Re: Internet Surveillance and Boomerang Routing: A Call for Canadian Network Sovereignty
On 9/9/2013 11:29 AM, joel jaeggli responded with a smart guy answer: On 9/9/13 7:43 AM, Jason Lixfeld wrote: That notwithstanding, it's stupid to send traffic to/from one of the large $your_region/country incumbents via $not_your_region/country. It's just not good Internet. yyz-yvr is faster via the united states. physics doesn't respect poltical boundries. There are still a lot of people that care about the sheer principle of the issue. Please do not discount that with math. - ferg -- Paul Ferguson Vice President, Threat Intelligence Internet Identity, Tacoma, Washington USA IID -- Connect and Collaborate -- www.internetidentity.com
Direct sales contacts to local loop providers in NYC
Dear all, I have received a lot of off-list mail as a result of my last email, so I figured I would try the same approach local loops. We seem to be unable to get past the silk screen of residential, private lines with most carriers of local loops within NYC. Specifically, we are looking for one 10M line in Manhattan as of right now, but we already have new deals in our pipeline and wouldn't make the jump across the pond if we didn't see steady long-term growth in the future. If anyone has contact with the right sales people (or the right sales people lurk on this list), please feel free to contact me. Thanks, Richard
New AS Number Block allocated to the RIPE NCC
Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC has received the following AS Number Block from the IANA in September 2013. 61952-62463 199680-200191 You may want to update your records accordingly. Best regards, Ingrid Wijte Registration Services Assistant Manager RIPE NCC
Re: Internet Surveillance and Boomerang Routing: A Call for Canadian Network Sovereignty
On 13-09-09 15:16, Joe Abley wrote: Not only physics, but geometry. Vancouver is further north than Seattle, but Toronto is further south than Portland. It is about sovereignty and the ability of one nation to decide for itself. In the past, because people were blind to the NSA operations, it didn't matter so much. But with past revelations, will the market start to demand routes that avoid the USA if the destination is not the USA ? Could the government set policies that end up making within-canada transit and peering more competitive than buying transit through the USA ? Lets reverse the situation for half a second. Say most traffic from USA to USA were to pass through Canada and Canada had the ability to spy on all USA traffic, including emails between congressman and their mistresses. Do you think the USA would let another nation spy on its traffic for half a second ? How can Bombardier compete against Boeing when the NSA captures Bombardier's emails etc and could potentially hand them over to Boeing?
RE: Internet Surveillance and Boomerang Routing: A Call for Canadian Network Sovereignty
From: Bill Woodcock [mailto:wo...@pch.net] Subject: Re: Internet Surveillance and Boomerang Routing: A Call for Canadian Network Sovereignty On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: Will the market start to demand routes that avoid the USA if the destination is not the USA ? Unlikely, all else being equal. The market demands the least expensive routes. Which is why we push for new IXPs on the Canadian side of the border, so that the _cheapest_ route will also be the _shortest_ route, and will remain within Canadian jurisdiction and the purview of Canadian personal privacy law, for instance. Maybe it's time to dust off some of those reserved for future use IP security options. It's almost as if someone saw this problem coming a long time ago. - Marsh https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc791#page-17 Security This option provides a way for hosts to send security, compartmentation, handling restrictions, and TCC (closed user group) parameters. The format for this option is as follows: +++---//---+---//---+---//---+---//---+ |1010|1011|SSS SSS|CCC CCC|HHH HHH| TCC | +++---//---+---//---+---//---+---//---+ Type=130 Length=11 Security (S field): 16 bits Specifies one of 16 levels of security (eight of which are reserved for future use). - Unclassified 0001 00110101 - Confidential 0000 10011010 - EFTO 1000 01001101 - 0100 00100110 - PROG 1010 00010011 - Restricted 11010111 10001000 - Secret 01101011 11000101 - Top Secret 00110101 11100010 - (Reserved for future use) 10011010 0001 - (Reserved for future use) 01001101 0000 - (Reserved for future use) 00100100 1001 - (Reserved for future use) 00010011 0100 - (Reserved for future use) 10001001 1010 - (Reserved for future use) 11000100 11010110 - (Reserved for future use) 11100010 01101011 - (Reserved for future use)
Re: Internet Surveillance and Boomerang Routing: A Call for Canadian Network Sovereignty
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:27:15 -0700, Bill Woodcock wo...@pch.net said: or to make an ISP class license requirement that every service provider network deliver traffic that has source and destination addresses within a region, without passing the traffic across the border of the region. That's a technology-neutral way of saying that if you have a customer in a region, and someone else has a customer in the same region, you and they had better figure out a way of delivering that traffic through peering or local transit. That's historically the way it was in Canada, although it was original phrased in terms of the telegraph and persisted up until the beginnings of the commercial Internet when the rule was abolished. It's also the reason why, for example, the old trans-atlantic cables went from the UK to Nova Scotia before New York even though the bulk of the traffic was UK-US. Theoretically, traffic within the empire was not supposed to cross a third border. I believe the rationale behind this was to prevent eavesdropping. I have a pet theory that this rule was one of the main reasons that Canada has such a well developed telecommunications industry -- it was forced by law to develop it indiginously rather than just dumping telephone calls across the border into the 'states, which probably would have made