Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: > Whois contact details need to work so you can contact the zone owner when > the DNS is broken for the zone. > > Publishing Whois data in the zone does not work for this purpose. > > This is not to discount other reasons for having a independent > communications channel. > Note that the current draft gTLD WHOIS mechanism to abide by GDPR includes a communications channel that one can use to contact a domain owner, a web form. So this is ability is not being taken away for specific domains. But if someone finds out a vulnerability and needs a mass-scale delivery system to notify affected parties, then this wouldn't work. Also of notice is that if DNS resolution is working, a website or mail services points to an IP address somewhere. And that still provides reachability. So except for the broken DNS zone use case, a good number of cases have other means to achieve the same goals. Rubens
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 21:25:09 -, "Naslund, Steve" said: > And you would be violating the law if it was ruled that your publication was > in fact a publication under the law. Citation please, where anonymous publication is, in and of itself, illegal under US law pgp3RkhByE_QC.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 20:53:06 -, "Naslund, Steve" said: > "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." > > No one ever had the liberty of publishing information to the public without > accountability. > You are giving up an essential liberty here which is knowing who is saying > what > about you. Do you not want the right to know the sources of information > presented to the public? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers It's a good thing that those were stamped out and not made widely available because they were written anonymously, isn't it? pgpJVPdJadsuL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
On Fri, 20 Apr 2018 12:03:37 +0200, Tei said: > Maybe a good balance for whois is to include organization information > so I know where a website is hosted, but not personal information, so > I can't show in their house and steal their dog. In many cases, the *OWNER* of a website doesn't have any real idea where their website is hosted pgp5xyr3nfOrO.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
Whois contact details need to work so you can contact the zone owner when the DNS is broken for the zone. Publishing Whois data in the zone does not work for this purpose. This is not to discount other reasons for having a independent communications channel. -- Mark Andrews > On 21 Apr 2018, at 08:17, Brian Kantor wrote: > > Steve, > > I believe you are mistaken as to current law in the USA: > > The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous > free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited > 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission > reads: Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority... > > Google for that phrase "anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of > the majority" to see more references. > > I'll drop the discussion here, as it's likely to only continue down > the rathole and I've said my piece. >- Brian
RE: Is WHOIS going to go away?
- "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - One last OT point. It's Friday after all... :) https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century scott ps. whatever happened to the "Friday Fun" thing?
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
Steve, I believe you are mistaken as to current law in the USA: The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. A frequently cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads: Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority... Google for that phrase "anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority" to see more references. I'll drop the discussion here, as it's likely to only continue down the rathole and I've said my piece. - Brian
Re: Quanta LB4M
Happy it’s helping! - Jared > On Apr 20, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Dylan Ambauen wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > I tossed a few different firmware versions I extracted here, as well as the > flash0/flash1 images and the doc i found for it. > http://puck.nether.net/~jared/lb4m/ > > > Thank you Jared. Still helpful almost 3 years later. >
RE: Is WHOIS going to go away?
>Now we're way off-topic, but our constitution acknowledges that is a >pre-existing right. The constitution didn't grant it to you. (Rights are >inherent, privileges are granted) > >People have the right to speak, write, and publish whatever they want. > >-A Our Constitution does not equal worldwide law and that is what we are really talking about here They were under British law before the Declaration of Independence (and it was vague until the war concluded). So they did not have that right under the current law in their jurisdiction. They were in fact criminals at the time. I don’t think that was right but it was the fact. You are way off base in your argument here because I am not disputing that you have the right to publish whatever you want on the Internet. Go ahead and put up any web site you like. I am just saying that you do NOT have the right to privacy when broadcasting information in a public forum. No broadcast media is private by definition. Steven Naslund Chicago IL >Now we're way off-topic, but our constitution acknowledges that is a >pre-existing right. The constitution didn't grant it to you. (Rights are >inherent, privileges are granted) > >People have the right to speak, write, and publish whatever they want. > >-A
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG < nanog@nanog.org> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:27 PM Naslund, Steve > wrote: > > > They did not in fact have the "right" to publish those pamphlets. > > > Now we're way off-topic, but our constitution acknowledges that is a > pre-existing right. The constitution didn't grant it to you. (Rights are > inherent, privileges are granted) > > People have the right to speak, write, and publish whatever they want. > > -A > Free speech is not the same as anonymity in all jurisdictions. In mine, anonymity is forbidden by the constitution... in some, anonymity is considered part of free speech. Matching local laws to a global policy is a challenge. Rubens
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 2:27 PM Naslund, Steve wrote: > They did not in fact have the "right" to publish those pamphlets. Now we're way off-topic, but our constitution acknowledges that is a pre-existing right. The constitution didn't grant it to you. (Rights are inherent, privileges are granted) People have the right to speak, write, and publish whatever they want. -A
Re: Quanta LB4M
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: > I tossed a few different firmware versions I extracted here, as well as > the flash0/flash1 images and the doc i found for it. > http://puck.nether.net/~jared/lb4m/ Thank you Jared. Still helpful almost 3 years later.
