But apparently he has not read serious cryptography texts. This stuff he presents is seriously flawed and devoid of any practical applicability. Others have already pointed out many of the theoretical flaws, so I'll add a practical one: except for very special cases nobody uses copper wires any more for a phone call from source to destination. Copper only makes up what they traditionally call the "last mile", and that mile si rapidly shrinking these days.
Also there are numerous active network elements involved in any phonme call. Serious cryptography has to be end-to-end - which is impossible this way.
The central symbol, if any, is the cross. The central figure is God, or Jesus. St Mary is just there. She's important, no doubt, but in her roles as example of faith and in her relation to Jesus.
Yep. Running a decent Usenet Server without binary groups is a breeze - even for a large ISP. Bandwidth and processing power requirements are quite moderate.
We do that - the only real cost is the part of the work time of a reaosnable qualified Usenet admin to run that. And with a commercial package like dnews, even that is not that huge.
Get a blog loser and don't bore the rest of us with your childish rant about how you're not allowed to break the rules
Ahh, the irony.
For what it's worth, the guy has a blog. It's name is Slashdot, and you just posted to it.
Oh, and, to stay in tune with your tone and quality of argument, if you stupid fucker hadn't an IQ somewhere between a dim lightbulb and two slices of white bread, you'd already noticed that.
Besides the huge amount of fully routable IP addresses IPv6 will open up, what are the benefits to the average end-user? I mean, will anyone accessing a 4 Mb cable connection through NAT really notice any difference by upgrading? Even large corporations, who also use private IP address space, (as far as I know) don't need fully routable addresses for every machine.
Uh, folks, seriously, puhlease, read the f** article.
The question is not "will I get a bazillion IPv6 addresses for my 12 fridges" ?. The *real* question is, will I get an IP address for my own use at all ? The article and the included round table discussion mention a few scenarios what happens when addresses run out. The most likely is that their price will go up, substantially. Which mean the cheap end user gets the short end. Substantially short, that is.
So, in the future, you might have to share your IP with, say, 5000 other customers of your ISP who also happen to be connected to the same broadband access router. Or, you might get then again NATted to about 10 or so outbound addresses your ISP has allocated to residential customer use, in a second or third NAT stage. And so on. (Multi stage NAT is expressedly mentioned in the article).
Hosting with your own IP ? Pay up 10kbucks a month up front alone.
P2P ? Forget it - at that point you will have stopped beeing a peer in any meaningful sense of the word - you are a phone device, and the ISP controls 100 percent of every service that is possible over your connection.
Peer to peer Gaming ? (Like Counterstrike, Battlefield etc)? Forget it, you can connect to the (then) usual handfull of game service plattforms, who have to relay all your traffic. That will of course be expensive.
"Um, Sir, right for your needs we have this excellent high value gaming plan, which allows you to connect to all 12 gaming services we have partnered with, and which will cost only 22,95 a month on top of your current IP plan. We also offer a combination plan where you get basic Gamespy platform services included, for a bargain of combined $39,95 - you save 21,95 compared to the two single plans. And for our dedicated gaming customers, we offer a Gamespy Gold account plus a Valve Steam subscription at utterly cheap $79,95/m (actual games might incur additional costs)".
Welcome to the new world, chap.
To put it short, we need IPv6 to keep the internet working the way it does now.
Nope, that doesn't confirm anything. That just shows (showed - they have resumed peering now) lack of connectivity. That doesn't say anything about underlying causes.
I specifically addressed the rumour of blackholing - i.e. Supression of Traffic by active and wilful false routing ("driving traffic into a black hole"). I continue to assume - as most experts have mentioned - that by cutting the peering Level3 lost the only advertized route to Cogent and the ASes that are only reachable via cogent.
They obviously speculated/hoped Cogent would pay someone else who already peers with L3 for transit, thereby advertizing their routes, too. This would have harnmed Cogent while not harming Level3, which probably was their objective in the first place, anyway.
New announced cutoff day is November 9th, now, btw. We can stay tuned:-)
Kidding aside: For those of you who don't quite gather the scope of this: Georgetown University and (as mentioned by the article cited above) The Museum of Fine Art in Boston are just two example of organizations *heavily* affected by this. Oh, and there's no resolution on the horizon, either.
For those of you that haven't already done so, you might consider a trip to your local Attorneys General web site to file a formal complaint.
But there is a perfectly viable and simple solution:
"Dear ISP,
as you might know we are your Customer, Contract Number .
According to our contract you are to provide internet connectivity to us for a monthly fee of . Unfortunatley you failed to do some since Wednesday Morning this week. I assume this is because you yourself are a Level3 customer, and Level 3 can't deliver that type if service any more.
Please correct this situation within the next 12 houzrs. Internet access is essential for your business and you are already at the borderline of your SLA. Personally I'd suggest you buy additional upstream from someone else than Level 3 (Cogent might seem a good Choce, sinmce they currently offer it for free to you) but of course the decision is yours, wahtever gets the job done.
Please be advised, though, that we definitely expect you to restore service no later than 12 hours after you have been served this notice. Failing to to so will force us to sue you for breach of contract in court, and since you elect not to restore our service despite of beeing able to do so and despite of us having fulfilled our part of the contract, we consider you acting in bad faith and consider the damage disclaimers in our contract void.
We look forward to your cooperation in this matter.
The blackholing thing seems to be an unsubstantiated rumuor - I've yet to see any postive confirmation from a credible source (i.e. not some guy on./ ).
From what I can see L3 simply has no Cogent routes because nobody advertizes them to L3, and L3 refuses to pay someone for that. Same with Cogent. There is no middle Ground ind this conflict - with peering they were already on middle ground. Now L3 essentially demands payment to route Cogents Traffic while it expects the same traffic to pass Cogents Network for free.
The traffic imbalance shit is just baloney - if there is much more traffic coming from Cogent that means L3's customers have requestet that traffic. There is no "sender pays" principle in the internet, and on packet level this would be utterly ridculous anyway.
It all comes down to the old mafia principle - I am stronger than you, so you pay me money.
Nobody expects you to be a fucking genius or know everything. But why are some folks constantly touting stupid nonsense instead of keeping their mouths shut and learning something ?
that bulldozer relies on paying customers. Those exepct a certain service, which includes connectivity to Cogent. Once the lawsuzits start, L3 will look fucking bad, while Cogent can claim having done all it could as a tier1. (Remmeber: the very definition of a tier1 is that they don't pay anyone for Upstream).
Bill, with all due respect, "stealing their business customers" is another word for competition. ISPs should be able to peer despite of competing in the marketplace - after all Cogent takes L3's packets as free as L3 takes Cogent's in a peering situation. And it has been widely argued that L3 has subnstantially less content in its realsm, so this is even a larger advantage for L3 thatn for Cogent.
What you describe here is anticompetitive behaviour, is certainly wrong, and possibley even illegal.
You utter stupid rubbish and have no clue yourself.
You confuse peering and transit. Cogent sending their L3 traffc via, say Verizon, would violate their peering agreement with Verizon. They would have to pay Verizon for transit/upstream. OTOH, in their case, L3 would not have to pay anything since they still peer with Verizon, and since now Cogent pays Verizon as upstream, Cogent would now be considered part of Verizons network for peering purposes with L3.
So, if Cogent blinks first, they would be forced to leave tier1 and raise their own traffic cost by paying for upstream, while L3 would'nt pay anything.
Right now L3 cutting the peering in fact does stop all traffic between their two network clouds, until one of them starts shelling out the money to get traffic flowing again.
Unfortunatley, hardly anybody buys these expensive services from them. Rather people go for a few thenth of a cent per Gig to the likes of simple L3 or Cogent resellers.
Numerous people reported exactly those outages you claim to be non-existant.
You might think a little about your l33t BGP knowledge. Two tier 1 ISPs not routing to each other means what ?
