Re: Obsolete bogon filtering

[Christopher L. Morrow]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Mike Leber wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Simon Lyall wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Rob Thomas wrote:
> > > Folks can keep up with the bogon filters through a wide variety of
> > > means.  We have HTTP, DNS, RADb objects, RIPE NCC objects, and
> > > text files.
> Perhaps it should be distributed with only a martian and RFC1918 filter,
> and not the unallocated space, if everybody knows that people apply it in
> a write once configuration manner.
>

or there's always that internet drivers license concept... except you'd
need a new class to take care of 'network operators', like 'limo' or 'bus'
citations on car licenses.

Seriously though, Perhaps Puck.nether.net or Mr. Lewis's 69box could be a
good site to host 'slow filter updaters' contact infos?

Network Automation blog launched

[Brent Chapman]

As I posted last week, I'm particularly interested in network 
automation: automated network configuration and management; systems 
and tools (both free and commercial); forums where these areas are 
being considered and discussed; etc.

I've launched a blog on the topic to share the information that I 
gather, and hopefully spark some interesting discussions.  If you're 
at all interested in this topic, please check it out:

http://www.greatcircle.com/blog/network_automation
And if you've got anything to contribute on the topic, I'd love to 
hear from you.

-Brent
--
Brent Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Great Circle Associates, Inc.
Specializing in network infrastructure for Silicon Valley since 1989
For info about us and our services, please see http://www.greatcircle.com/
Network Automation blog: http://www.greatcircle.com/blog/network_automation

Re: Obsolete bogon filtering

[Mike Leber]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, Simon Lyall wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Rob Thomas wrote:
> > Folks can keep up with the bogon filters through a wide variety of
> > means.  We have HTTP, DNS, RADb objects, RIPE NCC objects, and
> > text files.
> 
> I think this has been posted here more than a few dozen times. Perhaps a
> list of sites/Nocs that do not automate their updates could be kept so:
> 
> 1. People would have a list of phone numbers to call every time a change
> was made.
> 
> 2. People would have a list of sites that were known to be of less
> clue than most. This might help them make purchasing decisions in the
> future.

H, one wonders if the static security template has over time become
responsible for more realized loss of connectivity than the attacks it
theoretically protects against.

Perhaps it should be distributed with only a martian and RFC1918 filter,
and not the unallocated space, if everybody knows that people apply it in
a write once configuration manner.

Mike.

+- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+
| Mike Leber   Direct Internet Connections   Voice 510 580 4100 |
| Hurricane Electric Web Hosting  Colocation   Fax 510 580 4151 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.he.net |
+---+

Re: Obsolete bogon filtering

[Simon Lyall]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Rob Thomas wrote:
> Folks can keep up with the bogon filters through a wide variety of
> means.  We have HTTP, DNS, RADb objects, RIPE NCC objects, and
> text files.

I think this has been posted here more than a few dozen times. Perhaps a
list of sites/Nocs that do not automate their updates could be kept so:

1. People would have a list of phone numbers to call every time a change
was made.

2. People would have a list of sites that were known to be of less
clue than most. This might help them make purchasing decisions in the
future.


-- 
Simon J. Lyall.  |   Very  Busy   |   Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"To stay awake all night adds a day to your life" - Stilgar | eMT.

RE: Vonage service suffers outage

[Hannigan, Martin]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Bill Nash
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 2:57 PM
> To: Christian Kuhtz
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Vonage service suffers outage
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
> 
> >> I think the final nail in this coffin is the Vonage
> >> banner ad/masthead which describes them as "the
> >> broadband phone company."
> >>
> > But it's broadband!  Shsh.  It's an information 
> service. It's IP.  These
> > are not the packets you're looking for.
> >
> > ;)
> >
> > What all this really shows is just how outdated the 
> regulatory framework
> > really is.  Once VoIP (or whatever the application formerly 
> known as VoIP)
> > stops looking like a PSTN emulation, this will get only 
> more absurd than it
> > already is.
> >
> 
> I disagree that the regulatory framework is outdated, but 
> instead offer 
> that the classification of IP networks has changed as new 
> services have 
> arisen, and been embraced by, the consumer.
> 
> I don't purchase POTS service for my home. I have cable internet, and 
> that's it. I don't even purchase cable TV service. Just a 
> data feed. A la 
> carte, I purchase VOIP service from whoever I want. It stops 
> being a mere 
> broadband information service the instant it connects to global PSTN.

It's called "Triple Play", voice, data, video.


