Hi nanog mailing list,
Keep in mind that I am not a practicing network engineer, although I do
have interest and knowledge on networking topics. I do not work for
Verizon. I subscribe to Verizon FiOS, but not Verizon Wireless or
Verizon's enterprise services.
The Tor "directory&qu
Just an update -- We've sourced a solution and have moved forward with it.
Thanks for all the replies with vendors -- It definitely helped with the
sourcing process to find vendors that service both locales :)
On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Ryan Gard wrote:
> Trying to source some cost effecti
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Ryan Gard"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:04:40 PM
> Subject: Private Link between TOR and CHI
>
> Trying to source some cost effective solutions or vendors that could
> provide connect
l.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Gard"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 2:04:40 PM
Subject: Private Link between TOR and CHI
Trying to source some cost effective solutions or vendors that could
provide conne
HE, I use them for similar applications.
Best Regards,
--
adam gregory
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Ryan Gard
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:05 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Private Link between TOR
Trying to source some cost effective solutions or vendors that could
provide connectivity in this scenario. Essentially I'll be looking to
expand presence into Chicago, and as such, will need to source a third
party to provide connectivity from 151 Front Street in Toronto to 350
Cermak in Chicago.
On 09/04/2015 21:54, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> the math on their page is 'interesting'...
it's a t2 chipset. should be all forwarded at asic level, i.e. at line
rate per port.
Nick
Fairly certain thats a typo and supposed to be 960M pps :)
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
> > http://whiteboxswitch.com/products/edge-core-as5610-52x
>
> the math on their page is 'interesting'...
>
> 1.28tbps t
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> http://whiteboxswitch.com/products/edge-core-as5610-52x
the math on their page is 'interesting'...
1.28tbps throughput (which is .08 or so tbps better than 64 10g ports
equivalent)
960mbps forwarding
err... so for just plain switching line
On 09/04/2015 13:30, Colton Conor wrote:
> So are we expecting these new switches to be the same price or cheaper than
> the current 40G uplinks models? Do you think the vendors will heavily
> discount the switches with 10G user port and 40G uplinks?
like this?
http://whiteboxswitch.com/products/
ort 25/50G Ethernet.
>
> Phil
> --
> From: Colton Conor
> Sent: 4/8/2015 10:01 PM
> To: Furst, John-Nicholas
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: 100Gb/s TOR switch
>
> From which vendors?
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Furst, J
Everyone. These should also support 25/50G Ethernet.
Phil
-Original Message-
From: "Colton Conor"
Sent: 4/8/2015 10:01 PM
To: "Furst, John-Nicholas"
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: Re: 100Gb/s TOR switch
>From which vendors?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015
2015 9:58 PM
To: "Marian Ďurkovič"
Cc: "NANOG"
Subject: Re: 100Gb/s TOR switch
When will Tomahawk switches be available?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
> Wait for switches with BCM Tomahawk ASICs.
>
> They'll support exactly what you're
If referring to cavium xpa's hitting the oem's lines, next year or so I'm
guessing.
Bob Watson
> On Apr 8, 2015, at 9:01 PM, Colton Conor wrote:
>
> From which vendors?
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Furst, John-Nicholas
> wrote:
>
>> If you can wait, you will see the market flood
>From which vendors?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Furst, John-Nicholas
wrote:
> If you can wait, you will see the market flooded with 32x100G with the
> ability to down-clock to 40g / breakout to 4x10g in the Q3/Q4 timeframe ;)
>
>
> John-Nicholas Furst
> Hardware Engineer
>
>
> Office: +1.61
When will Tomahawk switches be available?
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Marian Ďurkovič wrote:
> Wait for switches with BCM Tomahawk ASICs.
>
> They'll support exactly what you're looking for.
>
>M.
>
>
> On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:01:59 +0200, Piotr wrote
> > Hi,
> >
> > There is something li
Hello Piotr,
You can always take a look at :
- Arista :
http://www.arista.com/en/products/7280e-series
- Brocade :
http://www.brocade.com/products/all/switches/product-details/vdx-6940-switch/index.page
HTH.