Yep, you guessed it, each of their end-customers who doesn't go through a multi homed ISP at some lower level will experience some amount of outage, will not be reachable by some, and will not reach others.
On a more supeficial level, if L3 is successful in this endeacvour they have established a proceeding how to kick someone out of the favoured Tier1 brotherhood. Once this wortkd, expect more to follow, even Group kick-outs and Kickout-wars.
We all will suffer
In the end, someone will regulate.
We all will suffer more.
L3 has - a peering policy - contracts with their upostream/transit customers
They should start to honour both. Right now they honour neither.
Of course, all this emphasizes a point my peering colleagues here have been making for years: Don't rely on L3, they are unreliable. You can buy them as an additional upstream,. but never solely rely on them. They habitually put their own pocket over the wellbeing of their cusomers, which is, in the long run, a dangrous proposition.
Oh, and don't quote JMK on that - in internet time he is just wrong.
It is Level 3's view that IP transit is the rule and that settlement free interconnection or "peering" should be the exception when backbones interconnect.
That is absurdly dishonest. Their reality is exactly the other way round - level 3 is tier1, and by definition they pay excatly nothing for transit. Either someone is their customer or they reach him by peering with another tier1.
They are trying to force Cogent into a customer role. Why doesn't have L3 to pay for peering with cogent ?
The biggest problem between Cognent and L3 right now, is the Cognent is leaving old routes up that say they can still route to L3, when they can't.
Why are you saying this, without a shred of eveidence that it is true ? Doing this would harm Cogent's multi homed customers as well, and thy would be seriously pissed. I seraioulsy doubt they do that, and except your post, haven't read anything claiming such.
The problem is L3 stopping that connection, nothing else. L3 has a legal obligation to connect its upstream customers to Cogent networks, and they just don't do that, even though they could.
Well, if they purchased from L3, they are now fucked, since L3 apparently decid3ed not to hnour its upstream contacts any more. If you bought upstream from L3, you are entitled in them routing you to Cogent space. They just don't do that any more.
Cogent, beeing tier 1 can not get L3 traffic via transit, since the probably don't have any transit/upstream contract, and they, not L3, would have to pay for L3's traffic.
L3 is trying to kick Cogent out of Tier 1. Others have claimed the reason beeing Cogent's competitive pricing. If so that would behighly unethical.
Because, of course this applies to L3 customers identically - they can't communicate with each other. Only you define L3's realm as "significant part of the internet" while Cogent is just another ISP in your eyes. Whatever you say has to be equally applied to both.
I fail to understand why Cogent has to pay L3 for traffic they send to their Network and not the other way round.
Mad or not, that is exactly the scenario that happened here.
Cogent and Level3 ar both tier1 ISPs. That means they do not have any upstream in place, beacuse they are part of the group that is upstream of last resort.
Whoever switched this peering off is trying to break tier 1, or, more likely both are now speculating that the other one blinks and relegates himself out of tier 1 by bying upstream from one of the other tier1s that still have universal connectivity.
This is a very bad and dangerous process in my mind. This could end by the other tier-1s taking sides, effectively fracturing tier1 (and thus, the internet) in two halves.
Or it could end with most or all of them mobbing one of them out of tier1, which is very bad in itself as well.
Or it could prompt regulation - which is not that desirable, too, and will likely increase bandwidth cost for all of us.
Tie 1 is a concept that works reasonably well. Breaking it without very good reasons and a well communicated plan of action is highly irresponsible.
Re:This sort of thing...
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
leaving a lack of copyright that may be just as dangerous as the current overbearing copyright.
I disagree. Erasing Copyright completeley from the books is maybe the only thing that could bring those gangsters tho their knees.
Once the content industry understands - and that means realizes deep down in their heart as true - that we the people are perfectly willing to remove them from the face of the earth and bury them all if they continue their current behaviour - only then can they be persuaded to play nicely and socially acceptable in the future.
Thats basically it. The game is petting played anyway. Just be better in it. And keep the greater objectives in focus.
Where I work we have a saying that things happen not because of processes, but despite of them. Getting things done means having and using a network, having contacts, getting and disseminating information.
