paypal contact

[c...@daydream.com]

Can someone from Paypal contact me offline?  I am in need of some assistance

Thanks!

Strange Cox issues in California

[Jay Hennigan]

I haven't been able to reach anyone with clue at Cox to resolve this,
but over the last two days we have seen breakage of applications
requiring UDP reported by Cox cable modem customers.  ICMP ping also
fails but web surfing works.  Was a huge problem yesterday, came back
for some customers but some are still affected.   Most of our affected
customers are in Santa Barbara.

SIP and VPN customers are the most obviously affected.

--
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - j...@impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV

Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble

[Dorian Kim]

On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 01:38:38PM -0500, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:
> Apologies for intruding with this question, but I can't think
> of any group that might have more concrete information relevant
> to my current research.
> 
> 
> 
> Enclosed below is an announcement of a paper on technology bubbles.
> It is based largely on the Internet bubble of a decade ago, and
> concentrates on the "Internet traffic doubling every 100 days" tale.
> As the paper shows, this myth was perceived in very different ways
> by different people, and this by itself helps undermine the foundations
> of much of modern economics and economic policy making.
> 
> To get a better understanding of the dynamics of that bubble, to assist
> in the preparation of a book about that incident, I am soliciting 
> information from anyone who was active in telecom during that period. I 
> would particularly like to know what you and your colleagues estimated 
> Internet traffic growth to be, and what your reaction was to the 
> O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet myth.  If you were involved in the industry,
> and never heard of it, that would be extremely useful to know, too.
> 
> Ideally, I would like concrete information, backed up by dates, and 
> possibly
> even emails, and a permission to quote this information.  However, I will
> settle for more informal comments, and promise confidentiality to anyone
> who requests it.

The doubling rate from various parts of the tier 1 world I've seen
since mid 90s until now has been pretty consistent. It's been
ranging around 9-14 months or so with the shorter end of the
doubling number coming mostly during the 1996-2000 years, modulo 
specific fortunes of the tier 1 in question.

Was Mike O'Dell's famous doubling every 100 days just a myth?
Like any good tale, there most likely was an element of truth 
behind it.

It wouldn't surprise me if there was a 6-12 month span during 96-98
when the Internet traffic as a whole did grow by ~10x especially
as backbones made the painful and much delayed leap past DS3 and the 
back pressure was finally relieved. The problem is, the relevant
data are spread out all over and probably not obtainable.

I seem to remember thinking that those numbers seemed a bit high,
but mostly shrugging at it at the time I heard Mike and other UUNet
folks say it since it wasn't off by more than an order of magnitude 
and back then we tended to ignore things that were that close, and
UUNet was well known for their "forward looking statements" anyway.

Btw, just so we can at least put some real world scale to these traffic 
doubling rates tales, a non-descript tier 1 network that's not 
particularly any more or less successful than others have had an average 
doubling rate of roughly 13.1 months from 2000 to 2010 for their 
transpacific traffic.

-dorian

Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble

[Joe Hamelin]

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Odlyzko  wrote:
> To get a better understanding of the dynamics of that bubble, to assist
> in the preparation of a book about that incident, I am soliciting
> information from anyone who was active in telecom during that period.

We saw that or better growth at Flying Crocodile (aka sextracker.com)
during that period.  I don't have access to the stats anymore (if they
even exist) but in two years we went from 1Mb/s to over 1Gb/s in
outbound traffic.  This was 1998 to 2000ish.

It was "fun" to try to keep enough pipe and cards in the GSR12000s
even being in the Westin.


Joe Hamelin, W7COM, Tulalip, WA, 360-474-7474

Re: off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

Ask on the Internet History list.

   

Although, as someone active in 2000, I can tell you that traffic did not grow 
12.55 times per year (doubling every 100 days), or anything even close to that.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick


On Aug 5, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Andrew Odlyzko wrote:

