November 2013 - connect-bof - mailman.ripe.net

London
by Gordon Lennox 25 Nov '13

25 Nov '13

Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content – such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-… So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon

3 2

Re: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] London
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 24 Nov '13

24 Nov '13

Gordon London for what exactly? regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:13 To: connect-bof(a)ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] London Yes, I know. It is very early to start any discussion. But an interesting article in the Telegraph. "Lazy WiFi providers offer data-free risks for terrorists and criminals ... Venues that provide WiFi are responsible for this under the Data Protection act, European Directive for Data Retention Regulations 2009, the Code of Practice (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001), Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Digital Economy Act 2010. When somebody supplies a WiFi hotspot, these legal requirements must be complied with, such as holding data and logging all URLs visited. Moreover, another potential problem for suppliers is that of content filtering, which allows venues to block certain content – such as porn and illegal content. ..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/10468317/Lazy-WiFi-… So how will Wifi access be organised in London? Gordon

3 2

Re: [connect-bof] [cooperation-wg] London
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 24 Nov '13

24 Nov '13

Gordon ICANN has been held in far more restrictive environments without any filters or traffic shaping .. (and it's on in London next year) Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________________ From: Gordon Lennox [gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com] Sent: 24 November 2013 13:35 To: Michele Neylon - Blacknight Cc: connect-bof(a)ripe.net BoF; cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [cooperation-wg] London Next year RIPE 69 is in London. And IETF 89 is also on London. And maybe some folk have become used to an open and free environment... Gordon On 24 Nov, 2013, at 14:21, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.com> wrote: > Gordon > > London for what exactly? > > regards > > Michele > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Domains > http://www.blacknight.co/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

1 0

Targeted Internet Traffic Misdirection
by Gordon Lennox 20 Nov '13

20 Nov '13

http://www.renesys.com/2013/11/mitm-internet-hijacking/ Some interesting information from Renesys. Gordon

1 0

Regulation proposed by European Commission
by Gordon Lennox 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

