RE: IP Block 99/8

All, My name is David Lemon, and I work within the same group as Shai. We're still in dire need of assistance from this list as we still have many complaints from residential customers that cannot reach certain sites. Shai has provided a few /32's from blocks that we have currently started to pr

Re: IP Block 99/8

On 4/23/07, David Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: still in dire need of assistance from this list as we still have many complaints from residential customers that cannot reach certain sites. Naming those sites / ASs would probably have some effect. And there's the peeringdb / inoc-dba to co

Re: IP Block 99/8

Shai Balasingham wrote: > > We recently started to assign these blocks. So all the ranges are not > assigned yet. Following are some... > > 99.245.135.129 > 99.246.224.1 > 99.244.192.1 All reachable from here (as8468) J -- COO Entanet International T: 0870 770 9580 W: http://www.enta.net/ L

Re: IP Block 99/8

All reachable from the ARIN meeting. Owen On Apr 23, 2007, at 7:46 AM, James Blessing wrote: Shai Balasingham wrote: We recently started to assign these blocks. So all the ranges are not assigned yet. Following are some... 99.245.135.129 99.246.224.1 99.244.192.1 All reachable from here

RE: IP Block 99/8

> As you can see we do indeed own these blocks: Nope, you do NOT own these blocks: OrgName:Rogers Cable Communications Inc. OrgID: RCC-99 Address:One Mount Pleasant City: Toronto StateProv: ON PostalCode: M4Y-2Y5 Country:CA NetRange: 99.224.0.0 - 99.253.159.255 CIDR:

RE: IP Block 99/8

All, Much appreciated for the support. Below are a few sites which we're having reachabliity issues to. If you operate one of these networks please check that you can see our allocated blocks and can trace to the following addresses: Allocated blocks: 99.224.0.0/12 99.240.0.0/13 99.248.0.0/14

Re: IP Block 99/8

On Apr 23, 2007, at 1:28 PM, David Lemon wrote: www.homedepot.ca Akaimai It's Akamai, and I'm contacting you off-list

Re: IP Block 99/8

On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:19 PM, John Payne wrote: On Apr 23, 2007, at 1:28 PM, David Lemon wrote: www.homedepot.ca Akaimai It's Akamai, and I'm contacting you off-list Just for clarification (as I've already been ping'd off list)... I was merely correcting the typo in the OPs post :p

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

Marcus H. Sachs wrote: If we had "clean" registries and signed/verifiable advertisements this would not be an issue. Most of you know that DHS was pushing the Secure Protocols for the Routing Infrastructure initiative (http://www.cyber.st.dhs.gov/spri.html). Due to budget cuts this program is o

Very high latency from Monaco377>CW>NTLWorld

traceroute to 86.0.6.36 (86.0.6.36), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.32.1 (192.168.32.1) 2.607 ms 1.162 ms 1.068 ms 2 netsgo-195-78-19-65.monaco377.com (195.78.19.65) 745.752 ms 608.475ms 639.013 ms 3 * netsgo-195-78-19-81.monaco377.com (195.78.19.81) 701.242 ms 579.526ms 4 195.7

Re: Very high latency from Monaco377>CW>NTLWorld

Alexander Harrowell wrote: traceroute to 86.0.6.36 (86.0.6.36 ), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 192.168.32.1 (192.168.32.1 ) 2.607 ms 1.162 ms 1.068 ms 2 netsgo-195-78-19-65.monaco377.com

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:40:31 EDT, "J. Oquendo" said: > More recently, Major General William Lord told Government Computer News > in August 2006 that China has downloaded 10 to 20 terabytes of data from > DoD’s main network, NIPRNet. Hello, Chinanet? Some guys over in 99/8 want to know how to get

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

On Monday 23 April 2007 14:40, J. Oquendo wrote: > Marcus H. Sachs wrote: > > If we had "clean" registries and signed/verifiable advertisements this > > would not be an issue. Most of you know that DHS was pushing the Secure > > Protocols for the Routing Infrastructure initiative > > (http://www.

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

On Apr 23, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Kradorex Xeron wrote: On Monday 23 April 2007 14:40, J. Oquendo wrote: Marcus H. Sachs wrote: If we had "clean" registries and signed/verifiable advertisements this would not be an issue. Most of you know that DHS was pushing the Secure Protocols for the Routi

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > ...what has that got to do with the DHS promoting an idea to sign IP > space allocations and/or annoucements? The idea in-and-of-itself doesn't > sound wholly unreasonable. (I am not advocating this, just saying the > idea sh

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

At 04:52 PM 4/23/2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I do not want any particular gov't (US or otherwise) to be "in charge" of the Internet any more than the next person. And good thing too, because it simply cannot happen, political pipe-dreams not withstanding. But what has that got to do with

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

On Apr 23, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Mike Tancsa wrote: At 04:52 PM 4/23/2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: I do not want any particular gov't (US or otherwise) to be "in charge" of the Internet any more than the next person. And good thing too, because it simply cannot happen, political pipe-dreams not

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

Bill Woodcock wrote: On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > ...what has that got to do with the DHS promoting an idea to sign IP > space allocations and/or annoucements? The idea in-and-of-itself doesn't > sound wholly unreasonable. (I am not advocating this, just sa

RE: Very high latency from Monaco377>CW>NTLWorld

> traceroute to 86.0.6.36 (86.0.6.36), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 192.168.32.1 (192.168.32.1 ) 2.607 ms 1.162 ms 1.068 ms > 2 netsgo-195-78-19-65.monaco377.com (195.78.19.65) 745.752 ms 608.475 ms 639.013 ms > WTF? Did you try tcptraceroute? Why not? Did you contact Monac

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 04:52 PM 4/23/2007, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >I do not want any particular gov't (US or otherwise) to be "in > >charge" of the Internet any more than the next person. And good > >thing too, because it simply cannot happen, political pipe-dreams no

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

DHS focuses on facilitating how to make things more secure or reliable via research, discussions with subject matter experts, and understanding of various scenarios that could impact our economy, critical services, and national security concerns. From that plans get developed, what type of e

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

>Which report did you read... > >http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/04/dept_of_homelan.html >http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2007/04/12/analysis_owning_the_keys_to_th >e_internet/ >http://www.tiawood.com/2007/homeland-security-grabs-for-nets-master-keys/ All of which were

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

> The question is who would do the signing and revocations. Whoever > does that would indeed have a great amount of control over the > internet. A single government agency should not have that sort of > power to make a (for lack of better term), "no surf list" of IP > space... You might try taki

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:23:03PM -0400, Sandy Murphy wrote: > > You might try taking a look at the various presentations at NANOG/RIPE/ARIN/ > APNIC/APRICOT about the whole idea. Central point: the entity that gives > you a suballocation of its own address space signs something that says you >

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:23:03PM -0400, Sandy Murphy wrote: You might try taking a look at the various presentations at NANOG/RIPE/ARIN/APNIC/APRICOT about the whole idea. Central point: the entity that gives you a suballocation of its own address space signs so

RE: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

(email string deleted...) I'm deeply saddened that the very folks who work so hard to run the Internet are publicly speculating that DHS wants to take over the 'net. If that's the message that DHS is sending, then we need to go back to the drawing boards and re-write the message. Can somebody p

Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 05:23:03PM -0400, Sandy Murphy wrote: > >> You might try taking a look at the various presentations at > >> NANOG/RIPE/ARIN/APNIC/APRICOT about the whole idea. > >> Central point: the entit

Re: UK ISP threatens security researcher

On Thursday 19 April 2007 18:25, Simon Lyall wrote: > If you are a random person who comes across a security hole in a website > or commercial product then the best thing to do is tell nobody, refrain > from any further investigation and if possible remove all evidence you > ever did anything. > >