Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

> One point of clarity here.  Lightning talks are scheduled in a more > spur of the moment fashion than the traditional submission process for > general sessions. which was why this one was on the web agenda at as specific time? :) sorry my attempt at dealing with todd's screw-up with humor evok

[NANOG-announce] NANOG46 survey open until July 6

Hi folks! Thanks very much for helping to make a successful NANOG in Philadelphia. If you haven't already (and we know a lot of those in attendance did not), then please visit the easy-to remember redirection URL http://tinyurl.com/nanog46 A lot of our direction for the structure and me

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

Randy Bush wrote: please do check your as at and then actually look at your router config. i found one of my routers still had a default from when i was bringing it up. Ick. Nothing was right. Reported as mixed, though that may be my fault and not your testing. Hmmm.

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Randy Bush wrote: >> One point of clarity here.  Lightning talks are scheduled in a more >> spur of the moment fashion than the traditional submission process for >> general sessions. > > which was why this one was on the web agenda at as specific time?  :) > > sorr

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

> Was also reported as a stub. Glad to know that I don't have BGP > customers. Oh, wait, I do. :) talk to ucla. as i said, we take their classification with a grain of salt. randy

Intelligent life at CenturyTel AS5668?

Can someone from CenturyTel please contact me off list? -- mailto:n...@layer3arts.com // GoogleTalk: nrauhau...@gmail.com IM: nealrauhauser

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

Jack, Please give me your ASN and i'll double check our data. As long as the network has 4 or less downstreams, it's being labeled as "stub". More details here: http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/completeness-ton.pdf Thanks, --Ricardo On Jun 24, 2009, at 6:44 AM, Jack Bates wrote: Ran

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

OK,a buckety of salt. From my pov, a stub has zero downstreams. randy, on iPhone On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:39, Ricardo Oliveira wrote: Jack, Please give me your ASN and i'll double check our data. As long as the network has 4 or less downstreams, it's being labeled as "stub". More details h

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

Ricardo Oliveira wrote: Jack, Please give me your ASN and i'll double check our data. As long as the network has 4 or less downstreams, it's being labeled as "stub". More details here: http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/completeness-ton.pdf I guess the old adage, "In theory, theory and p

RE: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

That was my assumption when I checked the "UCLA is wrong" button on the form. We only have one downstream, but it's a distinct ASN so that says "not stub" to me. Mike Randy top posting - will wonders never cease. > -Original Message- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] > Sent: Wed

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

8025, and thanks for labeling us small transit guys as stub. I have transit customers that have higher user counts than I do. :P Randy's page just mentioned stub as not having transit customers. By your definition, we are stub. 4 ASNs under mine, since customers not needing BGP don't use it an

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

Iphone's. Are top posters :( Imiho a stub must only be foo$ randy On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:18, "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" > wrote: That was my assumption when I checked the "UCLA is wrong" button on the form. We only have one downstream, but it's a distinct ASN so that says "not stub" to

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Pete Templin wrote: Ricardo Oliveira wrote: Jack, Please give me your ASN and i'll double check our data. As long as the network has 4 or less downstreams, it's being labeled as "stub". More details here: http://www.cs.ucla.edu/~rveloso/papers/completeness-ton

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

> That was my assumption when I checked the "UCLA is wrong" button on the > form. We only have one downstream, but it's a distinct ASN so that says > "not stub" to me. this ucla fantasy imposing their social model on actual measurements is merely amusing and does little damage. researchers seem

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

Lixia Zhang wrote: On Jun 24, 2009, at 11:04 AM, Pete Templin wrote: In (your) theory, your paper may hold up. In practice, your definition of stub network is most likely considered wrong, and that likely shifts a lot of the assumptions in your paper. But I also believe that there are a fe

tor

sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be anonymous in hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from self-important people who wear formal clothes. folk who learn this the hard way may find a pointer passed to me by smb helpful, . randy

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

Pete Templin wrote: Skimming the paper turns up a key sentence, "Stub networks, on the other hand, do not forward packets for other networks." What part of that led you to think that stub networks forward packets for 1-4 downstream ASNs? That's where the confusion sets in, and Randy even st

Re: Use of Default in the DFZ: banned in philly, see it now on the net!

Hi, The classification we have is one possible classification, it's hard (if not impossible) to capture the diversity of the network in 4 classes without having mislabels. We noticed that there were a considerable number of networks with special arrangements (i.e. a very small number of lo

Re: tor

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be anonymous in > hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from self-important people > who wear formal clothes. > > folk who learn this the hard way may find a pointer passed t

Re: tor

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > >> sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be anonymous in >> hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from self-important people >> who wear formal clothes. >> >> folk who learn this

RE: tor

Hi Richard, It is a more complicated issue than that. There is a long established legal tradition that telecommunication transport is not liable for the content it transmits. It's called common carrier. If someone makes an obscene phone call, the phone company cannot be held liable. Yes, if

