Re: [swinog] Swiss ISPs and IPv6 --- 2016 edition
Well the point wasn't a personal purchase point. But taking the viewpoint of "someone" who may be deploying / deciding on the deployment of IPv6 in the enterprise, BYOD, etc environments. With one in two SmartPhones in CH Android, the advice of telling 50% of your customers / users to "go Apple" may not be the best approach for convincing such a "someone". Seriously, any proposed solutions / approaches (besides requesting google to change their mind), that have actually been used somewhere, would be welcomed? Cheers JIm On 20.09.2016 16:24, Jeroen Massar wrote: On 2016-09-20 15:58, Jim Romaguera wrote: On 20.09.2016 15:40, Jeroen Massar wrote: Anybody has a proper excuse? :) No I don't have an excuse but interested in the communities (& your) opinion re your challenge... o DHCPv6 re Android re enterprise, BYOD, PWLAN, etc environments Is a problem or was a problem / no problem at all? One person at Google decided that they do not want to properly want to support IPv6 even though people have been asking for it... https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=32621 http://www.techrepublic.com/article/androids-lack-of-dhcpv6-support-poses-security-and-ipv6-deployment-issues/ etc etc And even if they finally change their mind: https://developer.android.com/about/dashboards/index.html you will never get the correct version on the devices I am still waiting for the new 7.x to pop up on that chart ;) I mean, it is only out for a month now... Hey look, IOS 10.x is at 25% already: https://david-smith.org/iosversionstats/ while that was released, what, a week ago? :) Hence, just buy a different device, Android is hopeless... Greets, Jeroen well CyanogenMod might be useful, but they do not have DHCPv6 either afaik... ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Swiss ISPs and IPv6 --- 2016 edition
On 20.09.2016 15:40, Jeroen Massar wrote: Anybody has a proper excuse? :) No I don't have an excuse but interested in the communities (& your) opinion re your challenge... o DHCPv6 re Android re enterprise, BYOD, PWLAN, etc environments Is a problem or was a problem / no problem at all? Cheers JIm ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Switzerland judged "Cleanest Country"
indeed... well stated Andre. This SWITCH / "legal process" needs still *alot* of fine-tuning. Cheers JIm On 12.08.2012 19:12, Andre Oppermann wrote: On 10.08.2012 16:27, Serge Droz wrote: Hello Swinogers, you may have read our press release yesterday: http://www.switch.ch/about/news/2012/malware-080812.html In the latest "PandaLabs Quarterly Report" Switzerland is judged as the "Least infected" country. While one always has to read such number with care, we still feel it indicates that Swiss ISPs do a good job. We've been sending out reports about infected systems since about a year, and the response was positive. Most people did put in the additional effort to support their customers fixing the problems. Thus a big "Thank you" to all who take security serious.. Despite the results in cleaning up *websites* I still feel uneasy about this completely extra-judicial domain takedown process. A domain is at least as important as a specially assigned phone number. When BAKOM want's to deactivate such a phone number because of alleged abuse it has to issue an official order (Verfügung) which can be appealed in legal court. Then court then may, or may not, issue a stay on the order until things are further analysed or sorted out. Here SWITCH is the accuser and executioner in union. On top of that it will only re-establish the domain when SWITCH is satisfied that its demands are fulfilled. There is no appeals process, no legal court, no 3rd party review, simply nothing. And ".ch" Domains are a Swiss federal resource in law. It seems we haven't hit the edge cases yet where there is disagreement on whether something actually is malware or malicious enough between SWITCH and a domain holder. I'm waiting for the day "megarapiddownload.ch" (made that up) is considered illicit for the purpose of a domain disable procedure. What then? IFPI throwing a party? ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Blocking Malware distribution sites
Hi Serge, Gotta agree with Olivier, Andre & Mike. This is a strange decision and a strange process (2 weeks to react to this new world order???). Makes me wonder why such a strange strategy couldn't be extrapolated to where .ch is disconnected unless some subdomain spreading "malware" stops within 24hrs?!? I seem to recall 15 or more years ago (details are obviously a bit hazy) ... a) Milo decided to disconnect Finland from the then Internet (for some reason he thought was important). b) SWITCH decided to ban distributing any newsgoup dealing with sex (SWITCH was the main way for the vast majority of Internet users to receive their newsgroups). Both decisions were very arbitary (agree that no malice was intended except for Milo's case ;-( ). No chance to discuss the "how to achieve the goal" and "how to implement the goal". Seriously, cert authorities have often delayed "outing" security holes from buggy software/hardware manufacturers until they have time to patch the bug. This has taken sometimes a very long time. How come then that a "maybe" malware infected site (read the