RE: Is WHOIS going to go away?
>Steve, > >I think you should re-examine the early history of the USA. Anonymous >pamphleteering was the origin of our rebellion against England, >with Benjamin Franklin and many of the other founding fathers >publishing without their identities being registered anywhere. The >Federalist Papers which form the basis for our system of government >were published anonymously. It's a fundamental part of our liberties. They did not in fact have the "right" to publish those pamphlets. They were in fact considered sedition by England. Just because something was done or seems correct does not make it a legal right. Freedom of speech is a right, anonymity is not a right, and privacy is not a right you have when you do things in public. That is simple well established law. >No COMMERCIAL publisher will do that himself, but any individual >who wants to may do so. "Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only >to those who own one", and with the Internet, for the first time >in many years, it is again practical to publish anonymously. And you would be violating the law if it was ruled that your publication was in fact a publication under the law. Freedom of the Press is not absolute because you do not have the right to violate MY rights by publishing slanderous materials, you do not have the right to communicate a threat. Publications are responsible for what they say. That is also well established law. Freedom of the Press does not equal right to anonymity. >It is the entrenched powers who want to require strict identification >of all sources. ICANN already has all of the data and they report to the world governments ultimately. ICANN is a non-profit corporation under California law so ultimately whatever they do is subject to US law and they could be compelled to comply with California or US court orders. I would say the powers that be already have the data. >I refer you to the Electronic Frontier Foundation website, and to >the Internet law blog, and the Reporters Committee for freedom of >the press, and any good American History book for further information. > - Brian I refer you to the LAW of whatever country you are in. They don't care what the EFF thinks and that blog won't keep you out of jail. Steven Naslund
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
Steve, I think you should re-examine the early history of the USA. Anonymous pamphleteering was the origin of our rebellion against England, with Benjamin Franklin and many of the other founding fathers publishing without their identities being registered anywhere. The Federalist Papers which form the basis for our system of government were published anonymously. It's a fundamental part of our liberties. No COMMERCIAL publisher will do that himself, but any individual who wants to may do so. "Freedom of the Press is guaranteed only to those who own one", and with the Internet, for the first time in many years, it is again practical to publish anonymously. It is the entrenched powers who want to require strict identification of all sources. I refer you to the Electronic Frontier Foundation website, and to the Internet law blog, and the Reporters Committee for freedom of the press, and any good American History book for further information. - Brian On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 08:53:06PM +, Naslund, Steve wrote: > No one ever had the liberty of publishing information to the public without > accountability. There are tons of laws protecting you from false statements > and communications intended to harm your reputation or damage your business.
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
> "Wrong on several counts. You can publicly access the records of who owns every radio station, television station, and newspaper in the US and a lot of other countries. " You can't access their *sources* without a warrant. You seem to be conflating private individuals with corporations. > "No one ever had the liberty of publishing information to the public without accountability." That's provably false. I can type whatever I want, hit print, and scatter it around town unobserved at 3 AM. > "The whole protecting you from the government point is nothing but a straw man." That's not what I'm advocating. If whois disappeared entirely tomorrow, it wouldn't protect me from government. But it *would* protect me from crazy nutjobs. > "Do you really believe that ICANN will stand up to the world governments if they ask for the data?" Obviously not. But there's nothing I can do about it except tell them to come back with a warrant. There *is* something I can do to help limit the ability of crazy nutjobs to find out my information so they can visit my home and harass my family. Anyways, I think this has rambled on long enough. -A On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 1:55 PM Naslund, Steve wrote: > > >...in every other form of communication, the phrase "get a warrant" comes > to mind. > >Except on the internet where we require the information to be public so > that anyone and their dog can view it without a warrant. > > Wrong on several counts. You can publicly access the records of who owns > every radio station, television station, and newspaper in the US and a lot > of other countries. All of those organizations are REQUIRED by law to file > ownership statements. Every periodical published in the United States has a > block in it identifying the publisher. Every book sold has a publisher > listed even if the author chooses to remain anonymous. It is a violation > of the law for a telemarketer to call you without identifying themselves > (which is what we complain about with phone scammers). > > Get a warrant only applies to communications (like your phone calls and > your personal Internet traffic) that have a reasonable expectation of > privacy. If you are in the public square shouting to the world you have no > expectation of anonymity and you can actually be held responsible for false > statements about another individual. A publicly accessible website’s > published pages would not have any expectation of privacy whatsoever. > Besides we are talking about identification of ownership of a > communications site not the communications going through it. Just because > I have your WHOIS data does not mean I have root access to your server. > The government needs a warrant to listen to your phone calls but not to > know you have a phone and where it is. We are not letting people monitor > your traffic through WHOIS, we are only identifying who is responsible for > all communications coming from that site. > > Another point is that “get a warrant” does not apply in totalitarian > countries in any case. Try saying get a warrant in North Korean or China. > Pretty moot point there. > > > "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." > > No one ever had the liberty of publishing information to the public > without accountability. There are tons of laws protecting you from false > statements and communications intended to harm your reputation or damage > your business. > > You are giving