The only thing I can think of is that they are making the decisions about how important their abuse desk is based solely on the cost of running that desk. They are seeing it as a cost center and not thinking about it's long term benefit to the entire network. I can't think of a way to remove the incentive for this short term thinking. Spam needs to become a financial liability rather than a lucrative revenue stream. That's the only way this is going to change. -Dan
Re: OT: Below grade fiber interconnect points
Thank you for comments. Let me clarify the situation. We have a building that has been fiber cross connect location and is being demolished. This location has about 20 fiber cable entering where we patch between fiber paths. If we relocated these cross connect field to another building and that build is demolished we have to do this all over again, so the desire was to have an independent facility for the fiber cross connect field, but I am guessing due to esthetics the below ground vault was selected, we just learned of this selection and thus my query to this group to find other that have dealt with similar situations and if so, experience base recommendations, and things to be aware of. Thanks, -Roy Hockett Network Architect, ITS Communications Systems and Data Centers University of Michigan Tel: (734) 763-7325 Fax: (734) 615-1727 email: roy...@umich.edu On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:32 PM, Jeff Kell jeff-k...@utc.edu wrote: You can stick a splice in a manhole. You don't want a patch panel or cross-connect in that sort of environment, keep that housed inside, somewhere. Jeff On 11/13/2013 7:53 PM, Thomas wrote: Usually it would spliced outside at the manhole where the fiber meet to go in the building. Depends on the way you want to connect them etc. Thomas L Graves Sent from my IPhone On Nov 13, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Roy hockett wrote: Has anyone ever used a below grade vault for housing fiber cross connects? We have to move a fiber interconnect facility due to the current building being demolished. If you have I would be interested in talking to you. If there are more appropriate lists, I would appreciate any suggestions. When you say below grade vault, do you mean something that's only accessible through a manhole? I haven't done this specifically, however if the vault does not have a controlled environment, you could be dealing with massive headaches related to dust/dirt contamination, moisture penetration, etc. I work in a large-campus .edu environment, so I'm some of the headaches you're probably trying to avoid. Also, be aware that access to the vault could be an issue. There are OSHA regs related to what sort of training and safety equipment someone who will be working in an underground vault must have. I'm assuming that the fiber will be cross-connected to a new location prior to the building being demolished. Not knowing your outside plant or circumstances, would it be feasible to fusion-splice a new tail onto the fiber that was going to the building that's being demolished, or (ideally) pulling a new piece of fiber to the new building, so you don't have to deal with potentially dodgy splices? jms
Re: OT: Below grade fiber interconnect points
On Wed, 13 Nov 2013, Roy Hockett wrote: Thank you for comments. Let me clarify the situation. We have a building that has been fiber cross connect location and is being demolished. This location has about 20 fiber cable entering where we patch between fiber paths. If we relocated these cross connect field to another building and that build is demolished we have to do this all over again, so the desire was to have an independent facility for the fiber cross connect field, but I am guessing due to esthetics the below ground vault was selected, we just learned of this selection and thus my query to this group to find other that have dealt with similar situations and if so, experience base recommendations, and things to be aware of. If the vault has a controlled environment and access, similar to what you would find inside of a comms room, that's one thing. If it's more like a typical manhole (damp, dirty, dark, possible temperature extremes, other utilities/hazards), then the only thing that should be in there is a water-tight splice case. Fiber patches need to be in a clean environment. Did this project provide any funds for relocation or replacement of the communications facilities that would be lost due to the demolition? We've gone through this many times on our campus. jms
