> Or, go see the movie "Super Size Me" - you might just give up McDonald's
> entirely, reducing your risk of burns from their overheated coffee. :)
Haven't been in one on over 2 years - and not through any great principal, I
just stopped. Odd how our tastes change with age ;-)
Peter
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> in any other industry, you (the isp) would do a simple risk analysis
> and start treating the cause rather than the symptom.
What other industry do you know where you are expected to fix products
you didn't sell and didn't cause for free? Should we revoke
- Original Message -
From: "Randy Bush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jonathan Nichols" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Points on your Internet driver's license (was RE: Even you can be hacked)
>
> > http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.ht
Sean Donelan wrote:
and you would certainly not offer your services without a clear idea of how
to reach the customer and assist them in getting out of cyberjail --
Done. Effectiveness?
If you do this and keep them there until they are fixed, your network
should qualify as a good neighbor
> Been there, done that. Got any new ideas?
Provide a safe network connection. I believe an ISP should provide a safe
environment to play, assuming the customer is innocent granny. Your
average DSL network connection should be safe by default, so a default
Win98 (or any other OS) can be conne
On Saturday 12 June 2004 14:53, Adi Linden wrote:
> > Been there, done that. Got any new ideas?
>
> Provide a safe network connection. I believe an ISP should provide a safe
> environment to play, assuming the customer is innocent granny. Your
> average DSL network connection should be safe by de
- Original Message -
From: "Adi Linden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Provide a safe network connection. I believe an ISP should provide a safe
> environment to play, assuming the customer is innocent granny. Your
> average DSL network connection should be safe by default, so a default
> Win98 (
Maybe I'm a little slow on the draw, but I've just now realized
that we've come full circle, in a strange sort of way.
8 to 10 years ago the discussions were dominated by Karl D(1),
where *everything* was defined as to whether is was "actionable" or not.
Now the discussions are dominated by many
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean Donelan) writes:
> > in any other industry, you (the isp) would do a simple risk analysis
> > and start treating the cause rather than the symptom.
>
> What other industry do you know where you are expected to fix products
> you didn't sell and didn't cause for free?
ris
It appears that AboveNet is having major worldwide backbone issues at
the moment. We were seeing high latency from the US to Europe, and now
some European routes are no longer being advertised to the US.
Ed
> It appears that AboveNet is having major worldwide backbone issues at
> the moment. We were seeing high latency from the US to Europe, and now
> some European routes are no longer being advertised to the US.
it might be interesting to know how you determined this and what
are "major worldwid
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > It appears that AboveNet is having major worldwide backbone issues at
> > the moment. We were seeing high latency from the US to Europe, and now
> > some European routes are no longer being advertised to the US.
>
> it might be interesting to know how
>> it might be interesting to know how you determined this and what
>> are "major worldwide backbone issues" in the sense of how they are
>> defined and measured.
> Maybe they told him. :)
damn. and i really meant my question. a lot of researchers
are investing a lot of effort into recognizing
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > It appears that AboveNet is having major worldwide backbone issues at
> > the moment. We were seeing high latency from the US to Europe, and now
> > some European routes are no longer being advertised to the US.
>
> it might be interesting to know ho
> The problem with this is one of who pays for it.
The customer.
> You are talking about an environment where the newcomers and non-experts
> require significantly more intervention in how things are done and what they
> can do than the more experienced hands.
I am talking about an environmen
Edward Henigin wrote:
It appears that AboveNet is having major worldwide backbone issues at
the moment. We were seeing high latency from the US to Europe, and now
some European routes are no longer being advertised to the US.
We are seeing those European routes again. Looks like the downtime fo
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> >> it might be interesting to know how you determined this and what
> >> are "major worldwide backbone issues" in the sense of how they are
> >> defined and measured.
> > Maybe they told him. :)
>
> damn. and i really meant my question. a lot of resea
> That's like saying provide safe electricity. If someone has a toaster where
> the wire cracks and they electrocute themselves, or a hair dryer that isn't
> safe in the bathtub, do you complain that the electric company should
> provide safe electricity?
The problem with all the comparisions is
Adi Linden wrote:
To compare this with the electricity company, the average home with a
200A
service is equivalent to NATed and firewalled internet bandwidth. As your
electricity demands grow (for whatever reason) the electricity company
upgrades your service, to 3 phase, 600V, whatever. Same w
> If we would properly follow the analogy above, ISPs should provide a
> "security fuse" which would disconnect the user when blown. Paul called
> this "cyberjail" if I follow his thoughts. All efforts above this should
> be charged separately or be part of "better general level of service".
>
Actually I'm not sure if it is related or not but Above.Net did have what
they called a "Global Maintenance" window last night in order to configure
MPLS.
