Canadian regulator CRTC hires private company to investigate 2022 Rogers outage

[Sean Donelan]

CRTC hires private company to investigate 2022 Rogers outage
Critics say regulator being too secretive about probe, too slow to force 
more transparency from big telecoms


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/crtc-rogers-outage-investigation-1.6963052


CBC News has learned Canada's telecommunications regulator has hired a 
private consulting firm to investigate the massive Rogers outage last 
summer that left more than 10 million customers without cellphone and 
internet access.


The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) 
confirmed in an email it hired engineering consultant Xona Partners in May 
to provide a report on the Rogers network and "help inform what further 
regulatory action is needed."

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Michael Thomas]

On 9/14/23 6:34 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from 
hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published 
this past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over 
crimea based on the knowledge it was going to be used for a surprise 
attack. Starlink - and that author - now state that ( 
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700345943105638636 )


The onus is meaningfully different if I refused to act upon a request 
from Ukraine vs. made a deliberate change to Starlink to thwart 
Ukraine. At no point did I or anyone at SpaceX promise coverage over 
Crimea. Moreover, our terms of service clearly prohibit Starlink for 
offensive military action, as we are a civilian system, so they were 
again asking for something that was expressly prohibited. SpaceX is 
building Starshield for the US government, which is similar to, but 
much smaller than Starlink, as it will not have to handle millions of 
users. That system will be owned and controlled by the US government.

Quote
Walter Isaacson
@WalterIsaacson
·
Sep 8
To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was 
enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to 
enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did 
not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would 
cause a…Show more 



Furthermore, Musk stated yesterday that had the request come from the 
us government, he would have complied.


I will refrain from editorializing.


I guess this is a lesson on diversity which every military should pay 
attention to. I had forgotten about other wireless options that Bill 
pointed out, though I'm not sure if geostationary latency would fit 
their requirements. But is trying to reclaim your territory "offensive" 
after being invaded? How would other providers interpret that? Or maybe 
this is just a unicorn.


Mike

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Michael Thomas]

On 9/14/23 9:26 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

*nods* likely plenty of similar examples by less polarizing people.


Then lets hear them? It certainly seems like an  operational issue if 
this starts to become common. How is it dealt with if at all beyond 
diversity which is hard to come by with LEO systems?



Mike

Re: Google Contact

[Mike Lyon]

https://www.peeringdb.com/net/433

Please read the notes in their PeeringDB entry. It lists instructions
on how to set that up.

Cheers,
Mike

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 1:07 PM Pascal Masha  wrote:
>
> Hello Folks,
>
> Anyone from Google who can assist setup BGP peering through SFMIX IX, kindly 
> contact me off list.
>
> Thanks
> Regards
>
> Paschal Masha



-- 
Mike Lyon
mike.l...@gmail.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlyon

Re: mail.nanog.org broken v6 reverse DNS

[Bryan Fields]

On 9/14/23 2:12 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:

On 9/14/23 1:35 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

While wondering at high spam scores for NANOG mail, I noticed that it's
in part because of broken reverse DNS for mail.nanog.org's IPv6 address.

The address is 2001:1838:2001:8::20, with reverse delegated to
ns1.scservers.com and ns2.scservers.com... but those hostnames don't
resolve.  The auth servers for scservers.com return SERVFAIL.

Thanks,

It's being looked at now.  I'll updated once it's fixed.


Our provider has fixed their reverse zones delegation at ARIN.  It's working, 
but will need ~24 hours for the cached ttl to expire.


Thanks!
--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: Google Contact

[Pascal Masha]

More of receiving specifics via ISP that I don't wish to drop/filter
compared to aggregates via the router servers.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:22 PM TJ Trout  wrote:

> Having trouble using the route servers?
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 9:37 AM Pascal Masha  wrote:
>
>> Hello Folks,
>>
>> Anyone from Google who can assist setup BGP peering through SFMIX IX,
>> kindly contact me off list.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Regards
>>
>> Paschal Masha
>>
>

Re: Google Contact

[Pascal Masha]

Thank Robert!

