Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 11:08:20AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > What is your price for cocaine? > > No, seriously.. If, as some estimates have it, 80% of the traffic is P2P, and > as other estimates have it, 90% of that is copyright-infringing, then if that > traffic disappears, anybody who was selling transit for that traffic is > going to take a *big* revenue hit. Not for long. The *problem* is edge customers having to continually increase the size of their pipes to make room for the good stuff amongst the crap. If the crap goes away, there will then be room for the chicken and egg problem with the steady march of IPTV etc to finally take off for real, I should think... > I think it's very disingenuous to pretend that there have been *no* providers > that haven't said to themselves "We're selling to scum, but it pays the bills, > and we'd be in bankruptcy court otherwise..." Sure. And those are the people we don't *care* if they take it in the wallet, no? Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Josef Stalin)
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 09:21:24AM -0500, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said: > > >>Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care > >>about? > > > >If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity, what's your > >incentive to make them clean up their act and get rid of their P2P > >filesharing > >traffic, spam traffic, and so on? > > What is your price for cocaine? > well... http://www.narcoticnews.com/Cocaine/Prices/USA/Cocaine_Prices_USA.html has some pointers - if your shopping. --bill
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
Eric, as you say, it is a multi part test. With fairly clear distinctions between a compromised node and one under the direct control of a criminal So while it is unrealistic when viewed in isolation, put together with other factors it starts to make a lot of sense. thanks srs On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:59 AM, Eric Brunner-Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In a parallel universe we're considering profiles for "licit use" of some > mechanism. One element of a multi-part test to distinguish "licit" from > "illicit" was the presence or absence of known signatures for malware. After > some thought it was understood that this test was equivalent to the node > subject to the test being "cleaner" than the average for network attached > consumer devices, and therefore not realistic.
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
Suresh, In a parallel universe we're considering profiles for "licit use" of some mechanism. One element of a multi-part test to distinguish "licit" from "illicit" was the presence or absence of known signatures for malware. After some thought it was understood that this test was equivalent to the node subject to the test being "cleaner" than the average for network attached consumer devices, and therefore not realistic. Cheers, Eric Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: There's this concept known as "dual criminality" in such situations, when you're looking at international prosecutions (or whatever). So, while lesé majesté - insult to the king - is a crime in thailand (liable to get you lynched before you get prosecuted, at that) that doesnt mean the thai authorities can do much about youtube videos .. On the other hand, child pornography, malware, illegal sale of prescription narcotics etc are generally criminal acts around the world. regards srs On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines "scum". Consider the following cases, which I will assert are not very far-fetched: (a) China labels Falun Gong as "scum" and demands that international ISPs not carry it if they want to do business in China
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
There's this concept known as "dual criminality" in such situations, when you're looking at international prosecutions (or whatever). So, while lesé majesté - insult to the king - is a crime in thailand (liable to get you lynched before you get prosecuted, at that) that doesnt mean the thai authorities can do much about youtube videos .. On the other hand, child pornography, malware, illegal sale of prescription narcotics etc are generally criminal acts around the world. regards srs On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Steven M. Bellovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines > "scum". Consider the following cases, which I will assert are not very > far-fetched: > > (a) China labels Falun Gong as "scum" and demands that international > ISPs not carry it if they want to do business in China
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
Paul Ferguson wrote: My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.? Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial carpet. Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care about? IMHO policy should only be dictated by the edge, never upstream of that point. Now whether the edge is defined as the edge provider or the actual end-user is up for debate. I don't want my upstreams to make a decision what my SP and thus my customers can get to. My customers can't contact my upstream and argue for listing or delisting a given IP like they can with me. They can't speak with their dollars to my upstream like that can with me, their edge provider. Then again should I as the edge provider filter for my customers? Value-add service or a bonus service? It depends on your point of view. Justin
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:33:21 EDT, "Steven M. Bellovin" said: > On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum. > > b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true. > > I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines > "scum". Consider the following cases, which I will assert are not very > far-fetched: For the sake of discussion, I was calling "scum" "any entity that your morals say you shouldn't accept money from, but your accountant says you should" What that makes your accountant... is another discussion entirely :) However, I *do* agree with the problem of "scum with politico-economic leverage" pgp6WAK3yxLYD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
Steven M. Bellovin wrote: On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum. b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true. I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines "scum". Who defines "scum" when you get the email announcing a solution to your most urgent sexual problems? Who defines "scum" when the guy shows up at your office with a lot of the world's finest wrist watches for sale at unbelievably low prices? Who defines "scum" when you get the pallet of toner nobody remembers ordering? Who defines "scum" when the seedy character you never met before shows up to take your daughter out?
