Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?

2018-04-21 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Apr 21, 2018, at 3:48 PM, Mark Andrews  wrote:
> 
> You have a logic fail.  This fails because it STILL depends on the DNS for 
> the zone working.

If the DNS fails to that extent, everything fails.  I was addressing the single 
application endpoint point-of-failure.  But from a practical standpoint, you're 
probably right :-(

--lyndon

Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?

2018-04-21 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Apr 21, 2018, at 2:47 PM, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
> 
> Actually, a I doubt that there are any "real" people with vanity domains 
> behind this move.  I suspect that it is the scammers and spammers who want to 
> hide their information for very good reason.
> 
> And of course, the "powers of the EU" seem to be in cahoots with those 
> scammers and spammers (if they are not the scammers and spammers who 
> themselves are wanting to hide).

I also think more fine-grained control of the data would satisfy many needs.

E.g., for my own domains, for the purposes of contacting me to deal with abuse 
(or insanely large but unlikely buyout offers), all you need is an email 
contact address.  I can put my personal or company name out there, along with a 
working email address, and still not hand over my home address, phone numbers, 
etc.

For domains backing consumer-facing companies, they would likely want to expose 
more information.  There is no one-size-fits-all here.  And that's where the EU 
is losing credibility.

--lyndon




Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?

2018-04-21 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Apr 21, 2018, at 2:27 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyn...@orthanc.ca> wrote:
> 
>> But backup and failover are reasonably well understood technologies
>> where one cares. Registrars could for example cache copies of those
>> zone records and act as failover whois servers.


Sorry!  I left out the last line that was the point of my diatribe.  Using SRV 
to point to multiple domain-specific whois servers eliminates the caching 
problem Barry raised.

Re: Is WHOIS going to go away?

2018-04-21 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Apr 21, 2018, at 1:58 PM, b...@theworld.com wrote:
> 
> That's actually an excellent point and counterpoint to my suggestion
> to move the WHOIS information into DNS RRs.
> 
> But backup and failover are reasonably well understood technologies
> where one cares. Registrars could for example cache copies of those
> zone records and act as failover whois servers.

Instead of putting the contact info directly into the DNS, put pointers to the 
locations of the data instead. I.e. whois moves off dedicated ports and 
hardwired servers and into zone-controlled SRV records:

_whois._tcp.orthanc.ca SRV 0 0 43 orthanc.ca.
   SRV 5 0 43 backup.otherdomain.example.com.

This gives each zone control of the information they want to export (by 
directing whois(1) to what they consider to be authoritative servers).

The domain owners themselves could control the information they chose to expose 
to the public, through the SRV records, and the information they chose to 
publish in the whois servers those records point at.  If the domain owner is 
happy with their (say) registrar providing that information, they would just 
point the appropriate SRV record at the registrar.  This is no different from 
how people handle email outsourcing via MX records.

The idea that whois is in any way authoritative is long gone.  Those who want 
to hide have been able to do that for ages.  (I think I pay $15/year to mask 
some of the domains I control.)  But for law enforcement, a warrant will always 
turn up the payment information used to register a domain, should the 
constabulary want to find that information out.  And for court proceedings, 
whois data is useless.  (I speak from $WORK experience.)

--lyndon



Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:50 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> 
> Comcast is passing out CPE that provides a subnet for the actual subscriber,
> and another one for *other* Comcast roaming customers.  And somehow this
> works for a company the size of Comcast without the customers needing to know
> how to set them up.

This sounds like the Shaw "Wifi to Go" routers they (Shaw) push out.  Agree to 
make your Shaw internet connection "shared" and they drop in a hotspot that 
provides a 2nd wifi network that subscribers can connect to.  In exchange for a 
discount on your local internet bill.  (Separate subnet.)

Of course, Shaw STILL doesn't do IPv6 ... ;-P

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:26 PM, Brock Tice  wrote:
> 
> Most of our customers only have 2-5 devices. I know this is not the case
> in most of America but we are quite rural and for many people they've
> never had better than 1.5Mbps DSL until we install service at their
> location. Most of them have no idea what a subnet is. Let us say that
> over the next ten years they get quite savvy and decide to isolate their
> wireless clients, some public servers, their IoT devices, and their
> security cameras. We have given them a /52 which contains 4096 /64s. So,
> most likely, they will use one of those for their LAN and be done. In
> case they decide to make several VLANs or whatever they have used 4 /64s
> and they have 4092 left.

And that's where you're missing the IPv6 addressing concept.  You are thinking 
of "devices."  That's not how the v6 address space was planned out.  Future 
address (subnet, really) consumption will be decided by the devices behind the 
CPE, not the number of devices behind the CPE.  That's why there is such a huge 
address space allocation to each end point.  What people do in the privacy of 
their own routing domain is their own business.  As I mentioned in an earlier 
post to the list, think of IPv6 as a /64 address space; ignore the noise to the 
right.

ARIN allots you a /48 for each of your customer end points.  That means, as an 
ISP, you get a /32 right away.  That covers 64K customer end points out of the 
gate.  If you need a larger allocation, you can get that immediately.  So there 
is no need to carve up end point /48s.  And you don't want to.  It just makes 
more work configuring your routers.  Your monitoring software will assume /48 
per CPE, so you'll have to explicitly configure that, etc.  All you are doing 
is making work for yourself.  And messing things up for your customers.

--lyndon



Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:28 PM, Tony Wicks  wrote:
> 
> I think its time you all had a bit of a holiday break and stopped thinking
> of IP networking for a little while, Just saying...

Nah.  This is a useful conversation (and argument) to have.


Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:54 PM, Ricky Beam  wrote:
> 
> Home networks with multiple LANs??? Never going to happen; people don't know 
> how to set them up, and there's little technical need for it.

Again, you are assuming you know how people will use networks forever.  

Stop overthinking things, and just concentrate on just routing the packets.

Your ONLY concern as a network operator is the number of routing table entries 
you need to carry.  The size of my netmask (giggity) is irrelevant. Ship me a 
48, 52, 64, 120, doesn't matter.  It's a single RTE as far as you are 
concerned.  (Again, unless you can't $afford renting the extra address space 
from ARIN.  In which case you don't have a network infrastructure problem ...)

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
Peripherally, it's worth noting that, in far less time then we have not 
migrated from IPv4 to IPv6, the UK moved from 7-digit to 11-digit telephone 
numbers.  If that's not embarrassing ...

--lyndon



Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:11 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
> 
> All I was trying to say is there're going to be things 
> not thought of yet that will chew up address space 
> faster than ever before now that everyone believes it's 
> essentially inexhaustible.  And, I expect, sooner than 
> imagined.

If that's the case, it will be because there were few restrictions placed upon 
that address space.

And if some genius comes up with something that burns through all the IPv6 
address space, you can rest assured the market (and not the IETF) will come up 
with a replacement that extends things beyond 128 bits in a ripping big hurry.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> :: Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out?
> 
> I like that one! :-)

Seriously.  If we run out of networks while handing out /48s, by migrating 
everything to HTTPS we can claw back the 16 bit 'port' field in the IP header 
and reassign it as part of the 140-bit IPv6.1 address space.

Mind you, the FCC will likely auction off those extra 16 bits to Amazon, so 
you'll need a Prime membership to use them.

--lyndon



Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyn...@orthanc.ca> wrote:
> 
> Instead, think about how we can carve up a 2^61 address space (based on the 
> current /3 active global allocation pool) between 2^32 people (Earth's 
> current population)

Of course, I screwed up the numbers (thanks Javier for pointing this out).  
2^32 is closer to 2^33 for population, so adjust the netmasks accordingly.

Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 3:28 PM, Brock Tice  wrote:
> 
> We are currently handing out /52s to customers. Based on a reasonable
> sparse allocation scheme that would account for future growth that
> seemed like the best option.

Could you detail the reasoning behind your allocation scheme?  I.e., what are 
the assumptions you're making about customers deploying hardware? How will they 
need those devices isolated?  What data fed the model you used to come up with 
those numbers?

I ask because I have seen many ISPs advocate for smaller than /48 customer 
allocations, but I haven't seen anyone present the model they used to come up 
with those numbers.  I really am curious to know the assumptions and rationale 
behind the various allocation schemes ISPs are coming up with.

> I can't really see how /52 is too small for a residential customer. I
> know originally it was supposed to be /48 but after doing a bit of
> reading I think many people have admitted there is room for nuance.

What reading?  Can you provide pointers to the documents you were reading?  
Again, I'm curious to understand how and why ISPs are making these decisions.

Also, the fact that you "can't see it" doesn't mean they (or someone else) 
can't or won't.  An ISP's job is to shovel packets around.  No more, no less.

> Do you think I could go to ARIN and say, well, we haven't used hardly
> any of this but based on such-and-such allocation scheme, it would be
> much better if you gave us a /32 instead of a /36?

Hardly used any of what?  Are you talking about density of the customer hosts 
inside each of these /64 subnets?  This is where I think the biggest 
misunderstandings of the IPv6 allocation strategy comes from.

Ask yourself this: do you think the intention was to have 2^64 hosts on a 
single LAN segment?  Can you imagine any practical switch fabric that could 
handle that?  (I'd be curious to know the size of the largest - in the number 
of hosts sense - 10-Gig Ethernet LAN anyone has deployed.)  The number of hosts 
per /64 will always be limited by the associated switch hardware.  This will be 
true until the universe collapses, I suspect.

> Also, does anyone know whether ARIN is using sparse allocation, such
> that if we go back later and ask for more they will just increase the
> size of our allocation starting from the same point?

You could just ask them.  But the policies for ISP allocations (last time I 
read them) makes it pretty straight forward for you to get a block that fits 
your growth needs for the foreseeable future.†

But really, if you are worried about having to advertise, say, eight IPv6 
prefixes to the DFZ for all your allocations, haven't you just argued against 
the fragmented /52 allocations to your downstream customers?

You need to treat IPv6 addresses as being 64 bits long.  Those extra 64 bits on 
the right are just noise – ignore them.  Instead, think about how we can carve 
up a 2^61 address space (based on the current /3 active global allocation pool) 
between 2^32 people (Earth's current population), each having 2^16 devices, 
needing their own network.  That makes for a densely allocated /48 for each 
person on the planet.  (Coincidence?)  But when we get to the point of filling 
up that /3, we still have five more /3s to work with.

Now think about scaling.  If the population doubles, we're now down to four 
spare /3s.  If that doubled population doubles the number of devices, we're 
down to two spare /3s.  If the population doubles again, there will be no 
civilization left, let alone an Internet.  Etc.  So realistically, the current 
address space allocation policies can handle a doubling of the planet's 
population, with each person having a quarter of a million addressable nodes.  
Each node having its own /64 to address individual endpoints within whatever 
that 'node' represents.  Just think, 2^64 port-443 HTTPS servers per "thing."  
Isn't this the utopia we've been seeking out?

I'm pretty confident IPv6 as a protocol (and, really, IP as a networking 
concept) will be dead *long* before we run out of address space.  Not because 
we run out the numbers of bits allocated to hosts, or subnets, or ports; but 
because the current topology of routed networks won't fit with what we want or 
need to do in the future.  (My prediction is that everything will move to adhoc 
meshes, with no control planes at all.  But that's completely out of scope for 
this discussion.)


--lyndon

† https://www.arin.net/resources/ipv6_planning.html states that ISP allocations 
for > /32 block sizes is based on a /48 per customer site allocation policy.




Re: Waste will kill ipv6 too

2017-12-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Dec 28, 2017, at 2:31 PM, Thomas Bellman  wrote:
> 
> My problem with the IPv6 addressing scheme is not the waste of 64 bits
> for the interface identifier, but the lack of bits for the subnet id.
> 16 bits (as you normally get a /48) is not much for a semi-large organi-
> zation, and will force many to have a dense address plan, handing out
> just one or a few subnets at a time, resulting in a patch-work of
> allocations.  24 bits for subnet id would be more usable.

If you need (and can justify) more than a site /48, you can easily get that.  

> 
> Consider e.g. a university or company campus.  There are probably at
> least 16 departments, so I would like to use 8 bits as department id.
> Several departments are likely to have offices on more than one floor,
> or in more than one building, so I would like to let them have 4 bits
> to specify location, and then 8 bits to specify office/workplace within
> each location.  And allow them to hand out 16 subnets per workplace.
> That adds up to 24 bits.  So a /40 would be nice, not a /48.

IPv6 prefixes are not databases.  Coding this sort of thing into your address 
space is silly.  You can (and should) track this info externally.  It's pretty 
simple to do this using easily parsable text files.

If you encode policy into your address space like this, sooner or later you 
will find yourself painted into a corner you can't get out of.  Instead, carve 
up the 16bits of subnet space by allocating network bits from left-to-right.  
This gives you the ability to slice your subnet space into variable-length 
allocations.  When you allocate in the subnet space, do so by bisecting the 
current network prefix.  That gives you room to grow your /64s into something 
larger, while keeping the routing simple.  

This is the same thing we've been doing to carve up IPv4 space for years: 
number hosts right to left, number networks left to right.  For IPv6, just 
s;hosts;/64s;.

--lyndon

Re: Suggestions for a more privacy conscious email provider

2017-12-04 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Dec 4, 2017, at 3:19 AM, Edwin Pers  wrote:
> 
> As an anecdotal aside, approx. 70% of incoming portscanners/rdp bots/ssh 
> bots/etc that hit the firewalls at my sites are coming from AWS.
> I used to send abuse emails but eventually gave up after receiving nothing 
> beyond "well, aws ip's are dynamic/shared so we can't help you"

Last week we found out that Helpscout sends email from AWS servers.

Thank you, Helpscout, for forcing me to lift the AWS blocks on my incoming 
MTAs, that were cutting down my incoming spam scanning load by a factor of two. 
 At least.

Note that I work for an email hosting company, which makes this infinitely more 
annoying.  A factor of two, in this case, is a non-trivial number.

--lyndon



Re: RFC 1918 network range choices

2017-10-05 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 4:52 PM, Steve Feldman  wrote:
> 
> I have a vague recollection of parts of 192.168.0.0/16 being used as default 
> addresses on early Sun systems.  If that's actually true, it might explain 
> that choice.

192.9.200.X rings a bell; but those might have been the example addresses they 
used in the SunOS 3.X documentation.

Re: Hurricane Maria: Dominica partial communications restored

2017-09-20 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Sep 20, 2017, at 6:40 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:
> 
> Some ham radio operators have been verified as operating from Dominica. Its 
> an unfortunate, but necessary thing that needs to be verified during disaster 
> communications.

