Re: "Non-vendor neutral" hosting/colocation

[Randy Bush]

> We are experiencing an issue in NYCMNY where the hosting facility's
> owner, a large IXC and CLEC, is being less than cooperative in
> allowing the ILEC delivering a private circuit to the hosting
> facility.

move to a carrier-neutral facility.  unless you do that, the beatings
will continue.

randy

Re: anycast load balancing issue

[Måns Nilsson]

Subject: Re: anycast load balancing issue Date: Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 04:12:33PM 
+0100 Quoting Johannes Resch (j...@xor.at):
> >Any clues?
 
> Since you mention route-reflector route selection - are you already
> using per-VRF, per-PE route distinguishers for that L3VPN instance?

Problem solved - what I did not tell (shame on me) was that there are two
islands of IGP (growing pains...) redistributing to each other... The
metric in that redistribution was too low, resulting in artificially
"cheap" paths to the wrong places.

Thanks all who made me think a second round and solve this. 
-- 
Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
Hold the MAYO & pass the COSMIC AWARENESS ...


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: "Non-vendor neutral" hosting/colocation

[Joly MacFie]

I could be mistaken but I think similar circumstances were what originally
led to the establishment of Telx's IXP at 60 Hudson.

j

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Christopher J. Pilkington wrote:

> We are experiencing an issue in NYCMNY where the hosting facility's
> owner, a large IXC and CLEC, is being less than cooperative in
> allowing the ILEC delivering a private circuit to the hosting
> facility. They will allow ILEC to deliver the circuit elsewhere in the
> building, but will not provide us a cross connect to this facility.
> Hosting provider will however gladly use their own CLEC to provide us
> the service and provide cross connect to same.  I have no details on
> whether this is contractually permitted or not.
>
> Another circuit from a third IXC/CLEC ran into a similar problem. This
> carrier "resolved it" by using the hosting company's CLEC for local
> loop, even though third carrier has lit facilities elsewhere in said
> facility.
>
> We have concerns for future issues involving the merger of a previous
> vendor-neutral hosting facility company and another  telco provider.
>
> Any experiences or advice, on or off list, would be helpful.  Also,
> comments from regulatory geeks would be interesting as well.
>
> -cjp
>
>


-- 
---
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--
-

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Vadim Antonov]

Nathan Eisenberg  wrote:

There are no such rights. Each positive right is somebody else's obligation.

This is antisocial nonsense.
If you want to be a slave, that's your right.  But leave me out of your 
schemes, please.  May I ask you to remove the guns and violence your 
"representatives" are threatening me with if I refuse to "participate"? 
Because I don't think it's possible to have a civilized discussion when 
one party insists on forcing the other to obey.


By the way, it takes a really twisted mindset to consider violence 
towards people who didn't do anything bad to you as socially acceptable.


--vadim

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Richard Barnes]

The analogy that occurs to me is to roads.  People generally have a
right of free movement, which implies that if they are capable of
using roads (e.g., if they have a car and can drive it), then they
should be generally free to do so, certain reasonable legal
constraints notwithstanding.  And in this case, the reasonableness of
constraints arises from the fact that things like driving licenses and
road signs are based on clear safety concerns.

Mapping this over to the Internet: People generally have a right of
free expression, which implies that if they are capable of using the
Internet, they should be generally free to use it, certain reasonable
legal constraints not withstanding.

The human right in question, then, isn't a right to Internet access
per se; people aren't entitled to a broadband link any more than
they're entitled to live near good roads.  (Note, however, that
communities typically try to maintain their roads to a certain
standard.)  Rather, the right is to a certain *class* of Internet
access, free of unnecessary constraints.

The question of legal constraints and "reasonableness" is much
thornier in this domain; you're not going to kill someone by sending
them spam.  (Well, maybe with SCADA systems, but we'll put that aside
for now.)  The obvious cases (e.g., child porn) are to some degree
already covered, although there's some variation around the globe
(Nazi propaganda in France).  The debate over PROTECT-IP is at some
level about whether and which constraints on Internet usage based on
copyright constraints are reasonable.

--Richard




On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip
>
> But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make
> Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them.
>
> Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right.  But as a
> society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone,
> and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy
> applies to cellular phones now as well.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'yes, I know I'm early...' a
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274
>

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

There's no shortage of stuff that reaches you 80..90 days after the fact

The UK voluntary retention rules make a lot more sense, compared to "a
few days", which is entirely impractical

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:30 AM,   wrote:
>
> You need to track down a miscreant user *right now*? You got the last 48 hours
> of logs right at hand.  It's been a week? Meh, if somebody's been getting hit 
> by
> a DDoS for a week and is just now calling you, the fact they have a DDoS is 
> the
> least of their problems. Toss the logs. :)



-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Fri, 06 Jan 2012 09:11:30 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian said:
> I would love to ask the EFF just what you do when you don't log stuff,
> and then need to troubleshoot someone causing a DDoS or something from
> your network in a hurry.

What John actually said:
> OSPs cannot be forced to provide data that does not exist. EFF suggests
> that OSPs draft an internal policy that states that they collect only
> limited information and do not retain any logs of user activity on their
> networks for more than a few weeks.

You need to track down a miscreant user *right now*? You got the last 48 hours
of logs right at hand.  It's been a week? Meh, if somebody's been getting hit by
a DDoS for a week and is just now calling you, the fact they have a DDoS is the
least of their problems. Toss the logs. :)

> Not that I'd get any sort of a useful answer from them, beyond random
> propaganda that spam filtering is evil, DPI is demoniacal etc etc.

Might want to go and actually read https://www.eff.org/wp/osp
before you say that. The PDF version runs to about 15 pages of detailed
and useful info for an OSP.;


pgptjoR0n6HGp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

I would love to ask the EFF just what you do when you don't log stuff,
and then need to troubleshoot someone causing a DDoS or something from
your network in a hurry.

Not that I'd get any sort of a useful answer from them, beyond random
propaganda that spam filtering is evil, DPI is demoniacal etc etc.

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 3:54 AM, John Adams  wrote:
>
> OSPs cannot be forced to provide data that does not exist. EFF suggests
> that OSPs draft an internal policy that states that they collect only
> limited information and do not retain any logs of user activity on their
> networks for more than a few weeks. If a court order requests data that is
> more than a few weeks old, the OSP can simply point to the policy and
> explain that it cannot furnish the requested data. Likewise, if unnecessary
> PII is regularly deleted, the OSP cannot supply what it does not retain.
> This saves the OSP time and money, while also providing the OSP with
> sufficient data for its own administrative and business purposes.



-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.li...@gmail.com)

RE: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Nathan Eisenberg]

> There are no such rights. Each positive right is somebody else's obligation.
> Being forced to feed, clothe, and house somebody else is called slavery. So is
> providing Internet access, TV, or whatever else. Doesn't matter if this 
> slavery
> is part-time, the principle remains the same -- some people gang up on you
> and force you to work for their benefit.

This is antisocial nonsense.  Governed societies exist because the supporting 
output of the group is greater than that of the same number of individuals.  
That infrastructure of government - the social building blocks that obligate us 
to each other - are not slavery, they are freedom from the anarchists, the 
equal opportunists (those that hold that we all have, inherently, have the same 
opportunity to succeed), and the Darwinists.

By your logic, librarians are slaves, as are all civil servants.  Radio is 
another of the greatest examples of a means of speech that is universally 
accessible, and yet we would not call broadcasters slaves either.  Absolute 
nonsense.

Nathan

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Vadim Antonov]

There are no such rights. Each positive right is somebody else's 
obligation.

Being forced to feed, clothe, and house somebody else is called slavery. So
is providing Internet access, TV, or whatever else. Doesn't matter if 
this slavery

is part-time, the principle remains the same -- some people gang up on you
and force you to work for their benefit.

On the other hand the ability to exchange any information with any other
consenting parties and at your own expense - without being censored,
interfered with, or snooped upon - is indeed a basic human right.

--vadim

On 01/05/2012 07:45 AM, Zaid Ali wrote:

I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing
and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that. With
your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right but
they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers
of something else and the Internet would fit there.

Zaid

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Barry Shein]

Sorry if someone said this but I think it's interesting that the first
amendment to the US Constitution specifically lists freedom of speech
AND freedom of press, rather than perhaps allowing one (speech) to
imply the other (press, i.e., that speech fixed to a medium.)

If we use that as a signficiant guide that would seem to say that mere
speech is not enough, the right to disseminate that speech to others
is also necessary.

-- 
-Barry Shein

The World  | b...@theworld.com   | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD| Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die| Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[John Adams]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Eric J Esslinger wrote:

>
> (I am speaking specifically of full email journaling, not just logs, which
> I do archive for significant amounts of time.)
>
> I also don't want to discuss the pros, cons, merits, costs, goods, or
> evils of such a requirement, just wanted to know if this is something I
> should be looking forward towards maybe needing to implement.
>

This is probably not what you want to hear, but you should really read
through EFF's "Best Practices for Online Service Providers."

https://www.eff.org/wp/osp

Specifically:

OSPs cannot be forced to provide data that does not exist. EFF suggests
that OSPs draft an internal policy that states that they collect only
limited information and do not retain any logs of user activity on their
networks for more than a few weeks. If a court order requests data that is
more than a few weeks old, the OSP can simply point to the policy and
explain that it cannot furnish the requested data. Likewise, if unnecessary
PII is regularly deleted, the OSP cannot supply what it does not retain.
This saves the OSP time and money, while also providing the OSP with
sufficient data for its own administrative and business purposes.

Re: OSS Systems

[Shahab Vahabzadeh]

Dear Leigh,
Thanks for you answer, So you recommend radiator?
What about analyses, you know always thinking about billing systems with
staffs who does not have any idea about backend is hard ...
You always have problems with operators and they make lots of exceptions,
Is'nt it?
And if you have time would you please tell me more about your load
balancers?
I am really confused really with designing and analysing this project :(
Thanks


On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Leigh Porter
wrote:

>
>
> On 5 Jan 2012, at 22:02, "Shahab Vahabzadeh" 
> wrote:
>
> > Hi there,
> > Has anybody experience about running and OSS System in enterprise level?
> > And do you have any idea about it?
> > For example for an ISP who is running users more than 20K or 30K, there
> > must be some good solutions to integrate all systems like:
> > Radius, Billing Systems and CRM
> > For example after searching and asking friends I have some ideas about
> > Radius to use: radiator
> > Is there anybody who has analyse such a systems before in his ISP? Need
> > sharing here :)
> > Thanks
>
> We did this a few years ago and ended up writing the while thing
> ourselves. This included billing, subscriber management etc etc.
>
> We integrates to salesforce.com for the internal front end and the user
> facing stuff we did ourselves.
>
> It was a big project and took a team of six about six months. But we ended
> up with a perfect solution that did exactly what we needed and it was
> pretty good.
>
> It handled within the order of users you mention, but we designed to 100k
> users.
>
> We used radiator (highly recommended) with openldap back end. Multiple
> load balanced servers etc etc.
>
> The worst thing we did was to build our own mail system. Not that it was
> an issue, it never went wrong, but these days I'd just send people to gmail
> or something.
>
> --
> Leigh Porter
>
>
> __
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> __
>



-- 
Regards,
Shahab Vahabzadeh, Network Engineer and System Administrator

PGP Key Fingerprint = 8E34 B335 D702 0CA7 5A81  C2EE 76A2 46C2 5367 BF90

Re: OSS Systems

[Leigh Porter]

On 5 Jan 2012, at 22:02, "Shahab Vahabzadeh"  wrote:

> Hi there,
> Has anybody experience about running and OSS System in enterprise level?
> And do you have any idea about it?
> For example for an ISP who is running users more than 20K or 30K, there
> must be some good solutions to integrate all systems like:
> Radius, Billing Systems and CRM
> For example after searching and asking friends I have some ideas about
> Radius to use: radiator
> Is there anybody who has analyse such a systems before in his ISP? Need
> sharing here :)
> Thanks

We did this a few years ago and ended up writing the while thing ourselves. 
This included billing, subscriber management etc etc.

We integrates to salesforce.com for the internal front end and the user facing 
stuff we did ourselves.

It was a big project and took a team of six about six months. But we ended up 
with a perfect solution that did exactly what we needed and it was pretty good.

It handled within the order of users you mention, but we designed to 100k users.

We used radiator (highly recommended) with openldap back end. Multiple load 
balanced servers etc etc.

The worst thing we did was to build our own mail system. Not that it was an 
issue, it never went wrong, but these days I'd just send people to gmail or 
something.

--
Leigh Porter


__
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
__

OSS Systems

[Shahab Vahabzadeh]

Hi there,
Has anybody experience about running and OSS System in enterprise level?
And do you have any idea about it?
For example for an ISP who is running users more than 20K or 30K, there
must be some good solutions to integrate all systems like:
Radius, Billing Systems and CRM
For example after searching and asking friends I have some ideas about
Radius to use: radiator
Is there anybody who has analyse such a systems before in his ISP? Need
sharing here :)
Thanks

-- 
Regards,
Shahab Vahabzadeh, Network Engineer and System Administrator

PGP Key Fingerprint = 8E34 B335 D702 0CA7 5A81  C2EE 76A2 46C2 5367 BF90

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Daniel Staal]

On Thu, January 5, 2012 11:37 am, Zaid Ali wrote:
>
> If I wrote a blog article that criticized the government and it was
> shutdown along with my Internet access I wouldn't say that my right to the
> Internet was violated. I would say that my right to free speech was
> violated. Regardless of one way or two way communication it is
> communication.

The Internet is quickly becoming more than just a medium for speech.  It
is access to services, education, markets, and tools of analysis, among
*many* others.  Many of the specifics are covered under other rights, so
the question is does the whole become more than the parts, and is *that* a
right?

I'm with the 'probably not quite yet, but soon' group.  I don't think it
will be long before it is impossible to participate in modern society in
any meaningful way without access to the Internet.

Vint does have one other point: the tool is not the whole of the thing. 
What we currently call 'the Internet' could be replaced by a different
network, if someone were to invent something that was a good enough
replacement.  But at this point, I think *that* network would be called
'the Internet' then, and we don't *have* a separate name for the tool from
what it does.  (With the possible exception of some terms in cyberpunk
novels...)

Daniel T. Staal

---
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---

Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:

>
>> Is H.264 Turing-complete ? Is Ogg-Vorbis ? (It seems like those are
>> the two reasonable open standard choices.))
>
> Okay by me.  Just no "Flash Video Streams" if you please.

what about html5?

Re: Router Assessment Tool

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Green, Timothy
 wrote:
> Happy New Year All!!!
>
> I'm trying to perform STIG compliancy on various Cisco equipment.  Has 
> anybody used the Router Assessment Tool (RAT) for routers and switches?   Any 
> cheap (free) recommendations?  As a last ditch effort I could use NMAP.
>

uunet did for a time use a variant of RAT... you may get some mileage
asking George Jones about it.

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Joly MacFie]

Not a new line of thinking for Vint. He said much the same thing at our
INET in NYC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPc79dlLs0U

What's notable is that as a "father" Vint is more aware than many of the
ephemerality of the Internet, and when speculating futurewise at the INET
he consistently referred to it as "the Internet or whatever may replace it."

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:

> Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip
>
>
-- 
---
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--
-

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Joly MacFie]

I know here in NYC, when the government talks, access is defined as
availability, whether utilized or not.

j



On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:55 AM,  wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:09:59 EST, Jay Ashworth said:
>
> > Didn't *say* broadband.  Didn't even say "Internet service".  Said
> "Internet
> > *access*", in the non-techspeak meaning of those words.
>
> There are those who would say "Free Internet access is available at the
> Public Library and the Community Center" counts as "internet access".
>
> What say the peanut gallery?
>



-- 
---
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
 http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
--
-

Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org

[Alex Brooks]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
> /\  www.asciiribbon.org
>
>
> > On Thursday, 05 January, 2012 08:30, Marshall Eubanks said:
>
> > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
>
> > > > There is video hosting web sites on the intertubes?
> > > > Now where would those be found, I wonder.  All I have ever seen is 
> > > > macro-
> > > > streaming that is fraudulently labeled and advertised as video -- the 
> > > > worst
> > > > being something called FlashVirus, which was written by a company called
> > > > MacroVirus Media or something like that, and currently owned and 
> > > > flogged by
> > > > Adobe along with their "Proprietary Document Format" (the latest 
> > > > versions of
> > > > which boast UVTD technology -- Unstoppable Virus Transport and 
> > > > Distribution).
>
>
> > > > If the so-called video contains arbitrary executable code (or can run
> > > > arbitrary executable code), or requires the use of a specific 
> > > > application to
> > > > "play" (or infect the target), then it should not be described as
> > > > "video".  It is a streaming-macro.
>
>
> > Is H.264 Turing-complete ? Is Ogg-Vorbis ? (It seems like those are
> > the two reasonable open standard choices.))
>
> Okay by me.  Just no "Flash Video Streams" if you please.
>

FWIW many of the big video hosting sites have this option now, and
many send an appropriate format for the browser being used:
http://www.youtube.com/html5
http://www.dailymotion.com/html5
http://vimeo.com/blog:268
http://blip.tv/html5/
http://www.archive.org/details/Html5DemoVideo

Alex

"Non-vendor neutral" hosting/colocation

[Christopher J. Pilkington]

We are experiencing an issue in NYCMNY where the hosting facility's
owner, a large IXC and CLEC, is being less than cooperative in
allowing the ILEC delivering a private circuit to the hosting
facility. They will allow ILEC to deliver the circuit elsewhere in the
building, but will not provide us a cross connect to this facility.
Hosting provider will however gladly use their own CLEC to provide us
the service and provide cross connect to same.  I have no details on
whether this is contractually permitted or not.

Another circuit from a third IXC/CLEC ran into a similar problem. This
carrier "resolved it" by using the hosting company's CLEC for local
loop, even though third carrier has lit facilities elsewhere in said
facility.

We have concerns for future issues involving the merger of a previous
vendor-neutral hosting facility company and another  telco provider.

Any experiences or advice, on or off list, would be helpful.  Also,
comments from regulatory geeks would be interesting as well.

-cjp

RE: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org

[Keith Medcalf]

---
()  ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org


> On Thursday, 05 January, 2012 08:30, Marshall Eubanks said:

> > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:

> > > There is video hosting web sites on the intertubes?
> > > Now where would those be found, I wonder.  All I have ever seen is macro-
> > > streaming that is fraudulently labeled and advertised as video -- the 
> > > worst
> > > being something called FlashVirus, which was written by a company called
> > > MacroVirus Media or something like that, and currently owned and flogged 
> > > by
> > > Adobe along with their "Proprietary Document Format" (the latest versions 
> > > of
> > > which boast UVTD technology -- Unstoppable Virus Transport and 
> > > Distribution).


> > > If the so-called video contains arbitrary executable code (or can run
> > > arbitrary executable code), or requires the use of a specific application 
> > > to
> > > "play" (or infect the target), then it should not be described as
> > > "video".  It is a streaming-macro.


> Is H.264 Turing-complete ? Is Ogg-Vorbis ? (It seems like those are
> the two reasonable open standard choices.))

Okay by me.  Just no "Flash Video Streams" if you please.

> Regards
> Marshall


> > Microsoft was the first OS vendor to add the "Execute Payload" header to IP
> which saved much time and effort in the distribution of malicious code via
> the internet.  Unfortunatly, Adobe and several other vendors have patents on
> what is called the method of "Executable Data" and made Microsoft remove
> their wonderous invention under pain of patent lawsuits.
> >
> > Of course, maybe whats meant is File hosting, where the File being hosted
> just happens to contain video data in standard data format (preferably a
> pure-data format that does not embed execution macros of any type).
> >
> > ;)
> >
> > ---
> > ()  ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
> > /\  www.asciiribbon.org
> >
> >
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, 04 January, 2012 20:47
> >> To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> >> Cc: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com; Wessels, Duane; nanog@nanog.org
> >> Subject: Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Err, while we're talking about video files and nanog, why is the video
> >> >> content still served off (stored content I mean) nanog.org servers?
> >> >> Why not use one of the many video serving services? some of which are
> >> >> free even :)
> >> >> (that part's not a troll, a real question, even!)
> >> >> -chris
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The website work hasn't yet begun, so that is certainly still on the
> >> table.  If you would like to volunteer some of your time...
> >>
> >> I'm sure we could arrange some process to ingest videos to some form
> >> of video-hosting-website... a videotubes site let's say.
> >>
> >> who should I chat with?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Franck Martin]

Universal Access vs Universal Service

It is important to understand the difference.

I have argued that Developing countries should only provide Universal
Access as the weight of providing Universal Service is way too expensive
and would tax too much the business community which is developing the
economy so that Universal Service may become a reality one day.

On 1/5/12 8:55 , "valdis.kletni...@vt.edu"  wrote:

>On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:09:59 EST, Jay Ashworth said:
>
>> Didn't *say* broadband.  Didn't even say "Internet service".  Said
>>"Internet
>> *access*", in the non-techspeak meaning of those words.
>
>There are those who would say "Free Internet access is available at the
>Public Library and the Community Center" counts as "internet access".
>
>What say the peanut gallery?

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[Steven Bellovin]

On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> 
> On Jan 5, 2012, at 10:42 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Eric J Esslinger  
>> wrote:
>>> His response was there is legislation being pushed in both
>>> House and Senate that would require journalling for 2 or 5
>>> years, all mail passing through all of your mail servers.
>> 
>> Hi Eric,
>> 
>> The only relatively recent thing I'm aware of in the Congress is the
>> Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.
> 
> Since you bring it up, I sent this to Eric a few moments ago. Like you, 
> IANAL, and this is not legal advice.
> 
>> From: Fred Baker 
>> Date: January 5, 2012 10:46:30 AM PST
>> To: Eric J Esslinger 
>> Subject: Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email 
>> (possible legislation?)
>> 
>> I don't know of anything on email journaling, but you might look into 
>> section 4 of the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 
>> 2011", which asks you to log IP addresses allocated to subscribers. My guess 
>> is that the concern is correct, but the details have morphed into urban 
>> legend.
>> 
>> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1981
>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/04402514995/congress-tries-to-hide-massive-data-retention-law-pretending-its-anti-child-porn-law.shtml
>> 
>> I'm not sure I see this as shrilly as the techdirt article does, but it is 
>> in fact enabling legislation for a part of Article 20 of the COE Cybercrime 
>> Convention http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/185.htm. US is 
>> a signatory. Article 21 is Lawful Intercept as specified in OCCSSS, FISA, 
>> CALEA, and PATRIOT. Article 20 essentially looks for retention of 
>> mail/web/etc logs, and in the Danish interpretation, maintaining Netflow 
>> records for every subscriber in Denmark along with a mapping between IP 
>> address and subscriber identity in a form that can be data mined with an 
>> appropriate warrant.
> 
> I can't say (I don't know) whether the Danish Police have in fact implemented 
> what they proposed in 2003. What they were looking for at the time was that 
> the netflow records would be kept for something on the order of 6-18 months. 
> 
> From a US perspective, you might peruse
> 
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#United_States
> 
> The Wikipedia article goes on to comment on the forensic value of data 
> retention. I think it is fair to say that the use of telephone numbers in TV 
> shows like CSI ("gee, he called X a lot, maybe we should too") is the comic 
> book version of the use but not far from the mark. A law enforcement official 
> once described it to me as "mapping criminal networks"; if Alice and Bob are 
> known criminals that talk with each other, and both also talk regularly with 
> Carol, Carol may simply be a mutual friend, but she might also be something 
> else. Further, if Alice and Bob are known criminals in one organization, Dick 
> and Jane are known criminals in another, and a change in communication 
> patterns is observed - Alice and Bob don't talk with Dick or Jane for a long 
> period, and then they start talking - it may signal a shift that law 
> enforcement is interested in.
> 
Yah, but that's all "non-content records"; it's a far cry from having to retain 
the body of every email, which is what he asked about.  As far as I know -- and 
I'm on enough tech policy lists that I probably would know -- nothing like that 
is being proposed.  That said, for a few industries -- finance comes to mind -- 
companies are required to do things like that by the SEC, but not ISPs per se.  
See 
http://www.archivecompliance.com/Laws-governing-email-archiving-compliance.html 
for some details.


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

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Franck Martin]

On 1/5/12 8:07 , "Jay Ashworth"  wrote:

>- Original Message -
>> From: "Zaid Ali" 
>
>> On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, "Jay Ashworth"  wrote:
>> 
>> >Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip
>> >
>
>The question here is "is *access to* the Internet a human right,
>something 
>which the government ought to recognize and protect"?  I sort of think it
>is,
>myself... and I think that Vint is missing the point: *all* of the things
>we generally view as human rights are enablers to other things, and we
>generally dub them *as those things*, by synecdoche... at least in my
>experience.

The basic human right is free speech, this is how the Internet gets
protected, by proxy.

But then... I think only the US claims to have free speech as a
constitutional right. This is not in the mind of many Europeans...

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[Fred Baker]

On Jan 5, 2012, at 10:42 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Eric J Esslinger  
> wrote:
>> His response was there is legislation being pushed in both
>> House and Senate that would require journalling for 2 or 5
>> years, all mail passing through all of your mail servers.
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> The only relatively recent thing I'm aware of in the Congress is the
> Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.