Re: tor

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:48:58 -0400 Andrew D Kirch wrote: > Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: > > > >> sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be > >> anonymous in hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from > >> se

Re: tor

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:57:27PM +0100, Rod Beck wrote: > Hi Richard, > > It is a more complicated issue than that. > > There is a long established legal tradition that telecommunication > transport is not liable for the content it transmits. It's called > common carrier. If someone makes an

RE: tor

-Original Message- From: Steven M. Bellovin [mailto:s...@cs.columbia.edu] Sent: Wed 6/24/2009 11:01 PM To: trel...@trelane.net Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: tor On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:48:58 -0400 Andrew D Kirch wrote: > Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -

Re: tor

You're referring to the DMCAs safe harbor provision. -brandon On 6/24/09, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:48:58 -0400 > Andrew D Kirch wrote: > >> Richard A Steenbergen wrote: >> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: >> > >> >> sadly, naively turning u

RE: tor

This has nothing to do with telecommunications or any kind of carrier or business relationship. This is intentionally leaving your computer open so that anyone on the Internet can come along and appear to be coming from your IP, where they will promptly set off doing bad stuff that will get traced

Re: tor

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: >> sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be anonymous in >> hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from self-important people >> who wear formal clothes. >> >> folk who learn this the

Re: tor

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:18:20PM +0100, Rod Beck wrote: > > I am afraid what you described with the car is not illegal. > > It is highly unlikely any court would convict ... :) I'm not going to try and play armchair lawyer here (since my original comment was about the ethical and practical im

RE: tor

Richard, The question is how much ISPs should be responsible for the actions of their clients. My point is that is not obvious where you draw the line. I have yet to see anyone, including yourself, articulate a general principle (maybe it doesn't exist). Roderick S. Beck Director of Euro

RE: tor

My gosh... Ok, so if someone happens to talk about murder over the phone, is the phone company providing the service held liable? Lets get back to rational/informative content please. -Joe Blanchard > -Original Message- > From: Rod Beck [mailto:rod.b...@hiberniaatlantic.com] > Sent: We

Re: tor

This is rapidly heading off topic, and I imagine the MLC will be stepping in shortly. :)

Re: tor

Joe Blanchard wrote: My gosh... Ok, so if someone happens to talk about murder over the phone, is the phone company providing the service held liable? Lets get back to rational/informative content please. The phone company still has to provide records of who owns the phone number and perha

Re: tor

Richard A Steenbergen wrote: If you did this activity with the express purpose of helping someone else hide their identity, and thus their crime could be traced back to you but no further, you might end up looking like you were aiding and abetting. Since when was anonymity a crime? Neither enta

RE: tor

Yes, allow records and perhaps a phone tap, but not held liable for the means to a crime as suggested in earlier emails. Again, lets get back to suitable content. We could certainly go on an on about the legal items but of what relevance is it to NANOG. Kind Regards, -Joe Blanchard > -Ori

Akamai Support

Could someone from Akamai support unicast me off list please?? I have tried the usual support emails and numbers which usually have great response, but am having an issue getting someone to help me with an services problem. Sorry for the noise TIA Max

Re: tor

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:27:25 -0400 "Joe Blanchard" wrote: > Yes, allow records and perhaps a phone tap, but not held liable for > the means to a crime as suggested in earlier > emails. > > Again, lets get back to suitable content. We could certainly go on an > on about the legal items > but of

Re: tor

Did you guys know tor spelled backwards is rot? Interesting. Like the dude said in much ado about nothing, "there's a double meanining in that". -- Sent using BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Steven M. Bellovin To: Joe Blanchard CC: 'NANOG list' Sent: Wed Jun

RE: tor

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Rod Beck wrote: This has nothing to do with telecommunications or any kind of carrier or business relationship. This is intentionally leaving your computer open so that anyone on the Internet can come along and appear to be coming from your IP, where they will promptly set of

Re: tor

Running what's effectively an anonymous open proxy is not a bright idea, even if there's security bundled on.. John Gilmore found that out after Verio disconnected his perpetual open relay for example .. and TOR is just as nutty a concept. Nothing less that I'd expect from the EFF, frankly speak

Re: tor

Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a "provider of an interactive computer service" to go by the language in 47 USC 230, by simply running a TOR exit node. On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Rod Beck wrote: > Richard, > > The question is how much ISPs should be responsible for the actions

Re: tor

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a "provider of an > interactive computer service" to go by the language in 47 USC 230, by > simply running a TOR exit node. Ah, but would an ISP which currently enjoys whatever the current definitio

Re: tor

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a "provider of an >> interactive computer service" to go by the language in 47 USC 230, by >> simply running a TOR exit node. > > Ah, but would

Re: tor

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Rod - you wouldnt qualify as an ISP - or even a "provider of an > >> interactive computer service" to go by the language in 47 USC

Re: tor

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > Fine; re-phrase my question as "an organisation currently enjoying common > carrier > status." You do realize that even where the telco division of carrier X is a common carrier but the ISP division is typically not .. And even were the telc