I'm not clear what you're getting at here.  Are you saying people are faking 
operating from the islands?  That seems unlikely.  Basic RDF is going to tell 
you in short order where they are transmitting from.   And for the smaller 
islands, the local operators are well known in the region, so it seems unlikely 
someone would be able to set up shop in, say, Tennessee and claim to be a new 
ham who just moved to Anguilla last week.

--lyndon



mailops https breakage

2017-06-11 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:46 PM, Matt Palmer  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 01:25:42AM -, John Levine wrote:
>> In article 
>>  you 
>> write:
>>> I was working within the limits of what I had available.
>> 
>> Here's the subscription page for mailop.  It's got about as odd
>> a mix of people as nanog, ranging from people with single user linux
>> machines to people who run some of the largest mail systems in
>> the world, including Gmail:
>> 
>> https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
> 
> I know they're mailops, and not tlsops, but surely presenting a cert that
> didn't expire six months ago isn't beyond the site admin's capabilities?

I tried again, ten months later. Still broken :-(

Is there a replacement site I'm missing out on?

Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble

2017-02-23 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Feb 23, 2017, at 6:10 PM, Ricky Beam  wrote:
> 
> When you can do that in the timespan of weeks or days, get back to me.

Stop thinking in the context of bits of fake news on your phone.  Start 
thinking in the context of trans-national agreements that will soon be signed 
by such keys.

--lyndon

Re: Canada joins the 21st century !

2016-12-23 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
Canada should just have Comcast (or is it "Xfinity"?) provided nation-wide 
Internet service as a for-profit monopoly.


Just as long as we have *someone* to Telus whom to chose.


Re: Legislative proposal sent to my Congressman

2016-10-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Oct 3, 2016, at 6:52 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyn...@orthanc.ca> wrote:
> 
> It's the closed software that is fscking everything up right now.  A little 
> sunshine on the code base will go a long way towards those people not losing 
> their Ferrari's after all.

Or coming from a more legalistic view, if they lock things down that hard, they 
cannot possibly blame anyone else for having "rooted" the gear, therefore no 
passing the buck.  They would have to admit that it was their - and only their 
- code that was responsible for inflicting the damages.

I've been in the tech biz for 30+ years, and have worked for a wide range of 
organizations over that time.  The only common denominator across them all 
(small, large, and everything between - commercial and not) is that rapid 
response high level organizational change ONLY happen when the executives see 
the possibility of an imminent, significant, personal loss.  That might be 
monetary loss, or loss of reputation.  But it must be personally hurtful.  When 
the reaper appears on the horizon, it's amazing how quickly they see the path 
to redemption.


The sooner we all admit this is not a *technical* problem, the sooner we will 
eradicate it.

--lyndon



Re: Legislative proposal sent to my Congressman

2016-10-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Oct 3, 2016, at 6:33 PM, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> 
> If you hold the executives of the hardware manufacturer
> responsible for the software running on their devices,
> then the next generation of hardware from every
> manufacturer is going to be hardware locked to
> ONLY run their software.  No OpenWRT, no Tomato,
> no third party software that could be compromised
> and leave them holding the liability bag.

It's the closed software that is fscking everything up right now.  A little 
sunshine on the code base will go a long way towards those people not losing 
their Ferrari's after all.

Re: Legislative proposal sent to my Congressman

2016-10-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Oct 3, 2016, at 5:39 PM, Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:
> 
> You're not familiar with CPSC mandatory recalls, are you?

I'm not sure how you could make the case that a compromised DVR, e.g., directly 
creates a risk of physical injury to a person.  Without that, I don't see how 
the CPSA would apply.

But even if a mandatory recall was made under some law, how many of those 
devices do you think would be returned/exchanged, realistically.  And what 
percentage of those devices would fall under the jurisdiction of any one 
country's laws?

The only way to stop this sort of thing once and for all is to make it 
punitively costly to the humans at the helm of the corporations selling this 
crap in the first place.  Under corporate law, this almost always means the 
directors.  Only when they start losing their homes/yachts/Jaguars, or start 
spending some quality time in jail, will this problem go away.

Of course, this does require governments to grow some balls :-P

--lyndon



Re: Legislative proposal sent to my Congressman

2016-10-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

This is where device profiles could help.  If enough devices register
profiles with the local router, at some point the router's default
could be closed, so devices with no profile can't talk to the outside.


That would be nice, but a manufacturer who can't be bothered to take even 
the most basic security precautions certainly isn't going to implement 
this, either.


The only cure to this will be changing the law so that the directors of 
the companies that ship massively insecure devices like these are 
personally liable for all the financial loss attributed to their products. 
Bankrupt a few companies' board of directors and you'll start seeing 
things change in a hurry.


--lyndon



Re: Legislative proposal sent to my Congressman

2016-10-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

But that does not remove those devices from the network.


That ship has sailed.


Re: Legislative proposal sent to my Congressman

2016-10-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
In thinking over the last DDos involving IoT devices, I think we don't have a 
good technical solution to the problem.  Cutting off people with defective 
devices they they don't understand, and have little control over, is an 
action that makes sense, but hurts the innocent.  "Hey, Grandma, did you know 
your TV set is hurting the Internet?"


The way this will get solved is for a couple of large ISPs and DDoS 
targets to sue a few of these IoT device manufacturers into oblivion.


--lyndon



Re: Kudos to Rogers Wireless on IPv6 deployment

2016-10-01 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Oct 1, 2016, at 8:37 PM, Hugo Slabbert  wrote:
> 
> So, kudos, Rogers Wireless!

This has also been live on Roger's Fido sub-brand for a while now, too.  
2605:8d80:484:: is live in Vancouver.

--lyndon



Re: Chinese root CA issues rogue/fake certificates

2016-08-31 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Matt Palmer  wrote:
> 
> Thanks, Netscape.  Great ecosystem you built.

Nobody at that time had a clue how this environment was going to scale, let 
alone what the wide-ranging security issues would be.

And where were you back then, not saving us from our erroneous path ...


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


yahoo mta admin help needed

2016-07-01 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
Is there a Yahoo MTA admin listening who can help diagnose what might be a 
network ACL block to one of our SMTP server subnets?

Thanks,

--lyndon



Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

2016-06-06 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> In other words, it's not just Netflix that has this problem...

No, it's Netflix that has the problem.  Audible actually gives a fuck about 
their customers.

Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

2016-06-06 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
> 1. C-band teleport in Singapore with SingTel IPs, remote terminals in
> Afghanistan.
> 
> 2. Ku-band teleport in Germany with IP space in an Intelsat /20, remote
> terminal on the roof of a US government diplomatic facility in
> $DEVELOPING_COUNTRY
> 
> 3. Teleports in Miami with IP space that looks indistinguishable (in terms
> of BGP-adjacency and traceroutes) from any other ISP in the metro Miami
> area, providing services to small TDMA VSAT terminals in west Africa.
> 
> 4. Things in Antarctica that are on the other end of a C-band SCPC pipe
> from a large earth station in southern California.
> 
> 5. Maritime Ku and C-band VSAT services with 2.5 meter size 3-axis tracking
> antennas on top of cruise ships that could be literally anywhere in the
> Mediterranean or Caribbean oceans, with the terrestrial end of the
> connection in Switzerland, Italy, Maryland or Georgia.
> 
> 6. Small pacific island nations that have no submarine fiber connectivity
> and are now using o3b for IP backhaul, or C-band connectivity to teleports
> in Australia.

Yes.  All big Netflix customers.


