Fw: new message
Hey! New message, please read <http://ibew1003.org/all.php?m> Nick B
Re: OPM Data Breach - Whitehouse Petition - Help Wanted
Having worked for several departments like this, I can assure you her flustsration was not about her inability to hire competent people or the lack of her superiors to prioritize the modernization project. Unless you have worked for the Federal Government it's almost impossible to understand the mindset - Politics is job #1, Office Politics is job #2, doing your job is not a priority. The issue here was 100% looking bad - the worst possible offense a political appointee can commit. Firing this one person is pointless, she's one of 1,000,000 clones, not a one should be employed. I wish I had some simple solution, but I don't, it's going to require years, probably decades, of hard work by a motivated and skilled team. Also, a stable of unicorns. Nick On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM, Cryptographrix cryptograph...@gmail.com wrote: Have to agree with Shawn on this. If you watch her testimony in front of Congress, it is clear that she was completely flustered at the inability to hire competent people, and the lack of her superiors to prioritize the modernization project she had so passionately advocated for. When I've worked for organizations larger than - say - four or five office locations in diverse parts of the U.S., I've started to see how difficult it can become to get all of them to coordinate on *anything*, and I'm not even talking government here. From the sound of it, she ran into the ceiling of available workers that were willing to work for the pay grade that the government offers for those positions, which is usually much less than private industry offers and - as a consequence - they are not nearly as familiar with migrations of that size. I do not envy her position, and doubt in the ability of anyone in her position to do more than she has attempted. Give her some credit. On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:02 AM shawn wilson ag4ve...@gmail.com wrote: On Jun 17, 2015 8:56 PM, Ronald F. Guilmette r...@tristatelogic.com wrote: *) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management, Ms. Katherine Archueta was warned, repeatedly, and over several years, by her own department's Inspector General (IG) that many of OPM's systems were insecure and should be taken out of service. Nontheless, as reveled during congressional testimony yesterday, she overruled and ignored this advice and kept the systems online. Given the above facts, I've just started a new Whitehouse Petition, asking that the director of OPM, Ms. Archueta, be fired for gross incompetence. I _do_ understand that the likelihood of anyone ever getting fired for incompetence anywhere within the Washington D.C. Beltway is very much of a long shot, based on history, but I nontheless feel that as a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, I at least want to make my opinion of this matter known to The Powers That Be. Idk whether she was wrong or not. They were running COBOL systems - I'm guessing AS/400 (maybe even newer zSeries) which are probably supporting some db2 apps. They also mention this is on a flat network. So stopping the hack once it was found was probably real interesting (I'm kinda impressed they minimized downtime as much as they did really). I'm ok saying they were incompetent but not too sure you can do *this* much to mess up a network in 2 years (her tenure). I'd actually be interested in a discussion of how much you can possibly improve / degrade on a network that big from a management position. If the argument is that she should've shut down the network or parts of it - I wonder if anyone of you who run Internet providers would even shut down your email or web servers when, say, heartbleed came out - those services aren't even a main part of your business. One could argue that it would've been illegal for her to shut some of that stuff down without an act of Congress. I'm not saying you're dead wrong. Just that I don't have enough information to say you're right (and if you are, she's probably not the only head you should call for).
Re: How do I handle a supplier that delivered a faulty product?
At no point does that spec say a single thing about speed. The closest part I could find was Upstream data rate 1.244Gbps, but I think it's pretty clear that that is the link speed, not the actual data rate. It's worth wringing them out over the issue, maybe you can shame them into taking the units back, but I don't think you will have much luck pinning them down legally on some nebulous belief that it would run at wire rate gigabit. Nick On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:34 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Jake Khuon kh...@neebu.net wrote: Actually, this situation is as if you bought a low-end car that claims it can go 60MPH just like a high-end sports car which also claims to go 60MPH. But when the low-end car fails to achieve 60MPH and in fact blows up when you try to reach that speed, you do have grounds to cry false advertising. If we're going to pick analogies, let's pick a good one. This is a car advertised to go 60 mph. But it turns out the car only goes 60 mph down hill... On a 1 degree incline it tops out at 45. And yeah, that's a lemon. If the vendor has not supplied a technically appropriate solution within a reasonable amount of time, they're in breach of the implied contract of fitness for purpose. Unless of course you -signed- a contract which says otherwise or their shrink-wrap contract has effect (only Virginia or Maryland). You may be entitled to more than a refund, such as any business losses from the failure of the product to perform as advertised, including lost customer good will and employee man hours. Baldur, I advise you to consult a lawyer. This is where a -letter- from your lawyer to their lawyer (no lawsuit just yet) will yield action. It'll make it clear to the folks on the business end that the technical end has let them (and you) down more seriously than the normal bug complaints. That letter won't cost you more than a couple hundred bucks. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems . Web: http://www.dirtside.com/ May I solve your unusual networking challenges?
