RIPE NCC position (Re: Ukraine request yikes)

[John Curran]

Regarding the portion of the request to the RIPE NCC to withdraw the relevant 
Russia registered IP address blocks, it appears that the RIPE NCC has 
reiterated their position on such disputes -
https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/ripe-ncc-executive-board-resolution-on-provision-of-critical-services

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

On 1 Mar 2022, at 3:25 AM, Ryan Hamel 
mailto:administra...@rkhtech.org>> wrote:

It’s already spread to the news - 
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ukraine-icann-russia-internet-runet-disconnection-1314278/

Ryan

From: NANOG 
mailto:nanog-bounces+ryan=rkhtech@nanog.org>>
 On Behalf Of George Herbert
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:17 AM
To: Nanog mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Ukraine request yikes

Posted by Bill Woodcock on Twitter… 
https://twitter.com/woodyatpch/status/1498472865301098500?s=21

https://pastebin.com/DLbmYahS

Ukraine (I think I read as) want ICANN to turn root nameservers off, revoke 
address delegations, and turn off TLDs for Russia.

Seems… instability creating…

-george
Sent from my iPhone

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[Jay Hennigan]

"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it"

- John Gilmore


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[Fred Baker]

China has worried that the root server operators would do such a thing to them, 
and I have argued that it is contrary to our published principles (RaSSAC055) 
and or practice. “We have never done so; what would that serve?”

I have the same question here.

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Mar 1, 2022, at 12:28 PM, Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> More or less.  The Government Advisory Committee member from Ukraine has 
>> asked ICANN to:
>> - Revoke .RU, .рф, and .SU (all Russian-managed ccTLDs)
>> 
>> As the GAC member undoubtedly knows, that’s not how ICANN works. Barring a 
>> court/executive order in ICANN’s jurisdiction (and even then, it gets a bit 
>> sticky see 
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/13/dc-court-rules-that-top-level-domain-not-subject-to-seizure/),
>>  ICANN essentially treats ccTLDs as national sovereign resources. A third 
>> party, no matter how justified, requesting a change of this nature will not 
>> go anywhere. Simply put, ICANN is NOT a regulator in the forma sense, it is 
>> a private entity incorporated in California. The powers that it has are the 
>> result of mutual contractual obligations and it’s a bit unlikely the Russian 
>> government has entered into any contracts with ICANN, particularly those 
>> that would allow ICANN to unilaterally revoke any of the Russian ccTLDs.
> 
> I wonder how ICANN would react to ISO removing RU/RUS from ISO 3166-2/3.
> 
> 
> Rubens

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[David Conrad]

Again, aside from turning off the ICANN-operated root servers (which would be 
pointless), the remainder of the requests from the UA Government Advisory 
Committee member are not something ICANN could/would do unilaterally regardless 
of the validity of the justification.

Regards,
-drc

> On Mar 1, 2022, at 4:00 PM, virendra rode  wrote:
> 
> I concur, this is an extremely dangerous slippery slope that ICANN should 
> refrain. There’s the possibility for misfires, misattribution and 
> miscalculation that could backfire which is extremely concerning.
> 
> —
> regards,
> /vrode
> 
>> On Mar 1, 2022, at 00:56, Matthew Petach  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 12:19 AM George Herbert > > wrote:
>> Posted by Bill Woodcock on Twitter… 
>> https://twitter.com/woodyatpch/status/1498472865301098500?s=21 
>> 
>> 
>> https://pastebin.com/DLbmYahS 
>> 
>> Ukraine (I think I read as) want ICANN to turn root nameservers off, revoke 
>> address delegations, and turn off TLDs for Russia.
>> 
>> Seems… instability creating…
>> 
>> -george
>> 
>> 
>> Information sharing should increase during wartime, not decrease.
>> 
>> Restricting information is more often the playbook of authoritarian regimes,
>> and not something we should generally support.
>> 
>> Besides, GhostWriter is based out of Belarus, not Russia proper.  ^_^;
>> https://www.wired.com/story/ghostwriter-hackers-belarus-russia-misinformationo/
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> 
>> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[virendra rode]

I concur, this is an extremely dangerous slippery slope that ICANN should 
refrain. There’s the possibility for misfires, misattribution and 
miscalculation that could backfire which is extremely concerning.

—
regards,
/vrode 

> On Mar 1, 2022, at 00:56, Matthew Petach  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 12:19 AM George Herbert  
>> wrote:
>> Posted by Bill Woodcock on Twitter… 
>> https://twitter.com/woodyatpch/status/1498472865301098500?s=21
>> 
>> https://pastebin.com/DLbmYahS
>> 
>> Ukraine (I think I read as) want ICANN to turn root nameservers off, revoke 
>> address delegations, and turn off TLDs for Russia.
>> 
>> Seems… instability creating…
>> 
>> -george
> 
> 
> Information sharing should increase during wartime, not decrease.
> 
> Restricting information is more often the playbook of authoritarian regimes, 
> and not something we should generally support.  
> 
> Besides, GhostWriter is based out of Belarus, not Russia proper.  ^_^;
> https://www.wired.com/story/ghostwriter-hackers-belarus-russia-misinformationo/
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> 

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:17 AM George Herbert  wrote:
>
> Posted by Bill Woodcock on Twitter… 
> https://twitter.com/woodyatpch/status/1498472865301098500?s=21
>
> https://pastebin.com/DLbmYahS
>
> Ukraine (I think I read as) want ICANN to turn root nameservers off, revoke 
> address delegations, and turn off TLDs for Russia.
>
> Seems… instability creating…


While not happening at scale at this time, we might have to consider
some measures to deter cyberwarfare if it escalates to that. And this
is not done by revoking IP addresses or TLDs, but by shutting down
actual network ports.

As long as the war keeps being kinetic and information/propaganda, the
network is probably a better part of the solution.


Rubens

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[JASON BOTHE via NANOG]

Not sure how I feel about this. My thoughts have always been to leave 
government out of Internet operations or otherwise they get comfortable and 
will want to make decisions that we may not be comfortable with. 

During wartime, I would think the desire would be to have them connected in 
order to have access to information and knowledge as necessary. If the idea is 
suppress Russia from performing bad actions, disconnecting their tld(s) will 
not solve this and is just a bad approach all around. 

J~

> On Mar 1, 2022, at 16:22, George Herbert  wrote:
> 
> I don’t hear anyone in the networks field supporting doing it.
> 
> It was a yikes that the request was made, but not looking at all likely to 
> happen IMHO.
> 
> -george  
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2022, at 2:12 PM, Brian R  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> The problem with all this talk, especially with trusted international 
>> neutral organizations, is that once they bend they will never be trusted 
>> again.  Shutting off the routes, removing TLDs (or keeping them because of 
>> politics), etc will cause irreparable damage to these organizations.  Bowing 
>> to governments, politics, etc does not have a path back from future control.
>> This is a recommendation that will only hurt people (China, North Korea, 
>> [even the USA], etc all do this to control their people).  Governments will 
>> get around whatever the limitations are, it may take them time and resources 
>> but they will get around it.  Freedom of information is the only way to help 
>> people understand the reality of what is going on in the world (galaxy, 
>> universe, etc).
>> 
>> Brian
>> Technological solutions for Sociological problems 
>> 
>> From: NANOG  on behalf of 
>> Bryan Fields 
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 1:23 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org 
>> Subject: Re: Ukraine request yikes
>>  
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA256
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/1/22 4:08 PM, David Conrad wrote:
>> > See .SU.
>> >
>> > (SU was moved from allocated to "transitionally reserved” back when the
>> > USSR broke up. My recollection is that an agreement was reached by which
>> > .SU users would be migrated out to appropriate new ccTLDs, that is, the
>> > ccTLDs based on ISO codes created for former Soviet republics, and no new
>> > entries would be added to .SU. However, when ICANN tried to propose a plan
>> > to finalize removing .SU from the root (around 2006 or so), the operators
>> > of .SU reopened registrations and complained to the US Dept. of Commerce,
>> > who were overseeing ICANN performance of the IANA Functions contract.
>> > Eventually, the Russian government was able to convince ISO-3166/MA to move
>> > SU to “exceptionally reserved” (like UK, EU, and a number of others) and
>> > forward motion on removing .SU from the root essentially ceased.)
>> 
>> I know someone (non-Russian) using .su for a funny name ending in .su.  This
>> is non-political and caters only to an English speaking audience.  These were
>> registered in the last few years, so they are still open and taking the
>> registrations.
>> 
>> I would ask what of .ly used for various URL shorteners, and .kp or .cn?  All
>> these are representing evil countries too, why do they get a pass.  I'm
>> certain they would argue .us should be revoked for the same.
>> 
>> This would break connectivity, and that's a bad thing.
>> - -- 
>> Bryan Fields
>> 
>> 727-409-1194 - Voice
>> http://bryanfields.net
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
>> 
>> iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEaESdNosUjpjcN/JhYTmgYVLGkUAFAmIejrUACgkQYTmgYVLG
>> kUA+QQ//Z9ovTSFqVEunql2guHAN3xWaNpCpuNJCGM68dJTBSWrPEY0zFXlmZG1k
>> 0TWrSrRSoWogiJmRvaOuFx6KxkaADqZaZq6OFaCw3jvyFGULw+auyuATGlhnUL8p
>> CV0AbovPUnoAef1qJdglFkqnfrGBxeBGsgRIM8tx2l/G+zq5MdMnCx9cM+JmmN1y
>> b+jrV4oekgXRZLAMI/sA9clMAXUmlgReRvit8YBccunkmMP8naQ92vj9dvVGZld0
>> hGguK2a7vFXpDiW5o0nFe5GRdGIqM0aWUz6p0qkB9JudkZkAyEqSpCePZky4LdAt
>> ebh9544PZu/vllQjv3L6vENlCURcifTIRSevcwfKZtos7UG4mJI1UQ51OLTRjB7a
>> nqYkVNJSQJ+dXZFLPoRHNUOu4+1MAyozpDeMJzMsr4a7Ru2lh0AOTiXxDaSRhOd+
>> 2s3rQigh/l6cP/x9iM7+f+rInHzPihHfjbwcxhyqd12EFxgTe3hvi9JlRSe18RYw
>> bnDKQg3xKp1eIk0sZMeLyIWDERjsMxIuEP9MuKHp+oTCrLq6MFSgUiFan7M5Pk2t
>> mwB3sbFuwkVzfmDbbnbelll30ukXQM3d7KVp2AHbsvI6hNs6zHZgRb7ZgGrR9Ep5
>> 6UlYqVqQOWtYNujNxYRgzemFI6lgJj8GHyDeh0wLRCP0aw/ATPg=
>> =KK8e
>> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Matthew Petach]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:59 AM Scott McGrath  wrote:

> Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and
> they probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit
> a very dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds.
> I applaud the humanitarian aspect of providing Starlink service,
> unfortunately there are geopolitical realities like access to space which
> is likely to be negatively impacted if and when Russia starts shooting down
> these birds.Fortunately if they start shooting down the birds the
> debris will burn up in a year or so unlike geosync orbit where it would
> stay forever.
>

Anti-satellite weapons hearken from the NASA-era of satellite launches,
which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, were planned years if not
decades
in advance, and would take an equivalent amount of time and money to
replace if shot down.

Note SpaceX's response when 40 out of 49 satellites were fried shortly
after
launch due to recent solar activity:

https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites-lost-geomagnetic-storm

Pretty much just a "ho hum, s**t happens, we'll make sure they burn up
safely and don't hit anything on the way down."

And then they launched another 46 birds three weeks later:
https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/launches-and-events/events-calendar/2022/february/rocket-launch-spacex-falcon-9-starlink-4-8#:~:text=Event%20Details-,Rocket%20Launch%3A%20February%2021%2C%202022%209%3A44%20AM%20EST,Falcon%209%20Starlink%204%2D8

and a week after that, launched another 50 birds:
https://www.space.com/spacex-50-starlink-satellites-launch-february-2022

Sure, Russia could start shooting them down.
But at the rate SpaceX can build and launch them, in that war of
attrition, I'd put my money on SpaceX, not Russia--and it would
let everyone in the world get a very detailed map of exactly what
the capabilities and limitations of Russia's anti-satelite weaponry
are as they fired it off dozens if not hundreds of times in a relatively
short time period.

I think people are just now waking up to how radically SpaceX has
changed access to space.   ^_^;

Matt

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[George Herbert]

I don’t hear anyone in the networks field supporting doing it.

It was a yikes that the request was made, but not looking at all likely to 
happen IMHO.

-george  

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 1, 2022, at 2:12 PM, Brian R  wrote:
> 
> 
> The problem with all this talk, especially with trusted international neutral 
> organizations, is that once they bend they will never be trusted again.  
> Shutting off the routes, removing TLDs (or keeping them because of politics), 
> etc will cause irreparable damage to these organizations.  Bowing to 
> governments, politics, etc does not have a path back from future control.
> This is a recommendation that will only hurt people (China, North Korea, 
> [even the USA], etc all do this to control their people).  Governments will 
> get around whatever the limitations are, it may take them time and resources 
> but they will get around it.  Freedom of information is the only way to help 
> people understand the reality of what is going on in the world (galaxy, 
> universe, etc).
> 
> Brian
> Technological solutions for Sociological problems 
> 
> From: NANOG  on behalf of 
> Bryan Fields 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 1:23 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Subject: Re: Ukraine request yikes
>  
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> 
> On 3/1/22 4:08 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> > See .SU.
> >
> > (SU was moved from allocated to "transitionally reserved” back when the
> > USSR broke up. My recollection is that an agreement was reached by which
> > .SU users would be migrated out to appropriate new ccTLDs, that is, the
> > ccTLDs based on ISO codes created for former Soviet republics, and no new
> > entries would be added to .SU. However, when ICANN tried to propose a plan
> > to finalize removing .SU from the root (around 2006 or so), the operators
> > of .SU reopened registrations and complained to the US Dept. of Commerce,
> > who were overseeing ICANN performance of the IANA Functions contract.
> > Eventually, the Russian government was able to convince ISO-3166/MA to move
> > SU to “exceptionally reserved” (like UK, EU, and a number of others) and
> > forward motion on removing .SU from the root essentially ceased.)
> 
> I know someone (non-Russian) using .su for a funny name ending in .su.  This
> is non-political and caters only to an English speaking audience.  These were
> registered in the last few years, so they are still open and taking the
> registrations.
> 
> I would ask what of .ly used for various URL shorteners, and .kp or .cn?  All
> these are representing evil countries too, why do they get a pass.  I'm
> certain they would argue .us should be revoked for the same.
> 
> This would break connectivity, and that's a bad thing.
> - -- 
> Bryan Fields
> 
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> http://bryanfields.net
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEaESdNosUjpjcN/JhYTmgYVLGkUAFAmIejrUACgkQYTmgYVLG
> kUA+QQ//Z9ovTSFqVEunql2guHAN3xWaNpCpuNJCGM68dJTBSWrPEY0zFXlmZG1k
> 0TWrSrRSoWogiJmRvaOuFx6KxkaADqZaZq6OFaCw3jvyFGULw+auyuATGlhnUL8p
> CV0AbovPUnoAef1qJdglFkqnfrGBxeBGsgRIM8tx2l/G+zq5MdMnCx9cM+JmmN1y
> b+jrV4oekgXRZLAMI/sA9clMAXUmlgReRvit8YBccunkmMP8naQ92vj9dvVGZld0
> hGguK2a7vFXpDiW5o0nFe5GRdGIqM0aWUz6p0qkB9JudkZkAyEqSpCePZky4LdAt
> ebh9544PZu/vllQjv3L6vENlCURcifTIRSevcwfKZtos7UG4mJI1UQ51OLTRjB7a
> nqYkVNJSQJ+dXZFLPoRHNUOu4+1MAyozpDeMJzMsr4a7Ru2lh0AOTiXxDaSRhOd+
> 2s3rQigh/l6cP/x9iM7+f+rInHzPihHfjbwcxhyqd12EFxgTe3hvi9JlRSe18RYw
> bnDKQg3xKp1eIk0sZMeLyIWDERjsMxIuEP9MuKHp+oTCrLq6MFSgUiFan7M5Pk2t
> mwB3sbFuwkVzfmDbbnbelll30ukXQM3d7KVp2AHbsvI6hNs6zHZgRb7ZgGrR9Ep5
> 6UlYqVqQOWtYNujNxYRgzemFI6lgJj8GHyDeh0wLRCP0aw/ATPg=
> =KK8e
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Dennis Glatting]

On Tue, 2022-03-01 at 15:18 -0500, Tom Beecher wrote:
> > Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite
> > weapons and they probably will not hesitate to use them which will
> > make low earth orbit a very dangerous place when Russia starts
> > blowing up the Starlink birds.    I applaud the humanitarian aspect
> > of providing Starlink service, unfortunately there are geopolitical
> > realities like access to space which is likely to be negatively
> > impacted if and when Russia starts shooting down these birds.   
> > Fortunately if they start shooting down the birds the debris will
> > burn up in a year or so unlike geosync orbit where it would stay
> > forever.
> > 
> 
> 
> Russia is not going to be using up it's anti-sat weapons to take down
> commercial internet birds. Let's use a little common sense here. 
> 

+1

There are a lot of birds which translates to a number of weapons that
are likely an unnecessary expense at a time where the greatest expense
is focused on the ground.



> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:57 PM Scott McGrath 
> wrote:
> > Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite
> > weapons and they probably will not hesitate to use them which will
> > make low earth orbit a very dangerous place when Russia starts
> > blowing up the Starlink birds.    I applaud the humanitarian aspect
> > of providing Starlink service, unfortunately there are geopolitical
> > realities like access to space which is likely to be negatively
> > impacted if and when Russia starts shooting down these birds.   
> > Fortunately if they start shooting down the birds the debris will
> > burn up in a year or so unlike geosync orbit where it would stay
> > forever.
> > 
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:44 PM Phineas Walton 
> > wrote:
> > > This is more of a brand image / marketing stunt for Starlink. A
> > > pretty ingenious way to market which will heavily pay off long
> > > term. To them, this is cheap for how much attention it’s getting
> > > them.
> > > 
> > > Phin
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:36 PM Crist Clark 
> > > wrote:
> > > > So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area
> > > > for free somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they
> > > > pay it if you can’t do business in the country?
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:39 PM Jay Hennigan 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On 2/28/22 16:17, Michael Thomas wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > As a practical matter how does this help? You need to have
> > > > > base 
> > > > > > stations/dishes, right? Can they be beefy ones that can pump
> > > > > out 
> > > > > > gigabytes that would be capable of backfilling the load? Or
> > > > > would it 
> > > > > > need to be multiple in parallel? Wouldn't that bandwidth be
> > > > > constrained 
> > > > > > by the number of visible satellites in the constellation? I
> > > > > wonder if 
> > > > > > they've ever even tested it with feeding into an internet
> > > > > facing router. 
> > > > > > Could tables on the satellites explode?
> > > > > 
> > > > > If there aren't fixed Internet-connected earth stations line-
> > > > > of-sight to 
> > > > > the satellite that's serving the remote terminal, Starlink
> > > > > will relay 
> > > > > satellite-to-satellite until a path to an Internet-connected
> > > > > earth 
> > > > > station is in reach.
> > > > > 
> > > > >  From the linked article:
> > > > > 
> > > > > "Musk has previously stressed Starlink’s flexibility of
> > > > > Starlink in 
> > > > > providing internet service. In September, Musk talked about
> > > > > how the 
> > > > > company would use links between the satellites to create a
> > > > > network that 
> > > > > could provide service even in countries that prohibit SpaceX
> > > > > from 
> > > > > installing ground infrastructure for distribution.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As for government regulators who want to block Starlink from
> > > > > using that 
> > > > > capability, Musk had a simple answer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > “They can shake their fist at the sky,” Musk said."
> > > > > 

-- 
Dennis Glatting
Numbers Skeptic

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[Daniel Suchy via NANOG]

Hello,

On 3/1/22 21:08, David Conrad wrote:
- Shutdown the root server instances operated by ICANN that are within 
Russia
ICANN could conceivably do this unilaterally, but there are a lot more 
root server instances operated by other RSOs (including RIPE NCC, 
Verisign, ISC, and NASA).


It's also technically possible to perform full AXFR from some official 
root-server (it's allowed on some instances) and bring your own 
root-server locally-anycasted instance anywhere you want.


Shutdown of root servers in Russia will not  solve anything.

- Daniel

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[Brian R]

The problem with all this talk, especially with trusted international neutral 
organizations, is that once they bend they will never be trusted again.  
Shutting off the routes, removing TLDs (or keeping them because of politics), 
etc will cause irreparable damage to these organizations.  Bowing to 
governments, politics, etc does not have a path back from future control.
This is a recommendation that will only hurt people (China, North Korea, [even 
the USA], etc all do this to control their people).  Governments will get 
around whatever the limitations are, it may take them time and resources but 
they will get around it.  Freedom of information is the only way to help people 
understand the reality of what is going on in the world (galaxy, universe, etc).

Brian
Technological solutions for Sociological problems


From: NANOG  on behalf of 
Bryan Fields 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 1:23 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Ukraine request yikes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


On 3/1/22 4:08 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> See .SU.
>
> (SU was moved from allocated to "transitionally reserved” back when the
> USSR broke up. My recollection is that an agreement was reached by which
> .SU users would be migrated out to appropriate new ccTLDs, that is, the
> ccTLDs based on ISO codes created for former Soviet republics, and no new
> entries would be added to .SU. However, when ICANN tried to propose a plan
> to finalize removing .SU from the root (around 2006 or so), the operators
> of .SU reopened registrations and complained to the US Dept. of Commerce,
> who were overseeing ICANN performance of the IANA Functions contract.
> Eventually, the Russian government was able to convince ISO-3166/MA to move
> SU to “exceptionally reserved” (like UK, EU, and a number of others) and
> forward motion on removing .SU from the root essentially ceased.)

I know someone (non-Russian) using .su for a funny name ending in .su.  This
is non-political and caters only to an English speaking audience.  These were
registered in the last few years, so they are still open and taking the
registrations.

I would ask what of .ly used for various URL shorteners, and .kp or .cn?  All
these are representing evil countries too, why do they get a pass.  I'm
certain they would argue .us should be revoked for the same.

This would break connectivity, and that's a bad thing.
- --
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=KK8e
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Jay Hennigan]

On 3/1/22 10:35, Crist Clark wrote:
So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for 
free somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if 
you can’t do business in the country?


1. Elon can afford it.

2. Marketing value is huge.

--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[Bryan Fields]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


On 3/1/22 4:08 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> See .SU.
>
> (SU was moved from allocated to "transitionally reserved” back when the
> USSR broke up. My recollection is that an agreement was reached by which
> .SU users would be migrated out to appropriate new ccTLDs, that is, the
> ccTLDs based on ISO codes created for former Soviet republics, and no new
> entries would be added to .SU. However, when ICANN tried to propose a plan
> to finalize removing .SU from the root (around 2006 or so), the operators
> of .SU reopened registrations and complained to the US Dept. of Commerce,
> who were overseeing ICANN performance of the IANA Functions contract.
> Eventually, the Russian government was able to convince ISO-3166/MA to move
> SU to “exceptionally reserved” (like UK, EU, and a number of others) and
> forward motion on removing .SU from the root essentially ceased.)

I know someone (non-Russian) using .su for a funny name ending in .su.  This
is non-political and caters only to an English speaking audience.  These were
registered in the last few years, so they are still open and taking the
registrations.

I would ask what of .ly used for various URL shorteners, and .kp or .cn?  All
these are representing evil countries too, why do they get a pass.  I'm
certain they would argue .us should be revoked for the same.

This would break connectivity, and that's a bad thing.
- -- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=KK8e
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Matthew Petach]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:38 AM Crist Clark  wrote:

> So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for free
> somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if you can’t
> do business in the country?
>

It's not like Google is billing anyone for using 8.8.8.8 et al.
[for those who immediately respond "this is SpaceX, not Google,
remember, Google already put a billion dollars into the company
to purchase 10% ownership of it; contributing another billion to
fund service to Ukraine wouldn't be beyond their means by any
stretch.]

Besides, it could be a great "free now, but 6 months after an
armistice is signed, you can cancel the service and return the
dish, or start paying our regular monthly service fee" type
situation.

I mean, if starlink offered you free service for N months, and
then at the end, you had to choose to return the dish or start
paying the monthly fee, how likely are you to give it up once
you've gotten used to using it every day?

If we really want to get creative, there's always the carbon offsets
model for industry.  We could create incentive structures for
global companies to buy "democracy credits" through donations
like that, which would offset a similar amount of latitude in doing
business within authoritarian regions.  That way, if you donate
a billion dollars worth of service to support freedom and democracy
in Ukraine, we'll collectively look the other way if you use slave
Uyghur labour to assemble a billion dollars worth of CPE.

In short--there's lots of ways this could work out, beyond a simple
"let's just give it away for free forever" model.   ^_^

Matt

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[David Conrad]

On Mar 1, 2022, at 12:27 PM, Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
>> More or less.  The Government Advisory Committee member from Ukraine has 
>> asked ICANN to:
>> - Revoke .RU, .рф, and .SU (all Russian-managed ccTLDs)
>> 
>> As the GAC member undoubtedly knows, that’s not how ICANN works. Barring a 
>> court/executive order in ICANN’s jurisdiction (and even then, it gets a bit 
>> sticky see 
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/13/dc-court-rules-that-top-level-domain-not-subject-to-seizure/),
>>  ICANN essentially treats ccTLDs as national sovereign resources. A third 
>> party, no matter how justified, requesting a change of this nature will not 
>> go anywhere. Simply put, ICANN is NOT a regulator in the forma sense, it is 
>> a private entity incorporated in California. The powers that it has are the 
>> result of mutual contractual obligations and it’s a bit unlikely the Russian 
>> government has entered into any contracts with ICANN, particularly those 
>> that would allow ICANN to unilaterally revoke any of the Russian ccTLDs.
> 
> I wonder how ICANN would react to ISO removing RU/RUS from ISO 3166-2/3.

See .SU.

(SU was moved from allocated to "transitionally reserved” back when the USSR 
broke up. My recollection is that an agreement was reached by which .SU users 
would be migrated out to appropriate new ccTLDs, that is, the ccTLDs based on 
ISO codes created for former Soviet republics, and no new entries would be 
added to .SU. However, when ICANN tried to propose a plan to finalize removing 
.SU from the root (around 2006 or so), the operators of .SU reopened 
registrations and complained to the US Dept. of Commerce, who were overseeing 
ICANN performance of the IANA Functions contract. Eventually, the Russian 
government was able to convince ISO-3166/MA to move SU to “exceptionally 
reserved” (like UK, EU, and a number of others) and forward motion on removing 
.SU from the root essentially ceased.)

Regards,
-drc



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Brandon Butterworth]

On Tue Mar 01, 2022 at 10:35:21AM -0800, Crist Clark wrote:
> So they???re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for free
> somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if you can???t
> do business in the country?

Who knows but someone got an imported one running -

https://twitter.com/lorengrush/status/1498724024729452552

brandon

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[Rubens Kuhl]

> More or less.  The Government Advisory Committee member from Ukraine has 
> asked ICANN to:
> - Revoke .RU, .рф, and .SU (all Russian-managed ccTLDs)
>
> As the GAC member undoubtedly knows, that’s not how ICANN works. Barring a 
> court/executive order in ICANN’s jurisdiction (and even then, it gets a bit 
> sticky see 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/13/dc-court-rules-that-top-level-domain-not-subject-to-seizure/),
>  ICANN essentially treats ccTLDs as national sovereign resources. A third 
> party, no matter how justified, requesting a change of this nature will not 
> go anywhere. Simply put, ICANN is NOT a regulator in the forma sense, it is a 
> private entity incorporated in California. The powers that it has are the 
> result of mutual contractual obligations and it’s a bit unlikely the Russian 
> government has entered into any contracts with ICANN, particularly those that 
> would allow ICANN to unilaterally revoke any of the Russian ccTLDs.

I wonder how ICANN would react to ISO removing RU/RUS from ISO 3166-2/3.


Rubens

RE: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Tony Wicks]

I think you are significantly overestimating the quality, quantity and will of 
the Russians to do such a thing as shoot down another countries satellites. In 
case it wasn’t clear from the preceding week there is a significant difference 
between the image of conventional weapon strength the Russian military has been 
portraying over the last 20 years and the reality of the situation. Swatting 
down hundreds of satellites just isn’t a thing, even the US military who have 
access to hundreds of SM3/SM6/THAAD vehicles would struggle to do such a thing. 
The Russian military would struggle to knock down a dozen I would suggest and 
the retaliation would be significant for such a blatant attack on a NATO 
countries assets.

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Scott 
McGrath
Sent: Wednesday, 2 March 2022 8:57 am
To: Phineas Walton 
Cc: NANOG list 
Subject: Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

 

Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and they 
probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit a very 
dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds.I applaud 
the humanitarian aspect of providing Starlink service, unfortunately there are 
geopolitical realities like access to space which is likely to be negatively 
impacted if and when Russia starts shooting down these birds.Fortunately if 
they start shooting down the birds the debris will burn up in a year or so 
unlike geosync orbit where it would stay forever.

 

- WB6RDV

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Tom Beecher]

>
> Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and
> they probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit
> a very dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds.
> I applaud the humanitarian aspect of providing Starlink service,
> unfortunately there are geopolitical realities like access to space which
> is likely to be negatively impacted if and when Russia starts shooting down
> these birds.Fortunately if they start shooting down the birds the
> debris will burn up in a year or so unlike geosync orbit where it would
> stay forever.
>

Russia is not going to be using up it's anti-sat weapons to take down
commercial internet birds. Let's use a little common sense here.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 2:57 PM Scott McGrath  wrote:

> Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and
> they probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit
> a very dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds.
> I applaud the humanitarian aspect of providing Starlink service,
> unfortunately there are geopolitical realities like access to space which
> is likely to be negatively impacted if and when Russia starts shooting down
> these birds.Fortunately if they start shooting down the birds the
> debris will burn up in a year or so unlike geosync orbit where it would
> stay forever.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:44 PM Phineas Walton  wrote:
>
>> This is more of a brand image / marketing stunt for Starlink. A pretty
>> ingenious way to market which will heavily pay off long term. To them, this
>> is cheap for how much attention it’s getting them.
>>
>> Phin
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:36 PM Crist Clark  wrote:
>>
>>> So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for
>>> free somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if you
>>> can’t do business in the country?
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:39 PM Jay Hennigan  wrote:
>>>
 On 2/28/22 16:17, Michael Thomas wrote:

 > As a practical matter how does this help? You need to have base
 > stations/dishes, right? Can they be beefy ones that can pump out
 > gigabytes that would be capable of backfilling the load? Or would it
 > need to be multiple in parallel? Wouldn't that bandwidth be
 constrained
 > by the number of visible satellites in the constellation? I wonder if
 > they've ever even tested it with feeding into an internet facing
 router.
 > Could tables on the satellites explode?

 If there aren't fixed Internet-connected earth stations line-of-sight
 to
 the satellite that's serving the remote terminal, Starlink will relay
 satellite-to-satellite until a path to an Internet-connected earth
 station is in reach.

  From the linked article:

 "Musk has previously stressed Starlink’s flexibility of Starlink in
 providing internet service. In September, Musk talked about how the
 company would use links between the satellites to create a network that
 could provide service even in countries that prohibit SpaceX from
 installing ground infrastructure for distribution.

 As for government regulators who want to block Starlink from using that
 capability, Musk had a simple answer.

 “They can shake their fist at the sky,” Musk said."

 --
 Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
 Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[David Conrad]

On Mar 1, 2022, at 12:16 AM, George Herbert  wrote:
> Ukraine (I think I read as) want ICANN to turn root nameservers off, revoke 
> address delegations, and turn off TLDs for Russia.

More or less.  The Government Advisory Committee member from Ukraine has asked 
ICANN to:
- Revoke .RU, .рф, and .SU (all Russian-managed ccTLDs)

As the GAC member undoubtedly knows, that’s not how ICANN works. Barring a 
court/executive order in ICANN’s jurisdiction (and even then, it gets a bit 
sticky see 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/13/dc-court-rules-that-top-level-domain-not-subject-to-seizure/
 
),
 ICANN essentially treats ccTLDs as national sovereign resources. A third 
party, no matter how justified, requesting a change of this nature will not go 
anywhere. Simply put, ICANN is NOT a regulator in the forma sense, it is a 
private entity incorporated in California. The powers that it has are the 
result of mutual contractual obligations and it’s a bit unlikely the Russian 
government has entered into any contracts with ICANN, particularly those that 
would allow ICANN to unilaterally revoke any of the Russian ccTLDs.

- "Contribute to the revoking for SSL certificates for the abovementioned 
domains.”

I’m not sure what this even means.

- Shutdown the root server instances operated by ICANN that are within Russia

ICANN could conceivably do this unilaterally, but there are a lot more root 
server instances operated by other RSOs (including RIPE NCC, Verisign, ISC, and 
NASA). Even if all the RSOs shut down their instances, it’d merely increase 
latency for root queries by a small amount unless all DNS traffic to the RSO 
IPs were blocked at Russian borders.  And even then, Russia has been “testing” 
operating in a disconnected mode, so it’s highly likely there are root server 
equivalents in Russia that would continue to resolve root queries.

However, as mentioned, the UA GAC member probably knows all this and I imagine 
the intent of this letter was less to cause the requested actions to actually 
occur than it was to raise the profile of the conflict in the Internet 
governance context.

Regards,
-drc



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[nanog08]

Kinda like sending Captain Kirk on a space launch.  Amazing marketing!

On 3/1/22 11:41, Phineas Walton wrote:
This is more of a brand image / marketing stunt for Starlink. A pretty 
ingenious way to market which will heavily pay off long term. To them, 
this is cheap for how much attention it’s getting them.


Phin

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:36 PM Crist Clark > wrote:


So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area
for free somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they
pay it if you can’t do business in the country?

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:39 PM Jay Hennigan  wrote:

On 2/28/22 16:17, Michael Thomas wrote:

> As a practical matter how does this help? You need to have base
> stations/dishes, right? Can they be beefy ones that can pump
out
> gigabytes that would be capable of backfilling the load? Or
would it
> need to be multiple in parallel? Wouldn't that bandwidth be
constrained
> by the number of visible satellites in the constellation? I
wonder if
> they've ever even tested it with feeding into an internet
facing router.
> Could tables on the satellites explode?

If there aren't fixed Internet-connected earth stations
line-of-sight to
the satellite that's serving the remote terminal, Starlink
will relay
satellite-to-satellite until a path to an Internet-connected
earth
station is in reach.

 From the linked article:

"Musk has previously stressed Starlink’s flexibility of
Starlink in
providing internet service. In September, Musk talked about
how the
company would use links between the satellites to create a
network that
could provide service even in countries that prohibit SpaceX from
installing ground infrastructure for distribution.

As for government regulators who want to block Starlink from
using that
capability, Musk had a simple answer.

“They can shake their fist at the sky,” Musk said."