> Apologies for intruding with this question, but I can't think
> of any group that might have more concrete information relevant
> to my current research.
> 
> 
> 
> Enclosed below is an announcement of a paper on technology bubbles.
> It is based largely on the Internet bubble of a decade ago, and
> concentrates on the "Internet traffic doubling every 100 days" tale.
> As the paper shows, this myth was perceived in very different ways
> by different people, and this by itself helps undermine the foundations
> of much of modern economics and economic policy making.
> 
> To get a better understanding of the dynamics of that bubble, to assist
> in the preparation of a book about that incident, I am soliciting information 
> from anyone who was active in telecom during that period. I would 
> particularly like to know what you and your colleagues estimated Internet 
> traffic growth to be, and what your reaction was to the 
> O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet myth.  If you were involved in the industry,
> and never heard of it, that would be extremely useful to know, too.
> 
> Ideally, I would like concrete information, backed up by dates, and possibly
> even emails, and a permission to quote this information.  However, I will
> settle for more informal comments, and promise confidentiality to anyone
> who requests it.
> 
> Andrew Odlyzko
> odly...@umn.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
>http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/mania03.pdf
> 
> 
>  Bubbles, gullibility, and other challenges for economics,
> psychology, sociology, and information sciences
> 
>Andrew Odlyzko
> 
>School of Mathematics
>and Digital Technology Center
>   University of Minnesota
> 
>odly...@umn.edu
>http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko
> 
>  Preliminary version, August 5, 2010
> 
> 
> ABSTRACT
> 
>   Gullibility is the principal cause of bubbles.  Investors and the general 
> public get snared by a "beautiful illusion" and throw caution to the wind. 
> Attempts to identify and control bubbles are complicated by the fact that the 
> authorities who might naturally be expected to take action have often 
> (especially in recent years) been among the most gullible, and were 
> cheerleaders for the exuberant behavior.  Hence what is needed is an 
> objective measure of gullibility.
> 
>   This paper argues that it should be possible to develop such a measure. 
> Examples demonstrate, contrary to the efficient market dogma, that in some 
> manias, even top-level business and technology leaders do fall prey to 
> collective hallucinations and become irrational in objective terms.  During 
> the Internet bubble, for example, large classes of them first became unable 
> to comprehend compound interest, and then lost even the ability to do simple 
> arithmetic, to the point of not being able to distinguish 2 from 10.  This 
> phenomenon, together with advances in analysis of social networks and related 
> areas, points to possible ways to develop objective and quantitative tools 
> for measuring gullibility and other aspects of human behavior implicated in 
> bubbles.  It cannot be expected to infallibly detect all destructive bubbles, 
> and may trigger false alarms, but it ought to alert observers to periods 
> where collective investment behavior is becoming irrational.
> 
>   The proposed gullibility index might help in developing realistic economic 
> models.  It should also assist in illuminating and guiding decision making.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> If you would like to be on the mailing list for notifications of future
> papers on technology bubbles, please send me a note at odly...@umn.edu
> 
> 
> The previous three papers in this series are available at:
> 
> 1.  Collective hallucinations and inefficient markets: The British Railway 
> Mania of the 1840s
> 
>   http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/hallucinations.pdf
> 
> 
> 2.  This time is different: An example of a giant, wildly speculative, and 
> successful investment mania, B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, vol. 
> 10, issue 1, 2010, article 60 (registration required)
> 
>   http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol10/iss1/art60
> 
>   preprint available at:
> 
>http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/mania01.pdf
> 
> 
> 3.  The collapse of the Railway Mania, the development of capital markets, 
> and Robert Lucas Nash, a forgotten pioneer of accounting and financial 
> analysis
> 
>   http://www.dtc.umn.e

Re: Proxy Server

[Raymond Macharia]

www.etinc.com. Built out of open source but you pay for a license fee but
not as steep as for an Allot unit. you can get the hardware or download the
software and pay for a key. Has the same functionalities that you are
looking for as an Allot box. I happen to have used both and I liked the
ETINC product. Stable and relaible.


Raymond Macharia


On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Deepak Jain  wrote:

> 
> >
> > I am fairly sure Squid has the concept of bandwidth pools which you can
> > apply via ACLs within the squid conf.
> > That may meet your proxy requirements but would not help with traffic
> > not being proxied.
> >
> > Squid will also allow you to define access to the inet based on ACLs
> > which can use various things to determine which policy will be applied
> > to the connection.  eg,  client src IP,  client username,  time of day,
> > regx...
> >
> > you may find it here:
> >
> > http://www.squid-cache.org/
> >
> ---
>
> Squid plus bandwidth management (ala dummynet or similar) could go a long
> way to addressing all of those functions.
>
> Deepak Jain
> AiNET
>
>

Colocation in Belize

[Brandon Galbraith]

I'm looking for colocation in Belize for some equipment, but am having a bit
of trouble finding anyone with significant carrier-neutral space there. Has
anyone had any success in finding such space there? Off-list replies
preferred.

-- 
Brandon Galbraith
Voice: 630.492.0464

RE: Proxy Server

[Deepak Jain]

> 
> I am fairly sure Squid has the concept of bandwidth pools which you can
> apply via ACLs within the squid conf.
> That may meet your proxy requirements but would not help with traffic
> not being proxied.
> 
> Squid will also allow you to define access to the inet based on ACLs
> which can use various things to determine which policy will be applied
> to the connection.  eg,  client src IP,  client username,  time of day,
> regx...
> 
> you may find it here:
> 
> http://www.squid-cache.org/
> 
---

Squid plus bandwidth management (ala dummynet or similar) could go a long way 
to addressing all of those functions.

Deepak Jain
AiNET

Re: Proxy Server

[Greg Whynott]

I am fairly sure Squid has the concept of bandwidth pools which you can apply 
via ACLs within the squid conf.
That may meet your proxy requirements but would not help with traffic not being 
proxied.  

Squid will also allow you to define access to the inet based on ACLs which can 
use various things to determine which policy will be applied to the connection. 
 eg,  client src IP,  client username,  time of day,  regx…

you may find it here:

http://www.squid-cache.org/



-g




On Aug 5, 2010, at 2:45 PM, Joshua William Klubi wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Is there any one with an idea of an open source packeteer or bandwidth
> management solution like Allot NetEnforcer Bandwidth Management Appliance.
> Which can do proxy services and also allocate bandwidth to certain websites
> and staff, prevent them from viewing certain websites
> We currently have Microsoft TMG 2010 with GFI Web monitor 2009 installed on
> it, we are looking for a solution possible from open source.Which can
> replace it.
> 
> I actually  want it as a proxy server and use it to shape, allocate and
> restrict access to certain websites of our staff.
> Joshua
> (Ghana)

Re: Proxy Server

[Christopher Morrow]

squid?

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM, Joshua William Klubi
 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any one with an idea of an open source packeteer or bandwidth
> management solution like Allot NetEnforcer Bandwidth Management Appliance.
> Which can do proxy services and also allocate bandwidth to certain websites
> and staff, prevent them from viewing certain websites
> We currently have Microsoft TMG 2010 with GFI Web monitor 2009 installed on
> it, we are looking for a solution possible from open source.Which can
> replace it.
>
> I actually  want it as a proxy server and use it to shape, allocate and
> restrict access to certain websites of our staff.
> Joshua
> (Ghana)
>

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 12:05:18 EDT, William Herrin said:

> You've deprived everyone else of the use of that block of IP addresses
> in violation with your contract with ARIN which requires disclosure.
> Then, based on the claim that block is in use and properly registered,
> you've acquired additional blocks from ARIN, depriving everyone else
> of their use as well.

OK.  Now I see where you're coming from - looking at the one *providing* the
address block, not the end-user recipient.  I may not agree, but at least I
understand now, thanks.


pgpcjxNblXqCT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Proxy Server

[Joshua William Klubi]

Hi,

Is there any one with an idea of an open source packeteer or bandwidth
management solution like Allot NetEnforcer Bandwidth Management Appliance.
Which can do proxy services and also allocate bandwidth to certain websites
and staff, prevent them from viewing certain websites
We currently have Microsoft TMG 2010 with GFI Web monitor 2009 installed on
it, we are looking for a solution possible from open source.Which can
replace it.

I actually  want it as a proxy server and use it to shape, allocate and
restrict access to certain websites of our staff.
Joshua
(Ghana)

off-topic: historical query concerning the Internet bubble

[Andrew Odlyzko]

Apologies for intruding with this question, but I can't think
of any group that might have more concrete information relevant
to my current research.



Enclosed below is an announcement of a paper on technology bubbles.
It is based largely on the Internet bubble of a decade ago, and
concentrates on the "Internet traffic doubling every 100 days" tale.
As the paper shows, this myth was perceived in very different ways
by different people, and this by itself helps undermine the foundations
of much of modern economics and economic policy making.

To get a better understanding of the dynamics of that bubble, to assist
in the preparation of a book about that incident, I am soliciting 
information from anyone who was active in telecom during that period. 
I would particularly like to know what you and your colleagues estimated 
Internet traffic growth to be, and what your reaction was to the 
O'Dell/Sidgmore/WorldCom/UUNet myth.  If you were involved in the industry,

and never heard of it, that would be extremely useful to know, too.

Ideally, I would like concrete information, backed up by dates, and possibly
even emails, and a permission to quote this information.  However, I will
settle for more informal comments, and promise confidentiality to anyone
who requests it.

Andrew Odlyzko
odly...@umn.edu




 http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/mania03.pdf


  Bubbles, gullibility, and other challenges for economics,
 psychology, sociology, and information sciences

Andrew Odlyzko

School of Mathematics
and Digital Technology Center
   University of Minnesota

odly...@umn.edu
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko

  Preliminary version, August 5, 2010


 ABSTRACT

   Gullibility is the principal cause of bubbles.  Investors and the general 
public get snared by a "beautiful illusion" and throw caution to the wind. 
Attempts to identify and control bubbles are complicated by the fact that 
the authorities who might naturally be expected to take action have often 
(especially in recent years) been among the most gullible, and were 
cheerleaders for the exuberant behavior.  Hence what is needed is an 
objective measure of gullibility.


   This paper argues that it should be possible to develop such a measure. 
Examples demonstrate, contrary to the efficient market dogma, that in some 
manias, even top-level business and technology leaders do fall prey to 
collective hallucinations and become irrational in objective terms.  During 
the Internet bubble, for example, large classes of them first became unable 
to comprehend compound interest, and then lost even the ability to do simple 
arithmetic, to the point of not being able to distinguish 2 from 10.  This 
phenomenon, together with advances in analysis of social networks and related 
areas, points to possible ways to develop objective and quantitative tools 
for measuring gullibility and other aspects of human behavior implicated in 
bubbles.  It cannot be expected to infallibly detect all destructive bubbles, 
and may trigger false alarms, but it ought to alert observers to periods 
where collective investment behavior is becoming irrational.


   The proposed gullibility index might help in developing realistic economic 
models.  It should also assist in illuminating and guiding decision making.