Re: FCC Help Wanted
Will applications without a cancelled check for at least 100k in donations be considered? Nick On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 3:19 AM, Joly MacFie j...@punkcast.com wrote: https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/379628100 Job Title:Telecommunications Policy and Technology Specialist (Internet) Agency:Federal Communications Commission SALARY RANGE: $124,995.00 to $157,100.00 / Per Year DUTIES: As Telecommunications Policy and Technology Specialist (Internet), he/she serves as a senior expert consultant and advisor with regard to wireline and wireless broadband technologies used in communications networks, Internet technologies, Internet networking, and traffic exchange evolution issues. Provides expert technical and policy advice on the technology, design, and operations of Internet networks, including changes in network design and traffic exchange practices and policies resulting from emerging commercial practices and strategies. Performs investigative analyses and original research with respect to critical and unprecedented network operations, service provision, traffic exchange, and content delivery issues that involve emerging technologies, services, and commercial incentives; evaluates technical, social, legal, institutional and other related implications of proposed policy decisions on technology adoption, deployment, network operations, communications services provision; and provides input into Commission proceedings that implement those proposed policy decisions. Drafts recommendations, decision memoranda, notices of inquiry, notices of proposed rulemaking, orders, and public notices concerning the technical and business/financial aspects of designing, building, operating, and exchanging traffic among Internet backbone networks, and content delivery and other Internet networks. Drafts correspondence and reports concerning controversial technical aspects of pending or future issues that may warrant Commission actions, requesting additional information as necessary. Initiates correspondence responsive to inquiries from the public, other government agencies, other parts of the FCC, and Congress. Initiates communications with the public (including service providers, trade associations, and consumer groups) concerning technological, business, and operational issues of specific interest or concern to the Commission. Provides guidance and leadership over unusually complex newly emerging technical matters, including those of a precedent-setting nature. Provides expert technical and policy analysis for the Division on any issues relating to advanced communications systems, including broadband systems and the Internet, as assigned by the Division Chief or designees. Facilitates decision and action on such matters by drafting briefing material or rulemaking documents and by briefing the Division and/or Division management on policy or action alternative issues. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED: Specialized Experience: Applicants must have a minimum of one year of specialized experience equivalent to at least the GS-14 grade level in the Federal service. For this position, specialized experience includes the following: 1) Experience applying knowledge of network management and operations, network architecture, Internet technologies and services, broadband technologies, data communications, and communications network technology; 2) Experience in a variety of communications networks and systems including Internet and broadband networks; 3) Experience performing investigative analyses and original research with respect to unprecedented network operations and service provision issues that involve emerging technologies; and 4) Experience presenting complex technical and policy information to various audiences. -- --- 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: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
Yes, you've got some of the largest Internet companies as customers. Because you told them if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you. Then you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument. Nick On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote: Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband), Akamai, Ookla, etc What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber customers). Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of capacity, and some of the largest Internet companies as customers. - Kevin 215-313-1083 On May 15, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate… Owen On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote: Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate sound bite - Kevin 215-313-1083 On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary. Owen On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.com wrote: So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart competition any way they can. No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). Sure they are (seeking new sources of revenue). They're not necessarily creating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value, but they are finding ways to extract additional revenue from the same pipes, e.g. through paid peering with content providers. I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually in agreement here. -- Hugo On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM, char...