BR.
> Le 8 avr. 2015 à 21:01, Piotr a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> There is something l
Wait for switches with BCM Tomahawk ASICs.
They'll support exactly what you're looking for.
M.
On Wed, 08 Apr 2015 21:01:59 +0200, Piotr wrote
> Hi,
>
> There is something like this on market ? Looking for standalone switch,
> 1/2U, ca 40 ports 10Gb/s and about 4 ports 100Gb/s fixed or as
25/50/100 stuff should start coming out around soon, as well, which may drive
pricing down even more.
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Furst, John-Nicholas jofu...@akamai.com wrote:
> If you can wait, you will see the market flooded with 32x100G with the
> ability to down-clo
: 100Gb/s TOR switch
7700 2 slot looks to only support 1 line card, so 48x10 *or* 12x100
thanks,
-Randy
- On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:16 PM, Klimakhin, Kirill
kirill.klimak...@corebts.com wrote:
> Cisco Nexus 7700 2 slot chassis supports 48 x 10 Gbps, 24 x 40 Gbps,
> and 12 x
> 100 Gbps.
Part number is N77-C7702.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Piotr
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 3:02 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: 100Gb/s TOR switch
>
> Hi,
>
> There is something like t
If you can wait, you will see the market flooded with 32x100G with the
ability to down-clock to 40g / breakout to 4x10g in the Q3/Q4 timeframe ;)
John-Nicholas Furst
Hardware Engineer
Office: +1.617.274.7212
Akamai Technologies
150 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142
On 4/8/15, 3:37 PM, "Hockett,
TOR switch
Hi,
There is something like this on market ? Looking for standalone switch, 1/2U,
ca 40 ports 10Gb/s and about 4 ports 100Gb/s fixed or as a module.
regards,
Peter
Important Notice: This email message and any files transmitted with it are
I did see these switches at SC14.
http://www.corsa.com/products/dp6440/
Thanks,
-Roy Hockett
Network Architect,
ITS Communications Systems and Data Centers
University of Michigan
Tel: (734) 763-7325
Fax: (734) 615-1727
email: roy...@umich.edu
On Apr 8, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Piotr wrote:
> Hi,
>
The Juniper QFX10002-36Q has 36 40GbE Ports. They can be broken out to up to
144 10GbE ports, or 1/3 of them can be used for 100GbE.
So, if you use 6 100GbE ports and still have 72 10GbE ports.
I have not seen one of these yet in person, but it is the smallest form factor
I know of that has t
Hi,
There is something like this on market ? Looking for standalone switch,
1/2U, ca 40 ports 10Gb/s and about 4 ports 100Gb/s fixed or as a module.
regards,
Peter
Anyone have worked with the switching vendor Quanta for their 10ge switching
> as
> TOR? [1] Their spec looked interesting and they are quiet cheap.
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.quantaqct.com/en/01_product/02_detail.php?mid=30&sid=114&id=116&qs=63
>
>
> -bn
> 0216331C
>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Bao Nguyen wrote:
> Anyone have worked with the switching vendor Quanta for their 10ge switching
> as
> TOR? [1] Their spec looked interesting and they are quiet cheap.
>
>
> [1]
> http://www.quantaqct.com/en/01_product/02_detail.php?mid=30
Anyone have worked with the switching vendor Quanta for their 10ge switching as
TOR? [1] Their spec looked interesting and they are quiet cheap.
[1]
http://www.quantaqct.com/en/01_product/02_detail.php?mid=30&sid=114&id=116&qs=63
-bn
0216331C
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:45 AM, N
On 12/02/2013 14:23, Piotr wrote:
> shared 9 MB packet buffer
> pool that is allocated dynamically to ports that are congested
>
> 9MB is a standard size of port buffers..
That's pretty standard for a cut-thru ToR switch of this style. Cut-thru
switches generally need a lot l
W dniu 2013-02-07 22:54, Sergey Marunich pisze:
Hi Peter,
http://www.aristanetworks.com/media/system/pdf/Datasheets/7050S_Datasheet.pdf
Arista 7050S-64 48 x 10GE + 4 x 40 GE, price around 25k$ in gpl.