up an essential liberty here which is knowing who is saying > what about you. Do you not want the right to know the sources of > information presented to the public? Do you think I should be able to post > anything I want about you in the public square without accountability? Can > I put up a billboard criticizing you personally and keep my identity a > complete secret? Might it be nice to know that the source of political > news might have an axe to grind or an ideological bent, would you like to > know that the news story you just read was actually from an opposition > candidate? Are we not making a huge deal about Russia messing around with > elections and trolling? How would you ever know that was going on with no > accountability of the source of information? > > The whole protecting you from the government point is nothing but a straw > man. There is no nation state that does not have enough resources to > recover that information from you or your communications carrier. Even if > your traffic is encrypted, it is trivial to figure out who is posting to > social media or underground websites via other intelligence or simple > traffic analysis. They can deny their entire populations access to just > about any communications media they like. Most of them don’t because it is > actually a more lucrative source of intelligence than a threat. If you are > a dissident I might be better off leaving you on the Internet and trying to > map
RE: Is WHOIS going to go away?
>...in every other form of communication, the phrase "get a warrant" comes to >mind. >Except on the internet where we require the information to be public so that >anyone and their dog can view it without a warrant. Wrong on several counts. You can publicly access the records of who owns every radio station, television station, and newspaper in the US and a lot of other countries. All of those organizations are REQUIRED by law to file ownership statements. Every periodical published in the United States has a block in it identifying the publisher. Every book sold has a publisher listed even if the author chooses to remain anonymous. It is a violation of the law for a telemarketer to call you without identifying themselves (which is what we complain about with phone scammers). Get a warrant only applies to communications (like your phone calls and your personal Internet traffic) that have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you are in the public square shouting to the world you have no expectation of anonymity and you can actually be held responsible for false statements about another individual. A publicly accessible website’s published pages would not have any expectation of privacy whatsoever. Besides we are talking about identification of ownership of a communications site not the communications going through it. Just because I have your WHOIS data does not mean I have root access to your server. The government needs a warrant to listen to your phone calls but not to know you have a phone and where it is. We are not letting people monitor your traffic through WHOIS, we are only identifying who is responsible for all communications coming from that site. Another point is that “get a warrant” does not apply in totalitarian countries in any case. Try saying get a warrant in North Korean or China. Pretty moot point there. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." No one ever had the liberty of publishing information to the public without accountability. There are tons of laws protecting you from false statements and communications intended to harm your reputation or damage your business. You are giving up an essential liberty here which is knowing who is saying what about you. Do you not want the right to know the sources of information presented to the public? Do you think I should be able to post anything I want about you in the public square without accountability? Can I put up a billboard criticizing you personally and keep my identity a complete secret? Might it be nice to know that the source of political news might have an axe to grind or an ideological bent, would you like to know that the news story you just read was actually from an opposition candidate? Are we not making a huge deal about Russia messing around with elections and trolling? How would you ever know that was going on with no accountability of the source of information? The whole protecting you from the government point is nothing but a straw man. There is no nation state that does not have enough resources to recover that information from you or your communications carrier. Even if your traffic is encrypted, it is trivial to figure out who is posting to social media or underground websites via other intelligence or simple traffic analysis. They can deny their entire populations access to just about any communications media they like. Most of them don’t because it is actually a more lucrative source of intelligence than a threat. If you are a dissident I might be better off leaving you on the Internet and trying to map your network of people even though it would be easy to just interrupt your comms. From a technical perspective, the domain naming system and Internet addressing system are assets you do not own. They are assigned to you and are considered a type of resource under quasi governmental control. If you keep WHOIS data secret all you are really doing is keeping the public out and the government in. Do you really believe that ICANN will stand up to the world governments if they ask for the data? If so, you probably also believe that the UN is effective at keeping the world at peace. Steven Naslund Chicago IL
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:53 PM Keith Medcalf wrote: > This last statement is entirely untrue. WHOIS provides information as to > the PUBLISHER (such as one would find on the masthead of a newspaper). > This is, ought to be, and should remain, public information. > Oh, so I'm a newspaper now? Or are you telling me there's some magical setting in media publishing that prevents someone from hitting 'print' without attaching an identifying masthead? I as an individual should be able to register whatever site I want without filing to become a corporation to protect my identity from nutjobs on the internet if I so desire. Anyone with legal concerns about the content I might publish can hire a lawyer, get a warrant, and reveal who owns xyz.tld. Not that registering as a corporation protects your private identity either. But in all other forms of media I *can* protect my identity. I can publish a podcast, get interviewed by the news media with my face blurred, type up a crazy manifesto and distribute leaflets through town, take out an Ad in a newspaper, etc... You still need to "get a warrant" (or a rubber hose) as you so quaintly put > it to ascertain the origination of the information published. Am I misunderstanding the incessant yearly emails I get from my registrar warning me that I better be using valid information? What part of whois requires a warrant to view that information? -A
RE: Is WHOIS going to go away?
