Re: It's been 20 years today (Oct 16, UTC). Hard to believe.

2018-10-16 Thread Scott Brim 
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018, 22:37 Michael Thomas  wrote:

> I believe that the IETF party line these days is that Postel was wrong
> on this point. Security is one consideration, but there are others.
>
> Mike
>

I saw just a small swing of the pendulum toward the center, a nuanced
meaning for "liberal". The adage wasn't tossed out. Operationally it can't
be.

Scott

>

Re: Binge On! - And So This is Net Neutrality?

2015-11-20 Thread Scott Brim 
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Jay Ashworth  wrote:
> According to:
>
>   
> http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/fcc-chairman-gives-t-mobiles-binge-on-the-thumbs-up/
>
> Chairman Wheeler thinks that T-mob's new "customers can get uncapped media
> stream data, but only from the people we like" service called Binge On
> is pro-competition.
>
> My take on this is that the service is *precisely* what Net Neutrality
> was supposed to prevent -- carriers offering paid fast-lanes to content
> providers -- and that this is anti-competitive to the sort of "upstart
> YouTube" entities that NN was supposed to protect...
>
> and that *that* is the competition that NN was supposed to protect.

What I read was that as long as a video offerer marks its traffic and
is certified in a few other ways, anyone can send video content
cap-free. No I don't know what the criteria are. Does anyone here? I
also think I remember that there is no significant cost to
certification, i.e. this is not a paid fast lane.  If this is all
true, this doesn't bother me, and could do everyone a favor by getting
definitions clearer and getting traffic marked.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Scott Brim 
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com wrote:
 Common term in mobile operators. A mobile site is one that is not

I mean a legal site. Sigh.

Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-27 Thread Scott Brim 
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Bruce H McIntosh b...@ufl.edu wrote:
 On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote:

 What's a lawful web site?

 Now *there* is a $64,000 question.  Even more interesting is, Who gets to
 decide day to day the answer to that question? :)

Common term in mobile operators. A mobile site is one that is not
breaking the law, e.g. not distributing pirated materials or being
used for other illegal activity. If a site is breaking the law, they
can block it.

Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size)

2013-09-26 Thread Scott Brim 
Oh this sure will be fun. For a good time, see how GSMA handles
connectivity with IPXs.
On Sep 26, 2013 1:28 PM, William Herrin b...@herrin.us wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:07 AM, John Curran jcur...@istaff.org wrote:
  On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
 
  sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
 
  If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is
 with respect
  to routing table slots.
  That's not to say that establishing a framework for externalizing
 routing costs would
  be easy; it's a complicated and twisted matter, and also fraught with
 various legal 
  competitive aspects.

 Hi John,

 That's putting it mildly. Establishing such a framework would be an
 immense challenge. Here are some ideas I've heard:


 1. The International Clearinghouse

 Every BGP participant files with a clearinghouse, specifying:

 a. How much they charge to carry 1 route
 b. Whether or not they are a leaf node
 c. Whether or not they are a transit-free network.

 Any network which is not transit free must implement a default route
 which leads to a big transit-free network in order to maintain full
 connectivity.

 The BGP participants then publish the exact routes they intend to
 announce to the clearinghouse and for each one select which networks
 they'll pay to carry the route. The route must still reach each
 network via BGP; payment just means that the network won't filter the
 route out.

 The clearinghouse then collects payments from everybody and makes
 payments to everybody, as well as providing each participant a list of
 the routes that are paid for. Sellers are expected to promptly
 incorporate new paid routes into their BGP filters.

 From my research a few years ago, a reasonable rate would be around 3
 to 4 cents per year per advertised route per BGP-carrying router in
 the organization. A couple billion dollars per year if the routing
 table maintained its current size.


