Re: Whacky Weekend: Is Internet Access a Human Right?
On 01/05/2012 11:34 AM, Jon Schipp wrote: I think the idea that food, shelter etc. are human rights is absurd. Doesn't that imply that someone must provide those things for me? What if they don't want to? Does that mean they are forced to? Which would be a violation of their human rights. Human rights are things that no government or person should have the right to *take away* from someone. For example, a government need not provide food to all people who need it necessarily, but they must not prevent people from gaining access to food if they want it. I would argue that the better societies have systems in place for providing access to things that are human rights via the government when no one else is able to step up. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: And so it ends...
On 02/03/2011 11:41 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: I'm not inclined to believe that ARIN members will collectively agree on anything significant, so the policy process is a lot like U.S. government (not a lot getting done). ARIN members don't make binding votes on individual policy actions, they elect the Advisory Council and Board of ARIN. ARIN solicits policy proposals and takes feedback and general counts of yea and nay votes for those proposals before deciding whether to adopt them. All of this is documented: https://www.arin.net/participate/how_to_participate.html It's true a lot of policy proposal never get out of the discussion phase, but they're posted to the PPML and anyone can discuss their reasons for support or opposition, propose improvements and work to get the policy into a state where the AC will bring it under review. This process is far more open than that of the US Government. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: quietly....
On 02/01/2011 08:27 PM, Paul Graydon wrote: Are there any expectations of a Gold Rush for the remaining addresses? I would expect to see at least see some kind of escalation. I've heard that it's already started at ARIN. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 x203 Fax: 312-602-2688 Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: test-ipv6.com
On 01/27/2011 06:16 PM, Mark Andrews wrote: In message alpine.bsf.2.00.1101271448000.15...@goat.gigo.com, Jason Fesler wr ites: Several people have suggested I (re)post information about test-ipv6.com here. http://test-ipv6.com .. tests ipv4 and ipv6 by dns name tests dual stack (will the client break on World IPv6 Day?) tests ipv6 by IP literal (teredo can pass this) gives advice to end user about current status and (depending on circumstances) more information broken users (can't connect to dual stack) are solicited for info Caution: does depend on javascript. http://test-ipv6.com/simple_test.html Eyeball test only for user, with instructions; no javascript required. Please direct any comments, flames, etc directly to me instead of the list. I've added enough noise already :-) Note you can have totally broken IPv6 connectivity and still be fine on World IPv6 day. You just need applications with good multi-homing support. No web site can check this for you. However, by coincidence, this week I happened to be playing with the site and it revealed to me a particular use case of my DNS resolvers that was broken and gave me a chance to fix it. I don't think there's any harm in some baseline sanity checking. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 x203 Fax: 312-602-2688 Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: test-ipv6.com
On 01/28/2011 05:29 PM, Blake Hudson wrote: Does this site have an record? If so, my DNS does not pick it up. It does not and explains why on its FAQ: http://test-ipv6.com/faq.html -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Request Spamhaus contact
On 01/18/2011 06:21 AM, Ken Gilmour wrote: On 18 January 2011 13:10, Simon Waters sim...@zynet.net wrote: Obviously they know about them because google has the information. I'm not sure this is a reasonable deduction. Correct - It is completely unreasonable. I was using it as an example in reference to a larger, well known provider since earlier someone had mentioned that obviously since google had this information that BL's monitoring was inadequate as they didn't know about it themselves. Google knows about lots of things that people in general probably don't know about themselves. FTR - I have no doubt that Level 3 have amazing monitoring and infrastructure, and think I understand why it might be hard to find 231 bad apples in a basket of over 292492. I think it's important to point out that this statistic is over the past 90 days as well. It doesn't identify enough sites to make it possible to verify whether it's representative of current problems. The 231 sites may have been cleaned relatively quickly and still count in the statistic if Google ever found them to be doing something malicious. I do not think this report is a useful one unless the number is constantly growing and is a large percentage of sites Google has spidered on the network. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Request Spamhaus contact