Slashdot Mirror
But apparently he has not read serious cryptography texts. This stuff he presents is seriously flawed and devoid of any practical applicability. Others have already pointed out many of the theoretical flaws, so I'll add a practical one: except for very special cases nobody uses copper wires any more for a phone call from source to destination. Copper only makes up what they traditionally call the "last mile", and that mile si rapidly shrinking these days.
Also there are numerous active network elements involved in any phonme call. Serious cryptography has to be end-to-end - which is impossible this way.
Nonsense. She's neither.
The central symbol, if any, is the cross. The central figure is God, or Jesus.
St Mary is just there. She's important, no doubt, but in her roles as example of faith and in her relation to Jesus.
Get your facts right.
Yep. Running a decent Usenet Server without binary groups is a breeze - even for a large ISP.
Bandwidth and processing power requirements are quite moderate.
We do that - the only real cost is the part of the work time of a reaosnable qualified Usenet admin to run that. And with a commercial package like dnews, even that is not that huge.
For what it's worth, the guy has a blog. It's name is Slashdot, and you just posted to it.
Oh, and, to stay in tune with your tone and quality of argument, if you stupid fucker hadn't an IQ somewhere between a dim lightbulb and two slices of white bread, you'd already noticed that.
The question is not "will I get a bazillion IPv6 addresses for my 12 fridges" ?. The *real* question is, will I get an IP address for my own use at all ? The article and the included round table discussion mention a few scenarios what happens when addresses run out. The most likely is that their price will go up, substantially. Which mean the cheap end user gets the short end. Substantially short, that is.
So, in the future, you might have to share your IP with, say, 5000 other customers of your ISP who also happen to be connected to the same broadband access router. Or, you might get then again NATted to about 10 or so outbound addresses your ISP has allocated to residential customer use, in a second or third NAT stage. And so on. (Multi stage NAT is expressedly mentioned in the article).
Hosting with your own IP ? Pay up 10kbucks a month up front alone.
P2P ? Forget it - at that point you will have stopped beeing a peer in any meaningful sense of the word - you are a phone device, and the ISP controls 100 percent of every service that is possible over your connection.
Peer to peer Gaming ? (Like Counterstrike, Battlefield etc)? Forget it, you can connect to the (then) usual handfull of game service plattforms, who have to relay all your traffic. That will of course be expensive.
"Um, Sir, right for your needs we have this excellent high value gaming plan, which allows you to connect to all 12 gaming services we have partnered with, and which will cost only 22,95 a month on top of your current IP plan. We also offer a combination plan where you get basic Gamespy platform services included, for a bargain of combined $39,95 - you save 21,95 compared to the two single plans. And for our dedicated gaming customers, we offer a Gamespy Gold account plus a Valve Steam subscription at utterly cheap $79,95/m (actual games might incur additional costs)".
Welcome to the new world, chap.
To put it short, we need IPv6 to keep the internet working the way it does now.
Nope, that doesn't confirm anything. That just shows (showed - they have resumed peering now) lack of connectivity. That doesn't say anything about underlying causes.
:-)
I specifically addressed the rumour of blackholing - i.e. Supression of Traffic by active and wilful false routing ("driving traffic into a black hole"). I continue to assume - as most experts have mentioned - that by cutting the peering Level3 lost the only advertized route to Cogent and the ASes that are only reachable via cogent.
They obviously speculated/hoped Cogent would pay someone else who already peers with L3 for transit, thereby advertizing their routes, too. This would have harnmed Cogent while not harming Level3, which probably was their objective in the first place, anyway.
New announced cutoff day is November 9th, now, btw. We can stay tuned
But there is a perfectly viable and simple solution:
"Dear ISP,
as you might know we are your Customer, Contract Number .
According to our contract you are to provide internet connectivity to us for a monthly fee of . Unfortunatley you failed to do some since Wednesday Morning this week. I assume this is because you yourself are a Level3 customer, and Level 3 can't deliver that type if service any more.