Re: Netflix VPN detection - actual engineer needed

2016-06-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On Jun 3, 2016, at 4:59 PM, jim deleskie  wrote:
> 
> I don't suspect many folks that are outside of this list would likely have
> any idea how to set up a v6 tunnel.  Those of us on the list, likely have a
> much greater ability to influence v6 adoption or not via day job
> deployments then Netflix supporting v6 tunnels or not.

In western Canada, Telus is on a big push to deploy IPv6.  TekSavvy less so.  
But it's happening.

I cancelled my Netflix subscription last summer.  I needed native IPv6 more 
than I needed Grace and Frankie.

Which isn't to say I didn't want to watch Grace and Frankie more than having 
IPv6 access to machines I need to have access to in order to earn the money I 
need to pay to (not) watch Grace and Frankie ...

--lyndon



Re: NIST NTP servers

2016-05-12 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
[...]  but I would also have doubts over running anything business 
critical on a RP2.


We use them as reverse terminal servers, for dhcp/tftp bootstrapping other 
machines, and soon, NTP.  They are absolutely rock solid.  There's 
something to be said for "no moving parts inside."


--lyndon



Re: NIST NTP servers

2016-05-11 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

> On May 11, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Scott Weeks  wrote:
> 
> Wouldn't the buffers empty in a FIFO manner?

They will empty in whatever order the implementation decides to write them.

But what's more important is the order in which the incoming packets are 
presented to the syslogd process. If you're listening on TCP connections, the 
receive order is very much determined by the strategy the syslogd 
implementation uses to read from FDs with available data.  I.e. elevator scan, 
lowest/highest first, circular queue, ...  In a threaded implementation, your 
reader workers, buffer writers, etc., are all at the mercy of the threading 
implementation; it's difficult to control thread dispatch ordering at that 
level of granularity.

--lyndon



Re: remote serial console (IP to Serial)

2016-03-09 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

I'd get something like a 1U ATOM server ($120 eBay) with small SSD
($18).  Runup your favorite FOSS OS, and conserver.  For more than the
single real serialport, you can most likely fit a USB hub inside
the case still, and hang a number of USB serial dongles off.


We use Raspberry Pi 2s with single- and 8-port USB serial dongles. Works 
like a charm, especially with tmux installed.


--lyndon


MACsec to edge hosts

2015-12-22 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
Are any of you pushing MACsec (802.1AE) out from your switches to the edge 
hosts?  Vs. just running it on the network cross-connect fabric?

We have a scenario where, if we could MACsec encrypt those (switch <-> host) 
links, we could eliminate a lot of application level TLS.  But searching for a 
list of PHYs that support this turned up a very thin set of chips, with most of 
them being several years old now.

Are people even using MACsec in anything other than an "encrypt cross connects 
between the cages" context?  I would be very interested in chatting with anyone 
who has tried pushing this out from their switches to the connected hosts.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Staring Down the Armada Collective

2015-12-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Dec 3, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyn...@orthanc.ca> wrote:

> Are we perhaps, finally, reaching the cusp where everyone has realized that 
> if we all, collectively, tell the rodents to f*** off, they just might?

I should also mention that, despite their bluster, they can't keep it up for 
more than half an hour.

By then, the upstream networks have figured it out and have null routed 
anything of consequence - far upstream.  Meanwhile, back haul your traffic in 
via a private network and they won't be able to do shit to you. (E.g. the 
standard Cloudflare model.)

They are not as smart as they make themselves out to be.  Don't let fear drive 
your decisions.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Staring Down the Armada Collective

2015-12-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:14 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg <lyn...@orthanc.ca> wrote:

> I should also mention that, despite their bluster, they can't keep it up for 
> more than half an hour.

The mailing list has been quiet. All step forward who are scared to say "me 
too" on account of Armada.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Ransom DDoS attack - need help!

2015-12-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

Afaik, the DDoS is "only" a UDP based one (or much of the attack), you should 
be able to mitigate
some to much of the damage caused by filled pipes by blocking incomming UDP 
trafic at your ISP level.


This is the Armada Collective, based on the description.  We just went 
through a round with them. The hardest they were able to hit us peaked at 
a little under 80 Gbits/second. Primarily DNS and NTP amplification 
attacks. They also hit our web servers with a little over 80 million 
requests over a one hour period, and played some games with TCP to try to 
mess with the protocol stacks on the servers and network gear.


Cloudflare took care of the web attacks.  For DDoS, something like 
Incapsula will take care of the layer 3 stuff.  Not cheap, but very 
effective.


--lyndon



Re: Ransom DDoS attack - need help!

2015-12-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Dec 3, 2015, at 5:00 PM, alvin nanog  wrote:

> run tcpdump and/or etherreal to capture the DDoS attacks

 Of course! If we had only thought of this sooner! 

:-)

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Staring Down the Armada Collective

2015-12-03 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
Typically, businesses hide from admitting they've been hit by drive-by attacks 
like Armada is trying to pull off. It has been interesting to see the public 
reaction from the post-Protonmail targets, many of whom are being very visible 
about 1) admitting they have been hit by the attacks, and 2) making it very 
clear the Armada crew can f*** right off as far as collecting ransom is 
concerned. (Also, 3) the amazing support from customers who understand why we 
are working on putting up defences instead of just paying, and therefore put up 
with the inevitable downtime as we reconfigure sometimes large chunks of our 
networks.)

The money asked for was a pittance (around USD$6K) for the attacks I'm 
personally aware of.  The targeted were willing to spend far in excess of that 
to deploy the necessary wall of DDoS protection to keep their services running. 
 If they didn't have it there, already.

What does that say for the business model of the botnet handlers?  They can't 
up their ransom demands, because nobody is paying at the current rates.  And 
they can't lower them, for the same reason.  And if they change their targets 
to sites than might potentially pay a few hundred dollars at best, those sites 
will just shut down anyway.

Are we perhaps, finally, reaching the cusp where everyone has realized that if 
we all, collectively, tell the rodents to f*** off, they just might?

Happy Holidays!

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

2015-07-14 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Jul 14, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Tony Hain alh-i...@tndh.net wrote:

 IPv6 is not the last protocol known to mankind. IF it burns out in 400-500
 years, something will have gone terribly wrong, because newer ideas about
 networking will have been squashed along the way. 64 bits for both hosts and
 routing was over 3 orders of magnitude more than sufficient to meet the
 design goals for the IPv4 replacement, but in the context of the dot-com
 bubble there was a vast outcry from the ops community that it would be
 insufficient for the needs of routing. So the entire 64 bits of the original
 proposal was given to routing, and the IETF spent another year arguing about
 how many bits more to add for hosts. Now, post bubble burst, we are left
 with 32,768x the already more than sufficient number of routing prefixes,
 but IPv4-think conservation believes we still need to be extremely
 conservative about allocations.

If you look at how the IoT model is evolving, the entire host+service (i.e. IP 
address + port number) model is rapidly disintegrating.  Services are the 
end-points now.  They need to be individually addressable, since they really 
have no affinity to physical hardware in the sense we currently think of 
hosts, with IP and MAC addresses.  Host hardware is fungible; services are 
mobile.

The IPv6 address space conservatives are missing the entire point that IPv6, as 
a global addressing scheme, will collapse in the next couple of decades.  
Host+port endpoint identifiers are already done.  We just haven't noticed yet.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

2015-07-14 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Jul 14, 2015, at 6:33 PM, Curtis Maurand cmaur...@xyonet.com wrote:

 Since IPV6 does not have NAT, it's going to be difficult for the layman to 
 understand their firewall.  deployment of ipv4 is pretty simple.  ipv6 on the 
 otherhand is pretty difficult at the network level.  yes, all the clients get 
 everything automatically except for the router/firewall.

Are we *still* doing this argument?!?

  block all
  pass out on $extif keep state

Is it that fucking difficult for people to figure out?  Really?



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: ARIN IPV4 Countdown

2015-07-14 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Jul 14, 2015, at 7:26 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

 But.. But... How does that work without using UPNP? :)

SHOUT LOUDER!


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: another tilt^2 [real numbers]

2015-07-13 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
For a bit of fun, the results after 30 minutes of https://orthanc.ca/figure-1 
being out on the nanog list:

  IPv4:  315
  IPv6:  22

This is strictly GETs on the target page, not tainted by CSS or favicon 
nonsense.

I don't know what this says about the proclivity of Nanog readers to blindly 
click on email URLs.  (But the delineation between web and MUA email client 
user behaviours is ... interesting ...)



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: another tilt at the Verizon FIOS IPv6 windmill

2015-07-13 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
On Jul 13, 2015, at 1:57 PM, Mel Beckman m...@beckman.org wrote:

 David,
 Did you consider running an IPv6 tunnel through HE.net?

Tunnels work, but they really are getting old.  I have run 3ffe:: 6bone, HE 
tunnels, and (currently) aiccu.  They all work very reliably, and I have 
immense gratitude towards the people who commit the time, the hardware, and the 
software, to making that go.  But the bottom line is that 200+ms RTTs to my 
servers over v6 tunnels simply can't compete with 20ms RTTs on native v4.  I 
know my code works over v6, but how can I ever know it works well when I'm 
behind a v6 dialup link?

This past weekend I bit the projectile and decided to flip my service over to 
Teksavvy.  The latter have native v6, claim to offer /48s, and have the 
audacity to charge me $10/month less than Telus.  I'm game.  More importantly, 
after eight years of Telus promising an IPv6 beta, I can tell them to
see https://orthanc.ca/figure-1 :-P

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Thoughts On Cheap Chinese xDSL Testers

2015-06-29 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
I've been poking around looking for an inexpensive xDSL circuit tester to do 
some measurements on my home DSL line, in opposition to the telco. $2K+ is not 
in the budget, so I'm curious about the accuracy of the $300 Chinese units 
kicking around eBay (e.g. the ST332B).  Anyone out there have experience with 
them?  Are they even remotely close to accurate?

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: ARIN just subdivided their last /17, /18, /19, /20, /21 and /22. Down to only /23s and /24s now. : ipv6

2015-06-27 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
On Jun 27, 2015, at 5:35 AM, Rafael Possamai raf...@gav.ufsc.br wrote:

 How long do you think it will take to completely get rid of IPv4? Or is it
 even going to happen at all?

IPX ruled the roost, very popularly, for a little while.  How long did it take 
to die?  Why did it die?  What were the triggers that pushed it over the cliff? 
 I think there's a lot to be learned from that piece of recent history.  
Specifically, as a demonstration of how a most popular protocol can find 
itself ejected from the arena in the blink of an eye.  I knew several people 
who built their career path on the assumptions of IPX.  Ouch.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Residential VSAT experiences?

2015-06-22 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Jun 22, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Scott Weeks sur...@mauigateway.com wrote:

 I do SSH over geostationary satellite links (C-band) all
 the time.  I'd say it's slow, but not excruciating, unless
 you type really fast on the network device's CLI.  :-)

SSH client/server authors would do well to learn the lessons of telnet line 
mode.

As would authors of 'interactive' command line applications.  The NVT concept 
is still useful in this day and age, far beyond the LA36. (I.e., if the termcap 
entry says 'dumb', honour it. There is a damn good reason we are saying 'turn 
off the bling'.)

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: DMARC in education

2015-06-17 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

 What problem do you expect this to solve?  This is a real question,
 since you can be 100% sure that any DMARC policy will wreak havoc on
 any of your users who use mailing lists like this one.

*Any* mailing list.

Please help stamp out this abomination by refusing to capitulate to its insane 
desire to pretend the last three+ decades of email functionality never existed.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

2015-06-11 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Jun 11, 2015, at 9:06 PM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:

 You don't get to just say I'm not going to implement this because I don't
 agree with it, which is what Google is doing in the case of Android.
 
 Actually, you DO get to just say that. Anyone can, but especially
 something as big as Google. And if DHCPv6 turns out to be important
 enough to enough people, Android will lose market share and either fork,
 die or change its mind. It wouldn't be the first mobile platform to
 disappear into the sludge of history.

Sadly, there is another side to this. Witness how the DMARC crew are destroying 
the functionality of email as we have known it for decades. Sometimes the 800 
pound gorillas DO have the ability to fsck things over for everyone.

--lyndon

P.S.  But it is the mindless-sheep-like behaviour that lets them.  So instead I 
should be complaining to the masses who are incapable of thinking for 
themselves?  We know how well *that* works ...


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: eBay is looking for network heavies...

2015-06-10 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:18 AM, goe...@anime.net wrote:

 Indeed, the interview process is a two way street. Lets you evaluate who you 
 would be working for -- or if you really would want to.

I wrote most of a very long follow-up to this. But what it boils down to is:

  +10,000

For all of you sitting across the table, consider that you are being 
interviewed even more intensely than you think you are interviewing us.  (By 
anyone who has been in the game for a while, at least.  Which means the people 
you have short-listed, right?)

Over the past 25 years or so, I can think of a half-dozen offers I've turned 
down because the employer failed the interview.  (Which doesn't make me a 
geeenious ... just someone who values low blood pressure, and prefers an 
interesting work environment over $$$)

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Nobody is looking for serious candidates

2015-06-10 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
On Jun 10, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Stephen Satchell l...@satchell.net wrote:

 After the phone screen, the company called me in for the face-to-face 
 interview.  I put the word interview in quotes because, for 25 minutes, 
 the chief programmer of the place played a video game he wrote.  That was the 
 extent of the interview!

Mmm hmm.  E.g. I spent half+ an hour being grilled on the internals and 
efficiencies of various regular expression library implementations.  '[a-z]' 
vs. '[:islower:]' or something equally irrelevant to the interview at hand, for 
a position creating/managing the kernel - not apps - for an email spam 
filtering appliance.  The second half hour devolved into a rant by the 
interviewer about 'volatile' in whatever was the latest version of the ANSI C 
standard.

You can have a lot of fun, though, by playing the interviewers.  When you 
discover your interest in the company is a noop, steering things into the 
Brazil regime can generate endless entertainment ;-)

In fact, fishing for silliness can produce plenty of results.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Android (lack of) support for DHCPv6

2015-06-10 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
Where is Mr. Protocol?  When we need him most?!



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Feb 28, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Jack Bates jba...@paradoxnetworks.net wrote:

 The question is, if YOU paid for the fiber to be run to their ped, would they 
 hook you up?

No.  But that's because they are using the fibre pedestals to deliver a high 
bandwidth DSL service.  The condo customers still get DSLon copper, but because 
the copper pipe is so short they can crank a hell of a lot of bps over it.  
Enough to deliver HDTV, at whatever compression rate they use to their set top 
boxes.  It's way more then the 5 Mb/s up/down (S)DSL I would be quite happy 
with :-)

--lyndon




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
 It's not about that's all they need, that's all they want, etc.

