gmail contact?

[Russ White]

Y'all --

Who would I talk to about a gmail server that's apparently on one of the
various sorbs lists? Ping me on my personal email -- r...@riw.us.

:-)

Russ

SMC D3G CCR IPv6 support for Comcast BCI customers

[Brzozowski, John]

Folks,

I meant to send this sooner, hopefully better late than never.  We found a bug 
in the SMC D3G CCR that was specific to IPv6.  We tried for many months 
(practically years to get it fixed properly) with no success.  As such we have 
to roll back IPv6 support for the same.  See the link below:

http://forums.businesshelp.comcast.com/t5/IPV6/IPv6-Firmware-Rollback-on-SMCD3GCCR/m-p/31280#U31280

If you have an SMC D3G CCR and require IPv6 support please send me unicast 
email at work (this address).  Use the forum messenger or contact me directly 
regarding a device swap for a model that continues to supports IPv6.

Feel free to ask questions on list that you feel others will benefit from, I 
will answer them.  Otherwise please use the forum link above.

John
+1-484-962-0060

Looking for AS 263686 contact

[Alejandro Acosta]

Hello,

 If anybody from AS 263686 please contact me off-list.


Thanks,


Alejandro,

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

[Ken Chase]

They exist:

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=26878307

http://canadabizdb.com/company/3264874/cogent-canada-inc

http://www.contracts-contrats.hc-sc.gc.ca/cfob/mssid/contractdisc.nsf/WEBbypurpose/A35BA8F8DB21C5E98525787E0066931A?OpenDocument=eng;

http://listings.ftb-companies-ca.com/l/112540553/Cogent-Canada-Inc-in-Toronto-ON

My cogent invoice:

Cogent Canada, Inc.
P.O.Box 46067
Postal Station A
Toronto, Ontario M5W 4K9

[ Dont visit the Cogent Canada facebook page. Not quite the same industry. Or
  the @CogentCanada twitter feed. (Something about semen vouchers.) ]

Anyway, they exist as a Canadian entity (and have even made submissions to
the CRTC bitching about rulings favouring Bell), so they're certainly
operating in Canada.

Anyone wanna file a complaint to the CCTS in Canada? https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/

/kc


On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 01:19:41PM -0500, Christopher Morrow said:
  >On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <
  >jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
  >
  >> On 2017-02-14 08:27, Jared Mauch wrote:
  >> > So risk avoidance on the part of the 100k other sites hosted by CF is
  >> now a conspiracy?
  >>
  >>
  >> Cogent is a backbone network that is international in scope.  When China
  >> tells a network to block the BBC that block happens only in China.
  >>
  >>
  >'when possible' (also, PRC is a special case...)
  >
  >you might make the analogy here to the singaporian 'block these 100
  >objectionable sites' law (since repealed I believe) though.
  >
  >
  >> If the USA wants to be like China and start blocking web sites it
  >> doesn't like, then it should only affect traffic in the USA.
  >>
  >>
  >yes, because of course the networks in question here are built around
  >national borders... and of course also on internal (to the nation)
  >boundaries.. and of course even more granularly on the internal, internal
  >national boundaries (country -> state -> county -. city -> burrough ->
  >apt-building -> floor - door -> room -> person -> device clearly cogent did
  >this as well)
  >
  >
  >> Google is a content company. Removing a company from its search results
  >> is a content issue, not a telecom issue.
  >>
  >> Cogent blocking an IP is a telecom issue and at least in canada should
  >> this be brought up at CRTC, would raise a Section 36 violation.
  >>
  >>
  >excellent, goodluck fellow traveler.
  >
  >
  >> And if transit providers start to block content, especially if they do
  >> not warn their ISP customers (so thei can warn their retail customers),
  >> then this is really not correct.
  >>
  >>
  >sure, but...
  >
  >what about dhs/ice revocation of domains in com/net/org/etc? :)
  >
  >
  >>
  >> In Canada, the supreme court has ruled, from different slants all
  >> reaching tghe conclusion that a neutral carrier is not responsible for
  >> the content that travels through its pipes. The second that carrier
  >> starts to exert control over content, it loses that immunity.
  >>
  >>
  >good thing cogent isn't a canadian company I suppose?
  >
  >
  >> Cogent blocking content affects traffic outside of the USA.
  >>
  >
  >
  >it sure does, you might have luck bringing this up with your equivalent to
  >the US State Department, no?

Ken Chase - m...@sizone.org Guelph/Toronto Canada

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <
jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 2017-02-14 08:27, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > So risk avoidance on the part of the 100k other sites hosted by CF is
> now a conspiracy?
>
>
> Cogent is a backbone network that is international in scope.  When China
> tells a network to block the BBC that block happens only in China.
>
>
'when possible' (also, PRC is a special case...)

you might make the analogy here to the singaporian 'block these 100
objectionable sites' law (since repealed I believe) though.


> If the USA wants to be like China and start blocking web sites it
> doesn't like, then it should only affect traffic in the USA.
>
>
yes, because of course the networks in question here are built around
national borders... and of course also on internal (to the nation)
boundaries.. and of course even more granularly on the internal, internal
national boundaries (country -> state -> county -. city -> burrough ->
apt-building -> floor - door -> room -> person -> device clearly cogent did
this as well)


> Google is a content company. Removing a company from its search results
> is a content issue, not a telecom issue.
>
> Cogent blocking an IP is a telecom issue and at least in canada should
> this be brought up at CRTC, would raise a Section 36 violation.
>
>
excellent, goodluck fellow traveler.


