Re: OECD Reports on State of IPv6 Deployment for Policy Makers

> You should have seen the CNN experiment on cyber attack... you mean the failed chertoff/cheney wanna make the news clueless crap? puhleeze! the fcc has more guns than that mob had clue. randy

Re: OECD Reports on State of IPv6 Deployment for Policy Makers

You should have seen the CNN experiment on cyber attack... It took 3/4 of the time for the "government" to realize they need to ask the private sector to help them. The first 3/4 were spent to discuss what the president can do or not do so they can take over the infrastructure and tell the oper

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

One really good thing about spam was that, before it became a big problem, all Usenet / Internet discussions had a risk of devolving into "libertarians vs. socialists" flamewars, but that got replaced by "*%^&%*& spammers", and eventually we got that nice little checklist as a way to quiet even tho

Re: OECD Reports on State of IPv6 Deployment for Policy Makers

> karine perset's work is, as usual, good enough that it should be seen in > it's original, not some circle-je^h^hid hack of a small part of it. On of the best parts of her presentation: "Government’s role *is not about regulation*, but about working with technical experts and business to: •Role

Re: OECD Reports on State of IPv6 Deployment for Policy Makers

> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100409_oecd_reports_on_state_of_ipv6_deployment_for_policy_makers/ > karine perset's work is, as usual, good enough that it should be seen in it's original, not some circle-je^h^hid hack of a small part of it. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/8/44961688.pdf ran

OECD Reports on State of IPv6 Deployment for Policy Makers

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100409_oecd_reports_on_state_of_ipv6_deployment_for_policy_makers/

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:34 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Owen, > > On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with >> guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. > > I'm a little confused on the

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:43 AM, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: >>> BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will >>> issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. >>> >> N

Re: Fwd: [c-nsp] capirca : Google Network Filtering Management

On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 22:10 -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: > Would someone from Google kindly confirm/deny this claim? I'm as patient > as any other, but I'm beginning to feel for those who have yet (but are > ready to) to trigger the filters... > > Thankfully, my 'reasonable' regex knowledge has me

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 04/09/2010 07:49 PM, Randy Bush wrote: > some nut i procmail wrote >>> No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to >>> people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has >>> no such power. >> I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. > > co

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

some nut i procmail wrote >> No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to >> people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has >> no such power. > I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. confusion between the army and the fcc, who, even under

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

On 4/9/2010 15:42, Benjamin Billon wrote: > >>> This is also blocking Sina, Netease, Yahoo.cn and other major >>> Chinese ISP/ESP. Am I the only to think this is not very smart? >> >> It depends. I'am not a fan of country blocking. But in my case it can >> work for a home server. You could adapt th

RE: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, George Bonser wrote: I suppose it is easier and takes less of your resources to get the world to block you than it is to block the world. operating a bullet proof spam network, ignoring complaints, is certainly one way to achieve that. anyone remember chinanet's lying aut

Fwd: [c-nsp] capirca : Google Network Filtering Management

Would someone from Google kindly confirm/deny this claim? I'm as patient as any other, but I'm beginning to feel for those who have yet (but are ready to) to trigger the filters... Thankfully, my 'reasonable' regex knowledge has me ready to list a heaping pile of filth into the ether, if the comm

Re: capirca : Google Network Filtering Management

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Jon Meek wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Christopher Morrow > wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:09 PM, William Duck wrote: >>>   http://code.google.com/p/capirca/ >>>   Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize >>>   common defin

Re: capirca : Google Network Filtering Management

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 11:09:09AM -0700, William Duck wrote: >http://code.google.com/p/capirca/ >Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize >common definitions of networks and services and high-level policy >files to facilitate the development and manipulati

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: This DID actually bite my company about 3 years ago. A customer went to China (usually in NYC) and could not send email through the mail server because they were using POP-before-SMTP instead of the mail submission port . The problem did not lie with blocking IPs. But

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 04/09/2010 11:01 AM, William Herrin wrote: > Fun movies notwithstanding, they generally issue a fine and work it > through the civil courts. > > If you were doing something extraordinary, like jamming emergency > communications, I expect they might well call the police for > assistance. But tho