@thefnf.org wrote: On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote: They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They see no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more profit without it. There is the issue of control over the market. But also the pressure from shareholders for continued growth. Yes. That is true. Except that it's not. How do service providers grow? Let's explore that: What is growth for a transit provider? More (new) access network(s) (connections). More bandwidth across backbone pipes. What is growth for access network? More subscribers. Except that the incumbent carriers have shown they have no interest in providing decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rate centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terrible access. The problem with the internet is that while it had promises of wild growth in the 90s and 00s, once penetration reaches a certain level, growth stabilizes. Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans exist. When you combine this with threath to large incumbents's media and media distribution endeavours by the likes of Netflix (and cat videos on Youtube), large incumbents start thinking about how they will be able to continue to grow revenus/profits when customers will shift spending to vspecialty channels/cableTV to Netflix and customer growth will not compensate. Except they aren't. Even in the most profitable rate centers, they've declined to really invest in the networks. They aren't a real business. You have to remember that. They have regulatory capture, natural/defacto monopoly etc etc. They don't operate in the real world of risk/reward/profit/loss/uncertainty like any other real business has to. So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart competition any way they can. No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). They did a bit of an advertising campaign of smart home offerings, but that seems to have never grown beyond a pilot. The current trend is to if you can't fight them, jon them where cablecos start to include the Netflix app into their proprietary set-top boxes. The idea is that you at least make the customer continue to use your box and your remote control which makes it easier for them to switch between netflix and legacy TV. True. I don't know why one of the cablecos hasn't licensed roku, added cable card and made that available
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
To be fair, I have no evidence that Comcast demanded money in advance. As far as I can tell, Level 3, Cogent and Comcast all agree on the rest though, Comcast's peering filled up. Both Level 3 and Cogent offered/requested to upgrade. Then at least Cogent (IIRC?) offered to upgrade *and pay Comcast to upgrade*. All of these offers were ignored or rejected, and at this point I think all parties agree that ransom was demanded by Comcast. Then, just weeks after Verizon's successful litigation against Net Neutrality, Netflix agreed to pay Comcast directly. I'm not sure if the removal of Netflix is enough to resolve the congestion on the Level 3 and Cogent links, but I'm not sure how one could explain the above situation other than deliberate throttling in an attempt to extort money. Nick On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:51 PM, arvindersi...@mail2tor.com wrote: Yes Kevin, this is understood - but valid observation from Nick. Can you pls answer my question first? Very curious. Arvinder Guys, I'm already pretty far off the reservation and will not respond to trolling. I think most ISPs are starting to avoid participation here for the same reason. I'm going to stop for a while. - Kevin On May 15, 2014, at 12:42 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.orgmailto:n...@pelagiris.org wrote: Yes, you've got some of the largest Internet companies as customers. Because you told them if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you. Then you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument. Nick On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 10:57 AM, McElearney, Kevin kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.commailto: kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote: Upgrades/buildout are happening every day. They are continuous to keep ahead of demand and publicly measured by SamKnows (FCC measuring broadband), Akamai, Ookla, etc What is not well known is that Comcast has been an existing commercial transit business for 15+ years (with over 8000 commercial fiber customers). Comcast also has over 40 balanced peers with plenty of capacity, and some of the largest Internet companies as customers. - Kevin 215-313-1083tel:215-313-1083 On May 15, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.commailto:o...@delong.com wrote: Oh, please do explicate on how this is inaccurate… Owen On May 14, 2014, at 2:14 PM, McElearney, Kevin kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.commailto: kevin_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com wrote: Respectfully, this is a highly inaccurate sound bite - Kevin 215-313-1083tel:215-313-1083 On May 14, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.commailto:o...@delong.com wrote: Yes, the more accurate statement would be aggressively seeking new ways to monetize the existing infrastructure without investing in upgrades or additional buildout any more than absolutely necessary. Owen On May 14, 2014, at 8:02 AM, Hugo Slabbert h...@slabnet.commailto:h...@slabnet.com wrote: So they seek new sources of revenues, and/or attempt to thwart competition any way they can. No to the first. Yes to the second. If they were seeking new sources of revenue, they'd be massively expanding into un/der served markets and aggressively growing over the top services (which are fat margin). Sure they are (seeking new sources of revenue). They're not necessarily creating new products or services, i.e. actually adding any value, but they are finding ways to extract additional revenue from the same pipes, e.g. through paid peering with content providers. I'm not endorsing this; just pointing out that you two are actually in agreement here. -- Hugo On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:23 AM, char...@thefnf.orgmailto:char...@thefnf.org wrote: On 2014-05-14 02:04, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: On 14-05-13 22:50, Daniel Staal wrote: They have the money. They have the ability to get more money. *They see no reason to spend money making customers happy.* They can make more profit without it. There is the issue of control over the market. But also the pressure from shareholders for continued growth. Yes. That is true. Except that it's not. How do service providers grow? Let's explore that: What is growth for a transit provider? More (new) access network(s) (connections). More bandwidth across backbone pipes. What is growth for access network? More subscribers. Except that the incumbent carriers have shown they have no interest in providing decent bandwidth to anywhere but the most profitable rate centers. I'd say about 2/3 of the USA is served with quite terrible access. The problem with the internet is that while it had promises of wild growth in the 90s and 00s, once penetration reaches a certain level, growth stabilizes. Penetration is ABYSMAL sir. Huge swaths of underserved americans exist. When you combine this with threath
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
By categorically untrue do you mean FCC's open internet rules allow us to refuse to upgrade full peers? Nick On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote: On 5/15/14, 12:43 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote: Yes, you've got some of the largest Internet companies as customers². Because you told them if you don't pay us, we'll throttle you. Then you throttled them. I'm sorry, not a winning argument. Nick That is categorically untrue, however nice a soundbite it may be. If you or anyone else truly believes we are throttling someone then I encourage you to file a formal complaint with the FCC. According to their Open Internet rules that we are bound to through at least 2018 (IIRC) we may not discriminate on traffic in that way, so there is a clear rule and a clear process for complaints. Jason
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
Yes, throttling an entire ISP by refusing to upgrade peering is clearly a way to avoid technically throttling. Interestingly enough only Comcast and Verizon are having this problem, though I'm sure now that you have set an example others will follow. Nick On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Livingood, Jason jason_living...@cable.comcast.com wrote: On 5/15/14, 1:28 PM, Nick B n...@pelagiris.org wrote: By categorically untrue do you mean FCC's open internet rules allow us to refuse to upgrade full peers? Throttling is taking, say, a link from 10G and applying policy to constrain it to 1G, for example. What if a peer wants to go from a balanced relationship to 10,000:1, well outside of the policy binding the relationship? Should we just unquestionably toss out our published policy – which is consistent with other networks – and ignore expectations for other peers? Jason
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
Google Fiber and various other FTTH services disprove the omg it costs a lot theory. This is purely a money grab by a monopoly, sanctioned by the FCC because.. the people doing the money grab own the FCC. It helps to keep in mind that several of the parties involved in this grab *HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID TO EXPAND THEIR NETWORKS BY THE PUBLIC, AND HAVE FAILED TO DO SO*. I'm not really sure how anyone could view this whole thing as fair, honest or even legal. I also fully expect the FCC to sign off on it as the receipt says Paid by Verizon. Nick On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 10/05/2014 22:34, Randy Bush wrote: imiho think vi hart has it down simply and understandable by a lay person. http://vihart.com/net-neutrality-in-the-us-now-what/. my friends in last mile providers disagree. i take that as a good sign. Vi's analogy is wrong on a subtle but important point. In the analogy, the delivery company needs to get a bunch of new trucks to handle the delivery but as the customer is paying for each delivery instances, the delivery company's costs are covered by increased end-user charges. In the net neutrality debate, the last mile service providers are in a position where they need to upgrade their access networks, but the end-user pricing is not necessarily keeping pace. There are lot of ways to argue this point, depending on whether you're the user, the access provider or the content provider. From a financial point of view, the content providers will say that access providers need to charge their end users in a way which reflects their usage requirements because let's face it, it's the users that are pulling the traffic - they're not sending traffic to arbitrary IP addresses just for the fun of it. The end users will say that they're only going to pay market rate for their services, and they won't care whether this covers their costs or not. The access providers will say that they're only upgrading to deal with the additional requirements of the larger content providers, particularly the CDNs and the video streaming services, and that the going market rate doesn't allow them to charge the end users more. Besides, it's a whole pile easier to chase a small number of companies for a large amount of money than it is to chase a large number of customer for a small amount of money. Even better, if you chase the the content sources for cash, you can do this without increasing customer prices which means you can stay more competitive in the sales market. So from a business perspective it makes lots of sense to deprioritise the large companies that don't pay in favour of the ones that do. Those who pay get better service for their customers; seems fair, right? From the proverbial helicopter viewpoint, we are walking towards a situation where the short-term business actions of the individual companies involved in the industry is going to lead towards customers being hurt and this means that the likely long-term outcome is more regulation and legislative control imposed on the industry. It is another tragedy of the commons. Nick
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP Network Neutrality
Even if you are right, which I'm not sure you are about the cost as Google isn't the only FTTH provider, at least one of the major players *HAS ALREADY PEEN PAID TO DO THE WORK*. http://stopthecap.com/2014/03/17/new-jerseys-fiber-ripoff-verizon-walks-away-from-fiber-upgrades-customers-already-paid-for/ Nick On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Clayton Zekelman clay...@mnsi.net wrote: Actually, I've done a bit of overbuild, and it does omg cost a lot. We don't know how much Google Fiber has paid to build the network. They're Google, they can do it just because they feel like it. Of course I don't have any proof, but the rest of your points may not be far off the mark. At 09:44 AM 12/05/2014, Nick B wrote: Google Fiber and various other FTTH services disprove the omg it costs a lot theory. This is purely a money grab by a monopoly, sanctioned by the FCC because.. the people doing the money grab own the FCC. It helps to keep in mind that several of the parties involved in this grab *HAVE ALREADY BEEN PAID TO EXPAND THEIR NETWORKS BY THE PUBLIC, AND HAVE FAILED TO DO SO*. I'm not really sure how anyone could view this whole thing as fair, honest or even legal. I also fully expect the FCC to sign off on it as the receipt says Paid by Verizon. Nick --- Clayton Zekelman Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi) 3363 Tecumseh Rd. E Windsor, Ontario N8W 1H4 tel. 519-985-8410 fax. 519-985-8409
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
The current scandal is not about peering, it is last mile ISP double dipping. Nick On Apr 27, 2014 2:05 AM, Rick Astley jna...@gmail.com wrote: Without the actual proposal being published for review its hard to know the specifics but it appears that it prohibits blocking and last mile tinkering of traffic (#1). What this means to me is ISP's can't block access to a specific website like alibaba and demand ransom from subscribers to access it again. I do not know if this provision would also include prohibiting intentionally throttling traffic on a home by home basis (#2) and holding services to the same kind of random is also prohibited but I think this too would be a far practice to prohibit. Bits are bits. From the routers article ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/us-usa-fcc-internet-idUSBREA3M1H020140423 ) and elsewhere it seems what the proposal does not outlaw is paid peering and perhaps use of QoS on networks. #3 On paid peering: I think this is where people start to disagree but I don't see what should be criminal about paid peering agreements. More specifically, I see serious problems once you outlaw paid peering and then look at the potential repercussions that would have. Clearly it would not be fair to for only the largest content providers to be legally mandated as settlement free peers because that would leave smaller competitors out in the cold. The only fair way to outlaw paid peering would be to do it across the board for all companies big and small. This would be everyone from major content providers to my uncle to sells hand runs a website to sell hand crafted chairs. This would have major sweeping repercussions for the Internet as we know it over night. I think it makes sense to allow companies to work it out as long as the prices charged aren't unreasonably high based on market prices for data. This means if 2 ISP's with similar networks want to be settlement free they can. If ISP's want to charge for transit they can, and if ISP's want to charge CDN's to deliver data they can. Typically the company with the disproportional amount of costs of carrying the traffic would charge the other company but really it should be up to the companies involved to decide. Based on the post by Tom Wheeler from the FCC ( http://www.fcc.gov/blog/setting-record-straight-fcc-s-open-internet-rules) it sounds like if this pricing is commercially unreasonable (ie extortion) they will step in. Again I think this is fair. #4 On QoS (ie fast lane?): In some of the articles I skimmed there was a lot of talk about fast lane traffic but what this sounds like today would be known as QoS and classification marking that would