Please correct this situation within the next 12 houzrs. Internet access is essential for your business and you are already at the borderline of your SLA. Personally I'd suggest you buy additional upstream from someone else than Level 3 (Cogent might seem a good Choce, sinmce they currently offer it for free to you) but of course the decision is yours, wahtever gets the job done.
Please be advised, though, that we definitely expect you to restore service no later than 12 hours after you have been served this notice. Failing to to so will force us to sue you for breach of contract in court, and since you elect not to restore our service despite of beeing able to do so and despite of us having fulfilled our part of the contract, we consider you acting in bad faith and consider the damage disclaimers in our contract void.
We look forward to your cooperation in this matter.
Joe. Q. Customert, Inc."
The blackholing thing seems to be an unsubstantiated rumuor - I've yet to see any postive confirmation from a credible source (i.e. not some guy on ./ ).
From what I can see L3 simply has no Cogent routes because nobody advertizes them to L3, and L3 refuses to pay someone for that. Same with Cogent. There is no middle Ground ind this conflict - with peering they were already on middle ground. Now L3 essentially demands payment to route Cogents Traffic while it expects the same traffic to pass Cogents Network for free.
The traffic imbalance shit is just baloney - if there is much more traffic coming from Cogent that means L3's customers have requestet that traffic. There is no "sender pays" principle in the internet, and on packet level this would be utterly ridculous anyway.
It all comes down to the old mafia principle - I am stronger than you, so you pay me money.
*Sigh*. Why do you spew nonsense if you actually have not even found out how a clue looks like, not to mention ever aquired one ?
So you claim there are no Internet Exchange Points ?
pray tell, what is this thing ? Or that one, not to mention the middle one.
Oh, and what do you think those Guys do for a living ?
Nobody expects you to be a fucking genius or know everything. But why are some folks constantly touting stupid nonsense instead of keeping their mouths shut and learning something ?
Are you trying to tell us that you are too snobbish to peer with yourself ?? Heck, that's hefty, even for a FreeBSD user.
that bulldozer relies on paying customers. Those exepct a certain service, which includes connectivity to Cogent. Once the lawsuzits start, L3 will look fucking bad, while Cogent can claim having done all it could as a tier1. (Remmeber: the very definition of a tier1 is that they don't pay anyone for Upstream).
Bill, with all due respect, "stealing their business customers" is another word for competition. ISPs should be able to peer despite of competing in the marketplace - after all Cogent takes L3's packets as free as L3 takes Cogent's in a peering situation. And it has been widely argued that L3 has subnstantially less content in its realsm, so this is even a larger advantage for L3 thatn for Cogent.
What you describe here is anticompetitive behaviour, is certainly wrong, and possibley even illegal.
You utter stupid rubbish and have no clue yourself.
You confuse peering and transit. Cogent sending their L3 traffc via, say Verizon, would violate their peering agreement with Verizon. They would have to pay Verizon for transit/upstream. OTOH, in their case, L3 would not have to pay anything since they still peer with Verizon, and since now Cogent pays Verizon as upstream, Cogent would now be considered part of Verizons network for peering purposes with L3.
So, if Cogent blinks first, they would be forced to leave tier1 and raise their own traffic cost by paying for upstream, while L3 would'nt pay anything.
Right now L3 cutting the peering in fact does stop all traffic between their two network clouds, until one of them starts shelling out the money to get traffic flowing again.
Those companbies are already there.
They are called "ISPs"
Unfortunatley, hardly anybody buys these expensive services from them. Rather people go for a few thenth of a cent per Gig to the likes of simple L3 or Cogent resellers.
Numerous people reported exactly those outages you claim to be non-existant.
You might think a little about your l33t BGP knowledge. Two tier 1 ISPs not routing to each other means what ?
Yep, you guessed it, each of their end-customers who doesn't go through a multi homed ISP at some lower level will experience some amount of outage, will not be reachable by some, and will not reach others.