previous poster's comments - one man's malware is another man's security protection service) has no real time to react and is effectively "nuked". One could argue that all sites that use known buggy software and hardware must fix within 24hrs or else be disconnected. One thing is for the police to ask an ISP do something (at least they are following laws where a particular process is involved where debate, enhancements, etc occur AND as Andre correctly states the ISP can shield himself from legal liabilty by stating "I did what the police told me to do."). But for SWITCH to "decide" to do something to an even lower level entity, such as a domain, and in this manner is truely abit scary and a bad decision as a "process" - SWITCH also makes mistakes from time to time (see above). SWITCH should raise suspect sites to the police who would "decide" and then instruct SWITCH what it should do. Lastly, law or no law, would you really treat bluwin.ch the same as smallISP.ch and disconnect them within 24hrs if their cisco ios was buggy - such a bug ain't gonna be fixed within 24hrs? Also my 2cents worth...Cheers JIm On 11/11/2010 10:28, Mike Kellenberger wrote: Hi all (again) The more I think about it, the less I think SWITCH thought about it, before publishing such nonsense. "On 25 November 2010 SWITCH will launch an new initiative to maintain the high security standards of Swiss websites." Hello? Since when does SWITCH have anything to say about the security of websites? Security of Domains: ok, but websites? Remember: Internet != WorldWideWeb Deleting the name server delegation of a domain not only shuts down access to one website, but to ALL Internet services depending on DNS in that domain. "From different third parties we receive a fairly large number of URLs in .ch/.li ccTLDs which distribute malware." Exactly - specific URLs (or the websites behind those URLs) may spread malware, but not the domain itself, but again - since SWITCH cannot block access to specifiec URLs, there is no reason to block access to the whole domain. So I absolutely second Andre Oppermanns opinion: "This delegation suspension plan is entirely broken by design and should be immediately stopped." Cheers Mike ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] The ISP Association: one for all, all for one
Hi Pascal & Jens,
If you expand my definition to include an obligation to register (or be
registered whether you like it or not) by BAKOM, BUPF or any other
government mnemonic *because* of your offering of public Internet
services (which is a general term for access, service providers, etc)
then I think you've got the membership defintion pretty tight.
But yes I agree - one should participate and then see what plays out in
the process.
Cheers JIm
On 28/10/2010 21:51, Pascal Gloor wrote:
Hi Jim,
I'm not saying I'm against your below list - haven't thought about it enough yet - but an "ISP association"
seems to imply ISPs - Internet Service Providers. Your list might be tending to an "Internet association" (it
depends on what "so on" means I guess). It would be good to have an "ISP association" to stand up
for ISPs.
An ISP to me means being obligated to register at BAKOM as a telecommunications provider
("Registrierung als gemeldete Fernmeldedienstanbieterin") *because* one is
offering some sort of public Internet services. Such an obligation certainly covers a few
points on your list. My 2cents worth...
Indeed "and so on.." is open. My point was more to say its not restricted (as
Per Jessen said) to _ACCESS_ providers. You say it should (maybe) be limited to BAKOM
registered providers, don't forget that the new BÜPF law draft includes non-BAKOM
registered _SERVICE_ providers (like mail hosting) and I think such an assoc. should also
protect them.
Participate is the preparation process and you'll have your word to say. If you
wish to be founding member, you will also be able to amend the Statutes and get
a vote during the foundation assembly.
See you!
Pascal
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] The ISP Association: one for all, all for one
Hi Pascal,
I'm not saying I'm against your below list - haven't thought about it
enough yet - but an "ISP association" seems to imply ISPs - Internet
Service Providers. Your list might be tending to an "Internet
association" (it depends on what "so on" means I guess). It would be
good to have an "ISP association" to stand up for ISPs.
An ISP to me means being obligated to register at BAKOM as a
telecommunications provider ("Registrierung als gemeldete
Fernmeldedienstanbieterin") *because* one is offering some sort of
public Internet services. Such an obligation certainly covers a few
points on your list. My 2cents worth...
Cheers JIm
On 28/10/2010 19:35, Pascal Gloor wrote:
... the creation of an ISP association (umbrella organisation) representing
them ...
Because I was asked by several hosting companies and ISPs, I'd like to make
this point clear.
The idea of the umbrella assoc./union is to represent ANY company that is
offering public internet services in Switzerland.
This includes, but is not limited to:
internet access
vpn tunnel brokers
web/mail/dns/whatever hosting
housing
social networks
I would even say marketing companies that send mass mail (newsletters,
not spam)
and so on...
Hope this clarification helps.