really only become a factor under instances of congestion. The tech bloggers and journalists all seems to be unanimously opposed to this but I admit I am sort of scratching my head at the outrage over something that has been in prevalent use on many major networks for several years. I don't see this as the end of the Internet as we know it that now seems to essentially be popular opinion on the issue. Numerous businesses are using QoS to protect things like voice traffic and business critical or emergency traffic from being impacted in a failure scenario. In modern day hyper converged networks where pretty soon even mobile voice traffic could be VoIP over a data network prohibiting the use of all QoS seems irresponsible. The larger question is, is it fair for ISP's to charge people to be in a priority other than best effort? To answer a question with a question, if an ISP is using a priority other than best effort for some of its own traffic is it fair if a peer with a competing service is only best effort delivery? This is sort of akin to Comcast not counting its own video service against the ~250G/month cap of subscribers but counting off network traffic against it. In theory if some of an ISP's own services are able to use higher than best effort priority the same should be available to the business they are selling service to. If they go completely out of their way to intentionally congest the network to force people into needing a higher than best effort classification I would think it should fall into what the FCC calls commercially unreasonable and thus be considered a violation. So again, I think this is fair. I have numbered the items I mentioned from 1-4 being #1. Blocking #2. per household (last mile) rate limiting of a service (though rate limiting at all anywhere should probably be up for discussion so #2.5) #3. The legality of paid peering #4. The legality of QoS (unless fast lane is something else I don't understand). Feel free to augment the list.
Re: Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
I thought the 40% I paid in taxes covered prosecution of fraudulent advertising. Nick On Mar 23, 2014 4:02 PM, Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: * mpet...@netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]: Doesn't sound too outlandish. Mind you, I'm sure it would raise costs, as that testing and validation wouldn't be free. But I'm sure we'd all be willing to pay an additional $10/month on our service to be sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least to ensure that what was promised was scaled down to match what could actually be delivered. Nice strawman you erected there. Thanks! I thought it looked quite nice up on its pole. :) Now it's time for people to take turns poking holes in it. ^_^ Thanks! Yeah, thanks for standing up for industries holding their customers hostage to extract rents from companies trying to serve those customers. I'm not so much standing up for them as pointing out that simply calling for additional oversight and regulation often brings increased costs into the picture. Oddly enough, I'm having a hard time identifying exactly *where* the money comes from to pay for government verification of industry performance claims; I'm sure it's just my weak search-fu, however, and some person with more knowledge on the subject will be able to shed light on how such validation and compliance testing is typically paid for. -- Niels. Thanks! Matt
Re: subrate SFP?
Ah, I needed *another* reason to murder WOL in it's sleep. Thanks! Nick On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote: WOL uses 100Mb/s, the phy draws less that way. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 31, 2013, at 10:13, Charles N Wyble charles-li...@knownelement.com wrote: On hp proliant gen8 servers with management and ilo on same port, with the server off the ports show up as 100mbps. Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 6:42 AM, Jamie Bowden ja...@photon.com wrote: From: Saku Ytti [mailto:s...@ytti.fi] Considering that Dell and HP at least are shipping brand new hardware with IPMI/BMC/iLO/whatever management ports that can only speak 100mbit when every other Ethernet interface in the box at least gigabit, having a useful way to talk to that port without having to keep separate switching hardware around would be nice. I'm not holding my breath, but you know, along with a pony, this would be nice. Eh? That may have been the case a few years ago, but HP ILO4 and iDRAC7 specifically list 10/100/1000 even when using in dedicated port mode. And even in prior versions, you could have the port linking up at 1Gbps, by operating the management in Shared port mode (Sharing the management with the server's Eth0). I expect over time: support for linking up at 10/100 will get rarer and much more expensive. The niche status a 10/100 media converter as an SFP would have if produced is likely to mean it would retail at $2000+ per port device. It probably just makes more sense to go find an old obsolete top of rack switch, like a Cat3750 to get the small fraction of legacy copper ports required for out of band network and server management, which: by the way, should be part of a separate switching infrastructure anyways, to increase the chance it stays operational and useful for troubleshooting, in the event the production network experiences outage or has other issues requiring diagnosis. Jamie -- -JH -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: chargen is the new DDoS tool?