>> "I don't see why there should not be a way to know who is >> publishing data on the Internet. In almost all other forms >> of communication, there is some accountability for the >> origination of information." >...in every other form of communication, the phrase "get a warrant" >comes to mind. >Except on the internet where we require the information to be public >so that anyone and their dog can view it without a warrant. This last statement is entirely untrue. WHOIS provides information as to the PUBLISHER (such as one would find on the masthead of a newspaper). This is, ought to be, and should remain, public information. You still need to "get a warrant" (or a rubber hose) as you so quaintly put it to ascertain the origination of the information published. --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
> "I don't see why there should not be a way to know who is publishing data on the Internet. In almost all other forms of communication, there is some accountability for the origination of information." ...in every other form of communication, the phrase "get a warrant" comes to mind. Except on the internet where we require the information to be public so that anyone and their dog can view it without a warrant. > "When you get into the business of "protecting" people from their own "oppressive" governments, you are also protecting "enemies and criminals" from another perspective." "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -A On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Naslund, Steve wrote: > I don't see why there should not be a way to know who is publishing data > on the Internet. In almost all other forms of communication, there is some > accountability for the origination of information. Newspaper publishers > are known, radio stations are usually licensed and publicly known, > television is licensed as well. Your phone and Internet traffic is > available to the government and law enforcement. People need to be held > legally accountable for the information they present to the public > otherwise you would have absolutely no recourse in the event that you were > slandered, scammed, or otherwise harmed by this information. People being > scared of their government is a real thing, however it is not up to the > Internet to protect people from their own governments, that is a political > problem not a technical one. Always think of the negative side of the > argument. If a website was distributing unauthorized compromising photos > of your children would you want them to be completely anonymous? > > Think of how aggravated we all are with the spam we receive every day and > how much you like spoofed caller ID data when you talk about anonymity. > > > Publishing information for access by the entire public should have some > sort of accountability with it. > > When you get into the business of "protecting" people from their own > "oppressive" governments, you are also protecting "enemies and criminals" > from another perspective. Most all nation states would have the ability to > track the communications to their source in any case so all you are really > doing is protecting the data from the public. > > It would appear to me that the ICANN proposal is nothing more than a means > to monetize what used to be public data. Why should Google have all the > fun? > > Steven Naslund > Chicago IL > > > > > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of b...@theworld.com > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 2:11 PM > To: Tei > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: Is WHOIS going to go away? > > > On April 20, 2018 at 12:03 oscar.vi...@gmail.com (Tei) wrote: > > Maybe a good balance for whois is to include organization information > > so I know where a website is hosted, but not personal information, so > > I can't show in their house and steal their dog. > > > > I feel uneasy about having my phone available to literally everyone on > > the internet. > > There are various privacy options available when one registers a > domain, generally a matter of checking a box and usually free. > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > ℱin del ℳensaje. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | > http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD > The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* >
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
That just sounds like a minor change to fix this, a bug. No need to burn down the house to kill a mosquito. And my suggestion to move the publicly visible WHOIS information into the DNS and thus completely under the domain owner's control would fix this with minimal effort from the registrant. I tend to doubt tho that this is a significant reason for the proposed changes. On April 20, 2018 at 16:20 rube...@gmail.com (Rubens Kuhl) wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:10 PM, wrote: > > > On April 20, 2018 at 12:03 oscar.vi...@gmail.com (Tei) wrote: > > Maybe a good balance for whois is to include organization information > > so I know where a website is hosted, but not personal information, so > > I can't show in their house and steal their dog. > > > > I feel uneasy about having my phone available to literally everyone on > > the internet. > > There are various privacy options available when one registers a > domain, generally a matter of checking a box and usually free. > > > Those privacy options work until one wants to transfer a domain to a > different > registrar. Almost always that will imply in a brief removal of privacy, > during > which an adversary (either a nation-state or some Sideshow Bob-type wacko) > will > learn the true identity of the domain holder. > > > Rubens > > > -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
RE: Is WHOIS going to go away?