And now that I see it, they did say "These changes will be transparent and
will not involve routing interruptions." So it's probably something
In a message written on Sat, Jun 12, 2004 at 01:02:54PM -0500, Edward Henigin wrote:
> Anyone have any more information? Leo?
We loaded some global config changes last night. Sometime after
they were loaded BadThings(tm) happened. We're still working with
vendors to find the exact causes and en
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> with all due respect, which is in fact waning due to your sarcastic attitude,
> none of those things have been done. oh, sure, various isp's have waved at
> those problems, and some have paid some lip service to them, but it has not
> been seriously tried,
> So you claim even the ISPs you ran yourself have never attempted to do
> any of these things?
the last access-side isp i had anything to do with running used uucp and
shell and was just getting going on c-slip when i pushed off. (i assure
that any rmail or rnews spam was grounds for suspension
To compare this with the electricity company, the average home with a 200A
service is equivalent to NATed and firewalled internet bandwidth. As your
electricity demands grow (for whatever reason) the electricity company
upgrades your service, to 3 phase, 600V, whatever. Same with internet
bandwidt
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > If you didn't do them, why do you think other people should?
>
> so you aren't going to google for "chemical polluter business model", huh?
I hope you also google for Nonpoint Source Pollution.
ISPs don't put the pollution in the water, ISPs are trying
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > > If you didn't do them, why do you think other people should?
> > so you aren't going to google for "chemical polluter business
> model", huh?
> I hope you also google for Nonpoint Source Pollution.
> ISPs don't put the pollution in the water, ISP
The real challenge here is that the "default" Internet service is
wide-open Internet Protocol, w/o any safeties or controls. This
made a lot of sense when the Internet was a few hundred sites,
but is showing real scaling problems today (spam, major viruses,
etc.)
One could imagine changing the
> One could imagine changing the paradigm (never easy) so that
> the normal Internet service was proxied for common applications
> and NAT'ed for everything else... This wouldn't eliminate all the
> problems, but would dramatically cut down the incident rate.
>
> If a site wants wide-open acce
At 6:58 PM -0700 6/12/04, Randy Bush wrote:
> > One could imagine changing the paradigm (never easy) so that
>> the normal Internet service was proxied for common applications
>> and NAT'ed for everything else... This wouldn't eliminate all the
>> problems, but would dramatically cut down the inc
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Curran wrote:
> One could imagine changing the paradigm (never easy) so that
> the normal Internet service was proxied for common applications
> and NAT'ed for everything else... This wouldn't eliminate all the
> problems, but would dramatically cut down the incident rat
If their is a Akamai Admin in the channel, please
contact me off channel
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter
301-340-1533
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
> > Send me your root passwords. Trust me.
>
> you should offer this service. most of us would urge our parents'
> generation to sign up for it. (i hope you weren't joking.)
As you keep pointing out, a problem with current Internet security is
its "opt-in
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Curran wrote:
>
> The real challenge here is that the "default" Internet service is
> wide-open Internet Protocol, w/o any safeties or controls. This
> made a lot of sense when the Internet was a few hundred sites,
> but is showing real scaling problems today (spam, m
At 4:21 AM + 6/13/04, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
>We have methods of dealing with these abuse problems today, unfortanately
>as Paul Vixie often points out there are business reasons why these
>problems persist. Often the 'business' reason isn't the
>tin-foil-hat-brigade's reason so much a
On Sun, 13 Jun 2004, John Curran wrote:
>
> At 4:21 AM + 6/13/04, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> >We have methods of dealing with these abuse problems today, unfortanately
> >as Paul Vixie often points out there are business reasons why these
> >problems persist. Often the 'business' rea
> > so you aren't going to google for "chemical polluter business model", huh?
>
> I hope you also google for Nonpoint Source Pollution.
>
> ISPs don't put the pollution in the water, ISPs are trying to clean up
> the water polluted by others. ISPs are spending a lot of money cleaning
> up prob
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("David Schwartz") writes:
> > ISPs don't put the pollution in the water, ISPs are trying to clean up
> > the water polluted by others. ISPs are spending a lot of money cleaning
> > up problems created by other people.
>
> ISPs do put the pollution in the water. They own
> >We have methods of dealing with these abuse problems today, unfortanately
> >as Paul Vixie often points out there are business reasons why these
> >problems persist. Often the 'business' reason isn't the tin-foil-
> >hat-brigade's reason so much as 'we can't afford to keep these abuse
> >folks
> ...
> If we give some people an option to opt-out, most grandmothers will
> probably follow Paul's example and save the few bucks every month and not
> use the security features. Should ISPs charge for security like the
> Universial Service Fund fee on your telephone bill, everyone (not just
>
40 matches
Mail list logo