 2. The partial routing scenario

 Large service providers put bids in to the RIRs for the right to
 announce /8 covering routes for each /8 delegated to the RIR. Each /8
 matches exactly one service provider. Smaller BGP system participants
 make private arrangements with a small (20 to 30) set of networks
 (including their direct ISPs) to carry their advertised routes through
 a reasonably redundant number of pathways to (and including) the
 winning bidder for the /8 they inhabit. For the sake of performance,
 they may also pay additional large networks to shortcut the traffic
 towards them rather than let it dump at the /8 advertiser.

 For the folks you don't pay via the clearinghouse, many end-user
 systems and the majority of transit systems simply don't carry your
 route unless yours is among the handful of systems critically
 important to their customers. Instead, traffic to your network follows
 the /8 advertisement until it reaches a network which carries your
 specific route.

 With the routing costs suitably reduced, settlement for the remaining
 routes becomes moot.

 This is usually within a few percent of the routing efficiency that
 would have been achieved with total route propagation.


 3. The routing overlay

 Establish a semi-stateless tunneling system. Each BGP participant sets
 up a tunnel ingress node and links a default route to it. Packets for
 a destination not found in the routing table follow the default route
 to the tunnel ingress.

 The tunnel device then looks up an tunnel exit node via a mapping
 protocol. Both the map server and the exit node have to be hosted on
 IP addresses reachable via the normal routing table.

 Having found an exit node, the original packet is encapsulated into a
 tunnel packet and sent to the exit node. The exit node is in a part of
 the network that carries an explicit route to the destination.

 Then, move the definition of threshold size. Except for whitelisted
 critical infrastructure, /24 advertisements would no longer carry an
 expectation of universal distribution. To maintain connectivity, folks
 at the bottom of the chain would need to establish or subscribe to
 tunnel exit nodes that have a route back to them.

 With the routing costs suitably reduced, settlement for the remaining
 routes becomes moot.

 The IRTF Routing Research Group studied such protocols a few years ago
 and have pretty well fleshed out how to make one work with all the
 tangled issues involving path mtu, dead path detection and so on.
 Multiple designs sit on a shelf waiting for a promise that the
 technology will be purchased if built.

 Regards,
 Bill Herrin


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

Re: The US government has betrayed the Internet. We need to take it back

2013-09-06 Thread Scott Brim 
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Jorge Amodio jmamo...@gmail.com wrote:
 IMHO, there is no amount of engineering that can fix stupid people doing
 stupid things on both sides of the stupid lines.

Yes but there is engineering to ensure that they have the opportunity
to do the right thing in the first place.  If we (IETF) naively
engineer out the ability to have privacy, it doesn't matter if those
people are stupid or not.

Re: Muni network ownership and the Fourth

2013-01-29 Thread Scott Brim 
On 01/29/13 12:02, Jay Ashworth allegedly wrote:
 - Original Message -
 From: Rob McEwen r...@invaluement.com
 When any government entity desires log files from an ISP, and if that
 ISP is very protective of their customer's privacy and civil liberties,
 then the ISP typically ONLY complies with the request if there is a
 proper court order, granted by a judge, after probable cause of some
 kind of crime has been established, where they are not on a fishing
 expedition. But, in contrast, if the city government owns the network,
 it seems like a police detective contacting his fellow city employee
 in the IT department could easily circumvent the civil liberties
 protections. Moreover, there is an argument that the ISP being stingy
 with such data causes them to be heros to the public, and they gain
 DESIRED press and attention when they refuse to comply with such
 requests without a court order. In contrast, the city's IT staff and
 the police detective BOTH share the SAME boss's boss's boss. The IT guy
 won't get a pat on the back for making life difficult for the police
 department. He'll just silently lose his job eventually, or get passed
 up for a promotion. The motivation will be on him to PLEASE his fellow
 city employees, possibly at the expense of our civil liberties.

 PS - of course, no problems here if the quest to gain information
 involves a muni network that is only used by city employees.