This is the way.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:11 PM Robert Story  wrote:

> On Thu 2023-09-14 19:33:42+0300 Pascal wrote:
> > Anyone from Google who can assist setup BGP peering through SFMIX IX,
> > kindly contact me off list.
>
> I have contacts at google, and when I asked a similar question
> earlier this year I was refereed to their peering page:
>
>https://peering.google.com/#/options/peering
>
> As I recall, it took us about 2 weeks.
>
> Regards,
> Robert
>
> --
> USC Information Sciences Institute 
> Networking and Cybersecurity Division
>

Re: Google Contact

[TJ Trout]

Having trouble using the route servers?

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023, 9:37 AM Pascal Masha  wrote:

> Hello Folks,
>
> Anyone from Google who can assist setup BGP peering through SFMIX IX,
> kindly contact me off list.
>
> Thanks
> Regards
>
> Paschal Masha
>

Re: mail.nanog.org broken v6 reverse DNS

[Bryan Fields]

On 9/14/23 1:35 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

While wondering at high spam scores for NANOG mail, I noticed that it's
in part because of broken reverse DNS for mail.nanog.org's IPv6 address.

The address is 2001:1838:2001:8::20, with reverse delegated to
ns1.scservers.com and ns2.scservers.com... but those hostnames don't
resolve.  The auth servers for scservers.com return SERVFAIL.


Thanks,

It's being looked at now.  I'll updated once it's fixed.
--
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

mail.nanog.org broken v6 reverse DNS

[Chris Adams]

While wondering at high spam scores for NANOG mail, I noticed that it's
in part because of broken reverse DNS for mail.nanog.org's IPv6 address.

The address is 2001:1838:2001:8::20, with reverse delegated to
ns1.scservers.com and ns2.scservers.com... but those hostnames don't
resolve.  The auth servers for scservers.com return SERVFAIL.

-- 
Chris Adams 

[NANOG-announce] Don't Miss Out! Register Now For NANOG 89! + More

[Nanog News]

*Don't Miss Out! Register Now For NANOG 89! *

*Our Next Meeting Will Take Place 16 - 18 Oct. in San Diego*
*REGISTER NOW * 


*Candidate Statements of Support Open*
*Key Dates 2023*

*13 September - Statements of Support* for Board of Director Candidates
open*

17 October - Voting for Board of Director Candidates begins

25 October - Voting for Board of Director Candidates ends

***View 2023 Candidate Board Candidateshere.


*LEARN MORE *



*Espresso Bar Sponsorship Available!*

Contact Shawn at swinst...@nanog.org for more info.


*Video of the Week *
How To Survive NANOG As An Introvert

Do large crowds tend to overwhelm or exhaust you?

In this talk, Google Fiber Louie Lee moderates a discussion with community
members who self-identify as introverts. Lee opens up the conversation for
strategies to deal with a large conference - i.e., how to properly conserve
energy + orchestrate social engagements to better manage fatigue, stress,
and overwhelm.

*WATCH NOW * 
___
NANOG-announce mailing list
NANOG-announce@nanog.org
https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-announce

Don't Miss Out! Register Now For NANOG 89! + More

[Nanog News]

*Don't Miss Out! Register Now For NANOG 89! *

*Our Next Meeting Will Take Place 16 - 18 Oct. in San Diego*
*REGISTER NOW * 


*Candidate Statements of Support Open*
*Key Dates 2023*

*13 September - Statements of Support* for Board of Director Candidates
open*

17 October - Voting for Board of Director Candidates begins

25 October - Voting for Board of Director Candidates ends

***View 2023 Candidate Board Candidateshere.


*LEARN MORE *



*Espresso Bar Sponsorship Available!*

Contact Shawn at swinst...@nanog.org for more info.


*Video of the Week *
How To Survive NANOG As An Introvert

Do large crowds tend to overwhelm or exhaust you?