> And if transit providers start to block content, especially if they do
> not warn their ISP customers (so thei can warn their retail customers),
> then this is really not correct.
>
>
sure, but...

what about dhs/ice revocation of domains in com/net/org/etc? :)


>
> In Canada, the supreme court has ruled, from different slants all
> reaching tghe conclusion that a neutral carrier is not responsible for
> the content that travels through its pipes. The second that carrier
> starts to exert control over content, it loses that immunity.
>
>
good thing cogent isn't a canadian company I suppose?


> Cogent blocking content affects traffic outside of the USA.
>


it sure does, you might have luck bringing this up with your equivalent to
the US State Department, no?

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

On 2017-02-14 08:27, Jared Mauch wrote:
> So risk avoidance on the part of the 100k other sites hosted by CF is now a 
> conspiracy? 


Cogent is a backbone network that is international in scope.  When China
tells a network to block the BBC that block happens only in China.

If the USA wants to be like China and start blocking web sites it
doesn't like, then it should only affect traffic in the USA.

Google is a content company. Removing a company from its search results
is a content issue, not a telecom issue.

Cogent blocking an IP is a telecom issue and at least in canada should
this be brought up at CRTC, would raise a Section 36 violation.

And if transit providers start to block content, especially if they do
not warn their ISP customers (so thei can warn their retail customers),
then this is really not correct.


In Canada, the supreme court has ruled, from different slants all
reaching tghe conclusion that a neutral carrier is not responsible for
the content that travels through its pipes. The second that carrier
starts to exert control over content, it loses that immunity.

Cogent blocking content affects traffic outside of the USA.

Re: Web/Streaming issues

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Art Stephens  wrote:

> Been getting complaints from customers about web services such Netflix,
> Youtube, Facebook and Snapchat either slow to load or not loading at all
> and yet speed tests seem to be ok.
>
>
speed tests aren't necessarily related at all with (at least) youtube and
netflix... you may have constrained pipes to the endpoints those services
expose to your users, which are different from the endpoints used/exposed
to them via speedtest(s).

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

[Jared Mauch]

So risk avoidance on the part of the 100k other sites hosted by CF is now a 
conspiracy? 

I'm surprised it took this many years for something like this to happen. Wonder 
which LE in which country... 

Either way seems nothing too suspicious is going on here. 

Jared Mauch

> On Feb 13, 2017, at 5:19 PM, Patrick Boyle via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> Even more concerning, on the surface it looks like there could be some 
> cooperation by Cloudflare. If you look at the list of domains that contain an 
> A record for that IP, it's almost all torrent sites and mirrors. Could they 
> have placed all these domains behind that IP for a purpose like this?

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

[Niels Bakker]

* nanog@nanog.org (Patrick Boyle via NANOG) [Tue 14 Feb 2017, 14:16 CET]:
Even more concerning, on the surface it looks like there could be 
some cooperation by Cloudflare. If you look at the list of domains 
that contain an A record for that IP, it's almost all torrent sites 
and mirrors. Could they have placed all these domains behind that IP 
for a purpose like this?


Why wouldn't they try to limit collateral damage by censorious 
governments?  Are you suggesting they instead hold their other 
customers hostage?



-- Niels.

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

[Patrick Boyle via NANOG]

Even more concerning, on the surface it looks like there could be some 
cooperation by Cloudflare. If you look at the list of domains that contain an A 
record for that IP, it's almost all torrent sites and mirrors. Could they have 
placed all these domains behind that IP for a purpose like this?


http://bgp.he.net/ip/104.31.18.30#_dns


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites
Local Time: February 13, 2017 2:53 PM
UTC Time: February 13, 2017 9:53 PM
From: jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca
To: nanog@nanog.org



Cogent seems to have been very very silent on the issue.

Could this be because they got some police/NSA/FBI letter requiring
confindentiality and requiring Cogent to snoop on all traffic to
104.31.19.30 , and along with agreeing to comply, blocked all the
requested traffic which means that their cooperation yield logs of what
IP has made a SYN to 104.31.18.30 but since that SYN went nowhere,
contains no other information, so the agency gets its logs as requested,
but with no actionable information in them ?

That would explain the block AND Cogent being coy/silent on issue.

This could be a "protect users" move even though on the surface Cogent
appears to be the bad guy.

The other question is whether other major backbone providers got the
same order and complied without telling ayone nor taking any action to
block.

In my case, the ISP I used has local peering with Cloudfare, so not
affected. Not sure what percentage of users have local transit-free
connections.

Web/Streaming issues

[Art Stephens]

Been getting complaints from customers about web services such Netflix,
Youtube, Facebook and Snapchat either slow to load or not loading at all
and yet speed tests seem to be ok.

We keep checking our network equipment for issues and not able to identify
any as of yet

We have two 10gig connections to Wolfe and Zayo. Are others seeing similar
issues?

-- 
Arthur Stephens
Senior Networking Technician
Ptera Inc.
PO Box 135
24001 E Mission Suite 50
Liberty Lake, WA 99019
509-927-7837
ptera.com |
facebook.com/PteraInc | twitter.com/Ptera
 -
"This message may contain confidential and/or propriety information, and is
intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed.
Any use by others is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or
opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and are not
intended to represent those of the company."

Gmail or GAFYD SREs on the list?

[Brad Knowles]

Folks,

Do we have any SREs from the Gmail or Google Apps For Your Domain teams on the 
list?

I’m helping to support some domains related to the Network Time Foundation and 
NTP.org, and we’re having some problems with IPv6 connectivity to them.

Thanks!

--
Brad Knowles 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail