On 3/29/2014 7:06 PM, John Curran wrote:
On Mar 29, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
Here's what surprises me: that it is ARIN's business at all to provide an LOA
allowing someone to announce a BGP route. I could have sworn that I have read
hundreds of times that ARIN is *only* in th
On Mar 29, 2014, at 8:23 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Here's what surprises me: that it is ARIN's business at all to provide an LOA
> allowing someone to announce a BGP route. I could have sworn that I have read
> hundreds of times that ARIN is *only* in the business of running a database
> in
I just wanted to mention per the research paper all the RIRs gave LOAs for
these covering prefixes. Not just ARIN
"In early October 2012, we contacted each of the five RIRs to request
permission to announce the entire /12 IPv6 address block that had been
allocated to them by IANA. After deliberat
On 3/29/2014 10:29 AM, Joe St Sauver wrote:
...
Moreover, given BGP route selection rules, I'm not particularly disturbed
by the presence of that covering announcement: any more specific route should
immediately be preferred to a broad covering route of the sort employed by
the IPv6 darknet resea
On 3/29/2014 5:58 AM, John Curran wrote:
On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:56 AM, David Farmer wrote:
On 3/28/14, 11:32 , David Huberman wrote:
David:
That summary of the issue helps a lot, thank you!
The question on my mind is:
Did ARIN provide a written LOA to Merit to announce 2600::/12 ?
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Joe St Sauver wrote:
> I think that the Merit IPv6 darknet project was *very* important in helping
> to promote uptake of IPv6 in that it provides empirical evidence that the
> level of "background radiation" in IPv6 space isn't very high right now
> (roughly ~1M
On 29/03/14 13:58, John Curran wrote:
> Going forward, ARIN will not issue routing authorization that covers any
> address space issued to others without community-developed policy that
> specifically directs us to do so.
Hi John,
I would just point out a previous discussion held in various IP
I do not support this kind of research using routes that overlap with live
traffic. Moreover, I'm very surprised that the researchers' institutional legal
counsel and/or IRB had approved this, given what seem to be obvious legal and
ethical questions.
Bill.
_
I strongly disagree with the comments that indicate this is not a problem
because in use prefixes will have a more specific. That is true, only
until they don't have a more specific. Until an outage causes the more
specific prefix to be withdrawn or improperly propagated or filtered. This
is one
Hi Joe,
The problem with announcing overlapping space like this is that MERIT
becomes a sinkhole for legitimate traffic should an organization using
address space in 2600::/12 have some kind of network problem. While
many organizations with IPv6 space are dual homed, many rely on a single
router.
Joe,
The ends don't always justify the means. The reason there is a policy
proposal in the ARIN region to stop this practice is because not everyone
covered by these /12 announcements is happy that their addresses were part
of an experiment. There is a belief that Merit should have had permissio
Hi,
John Curran commented:
#We were asked to cooperate with Merit on darknet research on ARIN's IPv6
#2600::/12 space and I authorized the effort. Apparently, the effort also
#included the routing an overall covering prefix and I missed that aspect
#of the project. Aside from the technical con
On Mar 28, 2014, at 11:56 AM, David Farmer wrote:
> On 3/28/14, 11:32 , David Huberman wrote:
>> David:
>>
>> That summary of the issue helps a lot, thank you!
>>
>> The question on my mind is:
>> Did ARIN provide a written LOA to Merit to announce 2600::/12 ?
>
> I have no direct knowled
13 matches
Mail list logo
