Re: [Henk.Steenman@ams-ix.net: NOTIFICATION: KPNQWEST disconnection]
Neil J. McRae wrote (on Jun 27): Yeah old news, The AMS-IX announced today that both ports had been re-enabled. I hope that means AMS-IX was paid. Nah, another last-minute 2-week stay of execution most likely. Kill it and be done with already. The only ones making money out of KPNQ are the lawyers/consultants. Chris
Re: SPEWS?
Steven J. Sobol wrote (on Jun 20): If the offending ISP does not respond, and you have exhausted all avenues available to you to get the ISP to get its customer to stop spamming - whether by TOS'ing the customer, education or whatever - then escalation may work if the collateral damage caused by escalation is enough to get the spammers' neighbors to complain to the ISP. Can't find the terrorists you're looking for so start killing bystanders until someone submits? Sounds militia to me. The service providers are not the enemies. If you treat them like enemies then enemies they will become. Perhaps we should move mail transfer to a peering model. You wanna send email to my SMTP server? Where's the peering contract? BGP-equivalent for SMTP anyone? -C (tired of getting bounces for email I never sent!)
Re: Getting a list of RADB objects
Mike Leber wrote (on Jun 13): Is there a way to get a list of objects registered with your maintainer handle other than web interface? From RADB, no - it's not in the query syntax of the DB. With RIPEDB you can query something like -i origin mnt-by XXX-MNT to do just this. You can however download the DB, which is a text file, and grep for it. So that not everyone goes to download the 3mb file on reading this, you'll have to go lookup where to get it from somewhere on http://www.radb.net/ - which is no big secret. Most IRR's DBs are downloadable in this form. Chris. --
Re: Re: KPNQwest ns.eu.net server.
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote (on Jun 06): Indeed, for example k.root-servers.net is hosted at LINX and is reachable globally by this kind of setup.. A few of LINXs' members also transit the services provided by LINX for the good of the community - ie, at zero cost. That includes k.root. I don't mind doing it. I wouldn't mind for others either. Chris. --
Re: Effects of de-peering... (was RE: ratios)
James Smith wrote (on May 10): Maybe it is possible he made a business decision based on the long term costs involved with multihoming/redundancy vs. the loss of near total reachability. He may have come to the conclusion that the probability of that scenario occuring was not sufficient reason to multihome. His call. It's worth pointing out it's not always a technical decision. Partcularly when things are tight, the bean-counters and other senior management tend to shy away from redunancy and resilience often in favour of insurance policies and controlled risk. Similar business-decisions are what cause those networks to not peer. Whether fair or not doesn't matter. Big companies are big businesses. Big businesses like to remain big. They all have debt and thus need revenue. A common view is that a peer is the loss of a potential customer. Drop all your peers, gain some potential customers. (Sprint said this to me in those words once) While nobody has tried to take a Tier-1 to court for what could be taken as anti-competitive actions said providers will carry on - it's win-win for them. The marginal loss of connectivity to *your* network is so small from their perspective, there's no issue. If mutual customers complain, they blame you for not connecting to them (from experience, and having seen this done in black and white). The words used are along the lines of that is what happens when you connect to a non-tier-1, like us. Just for reference, the European Peering Policy for one of the previously mentioned carriers in this thread requires the announcement of 900+ /19's from seperate LIR assignments, as well as the usual N-points connected, M-bps transfered etc requirements. I'm under NDA so can't say more. needless to say, we don't peer with them, and I don't buy transit from them either, on principle. We calculated that at the time only 5 IP providers in Europe (that were not US owned networks) would meet that 900+ /19's requirement. Chris.