Just before Athens and in the margins of the meeting itself I had various brief exchanges on this and so I thought it useful to bring the various things together and to try and give some pointers. I am not sure which group is better. So I am sending it to both the Cooperation WG and the Connect BOF at this stage. ------- The basic Brussels problem is that they still have not managed to do Internet and telecoms policy as a coherent whole. People there tend not come to RIPE, or any similar Internet meetings. The few who do internet-related things have tended to go to ICANN, where of course the emphasis has been on new gTLDs, and to the IGF, which was defined as having "no negotiated outcomes". Which can all seen as adequate as there is no intention to regulate the Internet in the EU! Meanwhile there is a much larger group working on EU telecoms regulation which is done without significant reference to the Internet and yet with serious lobbying from ETNO and GSMA. Even ETSI has its Brussels person. The result has been texts and proposals that Internet people have found confusing or even potentially dangerous. Confusing? A few years ago there was a major study on "IP Interconnection". Because there were major problems with IP interconnection? If I remember correctly the way in was given by Daniel Karrenberg who suggested that if you changed the title of the study it made more sense. It was not about IP interconnection: it was about the interconnection of telecoms services over IP networks. Not exactly the same thing. Dangerous? I think it was folk from the CENTR community who saw the problem. While the Commission said they had no intent of regulating certain Internet things, and so had not looked in that direction, CENTR lawyers felt their text could be interpreted as applying to the DNS and TLDs. The problem is though that regulations are for regulators and the courts to interpret. And they are not going to run back to Brussels and ask what they really meant. So now we have a new proposed regulation. I should mention that once "regulations" are adopted by the European Parliament and the Council that is it. "Regulations" are unlike "directives" where Member States then have to transpose the texts into their national legislation. There is also the point that next year sees elections for the Parliament and a new Commission which will obviously influence the timetable. There are a number of aspects which should be of interest to this community: ** the Commission's view of the sector. The telecoms sector is in a bad way? But if helped it will do good things? ** market consolidation. This is a big part of the answer? ** interconnection. Needs to be regulated? But at which layer and between who? ** network neutrality & the open internet v. specialised services ** ... and so on The press release or "memo" provide perhaps the easier ways in: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-828_en.htm http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-779_en.htm But the "communication" is probably better: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/communication-commission-europe… Then the proposed Regulation is where the meat is: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-… If you only read one text though then the proposed Regulation is the best. There is a link to the text of the new Regulation, and all the other various associated documents, here: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/connected-continent-single-telecom-ma… ------ So the formal title and a few semi-random extracts: Brussels, 11.9.2013 COM(2013) 627 final 2013/0309 (COD) Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down measures concerning the European single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent, and amending Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/22/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1211/2009 and (EU) No 531/2012 <<Today, Europe is fragmented into 28 separate national communications markets, each with a limited number of players. As a consequence, while no operator is present in more than half of the Member States, most in far fewer, overall more than 200 operators serve a market of 510 million of customers. EU rules on, for example, authorisations, regulatory conditions, spectrum assignment and consumer protection are implemented in diverging ways. This patchy scenario raises barriers to entry and increases the costs for operators wanting to provide cross-border services thereby impeding their expansion. This stands in stark contrast with the US or China who have one single market of 330 and 1400 million customers respectively, served by four to five large operators, with one legislation, one licensing system, and one spectrum policy.>> <<A right for electronic communications providers to offer and access on reasonable terms harmonised connectivity products with assured service quality to enable new types of online services.>> <<In a context of progressive migration to 'all IP networks', the lack of availability of connectivity products based on the IP protocol for different classes of services with assured service quality that enable communication paths across network domains and across network borders, both within and between Member States, hinders the development of applications that rely on access to other networks, thus limiting technological innovation. Moreover, this situation prevents the diffusion on a wider scale of efficiencies which are associated with the management and provision of IP-based networks and connectivity products with an assured service quality level, in particular enhanced security, reliability and flexibility, cost-effectiveness and faster provisioning, which benefit network operators, service providers and end users. A harmonised approach to the design and availability of these products is therefore necessary, on reasonable terms including, where requested, the possibility of crosssupply by the electronic communications undertakings concerned.>> <<"assured service quality (ASQ) connectivity product" means a product that is made available at the internet protocol (IP) exchange, which enables customers to set up an IP communication link between a point of interconnection and one or several fixed network termination points, and enables defined levels of end to end network performance for the provision of specific services to end users on the basis of the delivery of a specified guaranteed quality of service, based on specified parameters;>> ----- So one might ask what "four to five large operators" would mean for the public Internet in this region. The second point says an awful lot in a few words! The third point may not make sense if you think in Internet terms. But if you sprinkle "telecoms" throughout then you may see better where they are coming from. Point four? An "internet protocol (IP) exchange" is not an IXP? There are other points elsewhere that you might find more interesting of course. ----- Meanwhile from the European Parliament web-site: <<Public stakeholder consultation on Telecoms Regulation Ms Pilar del Castillo (EPP), the newly appointed ITRE Rapporteur on the recently proposed Telecoms Regulation is launching a public stakeholder consultation to benefit from the input of consumers, national regulators, industry stakeholders and other interested parties, not least NGOs, in the work of the ITRE Committee. The Rapporteur would welcome this stakeholder input on the Commission proposal by 5 November 2013. For more information on the proposal consult EC website. ITRE Secretariat contacts: Peter Traung and Elina Kaartinen>> http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/itre/home.html ---- So suggestions. I would hope others will take the time to read at least some of the material. And with a red-pen or text-marker! By the way the texts are available in other languages. I think though leaving any community discussion to Warsaw is probably taking a risk. I think a discussion here would be much better. If people then feel they have concerns then there are two approaches: ** individuals and organisation contacting their Ministry/Regulator and/or MEP. ** or a community input with the help of NCC. One does not preclude the other. But even putting down a marker can be useful. Enough for now? Gordon

