On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Sean Donelan wrote:
In the last few hours, all the public Internet hosts I knew were
physically in Iraq (i.e. connected through the Iraqi state provider),
have stopped responding. I don't know the cause (power failure,
telecom failure, physical damage, shutdown by
Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it.
This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights
from existing technology so that the ISP can bill appropriately
according to what service is being used. This does not mean that every
ISP
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Tony Rall wrote:
No, it is not theft of service. It doesn't cost an ISP more for me to
have 20 machines than it does if I have just 1. Nor does it cost them if
I use NAT.
What might cost them more is if I use more bandwidth or use additional IP
addresses (for which
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Simon Lyall wrote:
Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the power
users without scaring the mom and pop customers with bandwidth and
download quotas.
Hardly. Banning NAT doesn't filter out anyone. There are plenty of power
users without NAT.
| If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only
| uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50%
| or 100% of it to really spoil your economics.
Turn this assumption a part of the service: place a monthly transfer limit
of some gigabytes.
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Simon Lyall wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Tony Rall wrote:
No, it is not theft of service. It doesn't cost an ISP more for me to
have 20 machines than it does if I have just 1. Nor does it cost them if
I use NAT.
What might cost them more is if I use more
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices
where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices.
Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where prohibited
necessarily
Mike Lyon wrote:
Ahh! But you see it ain't all you can eat or rather, use as much
bandwidth as you want as we don't throttle you at all. I recently signed
up for Comcast and had it installed. I get some really nice download
speeds, would be surprised if the download has a cap on it. However,
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Uhm, I don't think you can blame the legislators for this one. Almost
identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect
an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation.
It is
Can't NAT-like devices be just as viable as a security device as well?
Is the ISP willing to take responsiblity for security breaches on my home
network because they banned my firewall? From a
political/public-perception standpoint, treat those ISPs that are
complaining about NAT as being soft
And to use NAT to circumvent this should be illegal. It is theft of
service. The ISP has the right to setup a business model
and sell as it
wishes. Technology has allowed ways to bypass or steal
extra service.
This law now protects the ISP. There will be some ISPs that
continue
Jamie Lawrence wrote:
There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the
notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the
public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged
with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices
where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices.
Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where prohibited
Larry J. Blunk wrote:
I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is
prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for
termination of service. However, going beyond termination of
service and making this an illegal act under law (possibly
punishable by a felony
[snip]
You can be assured that what ever references to trick or acrobatic flying
will be challenged by the AOPA (aopa.org) . Those rules/laws are the
domain of the FAA.
Sounds like too long of a winter and it froze their brains.
M
This was passed in a lame duck session (December 11, 2002)
Larry J. Blunk wrote:
I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is
prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for
termination of service. However, going beyond termination of
service and making this an illegal act under law (possibly
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:55:44AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
If it takes a few months for the ISP to cut you off for not paying your
bill, that is their own fault. Concerning someone going to jail for
running NAT in breach of TOS, I find it supportable. There is precedence
set with
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the power
users without scaring the mom and pop customers with bandwidth and
download quotas.
Problem solved -- all my local machines are not on a NAT block,
but {say}
todd glassey wrote:
Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several
splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal
Issues with operating network services, and since there are
jail terms being talked about I suggest that these are now
sub-organizations who's time as come.
I completely
Jamie Lawrence wrote:
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, if you think those where good
laws.
I don't necessarily think they are good laws. What it comes down to is
this. A person will do whatever they think they can get away with if the
punishment is only losing their service. I personally
If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only
uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50%
or 100% of it to really spoil your economics
Personal Telco has some interesting opinions on this:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Lambert) [Sun 30 Mar 2003, 20:19 CEST]:
http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/StealingBandwidth?action=highlightva
lue=CategoryPhilosophy
(quoting)
Traditional broadband providers cry foul when users take their cable modem
or DSL connections and beam them to
That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real
issue though and its important to the global operations of
the bigger picture Internet -
besides this is ***the*** golden opportunity for you ISP's
to hit your customers for more money since you now have
serious legal issues constraining
Hello,
Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know.
I can host such a list.
- Jared
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote:
That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real
issue though and its important
Hi guys,
Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
--
Rafi
## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed:
JM
JM
JM Hello,
JM
JM Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know.
JM
JM I can host such a list.
JM
JM - Jared
JM
JM On Sun, Mar
Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However,
there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system,
and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of
legal issues may
I agree...Partially
Legal issues are important, but those below a
management level, mostly don't care..
I would not necessarily want another list to watch..
But, it sometimes get's overly consuming to look at topics I care less about...
anyway, that's my 10 cents worth.. Inflation ya know..
On Sunday, 2003-03-30 at 09:07 CST, Jack Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Please see Saphire worm. Then tell me that an ISP doesn't oversell
services. The fact is, the entire Internet is oversold. If everyone did
their full capacity, it would crash. DSL is also based on this
assumption.