Since you bring it up, I sent this to Eric a few moments ago. Like you, IANAL, 
and this is not legal advice.

> From: Fred Baker 
> Date: January 5, 2012 10:46:30 AM PST
> To: Eric J Esslinger 
> Subject: Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email 
> (possible legislation?)
> 
> I don't know of anything on email journaling, but you might look into section 
> 4 of the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011", which 
> asks you to log IP addresses allocated to subscribers. My guess is that the 
> concern is correct, but the details have morphed into urban legend.
> 
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1981
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110707/04402514995/congress-tries-to-hide-massive-data-retention-law-pretending-its-anti-child-porn-law.shtml
> 
> I'm not sure I see this as shrilly as the techdirt article does, but it is in 
> fact enabling legislation for a part of Article 20 of the COE Cybercrime 
> Convention http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/html/185.htm. US is 
> a signatory. Article 21 is Lawful Intercept as specified in OCCSSS, FISA, 
> CALEA, and PATRIOT. Article 20 essentially looks for retention of 
> mail/web/etc logs, and in the Danish interpretation, maintaining Netflow 
> records for every subscriber in Denmark along with a mapping between IP 
> address and subscriber identity in a form that can be data mined with an 
> appropriate warrant.

I can't say (I don't know) whether the Danish Police have in fact implemented 
what they proposed in 2003. What they were looking for at the time was that the 
netflow records would be kept for something on the order of 6-18 months. 

From a US perspective, you might peruse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#United_States

The Wikipedia article goes on to comment on the forensic value of data 
retention. I think it is fair to say that the use of telephone numbers in TV 
shows like CSI ("gee, he called X a lot, maybe we should too") is the comic 
book version of the use but not far from the mark. A law enforcement official 
once described it to me as "mapping criminal networks"; if Alice and Bob are 
known criminals that talk with each other, and both also talk regularly with 
Carol, Carol may simply be a mutual friend, but she might also be something 
else. Further, if Alice and Bob are known criminals in one organization, Dick 
and Jane are known criminals in another, and a change in communication patterns 
is observed - Alice and Bob don't talk with Dick or Jane for a long period, and 
then they start talking - it may signal a shift that law enforcement is 
interested in.

RE: AD and enforced password policies

[Jones, Barry]

'Either way, expiring often is the first and most effective step at making the 
lusers hate you and will only bring the Post-It(tm) makers happy.'


If you want to make them really, really unhappy, implement a rotating user ID 
coupled with an often expiring password policy. For example, User ID jjones1, 
jjones2, jjones3, jjones4 (for winter, summer, fall, spring). Works with 
clothing choices, but angers user communities... :-)
 

-Original Message-
From: Steven Bellovin [mailto:s...@cs.columbia.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 5:41 AM
To: Greg Ihnen
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: AD and enforced password policies


On Jan 3, 2012, at 8:09 19AM, Greg Ihnen wrote:

> 
> On Jan 3, 2012, at 4:14 AM, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> 
>> Subject: RE: AD and enforced password policies Date: Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 
>> 11:15:08PM + Quoting Blake T. Pfankuch (bl...@pfankuch.me):
>> 
>>> However I would say 365 day expiration is a little long, 3 months is about 
>>> the average in a non financial oriented network.  
>> 
>> If you force me to change a password every three months, I'm going to 
>> start doing "g0ddw/\ssPOrd-01", ..-02, etc immediately. Net result, 
>> you lose.
>> 
>> Let's face it, either the bad guys have LANMAN hashes/unsalted MD5 
>> etc, and we're all doomed, or they will be lucky and guess. None of 
>> these attack modes will be mitigated by the 3-month scheme; 
>> success/fail as seen by the bad guys will be a lot quicker than three 
>> months. If they do not get lucky with john or rainbow tables, they'll move 
>> on.
>> 
>> (Some scenarios still are affected by this, of course, but there is a 
>> lot to be done to stop bad things from happening like not getting 
>> your hashes stolen etc. On-line repeated login failures aren't going 
>> to work because you'll detect that, right? )
>> 
>> Either way, expiring often is the first and most effective step at 
>> making the lusers hate you and will only bring the Post-It(tm) makers happy.
>> 
>> If your password crypto is NSA KW-26 or similar, OTOH, just don the 
>> Navy blues and start swapping punchcards at  ZULU.
>>  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kw-26.jpg)
>> 
>> -- 
>> Måns Nilsson primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
>> MN-1334-RIPE +46 705 989668
>> Life is a POPULARITY CONTEST!  I'm REFRESHINGLY CANDID!!
> 
> 
> A side issue is the people who use the same password at fuzzykittens.com as 
> they do at bankofamerica.com. Of course fuzzykittens doesn't need high 
> security for their password management and storage. After all, what's worth 
> stealing at fuzzykittens? All those passwords.  I use and recommend and use a 
> popular password manager, so I can have unique strong passwords without 
> making a religion out of it.
> 

It's not a side issue; in my opinion it's a far more important issue in most 
situations.  I do the same thing that you do for all but my most critical 
passwords.



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

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:42:50 EST, William Herrin said:
> The really odd thing is that the act also says:
>
> `(2) Access to a record or information required to be retained under
> this subsection may not be compelled by any person or other entity
> that is not a governmental entity.'
>
> What does that mean for the MPAA seeking the identity of a bit torrent user?

Means they need to get a subpoena (at which point it's the court, a governmental
entity, doing the compelling).


pgpApn49FNCgw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Eric J Esslinger  wrote:
>  His response was there is legislation being pushed in both
> House and Senate that would require journalling for 2 or 5
> years, all mail passing through all of your mail servers.

Hi Eric,

The only relatively recent thing I'm aware of in the Congress is the
Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.01981:

What it actually says is:

`(1) A commercial provider of an electronic communication service
shall retain for a period of at least one year a log of the
temporarily assigned network addresses the provider assigns to a
subscriber to or customer of such service that enables the
identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information
under subsection (c)(2) of this section.'

That may mean journaling individual TCP connections in a NAT
environment but it doesn't address content, email or otherwise.

I'd say your friend was confused.



The really odd thing is that the act also says:

`(2) Access to a record or information required to be retained under
this subsection may not be compelled by any person or other entity
that is not a governmental entity.'

What does that mean for the MPAA seeking the identity of a bit torrent user?


Regards,
Bill Herrin



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

Re: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[Ray Soucy]

If you search for "email archiving" instead of journaling you'll come
up with a lot more information.  It dates back to court rule changes
in 2006.

Most of it is hype because of [largely incorrect] articles like this
one (just one of the first hits):

http://www.itworld.com/security/55954/law-requires-email-archiving

It's really something that you would need a lawyer to give you an
answer on (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc).

My [limited] understanding is that if you are required to disclose
whether or not you have any electronic document (including email)
requested as part of the discovery process.

If you do have it, you're required to produce it.

Since it being on some hard drive of an employee computer qualifies as
having it, many larger companies decided to archive centrally.  The
rules only require 7 years back (I think), so that's the amount of
time it's generally archived for.

TL;DR you're not required to archive email, but if you need to know
whether or not you have it if asked.

Again, my understanding here is pretty limited.  If anyone know for
certain feel free to chime in.




On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Eric J Esslinger  wrote:
> Based on a some I have received off list it seems no-one has ever heard of 
> such a proposal that has had any serious traction so I assume the gentleman 
> was either mistaken, paranoid, or trying to pull a joke on me.
>
> Thank you for the responses everyone. You can now get back to your regularly 
> scheduled regulatory headaches.
>
> __
> Eric Esslinger
> Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities
> http://www.fpu-tn.com/
> (931)433-1522 ext 165
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Eric J Esslinger [mailto:eesslin...@fpu-tn.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:57 AM
>> To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
>> Subject: question regarding US requirements for journaling
>> public email (possible legislation?)
>>
>>
>> Hope yall had an 'eventless' holiday. (I.e. no pages at 2 am
>> on a holiday morning). Sorry to drop what is possibly just
>> someone misunderstanding something or pulling my leg on the
>> list, but over the holidays I ran into one of my buddies that
>> is also a network admin type and he was griping about mail
>> journalling, which I already do for our corporate email
>> accounts. However, his discussion was in terms of all
>> customer email... Which I said was probably a bad thing to
>> do. His response was there is legislation being pushed in
>> both House and Senate that would require journalling for 2 or
>> 5 years, all mail passing through all of your mail servers.
>>
>> I've seen nothing, and my google fu has turned up nothing
>> other than corporate requirements, so I ask here. Has anyone
>> heard of such a bill working it's way through either side of congress?
>>
>> (I am speaking specifically of full email journaling, not
>> just logs, which I do archive for significant amounts of time.)
>>
>> I also don't want to discuss the pros, cons, merits, costs,
>> goods, or evils of such a requirement, just wanted to know if
>> this is something I should be looking forward towards maybe
>> needing to implement.
>>
>> Thanks for your attention and may you have a low incident new
>> year. __ Eric Esslinger Information
>> Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities
>> http://www.fpu-tn.com/ (931)433-1522 ext 165
>>
>> This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary
>> information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it
>> was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.
>>
>>
>
> This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is 
> intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use 
> by others is strictly prohibited.
>



-- 
Ray Soucy

Epic Communications Specialist

Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526

Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[William Herrin]

Free Speech is a human right. It's still a human right when that
speech is conveyed over the Internet. To the extent that a government
obstructs Internet access by its citizens, it is obstructing a human
right.

