-Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
> Mr. Oquendo (I presume "Mr." but if it's "Ms." please accept my
> apologies...), it appears that there is little common ground between you and
> me. So, rather than stringing this out for the next several days and boring
> everybody else to tear
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:34:25 BST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Did that. The first three are from J. Oquendo, Valdis Kletnieks and
Hey - I stayed out of the signed-BGP and signed-DNS lunacy. The only thing *I*
commented on was the reported leakage of 10 to 20 terabytes of data. And I
think we can a
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
> > I think the strawman proposals so far were something like:
> >
> > 1) iana has 'root' ca-cert
> > 2) iana signs down certs for RIR's
> > 3) RIR's sign down certs for LIR's
> > 4) LIR's sign down certs for
MAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:58 AM
To: Marcus H. Sachs
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)
Alrighty... Since you pointed out this article I already read.
// QUOTE //
"This is the U.S. government stepping forward and showing leader
ot;chat" and I look forward
to continuing this in person over a beer or other libation at some future
gathering.
Marc
-Original Message-
From: J. Oquendo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 9:58 AM
To: Marcus H. Sachs
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: IP
Alrighty... Since you pointed out this article I already read.
// QUOTE //
"This is the U.S. government stepping forward and showing leadership,"
Douglas Maughan, an official with the Department of Homeland Security's
Science and Technology Directorate, told United Press International.
// END
J. Oquendo wrote:
> http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/87655
That is the article that started a very unfortunate chain of events. The
reporter got all of the facts wrong, then people who I thought had some clue
jumped into the mess and only made it worse.
> http://www.gcn.com/online
in this modified
thread
> (RE: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)) and read the first few
> comments that came in.
>
> Marc
>
>
Getting back to the original articles here is where my notions and the
notions
of many others comes from:
// END QUOTE //
The US Department of
> NANOG is just a mailing list and the people who are on it
> are just people having a chat.
Whew. That's refreshing good news. And here I thought that this was a
place to discuss operational issues.
OK, back to the real world and thanks for the chat.
Marc
> >Please provide some evidence of your assertion. I have seen
> no evidence
> that
> >the very folks who work so hard to run the Internet are making any
> speculations at all about the DHS.
>
> Scroll backwards through the emails to the first one in this
> modi
>Please provide some evidence of your assertion. I have seen no evidence
that
>the very folks who work so hard to run the Internet are making any
speculations at all about the DHS.
Scroll backwards through the emails to the first one in this modified thread
(RE: IP Block 99/8 (DHS in
Sean Donelan wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
>> I think the strawman proposals so far were something like:
>>
>> 1) iana has 'root' ca-cert
>> 2) iana signs down certs for RIR's
>> 3) RIR's sign down certs for LIR's
>> 4) LIR's sign down certs for 'users' (where 'users' is p
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote:
I think the strawman proposals so far were something like:
1) iana has 'root' ca-cert
2) iana signs down certs for RIR's
3) RIR's sign down certs for LIR's
4) LIR's sign down certs for 'users' (where 'users' is probably
address-space users, like corpo
> (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.
Please provide some evidence of your assertion. I have seen no evidence
that the very folks who work so hard to ru
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
(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
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
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
>
> 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
>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
government.
My .02
Jerry
- Original Message -
From: "J. Oquendo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bill Woodcock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: IP Block 99/8
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
> DoDÂ’s main network, NIPRNet.
Hello, Chinanet? Some guys over in 99/8 want to know how to get
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
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
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
: Daniel J. Frasnelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 11:02 AM
To: David Lemon
Subject: RE: IP Block 99/8
David,
Appears to be correct in our configurations and it passes my "traceroute
inside AS701" test.
Let me know if the problem appears to be with our public n
> 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:
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
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
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
anyone may require, please feel free to email me directly or call
our TAC @ 416.935.5700.
Thanks in advance for your support,
-David
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 14:38 PM
To: 'nanog@merit.edu'
Subject: IP Block 99/8
We recently started to assign these blocks. So al
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007, 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
On 20-apr-2007, at 21:32, Marcus H. Sachs wrote:
If we had "clean" registries and signed/verifiable advertisements
this would
not be an issue.
I wouldn't count on that. If such a mechanism would become available
(which isn't completely unthinkable, see http://www.bgpexpert.com/
article.p
22209
tel +1 703 247 8717 fax +1 703 247 8569
mob +1 703 932 3984 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shai
Balasingham
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:55 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: IP Block 99/8
Hi,
I am Shai f
On Fri, Apr 20, 2007 at 01:54:37PM -0400, Shai Balasingham wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am Shai from Rogers Cable Inc. ISP in Canada.
>
> We own the following blocks:
>
> 99.224.0.0/12
> 99.240.0.0/13
> 99.248.0.0/14
> 99.252.0.0/16
> 99.253.128.0/19
>
> Shai.
Own? ARIN gave you title?
--
: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: IP Block 99/8
Please provide a pingable IP address on each block so that we can check.
Thanks,
Frank
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:09 PM
To: 'nanog@merit.edu'
Subject: IP Block 99/8
Hi,
I am Shai from Rogers Cable Inc. ISP in
Please provide a pingable IP address on each block so that we can check.
Thanks,
Frank
-Original Message-
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 1:09 PM
To: 'nanog@merit.edu'
Subject: IP Block 99/8
Hi,
I am Shai from Rogers Cable Inc. ISP in Canada. We have IP block
99.x.x.x assig
Hi,
I am Shai from Rogers Cable Inc. ISP in Canada. We have IP block
99.x.x.x assigned to our customers. Which happened to be bogons block in
the past and was given to ARIN in Oct 2006. As we have recently started
using this block, we are getting complains from our customers who are
unable to sur
45 matches
Mail list logo