Large buffers, supports MLAG, DCB, wire-speed L2/L3 (OSPF,BGP), but doesn't
have any kind of TR
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 12:09, Andrew McConachie wrote:
> > I normally just lurk but I thought I would post to clear up the
> confusion.
> > Full disclosure, I am an Extreme Networks TAC engineer.
> >
> > The x450 does not support any VPLS/H-VPLS/MPLS
On 12/02/2013 12:09, Andrew McConachie wrote:
> I normally just lurk but I thought I would post to clear up the confusion.
> Full disclosure, I am an Extreme Networks TAC engineer.
>
> The x450 does not support any VPLS/H-VPLS/MPLS and is discontinued. It was
> replaced with the x460 which does
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 29/01/2013 11:58, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > None of them will do trill. The Extreme X670 and Juniper EX4550 will
> both
> > do VPLS, though. The X670 won't do BGP.
>
> this is incorrect: the ex4550 will do l2vpn/l3vpn but not vpls. The
...@gmx.com
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
>
> Well, talking about HP´s A5920/A5900 series. Last time I was looking,
> their virtual routing instances haven´t supported IPv4 multicast, nor
> IPv6 multicast/unicast, nor any policy based routing.
>
> Michael
>
Well, talking about HP´s A5920/A5900 series. Last time I was looking,
their virtual routing instances haven´t supported IPv4 multicast, nor
IPv6 multicast/unicast, nor any policy based routing.
Michael
On 29/01/2013 11:58, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> None of them will do trill. The Extreme X670 and Juniper EX4550 will both
> do VPLS, though. The X670 won't do BGP.
this is incorrect: the ex4550 will do l2vpn/l3vpn but not vpls. The X480
does vpls, but not the X670.
Nick
FWIW, you can get 1U 48-pair LC patch panels, or, you can get Keystone
panels and LC duplex snapins. I believe Panduit, among others make
these products.
I've used them in the past. The snapins and the panels both expect an LC
termination of the back side fiber as well. They don't provide protecti
does these days.
Panduit also has some very similar parts.
-Scott
-Original Message-
From: Josh Hoppes [mailto:josh.hop...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 1:02 PM
To: nanog
Subject: Re: TOR fiber patch panels
Have you looked at anything from Clear Field, just as an example
Have you looked at anything from Clear Field, just as an example
something like this.
http://www.clearfieldconnection.com/products/panels/fieldsmart-small-count-delivery-scd-1ru-rack-mount-cabinet-mount-panel.html
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> I'm looking for better T
I'm looking for better Top-Of-Rack fiber patch panels than the ones
I've been using up to this point. I'm looking for something that is
1U, holds 12 to 24 strands of SC, ST, or LC, has fiber jumper
management rings, and has a door that doesn't interfere with the U
below (a server might be mounted
Cisco also now has the Nexus 6001 but I don't know of its ability to do
BGP or support things like Netflow. 48x10GE+4x40GE in 1RU. Also likely
doesn't have huge packet buffers. From: Piotr
Sent: 1/30/2013 5:32
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
Someon
switching capacity and 952.32 Mpps packet forwarding rate in addition to
incorporating 9 MB of packet buffers
or big in 5920:
High-performance 10GbE switching — enables you to scale your server-edge
10GbE ToR deployments with 24 high-density 10GbE ports delivered in a
1RU design; delivers a
Someone use this switches ?
1.
Alacatel lucent omniswitch OS6900-X40
Deep packet buffers for simultaneous
high-burst absorption in all ports
gpl 28k$
2.
Hp 5900 af 48xg
large buffer options - configurable buffers
gpl 30k$
What is, exactly, buffer size ? I can't find in documentation
best,
Peter,
Network visibility wasn't mentioned as a requirement, but it is worth
considering since the ToR switches are the best place monitor server
network I/O, tunneled traffic (VxLAN, GRE etc), storage (iSCSI, FCoE,
HDFS etc).