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 04/09/2010 09:56 AM, Dave Israel wrote: > +Bonus Uncertainty: There is a lack of consensus on how IPv6 is to be > deployed. For example, look at the ongoing debates on point to point > network sizes and the /64 network boundary in general. There's also no > tangible benefit to deploying IPv6 r

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

Benjamin Billon wrote: > >>> So basically, the idea is to disconnect China's Internet even more >>> than what it inflicts to itself? >> And that is wrong why exactly? ;-) > Nah, I'm not answering that =D > Nice try, though. >>> How fun. What was the FCC/Comcast case about again? >> It's only port

Re: capirca : Google Network Filtering Management

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:09 PM, William Duck wrote: >>   http://code.google.com/p/capirca/ >>   Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize >>   common definitions of networks and services and high-level policy >>

Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast

On 4/9/2010 16:22, joe mcguckin wrote: > Let me see if I understand this correctly. > > People are defending the FCC? After looking at who they elect, why does that surprise? > > The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband, > not "Information Service" and thus came

RE: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

> -Original Message- > From: Brielle Bruns [mailto:br...@2mbit.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 7:06 PM > To: nanog@nanog.org > Subject: Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? > > On 4/8/10 7:50 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote: > > Please. > > > > Since there's been alot of requests for t

Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast

On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > On Apr 9, 2010, at 5:22 PM, joe mcguckin wrote: > >> Let me see if I understand this correctly. >> >> People are defending the FCC? >> >> The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband, >> not "Information Serv

Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast

On Apr 9, 2010, at 5:22 PM, joe mcguckin wrote: > Let me see if I understand this correctly. > > People are defending the FCC? > > The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband, > not "Information Service" and thus came under the purview of > the FBI and CALEA - dir

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

This is also blocking Sina, Netease, Yahoo.cn and other major Chinese ISP/ESP. Am I the only to think this is not very smart? It depends. I'am not a fan of country blocking. But in my case it can work for a home server. You could adapt the list and block port 22 only for production servers w

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

Benjamin Billon wrote: And that is wrong why exactly? ;-) Nah, I'm not answering that =D Nice try, though. Hah ;-) This is also blocking Sina, Netease, Yahoo.cn and other major Chinese ISP/ESP. Am I the only to think this is not very smart? It depends. I'am not a fan of country blocking. B

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Michael Dillon wrote (on Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 09:31:43PM +0100): > On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad wrote: > > On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: > >> All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. > > > > No they are not. > > According to :

Re: [ot/bronog] !summon ..!clue!charter/HSI

I was told : > Charter is very decentralized. This is for endpoints (currently) GMT-5 - Chicago IL and Madison WI. Thanks again -jamie

[ot/bronog] !summon ..!clue!charter/HSI

Looking for clue within Charter HSI realm (or people that can give contact / forward issues) .. HSI seems to be taboo even within Charter (even $work's Charter biz/fiber acct mgrs are without clue as to who to call) . . Off list help is appreciated .. Thanks in advance -jamie

The Cidr Report

This report has been generated at Fri Apr 9 21:11:36 2010 AEST. The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table. Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report. Recent Table History Date

BGP Update Report

BGP Update Report Interval: 01-Apr-10 -to- 08-Apr-10 (7 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name 1 - AS629840434 4.5% 15.5 -- ASN-CXA-PH-6298-CBS - Cox Communications Inc. 2 - AS23724

Re: capirca : Google Network Filtering Management

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:09 PM, William Duck wrote: >   http://code.google.com/p/capirca/ >   Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize >   common definitions of networks and services and high-level policy >   files to facilitate the development and manipulation >   of net

Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast

On Apr 7, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Mark Smith wrote: > One thing which would significantly help this argument for or against Network > Neutrality is defining exactly what it is. The FCC has a definition of sorts, in terms of its six principles. Page three of http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_B

Re: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast

Let me see if I understand this correctly. People are defending the FCC? The same FCC that ruled that any data service over 200Kbits was broadband, not "Information Service" and thus came under the purview of the FBI and CALEA - directly contravening the language and intent of the CALEA act?