In a capitalist society, human rights are about obstruction, not
compulsion. The right to life does not compel a government to provide
you with medical care; it merely prevents the government from
obstructing your ability to otherwise obtain treatment. Likewise, the
right to free speech does not compel a government to provide you with
an Internet account.

Socialist societies have a different point of view. A socialist
government has a compulsion to provide its citizens at least
minimalist and at most egalitarian facilities for the exercise of
their human rights.


On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> as a
> society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone,
> and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy
> applies to cellular phones now as well.

Personally, I've always thought it a tragedy that the universal
service fund was diverted to provide laptops to kindergartners. I'd
love to see it collected from all network service and be applicable to
all unbundled rural basic network service.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Dave CROCKER]

On 1/5/2012 7:36 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:

Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip


With all due respect to Vint, I think that it isn't now, but it will be.



With all due respect for the view that it will be, I'll suggest that this 
entirely misses the point of his op-ed.


His point is to distinguish means versus ends and that something as basic as a 
human right needs to be about ends, not means.


Means often change -- sometimes quickly -- but ends are typically quite stable. 
 Discussion about means needs to be in terms of the ends they serve.


From the US perspective, speech and assembly are examples of rights.

The 'right' to telephone service is not a direct right; it's a derivative of the 
speech right, I believe. Onerous assembly laws are examples of unacceptable 
means.  The Internet is a set of means.  (Zaid's concrete example about blog 
blocking is also on point.)


Broadly, we need to be careful to distinguish between core issues (rights, 
causes, and the like) from derivative and surface issues (means, symptoms, and 
the like.  It's extremely easy to get caught up with the details of means and 
symptoms and entirely miss the underlying, strategic issues.


d/
--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

RE: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Nathan Eisenberg]

> > I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd.
> > Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me?
> What
> > if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would
> > be a violation of their human rights.
> 
> There are those who think that it's a government's responsibility to
> make sure that people don't die from starvation or lack of access to
> medical care.
> Then there are those who think it's OK to let people die in the gutter.

And as with most things - the 'truth' is probably somewhere between the 
extremes.

Internet access, as a vehicle for free speech, is at least an important civil 
right.  I wouldn't immediately discard the notion that, as a subset of free 
speech, it is a human right.  Internet access, by way of cell phones, has 
increasingly enabled repressed peoples to expose their suffering to the outside 
world.  One doesn't have to look any further than the protests in Iran after 
the reelection of Ahmadinejad to see that.  When the reporters and cameras have 
been exiled, and all that remains is the general public armed with their 
cellphones against the military police armed with rifles, freedom of speech and 
internet access become the very same thing.

Certainly, to an oppressive dictator, internet access and free speech are the 
very same right.  In a modern world, to curtail one is to curtail the other.

Nathan
 

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Zaid Ali]

On 1/5/12 9:34 AM, "Jon Schipp"  wrote:

>I think there's a fundamental difference between human and civil rights.
>
>Human rights come from our humanity, i.e. us being human. As humans,
>we can walk, talk, produce things, own property, etc.
>
>Assuming that isn't true, the next logical question is where do you
>draw the line?
>Vehicles are beneficial to society, can they be a human right? If you
>keep bringing these type of questions up and substitute any good in
>place of vehicles, you can see how absurd it is. There's no
>consistency.
>
>I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd.
>Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What
>if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would
>be a violation of their human rights.


No, it doesn't mean that someone must provide it for you. It means that
"access" must not be denied. Take for example the homeless situation in
San Francisco, if the city did not provide shelter for the homeless there
would be an outcry our human right violation. If you walk around San
Francisco you still see people sleeping in the streets and this is because
they choose to but they do have the right to go to a shelter so the city
of San Francisco is doing the right thing for basic human right.

In India my observation is that people may be really poor but they do not
go hungry or denied shelter even though they choose to make it out of a
cardboard box. The government makes sure that the lands are protected
which is why the slumps are not bulldozed by a developer. This is a good
example of human right. Electricity, communication mediums are all things
that people get together to bring either as an individual self or a
community.

Zaid

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Kevin Stange]

On 01/05/2012 11:34 AM, Jon Schipp wrote:
> I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd.
> Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What
> if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would
> be a violation of their human rights.

Human rights are things that no government or person should have the
right to *take away* from someone.  For example, a government need not
provide food to all people who need it necessarily, but they must not
prevent people from gaining access to food if they want it.

I would argue that the better societies have systems in place for
providing access to things that are human rights via the government when
no one else is able to step up.

-- 
Kevin Stange
Chief Technology Officer
Steadfast Networks
http://steadfast.net
Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RE: question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[Eric J Esslinger]

Based on a some I have received off list it seems no-one has ever heard of such 
a proposal that has had any serious traction so I assume the gentleman was 
either mistaken, paranoid, or trying to pull a joke on me.

Thank you for the responses everyone. You can now get back to your regularly 
scheduled regulatory headaches.

__
Eric Esslinger
Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities
http://www.fpu-tn.com/
(931)433-1522 ext 165



> -Original Message-
> From: Eric J Esslinger [mailto:eesslin...@fpu-tn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:57 AM
> To: 'nanog@nanog.org'
> Subject: question regarding US requirements for journaling
> public email (possible legislation?)
>
>
> Hope yall had an 'eventless' holiday. (I.e. no pages at 2 am
> on a holiday morning). Sorry to drop what is possibly just
> someone misunderstanding something or pulling my leg on the
> list, but over the holidays I ran into one of my buddies that
> is also a network admin type and he was griping about mail
> journalling, which I already do for our corporate email
> accounts. However, his discussion was in terms of all
> customer email... Which I said was probably a bad thing to
> do. His response was there is legislation being pushed in
> both House and Senate that would require journalling for 2 or
> 5 years, all mail passing through all of your mail servers.
>
> I've seen nothing, and my google fu has turned up nothing
> other than corporate requirements, so I ask here. Has anyone
> heard of such a bill working it's way through either side of congress?
>
> (I am speaking specifically of full email journaling, not
> just logs, which I do archive for significant amounts of time.)
>
> I also don't want to discuss the pros, cons, merits, costs,
> goods, or evils of such a requirement, just wanted to know if
> this is something I should be looking forward towards maybe
> needing to implement.
>
> Thanks for your attention and may you have a low incident new
> year. __ Eric Esslinger Information
> Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities
> http://www.fpu-tn.com/ (931)433-1522 ext 165
>
> This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary
> information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it
> was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.
>
>

This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is 
intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by 
others is strictly prohibited.

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:34:32 EST, Jon Schipp said:

> I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd.
> Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What
> if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would
> be a violation of their human rights.

There are those who think that it's a government's responsibility to make
sure that people don't die from starvation or lack of access to medical care.
Then there are those who think it's OK to let people die in the gutter.




pgpffs3RnOcd6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Jon Schipp]

I think there's a fundamental difference between human and civil rights.

Human rights come from our humanity, i.e. us being human. As humans,
we can walk, talk, produce things, own property, etc.

Assuming that isn't true, the next logical question is where do you
draw the line?
Vehicles are beneficial to society, can they be a human right? If you
keep bringing these type of questions up and substitute any good in
place of vehicles, you can see how absurd it is. There's no
consistency.

I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd.
Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What
if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would
be a violation of their human rights.

Civil rights are rights that are provided by societal institutions
e.g. governments

This makes the most sense to me anyway. I probably need to go read
some John Locke.

http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-human-and-civil-rights/


On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Leo Bicknell  wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:48:06AM -0500, Dave Israel 
> wrote:
>> As an aside, your example is flawed, because judicial punishment does
>> involve a loss, or at least a curtailment, of what many people consider
>> to be basic rights.
>
> In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:52:11AM -0500, 
> valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>> Convicted felons surrender a number of rights: freedom (jail terms), the
>> right to vote, etc.  And nobody seems to consider that concept a "violation"
>> (though it *is* of course up for debate exactly what rights it's OK to remove
>> from a felon, and for how long).
>
> You both make the same, very interesting point.  I want to point
> folks back to the Wikipedia page:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights
>
> Look at some the substantive rights:
>
>  - Right to life.
>  - Freeom from torture.
>  - Freedom from slavery.
>  - Right to a fair trial.
>  - Freedom of speach.
>  - Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
>
> For the most part we don't let judical punishment infringe on those
> rights.  (Yes, there are exceptions, and yes, it depends a lot on
> the location in question.  For instance the death peanlty infringes
> on the first substantive right.)
>
> However, for an ordinary criminal (Kevin Mitnick, in my example)
> we generally require the courts to uphold all of the substantive
> rights in most civilized societies.
>
> _Human_ rights is a very specific subset of a continium of rights.
> Note that the "right to vote" is not in the substantive list above,
> and is taken away by judical process in many societies.  Not all rights
> are human rights.
>
> Should you have a right to internet access, just like a right to vote?
> Perhaps.  Are either one the specific class of _human rights_, no.
>
> --
>       Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Router Assessment Tool

[Green, Timothy]

Happy New Year All!!!

I'm trying to perform STIG compliancy on various Cisco equipment.  Has anybody 
used the Router Assessment Tool (RAT) for routers and switches?   Any cheap 
(free) recommendations?  As a last ditch effort I could use NMAP.

Thanks,

Tim

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:48:06AM -0500, Dave Israel 
wrote:
> As an aside, your example is flawed, because judicial punishment does 
> involve a loss, or at least a curtailment, of what many people consider 
> to be basic rights.

In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:52:11AM -0500, 
valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> Convicted felons surrender a number of rights: freedom (jail terms), the
> right to vote, etc.  And nobody seems to consider that concept a "violation"
> (though it *is* of course up for debate exactly what rights it's OK to remove
> from a felon, and for how long).

You both make the same, very interesting point.  I want to point
folks back to the Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Look at some the substantive rights:

  - Right to life.
  - Freeom from torture.
  - Freedom from slavery.
  - Right to a fair trial.
  - Freedom of speach.
  - Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

For the most part we don't let judical punishment infringe on those
rights.  (Yes, there are exceptions, and yes, it depends a lot on
the location in question.  For instance the death peanlty infringes
on the first substantive right.)

However, for an ordinary criminal (Kevin Mitnick, in my example)
we generally require the courts to uphold all of the substantive
rights in most civilized societies.

_Human_ rights is a very specific subset of a continium of rights.
Note that the "right to vote" is not in the substantive list above,
and is taken away by judical process in many societies.  Not all rights
are human rights.

Should you have a right to internet access, just like a right to vote?
Perhaps.  Are either one the specific class of _human rights_, no.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpUtWdfDd3Ze.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Ray Soucy]

It's an interesting question.

Most think of the Internet in the context of entertainment and productivity.

I would ask that those who do remove themselves from the US (or any
other prosperous nation) and think about Internet access in nations
that are oppressed or depressed.

1. The Internet allows people to communicate (important in
environments where the people are victims of oppression).

2. The Internet allows people to learn (if education is a human right,
it's not a giant leap to say the Internet is how you deliver it).

North Korea, at least, would be a very different nation with universal
Internet access.  I think a lot of smaller nations as well.  There has
never been a greater exporter for American ideals of freedom and
democracy than the Internet.  On the whole I think it has become
something people shouldn't be denied access to.

Is "boradband" a human right?  I don't know the answer to that.   But
some level of access to the Internet (even if it's slow) is something
that would make the world a better place if everyone had access.

As we think about freedom and how our laws affect the Internet (SOPA,
PROTECT IP, etc) this is something we should also keep in mind.




On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip
>
> But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make
> Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them.
>
> Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right.  But as a
> society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone,
> and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy
> applies to cellular phones now as well.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'yes, I know I'm early...' a
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274
>



-- 
Ray Soucy

Epic Communications Specialist

Phone: +1 (207) 561-3526

Networkmaine, a Unit of the University of Maine System
http://www.networkmaine.net/

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 11:09:59 EST, Jay Ashworth said:

> Didn't *say* broadband.  Didn't even say "Internet service".  Said "Internet
> *access*", in the non-techspeak meaning of those words.

There are those who would say "Free Internet access is available at the
Public Library and the Community Center" counts as "internet access".

What say the peanut gallery?


pgpKCr19Tp8Sq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:29:05 PST, Leo Bicknell said:
> But let's take a specific (famous) example.  Kevin Mitnick.  From
> his wikipedia page:
>
>   "During his supervised release, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was
>   initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a
>   landline telephone."
>
> If Internet access (to use your term) had been a human right than
> his human rights were violated by the government when they banned
> him from using any communications technology.  Do we really want to
> suggest that banning him from using the computer is the same level of
> violation as enslaving him, torturing him, or even killing him?

Convicted felons surrender a number of rights: freedom (jail terms), the
right to vote, etc.  And nobody seems to consider that concept a "violation"
(though it *is* of course up for debate exactly what rights it's OK to remove
from a felon, and for how long).


pgp6JSaKTnATI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Dave Israel]

On 1/5/2012 11:29 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:09:59AM -0500, Jay Ashworth 
wrote:

Didn't *say* broadband.  Didn't even say "Internet service".  Said "Internet
*access*", in the non-techspeak meaning of those words.

For the purposes of my e-mail and this point in time, they are all
synonymous.

That is, if "interenet access" is a right, providing someone a
9600bps dial up does not, in my mind, qualify.  That might qualify
for e-mail access, but you can not use a reasonable fraction of the
Internet at that access speed.  Similarly, denying someone internet
service denies them internet access.  The only difference between your
terms and mine, is that mine are fixed to this point in time while
yours is a general concept that may move in the future.  One day 50Mbps
broadband may not qualify anymore as "internet access" due to where the
interernet ends up.


I think you're still thinking of service, as opposed to access.  Public 
terminals, say at libraries, are also access.  Free public wifi is also 
access.




But let's take a specific (famous) example.  Kevin Mitnick.  From
his wikipedia page:

   "During his supervised release, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was
   initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a
   landline telephone."

If Internet access (to use your term) had been a human right than
his human rights were violated by the government when they banned
him from using any communications technology.  Do we really want to
suggest that banning him from using the computer is the same level of
violation as enslaving him, torturing him, or even killing him?



Clearly not, at least at this point in history.  Internet access is more 
like access to transportation; the law implicitly requires you to have 
it (in the form of being able to compel a person to appear at a given 
place and time), but not only fails to mandate its availability, but 
includes provisions for explicitly denying access to it in some cases.


Internet access becomes a human right only when your other, more basic 
human rights depend on it.  If a person without internet access cannot 
obtain food, shelter, or basic transportation, then it is a human right.


As an aside, your example is flawed, because judicial punishment does 
involve a loss, or at least a curtailment, of what many people consider 
to be basic rights.


-Dave

Comcast Postmaster...

[Matt Kelly]

Would a comcast postmaster be so kind as to contact me off list?  


Thanks.

--
Matt

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Zaid Ali]

On 1/5/12 8:07 AM, "Jay Ashworth"  wrote:

>- Original Message -
>> From: "Zaid Ali" 
>
>> On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, "Jay Ashworth"  wrote:
>> 
>> >Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip
>> >
>> >But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our
>>governments
>> >make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact
>> >with them.
>> >
>> >Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a
>> >society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a
>>telephone,
>> >and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of
>>subsidy
>> >applies to cellular phones now as well.
>
>> I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing
>> and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that.
>>With
>> your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right
>>but
>> they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers
>> of something else and the Internet would fit there.
>
>Well, I dunno... as I think was obvious from my other comments: TV and
>Radio
>are *broadcast* media; telephones and the internet are not; they're
>*two-way*
>communications media... and they're the communications media which have
>been
>chosen by the organs of government we've constituted to run things for us.
>
>You hit the important word, though, in your reply: "*access to* food,
>clothing,
>and shelter"... not the things themselves.
>
>The question here is "is *access to* the Internet a human right,
>something 
>which the government ought to recognize and protect"?  I sort of think it
>is,
>myself... and I think that Vint is missing the point: *all* of the things
>we generally view as human rights are enablers to other things, and we
>generally dub them *as those things*, by synecdoche... at least in my
>experience.


If I wrote a blog article that criticized the government and it was
shutdown along with my Internet access I wouldn't say that my right to the
Internet was violated. I would say that my right to free speech was
violated. Regardless of one way or two way communication it is
communication. 

Zaid 

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 11:09:59AM -0500, Jay Ashworth 
wrote:
> > Broadband, to me, is not a human right. It is something that makes our
> > society more efficient, and improves the quality of life for virtually
> > every citizen, so I do think the government has a role and interest in
> > seeing widespread, if not universal broadband deployment. Failure to
> > provide broadband to someone is not a human rights violation though,
> > and the idea that it is probably is offensive to those who have
> > experienced real human rights violations.
> 
> Didn't *say* broadband.  Didn't even say "Internet service".  Said "Internet
> *access*", in the non-techspeak meaning of those words.

For the purposes of my e-mail and this point in time, they are all
synonymous.

That is, if "interenet access" is a right, providing someone a
9600bps dial up does not, in my mind, qualify.  That might qualify
for e-mail access, but you can not use a reasonable fraction of the
Internet at that access speed.  Similarly, denying someone internet
service denies them internet access.  The only difference between your
terms and mine, is that mine are fixed to this point in time while
yours is a general concept that may move in the future.  One day 50Mbps
broadband may not qualify anymore as "internet access" due to where the
interernet ends up.

But let's take a specific (famous) example.  Kevin Mitnick.  From
his wikipedia page:

  "During his supervised release, which ended on January 21, 2003, he was
  initially forbidden to use any communications technology other than a
  landline telephone."

If Internet access (to use your term) had been a human right than
his human rights were violated by the government when they banned
him from using any communications technology.  Do we really want to
suggest that banning him from using the computer is the same level of
violation as enslaving him, torturing him, or even killing him?

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpaCEJDEhpHh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Zaid Ali" 
>
>> On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, "Jay Ashworth"  wrote:
>>
>> >Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip
>> >
>> >But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments
>> >make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact
>> >with them.
>> >
>> >Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a
>> >society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone,
>> >and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy
>> >applies to cellular phones now as well.
>
>> I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing
>> and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that. With
>> your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right but
>> they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers
>> of something else and the Internet would fit there.
>
> Well, I dunno... as I think was obvious from my other comments: TV and Radio
> are *broadcast* media; telephones and the internet are not; they're *two-way*
> communications media... and they're the communications media which have been
> chosen by the organs of government we've constituted to run things for us.
>
> You hit the important word, though, in your reply: "*access to* food, 
> clothing,
> and shelter"... not the things themselves.
>
> The question here is "is *access to* the Internet a human right, something
> which the government ought to recognize and protect"?  I sort of think it is,
> myself... and I think that Vint is missing the point: *all* of the things
> we generally view as human rights are enablers to other things, and we
> generally dub them *as those things*, by synecdoche... at least in my
> experience.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, Vint's on this list; perhaps he'll chime in.  :-)

Here is a way to think about it - is denial of X a violation of human
rights ? If so, access to X should be viewed as a human right.

Denial of food, for example, is certainly a violation of human rights.
That is not the same as saying that everyone always will be able to
afford to eat anything they want,
or in dire circumstances even all they need, but to deny food is
certainly to violate human rights.

I think that if we had heard that (say) Libya's Khaddafi had denied
(say) the people of Benghazi all access
to telephony, that that would be regarded as a violation of human
rights. (Actually, he did and it was).
People would, for example, start dying because no one could call an
ambulance in an emergency. It would
set the stage for further human rights violations, because no one
could alert the world to what was happening. Etc. In 1880, that
would not have been true, but today it is.

Is the Internet at that level ? IMO, no, but it will be soon. That is
not the same to say that everyone will get 100 Gbps for free,
any more than everyone gets to eat at La Tour d'Argent in Paris.

Regards
Marshall

>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274
>

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Leo Bicknell" 

> Broadband, to me, is not a human right. It is something that makes our
> society more efficient, and improves the quality of life for virtually
> every citizen, so I do think the government has a role and interest in
> seeing widespread, if not universal broadband deployment. Failure to
> provide broadband to someone is not a human rights violation though,
> and the idea that it is probably is offensive to those who have
> experienced real human rights violations.

Didn't *say* broadband.  Didn't even say "Internet service".  Said "Internet
*access*", in the non-techspeak meaning of those words.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Jay Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Zaid Ali" 

> On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, "Jay Ashworth"  wrote:
> 
> >Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip
> >
> >But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments
> >make Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact
> >with them.
> >
> >Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right. But as a
> >society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone,
> >and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy
> >applies to cellular phones now as well.

> I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing
> and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that. With
> your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right but
> they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers
> of something else and the Internet would fit there.

Well, I dunno... as I think was obvious from my other comments: TV and Radio
are *broadcast* media; telephones and the internet are not; they're *two-way*
communications media... and they're the communications media which have been
chosen by the organs of government we've constituted to run things for us.

You hit the important word, though, in your reply: "*access to* food, clothing,
and shelter"... not the things themselves.

The question here is "is *access to* the Internet a human right, something 
which the government ought to recognize and protect"?  I sort of think it is,
myself... and I think that Vint is missing the point: *all* of the things
we generally view as human rights are enablers to other things, and we
generally dub them *as those things*, by synecdoche... at least in my 
experience.

If I'm not mistaken, Vint's on this list; perhaps he'll chime in.  :-)

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274

question regarding US requirements for journaling public email (possible legislation?)

[Eric J Esslinger]

Hope yall had an 'eventless' holiday. (I.e. no pages at 2 am on a holiday 
morning).
Sorry to drop what is possibly just someone misunderstanding something or 
pulling my leg on the list, but over the holidays I ran into one of my buddies 
that is also a network admin type and he was griping about mail journalling, 
which I already do for our corporate email accounts. However, his discussion 
was in terms of all customer email... Which I said was probably a bad thing to 
do. His response was there is legislation being pushed in both House and Senate 
that would require journalling for 2 or 5 years, all mail passing through all 
of your mail servers.

I've seen nothing, and my google fu has turned up nothing other than corporate 
requirements, so I ask here. Has anyone heard of such a bill working it's way 
through either side of congress?

(I am speaking specifically of full email journaling, not just logs, which I do 
archive for significant amounts of time.)

I also don't want to discuss the pros, cons, merits, costs, goods, or evils of 
such a requirement, just wanted to know if this is something I should be 
looking forward towards maybe needing to implement.

Thanks for your attention and may you have a low incident new year.
__
Eric Esslinger
Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities
http://www.fpu-tn.com/
(931)433-1522 ext 165

This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is 
intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by 
others is strictly prohibited.

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Aled Morris]

On 5 January 2012 15:22, Jay Ashworth  wrote:

> Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right.  But as a
> society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone,
> and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy
> applies to cellular phones now as well.
>
>
There is a subtlety here too - when we grant a monopoly (e.g. to operate a
physical loop or in licensing spectrum) in return we often place a
"universal service obligation" on the operator in order they don't abuse
their monoply by not providing service to "less profitable" customers.

This isn't the same as a "right" to a phone.

Aled

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Zaid Ali]

I agree with Vint here. Basic human rights are access to food, clothing
and shelter. I think we are still struggling in the world with that. With
your logic one would expect the radio and TV to be a basic human right but
they are not, they are and will remain powerful medium which be enablers
of something else and the Internet would fit there.

Zaid

On 1/5/12 7:22 AM, "Jay Ashworth"  wrote:

>Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip
>
>But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments
>make
>Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with
>them.
>
>Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right.  But as a
>society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone,
>and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy
>applies to cellular phones now as well.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Cheers,
>-- jr 'yes, I know I'm early...' a
>-- 
>Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
>j...@baylink.com
>Designer The Things I Think   RFC
>2100
>Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land
>Rover DII
>St Petersburg FL USA  http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647
>1274
>

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:22:52AM -0500, Jay Ashworth 
wrote:
> Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right.  But as a 
> society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone,
> and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy
> applies to cellular phones now as well.

There's a pretty big gap between providing subsidized service because
it's good for people/society/the government/business/whatever and
a "human right".  The government subsidizes lots of things, roads,
electric service, planting of wheat that doesn't make any of them
human rights.

A few years back I read the Wikipedia page on Human Rights, and it
made me realize the topic is far deeper than I had initially thought.
There really are a lot of nuances to the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Broadband, to me, is not a human right.  It is something that makes our
society more efficient, and improves the quality of life for virtually
every citizen, so I do think the government has a role and interest in
seeing widespread, if not universal broadband deployment.  Failure to
provide broadband to someone is not a human rights violation though,
and the idea that it is probably is offensive to those who have
experienced real human rights violations.

-- 
   Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


pgpVyBYeJVbQO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> Vint Cerf says no: http://j.mp/wwL9Ip

With all due respect to Vint, I think that it isn't now, but it will be.

Regards
Marshall

>
> But I wonder to what degree that's dependent on how much our governments make
> Internet access the most practical/only practical way to interact with them.
>
> Understand: I'm not saying that FiOS should be a human right.  But as a
> society, America's recognized for decades that you gotta have a telephone,
> and subsidized local/lifeline service to that extent; that sort of subsidy
> applies to cellular phones now as well.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> -- jr 'yes, I know I'm early...' a
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274
>

Re: Internet Edge and Defense in Depth

[Mike Andrews]

On Thu, Jan 05, 2012 at 10:22:55AM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 01:44:05PM -0800, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> > Cramming every little feature under the sun into one appliance makes for
> > great glossy brochures and Powerpoint decks, but I just don't think it's
> > practical.
> 
> 1. It's an excellent way to create a single point-of-failure.
> 
> 2. I prefer, when building defense-in-depth, to build the layers with 
> different
> technology running on different operating systems on different architectures.
> There's no doubt this adds some complexity and that it requires judicious
> design to be scalable, maintainable, and so on.  But it raises the bar
> for attackers considerably, and it gives defenders a fighting chance of
> discovering a breach in one layer before it becomes a breach in all layers.
> 
> 3. One of the mistakes we all continue to make, whether we have our
> paws on integrated appliances or separate systems, is default-permit.
> We really need to make sure that the syntactic equivalent of "deny
> all from any to any" is the first rule installed in any of these,
> and then work from there.
> 
> p.s. In re Powerpoint, I've long held that the appropriate response to
> "I have a PowerPoint presentation..." is for everyone else in the room
> to find a strong rope and a sturdy tree, and do what must be done for
> the sake of humanity.

"Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."

As regards avoidance of SPOFs, I also prefer multiple layers in different
technologies &c. A monoculture is horribly vulnerable. I grant that network
hardware isn't exactly Ireland just before the potato famine, but the
parallels are there and applicable in at least some senses.

-- 
Mike Andrews, W5EGO
mi...@mikea.ath.cx
Tired old sysadmin 

Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org

[Marshall Eubanks]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 4:51 AM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
>
> There is video hosting web sites on the intertubes?
>
> Now where would those be found, I wonder.  All I have ever seen is 
> macro-streaming that is fraudulently labeled and advertised as video -- the 
> worst being something called FlashVirus, which was written by a company 
> called MacroVirus Media or something like that, and currently owned and 
> flogged by Adobe along with their "Proprietary Document Format" (the latest 
> versions of which boast UVTD technology -- Unstoppable Virus Transport and 
> Distribution).
>
> If the so-called video contains arbitrary executable code (or can run 
> arbitrary executable code), or requires the use of a specific application to 
> "play" (or infect the target), then it should not be described as "video".  
> It is a streaming-macro.
>

Is H.264 Turing-complete ? Is Ogg-Vorbis ? (It seems like those are
the two reasonable open standard choices.))

Regards
Marshall


> Microsoft was the first OS vendor to add the "Execute Payload" header to IP 
> which saved much time and effort in the distribution of malicious code via 
> the internet.  Unfortunatly, Adobe and several other vendors have patents on 
> what is called the method of "Executable Data" and made Microsoft remove 
> their wonderous invention under pain of patent lawsuits.
>
> Of course, maybe whats meant is File hosting, where the File being hosted 
> just happens to contain video data in standard data format (preferably a 
> pure-data format that does not embed execution macros of any type).
>
> ;)
>
> ---
> ()  ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
> /\  www.asciiribbon.org
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 04 January, 2012 20:47
>> To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
>> Cc: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com; Wessels, Duane; nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >> Err, while we're talking about video files and nanog, why is the video
>> >> content still served off (stored content I mean) nanog.org servers?
>> >> Why not use one of the many video serving services? some of which are
>> >> free even :)
>> >> (that part's not a troll, a real question, even!)
>> >> -chris
>> >
>> >
>> > The website work hasn't yet begun, so that is certainly still on the
>> table.  If you would like to volunteer some of your time...
>>
>> I'm sure we could arrange some process to ingest videos to some form
>> of video-hosting-website... a videotubes site let's say.
>>
>> who should I chat with?
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Internet Edge and Defense in Depth

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 01:44:05PM -0800, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> Cramming every little feature under the sun into one appliance makes for
> great glossy brochures and Powerpoint decks, but I just don't think it's
> practical.

1. It's an excellent way to create a single point-of-failure.

2. I prefer, when building defense-in-depth, to build the layers with different
technology running on different operating systems on different architectures.
There's no doubt this adds some complexity and that it requires judicious
design to be scalable, maintainable, and so on.  But it raises the bar
for attackers considerably, and it gives defenders a fighting chance of
discovering a breach in one layer before it becomes a breach in all layers.

3. One of the mistakes we all continue to make, whether we have our
paws on integrated appliances or separate systems, is default-permit.
We really need to make sure that the syntactic equivalent of "deny
all from any to any" is the first rule installed in any of these,
and then work from there.

---rsk

p.s. In re Powerpoint, I've long held that the appropriate response to
"I have a PowerPoint presentation..." is for everyone else in the room
to find a strong rope and a sturdy tree, and do what must be done for
the sake of humanity.

Re: anycast load balancing issue

[Johannes Resch]

Hi,

On 04.01.2012 13:02, Måns Nilsson wrote:



> [..snipped..]
>

Trouble is, we find that (untweaked) cost and metric are such that all
nodes are equal. The last resort (peer router ID) gets invoked and all
traffic goes to one single instance. Of course, when that instance falls
off the net recalculation takes place and another node steps in, but
I'd like true path lengths (IGP hop count) to influence more than iBGP
(route-reflector-style) selection.

Any clues?

Oh, all-cisco, all ASR1000 series. All links GE. ~90 routers in IGP.



Since you mention route-reflector route selection - are you already 
using per-VRF, per-PE route distinguishers for that L3VPN instance?


If not, I'd recommend doing so - this will cause your RR to see all 
paths as unique routes, distributing all of them (instead just the best 
one from the RR perspective) to RR clients. As result all PEs will 
always have all paths for this particular prefix (and can then take the 
best path decision based on local IGP metric to the respective BGP next 
hops).


Doing that can also significantly improve reconvergence times for 
certain failure scenarios (e.g. ingress PE failure), as PEs can start 
using alternative paths (already available in local BGP RIB) as soon as 
the IGP nexthop for the failed PE is invalidated and do not need to wait 
for BGP RR reconvergence.


cheers,
-jr

RE: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org

[Keith Medcalf]

There is video hosting web sites on the intertubes?

Now where would those be found, I wonder.  All I have ever seen is 
macro-streaming that is fraudulently labeled and advertised as video -- the 
worst being something called FlashVirus, which was written by a company called 
MacroVirus Media or something like that, and currently owned and flogged by 
Adobe along with their "Proprietary Document Format" (the latest versions of 
which boast UVTD technology -- Unstoppable Virus Transport and Distribution).

If the so-called video contains arbitrary executable code (or can run arbitrary 
executable code), or requires the use of a specific application to "play" (or 
infect the target), then it should not be described as "video".  It is a 
streaming-macro.

Microsoft was the first OS vendor to add the "Execute Payload" header to IP 
which saved much time and effort in the distribution of malicious code via the 
internet.  Unfortunatly, Adobe and several other vendors have patents on what 
is called the method of "Executable Data" and made Microsoft remove their 
wonderous invention under pain of patent lawsuits.

Of course, maybe whats meant is File hosting, where the File being hosted just 
happens to contain video data in standard data format (preferably a pure-data 
format that does not embed execution macros of any type).

;)

---
()  ascii ribbon campaign against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org


> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 04 January, 2012 20:47
> To: Michael K. Smith - Adhost
> Cc: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com; Wessels, Duane; nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Trouble accessing www.nanog.org
>
> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Michael K. Smith - Adhost
>  wrote:
>
> >> Err, while we're talking about video files and nanog, why is the video
> >> content still served off (stored content I mean) nanog.org servers?
> >> Why not use one of the many video serving services? some of which are
> >> free even :)
> >> (that part's not a troll, a real question, even!)
> >> -chris
> >
> >
> > The website work hasn't yet begun, so that is certainly still on the
> table.  If you would like to volunteer some of your time...
>
> I'm sure we could arrange some process to ingest videos to some form
> of video-hosting-website... a videotubes site let's say.
>
> who should I chat with?