more economic sense. When the rule was abolished in the early 1990s it wasn't clear if it should or should not apply to Internet traffic but leaving the answer entirely to market forces may have stunted the development of East-West capacity within Canada. Is this a good or a bad thing? I can remember back when there was a project in the 'states called Carnivore, and we had some American police -- I believe they were FBI -- come up and ask us politely if we'd like to put some of their machines on our network. Everybody pretty much uniformly said no. Shortly thereafter an American carrier showed up selling gigabit ethernet circuits to NYC for well below what was the going rate at the time and effectively pulled a lot of traffic that would otherwise have remained in country across the border. I've been outside of North America for a while now so I don't know first hand, but from the commentary on this list that trends appears to have continued... -w pgpibCWcrzSSc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Internet Surveillance and Boomerang Routing: A Call for Canadian Network Sovereignty
On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:29 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca wrote: Will the market start to demand routes that avoid the USA if the destination is not the USA ? Unlikely, all else being equal. The market demands the least expensive routes. Which is why we push for new IXPs on the Canadian side of the border, so that the _cheapest_ route will also be the _shortest_ route, and will remain within Canadian jurisdiction and the purview of Canadian personal privacy law, for instance. It is about sovereignty and the ability of one nation to decide for itself. Could the government set policies that end up making within-canada transit and peering more competitive than buying transit through the USA ? Note that this is an entirely different question, orthogonal to markets and economics. It is within the power of the Canadian sovereign government to do whatever wiretaps it likes within Canada, and share that information with other governments, for instance, and neither shortest paths nor least expensive paths will have any effect on that. That said, regulatory best-practice is generally held to be to either keep hands off the Internet entirely, or to make an ISP class license requirement that every service provider network deliver traffic that has source and destination addresses within a region, without passing the traffic across the border of the region. That's a technology-neutral way of saying that if you have a customer in a region, and someone else has a customer in the same region, you and they had better figure out a way of delivering that traffic through peering or local transit. Lets reverse the situation for half a second. Say most traffic from USA to USA were to pass through Canada and Canada had the ability to spy on all USA traffic, including emails between congressman and their mistresses. Do you think the USA would let another nation spy on its traffic for half a second ? Happens all the time. China Telecom has routers within the U.S. borders, and offers domestic routes across the U.S. Stands to reason that France Telecom, Deutsche Telekom, et cetera, would be doing the same thing for their respective sovereigns. All of this is just routine power-struggle, it's not an all-or-nothing thing, and absolutes are of little value in the discussion. How can Bombardier compete against Boeing when the NSA captures Bombardier's emails etc and could potentially hand them over to Boeing? The theory was that, paraphrasing _Brazil_, this is the Department of Records, not the Department of Information Retrieval. Theoretically, the countries that collected and shared information did so for the benefit of the sovereign, not the benefit of the people or the benefit of capital, and did not share what they collected with the private sector. That has, however, been abused before: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/00/02/09/1845227/france-sues-us-and-uk-over-echelon Also of note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–France_relations#Saint_Pierre_and_Miquelon_boundary_dispute So, not meaning to be a downer here, just pointing out that we should all be doing what we can, and not wasting too much energy on shocked outrage at the misbehavior of others. -Bill signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: Internet Surveillance and Boomerang Routing: A Call for Canadian Network Sovereignty
William Waites wwai...@tardis.ed.ac.uk writes: Is this a good or a bad thing? I can remember back when there was a project in the 'states called Carnivore, and we had some American police -- I believe they were FBI -- come up and ask us politely if we'd like to put some of their machines on our network. Everybody pretty much uniformly said no. Shortly thereafter an American carrier showed up selling gigabit ethernet circuits to NYC for well below what was the going rate at the time and effectively pulled a lot of traffic that would otherwise have remained in country across the border. More attributable to the unintended consequences of some of the more draconian parts of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 than of Carnivore, actually. :) -r
Bandwidth at Caesars Casino in NJ
We're just about to light up an infrastructure within Caesars in Atlantic City, and I'm wondering who can provide possible multi-homed access in that area (kudos if you're already in the building). Although the need is imminent, we do not have our own ARIN IP space, nor are we looking to multi-home immediately. I just want to find a provider who will let us use a 27-25 prefix for now (with proper justification), and is open to a client who will multi-home in the future (with either our space or yours). Would like to start with 100Mb, escalating quickly (or signing immediately if a decent price is found) to 1Gb. Off-list would be dandy. Thanks, Steve
Paging zoneedit.com
Hi - sent a couple of support requests your way about stale NS on one of your hosts. Haven't got a ticket number back, so if you're listening, TIA for checking. thanks -srs -- --srs (iPad)