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

So basically, the idea is to disconnect China's Internet even more than what it inflicts to itself? And that is wrong why exactly? ;-) Nah, I'm not answering that =D Nice try, though. How fun. What was the FCC/Comcast case about again? It's only port 25, at least here: http://www.okean.com/a

RE: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

-Original Message- From: Warren Bailey [mailto:wbai...@gci.com] Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 12:31 PM To: Jeroen van Aart; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China? Are we to believe that filtering .cn will filter all Chinese attacks? I know that if I was up to no

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 9 April 2010 18:36, David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: >> All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. > > No they are not. According to : The Fee Schedule, is continually reviewed by ARIN's membership, and its

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

Benjamin BILLON wrote: So basically, the idea is to disconnect China's Internet even more than what it inflicts to itself? And that is wrong why exactly? ;-) How fun. What was the FCC/Comcast case about again? It's only port 25, at least here: http://www.okean.com/antispam/iptables/iptable

Re: Behold - the Address-Yenta!

>> The question discussed is the practice of performing resource review >> as a result of fraudulent applications. > > no.  what was being discussed was transfers.  you turned left, asserted > that they were fraudulent, and told people to turn in their neighbors. If a company can justify a /?? wit

RE: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

Are we to believe that filtering .cn will filter all Chinese attacks? I know that if I was up to no good in China, I'd buy a cheap VSAT connection, tld's are probably not a good way to identify bad guys. My two cents.. //warren -Original Message- From: Jeroen van Aart [mailto:jer...@mom

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

Rich Kulawiec wrote: See ipdeny.com for allocations covering about 225 countries. Alternatively, please see http://www.okean.com/asianspamblocks.html for lists that cover China and Korea only. The former is furnished in CIDR; the latter in CIDR, Apache htaccess, Cisco ACL, and Linux iptables.

RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

-Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net] Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 4:14 PM To: John Payne Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space > On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > > > IPv6-only content won't be meaningful f

RE: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Regulatory bodies can fine you. Not all regulation comes with guns, hippies. ;) And .. The FCC does have access to people with guns, as does any US Federal Agency. Try transmitting illegally on an FM band for a while and see who shows up. I'd be shocked if people with guns didn't arrive in recor

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 4/9/2010 1:43 PM, William Herrin wrote: No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. The FCC is a regulator. The California PUC is a regulator. ARIN is not a regulator. Last I hear

Weekly Routing Table Report

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith . Routing

Re: Behold - the Address-Yenta!

On Apr 9, 2010, at 12:20 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> The question discussed is the practice of performing resource review as a >> result of fraudulent applications. > > Actually, no. The question was whether the practice of creating a company to > hold IP addresses then selling that company

capirca : Google Network Filtering Management

http://code.google.com/p/capirca/ Developed internally at Google, this system is designed to utilize common definitions of networks and services and high-level policy files to facilitate the development and manipulation of network access control filters (ACLs) for various platforms.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 09 Apr 2010 12:43, William Herrin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: >> >>> BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will >>> issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. >>>

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Brandon Ross wrote: > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: >> Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. >> Much like ARIN, really. > > Oh really?  So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I > don't have one, won't

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Unless the ip you takes belongs to the rbn, mafia, or a three letter government org. -- -- Brian Raaen Network Engineer bra...@zcorum.com On Friday 09 April 2010, Brandon Ross wrote: > On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: > > > Last I heard, the FCC has access to peo

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 09 Apr 2010 12:34, David Conrad wrote: > On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with >> guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. >> > I'm a little confused on the distinct

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:26 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Doesn't end user PI assignment already do this? Note I'm not arguing against > end user PI assignment policy, rather just making the observation that given > IPv6 did not address routing scalability, the path we're heading down is > obvious, the

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010, William Herrin wrote: Last I heard, the FCC has access to people with law degrees not guns. Much like ARIN, really. Oh really? So if I start using a frequency that requires a license and I don't have one, won't they tell me to stop? And if I say no, I won't stop, what h

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: >> BULL SH*T, ARIN makes determinations as to how many IP addresses it will >> issue and in that sense it is exactly a regulator. >> > No, ARIN is not a regulator.  Regulators have guns or access t

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Michael Dillon wrote: > All ARIN fees are set by the ARIN members. No they are not. Regards, -drc

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

Owen, On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:07 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > No, ARIN is not a regulator. Regulators have guns or access to people with > guns to enforce the regulations that they enact. ARIN has no such power. I'm a little confused on the distinction you're making. Today, ARIN can remove whois data