On a more supeficial level, if L3 is successful in this endeacvour they have established a proceeding how to kick someone out of the favoured Tier1 brotherhood. Once this wortkd, expect more to follow, even Group kick-outs and Kickout-wars.
We all will suffer
In the end, someone will regulate.
We all will suffer more.
L3 has
- a peering policy
- contracts with their upostream/transit customers
They should start to honour both. Right now they honour neither.
Of course, all this emphasizes a point my peering colleagues here have been making for years: Don't rely on L3, they are unreliable. You can buy them as an additional upstream,. but never solely rely on them. They habitually put their own pocket over the wellbeing of their cusomers, which is, in the long run, a dangrous proposition.
Oh, and don't quote JMK on that - in internet time he is just wrong.
Why ?
Why should L3 be able to "dumping traffic on" Cogent free of charge, while Cogent should pay for "dumping traffic on them" ?
Why is not paying for upstream a house of cards ? Are all tier1 isps card houses ?
They are trying to force Cogent into a customer role. Why doesn't have L3 to pay for peering with cogent ?
Why are you saying this, without a shred of eveidence that it is true ?
Doing this would harm Cogent's multi homed customers as well, and thy would be seriously pissed. I seraioulsy doubt they do that, and except your post, haven't read anything claiming such.
The problem is L3 stopping that connection, nothing else. L3 has a legal obligation to connect its upstream customers to Cogent networks, and they just don't do that, even though they could.
You lie. Most other words are not strong enough. It has all ben explained in this thread by now. You intentionally misprepresent facts.
Cogent can not "just adverize its routes" via another ISP. To do this would mean Cogent would have to pay the guy fo routing L3's traffic.
The situation is (at best) symmetrical. L3 also isn't adverizing its routes to Cogent via some other ISP. Why don't you demand L3 do so ?
So ?
Well, if they purchased from L3, they are now fucked, since L3 apparently decid3ed not to hnour its upstream contacts any more. If you bought upstream from L3, you are entitled in them routing you to Cogent space. They just don't do that any more.
Cogent, beeing tier 1 can not get L3 traffic via transit, since the probably don't have any transit/upstream contract, and they, not L3, would have to pay for L3's traffic.
L3 is trying to kick Cogent out of Tier 1. Others have claimed the reason beeing Cogent's competitive pricing. If so that would behighly unethical.
That is a deeply unfair statement.
Because, of course this applies to L3 customers identically - they can't communicate with each other. Only you define L3's realm as "significant part of the internet" while Cogent is just another ISP in your eyes. Whatever you say has to be equally applied to both.
I fail to understand why Cogent has to pay L3 for traffic they send to their Network and not the other way round.
Mad or not, that is exactly the scenario that happened here.
Cogent and Level3 ar both tier1 ISPs. That means they do not have any upstream in place, beacuse they are part of the group that is upstream of last resort.
Whoever switched this peering off is trying to break tier 1, or, more likely
both are now speculating that the other one blinks and relegates himself out
of tier 1 by bying upstream from one of the other tier1s that still have
universal connectivity.
This is a very bad and dangerous process in my mind. This could end by the other tier-1s taking sides, effectively fracturing tier1 (and thus, the internet) in two halves.
Or it could end with most or all of them mobbing one of them out of tier1, which is very bad in itself as well.
Or it could prompt regulation - which is not that desirable, too, and will likely increase bandwidth cost for all of us.
Tie 1 is a concept that works reasonably well. Breaking it without very good reasons and a well communicated plan of action is highly irresponsible.
I disagree. Erasing Copyright completeley from the books is maybe the only thing that could bring those gangsters tho their knees.
Once the content industry understands - and that means realizes deep down in their heart as true - that we the people are perfectly willing to remove them from the face of the earth and bury them all if they continue their current behaviour - only then can they be persuaded to play nicely and socially acceptable in the future.
Thats basically it. The game is petting played anyway. Just be better in it. And keep the greater objectives in focus.
Where I work we have a saying that things happen not because of processes, but despite of them. Getting things done means having and using a network, having contacts, getting and disseminating information.