 PPS - then again, maybe my log file example doesn't apply to the
 particular implementation that Jay described? Regardless, it DOES
 apply to various government implementations of broadband service.
 It would, if I were talking about a situation where the muni *was the ISP*,
 supplying layer 3+ services.  I'm not.  I'm purposefully only talking
 about layer 1 service (where the residents contract with an ISP client 
 of the muni, and that client supplies an ONT and takes an optical handoff)
 or, my preferred approach, a layer 2 service (where the muni supplies the 
 ONT and the ISP client of the muni takes an aggregated Ethernet handoff
 (probably 10G fiber, possibly trunked).

 (Actually, my approach if I was building it would be Layer 2 unless the 
 resident wants a Layer 1 connection to {a properly provisioned ISP,some
 other location of theirs}.  Best of both worlds.)
Right, and a public-private partnership model is more common than having
the city actually operate the network at any layer.

Re: EBAY and AMAZON

2012-06-11 Thread Scott Brim 
I think it's a troll, trying to shock you into clicking on something.

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Nick Olsen n...@flhsi.com wrote:

 I think it might just be coincidence. I've gotten about 10 of them and
 haven't been to ebay or amazon in months.
 Most of them have been for 60 dollar books.

 Nick Olsen
 Network Operations (855) FLSPEED  x106

 
  From: Brandt, Ralph ralph.bra...@pateam.com
 Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:28 PM
 To: nanog@nanog.org
 Subject: EBAY and AMAZON

 I have received bogus emails from both of the above on Friday.

 These look like I bought something that in both cases I did not buy.
 The EBAY was a golf club for $887 and the Amazon was a novel for $82,
 far more than I would have spent on either.

 I think I looked at the novel on Amazon and I remember the golf club
 came up on a search with something else on Ebay.

 How this information could get to someone spoofing is a little
 disconcerting.

 I have changed EBAY and Paypal Passwords as instructed.

 Ralph Brandt
 Communications Engineer
 HP Enterprise Services
 Telephone +1 717.506.0802
 FAX +1 717.506.4358
 Email ralph.bra...@pateam.com
 5095 Ritter Rd
 Mechanicsburg PA 17055

Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

2012-03-15 Thread Scott Brim 
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:41, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
 On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:25:46AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:

 Geographic routing strategies have been all but proven to irredeemably
 violate the recursive commercial payment relationships which create
 the Internet's topology. In other words, they always end up stealing
 bandwidth on links for which neither the source of the packet nor it's
 destination have paid for a right to use.

 This is documented in a 2008 Routing Research Group thread.
 http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/rrg/2008/msg01781.html

 I think the problem can be tackled by implementing this in
 wireless last-mile networks owned and operated by end users.

Interesting point, and the growth in municipal networks could help.
But they are still a vast minority.

Scott

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

2011-07-13 Thread Scott Brim 
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:09, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
 btw, a litte birdie told me to take another look at

 6296 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation. M. Wasserman, F. Baker.
     June 2011. (Format: TXT=73700 bytes) (Status: EXPERIMENTAL)

 which also could be considered to be in the loc/id space

 randy

No, that's a misuse of loc/id since no identification is involved,
even at the network layer -- but it is in the reduce issues in global
routing and local renumbering space (that's part of what LISP does).

Cameron: As for ILNP, it's going to be difficult to get from where
things are now to a world where ILNP is not just useless overhead.
When you finally do, considering what it gives you, will the journey
have been worth it?  LISP apparently has more benefits, and NPT6 is so
much easier -- particularly if you have rapid adaptation to apparent
address changes, which many apps have and all mobile devices need
already -- sorry but I don't think ILNP is going to make it.  You
can't just say the IETF should pay more attention.  I've invited
people to promote it and nobody stepped up.

Scott

Re: in defense of lisp (was: Anybody can participate in the IETF)

2011-07-13 Thread Scott Brim 
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 11:09, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
 I think ILNP is a great solution. My concern with it is that the needed 
 changes to TCP and UDP are not likely to happen.

I guess I should clarify: I think ILNP is elegant.  But the real
Internet evolves incrementally, and only as needed.  Other
trajectories are much more likely.

Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

2011-06-11 Thread Scott Brim 
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 05:34, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
 Though it's nice to have why would one *need* 100 Mbps at home?

