Re: New Intercage upstream
Marco d'Itri wrote: Look at what else this AS is announcing: Cernel, UkrTeleGroup and Inhoster are all aliases of Esthost. These are their blocks that are physically operated by Intercage, so it's not surprising they're to be found together. PIE is another colo operation housed at the same facility as Intercage (200 Paul Avenue, SF). Their focus appears to be hosting Japanese sites in the US (colo inside Japan itself has historically been quite expensive). They may well be unaware of the nature of their datacentre-neighbours. --
Re: New Intercage upstream
On Saturday 13 September 2008 06:11:25 Marco d'Itri wrote: Interested parties can consult http://www.bofh.it/~md/drop-stats.txt (randomly updated, I am still looking for a permanent home for it) for a detailed list of who is announcing the networks listed in SBL DROP, what else they announce and who is providing transit to the ASes announcing them. The code used to generate it is available on request. Hmmm. Callout to Randy Bush: tools like this and the techniques to use them are tailor-made for cluepon, no?
Re: New Intercage upstream
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008, Andrew Clover wrote: Marco d'Itri wrote: Look at what else this AS is announcing: Cernel, UkrTeleGroup and Inhoster are all aliases of Esthost. These are their blocks that are physically operated by Intercage, so it's not surprising they're to be found together. PIE is another colo operation housed at the same facility as Intercage (200 Paul Avenue, SF). Their focus appears to be hosting Japanese sites in the US (colo inside Japan itself has historically been quite expensive). They may well be unaware of the nature of their datacentre-neighbours. I don't know if this AS is evil, and quite possibly it isn't. However, it has every intention of keeping Atrivo / Intercage as a slient. Perhaps we need to talk to their transit providers, after all, it is the exact same network just somewhere else. No changes. Gadi.
New Intercage upstream
Looks like they found a new willing partner. AS32335 PACIFICINTERNETEXCHANGE-NET - Pacific Internet Exchange LLC. http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595 http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/ Marc
Re: New Intercage upstream
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like they found a new willing partner. AS32335 PACIFICINTERNETEXCHANGE-NET - Pacific Internet Exchange LLC. http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595 http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/ Visualize: http://www.robtex.com/as/as27595.html - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFIykIwq1pz9mNUZTMRAlUfAKD0nQa1X76hPPi8JjKFfMfr0BNh/ACgseiF bC/0IwSYBSlUYXepSgyhMnc= =Fa3Q -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: New Intercage upstream
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like they found a new willing partner. I like how their web page says Network Uptime: 03:56:55 up 1562 days, 17:51 (100%) 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.02 Now, the difference between host and network aside, I find the idea of their having one user a little amusing. I've seen that truck around the parking lot of 200 Paul. Tim P., you going to go have a little chat with them for us? -Bill
Re: New Intercage upstream
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, William Hamilton wrote: What's amusing about having one user on that particular host? That's the _front page of their corporate web site_. It doesn't say host it says that's their _network_. -Bill
Re: New Intercage upstream
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, William Hamilton wrote: What's amusing about having one user on that particular host? That's the _front page of their corporate web site_. It doesn't say host it says that's their _network_. You already made that distinction - Now, the difference between host and network aside - although perhaps I misinterpreted your point. In that case, my apologies. B
Re: New Intercage upstream
looks to me as if they are just using output of 'top' and displaying it there as it were for network stats. output of top from one of my boxes.. top - 11:39:48 up 3 days, 20:56, 3 users, load average: 0.07, 0.21, 0.16 On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, William Hamilton wrote: What's amusing about having one user on that particular host? That's the _front page of their corporate web site_. It doesn't say host it says that's their _network_. -Bill
Re: New Intercage upstream
On Friday 12 September 2008 04:29:13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/ For your reading enjoyments, their peering guidelines verbiage is at http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/?page=peering and their transit SLA is at http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/?page=sla The differences in the termination clauses of the two agreements make interesting reading. If a bit dull. In summary, for this specific network exchange's situations only: 1.) Peers may be terminated for a number of reasons (or for no reason at all, with 30 days notice). There is of course the normal 'no transit through our network' verbiage, and a temporary instant disconnect clause for serious problems (clauses 5.2 and 5.3). Patrick's favorite clause will likely be 5.5, where PIE reserves the right to refuse interconnection with or without any reason. I find it most interesting that they feel the need to enumerate an obvious right of a provider not normally worth mentioning. 2.) Customers have more rights than peers (obviously; consideration is changing hands). One relevant section is IV(C) of their SLA. They at least say the tough line against spam, and a depeering notice from one of their peers carries great weight (as it should, of course). But, in section IV(I) PIE makes a connection guarantee. That is their right to do, obviously, but gives the customer the right to the connection as long as the customer plays by the rules. No arbitrary disconnect ability there, for transit customers at least. The agreement even warrants that PIE has the authority to grant the rights under that agreement. Interesting wording. So if you want to be able to shut down a BGP session at a whim, you'd best make sure your agreement you executed allows for that; or exercise your right as a provider to refuse the customer, one or the other. It will be interesting to see how long this link stays active. And how long it takes for Intercage to find another upstream. Money talks.