On 01/17/2011 02:15 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote: Someone at Spamhaus please contact me concerning your second consecutive preemptive strike against our IP space. Fun Fact: No one at Spamhaus has ever successfully sent us an abuse complaint. Also, some rocket scientist decided that their sbl-removals@ box should also filter e-mail so blocked parties can't even get in touch. As such, it will be necessary to reply to jeffrey.l...@gmail.com vs. @blacklotus.net . You claim to monitor sbl-removals@ but it seems i've been ignored for several hours. Spamhaus does monitor sbl-removals@ but they like to do research before they just remove listings. You'll have less luck getting yourself off the listings if they feel you're just there to yell at them for being stupid and don't care enough to take their listing seriously. They were willing to send us automated notifications about new listings matching our IP space as they are added, and you can request this via the removal address when you get a response. They do not file abuse complaints. If you care to explain why you think they made a mistake in a reasonable fashion, it's pretty likely you'll get removed and they'll probably be inclined to give you a bit of extra trust in the future. We started out very defensive against Spamhaus early on, sending angry, demanding messages to sbl-removals@. We found things went much better when we started showing that we considered the information in the listing and explained what we did to investigate and/or why we felt the listing was not warranted (either because we cleaned up the issue or because we felt it was a mistake). There are many RBLs which demand we wait weeks for the possibility of an unfriendly and unhelpful response. Spamhaus is by far the easiest to get along with and most responsive for our network. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: co-location and access to your server
On 01/12/2011 03:44 PM, david raistrick wrote: On Wed, 12 Jan 2011, Jeroen van Aart wrote: I guess knowing who entered the building by means of a keycard and having cameras isn't considered enough to deter potential evil doers. I know it's not enough for places like equinix, but that's of a different caliber. Paying for 1u of colo justifys a keycard for you, cameras and keycard hardware for the facility? you're paying what, 50-100$ a month, maybe less? you realize that low prices comes at the cost of reduced services? Having the infrastructure in place to support full cab customers already and 24/7 remote hands, the cost of providing 24/7 access to smaller colo customers is negligible. We could issue a card to every single server one of our colo customers for only the one-time cost of the card. It doesn't make sense for most single-server customers because a tech still has to go into the data center, unlock the cabinet, fetch a crash cart, etc, so he might as well let them in the front door. I guess what you're saying holds true if the facility doesn't already offer /anyone/ this access regardless of how much equipment and space they have. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: co-location and access to your server
On 01/12/2011 06:57 PM, Justin Scott wrote: I was thinking that it was great just to find someone these days that would accept a one-off server and that should be enough to be thankful for! Especially true with providers like SoftLayer which can turn up a fully dedicated server to spec at any of several locations within a few hours. No hardware to manage or worrying about getting direct access at all. They even give you the ability to cycle the outlet(s) the server is plugged into if needed. Unless there is some really specialized hardware, location-specific or regulatory need, I couldn't imagine a desire to deal with putting my own single box at a co-lo anymore. Of course, since you're leasing the box you pay a premium over a pure bare-bones co-lo, but it vastly simplifies things. That's true. Most dedicated server providers will get you remote power outlet control and many can get you remote console (IPMI, DRAC) as an included feature, so you can take care of almost all administration on your own, including OS reinstalls and fscks. There's still sometimes an edge in price and control when you use your own hardware and that's definitely worth it for some. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Want to move to all 208V for server racks
On 12/03/2010 03:21 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Alex Rubenstein a...@corp.nac.net wrote: ... Anyway, back to topic: Vendors, please a) get all your gear to cool front-to-back, and b) let it take 480 polyphase and not require a neutral. I, for one, will be happier. The datacenter of tomorrow (hell, today) require this. People are still feeding their gear with AC? Save on PS inefficiency, and feed direct 12/5vDC to the servers. Save space, save power, save cooling. If you're already in a datacenter, getting 208V AC from an existing AC infrastructure is a lot easier, cheaper, and sometimes more plausible than building a DC plant. If you have your own facility, it's a different story, but if you do colo, you probably have more customers expecting AC than DC, so you'll at least need to maintain both infrastructure. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Want to move to all 208V for server racks