-M<

Re: Vonage service suffers outage

[Bill Nash]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
I think the final nail in this coffin is the Vonage
banner ad/masthead which describes them as "the
broadband phone company."
But it's broadband!  Shsh.  It's an information service. It's IP.  These
are not the packets you're looking for.
;)
What all this really shows is just how outdated the regulatory framework
really is.  Once VoIP (or whatever the application formerly known as VoIP)
stops looking like a PSTN emulation, this will get only more absurd than it
already is.
I disagree that the regulatory framework is outdated, but instead offer 
that the classification of IP networks has changed as new services have 
arisen, and been embraced by, the consumer.

I don't purchase POTS service for my home. I have cable internet, and 
that's it. I don't even purchase cable TV service. Just a data feed. A la 
carte, I purchase VOIP service from whoever I want. It stops being a mere 
broadband information service the instant it connects to global PSTN.

If a VOIP provider wants to avoid the label of telephony carrier, they 
should be strictly end-to-end service with no connection into the global 
PSTN infrastructure. An example of this would be enterprise internal phone 
systems, designed to propagate calls within a single corporate entity. 
They could then purchase PSTN connectivity, or VOIP access to such, from a 
company who IS labelled as a telephony carrier, if they want to accept and 
send calls to the outside world.

This could something as small as a legal office running VOIP internally 
for phone system/contact management, call centers deploying pure IP 
networks for all internal services, or any other *end user*.

If you're transiting VOIP traffic, intentionally because that's your 
product, or incidentally because you're an IP transit carrier and you've 
agreed to pass that traffic, you are, by definition if not by intent, a 
telephony carrier. This includes Vonage, as a VOIP<->PSTN gateway, and 
*each of the ISPs they connect to*, having agreed to sell them service. 
Propagate through peering agreements, et voila: The Internet is part of 
the global PSTN network.

If there's anything that's going to kill VOIP as a viable consumer 
platform, it will be ISP/NSP unwillingness to fall under the telecomms 
regulatory structure. For companies with existing networks and peering 
agreements, it may very well be too late to change. VOIP has grown fast 
enough that customers will begin shifting in droves if ISPs start 
announcing they won't transit or support VOIP. The impact on revenue is 
significant enough, in my opinion, that CEOs, or shareholders, for that 
matter, won't be willing to give it up.

- billn

RE: Vonage service suffers outage

[Hannigan, Martin]

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Fergie (Paul Ferguson)
> Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 10:35 AM
> To: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Vonage service suffers outage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what makes this "newsworthy" is exactly what Om Malik
> says: VoIP is being oversold.
> 
> http://www.gigaom.com/2005/03/06/voip-has-serious-problems/
> 
> - ferg

Could be, but it's driving a broadband bonanza in the Caribbean.
People love it and are moving from sat to cable just to get the
VoIP service.


-M<

Re: Vonage service suffers outage

[Christian Kuhtz]

> I think the final nail in this coffin is the Vonage
> banner ad/masthead which describes them as "the
> broadband phone company."
> 
> If they're going to claim to be a phone company, it's
> reasonable that phone company regulations regarding
> 911, outage reporting, etc should all apply to them.

But it's broadband!  Shsh.  It's an information service. It's IP.  These
are not the packets you're looking for.

;)

What all this really shows is just how outdated the regulatory framework
really is.  Once VoIP (or whatever the application formerly known as VoIP)
stops looking like a PSTN emulation, this will get only more absurd than it
already is.

So, what I'm saying is that it is silly to measure these issues by ill
fitting frameworks.  So, please, lets not force this emerging technology to
look like PSTN even though it happens to right now.  Does PSTN style outage
reporting even make sense for a voice application?  I think you can argue
that it makes little operational sense nor provides much value for the
consumer.

IMHO, the real problem with 911 & VoIP isn't that VoIP breaks PSTN E911.  It
is that 911 has not evolved to deal with mobility and is so PSTN centric.
Instead of evolving, we keep trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
There's a whole ball of wax of location aware services (driven by an end
point and not the network) buried under it, not just E911.  [One could argue
Vonage etc are doing nobody a favor by looking so PSTN'ish.. ;) ]

And we need to have a regulatory framework which encourages operators to
evolve, rather than locking them into a managed economy.