Re: New Intercage upstream
This is easy. Hey Cogent (174), AboveNet (6461), and NTT/Verio (2914), Could you guys please be sure you're not routing the following rogue customer prefixes? 58.65.238.0/24 58.65.239.0/24 64.28.176.0/20 67.130.99.0/24 67.210.0.0/21 67.210.8.0/22 67.210.13.0/24 67.210.14.0/23 69.1.78.0/24 69.22.162.0/23 69.22.168.0/22 69.22.184.0/22 69.31.64.0/20 69.50.160.0/20 69.50.176.0/20 69.130.99.0/24 69.250.145.0/24 85.255.113.0/24 85.255.114.0/23 85.255.116.0/23 85.255.118.0/24 85.255.119.0/24 85.255.120.0/24 85.255.121.0/24 85.255.122.0/24 93.188.160.0/21 116.50.10.0/24 116.50.11.0/24 195.95.218.0/23 216.255.176.0/20 Thank you, and Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like they found a new willing partner. AS32335 PACIFICINTERNETEXCHANGE-NET - Pacific Internet Exchange LLC. http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595 http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/ Marc
Re: New Intercage upstream
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Lamar Owen wrote: On Friday 12 September 2008 04:29:13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/ For your reading enjoyments, their peering guidelines verbiage is at http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/?page=peering and their transit SLA is at http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/?page=sla They don't seen to have ANY other clients than Intercage. Seems like the same operation to me. No? The differences in the termination clauses of the two agreements make interesting reading. If a bit dull. In summary, for this specific network exchange's situations only: 1.) Peers may be terminated for a number of reasons (or for no reason at all, with 30 days notice). There is of course the normal 'no transit through our network' verbiage, and a temporary instant disconnect clause for serious problems (clauses 5.2 and 5.3). Patrick's favorite clause will likely be 5.5, where PIE reserves the right to refuse interconnection with or without any reason. I find it most interesting that they feel the need to enumerate an obvious right of a provider not normally worth mentioning. 2.) Customers have more rights than peers (obviously; consideration is changing hands). One relevant section is IV(C) of their SLA. They at least say the tough line against spam, and a depeering notice from one of their peers carries great weight (as it should, of course). But, in section IV(I) PIE makes a connection guarantee. That is their right to do, obviously, but gives the customer the right to the connection as long as the customer plays by the rules. No arbitrary disconnect ability there, for transit customers at least. The agreement even warrants that PIE has the authority to grant the rights under that agreement. Interesting wording. So if you want to be able to shut down a BGP session at a whim, you'd best make sure your agreement you executed allows for that; or exercise your right as a provider to refuse the customer, one or the other. It will be interesting to see how long this link stays active. And how long it takes for Intercage to find another upstream. Money talks.
Re: New Intercage upstream
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Paul Wall wrote: This is easy. Hey Cogent (174), AboveNet (6461), and NTT/Verio (2914), Could you guys please be sure you're not routing the following rogue customer prefixes? I think your argument might be more convincing with those NOCs/abuse-desks if you provided or referred to evidence which shows those prefixes don't belong to them. 58.65.238.0/24 58.65.239.0/24 64.28.176.0/20 67.130.99.0/24 67.210.0.0/21 67.210.8.0/22 67.210.13.0/24 67.210.14.0/23 69.1.78.0/24 69.22.162.0/23 69.22.168.0/22 69.22.184.0/22 69.31.64.0/20 69.50.160.0/20 69.50.176.0/20 69.130.99.0/24 69.250.145.0/24 85.255.113.0/24 85.255.114.0/23 85.255.116.0/23 85.255.118.0/24 85.255.119.0/24 85.255.120.0/24 85.255.121.0/24 85.255.122.0/24 93.188.160.0/21 116.50.10.0/24 116.50.11.0/24 195.95.218.0/23 216.255.176.0/20 Thank you, and Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 4:29 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looks like they found a new willing partner. AS32335 PACIFICINTERNETEXCHANGE-NET - Pacific Internet Exchange LLC. http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595 http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/ Marc -- Pekka Savola You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oykingdom bleeds. Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
Re: New Intercage upstream
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:24:33 EDT, Lamar Owen said: peers carries great weight (as it should, of course). But, in section IV(I) PIE makes a connection guarantee. That is their right to do, obviously, but Playing devil's advocate here - it guarantees a connection, but does it also guarantee that PIE won't null-route any of the customer's packets trying to leave PIE's network at an upstream peer/transit point? :) However, if Gadi's claim that they don't seem to have any clients other than Intercage is right, I'm sure the correct term for the connection guarantee is bulletproof... pgpzlzvf1v3NK.pgp Description: PGP signature