Have a nice evening ;-)
Pascal
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
___
swinog mailing list
swinog@lists.swinog.ch
http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Vorratsdatenspeicherung
Referencing WoZ...funny that UMTS & GSM Online surfing is excluded - reasons almost certainly being the untold gazillions (financial impact) needed to technically achieve that goal - whilst the financial impact for small/middle ISPs seems to carry no weight (according to Mr Piatti of EJPD) Cheers JIm Fredy Kuenzler wrote: > ueli heuer schrieb: > >>> Der Entwurf wurde gar nie öffentlich gemacht. Zudem war keine >>> Gesetzesänderung nötig. Es basiert vollständig auf dem bisherigen BÜPF. >>> Über eine neue Verordnung zum Gesetz wird die technische Umsetzung >>> erweitert. >>> >> Die Wochenzeitung (WOZ) wird in der Ausgabe von morgen dieses Thema >> aufgreifen. Der Artikel kann auch Online gelesen werden [1] >> >> Wer die Dokumente - um die es hier geht - lesen will kann sie am ende des >> WOZ-Artikel runterladen. >> >> [1] http://www.woz.ch/artikel/2009/nr29/schweiz/18143.html >> > > Zum Glück gibts die WOZ. Ich habe darüber gebloggt: > > http://www.blogg.ch/index.php?/archives/808-Die-WOZ-zur-geplanten-Real-Time-Internet-UEberwachung-durch-das-EJPD.html > > Es ist IMHO wichtig, dass auf breite Front gegen die neuen Richtlinien > opponiert wird. Auch 20min hat berichtet: > > http://www.20min.ch/news/schweiz/story/12978259 > > F. > > > ___ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog > ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] DSL problems today morning
ack from us...our sdsl/adsl lines monitored as down (then eventually up). down started around 5:00. cheers jim Xaver Aerni wrote: Hello, Some of our Costumer says that the DSL Line was down. At 1:15 UTC is the Line going down. The Most Router don't restart automaticly. Did anyone about this problem... Was this a Softwareupdate from Swisscom? Greetings X. Aerni ** Xaver Aerni Zürichstrasse 10a 8340 Hinwil Tel. 001 707 361 68 39 ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
[swinog] ULL presentation
Hi, I saw that the upcoming Swinog agenda has a free slot at 11:15-12:00 (at least I guess it's free - stated "reserved"). It would be interesting for me, and I think the provider community as well, to see Swisscom give a presentation on ULL. Something like "Technical Aspects of Provider's implementing the current Swisscom defined ULL". The timing of Swinog and the current Swisscom deadlines for ULL make the theme very actual. BTW: I don't expect Swisscom to come and defend the commercial aspect - just elaborate upon the technical aspects. If the Swinog Core Team agrees and can find space in the agenda, plus some of our Swisscom colleagues on the list can coordinate internally within Swisscom, maybe someone suitable within Swisscom could be found to give such a presentation? Cheers JIm ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] Cisco parts for sale..
On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 09:27:55 +0100, Peter Baumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > On Thu, 2006-03-02 at 14:27 +0100, Pascal Gloor wrote: > > > I dont see anything to discussion here. We use the list to help each > > other (Swiss ISPs), this may include buying/selling hardware. > > > > > > > > So what are the rules now? > > If the list "knows" someone he can sell stuff, if he's "unknown" he > can't? > > Peter maybe something like... If someone is a member of the swinog mailing list (i.e. a member of the swinog community) then it's ok. Cheers JIm ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
Re: [swinog] THANK YOU!
howdy, mi culpa... from previous swinog the signal was good but shaping made the speed too slow. we said we would raise the shape speed. this event the speed was good (at least quite a few guys told me) but the signal was not so great everywhere in the room (even though we checked it the day before). we took the feedback yesterday onboard about the signal and will install an AP in the room by next meeting. Cheers JIm On Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:03:16 +0200, Fredy Kuenzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote : > Michel Renfer wrote: > >> Except for the lousy WLAN. Down in the big hall it was no problem > >> using it, but up in our room there was almost no signal. Loading up > >> the register website took forever, connections timed out. You would > >> not expect that at a meeting of network experts. Was it too > >> expensive to install a second AP up there? > > > > I already get yesterday feedback from Jim that he would install an > > separate AP in the meeting room for us @ SwiNOG-12 > > I would like to express our gratitude to Jim and all of TheNet for their > continous support of our community, and as already mentioned, TheNet > will improve the WLAN in the meeting room. > > BTW: > http://www.blogg.ch/index.php?/archives/134-SwiNOG-11.html > > F. > ___ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog > > > ___ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