On 12/02/2010 09:58 AM, Jay Nakamura wrote: I really want to move all newly installed internal and customer racks over to all 208v power instead of 120v. As far as I can remember, I can't remember any server/switch/router or any other equipment that didn't run on 208v AC. (Other than you may need a different cable) Anyone have any experience where some oddball equipment that couldn't do 208v and regret going 208v? We won't have any TDM or SONET equipment, all Ethernet switches, routers and servers. I have control over internal equipment but sometimes customers surprises you. We run our datacenters with mostly 208V power because it lets us get more power-hungry equipment in a single cabinet. With the exception of very old servers, pretty much all standard power supplies are auto-sensing across the 110 - 240 range voltages and will work fine as long as you use an IEC C13 to C14 cable. Most of the older power supplies have a manual switch you must switch if you don't want to blow the power supply. All network equipment that uses a standard IEC C13 cable that I've seen is auto-sensing, but you should certainly check the documentation. I've seen recent and old Dell, Cisco, HP and Netgear switches that work fine with 208V. For anything with a AC adapter, we check the transformers and find most of those are auto-sensing too. The trick is either the customer has to know in advance and pick up an AC adapter with a C14 connector (which is fairly rare since they all use different polarization, voltage and connector sizes), or to stock some NEMA 5-15 to C14 converters. For a Cisco ASA, which we see a lot, you need a C5 cable. The standard cable is a C5 to NEMA 5-15. We picked up some adapters from C5 to C14 standard pretty cheap to make these work. It is very good practice to check EVERYTHING before plugging it in because if it can't handle 208V, you will hear a pop and it will be dead before you can realize your error. Pretty much anything that uses power has a label on it somewhere describing its supported input voltage. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Only 5x IPv4 /8 remaining at IANA
On 10/19/2010 10:15 AM, John van Oppen wrote: I would say for most of our customers, especially in the hosting space, a class C is a /24, they just don't know networking at all and build their hosting lans using /24s for each vlan. Very few of the requests that we get are submitted using CIDR notation. Personally, I think this is a big reason for random table bloat, I have had so many arguments about customers being able to aggregate announcements for BGP it is not even funny... the I want to announce the blocks as a class Cs request is irritatingly common. It's been our general policy to always respond in CIDR notation whenever we get a request in class notation and to hope that our customers either figure out what that means on their own or ask us for clarification and learn something. IPv6 is helping because a lot of people seem to be making the connection that the slash notation is related between the two. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: do you use SPF TXT RRs? (RFC4408)
On 10/04/2010 11:47 AM, Greg Whynott wrote: A partner had a security audit done on their site. The report said they were at risk of a DoS due to the fact they didn't have a SPF record. We publish a ~all record for our domain. I think it's bad practice to publish any other result because you're making assertions which are almost definitely untrue. +all implies that anywhere on the internet is a valid origination, and -all implies you are certain nothing else could ever send an email on behalf of your domain. The most common situation where another host sends on your domain's behalf is a forwarding MTA, such as NANOG's mailing list. A lot of MTAs will only trust that the final MTA handling the message is a source host. In the case of a mailing list, that's NANOG's server. All previous headers are untrustworthy and could easily be forged. I'd bet few, if any, people have NANOG's servers listed in their SPF, and delivering a -all result in your SPF could easily cause blocked mail for anyone that drops hard failing messages. If you're going to filter using SPFs, I believe best practice is to consider all mail from a +all or neutral record the same as mail that soft or hard fails a ~all or -all record. By filtering, I mean I would simply subject those messages to additional testing, but never block exclusively based upon an SPF result. I would just ignore SPF and that's what I do on MTAs I configure. All you'll really be preventing with SPF is some backscatter and messages which forge the source information for domains that have even bothered to publish accurate records. A huge amount of the spam you get will pass SPF (or return neutral) and possibly pass DKIM as well because the big spam operations register new domains and set up SPF before they start spamming. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Inquiries to Acquire IPs
On 07/02/2010 02:22 PM, Oscar Ricardo Silva wrote: On 07/02/2010 01:46 PM, Crist Clark wrote: We got a strange and out of the blue inquiry from someone wishing to pay us for a chunk of our ARIN allocation, Hello, According to Whois data, you company owns the following IP address space: 206.220.220.0/24 146.6.6.0/24 Anyone else notice they seem to be looking for IP blocks where the middle octets are the same? How could that specific quality be worth $5K? -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/08/2010 11:00 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Is this just an argument about the money? Or, are there other issues (you agree that we can revoke your allocation at any time, for any reason, as we see fit)? I'd be curious to know what the justification for such a policy would be under v6. Even if space were obtained under false pretenses, the cost of reclaiming it (in terms of lawsuits, etc) is essentially being shoveled onto the shoulders of others who have received allocations. As I understand it ARIN does not like to reclaim space forcibly for this very reason. It's costly and they'd much rather resolve matters amicably and allow people to keep their resources. It's