Whenever any vendor spouts this is what our customers want you know they are 
talking pure bullshit.  The only customers who know what they want are the 
microscopic percentage who know what's actually possible, and we are dismissed 
as cranks.  Even though they keep hiring us to run their networks.

In the spirit of adding real data to the symmetry conversation, let me describe 
why I would prefer symmetric.

Currently I have all-copper DSL running at 3 Mb/s down and about 640 Kb/s up.  
There are days I wish I had 1.5 Mb each way, as there are times when I need to 
push large files out (well in excess of 1 GB each).  Doing that now is 
painfully slow, but I can live with the long transfer times because I'm not 
doing it every day.  Where it is painful is how the clogged pipe breaks other 
things.  The big one is my SIP phone service.  Because the ACKs on the file 
upload come back faster than the data can leave, it's almost impossible to 
avoid queueing delays in my border router, despite it being a real UNIX box vs. 
a cheap appliance NAT router with buffer bloat.  TCP doesn't deal well with the 
asymmetry, so the only way to address this is to drastically reduce the 
sendspace window on my uploading box in order to throttle it back to where 
TCP's flow control works as designed.  So do I hack FTP and ssh on my machines 
to take a command line option to squash the sendspace?  Or worse, do I use the 
existing knobs to turn sendspace down for the entire host?

Neither one is pleasant, and I shouldn't have to implement either.  Having a 
DSL link that allocated bandwidth based on real-time need would solve this for 
me.  But since that's not an option, converting the link I have from ADSL to 
SDSL would solve my problem.  I would gladly trade in a portion of my 
downstream *bandwidth* for a corresponding reduction in my upstream *latency*.

And I suspect a lot of those bullshitting ISPs would find this is what our 
customers want if their customers ever learned that it is this asymmetry that 
underlies many of their perceived performance issues.

Mind you, the truly annoying part of this story (for me) is knowing Telus has 
fibre pedestals not a block away, with enough bandwidth to serve up IPTV to all 
the condos in the neighbourhood.  But I'm in the marina across the street.  
Since there are only a handful of us here with service of any sort, they aren't 
about to come out and reroute us to the fibre pedestal.  So I get to stay on 
the very long and corroded copper circuit back to one of the original downtown 
Vancouver exchanges.  As one of the Telus techs said when he came out to help 
troubleshoot a failing DSL modem: I am amazed it works at all :-)  And he's 
right -- the dB line losses are horrific.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Feb 28, 2015, at 5:24 PM, Stephen Satchell l...@satchell.net wrote:

 (N.B.: we forced long TTLs to reduce the traffic necessary across our
 peering points.  At one point, the cable people said they had one,
 count 'em one, peering link at 44 megabits/s, to serve all cable
 companies [with their own internal network].  I still don't know whether
 to buy that or not, and now it's moot.)

Who was the late-90s ISP that had their geek mouthing off on TV about them 
having multiple T3's to the Internet ???  It was a very well done commercial. 
 I remember having a good laugh at how it parodied both ends of the internet 
pipe of the time.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: symmetric vs. asymmetric [was: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality]

2015-02-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Feb 28, 2015, at 7:17 PM, Barry Shein b...@world.std.com wrote:

 I remember when downloading still images (dial-up days) was considered
 bandwidth hogging and only something very few people did. Of course no
 one did it, it took minutes to download even a rather small image and
 there was little market for image-oriented software (other than porn.)

That was 1992-4ish?  I helped spin up early ISPs back then.  The traffic 
analysis we did at the time showed the porn crowd came out after dark and left 
at sunrise.  And they were facing self-limiting servers that could not keep up 
with the demand anyway, so the 'average' customer base wasn't affected.

This crossed a pair of ISPs each backed by a single T1 trunk to the internet 
and two T1 channel banks for the dialup pool.  Not quite The World but it was 
big time stuff for where we were.




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

2015-02-28 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
 In my part of the world, a well-known service provider runs FTTC and
 then runs VDSL into the home. Ummh...

I live in a 3rd word country.  Oh Canada!



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


protection.outlook.com SMTP support contact needed

2015-02-26 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
I'm running into TLS interoperability problems with some of the SMTP 
servers under the inbound.protection.outlook.com domain.  Are there any 
Outlook postmasters lurking here that could contact me off list to help 
debug this?


Thanks,

--lyndon



Re: Craigslist hacked?

2014-11-23 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Nov 23, 2014, at 7:41 PM, Brian Henson marin...@gmail.com wrote:

 Is anyone else seeing their local craigslist redirected to another site
 other than craigslist? I see it loading http://digitalgangster.com/5um.

*.craigslist.ca and *.craigslist.org have been offline since about 16:40 
Pacific Standard Time from at least three different networks I have access to.  
From the limited poking around I've done it looks like it could be a DNS 
hijacking.

I haven't seen anything about it on the outages list yet ...

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Craigslist hacked?

2014-11-23 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Nov 23, 2014, at 8:51 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

 and what tasty things did the hijacker's web site serve?

Firefox on my Mac started acting very strangely after encountering one of the 
'unresponsive' versions of craigslist.ca.  Apparent browser hangs, javascript 
script timeouts, and odd things related to the browser history.

I restored ~/Library/Application\ Support/Firefox from a Time Machine snapshot 
taken just before the Craigslist hack, and all appears fine now.

I have to diff between the two versions of that directory before I claim the 
website hack had anything to do with it, but for now Mac Firefox users might 
want to be wary ...

(Note: Mac OS 10.9.5 and Firefox 33.1 are what I was running.)

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: cheap laptop with 32G or 64G recommendations

2014-11-10 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Nov 10, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Izaac iz...@setec.org wrote:

 If you're stuck working in a completely isolated environment, then work it 
 into the contract. That's the cost of being on an island.

This is the argument being made against all the citizens who have the temerity 
to live in British Columbia, yet not within the borders of a sanctioned 
municipality.

Izaac, spend a year getting shot at in Surrey, then get back to us.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Urgent

2014-08-18 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Aug 18, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:

 the request message was a forge, see below.  damned shame i did not
 think of it, though.  otoh, i consider the contact requests useful.

You just blew an opportunity to get on every north american late night talk 
show.

Oh ... (sorry)


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

2014-07-14 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Jul 14, 2014, at 5:39 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org wrote:

 I assume that there's a leopard involved there somewhere?

It's noodling around in the disused lavatory with Moaning Myrtle.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Canada and IPv6 ( DNSSEC)

2014-06-23 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Jun 20, 2014, at 6:24 AM, Jacques Latour jacques.lat...@cira.ca wrote:

 Just as an indicator, we have 316 .ca domains with IPv6 glue records :-(

Part of the problem might be that two of the bigger registrars (Webnames and 
easyDNS) *still* can't handle input of IPv6 addresses in their management 
panels - you have to initiate a support request and have them enter the records 
manually.  And neither ca do a zone transfer from an IPv6-only master.

I tried a little experiment a couple of months back.  I set up a new domain, 
IPv6 only - not an A record in sight, including for the name servers.  I then 
tried getting the name servers and glue records registered, first through 
Webnames, then through easyDNS.  Both required manual intervention to set this 
up.

I then tried using their secondary DNS services to add them as additional slave 
servers.  Neither of them is capable of providing secondary DNS to an IPv6-only 
domain.  In both cases, they can only initiate an xfer against an IPv4 master.