5 10

Internet governance
by Gordon Lennox 19 Nov '13

19 Nov '13

A sort of conversation seem to be starting and I am not sure where it will take us. It seems that the Commission, or more precisely DG CONNECT, is working on a significant policy document, a Communication to Parliament and Council. You can get a flavour of some of their concerns here: "What is the situation we have decided to change: The current multi stakeholder approach to Internet governance is very complex and lacks both transparency and accountability in order for all actors to fully adhere to the way the internet is currently governed. We need to ensure that the global principles for Internet governance continue to develop in line with our internet COMPACT, through enhanced coordination with EU Member States and proactive presence in international fora. Furthermore, the Commission, in cooperation with the EEAS, will present an EU vision for Internet governance as part of the overall internet strategy. The current institutional set up needs to be strengthened and streamlined, including the functioning of the Governmental advisory Committee (GAC) to ICANN and an IGF better focused on main challenges in producing concrete deliverables. The complexity of the current multi stakeholder approach to Internet Governance has to be further developed in a comprehensible manner so as to ensure inclusiveness of all actors. The establishment of GIPO will contribute to this. ..." http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/connect/en/content/international-internet-governanc… So they want to reform the multi-stakeholder set-up? And by the way I am intrigued by the mention of "enhanced coordination". That always had a special EU meaning and that was not what people, perhaps naively, thought. Meanwhile ICANN is also busy. Steve Crocker writes: "As anyone who has followed the global discourse on Internet governance knows, the multistakeholder model is under threat. Some governments have expressed a clear interest in putting multilateral organizations in charge of Internet policymaking. As the Internet has taken on a larger role in the economy and society, some governments have grown increasingly uncomfortable with their perceived lack of control. More recently, ICANN has received requests to expand its remit to address issues beyond the coordination of the Internet’s unique identifiers. This we will not do. The ICANN Board recognizes that the single, open, global, interoperable Internet is under threat of failing due to emerging pressures on multistakeholder governance. As a consequence, the Board gave the ICANN CEO a mandate to work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a coalition to evaluate and participate in the formation a movement or initiative for an Internet cooperation agenda. We are pleased with his initial engagement with the Internet organizations and the broader multistakeholder community. ..." http://blog.icann.org/2013/11/icanns-mandate-to-preserve-and-enhance-multis… Watch this space? Gordon

3 2

Peering
by Gordon Lennox 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

People I have worked with in the past have viewed peering as something primitive, something akin to barter. I don't agree and I strongly don't agree. But maybe why I personally don't agree is for another time. But if people want to change that initial perception then maybe AS3320 is not the best target right now. What about the European Commission? In some ways they are a politically important, highly visible, not-for-profit "ISP". In these times they should be looking to reduce costs by peering. If they are then it should be made known. If they are not then the question could be put. I remember also being told they had an interesting chunk of v4 space. I am not sure whether they have applied for v6 space. Gordon

2 1

Germany and Dtag has some funny ideas http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-german-internet-safe-from-spying-a-933013.html
by Nina Bargisen 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

I find it sad how little understanding there is on how the Internet works. Interestingly enough this end goal of this silly proposal could be achieved by 3320 having an open peering policy http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/deutsche-telekom-pushes-all-ger… Nina Bargisen Netflix European Network Strategy mobile: +45 21287438 email: nihb(a)netflix.com

14 17

Data Retention Directive
by Gordon Lennox 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

When I was in Vancouver my attention was drawn to this report <<Brussels, 18.4.2011 COM(2011) 225 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Evaluation report on the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC) ... 5.5. Technological developments and the use of prepaid SIM cards Law enforcement needs to keep pace with technological developments which are used to commit or abet crime. Data retention is among the criminal investigation tools necessary to equip law enforcement authorities to address contemporary crime challenges in their diversity, volume and speed in a manageable and cost-efficient manner. A number of increasingly common forms of communication are outside the scope of the Directive. Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) in, for example, universities or large corporations, allow several users to access the internet via a single gateway using the same IP address. However, new technology permitting the attribution of addresses to individual VPN users is currently being introduced. ...>> And no, they do not mention NATs. They do mention child pornography though. Gordon

