Author Archives: Russ
Author Archives: Russ
There is a rising concern about the security of open source projects—particularly in terms of open source software supply chain. Alistair Woodman, who works closely with multiple open source software projects, joins Tom and Russ to discuss the reality of securing open source projects. The final answer? Essentially, buyer—or in the case of open source software, user—beware.
Most network engineers take it as a “given” that the robustness principle is the “right way” to build protocols and networks—”be conservative in what you send, and liberal in what you receive.” The idea behind the robustness principle is that implementations should implement specifications as accurately as possible, but they should also accept malformed and otherwise erroneous data, process the best they can, and drop the bits they cannot process. This should allow the network to operate correctly in the face of defects and other failures. A recent draft, draft-iab-protocol-maintenance/, challenges the assumptions behind the robustness principle. Join Tom and Russ as they discuss the robustness principle and its potential problems.
While this talk is titled privacy for providers, it really applies to just about every network operator. This is meant to open a conversation on the topic, rather than providing definitive answers. I start by looking at some of the kinds of information network operators work with, and whether this information can or should be considered “private.” In the second part of the talk, I work through some of the various ways network operators might want to consider when handling private information.
We kick off this edition of the weekend reads with a few articles on security. Misconfigured cloud storage buckets and a failure to implement good password practices are, as always, a major source of security issues.
Another study showing the importance of DNS abuse in spreading malware.
Another reminder that Continue reading
Zero-day defects exist in every projects, whether they are open or closed source. John Fraizer and Alistair Woodman join Tom Ammon and Russ White to discuss an old defect John found in the FRR code, the history of this defect, and the problems inherent in finding and resolving defects in large, diverse code bases.
IPv6’s designers built the concept of Unique Local Addresses, or ULAs, into the addressing architecture to make network address translation unnecessary for IPv6 deployments. As with many other plans of mice and men, however, the unintended consequences of what is a good idea tend to get in the way. Nick Buraglio joing Eyvonne Sharp, Tom Ammon, and Russ White to discuss the many problems of IPv6 ULA, why it isn’t practical in most network deployments, and the larger question of how standards bodies sometimes fail to consider the unintended consequences of a good idea.
Over the last several years various Chinese actors (telecom operators and vendors) have been pushing for modifications to IPv6 to support real-time applications and other use cases. Simon Sharwood wrote an article over at the Register on their efforts and goals. While this effort began with big IP, moved into new IP, and has been called many other names. These efforts are being put forward in various venues like the IETF, the ITU, etc. Simon Sharwood, who writes for the Register, joins Tom Ammon and Russ White to discuss these efforts.
Here is a recent article where Simon is discussing these issues.
Since BGP is designed to be an overlay protocol, it doesn’t really have good mechanisms for carrying routes within an autonomous system. In this video, I’m discussing some of the techniques developed to carry routes within an AS, including route reflectors.
I’m moderating a panel at the upcoming IEEE Conference on Network Softwarization. This is one of the various “good sources” out there for understanding what might be coming in the future for computer networks. The conference is hybrid, so you can register and watch the sessions live from the comfort of your home (or office).
I’m moderating the distinguished experts panel on the afternoon of the 30th.
Gentle reminder that I’m teaching a three-hour webinar on Safari Books this coming Friday on Internet operations. The course is roughly divided into three parts.
The first part covers DNS operations, including a high-level overview of how DNS works and some thoughts on how DNS providers “work” financially. The second part is a high-level overview of packet transport, focusing on routing, the different kinds of providers, and how each of of the different kinds of providers “work” financially. The third part is a collection of other odds and ends.
Anyone who registers is able to watch a recorded version of the training afterwords.
I’m teaching part 2 next month, which I call Navigating the DFZ.
One of the many reasons engineers should work for a vendor, consulting company, or someone other than a single network operator at some point in their career is to develop a larger view of network operations. What are common ways of doing things? What are uncommon ways? In what ways is every network broken? Over time, if you see enough networks, you start seeing common themes and ideas. Just like history, networks might not always be the same, but the problems we all encounter often rhyme. Ken Calenza joins Tom Ammon, Eyvonne Sharp, and Russ White to discuss these common traits—ten things I know about your network.
How do you balance loyalty to yourself and loyalty to the company you work for?
This might seem like an odd question, but it’s an important component of work/life balance many of us just don’t think about any longer because, as Pete Davis says in Dedicated, we live in a world of infinite browsing. We’re afraid of sticking to one thing because it might reduce our future options. If we dedicate ourselves to something bigger than ourselves, then we might lose control of our direction. In particular, we should not dedicate ourselves to any single company, especially for too long. As a recent (excellent!) blog post over at the ACM says:
The idea that we should control our own destiny, never getting lost in anything larger than ourselves, is ubitiquos like water is to a fish. We don’t question it. We don’t argue. It is just true. We assume there are three people who are going to look after “me:” me, myself, and I.
I get it. Honestly, I do. I’ve been there Continue reading