-

If you would like to be on the mailing list for notifications of future
papers on technology bubbles, please send me a note at odly...@umn.edu


The previous three papers in this series are available at:

1.  Collective hallucinations and inefficient markets: The British Railway 
Mania of the 1840s


http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/hallucinations.pdf


2.  This time is different: An example of a giant, wildly speculative, and 
successful investment mania, B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 
vol. 10, issue 1, 2010, article 60 (registration required)


http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol10/iss1/art60

   preprint available at:

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/mania01.pdf


3.  The collapse of the Railway Mania, the development of capital markets, and 
Robert Lucas Nash, a forgotten pioneer of accounting and financial analysis


http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/mania02.pdf

-

Source materials for the Railway Mania and the Internet bubble are available
at the web pages

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/rrsources/

and

http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/isources/

Re: Appliance Vs Software based routers

[Lamar Owen]

On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 11:06:22 am Greg Whynott wrote:
> it works,  i see folks creating networks of hosts under ESXi protected by an 
> ASA instance.. not for production.I'm sure its not legal but Cisco 
> doesn't seem to have a strong stand on it,  I'd think as long as you are 
> using it for educational use and not commercial,  they may not care a whole 
> bunch.  

Much like Juniper's stance on Olive, perhaps?

> What you can not do while emulating ASA is use encryption,  no VPNs or 
> otherwise.  this is due to the fact the ASA units use hardware encryption, 
> when the OS makes calls to the controller,  it isn't there..

ASA, yes, but older PIX doesn't; google for 'frankenpix' to see more. 

Cisco used lots of embedded x86 where it made sense to do so (lots of places: 
LocalDirector, Content/Cache Engines, PIX, SwitchProbe, IPTV, MCS, and others). 

CFP: COMSNETS 2011

[Ramana Kompella]

*** Apologies if you received multiple copies of this CFP ***


COMSNETS 2011
January 4-8, 2011, Bangalore, India
http://www.comsnets.org
(In Co-operation with ACM SIGMOBILE)
(Technically Co-Sponsored by IEEE COMSOC)

The Third International Conference on COMmunication Systems and
NETworkS (COMSNETS) will be held in Bangalore, India, from 4 January
2011 to 8 January 2011. COMSNETS is a premier international conference
dedicated to addressing advances in Networking and Communications
Systems, and Telecommunications services. The goal of the conference
is to create a world-class gathering of researchers from academia and
industry, practitioners, business leaders, intellectual property
experts, and venture capitalists, providing a forum for discussing
cutting edge research, and directions for new innovative business and
technology. 

The conference will include a highly selective technical program
consisting of parallel tracks of submitted papers, a small set of
invited papers on important and timely topics from well-known leaders
in the field, and poster sessions of work in progress. Focused
workshops and panel discussions will be held on emerging topics to
allow for a lively exchange of ideas. International business and
government leaders will be invited to share their perspectives, thus
complementing the technical program. 

Papers describing original research work and practical
experiences/experimental results are solicited on topics including,
but not limited to: 



Topics of Interest
--
* Internet Architecture and Protocols 
* Network-based Applications
* Video Distribution (IPTV, Mobile Video, Video on Demand)
* Network Operations and Management
* Broadband and Cellular Networks (3G/4G, WiMAX/LTE)
* Mesh, Sensor and PAN Networks
* Communication Software (Cognitive Radios, DSA, SDR) 
* Wireless Operating Systems and Mobile Platforms 
* Peer-to-peer Networking
* Cognitive Radio and White Space Networking
* Optical Networks
* Network Security & Cyber Security Technologies
* Cloud and Utility computing 
* Storage Area Networks 
* Next Generation Web Architectures 
* Vehicular Networking 
* Energy-Efficient Networking
* Network Science and Emergent Behavior in Socio-Technical Networks
* Social Networking Analysis, Middleware and Applications
* Networking Technologies for Smart Energy Grids
* Disruption/Delay Tolerant Networking

Conference Highlights
-
Conference Inaugural Speaker: Prof. Pravin Varaiya, U. C. Berkeley, USA  

Keynote Speakers: 
* Prof. Don Towsley, U. Mass Amherst, USA
* Dr. Pravin Bhagwat, AirTight Networks, India
* Dr. Jean Bolot, Sprint, USA

Workshops
* WISARD (4, 5 Jan)
* NetHealth (4 Jan)
* IAMCOM (5 Jan)
* Mobile India 2011 (7 Jan)

Technical Paper and Poster Sessions
Ph.D Forum
Panel Discussions
Demos & Exhibits

Important Deadlines
---
Paper submission: September 13, 2010 at 11:59 pm EDT (Sept 14, 9:29 am IST)
Notification of Acceptance: November 8, 2010 
Camera-Ready Submission: December 8, 2010

Detailed conference information and paper submission guidelines will
soon be available on the conference web site.  Please see
http://www.comsnets.org for detailed information from time to
time. The conference email address is: comsnets2...@gmail.com

General Co-Chairs
-
David  B. Johnson, Rice University, USA
Anurag  Kumar,  IISc Bangalore, India

Technical Program Co-Chairs
---
Jon  Crowcroft, U. of Cambridge, UK
D. Manjunath, IIT Bombay, India
Archan Misra, Telcordia Tech., USA

Steering Committee Co-Chairs

Uday Desai, IIT Hyderabad, India
Giridhar Mandyam, Qualcomm, USA
Sanjoy Paul, Infosys, India
Rajeev Shorey, NIIT University, India
G. Venkatesh, SASKEN, India