In this talk, Google Fiber Louie Lee moderates a discussion with community
members who self-identify as introverts. Lee opens up the conversation for
strategies to deal with a large conference - i.e., how to properly conserve
energy + orchestrate social engagements to better manage fatigue, stress,
and overwhelm.

*WATCH NOW * 

Google Contact

[Pascal Masha]

Hello Folks,

Anyone from Google who can assist setup BGP peering through SFMIX IX,
kindly contact me off list.

Thanks
Regards

Paschal Masha

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Mike Hammett]

*nods* likely plenty of similar examples by less polarizing people. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Randy Bush"  
To: "NANOG mailing list"  
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 10:15:04 AM 
Subject: Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in 
Ukraine? 

perhaps this is not a nanog operational topic 

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Randy Bush]

perhaps this is not a nanog operational topic 

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Tom Beecher]

Mr. Isaacson's tweet (or X , or whatever the hell it is now ) is
essentially saying Russia invading Ukraine was *not* a major war, but
Ukraine attacking back to defend itself would be. Exceptionally dumb
comment.

I also find it exceptionally rich that Musk uses their 'Terms of Service'
as a shield to justify an action, while at the same time openly ignoring
obligations on contracts his company signed with vendors and now former
employees. He sure does love to have it both ways.

On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 9:36 AM Dave Taht  wrote:

> This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from
> hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published this
> past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over crimea
> based on the knowledge it was going to be used for a surprise attack.
> Starlink - and that author - now state that (
> https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700345943105638636 )
>
> The onus is meaningfully different if I refused to act upon a request from
> Ukraine vs. made a deliberate change to Starlink to thwart Ukraine. At no
> point did I or anyone at SpaceX promise coverage over Crimea. Moreover, our
> terms of service clearly prohibit Starlink for offensive military action,
> as we are a civilian system, so they were again asking for something that
> was expressly prohibited. SpaceX is building Starshield for the US
> government, which is similar to, but much smaller than Starlink, as it will
> not have to handle millions of users. That system will be owned and
> controlled by the US government.
> Quote
> Walter Isaacson
> @WalterIsaacson
> ·
> Sep 8
> To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was
> enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it
> for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it,
> because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a… Show more
> 
>
> Furthermore, Musk stated yesterday that had the request come from the us
> government, he would have complied.
>
> I will refrain from editorializing.
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:56 AM Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions with
>> Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>>
>>
>> Don't forget GLONASS. 
>>
>> On Thu Sep 14, 2023, 03:10 AM GMT, William Herrin  wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections?
>>
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> Internet providers aren't common carriers. If they were, it'd be
>> unlawful to stop your customers from sending email spam that was
>> merely offensive rather than illegal. It's also why Internet providers
>> aren't required to follow network neutrality. Internet providers gain
>> their immunity through section 230 and the DMCA instead.
>>
>> Common carrier status typically applies to shipping companies and
>> basic telephone service. Part of the mess with unwanted phone calls is
>> that the caller has to break the law (e.g. by calling a number on the
>> do-not-call list) before the phone company is allowed to act against
>> them.
>>
>> I sure don't
>> want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
>> random narcissist billionaire.
>>
>>
>> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions
>> with Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>>
>> That said, volunteering services to the military of a nation at war
>> and then pulling the rug out from under them is so classless, one
>> wonders if Musk isn't trying to build a communist utopia.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
>> --
>> William Herrin
>> b...@herrin.us
>> https://bill.herrin.us/
>>
>>
>
> --
> Oct 30:
> https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
> Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos
>

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Dave Taht]

This is one of those threads where I do think folk would benefit from
hearing from the horses' mouths. In a recent bio of musk published this
past week, the author claimed that starlink withdrew service over crimea
based on the knowledge it was going to be used for a surprise attack.
Starlink - and that author - now state that (
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1700345943105638636 )

