Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

[Scott Brim]

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 22:37 Michael Thomas  wrote:

> I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong
> on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others.
>
> Mike
>

I saw just a small swing of the pendulum toward the center, a nuanced
meaning for "liberal". The adage wasn't tossed out. Operationally it can't
be.

Scott

>

Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity

[Scott Brim]

Cameron Byrne allegedly wrote on 10/10/2010 15:38 EDT:
> LTE provides some latency benefits on the wireless interface, but the
> actual packet core architecture is very similar to GSM / UMTS.

and it's going to be a long time before Local Breakout gets noticeably
deployed.

Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)

[Scott Brim]

On 11/08/2010 07:57 GMT+08:00, William Herrin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
>> It's really quiet in here.  So, for some Friday fun let
>> me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens...  >;-)
>>
>> And so, "...the first principle of our proposed new network architecture: 
>> Layers are recursive."
> 
> Hi Scott,
> 
> Anyone who has bridged an ethernet via a TCP based IPSec tunnel
> understands that layers are recursive.

See also G.805 et seq.

Re: Mastercard problems

[Scott Brim]

On 12/09/2010 11:29 EST, Jim Mercer wrote:
> amazon is selling a Kindle version of the Wikileaks released cables:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/WikiLeaks-documents-expose-foreign-conspiracies/dp/B004EEOLIU/

"This book contains commentary and analysis regarding recent WikiLeaks
disclosures, not the original material disclosed via the WikiLeaks website."

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Scott Brim]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush  wrote:
> btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at
>
> 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
>     June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)
>
> which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space
>
> randy

No, that's a misuse of "loc/id" since no identification is involved,
even at the network layer -- but it is in the "reduce issues in global
routing and local renumbering" space (that's part of what LISP does).

Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
have been worth it?  LISP apparently has more benefits, and NPT6 is so
much easier -- particularly if you have rapid adaptation to apparent
address changes, which many apps have and all mobile devices need
already -- sorry but I don't think ILNP is going to make it.  You
can't just say "the IETF should pay more attention".  I've invited
people to promote it and nobody stepped up.

Scott

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

[Scott Brim]

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:09, Fred Baker  wrote:
> I think ILNP is a great solution. My concern with it is that the needed 
> changes to TCP and UDP are not likely to happen.

I guess I should clarify: I think ILNP is elegant.  But the real
Internet evolves incrementally, and only as needed.  Other
trajectories are much more likely.

Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

[Scott Brim]

On 01/29/13 12:02, Jay Ashworth allegedly wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Rob McEwen" 
>> When any government entity desires log files from an ISP, and if that
>> ISP is very protective of their customer's privacy and civil liberties,
>> then the ISP typically ONLY complies with the request if there is a
>> proper court order, granted by a judge, after "probable cause" of some
>> kind of crime has been established, where they are not on a fishing
>> expedition. But, in contrast, if the city government owns the network,
>> it seems like a police detective contacting his fellow city employee
>> in the IT department could easily circumvent the civil liberties
>> protections. Moreover, there is an argument that the ISP being stingy
>> with such data causes them to be "heros" to the public, and they gain
>> DESIRED press and attention when they refuse to comply with such
>> requests without a court order. In contrast, the city's IT staff and
>> the police detective BOTH share the SAME boss's boss's boss. The IT guy
>> won't get a pat on the back for making life difficult for the police
>> department. He'll just silently lose his job eventually, or get passed
>> up for a promotion. The motivation will be on him to PLEASE his fellow
>> city employees, possibly at the expense of our civil liberties.
>>
>> PS - of course, no problems here if the quest to gain information
>> involves a muni network that is only used by city employees.
>>
>> PPS - then again, maybe my "log file example" doesn't apply to the
>> particular implementation that Jay described? Regardless, it DOES
>> apply to various government implementations of broadband service.
> It would, if I were talking about a situation where the muni *was the ISP*,
> supplying layer 3+ services.  I'm not.  I'm purposefully only talking
> about layer 1 service (where the residents contract with an ISP client 
> of the muni, and that client supplies an ONT and takes an optical handoff)
> or, my preferred approach, a layer 2 service (where the muni supplies the 
> ONT and the ISP client of the muni takes an aggregated Ethernet handoff
> (probably 10G fiber, possibly trunked).
>
> (Actually, my approach if I was building it would be Layer 2 unless the 
> resident wants a Layer 1 connection to {a properly provisioned ISP,some
> other location of theirs}.  Best of both worlds.)
Right, and a public-private partnership model is more common than having
the city actually operate the network at any layer. 

Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

[Scott Brim]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:41, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:25:46AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
>
>> Geographic routing strategies have been all but proven to irredeemably
>> violate the recursive commercial payment relationships which create
>> the Internet's topology. In other words, they always end up stealing
>> bandwidth on links for which neither the source of the packet nor it's
>> destination have paid for a right to use.
>>
>> This is documented in a 2008 Routing Research Group thread.
>> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg01781.html

> I think the problem can be tackled by implementing this in
> wireless last-mile networks owned and operated by end users.

Interesting point, and the growth in municipal networks could help.
But they are still a vast minority.

Scott

Re: EBAY and AMAZON

[Scott Brim]

I think it's a troll, trying to shock you into clicking on something.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Nick Olsen  wrote:

> I think it might just be coincidence. I've gotten about 10 of them and
> haven't been to ebay or amazon in months.
> Most of them have been for >60 dollar books.
>
> Nick Olsen
> Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106
>
> 
>  From: "Brandt, Ralph" 
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:28 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: EBAY and AMAZON
>
> I have received bogus emails from both of the above on Friday.
>
> These look like I bought something that in both cases I did not buy.
> The EBAY was a golf club for $887 and the Amazon was a novel for $82,
> far more than I would have spent on either.
>
> I think I looked at the novel on Amazon and I remember the golf club
> came up on a search with something else on Ebay.
>
> How this information could get to someone spoofing is a little
> disconcerting.
>
> I have changed EBAY and Paypal Passwords as instructed.
>
> Ralph Brandt
> Communications Engineer
> HP Enterprise Services
> Telephone +1 717.506.0802
> FAX +1 717.506.4358
> Email ralph.bra...@pateam.com
> 5095 Ritter Rd
> Mechanicsburg PA 17055
>
>
>

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

[Scott Brim]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> According to:
>
>   
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
> is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
also think I remember that there is no significant cost to
certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane.  If this is all
true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Brim]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Bruce H McIntosh  wrote:
> On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>
>> What's a "lawful" web site?
>>
> Now *there* is a $64,000 question.  Even more interesting is, "Who gets to
> decide day to day the answer to that question?" :)

Common term in mobile operators. A mobile site is one that is not
breaking the law, e.g. not distributing pirated materials or being
used for other illegal activity. If a site is breaking the law, they
can block it.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[Scott Brim]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Scott Brim  wrote:
> Common term in mobile operators. A mobile site is one that is not

I mean a legal site. Sigh.

Re: The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it back

[Scott Brim]

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jorge Amodio  wrote:
> IMHO, there is no amount of engineering that can fix stupid people doing
> stupid things on both sides of the stupid lines.

Yes but there is engineering to ensure that they have the opportunity
to do the right thing in the first place.  If we (IETF) naively
engineer out the ability to have privacy, it doesn't matter if those
people are stupid or not.

Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size)

[Scott Brim]

Oh this sure will be fun. For a good time, see how GSMA handles
connectivity with IPXs.
On Sep 26, 2013 1:28 PM, "William Herrin"  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM, John Curran  wrote:
> > On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> >
> >> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
> >
> > If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is
> with respect
> > to routing table slots.
> > That's not to say that establishing a framework for externalizing
> routing costs would
> > be easy; it's a complicated and twisted matter, and also fraught with
> various legal &
> > competitive aspects.
>
> Hi John,
>
> That's putting it mildly. Establishing such a framework would be an
> immense challenge. Here are some ideas I've heard:
>
>
> 1. The International Clearinghouse
>
> Every BGP participant files with a clearinghouse, specifying:
>
> a. How much they charge to carry 1 route
> b. Whether or not they are a leaf node
> c. Whether or not they are a transit-free network.
>
> Any network which is not transit free must implement a default route
> which leads to a big transit-free network in order to maintain full
> connectivity.
>
> The BGP participants then publish the exact routes they intend to
> announce to the clearinghouse and for each one select which networks
> they'll pay to carry the route. The route must still reach each
> network via BGP; payment just means that the network won't filter the
> route out.
>
> The clearinghouse then collects payments from everybody and makes
> payments to everybody, as well as providing each participant a list of
> the routes that are paid for. Sellers are expected to promptly
> incorporate new paid routes into their BGP filters.
>
> From my research a few years ago, a reasonable rate would be around 3
> to 4 cents per year per advertised route per BGP-carrying router in
> the organization. A couple billion dollars per year if the routing
> table maintained its current size.
>
>
> 2. The partial routing scenario
>
> Large service providers put bids in to the RIRs for the right to
> announce /8 covering routes for each /8 delegated to the RIR. Each /8
> matches exactly one service provider. Smaller BGP system participants
> make private arrangements with a small (20 to 30) set of networks
> (including their direct ISPs) to carry their advertised routes through
> a reasonably redundant number of pathways to (and including) the
> winning bidder for the /8 they inhabit. For the sake of performance,
> they may also pay additional large networks to shortcut the traffic
> towards them rather than let it dump at the /8 advertiser.
>
> For the folks you don't pay via the clearinghouse, many end-user
> systems and the majority of transit systems simply don't carry your
> route unless yours is among the handful of systems critically
> important to their customers. Instead, traffic to your network follows
> the /8 advertisement until it reaches a network which carries your
> specific route.
>
> With the routing costs suitably reduced, settlement for the remaining
> routes becomes moot.
>
> This is usually within a few percent of the routing efficiency that
> would have been achieved with total route propagation.
>
>
> 3. The routing overlay
>
> Establish a semi-stateless tunneling system. Each BGP participant sets
> up a tunnel ingress node and links a default route to it. Packets for
> a destination not found in the routing table follow the default route
> to the tunnel ingress.
>
> The tunnel device then looks up an tunnel exit node via a mapping
> protocol. Both the map server and the exit node have to be hosted on
> IP addresses reachable via the normal routing table.
>
> Having found an exit node, the original packet is encapsulated into a
> tunnel packet and sent to the exit node. The exit node is in a part of
> the network that carries an explicit route to the destination.
>
> Then, move the definition of threshold size. Except for whitelisted
> critical infrastructure, /24 advertisements would no longer carry an
> expectation of universal distribution. To maintain connectivity, folks
> at the bottom of the chain would need to establish or subscribe to
> tunnel exit nodes that have a route back to them.
>
> With the routing costs suitably reduced, settlement for the remaining
> routes becomes moot.
>
> The IRTF Routing Research Group studied such protocols a few years ago
> and have pretty well fleshed out how to make one work with all the
> tangled issues involving path mtu, dead path detection and so on.
> Multiple designs sit on a shelf waiting for a promise that the
> technology will be purchased if built.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>
>