Regards,
Christian

PS: I only speak for myself, and I can't do jack squat about this silly
legal disclaimer below.  (Thanks Randy)


*

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which 
it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged 
material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking 
of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other 
than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, 
please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. 117

Re: Vonage service suffers outage

[David Barak]

--- "Jay R. Ashworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 04:03:11PM -, Neil J.
> McRae wrote:
> > > Companies like Vonage are signing up subscribers
> because they 
> > > provide real phone service connecting you to
> copperline 
> > > subscribers on the real phone network. That is
> their business 
> > > model. Verizon could sell exactly the same sort
> of service to 
> > > subscribers in California leveraging the
> Internet last mile 
> > > in exactly the same way as Vonage.
> > > Vonage and Verizon are just phone companies, not
> VoIP companies.
> > 
> > Michael - you've been drinking way to much coffee
> today.
> 
> Naw; Michael has it exactly right, and more power to
> him.

I think the final nail in this coffin is the Vonage
banner ad/masthead which describes them as "the
broadband phone company."

If they're going to claim to be a phone company, it's
reasonable that phone company regulations regarding
911, outage reporting, etc should all apply to them.


David Barak
Need Geek Rock?  Try The Franchise: 
http://www.listentothefranchise.com

NEW ALBUM, "The Sound and the Furry" available at
http://www.cdbaby.com/thefranchise



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 

Re: Obsolete bogon filtering

[Rob Thomas]

Hi, NANOGers.

] If you run any bogon filtering, can you please check your border ACLs
] and BGP prefix filters to ensure that you're no longer preventing 
] access to 58.0.0.0/8 or 59.0.0.0/8 ?

Folks can keep up with the bogon filters through a wide variety of
means.  We have HTTP, DNS, RADb objects, RIPE NCC objects, and
text files.

   

It can be even easier still!  Why not automate the process of
bogon filter updates, thus avoiding the shame of filtering good
folks such as Mark?  :)  Take a peek at our Bogon route-server
project at the following URL.

   

Thanks,
Rob, for Team Cymru.
-- 
Rob Thomas
http://www.cymru.com
Shaving with Occam's razor since 1999.

Re: Vonage service suffers outage

[Jay R. Ashworth]

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 04:03:11PM -, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> > Companies like Vonage are signing up subscribers because they 
> > provide real phone service connecting you to copperline 
> > subscribers on the real phone network. That is their business 
> > model. Verizon could sell exactly the same sort of service to 
> > subscribers in California leveraging the Internet last mile 
> > in exactly the same way as Vonage.
> > Vonage and Verizon are just phone companies, not VoIP companies.
> 
> Michael - you've been drinking way to much coffee today.

Naw; Michael has it exactly right, and more power to him.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Designer  Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & AssociatesThe Things I Think'87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA  http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274

  If you can read this... thank a system adminstrator.  Or two.  --me

Rapidsite email contact

[Neil J. McRae]

If anyone from Rapidsite and has a contact for
their email admin people please can you contact
me off list.

Regards,
Neil.
[AS8220]

RE: US Navy Contact.

[John Souvestre]

Hello Stephen.

Check http://www.sstar.com/spt_faq.html#navy.  It sounds like you might be
having the same problem I didn.

John

John Souvestre - Southern Star - (504) 888-3348 - www.sstar.com


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Stephen Fulton
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 1:42 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: US Navy Contact.


If someone has a contact for a network operations desk for the US Navy 
(San Diego area preferred), please contact me off-list.  One of our 
netblocks appears to be filtered somewhere inside their network, 
preventing DNS lookups from completing, thus preventing e-mail from 
being delivered.  Inquiries over the last few weeks have not been 
responded to.

Thanks,

-- Stephen Fulton

Re: US Navy Contact.

[Joe Maimon]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of our 
netblocks appears to be filtered somewhere inside their network, 
preventing DNS lookups from completing, thus preventing e-mail from 
being delivered. 

Am I reading this correctly? You are saying that you
have engineered a single point of failure in your network
and now you are suffering as a result?
Do you mean he only gets to ask for help if BOTH netblocks were to be 
filtered?

Re: US Navy Contact.

[Michael . Dillon]

> One of our 
> netblocks appears to be filtered somewhere inside their network, 
> preventing DNS lookups from completing, thus preventing e-mail from 
> being delivered. 

Am I reading this correctly? You are saying that you
have engineered a single point of failure in your network
and now you are suffering as a result? As the doctor said
to the man who complained that his head hurt whenever he 
hit it with a hammer, don't do that!

Every domain should ensure that it is "hosted" on name
servers in several different netblocks which are in
several different ASes, and preferably with some
significant geographical diversity. There are many
ways to do this ranging from renting colo for
a server somewhere http://www.vix.com/personalcolo/
or working out a mutual arrangement with another
ISP http://www.dnsist.net/

--Michael Dillon