Given the current state of affairs with the registrar infrastructure, it 
doesn't surprise me one bit those numbers are so low.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: OpenNTPProject.org

2014-02-16 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Feb 16, 2014, at 7:59 PM, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote:

 Juniper's Junos implementation (which is based on FreeBSD) 
 hasn't been patched
 
 Using firewall filters is the only way to mitigate the 
 vulnerability.

But doesn't the JunOS ntpd read/parse ntpd.conf?  It's worth getting to the 
admin mode shell prompt and taking a poke around /etc.




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: OpenNTPProject.org

2014-02-16 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Feb 16, 2014, at 8:30 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:

 and good luck with figuring out:
  1) when you need to re-do that magic move
  2) making sure that the move is automatable over time

I was suggesting it as an alternative to just chopping off NTP at your border.  
Presumably it would be a one-off thing until Juniper issues a patch.

As for automating it, 'expect' can be a very useful tool in situations like 
this.

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: latest Snowden docs show NSA intercepts all Google and Yahoo DC-to-DC traffic

2013-11-01 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On Nov 1, 2013, at 7:18 PM, Mike Lyon mike.l...@gmail.com wrote:

 So even if Goog or Yahoo encrypt their data between DCs, what stops
 the NSA from decrypting that data? Or would it be done simply to make
 their lives a bit more of a PiTA to get the data they want?

Markhov chain text generators are cheap.  Rather than amping up the crypto, why 
not bury them under heaping piles of steaming bullshit?

After all, it would be the patriotic thing to do.  Not only would you be 
helping employ your fellow network engineers (someone has to increase the size 
of the effluent pipes), you would be boosting manufacturing (disks for storage, 
high-end network gear for capture, mainframes and asics for filtering and 
analysis) and helping the much-maligned coal industry ensure its future 
prospects (that gear isn't built from electron sipping Atom CPUs, you know!).

--lyndon




Re: Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

2013-06-25 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2013-06-25, at 7:58 PM, Sean Donelan s...@donelan.com wrote:

 The memo provides an overview and principles regarding Lawful Intercept(LI) 
 of networks using RFC 1149, A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams 
 on Avian Carriers.  National requirements are not addressed.

Is scooping pigeon shit off my front lawn considered meta-data collection?

--lyndon




Re: Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

2013-06-25 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2013-06-25, at 8:24 PM, Caruso, Anthony acar...@mre-consulting.com wrote:

 Yes, if you can identify the source of the grains, you know origin and flight 
 path prior to your lawn.  NSA approach's is getting the pigeon shit off of 
 everyone's lawn...

Then I am in favour of PRISM.  NSA: come vacuum all the pigeon shit off my 
boat!  Please!!!


Re: Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

2013-06-25 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2013-06-25, at 8:54 PM, Jason Hellenthal jhellent...@dataix.net wrote:

 Anyone got a pentagram packet and a weje board ?

Be careful, when you pull out the chalk to draw a pentaGRAM around your data 
centre, that you don't – accidentally – draw a pentaGONE.


Re: why haven't ethernet connectors changed?

2012-12-20 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2012-12-20, at 12:13 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

 Do these
 things need to have gig-e speeds? Probably not... for a lot even Bluetooth 
 speeds
 are probably fine. But they do want to be really small and really inexpensive.

Then run RS-422 or RS-485 over a single twisted pair.  You don't even need a 
connector – you can solder directly to the PCB.

--lyndon




Re: Detection of Rogue Access Points

2012-10-14 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
 I'm looking for innovative ideas on how to find such a rogue device,
 ideally as soon as it is plugged in to the network.

There was a SIGCOMM paper a few years back that described a scheme based on 
measuring the the ACK delays of TCP sessions. In a nutshell, you can detect 
nodes on the wireless network by looking for the extra delay added by the radio 
link.  It had very good accuracy, and caught new nodes quickly.  It didn't 
require any prior knowledge of the network.

I don't have a copy of the paper at hand, and I don't remember the title/author 
or the publication date (2007ish?), but maybe this will ring a bell for someone 
else on the list who does.

--lyndon




Re: Detection of Rogue Access Points

2012-10-14 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2012-10-14, at 14:56 PM, Matthias Waehlisch wrote:

 do you mean http://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2007/papers/imc122.pdf 
 ?

That's the one!



Re: Asia's Fastest Communications Cable Comes Online

2012-08-24 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2012-08-24, at 10:33 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:

 If you can use 3ms to extract enough money out of the market to pay for a
 cable, that market is *way* too volatile in the first place.

Heh.  Think things are volatile now?  Wait 'til they get it down to 
pico-payment based trading of quantum virtual particles.  Oh, I have to nip 
down to the patent office ...

--lyndon



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail


Re: Dear Linkedin,

2012-06-10 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
It is far preferable for the merchant to request ID and verify that the 
signature matches the ID _AND_ the picture in the ID matches the 
customer.


In the late 1990s I had a Visa card from (I think) Citibank that had my 
picture embossed on the front of the card.  I'm surprised this didn't 
catch on with more card issuers.  I see that Bank of America offers this 
free of charge to their Visa clients, as do some US based credit unions.


That card was never lost or stolen, so I don't know if the photo 
verification would fail as spectacularly as signatures do.


--lyndon



Re: Dear Linkedin,

2012-06-08 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2012-06-08, at 12:48 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

 I'm sorry, my brain doesn't hold that many passwords. Unless you're a savant, 
 neither does
 yours. So what you're telling me and the rest of the world is impossible.

https://agilebits.com/onepassword (1Password) is one solution to managing web 
site passwords.

--lyndon


Re: Dear Linkedin,

2012-06-08 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2012-06-08, at 1:02 PM, Scott Weeks wrote:

 Only if you have an OS you have to pay for: apple or ms.

I don't pay for them.  $WORK pays for them.

If you're complaint is about 1Password not running on your particular operating 
systems, then pick a solution that *does* run on your OS.  There are several 
open source alternatives you can use.


Re: Dear Linkedin,

2012-06-08 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2012-06-08, at 1:22 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

 Does your password safe know how to change the password on each
 website every several months?

Yes.



Password Safes

2012-06-08 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2012-06-08, at 1:41 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:

 I run a website. If it can change it on mine, I'd like to understand
 how it manages to do that.

I log in to your website, change my password, and the software picks up that 
I've changed the password and updates the safe accordingly.  The software 
doesn't initiate the password change, it just notices it and updates its 
database accordingly.  Sorry, I should have explained that more clearly.

If you have a Mac or a Windows box, download the 1Password 30 day trail and 
take it for a run.  It really is a useful bit of software.  No, it doesn't work 
on my *BSD, Solaris, or Plan 9 machines. But it does sync across all my Mac, 
Windows, and Android gear, and the Android client lets me pull up passwords on 
my phone when I'm on one of the systems that doesn't have a native 1Password 
client, or when I am on the road.

--lyndon


Re: Password safes c. (was: Dear Linkedin,)

2012-06-08 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2012-06-08, at 2:07 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

 I'm not trying to be dismissive.  Those are excellent stopgap
 measures.  They're not a solution.

There is no solution.  Security is about risk management, nothing more.

The only way to ensure your personal passwords are never compromised is to kill 
yourself after destroying all physical copies of those passwords.  While 
ultimately secure, you won't be able to do your daily online banking.