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:08:20 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum. > b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true. I mostly agree with you -- but I get very worried about who defines "scum". Consider the following cases, which I will assert are not very far-fetched: (a) China labels Falun Gong as "scum" and demands that international ISPs not carry it if they want to do business in China (b) Russia labels critics of Putin and Medvedev as "scum" and demands that international ISPs bar their traffic if they want to do business in Russia (c) Saudi Arabia denounces Internet pornographers as "scum" and demands that ISPs bar their traffic if they want their countries to be able to purchase oil (c) France and Germany label EBay as "scum" for not barring sales of Nazi memorabilia and demands that international ISPs not carry it if they want to do business in the EU (d) The RIAA and MPAA label file-sharers as "scum" and deny combined TV/ISP companies (cable ISPs, Verizon FIOS, etc.) access to any *broadcast* content if the ISP side doesn't crack down on file-sharing. These are slightly far-fetched, but only slightly. I have a nice real-world example that I need to verify is public first, but it's directly on this point. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:21:24 CDT, "Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr." said: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said: > > >> Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care > >> about? > > > > If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity, what's your > > incentive to make them clean up their act and get rid of their P2P > > filesharing > > traffic, spam traffic, and so on? > > What is your price for cocaine? No, seriously.. If, as some estimates have it, 80% of the traffic is P2P, and as other estimates have it, 90% of that is copyright-infringing, then if that traffic disappears, anybody who was selling transit for that traffic is going to take a *big* revenue hit. And similarly, if you're selling transit to somebody who's then (eventually) reselling a pipe to Atrivio/Intercage or the RBN, turning that somebody off because they won't turn off the bad guys is going to make a dent in the bottom line. I think it's very disingenuous to pretend that there have been *no* providers that haven't said to themselves "We're selling to scum, but it pays the bills, and we'd be in bankruptcy court otherwise..." The fact that bad guys don't seem to have *any* trouble getting connectivity once they finally *do* get kicked off a provider is proof enough that: a) There exist providers that are willing to take money from scum. b) We won't get rid of the scum until we admit (a) is true. pgp4ldQPvNmcQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said: Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care about? If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity, what's your incentive to make them clean up their act and get rid of their P2P filesharing traffic, spam traffic, and so on? What is your price for cocaine?
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 05:36:47AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Serious question, that - how many long-haul providers would be in serious > trouble if all the spam and filesharing suddenly stopped and only legitimate > traffic travelled through their pipes? define "legitimate" --bill
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Paul Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -- "Marc Sachs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595&v=4&view=2.0 My only concern here is that by the publicity this issue continues to receive, these activities will just move else where, like scurrying cockroaches (like what happened with AS40989). [some elided] I guess my effort to evoke commentary on NANOG failed. My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.? Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial carpet. Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care about? NANOG is on vacation. Wait one more day. :) - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIu6xHq1pz9mNUZTMRAo1gAKCT0QCc65W1z8C5gsegsm6zBWDDCwCeLKac 7nVL8XmqOZiFfD18hFSFL/M= =8pXG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:48:12 -, Paul Ferguson said: > My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you > suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing > to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.? > > Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed > here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial > carpet. > > Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care > about? If somebody's paying you $n/megabyte for transit/connectivity, what's your incentive to make them clean up their act and get rid of their P2P filesharing traffic, spam traffic, and so on? Serious question, that - how many long-haul providers would be in serious trouble if all the spam and filesharing suddenly stopped and only legitimate traffic travelled through their pipes? pgp2Y7Spf0UeJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GLBX De-Peers Intercage [Was: RE: Washington Post: Atrivo/Intercag e, w hy are we peering with the American RBN?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Paul Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >-- "Marc Sachs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595&v=4&view=2.0 > >My only concern here is that by the publicity this issue continues >to receive, these activities will just move else where, like >scurrying cockroaches (like what happened with AS40989). > [some elided] I guess my effort to evoke commentary on NANOG failed. My next question to the peanut gallery is: What do you suggest we should do on other hosting IP blocks are are continuing to host criminal activity, even in the face of abuse reports, etc.? Seriously -- I think this is an issue which needs to be addressed here. ISPs cannot continue to sweep this issue under the proverbial carpet. Is this an issue that network operations folk don't really care about? - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIu6xHq1pz9mNUZTMRAo1gAKCT0QCc65W1z8C5gsegsm6zBWDDCwCeLKac 7nVL8XmqOZiFfD18hFSFL/M= =8pXG -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