I don't see why there should not be a way to know who is publishing data on the Internet. In almost all other forms of communication, there is some accountability for the origination of information. Newspaper publishers are known, radio stations are usually licensed and publicly known, television is licensed as well. Your phone and Internet traffic is available to the government and law enforcement. People need to be held legally accountable for the information they present to the public otherwise you would have absolutely no recourse in the event that you were slandered, scammed, or otherwise harmed by this information. People being scared of their government is a real thing, however it is not up to the Internet to protect people from their own governments, that is a political problem not a technical one. Always think of the negative side of the argument. If a website was distributing unauthorized compromising photos of your children would you want them to be completely anonymous? Think of how aggravated we all are with the spam we receive every day and how much you like spoofed caller ID data when you talk about anonymity. Publishing information for access by the entire public should have some sort of accountability with it. When you get into the business of "protecting" people from their own "oppressive" governments, you are also protecting "enemies and criminals" from another perspective. Most all nation states would have the ability to track the communications to their source in any case so all you are really doing is protecting the data from the public. It would appear to me that the ICANN proposal is nothing more than a means to monetize what used to be public data. Why should Google have all the fun? Steven Naslund Chicago IL -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of b...@theworld.com Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 2:11 PM To: Tei Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Is WHOIS going to go away? On April 20, 2018 at 12:03 oscar.vi...@gmail.com (Tei) wrote: > Maybe a good balance for whois is to include organization information > so I know where a website is hosted, but not personal information, so > I can't show in their house and steal their dog. > > I feel uneasy about having my phone available to literally everyone on > the internet. There are various privacy options available when one registers a domain, generally a matter of checking a box and usually free. > > > -- > -- > ℱin del ℳensaje. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 4:10 PM, wrote: > > On April 20, 2018 at 12:03 oscar.vi...@gmail.com (Tei) wrote: > > Maybe a good balance for whois is to include organization information > > so I know where a website is hosted, but not personal information, so > > I can't show in their house and steal their dog. > > > > I feel uneasy about having my phone available to literally everyone on > > the internet. > > There are various privacy options available when one registers a > domain, generally a matter of checking a box and usually free. > Those privacy options work until one wants to transfer a domain to a different registrar. Almost always that will imply in a brief removal of privacy, during which an adversary (either a nation-state or some Sideshow Bob-type wacko) will learn the true identity of the domain holder. Rubens
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
On April 20, 2018 at 12:03 oscar.vi...@gmail.com (Tei) wrote: > Maybe a good balance for whois is to include organization information > so I know where a website is hosted, but not personal information, so > I can't show in their house and steal their dog. > > I feel uneasy about having my phone available to literally everyone on > the internet. There are various privacy options available when one registers a domain, generally a matter of checking a box and usually free. > > > -- > -- > ℱin del ℳensaje. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo*
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
Inline... On April 20, 2018 at 03:47 fa...@gatech.edu (Badiei, Farzaneh) wrote: > Dear John, > > > The days when some in the technical community could just discard others > arguments by saying that "[you] have no idea how the Internet works" have > long > passed. I will not get intimidated nor will I step back. Old tricks, won't > work, it's as old as the dysfunctional WHOIS and will disappear. No one responded most likely because you are speaking to a vast "room" of engineers etc and just said WHOIS is "old and dysfunctional" without a single word as to why you believe this to be the case. The DNS system is almost exactly the same age, is that also a problem? At least that's what pops into a technical person's mind. And "dysfunctional" seems like it's based on assumptions others here may not share. So we are left to guess whether you have any idea how any of this works, it's an article of faith? Challenging someone's understanding of a system they are criticizing is not "intimidation", it's just an assumption lacking any evidence to the contrary. And TBH "it will disappear" sounds like a purely political threat. We shall see in the fullness of time...in about 20 years ICANN has failed to do much anything regarding WHOIS other than talk about it a lot. > > > Also your last paragraph obliges me to clarify: it's not always a "he" that > might be arguing! it's sometimes, though might it be rarely, a "she". > > > No one asked to protect people from their governments (I have heard this > before > as well). But also people should not be endangered or even minimally > disturbed > by making their personal information public. There are many many scenarios > when > personal information can be abused, and governments might not be involved. So why aren't current privacy options sufficient? Why not, as I have suggested in many forums now, just move the publicly visable information into the DNS and thus completely under the domain owner's control? Why does ICANN simultaneously press for the accuracy (and precision) of this information while bemoaning its public availability? Well, there are reasons, I could answer that I suppose. But disconnecting the public function of WHOIS from the business need for customer information seems like a reasonable approach. As is even stated in the relevant RFCs WHOIS is a public directory of domain owners and contact information. Not very different from a phone directory, and with similar provisions for privacy. It's not like the IETF et al created WHOIS out of thin air, it was intended to be a lot like a phone (or similar) directory. > > > I might not know as much as you do about how the Internet works. But I know > one > thing: There will be a change. The convenience of security researchers and > trademark owners is not going to be set above domain name registrants right > to > data protection. But I am sure the cybersecurity community can come up with a > more creative way of preserving cybersecurity without relying on using > personal > information of domain name registrants and violating their rights! But the current ICANN proposals as I understand them make all this information available to anyone who can pay the price or meet certain criteria which don't seem terribly exclusive other than "those we respect vs those we don't". They've proposed a "tiered access". Which sounds to me more like an intent to monetize WHOIS not protect its content in general. Or is only allowing for example folks like Cambridge Analytica or other vast and well-funded opinion and marketing organizations access somehow a protection of "rights"? One problem with that sort of access is that once it's out there, it's out there! One can write rules about "legitimate" use and redistribution but as we see every day breaches and just disregard for such rules are rampant. Why pretend that making WHOIS non-public will protect anyone? The current system has its appeal, it's public information, if you do not want your information public there are various ways to protect your own information (e.g., check that privacy box, pay a third party proxy, etc.) And for that matter one of those "access tiers" is "law enforcement", what government won't meet that criteria? Is there some intent by ICANN to vet "good" governments vs "bad" governments when granting law enforcement general access? Note: This is not search warrant type access, it's general access to the entire WHOIS database without prior restraint. And there's still that annoying question about warrantability of this supposed protection of privacy. You really haven't spent a word answering any of the issues raised here, you mostly complained about the pronouns used. They might be valid complaints, but they're not sufficient to provide a response to the issues. P.S For the record we know each other from ICANN meetings and Farzaneh can do a lot better than this. > > > Farzaneh
Reminder: NANOG 73 CFP is open!
NANOG Community, As a reminder, we are still accepting proposals for all sessions at NANOG 73 in Denver, CO, June 25-27, 2018. The full Call For Presentations can be found at: http://www.cvent.com/d/ttqv1z/6K Remaining Key Dates for NANOG 73: Tuesday, 05/08/18 CFP Deadline: Presentation Slides Due Tuesday, 05/08/18 CFP Topic List and NANOG Highlights Page Monday, 06/18/18 Speaker FINAL presentation Slides to PC Tool Sunday, 06/24/18 Lightning Talk Submissions Open (Abstracts Only) Sunday, 06/24/18 On-site Registration Finals slides must be submitted by Monday, June 18, 2018, and no changes will be accepted between that date and the conference. Materials received after that date will be updated on the web site after the completion of the conference. We look forward to seeing you in June in Denver! Sincerely, Ryan Woolley NANOG PC
[NANOG-announce] Reminder: NANOG 73 CFP is open!
This message has been wrapped due to the DMARC policy setting to prevent NANOG subscribers from being unsubscribed due to bounces. --- Begin Message --- NANOG Community, As a reminder, we are still accepting proposals for all sessions at NANOG 73 in Denver, CO, June 25-27, 2018. The full Call For Presentations can be found at: http://www.cvent.com/d/ttqv1z/6K Remaining Key Dates for NANOG 73: Tuesday, 05/08/18 CFP Deadline: Presentation Slides Due Tuesday, 05/08/18 CFP Topic List and NANOG Highlights Page Monday, 06/18/18 Speaker FINAL presentation Slides to PC Tool Sunday, 06/24/18 Lightning Talk Submissions Open (Abstracts Only) Sunday, 06/24/18 On-site Registration Finals slides must be submitted by Monday, June 18, 2018, and no changes will be accepted between that date and the conference. Materials received after that date will be updated on the web site after the completion of the conference. We look forward to seeing you in June in Denver! Sincerely, Ryan Woolley NANOG PC --- End Message --- ___ NANOG-announce mailing list nanog-annou...@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce
Weekly Routing Table Report
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG, IRNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 21 Apr, 2018 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary BGP routing table entries examined: 696141 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 268430 Deaggregation factor: 2.59 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 335330 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 60451 Prefixes per ASN: 11.52 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 52213 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 22858 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:8238 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:268 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.0 Max AS path length visible: 34 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 30873) 32 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:49 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:49 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 22275 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 17911 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 74601 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:16 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:3 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:340 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2863051010 Equivalent to 170 /8s, 166 /16s and 177 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 77.3 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 77.3 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 98.9 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 231650 APNIC Region Analysis Summary - Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 190615 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 54054 APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.53 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 189511 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:77395 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:8729 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 21.71 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2431 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1311 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.0 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 29 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 3687 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 767197698 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 186 /16s and 130 /24s APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-137529 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:207023 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:98996 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.09 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 207967 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 98338 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:18149 ARIN Prefixes per ASN:11.46 A