The essential point is: if people have the bandwidth, they fill it,
sometimes with uses we haven't dreamed up yet.  In the USA at least,
creativity and productivity are _often_ bandwidth-limited (that's
documented).  Open the door and you get a positive feedback loop of:
opportunity - creativity - perceived need - services -
opportunity, leading to More Money For Everyone, including ISPs.

Re: Yup; the Internet is screwed up.

2011-06-10 Thread Scott Brim 
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:47, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
 I'd go so far as to say user failure.  If I wanted cable TV
 (especially if I needed it at home as part of my job), I wouldn't
 buy/rent/lease/whatever a home without checking that cable TV is
 available at that location.

Yeah, he messed up, but the social problem is still real.  The
Internet is now more important than electricity or water -- you can go
off the grid or dig your own well, but more and more you can't get a
job or talk to the government without web access and email.

Re: IT Survey Request: Win an iPad2 or Kindle!

2011-05-27 Thread Scott Brim 
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:38, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com wrote:
 The cynic in me wonders how they will track how many people I forwarded this
 to. I plan to win the prize for the person who refers the survey to the
 most number of people by forwarding it to millions of people.  :-)

 (I suspect that the prize will be won by the person who others (who take the
 survey) claim referred them to the survey, which is different from the
 criteria set for the prize.)

If you'll say that I'm the one who referred you, I'll enter you in a
drawing for a free iPad.

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

2011-05-17 Thread Scott Brim 
On May 17, 2011 6:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

 On Tue, 17 May 2011 15:04:19 PDT, Scott Weeks said:

  What about privacy concerns

 Privacy is dead.  Get used to it. -- Scott McNeely

Forget that attitude, Valdis. Just because privacy is blown at one level
doesn't mean you give it away at every other one. We establish the framework
for recovering privacy and make progress step by step, wherever we can.
Someday we'll get it all back under control.

Scott

Re: user-relative names - was:[Re: Yahoo and IPv6]

2011-05-17 Thread Scott Brim 
Yes indeed.  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/79/slides/intarea-3.pdf

-- sent from a tiny screen

Re: 23,000 IP addresses

2011-05-10 Thread Scott Brim 
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:42, Leigh Porter
leigh.por...@ukbroadband.com wrote:
 So are they basing this on you downloading it or on making it available for 
 others?

Without knowing the details, I wouldn't assume any such level of
competence or integrity.  It could just be a broad witch hunt.

 Apologies for the top post...

Never apologize for top posting, it just starts the flame war all over again.

Re: v6 Avian Carriers?

2011-04-07 Thread Scott Brim 
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 15:35, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

 On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
  Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
   http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
 
  That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is funny
  that doesn't mean that repetitions of it are funny too. Quite the
 contrary.

 Yes, but I bet many providers recognize rfc1149 now.  rfc6214 gives us a
 new
 brown MM to put into the contracts...


You need to specify tail drop behavior.

Re: Egypt 'hijacked Vodafone network'

2011-02-03 Thread Scott Brim 
On 02/03/2011 10:14 EST, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
 
 On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:24 AM, andrew.wallace wrote:
 
 Mobile phone firm Vodafone accuses the Egyptian authorities of
 using its network to send pro-government text messages.
 
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12357694
 
 Here is their PR
 
 http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/press.html
 
 Note that this is entirely legal, under the emergency powers
 provisions of the Telecoms Act

Which is legal, Vodafone's protest or the government's telling them to
send messages?  afaik the agreement was that the operator would have
preloaded canned messages, agreed on in advance with the government, and
now the government is telling them to send out arbitrary messages they
compose on the spot.

Re: Mastercard problems

2010-12-09 Thread Scott Brim 
On 12/09/2010 11:29 EST, Jim Mercer wrote:
 amazon is selling a Kindle version of the Wikileaks released cables:
 
 http://www.amazon.co.uk/WikiLeaks-documents-expose-foreign-conspiracies/dp/B004EEOLIU/

This book contains commentary and analysis regarding recent WikiLeaks
disclosures, not the original material disclosed via the WikiLeaks website.

