Peace,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 11:07 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> Meanwhile the 193.233.15.0/24 sub-block is being routed by AS42745
>> aka "Safe Value Limited"
>>
>
> The only provider for the latter being Voxility Inc., California, USA.
>
>
> ht
Peace,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 10:39 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> now it is now back
> on a Russian network again:
>
> # ORG: (RU) ORG-FG2-RIPE "OOO FREEnet Group"
>
Ronald, as you correctly mention later in the message, the 15.0/24 block
was probably leased away _long_ ago (as we assume that
Peace,
On Sat, Dec 5, 2020, 1:57 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> It appears that AS47510 is itself an unallocated bogon at the present
> time:
>
> https://bgp.he.net/AS47510#_asinfo
>
> As can be readily seen at the above link, AS47510 is peering with only
> two other ASNs, i.e. AS29226 - JSC Ma
Peace,
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020, 12:40 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> The first is doing everything possible to try to get RPKI adopted more
> widely.
>
Totally agree,
The second is persuading everyone, certainly including Petersburg Internet,
> to stop even trying to use an data from RADB. That
Peace,
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020, 1:48 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> Yes, but if any of -our- criminals attack people or businesses located in
> other countries, we will allow them to be extradited to those other
> countries
> to face trial.
>
This is slowly sliding into the territory of off-topic,
Peace,
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 12:42 PM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> AS44050 is basically the SOHO provider for the St. Petersburg Internet
> Exchange. St. Petersburg's population is slightly below 5 million
> people, not counting satellite cities and suburbs (which, if counted,
>
Peace,
On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 1:53 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> >> Please be advised that the set of IPv4 blocks listed below appear to be
> >> squatted on at the present time, with the apparent aid and assistance of
> >> AS44050 -- "Petersburg Internet Network Ltd." (Russia) and also AS58552
Peace,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 10:09 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> Please be advised that the set of IPv4 blocks listed below appear to be
> squatted on at the present time, with the apparent aid and assistance of
> AS44050 -- "Petersburg Internet Network Ltd." (Russia) and also AS58552 --
> "P
Peace,
On Tue, May 12, 2020, 10:13 PM Sabri
> First of all, there is the requirement for the non-EU company to
> *intentionally* provide goods or services to the EU. That can be found in
> article 3(2)a.
>
Well, virtually that's exactly our case: an employee of an Israeli company
promotes their
Peace,
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 1:29 PM Arash Naderpour
wrote:
> EU laws are for EU
Perhaps sadly for some, but this is not how it works. EU laws protect
EU citizens wherever they are, or the EU citizens' personal and
sensitive data wherever it is accessed, processed, or stored.
--
Töma
Peace,
On Thu, May 7, 2020, 4:40 PM Max Tulyev wrote:
> sorry, we have no policy to kick off dirty spammer from elections.
>
I doubt that. Clearly, a person cannot qualify as a candidate right after
a massive RIPE database ToU violation.
--
Töma
>
Peace,
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 12:51 PM Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Should anyone believe they have been spammed by
> someone who they believe has harvested contact
> details from the DB, then they should contact
> ab...@ripe.net to report it.
No.
I mean, yes, but I also think it is necessary to raise
Peace,
Okay, should I be the first to step in and say that spamming all the
LIR accounts with one's mind-boggingly stupid "technical solutions"
that have no, 0, zero chances to be implemented on the Internet is
completely irresponsible and grossly unacceptable behaviour?
What does GDPR have to sa
Peace,
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020, 4:08 PM No No wrote:
> does anyone have any information on this criminal operation:
>
> https://bgp.he.net/AS35196#_asinfo
> https://bgp.he.net/AS35196#_graph4
>
Sort of. It's not exactly criminal, that's a hosting currently going
through some sort of owners' dispu
Peace,
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 9:43 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> The email he sent has been positively presidential in style I must say. For a
> specific value of president of course.
With all due respect, I don't think this message belongs to even this
WG as well (not even speaking of th
Peace,
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 12:42 AM Elad Cohen wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
May you please stop abusing the RIPE WGs which have nothing to do with your
crusade, like iot-wg or mat-wg? I will be grateful.
As a side note, you don't seem to understand how RIPE works, so I don't
think you'll be re
Peace,
No, IPv6 is outta question here.
The particular details are still unclear to me — and pretty much everyone
else both in Prague and Moscow. Can keep the list posted if you want.
--
Töma
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 1:35 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> Anyone have more details about this?
>
>
On Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:03 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> >And yes, Kazakhstanian court also thinks IP addresses are property. Do
> you
> >consider yourself in a good company now?
>
> I am not in a position to argue with the opinions of either Kazakhstan
> coyrts or U.S. courts.
>
That is a n
On Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:03 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> For years I have tried to persuade all of my friends and family to call
> my Honda automobile a Ferrari.
>
And now you try to persuade everyone on the list that IP addresses are real
estate. So, did you develop a habit for such things?
On Thu, May 16, 2019, 11:42 PM Alex de Joode wrote:
> It seems you want to verify that a human reads the abuse box.
>
This is actually a very bright proposal in view of the next generation
economy.
Everything would be machine learning and automated; cab drivers, delivery
folks, factory and cons
On Sat, May 18, 2019, 3:44 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian
wrote:
> If it weren't effectively property there wouldn't be firms listing large
> blocks of v4 space as an asset while going out of business, and there
> wouldn't be brokers specializing in acquiring and reselling this space.
>
If someone ca
On Sat, May 18, 2019, 6:21 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> [..] some of the actual court filings in the suit and counter-action
> against this company Micfo (which perpetrated the big fraud against ARIN)
> explicitly used the word "property" with respect to IPv4 address blocks.