Panel Co-Chairs
---
Aditya Akella, U. of Wisconsin, USA
Venkat Padmanabhan, MSR, India

Ph.D Forum Chair

Bhaskaran Raman, IIT Bombay, India

Publications Chair
--
Varsha Apte, IIT Bombay, India

Demos and Exhibits Co-Chairs

Aaditeshwar Seth, IIT Delhi, India
Ajay Bakre, Netapps, India

Sponsorship Chair
-
Sudipta Maitra, Delhi, india

Workshop Chairs
---
Sharad Jaiswal, Alcatel-Lucent, India
Ravindran Kaliappa, CUNY, USA 
Neelesh Mehta, IISc Bangalore, India

Mobile India 2011 Co-Chairs
---
Gulzar Azad,  Google, India
Gene Landy, Ruperto-Israel & Weiner, USA
Rajaraghavan Setlur, SASKEN, India
Sridhar Varadharajan, SASKEN, India

Publicity Co-Chair
--
Augustin Chaintreau, TTL, France 
Kameswari Chebrolu, IIT Bombay, India
Song Chong, KAIST, Korea
Ramana Kompella, Purdue Univ, USA
Nishanth Sastry, U. of Cambridge, UK

Web Co-Chairs
-
Santhana Krishnan, IIT Bombay, India
Vinay Veerappa, SASKEN, India

International A

Re: migration tools

[Joshua William Klubi]

Well thanx i  wish i could get a full blown solution

Joshua

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Michael 'Moose' Dinn <
michael.d...@airfire.ca> wrote:

>
> > I actually  want it as a proxy server and use it to shape, allocate and
> > restrict access to certain websites of our staff.
>
> Linux and Squid will do that happily, with a little traffic shaping as
> well.
>
>

Re: migration tools

[Joshua William Klubi]

I actually  want it as a proxy server and use it to shape, allocate and
restrict access to certain websites of our staff.

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Michael 'Moose' Dinn <
michael.d...@airfire.ca> wrote:

>
> > Is there any one with an idea of an open source packeteer or bandwidth
> > management
> > solution like Allot NetEnforcer Bandwidth Management.
> > We currently have Microsoft TMG 2010 with GFI Web monitor 2009 installed
> on
> > it, we are looking for a solution possible from open source.Which can
> > replace it.
>
> Linux will do this nicely with traffic shaping.
>
> What feature set do you need?
>
>

Re: migration tools

[Joshua William Klubi]

Hi,

Is there any one with an idea of an open source packeteer or bandwidth
management
solution like Allot NetEnforcer Bandwidth Management.
We currently have Microsoft TMG 2010 with GFI Web monitor 2009 installed on
it, we are looking for a solution possible from open source.Which can
replace it.

Joshua
(Ghana)

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM,   wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:30:45 EDT, William Herrin said:
>
>> "A false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by
>> conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what
>> should have been disclosed that deceives and is intended to deceive
>> another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal
>> injury."
>
> And the mere fact that an address is redacted has the intent to decieve so 
> that
> another will act on it to legal injury is where, exactly?

You've deprived everyone else of the use of that block of IP addresses
in violation with your contract with ARIN which requires disclosure.
Then, based on the claim that block is in use and properly registered,
you've acquired additional blocks from ARIN, depriving everyone else
of their use as well. You've deprived ARIN of the ability to audit
your consumption of addresses without first notifying you. You've
muddied the waters between clearly legitimate and clearly illegitimate
use, damaging ARIN's tools and processes for detecting others' fraud.
You've made it costlier for the antivirus folks to contact the
infected. You've made it costlier for law enforcement to localize
offenders and damaged their ability to keep investigations secret.

Shall I go on? Regardless of what you may think about whether those
injured folks should be entitled to the information, the fact is that
they are entitled to it under ARIN policy developed based on public
consensus. Which means you injure them by denying it. Which when
denied deceptively (by quietly redacting information as opposed to
repudiating the contract that requires its disclosure with the
specific intent of depriving the entitled of that information) rises
to the definition of fraud.

BTW, I apologize for my prior comments about trolling. Reviewing the
thread, I think I read some intent into your words that wasn't there.
Nevertheless, I think we've reached the end of what can be usefully
said on the subject of "is redacting business SWIP information fraud
or something that's close to but not quite fraud."

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 10:30:45 EDT, William Herrin said:

> "A false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by
> conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what
> should have been disclosed that deceives and is intended to deceive
> another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal
> injury."

And the mere fact that an address is redacted has the intent to decieve so that
another will act on it to legal injury is where, exactly?





pgpbMRs8VAMMH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:37 AM,   wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:23:12 EDT, William Herrin said:
>> Absent such a change, redacting identity and contact info for the apartment
>> management company remains simple fraud.
>
> "fraud" is usually defined as "deception with intent for personal gain".  
> *That*
> standard.  My point is that reda[c]tion does not *in and of itself* rise to 
> the level of fraud.