--lyndon




cable markers for marine environments

2012-03-08 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
I have a couple of wiring projects coming up on salt water-going vessels and 
I'm curious as to people's experiences with different types of cable marking 
products in a high-humidity / salt air / bilge environment

None of the markers will be directly exposed to the outside elements, but quite 
a bit will be running below decks and will have to put up with the bilge.  
Anyone have any horror stories to share?

My preference is for a direct printing system rather than stock card markers.

--lyndon





Re: cable markers for marine environments

2012-03-08 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

On 2012-03-08, at 2:10 PM, George Herbert wrote:

 Which fuel is present affects the label durability...

Diesel.



Re: AD and enforced password policies

2012-01-02 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

I just went through some calculations for a (government) site that has the
following rules:

[...]

Under the plausible assumption that very many people will start with a string
of digits, continue with a string of lower-case letters to reach seven 
characters,
and then add a period, there are only ~5,000,000,000 choices.  That's not many 
at
all -- but the rules look just fine...


1234;lkj rolls off the fingers quite nicely, don't you think?



Re: Ok; let's have the Does DNAT contribute to Security argument one more time...

2011-11-14 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
There really is no winner or right way on this thread. In IPv4 as a 
security guy we have often implemented NAT as an extra layer of obfuscation.


It's worse than just obfuscation.  The 'security' side effect of NAT can 
typically be implemented by four or five rules in a traditional firewall.


But a NAT implementation adds thousands of lines of code to the path the 
packets take, and any time you introduce complexity you decrease the 
overall security of the system.  And the complexity extends beyond the NAT 
box.  Hacking on IPsec, SIP, and lord knows what else to work around 
address rewriting adds even more opportunities for something to screw up.


If you want security, you have to DEcrease the number of lines of code in 
the switching path, not add to it.


Complexity is evil.  It's a shame this is no longer taught in computing 
courses. And I mean taught as a philosophy, not as a function of line 
count or any other bean-counter metrics.


--lyndon



Re: Vancouver, BC providers

2011-10-25 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
 The last mile for the Level3 is coming on Telus (after a punch to
 the face and gut for build out fee) so I'd like someone else.
 Shaw does not offer service without what I suspect is another
 punch to the face for a build out.  Bell didn't return any of my
 inquiries via email of voice message.

You will pay for buildout no matter who you talk to.

Somebody already mentioned Terago.  I can't vouch for how good
their service or coverage is downtown, but they're definately
worth a call if you can't afford the cost of the fibre pull.

--lyndon




How long is your rack?

2011-08-14 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
I hope someone will explain the operational relevance
of this ...

Sun V100 FreeBSD firewall/border gateway
Sun V100 Plan 9 kernel porting test bed
Sun V100 OpenBSD build/test/port box
Intel 8-core Solaris fileserver and zones host
AMDx4Random OS workstation crash box
Epia-EK  Plan 9 terminal
MacBook xSnow Leopard build/test host
Intel-mumble-ITX Win2K8.2 development host
Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 File server
Supermicro XLS7A Plan 9 CPU/Auth server
Sun V100 Oracle (blech) new-Solaris test/porting box
Sun V100 crashbox for *BSD firewall failover tests
Sun V100 *BSD ham radio stuff, plus Plan9 terminal
 kernal testing.

sound-of-pants-zipping-up




Re: Ham Radio Networking (was Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space)

2011-05-26 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg
Sorry, poorly worded.  What I was wondering is there is an equivalent of 
KA9Q for IPv6.  I believe one of the comments we got back when we were 
trying to reclaim 44/8 was that folks couldn't migrate to IPv6 because 
no software was available...


We've come a little way since NOS.  Linux has native AX25, and it's pretty 
simple to write a KISS adapter for any version of UNIX with a tun driver.




Re: Rogers Canada using 7.0.0.0/8 for internal address space

2011-05-25 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

Does it make sense that ham radio operators have
routable IP address space any longer?


Yes.  Keep your mitts off 44!



Re: Had an idea - looking for a math buff to tell me if it's possible

2011-05-18 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
 no no no.. it's simply, since the OP posited a math solution, md5.
 ship the size of file + hash, compute file on the other side. All
 files can be moved anywhere regardless of the size of the file in a
 single packet.

MD5 compression is lossy in this context.  Given big enough files
you're going to start seeing hash collisions.




Re: Syngenta space

2011-04-13 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

sorry for the noise, but my contact at Syngenta says
they have 147.0.0.0/8 168.0.0.0/8 and 172.0.0.0/8,


Bugger.  Now I have to renumber out of my 172.16/12 subnets :-(



Re: Syngenta space

2011-04-13 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

and pigs fly

Well, sometimes they do.


There underlying problem here is flying sheep:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkw2DdoskPY

Note the accurate summarization of the entire issue.



Re: OT: Question/Netflix issues?

2011-03-22 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
 Guess that move to Amazon EC2 wasn't such a good idea. First reddit,
 now netflix.
 http://techblog.netflix.com/2010/12/four-reasons-we-choose-amazons-cloud-as.html

FWIW, at $DAYJOB we haven't been able to run out a pool of a couple of
dozen EC2 instances for more than two weeks (since last June) without
at least one of them going down.  The same number of hardware servers
we ran ourselves in Peer1 ran for a couple of years with no unplanned
outages.

Amortized over five years, Peer1 colo + hardware is also cheaper than
the equivalent EC2 cost.

Hey everyone! Join the cloud, and stand in the pissing rain.

--lyndon




Re: The scale of streaming video on the Internet.

2010-12-05 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
 Just how much free time do you have?  :)

1 minute to google the capacity of a 747-400F.
1 minute to google the dimensions and weight of an lto-4 cartridge.
1 minute to punch the numbers into bc(1).

--lyndon




Re: Blocking International DNS

2010-12-01 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
 Also, who you will really trust to run it ?

The UUCP network chugged along quite nicely for many years without any
central authority.  (Pathalias and the maps weren't an authority, just
a hint.)

--lyndon




Re: Numbering nameservers and resolvers

2010-08-18 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

because most of the end users who would be querying it are in
Canada, and, with one nameserver in Canada and one in Japan,
they would get a long RTT on DNS queries roughly half the time.


But only, say, once per week if you're running a reasonable TTL on your 
zone.




Re: What is The Internet TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?

2010-04-04 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

File transfer wasn't multihop


It was, for at least some versions (V2 and later?), if the intermediate 
site(s) allowed execution of the uucp command. 25 years on the brain is 
fuzzy on the details ...


--lyndon



Re: What is The Internet TCP/IP or UNIX-to-UNIX ?

2010-04-04 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg

You could certainly add uux and uux to the list of legal remote commands, but I 
confess that my memory is also dim about whether

uucp file a!b!c

would be translated automatically.  It has indeed been a while...


I'm pretty sure it was adding 'uucp' in the commands list that enabled the 
behaviour. HDB might have used a different config file syntax for turning 
this on. I would have to dig out the source code to remember the details. 
The command syntax you show above worked -- UUCP handled the re-queueing 
internally.



--lyndon



Re: Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee

2010-02-22 Thread Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
s...@cs.columbia.edu:
 I am seriously suggesting that a redirect mechanism -- perhaps the email 
 equivalent of HTPP's 301/302 -- would be worth considering.

We already have SMTP's 221 and 521 response codes for this. But because the
response text is free-form there's no way to reliably parse out the new address.

Fixing this is a bit tricky since the SMTP grammar defines Reply-line in
a way that makes it difficult to return the sort of structed response you
would need.

--lyndon




  1   2   >