true that anyone that does accept terms to their IP allocations opens the possibility up, but recall that ARIN has a open and public policy making process. If they are going to change something and begin demanding IPs back from certain holders, if you are attentive to the process you should have plenty of opportunity to a) find out, and b) make your displeasure very clear. If you are a member, paying your dues, you also have the right to vote for those people who make the final decisions. But more to the point, how often do you hear that ARIN has decided to come to any IPv4 holder and just take back their allocation without cause? It seems like you could run an RIR more cheaply by simply handing out the space fairly liberally, which would have the added benefit of encouraging v6 adoption. The lack of a need for onerous contractual clauses as suggested above, combined with less overhead costs, ought to make v6 really cheap. This is the current policy, even with respect to IPv4 to a large degree, at least for ARIN. As long as you can establish a fairly evident need for portable address space and can give them a vague plan for allocating it over time, they'll give you want you want, as long as you can pay the appropriate (and I feel quite reasonable) annual fees. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/08/2010 10:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote: Legacy holders have been holding parts (possibly more than they would be able to justify from an RIR) of a finite global shared resource without sharing in the costs associated, and it's unfair to _them_ that they're not _entitled_ to do the same in the IPv6 space? When ARIN's costs are largely legal costs to go enforcing v4 policy and a bureaucracy to go through all the policy and paperwork? The finiteness of the resource is irrelevant; it does not cost ARIN any more or less to do its task in the v4 arena. There is a cost to the global Internet for v4 depletion, yes, but ARIN is not paying any of us for forwarding table entries or forced use of NAT due to lack of space, so to imply that ARIN's expenses are in any way related to the finiteness of the resource is a laughable argument (you're 8 days late). It would be better to dismantle the current ARIN v6 framework and do a separate v6 RIR. In v6, there's an extremely limited need to go battling things in court, one could reduce expenses simply by giving the benefit of the doubt and avoiding stuff like Kremen entirely. In the old days, nearly anyone could request -and receive- a Class C or even Class B with very little more than some handwaving. The main reason to tighten that up was depletion; with IPv6, it isn't clear that the allocation function needs to be any more complex than what used to exist, especially for organizations already holding v4 resources. So, my challenges to you: 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 numbering resources, 2) Tell me why something like the old pre-depletion pre-ARIN model of InterNIC and just handing out prefixes with substantially less paper-pushing wouldn't result in a cheaper-to-run RIR. Just because the benefit of being cautious isn't clear doesn't mean we should simply throw caution to the wind entirely and go back to the old ways. It seems clear to many now that a lot of the legacy allocations, /8's in particular were issued in a way that has left IPv4 inefficiently allocated and with lack of any agreements by the resource holders to have any responsibility to do anything about it. If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those people that greedily ate up as much space as they could. I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties involved already have an established relationship. I am not going to argue your second request. It'd certainly be cheaper to do things your way. I just think it's a terrible idea. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. I'd hate to see that routing table. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/08/2010 02:17 PM, Joe Greco wrote: If we just eliminated the RIRs and agreements governing terms of access to v6 allocations, IF later, we find a problem with the process and start to run out of space, we end up in the same situation. Suddenly we have to form these organizations again, and institute new allocation policies for new allocations, but again lack any recourse for all those people that greedily ate up as much space as they could. Then guard against _that_, which is a real problem. That /is/ the RIRs' function now. ARIN policy is not immutable. Proposals to change it are welcomed. I see no reason that we have to throw ARIN out of this picture in order to solve your perceived problem of too much regulation and overhead. I think there's a continued need to keep an organization in charge of accounting for the space to whom we as resource holders are accountable and whom is also accountable to us. Later on, when we realize we've gone wrong somewhere (and it will happen) and need to make changes to policy, there is a process by which we can do it where all the parties involved already have an established relationship. That sets off my radar detector a bit. If you're justifying the need for current policies with that statement, I'd have to disagree... the desire to potentially make changes in the future is not itself a compelling reason to have strongly worded agreements. Even in v4land, we've actually determined that one of the few relatively serious reasons we'd like to reclaim space (depletion) is probably impractical. With that in mind, claims that there needs to be thorough accounting kind of comes off like trust us, we're in charge, we know what we need but we can't really explain it aside from invoking the boogeyman. ARIN doesn't so simply say trust us, we're in charge. Every dealing I've ever had with the organization has encouraged me to participate in the policy making process in some regard. Ideally policy should appropriately reflect how the regional users of IP resources feel things should be managed and hand down terms for allocation to match. The intention is for the accountability to go in both directions, from resource holders to the RIR and from the RIR to the community. If you don't think that's working for ARIN, I'm sure ARIN can be fixed. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/07/2010 11:26 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote: On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, John Palmer \(NANOG Acct\) wrote: Isn't this a disincentive for us to move up to IP6? Yep. Just went through this with one organization which I hadn't realized at the time was a legacy IPv4 holder. The fees were a surprise (I thought they'd already been paying those fees). Needless to say, their IPv6 plans are on hold indefinitely. How much IPv6 address space were they expecting? I have trouble envisioning any operation that could require more than a /32 immediately that can't afford to pay $4500 per YEAR. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space
On 04/07/2010 06:20 PM, Franck Martin wrote: APNIC has a calculator for the fees for the space. you pay max(IPv4 space fee, IPv6 space fee). So basically you don't pay anything to dual stack your current network. It currently works the same way in ARIN's fee schedule. However, in this discussion, we're talking about people who have legacy IPv4 space, which is now administratively under ARIN's management, and for whom there are currently no fees of any kind, which means that max(IPv4 space fee, IPv6 space fee) == IPv6 space fee, and increase from nothing, ever. Also, if you are current standing member, they don't even ask you to justify IPv6, they give you a similar space to your current IPv4 space on simple request. If you need more then you need to justify. For an organization that didn't have to justify anything for IPv4 in the modern sense in order to obtain their address space, it's arguably a valid question to ask whether they have any need for anything similar in IPv6. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?
On 12/15/2009 10:17 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: Bill Weiss wrote: Michelle Sullivan(matt...@sorbs.net)@Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:32:48AM +0100: Then tell me where it says 3-5 hours and I'll correct the text. On http://www.au.sorbs.net/cgi-bin/support , I read: This will route any created ticket to the robot handler which will process and delist the netblock (upto /24) within a few hours That says the robot will delist (not schedule to delist) within a few hours. Thank you, I wasn't aware, and it will be corrected (doesn't say 3-5hours still so I'd love to find that one). There is this text I see, which seems to disagree with the robot's behavior in my case (from the Dynamic IP FAQ): The Regional Internet Registry (RIR) Point of Contact (PoC) can request a listing or delisting of any address in their space. The only time this will be refused is when the netblock information in the RIR or in the reverse DNS naming clearly indicates the addresses are dynamically assigned (e.g. 0.1.pool.example.com). I'm sending my request from our PoC and it's not taking my word for it like is claimed here (since the reverse DNS certainly doesn't imply the ranges are dynamic). If you don't consider this part of the policy anymore, you might want to clear that up in the FAQ. -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Is there anyone from ASPEWS on this list?
On 12/14/2009 04:32 AM, Michelle Sullivan wrote: snip I'm a robot writing you on behalf of the SORBS' admins. The reason you're getting this automated response, is our desire to provide you with consistent and fast responses. I'm prepared to correctly analyze most of the cases appearing in the DUHL queue. snip This last sentence seems to be my point of contention here. I am trying to get a /18 removed from the DUHL and every time the robot tells me some arbitrary ranges I did not mention explicitly are being tested and/or not eligible for delisting. Since the ranges not eligible are configured the same as those that are, I can't figure this out. Replying to the robot resulted in no response for a month, so I ended up submitting a ticket via the ISP contact form directly, with all the information requested, but the first time, someone just pushed my request back to the robot and it refused ranges again. I understand you get a lot of traffic to your ticket system, but I have to wonder whether a system which is so complex and large that it is near impossible to support and keep maintained accurately is actually still useful. I assume you love (to some degree) helping kill spammers, but maybe you need to solicit (screened) volunteers to expand your staffing? -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Issues with Gmail
Jim Wininger wrote: Anyone else seeing issues with gmail? http://mail.google.com/support/?hl=en -- Kevin Stange Chief Technology Officer Steadfast Networks http://steadfast.net Phone: 312-602-2689 ext. 203 | Fax: 312-602-2688 | Cell: 312-320-5867 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