Re: 40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

[Scott Brim]

On 08/14/2010 13:27 EDT, Jimi Thompson wrote:
> It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI

That was Civil War, for freed slaves.  Here in NY, war of independence
veterans were given at least 100 acres each.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York_Military_Tract

Re: sort by agony

[Scott Brim]

On 08/27/2010 01:46 EDT, JC Dill wrote:
> What is Agony, and why would I want to sort by it?
> Agony is our way of sorting flights to take into account price,
> duration, and number of stops. There's more to a flight than its price,
> so we provide this sort to give you better all-around results.

I wonder if I could persuade it to take round trip agony into account.
For example on CO I can get from here to PEK easily, but on the way back
I would have to spend the night in Newark.

Re: NANOG NYC Event

[Scott Brim]

On 5/31/08 12:36 PM, Rod Beck allegedly wrote:

I strongly suggest that those heading to New York visit the great
musems, architecture (Saint Patrick's Cathedral), and restaurants.
You have the American Museum of Natural History, which includes an
excellent Planetarium and just on the other side of Central Park, the
Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Guggenheim. There are excellent
Chinese and Indian restaurants in Lower Manhattan.


Don't forget about Brooklyn in all this Manhattan praise :-).  Consider 
the Brooklyn Botanic Garden.  It's too late for cherries but the rose 
collections will be great.  And the best pizza in New York (if you can 
get in) is at 
http://menupages.com/restaurantdetails.asp?areaid=0&restaurantid=31402&neighborhoodid=114&cuisineid=0

Re: NANOG NYC Event

[Scott Brim]

... which isn't to say those all aren't wonderful.

Re: why not AS number based prefixes aggregation

[Scott Brim]

Excerpts from yangyang. wang on Mon, Sep 08, 2008 09:20:38PM +0800:
> Hi, everyone:
> 
>  For routing scalability issues, I have a question: why not deploy AS
> number based routing scheme?  BGP is path vector protocol and the shortest
> paths are calculated based on traversed AS numbers. The prefixes in the same
> AS almost have the same AS_PATH associated, and aggregating prefixes
> according to AS will shrink BGP routing table significantly. I don't know
> what comments the ISPs make on this kind of routing scheme.
> 
> 
> -yang

It might be the right level of granularity for policy but is too
coarse for routing.  You want to be able to route on prefixes (even if
not everyone does it) for flexibility/TE.  Also, ASNs are not
aggregatable so we can't use them to represent a large number of
independently routed networks.

Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators

[Scott Brim]

Jorge Amodio allegedly wrote on 01/21/2010 10:41 EST:
> As an starting point you should read "The Tao of the IETF" RFC4677 (currently,
> update draft in progress).
> 
> About your particular question read section 8.4.5.
> 
> Regards
> Jorge

Right.  And it's subtler than you think.  Some network operators have
patents (not just vendors).  Some are held by organizations that only
exist to hold patents and don't actually know much about networking.
And just because something is patented doesn't mean it isn't
interoperable -- most networking standards are patented.

swb

> 
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Abhishek Verma
>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Network Ops folks use the IETF standards for their operations. I see
>> lot of nifty things coming out from the IETF stable and i was
>> wondering why those dont get patented? Why bother releasing some
>> really good idea to IETF (i.e. open standards bodies) when the vendor
>> could have patented it. The network operators can still use it as long
>> as they are using that vendor's equipment. I understand that interop
>> can be an issue, since it will be a patented technology, but it will
>> always work between the boxes from the same vendor. If so, then whats
>> the issue?
>>
>> Is interop the only issue because of which most ideas get released
>> into IETF? I guess interop is *an* issue since nobody wants a single
>> vendor network.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Abhishek
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

[Scott Brim]

N. Yaakov Ziskind allegedly wrote on 02/23/2010 11:34 EST:
> Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600):
>> On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they
>>> can't understand.  Email addresses aren't phone numbers.
>>
>> It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives
>> get so excited about "minor, trivial" erosions of sanity; why they worry
>> about "where this might lead"
>>
>> It's been mentioned--why not "portable" street addresses.  Fire
>> departments will just have to adapt.
> 
> If you want an example of just what would result, take a trip to Tokyo,
> where house numbers were assigned in the order that building permits
> were issued, and you need *extremely* detailed directions.
> 

Simple: you separate 'mail' addresses from 'fire' addresses.  Mail
addresses are identifiers.  Fire addresses are locators.

Re: Egypt 'hijacked Vodafone network'

[Scott Brim]

On 02/03/2011 10:14 EST, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> 
> On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:24 AM, andrew.wallace wrote:
> 
>> Mobile phone firm Vodafone accuses the Egyptian authorities of
>> using its network to send pro-government text messages.
>> 
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12357694
> 
> Here is their PR
> 
> http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/press.html
> 
> Note that this is entirely legal, under "the emergency powers
> provisions of the Telecoms Act"

Which is legal, Vodafone's protest or the government's telling them to
send messages?  afaik the agreement was that the operator would have
preloaded canned messages, agreed on in advance with the government, and
now the government is telling them to send out arbitrary messages they
compose on the spot.

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

[Scott Brim]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 15:35,  wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
> > Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
> >
> > That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is funny
> > that doesn't mean that repetitions of it are funny too. Quite the
> contrary.
>
> Yes, but I bet many providers recognize rfc1149 now.  rfc6214 gives us a
> new
> brown M&M to put into the contracts...
>

You need to specify "tail drop" behavior.

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

[Scott Brim]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:42, Leigh Porter
 wrote:
> So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it available for 
> others?

Without knowing the details, I wouldn't assume any such level of
competence or integrity.  It could just be a broad witch hunt.

> Apologies for the top post...

Never apologize for top posting, it just starts the flame war all over again.

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

[Scott Brim]

On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM,  wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:
>
> > What about privacy concerns
>
> "Privacy is dead.  Get used to it." -- Scott McNeely

Forget that attitude, Valdis. Just because privacy is blown at one level
doesn't mean you give it away at every other one. We establish the framework
for recovering privacy and make progress step by step, wherever we can.
Someday we'll get it all back under control.

Scott

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

[Scott Brim]

Yes indeed.  

-- sent from a tiny screen

Re: IT Survey Request: Win an iPad2 or Kindle!

[Scott Brim]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:38, JC Dill  wrote:
> The cynic in me wonders how they will track how many people I forwarded this
> to. I plan to win the prize for "the person who refers the survey to the
> most number of people" by forwarding it to millions of people.  :-)
>
> (I suspect that the prize will be won by the person who others (who take the
> survey) claim referred them to the survey, which is different from the
> criteria set for the prize.)

If you'll say that I'm the one who referred you, I'll enter you in a
drawing for a free iPad.

Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

[Scott Brim]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:47, Chris Adams  wrote:
> I'd go so far as to say "user failure".  If I wanted cable TV
> (especially if I needed it at home as part of my job), I wouldn't
> buy/rent/lease/whatever a home without checking that cable TV is
> available at that location.

Yeah, he messed up, but the social problem is still real.  The
Internet is now more important than electricity or water -- you can go
off the grid or dig your own well, but more and more you can't get a
job or talk to the government without web access and email.

Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

[Scott Brim]

On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 05:34, Jeroen van Aart  wrote:
> Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home?

The essential point is: if people have the bandwidth, they fill it,
sometimes with uses we haven't dreamed up yet.  In the USA at least,
creativity and productivity are _often_ bandwidth-limited (that's
documented).  Open the door and you get a positive feedback loop of:
opportunity -> creativity -> perceived need -> services ->
opportunity, leading to More Money For Everyone, including ISPs.