-- 
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net

Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Scott McGrath]

Starlink however forgets that Russia does have anti satellite weapons and
they probably will not hesitate to use them which will make low earth orbit
a very dangerous place when Russia starts blowing up the Starlink birds.
I applaud the humanitarian aspect of providing Starlink service,
unfortunately there are geopolitical realities like access to space which
is likely to be negatively impacted if and when Russia starts shooting down
these birds.Fortunately if they start shooting down the birds the
debris will burn up in a year or so unlike geosync orbit where it would
stay forever.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 1:44 PM Phineas Walton  wrote:

> This is more of a brand image / marketing stunt for Starlink. A pretty
> ingenious way to market which will heavily pay off long term. To them, this
> is cheap for how much attention it’s getting them.
>
> Phin
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:36 PM Crist Clark  wrote:
>
>> So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for free
>> somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if you can’t
>> do business in the country?
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:39 PM Jay Hennigan  wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/28/22 16:17, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> > As a practical matter how does this help? You need to have base
>>> > stations/dishes, right? Can they be beefy ones that can pump out
>>> > gigabytes that would be capable of backfilling the load? Or would it
>>> > need to be multiple in parallel? Wouldn't that bandwidth be
>>> constrained
>>> > by the number of visible satellites in the constellation? I wonder if
>>> > they've ever even tested it with feeding into an internet facing
>>> router.
>>> > Could tables on the satellites explode?
>>>
>>> If there aren't fixed Internet-connected earth stations line-of-sight to
>>> the satellite that's serving the remote terminal, Starlink will relay
>>> satellite-to-satellite until a path to an Internet-connected earth
>>> station is in reach.
>>>
>>>  From the linked article:
>>>
>>> "Musk has previously stressed Starlink’s flexibility of Starlink in
>>> providing internet service. In September, Musk talked about how the
>>> company would use links between the satellites to create a network that
>>> could provide service even in countries that prohibit SpaceX from
>>> installing ground infrastructure for distribution.
>>>
>>> As for government regulators who want to block Starlink from using that
>>> capability, Musk had a simple answer.
>>>
>>> “They can shake their fist at the sky,” Musk said."
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
>>> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
>>> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
>>>
>>>

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Phineas Walton]

This is more of a brand image / marketing stunt for Starlink. A pretty
ingenious way to market which will heavily pay off long term. To them, this
is cheap for how much attention it’s getting them.

Phin

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 6:36 PM Crist Clark  wrote:

> So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for free
> somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if you can’t
> do business in the country?
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:39 PM Jay Hennigan  wrote:
>
>> On 2/28/22 16:17, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>
>> > As a practical matter how does this help? You need to have base
>> > stations/dishes, right? Can they be beefy ones that can pump out
>> > gigabytes that would be capable of backfilling the load? Or would it
>> > need to be multiple in parallel? Wouldn't that bandwidth be constrained
>> > by the number of visible satellites in the constellation? I wonder if
>> > they've ever even tested it with feeding into an internet facing
>> router.
>> > Could tables on the satellites explode?
>>
>> If there aren't fixed Internet-connected earth stations line-of-sight to
>> the satellite that's serving the remote terminal, Starlink will relay
>> satellite-to-satellite until a path to an Internet-connected earth
>> station is in reach.
>>
>>  From the linked article:
>>
>> "Musk has previously stressed Starlink’s flexibility of Starlink in
>> providing internet service. In September, Musk talked about how the
>> company would use links between the satellites to create a network that
>> could provide service even in countries that prohibit SpaceX from
>> installing ground infrastructure for distribution.
>>
>> As for government regulators who want to block Starlink from using that
>> capability, Musk had a simple answer.
>>
>> “They can shake their fist at the sky,” Musk said."
>>
>> --
>> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
>> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
>> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
>>
>>

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Crist Clark]

So they’re going to offer the service to anyone in a denied area for free
somehow? How do you send someone a bill or how do they pay it if you can’t
do business in the country?

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 4:39 PM Jay Hennigan  wrote:

> On 2/28/22 16:17, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> > As a practical matter how does this help? You need to have base
> > stations/dishes, right? Can they be beefy ones that can pump out
> > gigabytes that would be capable of backfilling the load? Or would it
> > need to be multiple in parallel? Wouldn't that bandwidth be constrained
> > by the number of visible satellites in the constellation? I wonder if
> > they've ever even tested it with feeding into an internet facing router.
> > Could tables on the satellites explode?
>
> If there aren't fixed Internet-connected earth stations line-of-sight to
> the satellite that's serving the remote terminal, Starlink will relay
> satellite-to-satellite until a path to an Internet-connected earth
> station is in reach.
>
>  From the linked article:
>
> "Musk has previously stressed Starlink’s flexibility of Starlink in
> providing internet service. In September, Musk talked about how the
> company would use links between the satellites to create a network that
> could provide service even in countries that prohibit SpaceX from
> installing ground infrastructure for distribution.
>
> As for government regulators who want to block Starlink from using that
> capability, Musk had a simple answer.
>
> “They can shake their fist at the sky,” Musk said."
>
> --
> Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
> Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
> 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV
>
>

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Stephen Strowes]

Yes, most starlink is via AS36492. They also have AS27277, though I'm not
sure if that's in active use for consumer traffic.





On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 11:58, ic  wrote:

> Friends who have Starlink terminals in Europe (cz) go out through AS36492.
>
> > On 1 Mar 2022, at 05:48, Ong Beng Hui  wrote:
> >
> > Curious, will that be with starlink ASN then ?
> >
> > That throw geo detection via IP out right away.
>
>

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Phineas Walton]

Starlink uses Google as their ground provider - Google invested $1bn into
Starlink so it’s no wonder.

Phin

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 5:58 PM Josh Luthman 
wrote:

> As Google's ASN?
>
> https://bgp.he.net/AS36492
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:56 AM ic  wrote:
>
>> Friends who have Starlink terminals in Europe (cz) go out through AS36492.
>>
>> > On 1 Mar 2022, at 05:48, Ong Beng Hui  wrote:
>> >
>> > Curious, will that be with starlink ASN then ?
>> >
>> > That throw geo detection via IP out right away.
>>
>>

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Mike Hammett]

I think they were all that way, but I believe traffic is moving over to 14593. 


https://bgp.he.net/AS14593 


I've seen people post on their social media that their routing changed. 





- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 

- Original Message -

From: "ic"  
To: "Ong Beng Hui"  
Cc: "NANOG list"  
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 10:56:24 AM 
Subject: Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine 

Friends who have Starlink terminals in Europe (cz) go out through AS36492. 

> On 1 Mar 2022, at 05:48, Ong Beng Hui  wrote: 
> 
> Curious, will that be with starlink ASN then ? 
> 
> That throw geo detection via IP out right away. 

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Josh Luthman]

As Google's ASN?

https://bgp.he.net/AS36492

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 11:56 AM ic  wrote:

> Friends who have Starlink terminals in Europe (cz) go out through AS36492.
>
> > On 1 Mar 2022, at 05:48, Ong Beng Hui  wrote:
> >
> > Curious, will that be with starlink ASN then ?
> >
> > That throw geo detection via IP out right away.
>
>

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[ic]

Friends who have Starlink terminals in Europe (cz) go out through AS36492.

> On 1 Mar 2022, at 05:48, Ong Beng Hui  wrote:
> 
> Curious, will that be with starlink ASN then ?
> 
> That throw geo detection via IP out right away.

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Dave Taht]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:47 AM Dovid Bender  wrote:
>
> From a quick google search it seems to be 14593.
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:48 PM Ong Beng Hui  wrote:
>>
>> Curious, will that be with starlink ASN then ?
>>
>> That throw geo detection via IP out right away.

One way to avoid geo-detection of course is to run a vpn.

Source specific routing can be used to "export" ipv6 blocks from
anywhere to anywhere.

>>
>> On 3/1/2022 6:55 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
>> > https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/ukraine-updates-starlink-satellite-dishes.html
>> >
>> >



-- 
I tried to build a better future, a few times:
https://wayforward.archive.org/?site=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icei.org

Dave Täht CEO, TekLibre, LLC

Re: Authoritative Resources for Public DNS Pinging

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via NANOG]

Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe  writes:

> What else is like that and easy to remember and isn’t 1.1.1.1 ?

1.1  :)

-tih
-- 
Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance
of Lisp.  Lisp is the most important idea in computer science.  --Alan Kay

Re: Starlink terminals deployed in Ukraine

[Dovid Bender]

>From a quick google search it seems to be 14593.


On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:48 PM Ong Beng Hui  wrote:

> Curious, will that be with starlink ASN then ?
>
> That throw geo detection via IP out right away.
>
> On 3/1/2022 6:55 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
> >
> https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/28/ukraine-updates-starlink-satellite-dishes.html
> >
> >
>

RE: Certificates for DoT and DoH?

[David Guo via NANOG]

>> Sorry if I'm slow, but isn't that a chicken-and-egg problem?

Normal DoT/DoH problem has bootstrap DNS setting, you always need to set a 
bootstrap DNS server to resolve the DoT/DoH domains, so this is not a problem.

-Original Message-
From: Bjørn Mork  
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 3:57 AM
To: David Guo 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Certificates for DoT and DoH?

David Guo  writes:

> You don't need a certificate for your IP address if your DoT and DoH 
> use domains.

Sorry if I'm slow, but isn't that a chicken-and-egg problem?

We're going to provide this as an add-on to our standard ISP resolver service.  
Most clients will pick up the addresses from DHCP/DHCPv6.
Very few are configuring DNS resolvers manually, and those who do are using 
other providers.  Like you :-)

> For certificates with IPv4 address, we use ZeroSSL / GoGetSSL, both 
> are SubCA with Sectigo, which works fine.

Thanks.  That's interesting. I didn't know ZeroSSL offered this.  And GoGetSSL 
has better docs than most.  

But we can't run a resolver service without IPv6 in 2022.  Did you ever get any 
explanation of this restriction?  Shouldn't be much harder/different to 
validate an IPv6 address if you can validate an IPv4 address.

> For IPv6 address, we used Digicert but it's too expensive, so we give 
> up ☹

Hard to claim it's too expensive if no one else thinks it's worth offering a 
similar service...

> Our DoT/DoH service is https://dns.sb/

Nice.  Good to have more examples to look at.  


Bjørn

Re: Ukraine request yikes

[Matthew Petach]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 12:19 AM George Herbert 
wrote:

> Posted by Bill Woodcock on Twitter…
> https://twitter.com/woodyatpch/status/1498472865301098500?s=21
>
> https://pastebin.com/DLbmYahS
>
> Ukraine (I think I read as) want ICANN to turn root nameservers off,
> revoke address delegations, and turn off TLDs for Russia.
>
> Seems… instability creating…
>
> -george
>


Information sharing should increase during wartime, not decrease.

Restricting information is more often the playbook of authoritarian
regimes,
and not something we should generally support.

Besides, GhostWriter is based out of Belarus, not Russia proper.  ^_^;
https://www.wired.com/story/ghostwriter-hackers-belarus-russia-misinformationo/

Matt

RE: Ukraine request yikes

[Ryan Hamel]

It’s already spread to the news - 
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/ukraine-icann-russia-internet-runet-disconnection-1314278/

 

Ryan

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of George 
Herbert
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 12:17 AM
To: Nanog 
Subject: Ukraine request yikes

 

Posted by Bill Woodcock on Twitter… 
https://twitter.com/woodyatpch/status/1498472865301098500?s=21

 

https://pastebin.com/DLbmYahS

 

Ukraine (I think I read as) want ICANN to turn root nameservers off, revoke 
address delegations, and turn off TLDs for Russia.

 

Seems… instability creating…

 

-george

Sent from my iPhone

Ukraine request yikes

[George Herbert]

Posted by Bill Woodcock on Twitter… 
https://twitter.com/woodyatpch/status/1498472865301098500?s=21

https://pastebin.com/DLbmYahS

Ukraine (I think I read as) want ICANN to turn root nameservers off, revoke 
address delegations, and turn off TLDs for Russia.

Seems… instability creating…

-george

Sent from my iPhone