Re: Speedtest.net not accessible in Chrome due to deceptive ads

[Collin Anderson]

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Antonio Querubin 
wrote:

> Feedback:  needs IPv6 connectivity and support.
>

Point well taken. The vast majority of M-Lab sites have IPv6 connectivity,
and we have enabled it for NDT at times, but I believe there was a concern
at one point about an issue with error handling on the IPv6 side that lead
to it being disabled temporarily. We will follow through on this.


-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Speedtest.net not accessible in Chrome due to deceptive ads

[Collin Anderson]

Thanks for the mention – for what it's worth, we are testing a more
accessible interface for the web-based NDT test.

Link: https://speed.measurementlab.net/#/

Definitely interested in feedback from the NANOG community.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Ishmael Rufus  wrote:

> http://www.measurementlab.net/tools/ndt/
>
> 100% ad free.
>
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Janusz Jezowicz 
> wrote:
>
> > It seems that some users reporting the site is back. I am counting 6+
> hours
> > of outage.
> >
> > Alan - what you describe is something normal user will never do. When
> user
> > sees red screen like that, he runs screaming. So in theory yes, it was
> > accessible, but ... wasn't.
> >
> > Its hard to avoid Google nanny when they offer so many useful services
> >
> >
> >
> > On 20 July 2016 at 14:09,  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > Since this morning Speedtest.net is not accessible in Chrome
> > > > Reason:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/diagnostic/#url=c.speedtest.net
> > >
> > > someones complained about the URL based on them stupidly installing
> > > 'cleanmymac' or such?
> > >
> > > use the non flash junk HTML5 version instead
> > >
> > > http://beta.speedtest.net/
> > >
> > > still bleats about "Deceptive site ahead"
> > >
> > > and PS "is not accessible in Chrome" - not true.
> > >
> > > click DETAILS,  then click on
> > >
> > > visit this unsafe site.
> > >
> > > (with the pre-condition of " if you understand the risks to your
> > security"
> > >
> > >
> > > I personally dont want or need Google to start being my nanny on the
> > > internet  :/
> > >
> > >
> > > alan
> > >
> > > PS you may have other interests involved here given your affiliation to
> > > speedchecker.xyz
> > >
> >
>



-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Measuring the quality of Internet access

[Collin Anderson]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Max Tulyev  wrote:

> But I can't figure out what SamKnows uses as the destination for tests?
>

As I understand the destination differs per measurement partnership, but in
at least the United States a substantial portion of the infrastructure is
provided by Measurement Lab, as a virtualized host within the broader set
of tools that the platform supports.

M-Lab also provides resources to a number of other quality of service and
experience measurement tools, such as NDT, BISmark and Neubot. CIRA's
initiative, noted earlier, also uses M-Lab and NDT, as do a few regulators
in Europe and elsewhere.

Please always feel free to reach out, we are always eager to collaborate
with network operators to use our tools and extend our platform –
everything is open source and open access.

Cordially,
Collin
-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Softlayer / Blocking Cuba IP's ?

[Collin Anderson]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

> So, out of the blue, after years and years of everything working, suddenly
> emails flowing thru spam filtering service hosted on Softlayer Cloud,
> totally blocked any / all  emails from Cuba from coming thru... We just
> spent last 10 days tracking everything down 
>

That's a terrible mess, and vividly illustrates how such poor compliance
decision-making clobbers a policy that the U.S. is attempting to promote
(both Internet and flights). Protecting Internet access in sanctioned
countries has been a longtime advocacy project of mine, and something that
from a legal perspective there has been pretty considerable success on.
These sorts of case studies are helpful, so please feel free to drop a note
if such issues arise in the future.

-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Softlayer / Blocking Cuba IP's ?

[Collin Anderson]

Being as Softlayer is owned by IBM and headquartered in Virginia, they are
pretty bound by U.S. sanctions policy, although this is obviously
overcompliance. Essentially if there was to be a prohibited customer and a
threat of enforcement, they want to be able to say they took extreme steps
to prevent use of their network in those countries.

This is also unfortunately a common sanctions compliance practice by
service providers -- GoDaddy had done so for years until recently and
Google continues to for GAE and GCE. Apparently Softlayer's network change
was put into place a couple of weeks ago, and covers all the
comprehensively sanctioned countries -- Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea and
Sudan (should block Crimea as well in that case).

It's not clear that their customers know they are blocked from something
like 150 million potential users, and you are right, in fact the Cuba
sanctions regulations were modified last month to expand authorizations on
such transaction. It's extremely counterproductive and in direct
contradiction to well established policy on Internet access in sanctioned
countries.

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Faisal Imtiaz 
wrote:

>
> Hello All,
>
> This is a shout out to Softlayer Network Admin / Policy folks...
>
> We just went thru a painful process to find out that Softlayer has
> recently decided to block Cuba IP Address Space(on their cloud
> services).
>
> I am not a politician, nor any kind of a policy expert, However I have a
>  questions for the SoftLayer folks...
>
> On What basis, legal requirement, logic,  have they taken on the
> responsibility to implement such a Block ?
>
> Considering the fact that such a block was just put in place about a week
> ago ?
> Last time I checked, blocking any part of the world is not part of any
> legal requirements on any Global Service Provider ? other than a 'company
> policy' ?
>
> Also, the Last time I checked the US Cuba relations are getting better not
> worse!
>
> Would love to know what was the reasoning behind such action !
>
> Thank you.
>
> Faisal Imtiaz
> Snappy Internet & Telecom
>



-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

[Collin Anderson]

This thread seems to have run its course, but it was an interesting
conversation, so I wanted to flag that the Open Technology Institute is
running what seems to be a fairly balanced panel on the issue in D.C. next
week. Might be worth asking if there's remote participation.

https://newamerica.cvent.com/events/zero-rating-and-net-neutrality-is-free-content-naughty-or-nice-/registration-8e22b15178dc4fa88c2ebe19525262eb.aspx?i=d0db0beb-7340-47c8-8bcc-86d9d6cc85b8

New America
Please note our new address!
740 15th Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005
Wednesday, December 16, 2015 | 12:00 pm - 1:45 pm


Even if the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the FCC’s Open Internet
Order, the ability of mobile carriers to exclude certain content from the
data caps or buckets that determine what a user pays each month remains
undecided and controversial. Although mobile carriers maintain that
zero-rating selected content is pro-consumer, some consumer advocates argue
the FCC should find it violates network neutrality rules against favoring
some Internet content or applications over others.

In the U.S., T-Mobile recently launched Binge On, which allows consumers to
opt out of the delivery of 'free' (zero-rated) streaming video content at
lower resolution (CD quality), and instead receive content at
high-definition that counts against their data limit. T-Mobile also hosts
Music Freedom, which zero-rates participating streaming music services.

In the developing world, Facebook’s Free Basics initiative partners with
mobile carriers to provide cell phone customers with low-bandwidth versions
of participating information and social media apps (e.g., Wikipedia and
Facebook itself) at no cost in the hope this exposure will encourage them
to upgrade to full Internet access.

Join us for an explanation and debate about zero-rating on mobile networks,
featuring the two companies most visibly marketing the practice, as well as
a range of perspectives from consumer and public interest advocates.

Lunch will be served.

Follow the discussion online using #ZeroRating
and by following us @OTI.

Participants:
Kevin Martin
Vice President for Mobile & Global Access, Facebook
Former Chairman, FCC
@facebook

Mark Cooper
Research Director, Consumer Federation of America
@ConsumerFed

Steve Sharkey
Chief, Engineering and Technology Policy, T-Mobile
@TMobile

Matt Wood
Policy Director, Free Press
@MattFWood

Sarah Morris
Senior Policy Counsel, Open Technology Institute at New America
@sarmorris

Moderator:
Michael Calabrese
Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute at New America
@MCalabreseNAF


On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Tony Hain  wrote:

> Keenan Tims wrote:
> > To: nanog@nanog.org
> > Subject: Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?
> >
> > I'm surprised you're supporting T-Mob here Owen. To me it's pretty
> > clear: they are charging more for bits that are not streaming video.
> > That's not neutral treatment from a policy perspective, and has no basis
> in
> > the cost of operating the network.
>
> I have no visibility into what the line
> "T‐Mobile will work with content providers to ensure that our networks
> work together to properly"
> actually means, but they could/should be using this as a tool to drive
> content sources to IPv6.
>
> Trying to explain to consumers why an unlimited data plan only works for a
> tiny subset of content is a waste of energy. Picking a category and
> "encouraging" that content to move, then after the time limit, pick the
> next category, rinse/repeat, is a way to move traffic away from the 6/4 nat
> infrastructure without having to make a big deal about the IP version to
> the consumer, and at the same time remove "it costs too much" complaints
> from the sources. If I were implementing such a plan, I would walk the list
> of traffic sources based on volume to move traffic as quickly as possible,
> so it makes perfect sense to me that they would start with video.
>
> Tony
>
>
> >
> > Granted, the network itself is neutral, but the purported purpose of NN
> in
> > my eyes is twofold: take away the influence of the network on user and
> > operator behaviour, and encourage an open market in network services
> > (both content and access). Allowing zero-rating based on *any* criteria
> > gives them a strong influence over what the end users are going to do
> with
> > their network connection, and distorts the market for network services.
> > What makes streaming video special to merit zero-rating?
> >
> > I like Clay's connection to the boiling frog. Yes, it's "nice" for most
> > consumers now, but it's still distorting the market.
> >
> > I'm also not seeing why they have to make this so complicated. If they
> can
> > afford to zero-rate high-bandwidth services like video and audio
> streaming,
> > clearly there is network capacity to spare. The user behaviour they're
> > encouraging with free video streaming is *precisely* what the incumbents
> 

Re: content regulation, was Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Collin Anderson]

On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:32 AM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:

 With the legal content rule, I expect some bottom feeding bulk
 mailers to sue claiming that their CAN SPAM compliant spam is legal,
 therefore the providers can't block it.


How would this legal environment be any different than the pre-Verizon
network neutrality rules for network management of SPAM?


-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Owning a name

[Collin Anderson]

An update, apparently writs of attachment were sent for not only .ir, but
also .sy and .kp ccTLDs as well, based on separate cases related to support
for terrorism. ICANN has filed a motion to quash the writs and taken the
position that the domains are not assets.

Press:
http://www.securityweek.com/country-specific-web-domains-cant-be-seized-icann
Court Documents:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-various-2014-07-30-en


On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Mark Rudholm m...@rudholm.com wrote:

 On 06/26/2014 10:14 PM, Collin Anderson wrote:

 On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:

  I've been looking for the case in PACER, and don't see
 anything filed this year against ICANN so the case doesn't even exist.

  Seth Charles Ben HAIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF
 IRAN,
 et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-1811 (RCL)


 It seems to me that even if the ccTLD delegations were removed from the
 root DNS zone, all sysadmins in Iran would just add the ns.irnic.ir NS
 record to their cache, effectively ignoring ICANN.  I bet a lot of
 sysadmins outside Iran would do the same thing, since it makes sense to
 refer to IRNIC for Iranian DNS regardless of any court ruling.

 Similarly, they'd just keep using their current network numbers. It's not
 like ARIN would be able to give them to someone else. Nobody would want
 them.  And a lot of us would continue to route those numbers to Iran.

 Courts have shown time and again that they don't understand that ICANN is
 a coordinator, not an authority.




-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Net Neutrality...

[Collin Anderson]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:

 Errr, I didn't see anything about any LTG candidates in that piece, what
 did I miss? I'm also curious about what it is that you think is misstated
 or overblown in that piece that would lead you to believe that it's a hit
 piece.


Tim Wu is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor race in New York this year.


-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Owning a name

[Collin Anderson]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:50 AM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:

 Yes. ccTLDs are treated as national sovereign resources.


By whom and where?

Regardless, there are 'State Sponsors of Terrorism'-related amendments to
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that come into play here.
-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Owning a name

[Collin Anderson]

As best as I and others have been able to discern, the order in question is
a subpoena to ICANN pertaining to contracts, financial information and
communications with the Iranian government over their names and addresses.
The claims of granted control appear to be inaccurate -- all of the
reporting on the matter have been childish to the extent of saying Dot-Iran
(‏.ایران) is in Arabic. The next step would be for ICANN to challenge the
request, and one might expect that communities such as this one would have
an opportunity to amicus along the way.


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:


 On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote:

  On Jun 27, 2014, at 00:07 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 
 
 http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terrorism.html
 
  Have not seen much discussion about this.
 
  That would be a horrifically bad precedent to set. I hope this insanity
 stops before it get started.

 Anyone have a link to the actual ruling?  This URL is to a very
 positionally-specific interpretation of events, which is fairly
 disconnected from reality on the ICANN side…  It’s quite possible it’s an
 equally clueless interpretation of the court decision.  In any event, even
 if the court was as clueless as this implies, it won’t go anywhere.

 -Bill







-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Owning a name

[Collin Anderson]

It might also interest the list that every couple of years ICANN actually
has to apply to the Department of Treasury's OFAC in order to obtain a
license to do business with Iranian parties.


On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Collin Anderson col...@averysmallbird.com
wrote:

 As best as I and others have been able to discern, the order in question
 is a subpoena to ICANN pertaining to contracts, financial information and
 communications with the Iranian government over their names and addresses.
 The claims of granted control appear to be inaccurate -- all of the
 reporting on the matter have been childish to the extent of saying Dot-Iran
 (‏.ایران) is in Arabic. The next step would be for ICANN to challenge the
 request, and one might expect that communities such as this one would have
 an opportunity to amicus along the way.


 On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net wrote:


 On Jun 26, 2014, at 9:13 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net
 wrote:

  On Jun 27, 2014, at 00:07 , Larry Sheldon larryshel...@cox.net wrote:
 
 
 http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2014/06/court-ruling-israeli-and-us-terrorism.html
 
  Have not seen much discussion about this.
 
  That would be a horrifically bad precedent to set. I hope this insanity
 stops before it get started.

 Anyone have a link to the actual ruling?  This URL is to a very
 positionally-specific interpretation of events, which is fairly
 disconnected from reality on the ICANN side…  It’s quite possible it’s an
 equally clueless interpretation of the court decision.  In any event, even
 if the court was as clueless as this implies, it won’t go anywhere.

 -Bill







 --
 *Collin David Anderson*
 averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.




-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Owning a name

[Collin Anderson]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:00 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:

 I've been looking for the case in PACER, and don't see
 anything filed this year against ICANN so the case doesn't even exist.


Seth Charles Ben HAIM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN,
et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 02-1811 (RCL)



-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.

Re: Sudan disconnected from the Internet

[Collin Anderson]

My recollection is that Renesys classified Sudan as a country vulnerable to
disconnection due to low diversification of international transit; the old
authoritarian preference on monopolizing the gateways has its advantages. I
have been monitoring responsive hosts using ZMap every 15 minutes or so
since afternoon. However, it seems probable from the incremental disconnect
that this was a legal compliance situation (a fax to the ISP), rather than
flipping a switch or cutting a wire? cda.io/r/sudan_1380162900_ICMP.png


On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Warren Bailey 
wbai...@satelliteintelligencegroup.com wrote:

 We make Ku-band backpacks for this type of scenario. I would give it 12-18
 hours before you see CNN light up with live feeds.. I didn't even KNOW
 this was happening prior to them doing this. Seems like cutting off access
 would alert a lot more folks than some people wrecking Sudan over fuel
 subsidies??

 Doesn't look like it's been picked up by CNN substantially yet, but I
 imagine we'll get breaking news soon enough. Would be interesting to see
 if it was a forced drop or did they actually just take a pair of scissors
 and murder the internets?

 On 9/25/13 5:40 PM, Tammy Firefly tammy-li...@wiztech.biz wrote:

 On 9/25/13 18:38:09, Warren Bailey wrote:
 
 
 http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/sudan-security-clashes-subs
 id
  y-protesters-20360418
 
  On 9/25/13 5:34 PM, Tammy Firefly tammy-li...@wiztech.biz wrote:
 
  On 9/25/13 18:29:58, Jeff Kell wrote:
  On 9/25/2013 8:25 PM, Tammy Firefly wrote:
  with the old fashioned pair of diagonal cutters applied to fiber?
 
  Yes, interesting to know if it was cut fiber, pressure on the inside
  providers (or their feeds), or pressure on the outside providers.
 
  Traceroutes lend any clue?
 
  Jeff
 
 
  If the government did it, I guarantee it was cut fiber.  That makes it
  difficult to quickly restore.  One has to wonder whats going on there
  right now that they dont want the world to know about?
 
 
 
 
 
 Then its quite likely the government cut the fiber to cover that up :)
 wouldnt surprise me if they cut it in multiple places as well.
 





-- 
*Collin David Anderson*
averysmallbird.com | @cda | Washington, D.C.