The Nexus 5548 switch does not include monitoring (i.e. no
Ne
tp://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443
On 01/29/13 06:27, Piotr wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I looking some 10G switches, it should work as TOR or core in DC. It
> should have more than 40 port 10G in one unit, wirespeed L2 L3, with
> virtual routers and some other ip functions like some
although everyone here seems to hold Cisco in contempt, the Nexux 5548 is a
rock-solid switch - at least that has been my experience with it.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 6:27 AM, Piotr wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I looking some 10G switches, it should work as TOR or core in DC. It
> s
We use IBM networking (used to be BLADE networks) Rackswitch 8264. They will do
TRILL, and have multi-chassis link aggregation, they call vLAG. We use this for
cross datacenter aggregation. They do have the L3 features you are looking for
and BGP as a possibility, but no full tables. It is a c
a...@shady.org replied:
Subject: Re: switch 10G standalone TOR, core to DC
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:25:57 +
From: andy
To: Nick Hilliard
CC: Piotr , nanog@nanog.org
Force10's S4810 isnt bad, we use these for a 10G 48 port box that doesnt
require Ultra Low latency.
http://www.scrib
On 29/01/2013 11:27, Piotr wrote:
> Extreme 670 looks good but they have small port buffers. It can be also
> some small chassis with line cards but the cost per 10G ports is too big..
the extreme x670, juniper ex4550, brocade ICX6550 and arista 7150 will most
of this, and probably many others too
Hello,
I looking some 10G switches, it should work as TOR or core in DC. It
should have more than 40 port 10G in one unit, wirespeed L2 L3, with
virtual routers and some other ip functions like some BGP, OSPF, policy
routing, 1-2U, MLAG, g.8032 (ERPS) trill-like ?
Other important features
yle.cre...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:52 PM
> To: Jeroen van Aart
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please
> help if you can.
>
> In most jurisdictions, wouldn't using a de-gaussing ring in the door
> fra
On 12/18/12, Henry Yen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 20:45:04AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Physical threat is somewhat different than seizure by law enforcement,
> though.
I'm not so sure about that. It's a kind of physical threat; the set
of all physical threats includes a subset of threat
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 20:45:04AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> If you _must_ be able to protect data from extreme
> physical threats: keep it encrypted end to end at all times,
Physical threat is somewhat different than seizure by law enforcement, though.
Although mooted when authorities decrypt
On 12-12-17 21:45, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> Yeah... degaussing rings consume a lot of energy you shouldn't need
> to consume.
Now now, you clearly have not watched enough scient fiction/action
movies... Clearly, you have a mechanism which triggers the degaussing
(or neutron bomb in the basement th
On 12/17/12, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <34925.1355780...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>,
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:28:28 -0500, Peter Kristolaitis said:
Yeah... degaussing rings consume a lot of energy you shouldn't need
to consume. If you _must_ be able to protect data from extreme
physica
In message <34925.1355780...@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
writes:
> --==_Exmh_1355780734_2398P
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:28:28 -0500, Peter Kristolaitis said:
>
> > Now, having said all that... I'm not sure I'd want to pay the
>
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:28:28 -0500, Peter Kristolaitis said:
> Now, having said all that... I'm not sure I'd want to pay the
> electricity bill for keeping that degausser running... :p
An EMP device doesn't have to chew power all the time...
And of course, there's this: http://www.youtube.com/wa
Drifting a big off topic for NANOG (but hey, that happens every /pi/
days anyways!), but I'll toss this in...
Like every other legal incident, it would be unique to your own
situation. Keep in mind that, should any of the charges you mentioned
go to court, the prosecution would have to prove
In most jurisdictions, wouldn't using a de-gaussing ring in the door frame
to wipe any equipment being removed constitute "tampering with evidence" or
interfering with an investigation if the authority in question is in
possession of a warrant/subpoena?
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Jeroen van
On 11/30/2012 02:02 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
OK, there must be a lot more paranoid people out there than I thought
for awhile? I am sure he will let you out to go to the bank, get your
stuff, and leave town. I think you have seen way to many movies.