I thought the modern measure was hours and dollars wasted... Err I mean spent. Nick On Jun 12, 2013 5:21 AM, Joel M Snyder joel.sny...@opus1.com wrote: Do you have any actual evidence that a .edu of (say) 2K employees is statistically *measurably* less secure than a .com of 2K employees? We're sorta lookin' at one now. But seriously, how do you measure one's security? In ounces, unless it's a European university, in which case you use liters. Older systems of measuring security involving mass (pounds and kilos) have been deprecated, and you should not be using them anymore in serious evaluations, although some older CSOs will insist. jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494 j...@opus1.comhttp://www.opus1.com/jms
Re: PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project
I'd love to, but American Idle is on in 5 minutes. Maybe next time?
Nick
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Ishmael Rufus sakam...@gmail.com wrote:
So when are we rioting?
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Tax payer money.. :)
On 6/7/13, Mark Seiden m...@seiden.com wrote:
what a piece of crap this article is.
the guy doesn't understand what sniffing can and can't do. obviously
he
doesn't understand peering or routing, and he doesn't understand what
cdns
are for.
he doesn't understand the EU safe harbor, saying it applies to govt
entitites, when it's purely about companies hosting data of EU
citizens.
he quotes a source who suggests that the intel community might have
privileged search access to facebook, which i don't believe.
he even says company-owned equipment might refer to the NSA, which i
thought everybody calls the agency so to not confuse with the CIA.
and he suggests that these companies might have given up their master
decryption keys (as he terms them) so that USG could decrypt SSL.
and the $20M cost per year, which would only pay for something the size
of a
portal or a web site, well, that's mysterious.
sheesh.
this is not journalism.
On Jun 7, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Paul Ferguson fergdawgs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Also of interest:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/nsa-prism-records-surveillance-questions
- ferg
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Michael Hallgren m.hallg...@free.fr
wrote:
Le 07/06/2013 19:10, Warren Bailey a écrit :
Five days ago anyone who would have talked about the government
having
this capability would have been issued another tin foil hat. We
think
we
know the truth now, but why hasn't echelon been brought up? I'm not
calling anyone a liar, but isn't not speaking the truth the same
thing?
;-)
mh
Sent from my Mobile Device.
Original message
From: Matthew Petach mpet...@netflight.com
Date: 06/07/2013 9:34 AM (GMT-08:00)
To:
Cc: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: PRISM: NSA/FBI Internet data mining project
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Matthew Petach
mpet...@netflight.comwrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
wrote:
Has fingers directly in servers of top Internet content companies,
dates to 2007. Happily, none of the companies listed are
transport
networks:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
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 #natog +1
727
647 1274
I've always just assumed that if it's in electronic form,
someone else is either reading it now, has already read
it, or will read it as soon as I walk away from the screen.
Much less stress in life that way. ^_^
Matt
When I posted this yesterday, I was speaking somewhat
tongue-in-cheek, because we hadn't yet made a formal
statement to the press. Now that we've made our official
reply, I can echo it, and note that whatever fluffed up
powerpoint was passed around to the washington post,
it does not reflect reality. There are no optical taps in
our datacenters funneling information out, there are no
sooper-seekret backdoors in the software that funnel
information to the government. As our formal reply
stated: Yahoo does not provide the government with
direct access to its servers, systems, or network.
I believe the other major players supposedly listed
in the document have released similar statements,
all indicating a similar lack of super-cheap government
listening capabilities.
Speaking just for myself, and if you quote me on this
as speaking on anyone else's behalf, you're a complete
fool, if the government was able to build infrastructure
that could listen to all the traffic from a major provider
for a fraction of what it costs them to handle that traffic
in the first place, I'd be truly amazed--and I'd probably
wonder why the company didn't outsource their infrastruture
to the government, if they can build and run it so much
more cheaply than the commercial providers. ;P
7 companies were listed; if we assume the
burden was split roughly evenly between them, that's
20M/7, about $2.85M per company per year to tap in,
or about $238,000/month per company listed, to
supposedly snoop on hundreds of gigs per second
of data. Two ways to handle it:
Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed?