The onus is meaningfully different if I refused to act upon a request from
Ukraine vs. made a deliberate change to Starlink to thwart Ukraine. At no
point did I or anyone at SpaceX promise coverage over Crimea. Moreover, our
terms of service clearly prohibit Starlink for offensive military action,
as we are a civilian system, so they were again asking for something that
was expressly prohibited. SpaceX is building Starshield for the US
government, which is similar to, but much smaller than Starlink, as it will
not have to handle millions of users. That system will be owned and
controlled by the US government.
Quote
Walter Isaacson
@WalterIsaacson
·
Sep 8
To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was
enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it
for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it,
because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a… Show more


Furthermore, Musk stated yesterday that had the request come from the us
government, he would have complied.

I will refrain from editorializing.


On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 5:56 AM Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG 
wrote:

> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions with
> Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>
>
> Don't forget GLONASS. 
>
> On Thu Sep 14, 2023, 03:10 AM GMT, William Herrin  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>
> Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections?
>
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Internet providers aren't common carriers. If they were, it'd be
> unlawful to stop your customers from sending email spam that was
> merely offensive rather than illegal. It's also why Internet providers
> aren't required to follow network neutrality. Internet providers gain
> their immunity through section 230 and the DMCA instead.
>
> Common carrier status typically applies to shipping companies and
> basic telephone service. Part of the mess with unwanted phone calls is
> that the caller has to break the law (e.g. by calling a number on the
> do-not-call list) before the phone company is allowed to act against
> them.
>
> I sure don't
> want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
> random narcissist billionaire.
>
>
> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions
> with Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>
> That said, volunteering services to the military of a nation at war
> and then pulling the rug out from under them is so classless, one
> wonders if Musk isn't trying to build a communist utopia.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/
>
>

-- 
Oct 30: https://netdevconf.info/0x17/news/the-maestro-and-the-music-bof.html
Dave Täht CSO, LibreQos

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Aaron de Bruyn via NANOG]

> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions with 
> Iridium or another satellite Internet system.

Don't forget GLONASS. 

On Thu Sep 14, 2023, 03:10 AM GMT, William Herrin  wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 5:47 PM Michael Thomas  wrote:
>> Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections?
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> Internet providers aren't common carriers. If they were, it'd be
> unlawful to stop your customers from sending email spam that was
> merely offensive rather than illegal. It's also why Internet providers
> aren't required to follow network neutrality. Internet providers gain
> their immunity through section 230 and the DMCA instead.
>
> Common carrier status typically applies to shipping companies and
> basic telephone service. Part of the mess with unwanted phone calls is
> that the caller has to break the law (e.g. by calling a number on the
> do-not-call list) before the phone company is allowed to act against
> them.
>> I sure don't
>> want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
>> random narcissist billionaire.
>
> Starlink isn't a monopoly. Ukraine could have guided their munitions
> with Iridium or another satellite Internet system.
>
> That said, volunteering services to the military of a nation at war
> and then pulling the rug out from under them is so classless, one
> wonders if Musk isn't trying to build a communist utopia.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William Herrin
> b...@herrin.us
> https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in Ukraine?

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

I have a feeling he’s fired far too much of his legal and compliance team to 
realise

--srs

From: NANOG  on behalf of Michael 
Thomas 
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:17:17 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: So what do you think about the scuttlebutt of Musk interfering in 
Ukraine?

Doesn't this bump up against common carrier protections? I sure don't
want my utilities weaponizing their monopoly status to the whims of any
random narcissist billionaire.

Mike

Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership

[Bryan Fields]

On 9/13/23 9:27 PM, Bryan Fields wrote:
> I think this qualifies as potentially operational.
> 
> Afrinic placed in receivership, board elections to be held in six months:
> https://archive.ph/jOFE4

Looks like archive.ph is having problems.  This is the original article.

> https://www.capacitymedia.com/article/2c6pnx4ymt7sd5c493wg0/news/exclusive-afrinic-placed-in-receivership-board-elections-to-be-held-in-six-months
-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net