Valdis,

Nitpicking someone's word choice can straddle the border between
debate and trolling but if you insist then I suggest you first learn
the meaning of the word. "Fraud" is about loss, not gain, and there's
nothing "personal" about it.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

"A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by
conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what
should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive
another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal
injury."

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 09:23:12 EDT, William Herrin said:

> What personal gain standard? I certainly didn't advocate one, and I
> don't find anything like that in ARIN's rules.

What you said:

> Absent such a change, redacting identity and contact info for the apartment
> management company remains simple fraud.

"fraud" is usually defined as "deception with intent for personal gain".  *That*
standard.  My point is that redation does not *in and of itself* rise to the 
level of fraud.


pgpExY1a49nd0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:17 AM,   wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:58:48 EDT, William Herrin said:
>
>> It takes some creative reading to think I claimed using an alternate
>> but still correct address (e.g. supplied by mailboxes etc.)
>> constituted fraud. Alternate != redacted.
>
> Right.  The point is that by the same "what is the personal gain" standard, it
> isn't obvious that redacted == fraud by definition.

What personal gain standard? I certainly didn't advocate one, and I
don't find anything like that in ARIN's rules. As far as I can tell,
anyone can pick an alternate postal address, a hotmail email address
and a vonage phone number for their SWIP information if they so
choose, quite regardless of whether any personal gain is involved.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:58:48 EDT, William Herrin said:

> It takes some creative reading to think I claimed using an alternate
> but still correct address (e.g. supplied by mailboxes etc.)
> constituted fraud. Alternate != redacted.

Right.  The point is that by the same "what is the personal gain" standard, it
isn't obvious that redacted == fraud by definition. If I have an alternate
physical mailbox and a redacted electronic address for the exact same reason
(privacy and security), how is one fraudulent and the other not?



pgpMhQol6z0MX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:54 AM, ML  wrote:
> There's usually a 50/50 split between the HOA (Home Owners Association)
> and the individual that are our customers.  In the case of a HOA it's
> not that the HOA is reselling it's that we are contracted to service
> every member of the HOA and the HOA gives us one check for everyone.

Hi ML,

For individuals, you get significant privacy:
https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six551

Home owners' associations seem like a gray area to me. You're talking
about a non-profit organization whose sole purpose is to represent a
group of residences collectively. I think I'd err on the side of
listing the HOA's legal name along with the postal address at which
the HOA prefers to be contacted but I also think it would be worth
bringing up the question on the ARIN PPML. ARIN public policy is a
dynamic thing -- it changes and clarifies when good reasons are
presented and frankly I think you've hit on a good reason.

Apartment management companies, where the entity is unambiguously
for-profit, are really past the gray area. Their customers are
residential, but they themselves are a commercial entity vending
services. Their customers may be entitled to privacy but they aren't.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM,   wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:04:47 EDT, William Herrin said:
>> If you feel that way, I suggest you take the issue up on the ARIN
>> public policy mailing list. Solicit public consensus for a change in
>> handling for SWIPs for "apartment complexes as ISP resellers." Absent
>> such a change, redacting identity and contact info for the apartment
>> management company remains simple fraud.
>
> I'm not at all convinced that mere redaction qualifies as fraud. It certainly
> qualifies as *deceptive* - but does it rise to "fraudulent"?   Is the fact 
> that
> I use a Mail Boxes Etc-type service and don't accept mail at my home address
> because it's a very physically insecure mailbox fraudulent?  Yes, it's 
> somewhat
> deceptive, because it's not my actual home address.  But unless you stretch
> "deception for personal gain" to the point where "gain" is "I don't want mail
> stolen from my mailbox", I don't think it's actual fraud.

Valdis,

It takes some creative reading to think I claimed using an alternate
but still correct address (e.g. supplied by mailboxes etc.)
constituted fraud. Alternate != redacted.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[ML]

On 8/5/2010 8:04 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Steven Bellovin  wrote:
>> Clearly, the apartment complex owners could do that if
>> they so choose.  I'm not sure who you suggest should
>> "buy a box from mail boxes etc. yourself and set up
>> mail forwarding each time you set up a new apartment
>> complex" -- the ISP?  How does that help?  This is, as
>> you say, a way to contact the apartment complex owners, right?
> 
> Steven,
> 
> Getting a post office box is a standard and widely accepted way to
> receive mail when for any reason you don't want the mail addressed to
> your physical location. Companies like Mail Boxes Etc. take the
> service one step further - they'll repackage the received mail and
> send it to your physical address so you don't have to stop by and
> check the box. Essentially, they provide a second postal address for
> the recipient unbound from the recipient's physical address.
> 
> That's what you wanted, right? To avoid revealing the resource
> consumer's physical address?
> 
> 
>> The issues have to do with knowledge and expenditure.
>> For the most part, consumers and apartment complex
>> owners have no knowledge of IP geolocation or SWIP.
>> It is consumer privacy at risk here, but consumers have
>> no opportunity to opt out of this scheme even if they
>> knew about it.  "Discuss it with the apartment complex"
>> is generally null advice; apart from the fact that consumers
>> have exactly zero leverage in many markets, the apartment
>> managers (a) don't know about it, either, and (b) can't be
>> bothered to get a PO box and collect the (rare) mail from it.
> 
> If you feel that way, I suggest you take the issue up on the ARIN
> public policy mailing list. Solicit public consensus for a change in
> handling for SWIPs for "apartment complexes as ISP resellers." Absent
> such a change, redacting identity and contact info for the apartment
> management company remains simple fraud.
> 
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin


There's usually a 50/50 split between the HOA (Home Owners Association)
and the individual that are our customers.  In the case of a HOA it's
not that the HOA is reselling it's that we are contracted to service
every member of the HOA and the HOA gives us one check for everyone.

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 05 Aug 2010 08:04:47 EDT, William Herrin said:

> If you feel that way, I suggest you take the issue up on the ARIN
> public policy mailing list. Solicit public consensus for a change in
> handling for SWIPs for "apartment complexes as ISP resellers." Absent
> such a change, redacting identity and contact info for the apartment
> management company remains simple fraud.

I'm not at all convinced that mere redaction qualifies as fraud. It certainly
qualifies as *deceptive* - but does it rise to "fraudulent"?   Is the fact that
I use a Mail Boxes Etc-type service and don't accept mail at my home address
because it's a very physically insecure mailbox fraudulent?  Yes, it's somewhat
deceptive, because it's not my actual home address.  But unless you stretch
"deception for personal gain" to the point where "gain" is "I don't want mail
stolen from my mailbox", I don't think it's actual fraud.



pgpSoEdxq41C0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:25 AM, Steven Bellovin  wrote:
> Clearly, the apartment complex owners could do that if
>they so choose.  I'm not sure who you suggest should
>"buy a box from mail boxes etc. yourself and set up
>mail forwarding each time you set up a new apartment
>complex" -- the ISP?  How does that help?  This is, as
>you say, a way to contact the apartment complex owners, right?

Steven,

Getting a post office box is a standard and widely accepted way to
receive mail when for any reason you don't want the mail addressed to
your physical location. Companies like Mail Boxes Etc. take the
service one step further - they'll repackage the received mail and
send it to your physical address so you don't have to stop by and
check the box. Essentially, they provide a second postal address for
the recipient unbound from the recipient's physical address.

That's what you wanted, right? To avoid revealing the resource
consumer's physical address?


> The issues have to do with knowledge and expenditure.
>For the most part, consumers and apartment complex
>owners have no knowledge of IP geolocation or SWIP.
>It is consumer privacy at risk here, but consumers have
>no opportunity to opt out of this scheme even if they
>knew about it.  "Discuss it with the apartment complex"
>is generally null advice; apart from the fact that consumers
>have exactly zero leverage in many markets, the apartment
>managers (a) don't know about it, either, and (b) can't be
>bothered to get a PO box and collect the (rare) mail from it.

If you feel that way, I suggest you take the issue up on the ARIN
public policy mailing list. Solicit public consensus for a change in
handling for SWIPs for "apartment complexes as ISP resellers." Absent
such a change, redacting identity and contact info for the apartment
management company remains simple fraud.

Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web: 
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

Re: SingTel (AS7473) is only announcing ConnectPlus (AS9911) routes to Level3 (AS3356) in SJC?

[Martin Barry]

$quoted_author = "Adam LaFountain" ;
> 
> At first I wanted to say this looks like a policy move on 7473's part
> but on further investigation I'm not sure if they're punishing
> themselves or doing some very specific traffic routing possible for
> balancing purposes.

> I was inclined to believe it was related to cost, especially seeing
> the prepend for AOL (1668), but began to dimiss that as I saw two
> known _peers_ haul the traffic to the west coast as well:

Hence our confusion, too. The only thing we could come up with was some
reason (capacity, cost, etc.etc.) to prefer the Singapore to SJC path. But
then why peer at LINX with other large ASes?


> In terms of figuring it out for sure I dont think L3 will tell you
> anything as they probably don't know.  SingTel's your best bet but
> good luck with that unless you become a customer.  I'm going to vote
> backbone traffic balancing by SingTel.

We have a customer who is a customer. Ticket lodged. SingTel NOC are aware
of it but no feedback or changes, yet.

cheers
Marty

Re: Question of privacy with reassigned resources

[Steven Bellovin]

On Aug 4, 2010, at 11:49 42PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Steven Bellovin  wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2010, at 1:35 17AM, William Herrin wrote:
>>> For the latter, you're providing significant amounts of a public
>>> resource (IP addresses) to a business whose contact information you're
>>> contractually and ethically obligated to reveal. If a particular
>>> complex is worried about publishing their location, they can always
>>> rent a P.O. box. If you're the only one doing the worrying, don't.
>> 
>> I strongly disagree -- you're revealing the precise address of any
>> tenant in those buildings.  Don't do that...
> 
> Then discuss it with the apartment complex, Steven, and encourage them
> to get a PO box to use in place of their physical address. Or just buy
> a box from mail boxes etc. yourself and set up mail forwarding each
> time you set up a new apartment complex. The main point of the
> exercise is that the address consumer (the apartment management
> company, a for-profit business) be identifiable and directly reachable
> by phone, email and postal mail, not that they provide accurate
> coordinates for targeting the nukes. Plenty of reasonable ways to meet
> the spirit of the rules. The letter too.
> 
Clearly, the apartment complex owners could do that if they so choose.  I'm not 
sure who you suggest should "buy a box from mail boxes etc. yourself and set up 
mail forwarding each time you set up a new apartment complex" -- the ISP?  How 
does that help?  This is, as you say, a way to contact the apartment complex 
owners, right? 

The issues have to do with knowledge and expenditure.  For the most part, 
consumers and apartment complex owners have no knowledge of IP geolocation or 
SWIP.  It is consumer privacy at risk here, but consumers have no opportunity 
to opt out of this scheme even if they knew about it.  "Discuss it with the 
apartment complex" is generally null advice; apart from the fact that consumers 
have exactly zero leverage in many markets, the apartment managers (a) don't 
know about it, either, and (b) can't be bothered to get a PO box and collect 
the (rare) mail from it.

--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb

Re: SingTel (AS7473) is only announcing ConnectPlus (AS9911) routes to Level3 (AS3356) in SJC?

[Adam LaFountain]

> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:38:55 +0200
> From: Martin Barry 
> Subject: SingTel (AS7473) is only announcing ConnectPlus (AS9911)
>        routes to       Level3 (AS3356) in SJC?
> To: na...@nanog.org
>
> Anyone on the list who can offer an explanation about the following
> scenario? We have taken this up with providers at either end but it
> will take awhile to filter up to the ASes in question.
>
> We were seeing a London to Singapore connection go via San Jose
> causing a 50%+ increase in latency.
>
> It appears that SingTel (AS7473) is only announcing ConnectPlus
> (AS9911) routes to Level3 (AS3356) in SJC.
>
> However they have many adjacencies in many countries and other routes
> of both AS7473 and it's other downstreams don't appear to be affected
> (although I haven't tested them all).
>
> Traceroutes are appended at the end but to see for yourself use
> 202.176.222.0 as a BGP or traceroute query in the Level3 looking glass
> for both London and any other location, then compare with 167.172.93.0
>
> Checking another large AS at random, they see AS7473 announcing AS9911
> routes in London.
>
> thanks
> Marty

At first I wanted to say this looks like a policy move on 7473's part
but on further investigation I'm not sure if they're punishing
themselves or doing some very specific traffic routing possible for
balancing purposes.  Noticing in Leve'3 bgp output they're a customer

 Show Level 3 (London, England) BGP routes for 202.176.222.212

BGP routing table entry for 202.176.222.0/24
Paths: (2 available, best #1)
  7473 9911
  AS-path translation: { APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK APNIC-AS-3-BLOCK }
car2.SanJose1 (metric 44128)
  Origin IGP, metric 100, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
  Community: North_America  Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer
United_States San_Jose 7473:1 7473:2 7473:41101
Prepend_2_to_AS1668 Prepend_2_to_AS13680
  Originator: car2.SanJose1
  7473 9911
  AS-path translation: { APNIC-AS-2-BLOCK APNIC-AS-3-BLOCK }
car2.SanJose1 (metric 44128)
  Origin IGP, metric 100, localpref 100, valid, internal
  Community: North_America  Lclprf_100 Level3_Customer
United_States San_Jose 7473:1 7473:2 7473:41101
Prepend_2_to_AS1668 Prepend_2_to_AS13680
  Originator: car2.SanJose1

I was inclined to believe it was related to cost, especially seeing
the prepend for AOL (1668), but began to dimiss that as I saw two
known _peers_ haul the traffic to the west coast as well:

Router: gin-l78-mcore3
Site: GB, London - L78, VSNL LONTX01 STRATFORD
Command: show ip bgp 202.176.222.212


BGP routing table entry for 202.176.222.0/24
Bestpath Modifiers: deterministic-med
Paths: (3 available, best #2)
 13 16
  7473 9911
laa-icore1. (metric 3100) from laa-mcore3. (laa-mcore3.)
  Origin IGP, valid, internal
  Community: Peer route North America West Coast Los Angeles (LAA, LMR)
  Originator: laa-icore1.
  7473 9911
pdi-icore1. (metric 3095) from pdi-mcore4. (pdi-mcore4.)
  Origin IGP, valid, internal, best
  Community: Peer route North America West Coast Palo Alto (PDI)
  Originator: pdi-icore1.

and-
1   74 ms   75 ms   75 ms   10gigabitethernet2-3.core1.nyc4.he.net 
(72.52.92.77)
2   130 ms  149 ms  147 ms  10gigabitethernet5-3.core1.lax1.he.net 
(72.52.92.226)
3   131 ms  130 ms  139 ms  laxeq-ds2-peer1.singtel.com (206.223.123.120)
4   131 ms  130 ms  139 ms  ge-1-0-0-0.laxow-cr2.ix.singtel.com 
(203.208.149.118)

In terms of figuring it out for sure I dont think L3 will tell you
anything as they probably don't know.  SingTel's your best bet but
good luck with that unless you become a customer.  I'm going to vote
backbone traffic balancing by SingTel.