Re: Suggestion for Layer 3, all SFP+ switches
Well, if the US government spies on everyone using exported cisco hardware, why wouldn't the PRC do the same? On 20 April 2018 at 08:59, Aaron Gould wrote: > Thanks Colton, Since I live in the US, and work for a boss that’s nervous > (concerned) about those things, then I comply. I remember mentioning > Huawei as an option recently in a meeting and the boss and a few other > fellow engineers were nervous and resistant to it. I tend to feel the same. > > > > I see you started a thread on comparing those 2 (zte and Huawei) … and was > immediately met with cautionary/warning statements about these some > things... from Suresh and Curtis. > > So I wonder if because of all this, are ZTE and Huawei sales being > adversely affected in the US? …it would seem so, but thought I’d ask y’all. > > Google - China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE > > http://seclists.org/nanog/2018/Apr/293 > > - Aaron > > > >
RE: Suggestion for Layer 3, all SFP+ switches
Thanks Colton, Since I live in the US, and work for a boss that’s nervous (concerned) about those things, then I comply. I remember mentioning Huawei as an option recently in a meeting and the boss and a few other fellow engineers were nervous and resistant to it. I tend to feel the same. I see you started a thread on comparing those 2 (zte and Huawei) … and was immediately met with cautionary/warning statements about these some things... from Suresh and Curtis. So I wonder if because of all this, are ZTE and Huawei sales being adversely affected in the US? …it would seem so, but thought I’d ask y’all. Google - China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE http://seclists.org/nanog/2018/Apr/293 - Aaron
Re: China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE
Yes looks like they are both under pressure. I feel bad for the USA based employees. I know Huawei has quite a few in Plano, Texas. With both ZTE and Huawei out of the picture for USA operators, who is the low cost leader in this space then? On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:56 AM, STARNES, CURTIS < curtis.star...@granburyisd.org> wrote: > Same for Huawei. > https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/26/17164226/fcc-proposal- > huawei-zte-us-networks-national-security > https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/19/ > analyst-chinas-huawei-to-quit-u-s-market/#194f570211cb > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/technology/huawei-trade-war.html > > I don't think I would recommend either in todays political climate. > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 7:35 AM > To: Colton Conor ; NANOG > Subject: Re: China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE > > Ah. ZTE is in a spot of trouble right about now. > > http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us- > government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights > > On 20/04/18, 5:58 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor" < > nanog-boun...@nanog.org on behalf of colton.co...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Of the two large Chinese Vendors, which has the better network > operating > system? Huawei is much larger that ZTE is my understanding, but larger > does > not always mean better. > > Both of these manufactures have switches and routers. I doubt we will > use > their routing products anytime soon, but the switching products with > MPLS > are what we are exploring. Price wise both of these vendors seem to > have > 10G MPLS capable switches that are a 1/4 of the price of a Cisco or > Juniper > wants to charge. > > On the Huawei side looks like the S6720 is a fit. > On the ZTE side, it looks like the ZXR10 5960 Series is a fit. > > Has anyone had experience with either of these two switches? How do > they > compare? > > Also, for each independent brand, is their switching network operating > system the same as their routing network operating system that their > routers run? > > > >
RE: China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE
Same for Huawei. https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/26/17164226/fcc-proposal-huawei-zte-us-networks-national-security https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/19/analyst-chinas-huawei-to-quit-u-s-market/#194f570211cb https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/technology/huawei-trade-war.html I don't think I would recommend either in todays political climate. -Original Message- From: NANOG On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 7:35 AM To: Colton Conor ; NANOG Subject: Re: China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE Ah. ZTE is in a spot of trouble right about now. http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights On 20/04/18, 5:58 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor" wrote: Of the two large Chinese Vendors, which has the better network operating system? Huawei is much larger that ZTE is my understanding, but larger does not always mean better. Both of these manufactures have switches and routers. I doubt we will use their routing products anytime soon, but the switching products with MPLS are what we are exploring. Price wise both of these vendors seem to have 10G MPLS capable switches that are a 1/4 of the price of a Cisco or Juniper wants to charge. On the Huawei side looks like the S6720 is a fit. On the ZTE side, it looks like the ZXR10 5960 Series is a fit. Has anyone had experience with either of these two switches? How do they compare? Also, for each independent brand, is their switching network operating system the same as their routing network operating system that their routers run?