So if the cops show up at his door tom
police shows
up with a warrant and the operator refuses to cooperate.
Tor exit nodes are not that different from payphones or disposable
pre-paid cellular service where the wireless operator has no verifiable
identity/address for the purchasor of the service.
Are phone companies held liable
On 12/5/2012 8:35 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
An end user operating a TOR exit node, or wide open Wireless AP,
intentionally allows other people to connect to their infrastructure
and the internet whom they have no relationship with or prior
dealings with, in spite of the possibility of network
> An end user operating a TOR exit node, or wide open Wireless AP,
> intentionally allows other people to connect to their infrastructure
> and the internet whom they have no relationship with or prior
> dealings with, in spite of the possibility of network abuse or illegal
For consumer ISPs, sometimes activities such as running internet
> servers, reselling, or providing ISP access to 3rd parties, might
> be restricted
> (restrictions incompatible with running a TOR exit node on that service).
>
But such restrictions are not all that common an
ther network
abuses.
For consumer ISPs, sometimes activities such as running internet
servers, reselling, or providing ISP access to 3rd parties, might
be restricted
(restrictions incompatible with running a TOR exit node on that service).
An end user operating a TOR exit node, or wide open Wireles
On Dec 4, 2012, at 1:36 PM, Brian Johnson wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:22 PM
>> To: Brian Johnson
>> Cc: Jordan Michaels; nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: William wa
was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if
Owen DeLong wrote:
> I strongly disagree with you.
>
> TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech
> advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong forces are aligned
> against free speech. I'
precursor to the Internet and NSFnet make me
more credible than you? I was not aware that in order to be credible on
NANOG, we had to meet you at some point. They did not tell me that at
the Pentagon or when I got my engineering degrees.
I also have great respect for the Tor engineers, it was great
Owen DeLong wrote:
I strongly disagree with you.
TOR exit nodes provide a vital physical infrastructure to free speech advocates who live in jurisdictions where strong
forces are
aligned against free speech. I'm sure most TOR exit node operators would happily provide all the details they
> > Well, an ISP does do that, but so does an end user's network. So if
> > I put a Tor node on an ethernet ("PHYSICAL infrastructure") and then
> > connect that to an ISP ("other PHYSICAL networks"), that doesn't make
> > for a real good
I think it is a fallacious debate to discuss whether Tor servers or
services are illegal or legal. Like any other tool, it is all about
intent. I know that as engineering types we tend to not like relativism
but the law is very much about that. Intent is ultimately very critical
to obtaining a
ilto:bjohn...@drtel.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 11:32 AM
To: Jordan Michaels; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help
if
I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes
> case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-no
In countries where the law does not dictate that all carriers maintain
extensive logs, this is fairly simple. Whether you are a Tor node or a
normal ISP, you do nothig until you get a court ordered warrant, at
which point you collect information passing through your network and
hand it over to
+1
- Brian J.
> -Original Message-
> From: Naslund, Steve [mailto:snasl...@medline.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 3:44 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: RE: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
>
> Here is something else to con
Here is something else to consider :
Why will just about any ISP shut down a customer with an open mail
relay? It allows anonymous access to anyone trying to send an email,
right. So why would this not be considered just as "free speech" as the
Tor server. The reason I believe is bec
- Brian J.
> -Original Message-
> From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 1:58 PM
> To: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu
> Cc: Brian Johnson; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
> -Original Message-
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:22 PM
> To: Brian Johnson
> Cc: Jordan Michaels; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
>
>
> On De
>
> > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a
> knowingly
> > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former.
>
> This is also a misleading statement. Explain the difference between
> a consumer ISP s
On Dec 4, 2012, at 09:32 , Brian Johnson wrote:
> I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes
>
>
>> case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to
>> be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used f
> > This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a
> > knowingly
I'm trying to remember when ISP's became common carriers...
> > illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former.