>
Yes, terminally
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:13 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> [..] IPv4 real estate
IP addresses are not property. Thinking otherwise results in
hilariously bad engineering practices (and, in turn, hardly any better
policy proposals).
Do not do so.
--
Töma
Peace,
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 3:21 PM Marco Schmidt wrote:
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-04, "Validation of "abuse-mailbox"", is now
> available for discussion.
I support the proposal.
Assuming the implementation by NCC would be carried out in a way when
verification emails won't land in
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019, 2:05 PM Richard Clayton
wrote:
> Systems that fail to ensure that such emails cannot be automatically
> generated (by adding CAPTCHAs for example) need to be updated.
>
This is not possible. CAPTCHA is not a silver bullet. What it can do for
sure is preventing simple automa
Fat fingers,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 3:17 AM Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> Honestly, I think it's the opposite. If the NCC terminates a
> membership agreement, it should be liable for all the consequences of
> a wrong decision no matter how exactly the decision is made and what
>
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 1:39 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> And how will a dutch court determine a wrong decision was made? by getting
> a different set of experts...?
E.g. by judging on an evidence found later, and with that evidence
making a decision that original set of experts d
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 6:32 PM Andrey Korolyov wrote:
> Whoops, that was fun part my mind completely obsoleted and
> slipped out from the current understanding of the proposal.
Yeah, the thread is quite long already.
> AFAICS nobody have ever proposed clear 'intentional' distinction
> over enti
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 6:10 PM Andrey Korolyov wrote:
> The 2019-03 is not about having a purpose or not
You are now in disagreement with the very text of the proposal, and in
particular, though not limited to, section 3 "Scope: Accidental vs.
Deliberate":
start
A distinction can be m
On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 3:55 PM Doug Madory wrote:
> > Should that also be treated as a policy violation? This is clearly
> > intentional.
> I believe what’s described in the Qrator article could be a leaking route
> optimizer (like Noction) not a new hijack type.
Probably. The title of the art
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 9:16 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> The answer, I think, should depend only on the answers to two key questions:
>
> 1) Was the routing done with the knowledge and consent of the prefix
> owner(s)?
This is the tricky part. Routing — yes. *Deaggregation* — no.
--
Töma
Peace,
This is to continue the discussion around 2019-03. Here's our today's
article about the ways some operators do traffic engineering:
https://radar.qrator.net/blog/new-hijack-attack-in-the-wild
Should that also be treated as a policy violation? This is clearly intentional.
--
Töma
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 8:07 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> >It is NOT possible (for experts or almost anyone else) to accurately
> >evaluate who is performing BGP hijacks...
>
> [..] intellectual dishonesty of the above assertion.
>
> [..]
>
> Neither of these two situations were in any sense amb
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019, 10:23 AM Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg <
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
> Do supporters need to specify which parts of the proposal's text are more
> meaningful for them?
>
> Perhaps one of the Chairs can shed some light.
>
They in fact have done that before. To quote:
-
+1
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019, 11:01 PM Sergey Myasoedov via anti-abuse-wg <
anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> wrote:
> Dear group members from Portugal stated your support for 2019-03,
>
> Can you please provide some more arguments than your humble "+1"
> statement? This is a working group, not a voting.
>
> Pl
Peace,
On Sun, Mar 24, 2019, 2:10 PM Carlos Friaças wrote:
> I believe that's a matter of preference, but thank you, it's valuable
> input for version 2.0 (which will probably be a lot longer and less prone
> to be read by a larger set of people).
>
Alright.
Just for the sake of simplicity, you
Peace,
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is
> a RIPE Policy Violation", is now available for discussion.
Alright, folks, what I'm trying to do now is to stress the conditions.
Let's say it's 2021 and IPv6 is fully deployed, and IPv4 is no more.
[now no one could say I'm pessi
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:33 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
> >2. OTOH the ultimate result (membership cancellation) may be seen as a
> >very heavy punishment.
>
> Did you have some particular alternative in mind that you wanted to propose?
Yes, the message you're replying to featured the word "s
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 10:42 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> I think is very obvious that the experts [..] will make sure that when a
> warning is sufficient
NO IT'S NOT
The process is not clear. No guidelines for the "experts" are defined.
No selection process for "experts"
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 2:39 PM Carlos Friaças wrote:
> > 1. As of now, the draft looks like a nice example of "document
> > designed by a committee".
>
> Just two co-authors.
That rant wasn't about the process but rather the result ;-)
Next:
1.
> If your issue is timescales they can be adapted
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 1:48 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> Our intent is NOT to "stop" the attack with the claim (not efficient at all),
> but to allow to be reviewed in order to avoid it, in the future, if possible
> from the same actors.
Not efficient at all. As demonstrate
Hi Jordi,
On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 1:44 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> Hi Töma,
- You have ignored the argument No. 2;
- And, I'm really not convinced by your computations in the paragraph No 4.
I'm so glad to see that all the actions I've managed to outline in an
e-mail mess
Hi all,
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is
> a RIPE Policy Violation", is now available for discussion.
Sorry if the issues I'm raising were already addressed somewhere
around the thread. As of now, I believe it's the size of an average
fiction book, and I don't quite have e
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 5:24 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> It has been already proposed/discussed in every RIR
This is thrilling. What's the idea about dealing with the nine NIRs?
You cannot just deny them membership, right?
--
Töma
>> there has been a trend in recent years to make RIPE policy that
>> transforms the NCC from a resource registry into a political
>> agency...
> I am a resident and citizen of the United States
Do you have any plans on proposing the same policy for ARIN?
| Töma Gavriche
conversely, that they do not?
That could be obviously only done after BGPSec and RPKI are fully
deployed, in which case we won't be needing the proposal in question.
See the "hypothetical example" in
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2019-March/004601.html
| Tö
46 matches
Mail list logo