The Nonfunctional side is critical for the LPI obsessed C?O demographic, and is therefor mandatory for most products. I wish I didn't know that. Nick On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Howard C. Berkowitz h...@netcases.netwrote: On 12/23/2012 7:44 AM, Aled Morris wrote: On 23 December 2012 01:07, Wayne E Bouchard w...@typo.org wrote: They serve quite well until I get to a switch that some douchebag mounted rear facing on the front posts of the rack I see this all the time with low-end Cisco ISR products (2... and 3... routers) since CIsco insist on having a pretty plastic fascia with their logo, model number, power LED etc. on the unuseful side. Such routers have two fronts: a suit side and an operational side. Less experienced installers (being generous with my terminology) assume this is therefore the front and mount it facing on the front rails, leaving the connector side buried half way into the rack where only a proctologist can reach the plugs. For further detail about the latter: http://f2.org/humour/songs/**crs.htmlhttp://f2.org/humour/songs/crs.html I use this as a gauge of experience in interviews for engineers... Here's a new router and here's the rack mount ears. Show me where they go. Aled
Re: William was raided for running a Tor exit node. Please help if
I seriously doubt many TOR exit nodes have the political clout to be considered a common carrier. In a related note, I wonder if the six-strike rule would violate the ISP's safe harbor, as it's clearly content inspection. Nick On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jordan Michaels jor...@viviotech.netwrote: On 12/03/2012 03:31 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 08:49:24AM +, Warren Bailey wrote: Can you imagine an email thread that lasted longer than an entire weekend? Yes, I can. I've participated in some that went on for months. It's simply a matter of effectiveness and attention span. This email needs to be murdered, because it is completely out of control. I disagree, strongly, as this is an issue of unfortunate timely relevance to the community. +1 I strongly disagree as well. I am very interested to see how this case evolves in and out of court. Are Tor exit-node operators going to be given the same rights as ISP's who's networks are used for illegal purposes? I would hope so, but it doesn't seem like that has happened in this case, so I am very interested to hear how the situation pans out. It is extremely relevant to the Internet community and to free speech in general. Kind regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies
Re: Megaupload.com seized
I just made the brain melting mistake of trying to read the DMCA. The text which jumps out at me is: `(2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to material residing at the direction of a subscriber of the service provider on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider that is removed, or to which access is disabled by the service provider, pursuant to a notice provided under subsection (c)(1)(C), unless the service provider-- `(A) takes reasonable steps promptly to notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material; `(B) upon receipt of a counter notification described in paragraph (3), promptly provides the person who provided the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) with a copy of the counter notification, and informs that person that it will replace the removed material or cease disabling access to it in 10 business days; and `(C) replaces the removed material and ceases disabling access to it not less than 10, nor more than 14, business days following receipt of the counter notice, unless its designated agent first receives notice from the person who submitted the notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) that such person has filed an action seeking a court order to restrain the subscriber from engaging in infringing activity relating to the material on the service provider's system or network. I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the material. The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable *all* *possible* access to the material, but that's not the current text of the law. YMMV Nick B On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Roland Perry li...@internetpolicyagency.com wrote: In article 596B74B410EE6B4CA8A30C3AF1A15**5ea09c8c...@rwc-mbx1.corp.** seven.com596b74b410ee6b4ca8a30c3af1a155ea09c8c...@rwc-mbx1.corp.seven.com, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com writes The problem is going to be the thousands of people who have now lost their legitimate files, research data, personal recordings, etc. that they were using Megaupload to share. But that's an operational risk of using any commercial entity as a filestore. Thousands of people lost[1] a lot of work when fotopic.netcollapsed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Fotopic.nethttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fotopic.net [1] As it's getting on for a year since an apparent rescue attempt, and nothing has emerged, this seems a reasonable assumption. -- Roland Perry