Re: RINA - scott whaps at the nanog hornets nest :-)

2010-11-07 Thread Scott Brim 
On 11/08/2010 07:57 GMT+08:00, William Herrin wrote:
 On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:
 It's really quiet in here.  So, for some Friday fun let
 me whap at the hornets nest and see what happens...  ;-)

 And so, ...the first principle of our proposed new network architecture: 
 Layers are recursive.
 
 Hi Scott,
 
 Anyone who has bridged an ethernet via a TCP based IPSec tunnel
 understands that layers are recursive.

See also G.805 et seq.

Re: Mobile Operator Connectivity

2010-10-11 Thread Scott Brim 
Cameron Byrne allegedly wrote on 10/10/2010 15:38 EDT:
 LTE provides some latency benefits on the wireless interface, but the
 actual packet core architecture is very similar to GSM / UMTS.

and it's going to be a long time before Local Breakout gets noticeably
deployed.

Re: sort by agony

2010-08-27 Thread Scott Brim 
On 08/27/2010 01:46 EDT, JC Dill wrote:
 What is Agony, and why would I want to sort by it?
 Agony is our way of sorting flights to take into account price,
 duration, and number of stops. There's more to a flight than its price,
 so we provide this sort to give you better all-around results.

I wonder if I could persuade it to take round trip agony into account.
For example on CO I can get from here to PEK easily, but on the way back
I would have to spend the night in Newark.

Re: 40 acres and a mule, was Lightly used IP addresses

2010-08-14 Thread Scott Brim 
On 08/14/2010 13:27 EDT, Jimi Thompson wrote:
 It was 40 acres and a mule - FYI

That was Civil War, for freed slaves.  Here in NY, war of independence
veterans were given at least 100 acres each.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York_Military_Tract

Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

2010-02-23 Thread Scott Brim 
N. Yaakov Ziskind allegedly wrote on 02/23/2010 11:34 EST:
 Larry Sheldon wrote (on Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:28:03AM -0600):
 On 2/23/2010 4:39 AM, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:

 Maybe politicians should just keep their nose out of things that they
 can't understand.  Email addresses aren't phone numbers.

 It occurs to me that maybe there is a reason why political conservatives
 get so excited about minor, trivial erosions of sanity; why they worry
 about where this might lead

 It's been mentioned--why not portable street addresses.  Fire
 departments will just have to adapt.
 
 If you want an example of just what would result, take a trip to Tokyo,
 where house numbers were assigned in the order that building permits
 were issued, and you need *extremely* detailed directions.
 

Simple: you separate 'mail' addresses from 'fire' addresses.  Mail
addresses are identifiers.  Fire addresses are locators.

Re: Patents, IETF and Network Operators

2010-01-21 Thread Scott Brim 
Jorge Amodio allegedly wrote on 01/21/2010 10:41 EST:
 As an starting point you should read The Tao of the IETF RFC4677 (currently,
 update draft in progress).
 
 About your particular question read section 8.4.5.
 
 Regards
 Jorge

Right.  And it's subtler than you think.  Some network operators have
patents (not just vendors).  Some are held by organizations that only
exist to hold patents and don't actually know much about networking.
And just because something is patented doesn't mean it isn't
interoperable -- most networking standards are patented.

swb

 
 On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Abhishek Verma
 abhishekv.ve...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 Network Ops folks use the IETF standards for their operations. I see
 lot of nifty things coming out from the IETF stable and i was
 wondering why those dont get patented? Why bother releasing some
 really good idea to IETF (i.e. open standards bodies) when the vendor
 could have patented it. The network operators can still use it as long
 as they are using that vendor's equipment. I understand that interop
 can be an issue, since it will be a patented technology, but it will
 always work between the boxes from the same vendor. If so, then whats
 the issue?

 Is interop the only issue because of which most ideas get released
 into IETF? I guess interop is *an* issue since nobody wants a single
 vendor network.

 Thanks,
 Abhishek