>
> This is also a mislea
On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 17:32:01 +, Brian Johnson said:
> This is a misleading statement. ISP's (Common carriers) do not provide a
> knowingly
> illegal offering, ... TOR exit/entrance nodes provide only the former.
This is also a misleading statement. Explain the differ
I know I'm going to get flamed and excoriated, but here goes
> case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to
> be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal
> purposes? I would hope so, but it doesn't seem like tha
On 12-12-03 14:44, Jordan Michaels wrote:
> case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to
> be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal
> purposes?
Perhaps if "Tor exit node" were called "Tor exit Router&qu
[mailto:william.allen.simp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 9:20 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit node.
Please help if you can.
On 11/30/12 5:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote:
> Well, in that case I am really worried that the cops mi
I seriously doubt many TOR exit nodes have the political clout to be
considered a common carrier.
In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the ISP's
safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection.
Nick
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jordan Michaels wrote:
veness and attention span.
This email needs to be murdered, because it is completely out of control.
I disagree, strongly, as this is an issue of unfortunate timely
relevance to the community.
+1 I strongly disagree as well. I am very interested to see how this
case evolves in and out of cour
Hi!
Forwarding my answer to tor-talk list.
Mitar
-- Forwarded message --
From: Mitar
Date: Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [tor-talk] William was raided for running a Tor exit
node. Please help if you can.
To: tor-t...@lists.torproject.org
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Hi
The crime of routing somebody else traffic in the wrong iso layer.
--
--
ℱin del ℳensaje.
On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 08:49:24AM +, Warren Bailey wrote:
> Can you imagine an email thread that lasted longer than an entire weekend?
Yes, I can. I've participated in some that went on for months. It's simply
a matter of effectiveness and attention span.
> This email needs to be murdered,
On 3 December 2012 07:19, Joakim Aronius wrote:
> I am all for providing anonymized access to help free speech. Perhaps its
> better with anon access to specific applications like twitter, fb etc and
> not general internet access. I suspect that the 'free speech' part of the
kes.
Original message
From: Joe Greco
Date: 12/03/2012 12:24 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: Joakim Aronius
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
> I suspect that the 'free speech' part of the total tor traffic volume is
> I suspect that the 'free speech' part of the total tor traffic volume is
> pretty small(?).
Something like tor doesn't work if it is all traffic that's "free
speech" regarding the regime of whatever country the user lives in.
If it wer
tc, we can't give them a free pass
> > just by using Tor. I dont think it should be illegal to operate a Tor
> > exit node but what just happened could be a consequence of doing it.
>
> The seriousness of crimes that can be committed using anonymization
> services should
On 2012-12-02 22:44, Michael Painter wrote:
Joel jaeggli wrote:
The internet is potentially quite a useful tool for getting your message
out so long as using it isn't holding a gun to your own head. While we
site here with the convenient idea of some legal arbitrage which allows
me to do somet
Joel jaeggli wrote:
The internet is potentially quite a useful tool for getting your message
out so long as using it isn't holding a gun to your own head. While we
site here with the convenient idea of some legal arbitrage which allows
me to do something which isn't illegal in my own domain to
On 11/29/12 23:18 , Joakim Aronius wrote:
> I am all for being anonymous on the net but I seriously believe that
> we still need to enforce the law when it comes to serious felonies
> like child pr0n, organized crime etc, we can't give them a free pass
> just by using Tor. I don
I think one error being made here is discussing the culpability of law
enforcement per se.
That's like blaming the UPS delivery person because something you
bought from Amazon was misleading. Or praising him/her because it was
great.
One way of asserting authority over any property is making ver
> The BBC has an article about a similar issue on a Tor exit node in Austria:
> Austrian police raid privacy network over child porn
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20554788
actually it is not a "similar case" but the case of William W. that
BBC reported. Though with
> Example of an actual warrant:
>
>
> https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/inresearchBC/EXHIBIT-A.pdf
Please also keep in mind, if it's relevant, that *no warrant* is required for
data that is stored by a third-party. Data on a server, TOR or otherwise,
would
1 - 100 of 307 matches
Mail list logo