Re: China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE
Josh, I like the whitebox route, but I can't find anything that will come close price wise. Example, Huawei S6720 with 24 10G ports, 2 40G ports, and full MPLS operating system from Huawei is $3500 out the door with a lifetime warranty. I can't even find a whitebox hardware, not even accounting for the OS, that is close to that price. Most 48 Port 10G with 6 40G uplinks (so double this huawei unit) are in the $5k range, and then you have to buy an operating system costing a couple more grand. Choices are limited on whitebox operating systems that support MPLS. There might be some FibeStore models that come close to this price, but FS.com is a Chinese company too, so that's no better than ZTE or Huawei. On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 7:34 AM, Josh Reynolds wrote: > Why not just go the whitebox route and pick your NOS of choice? > > Far cheaper, and far more flexible. > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 7:28 AM Colton Conor wrote: > >> Of the two large Chinese Vendors, which has the better network operating >> system? Huawei is much larger that ZTE is my understanding, but larger >> does >> not always mean better. >> >> Both of these manufactures have switches and routers. I doubt we will use >> their routing products anytime soon, but the switching products with MPLS >> are what we are exploring. Price wise both of these vendors seem to have >> 10G MPLS capable switches that are a 1/4 of the price of a Cisco or >> Juniper >> wants to charge. >> >> On the Huawei side looks like the S6720 is a fit. >> On the ZTE side, it looks like the ZXR10 5960 Series is a fit. >> >> Has anyone had experience with either of these two switches? How do they >> compare? >> >> Also, for each independent brand, is their switching network operating >> system the same as their routing network operating system that their >> routers run? >> >
Re: China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE
Ah. ZTE is in a spot of trouble right about now. http://www.scmp.com/tech/article/2142557/zte-calls-us-government-ban-extremely-unfair-vows-fight-its-rights On 20/04/18, 5:58 PM, "NANOG on behalf of Colton Conor" wrote: Of the two large Chinese Vendors, which has the better network operating system? Huawei is much larger that ZTE is my understanding, but larger does not always mean better. Both of these manufactures have switches and routers. I doubt we will use their routing products anytime soon, but the switching products with MPLS are what we are exploring. Price wise both of these vendors seem to have 10G MPLS capable switches that are a 1/4 of the price of a Cisco or Juniper wants to charge. On the Huawei side looks like the S6720 is a fit. On the ZTE side, it looks like the ZXR10 5960 Series is a fit. Has anyone had experience with either of these two switches? How do they compare? Also, for each independent brand, is their switching network operating system the same as their routing network operating system that their routers run?
Re: China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE
Why not just go the whitebox route and pick your NOS of choice? Far cheaper, and far more flexible. On Fri, Apr 20, 2018, 7:28 AM Colton Conor wrote: > Of the two large Chinese Vendors, which has the better network operating > system? Huawei is much larger that ZTE is my understanding, but larger does > not always mean better. > > Both of these manufactures have switches and routers. I doubt we will use > their routing products anytime soon, but the switching products with MPLS > are what we are exploring. Price wise both of these vendors seem to have > 10G MPLS capable switches that are a 1/4 of the price of a Cisco or Juniper > wants to charge. > > On the Huawei side looks like the S6720 is a fit. > On the ZTE side, it looks like the ZXR10 5960 Series is a fit. > > Has anyone had experience with either of these two switches? How do they > compare? > > Also, for each independent brand, is their switching network operating > system the same as their routing network operating system that their > routers run? >
China Showdown Huawei vs ZTE
Of the two large Chinese Vendors, which has the better network operating system? Huawei is much larger that ZTE is my understanding, but larger does not always mean better. Both of these manufactures have switches and routers. I doubt we will use their routing products anytime soon, but the switching products with MPLS are what we are exploring. Price wise both of these vendors seem to have 10G MPLS capable switches that are a 1/4 of the price of a Cisco or Juniper wants to charge. On the Huawei side looks like the S6720 is a fit. On the ZTE side, it looks like the ZXR10 5960 Series is a fit. Has anyone had experience with either of these two switches? How do they compare? Also, for each independent brand, is their switching network operating system the same as their routing network operating system that their routers run?
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
Tei wrote: > > Maybe a good balance for whois is to include organization information > so I know where a website is hosted, but not personal information, so > I can't show in their house and steal their dog. > > I feel uneasy about having my phone available to literally everyone on > the internet. > > Technical contact information is supposed to be available for technical purposes. Not that that purpose has been reliable as time has gone by. Has that (required) purpose just flown past the policy makers? Christian
Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?
Maybe a good balance for whois is to include organization information so I know where a website is hosted, but not personal information, so I can't show in their house and steal their dog. I feel uneasy about having my phone available to literally everyone on the internet. -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