In a message written on Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:22:11PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it.
This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights
from existing technology so that the ISP can bill appropriately
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it.= 20
This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights=
Shades of You MUST rent your telephones from Ma; FOREIGN EQUIPMENT
may damage the
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has
shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the way
to scare people into doing what is right to begin with.
Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavier
Dan Hollis wrote:
Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavier prison term than a
guy who beats his wife?
And like wife beating, I'm sure that people will still break the ISP's TOS.
-Jack
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Avleen Vig wrote:
I can't see why you have a problem sending someone to jail for commiting
a crime.
The punishment does not fit the crime. The punishment here is more severe
than a lot of violent crimes.
Unless of course you feel that stealing service via NAT is a truly
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:13:24 -0800 (PST) Dan Hollis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has
shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the
way to scare people into doing what
JM Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:34:28 -0500
JM From: McBurnett, Jim
JM NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the
JM ignorant.. Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or
JM Staples and get's a Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds
JM NAT, and walla, his computer is no
maybe I should have said Stateful inspection..
IE inspection of SMTP whereas it limits the commands
that are allowed and makes protocol adjustments.
thanks,
J
-Original Message-
From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not for or against either..
just putting thoughts out there..
NANOG-Legal would be a good thing for the legal eagles,
and a more consuming one for those of us already on numerous lists..
all in all, NANOG as a whole single list usually inspires more
information sharing when taken whole,
JM Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:18:42 -0500
JM From: McBurnett, Jim
JM maybe I should have said Stateful inspection..
JM IE inspection of SMTP whereas it limits the commands
JM that are allowed and makes protocol adjustments.
That would be a protocol-level proxy, and is orthogonal to state.
:-)
--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
An entity claiming to be McBurnett, Jim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:=20
: I am not for or against either..
: just putting thoughts out there..
: NANOG-Legal
I am not sure I am following the argument here.
as far as I can make out
1. Many (all!) providers underprovision (aka oversell) their bandwidth,
expecting peak utilisations to be approximately the provisioned amount
because experience has shown that actual usage is only a percentage of
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Dave Howe wrote:
it is the hop from 4 to 5 I am having trouble with
Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect sense.
-Dan
--
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]
Dan Hollis wrote:
Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect sense.
It's either that or start charging the customer's what it really costs.
They've been so happy to get away from that. Large networks have cut
their rates based on oversell so that mid-sized networks
Jack Bates wrote:
William Allen Simpson wrote:
It outlaws all encryption, and all remailers.
I'm missing where it outlaws these? In fact, it outlaws others (say your
ISP) from decryping your encrypted data.
That is not correct.
I'm very sensitive to these issues. As those of you
Well, if it is that big.. no IPSEC.. then I suspect Cisco, Checkpoint, and others
to stand up ASAP..
This is no right As I see it a growing percentage of companies are
moving to IPSEC VPNs and leaving dedicated ckts behind..
I can't believe that legislators would be so un-informed, and
- Original Message -
From: William Allen Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 am
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
telecommunications service.
[no encryption, no steganography, no
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
I disagree with the method, but who am I to say someone else's business
plan is faulty and they shouldn't be allowed to enforce it?
Enforcing your business plan yourself or having uncle same enforce it for
you are two different things. Apparently you
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, William Allen Simpson wrote:
As Larry Blunk points out, to possess an encryption device is a felony!
The law as written would seem to make microsoft windows nt/2k/xp/etc
illegal to possess. Perhaps someone can print up a bunch of stickers
Under 750.540c enacted 03/31/2003
Rafi
I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe
not all at once.
The groups would be the NANOG Network Operations WG and
they would create and debate the issues of network operator
BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of
documents regarding the operations of
You are two days to early.
K
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:
Rafi
I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe
not all at once.
The groups would be the NANOG Network Operations WG and
they would create and debate the issues of network operator
BCP's. I would
Title: Wierd...
Okay,
Here is a wierd one...
69.6.32.100 - allocated by Arin accessed through Hong Kong.
H... Global Crossing? do you have a routing issue?
Anyway,
Later,
J
03/30/03 22:14:24 Fast traceroute 69.6.32.100
Trace 69.6.32.100 ...
1 10.129.32.1 40ms 50ms 30ms TTL: 0
William Allen Simpson wrote:
...snip...snip...
(a) Telecommunications and telecommunications service mean any
service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate
the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or
reception of signs, data, images, signals,
Jack Bates wrote:
Dan Hollis wrote:
Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect
sense.
It's either that or start charging the customer's what it really costs.
They've been so happy to get away from that. Large networks have cut
their rates based on oversell so that
Can someone in charge of Internic fix their whois search page to no longer
reference TLDs they don't handle (page last updated Oct 2001):
http://www.internic.net/whois.html
Whois Search
Whois (.aero, .arpa, .biz, .com, .coop, .edu, .info, .int, .museum, .net,
and .org):
Thanks,
Hank
53 matches
Mail list logo