1 0

Fwd: [cooperation-wg] Debriefing of meeting with Members of the European Parliament on 11/11/13
by Gordon Lennox 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Begin forwarded message: > From: Alain Van Gaever <avangaev(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [cooperation-wg] Debriefing of meeting with Members of the European Parliament on 11/11/13 > Date: 12 November, 2013 09:43:40 CET > To: cooperation-wg(a)ripe.net > > Yesterday, on the 11th of November we went to the European Parliament to discuss the proposed Single Market Regulation (COM(2013) 627 final ) and meet with 2 Members of the European Parliament, namely: > > Pilar Del Castillo and http://www.pilardelcastillo.es > Marietje Schaake http://www.marietjeschaake.eu > > > > Present from our side: > > · Wouter van Hulten, wouter(a)vanhulten.com > > · Alain Van Gaever, co-chair-elect RIPE Cooperation WG, avangaev(a)gmail.com > > · Bastiaan Goslings, bastiaan.goslings(a)ams-ix.net > > · Gordon Lennox gordon.lennox.13(a)gmail.com > > · Joy Marino, chair Milan Internet Exchange j.marino(a)mix-it.net > > · Nina Bargisen, nihb(a)netflix.com > > · Innocenzo Gemma, inno(a)innogenna.it (observer) > > > > On the agenda: the following items related to the Single Market Regulation were discussed > > Assured Service Quality (ASQ) – proposal > Net Neutrality > Depeering practices > Engagement with the community of IP experts > > (Link to the draft Regulation: http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/regulation-european-parliament-a… ) Most relevant Articles: Art.19, Art.23, Art.24 > > > > Short debriefing of the meeting: > > ASQ: we expressed our concerns that the introduction of the Assured Service Quality is a “solution in search of a problem”. That it is not needed. And that this ASQ-proposal would be harmful to the evolution and innovative power of the Internet. MEP Del Castillo informed us that the ASQ-related articles would be removed in the draft she would send for translation next Thursday. > Net Neutrality: we expressed our concerns that given the importance of this topic it should not be rushed through. While a consensus could not be achieved (given the difficulty of the topic and the short time frame available this is hardly surprising) MEP Del Castillo seemed to suggest that she would strengthen the “non discriminatory “ principle in the Regulations. > De-peering: The importance of peering and the European model of IXPs was highlighted. Concerns were expressed regarding the situation in Italy where Telecom Italia is de-peering. It was noted that “de-peering” is an issue which is more relevant in other legislative/regulatory instruments and is not part of the proposed Single Market Regulation (relevant instruments are: Review of Relevant markets, DG Comp investigations). We explained that the European model of peering is currently being copied in the US, under the Open-IX initiative. MEP Del Castillo mentioned she would highlight this issue with her colleague MEP Trautmann. Further information would be welcomed. > We stressed the importance of engaging with the EU institutions, including of course the European Parliament, and our collective willingness to do so. It is important that the Internet community is heard when proposed regulation, which affects the functioning of the Internet, is being developed and discussed. > > Next Steps: > MEP Del Castillo’s text will go to translation this Thursday 14 November. Suggestions are still welcome. If you will submit feedback, please ensure you provide them in the form of proposed modifications to the current text, and with a justification why this change is needed. For those who want to engage individually, the MEP contact details can be found here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/96945/MARIETJE_SCHAAKE_home.html and http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/28390/PILAR_DEL+CASTILLO+VERA_home.ht… > Moving forward / Recommendations > This time we were faced with particularly short time-frames between proposed legislation “leaving” the Commission and then being debated in Council and Parliament. It is however also more difficult in general correcting many things once they have been drafted and agreed by the Commission. We should therefore try and engage sooner in the legislative process. This means ideally before any legislation is actually proposed (i.e. talking directly to the European Commission). It is believed that Commission officials would welcome views from the Internet community. We should therefore start to establish a list of interlocutors and contacts so we could provide appropriate expertise. We should also seek to establish a view on what the Commission is going to do - in terms of their own forward planning. > Feedback and comment on any and all of this is most welcome on the list mailto:cooperation-wg@ripe.net > > > Alain Van Gaever > > >

1 0