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:34 AM, John Curran wrote: > Another bright gentleman many years ago suggested that we have an online > website which allows anyone to pay a fee and get an address block. This > is not inconceivable, but does completely set aside hierarchical routing > which is currently an un

Re: China prefix hijack

On Apr 10, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Paul Vixie wrote: > are we all freaking out especially much because this is coming from china > today, and we suppose there must be some kind of geopolitical intent because > china-vs-google's been in the news a lot today? There's been a fair amount of speculation

Re: China prefix hijack

"Martin A. Brown" writes: > Just a note of confirmation that 23724 originated as many as 31847 > prefixes during an 18 minute window starting around 15:54 UTC. > They were prepending their own AS, and this is several orders of > magnitude more prefixes than they normally originate. a couple

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 7:30 AM, todd glassey wrote: > On 4/8/2010 10:32 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: >> On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote: >>> I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is >>> *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being >>> unregul

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 6:58 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: > On 4/8/2010 7:18 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote: >> Since I just need one /64 that is $1,250/yr for the /64. >> >> That puts me at a large competitive disadvantage to the big boys. >> > > According to the docs that I read that's 1250 for the firs

Re: "Running out of IPv6" (Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacyIP4 Space)

> If you have downstream customers, even if they're just dialups, expect > to assign at least a /60 to each one. Many folks recommend /56 or /48. ARIN counts a /56 or a /48 per customer, your choice. There is no point in allocating less. More to the point, soon the IPv4 address shortage and the t

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > Put less tersely: > > We were assigned space, under a policy whose purpose was primarily to > guarantee uniqueness in IPv4 numbering. As with other legacy holders, > we obtained portable space to avoid the technical problems associated > with renumbering, problems with in-addr.arpa subdelega

Re: NAT444 vs IPv6 (was RE: legacy /8)

On Apr 7, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Lee Howard wrote: >> Can you provide pointers to these analyses? Any evidence-backed data >> showing how CGN >> is more expensive would be very helpful. > > It depends. ... > That math may or may not make sense for your network.. Right. My question was more along

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 4/9/2010 12:30 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably >> talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have >> provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 >> policies regarding address space? >>

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> Put differently, you work in this arena too... you've presumably > talked to stakeholders. Can you list some of the reasons people have > provided for not adopting v6, and are any of them related to the v6 > policies regarding address space? Reasons: + Fear People

Re: Behold - the Address-Yenta!

John, On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:43 AM, John Curran wrote: > ARIN's position follows RFC 2008 This seems to be contradicted by ARIN's (perfectly reasonable) policies regarding the assignment of provider independent address space to end users. As to whether addresses are assets, I suspect we'll have t

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:39 AM, Martin Barry wrote: > $quoted_author = "Joe Greco" ; >> >>> Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as >>> "working >>> as intended" by much of the community and membership? >> >> That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

>> > This is an answer though. The vast majority of people who need address space > in > North America are ARIN members. These ARIN members are happy with the current > organisation. If the set of people who need IP address tend towards being > happy > with the current system, there is no reason

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:09 AM, Joe Greco wrote: >>> 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 >>> numbering resources, >> >> Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. >> And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that >> would

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

Jay Hennigan writes: > We just got Cyclops alerts showing several of our prefixes sourced from > AS23474 propagating through AS4134. Anyone else? For the record, yes. Two of our blocks were announced via 7575 4134 23724 yesterday. First seen by Cyclops at 2010-04-08 15:57:13 UTC and lasted a

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

So basically, the idea is to disconnect China's Internet even more than what it inflicts to itself? How fun. What was the FCC/Comcast case about again? I'm totally against this practice, but if you (stupidly) want to apply it, do it for good. http://ftp.apnic.net/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-l

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 4/9/2010 10:10 AM, John Curran wrote: A large *end-user* pays maintenance fees of $100/year. ISPs pay an annual registration services subscription fee each year, proportional to the size of aggregate address space held. I stand corrected. I misunderstood the doc. I could never read. :

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 4/8/2010 10:32 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > On 07 Apr 2010 18:40, N. Yaakov Ziskind wrote: >> I don't think the issue is *money* (at least the big issue; money is >> *always* an issue), but rather the all-of-sudden jump from being >> unregulated to regulated, whatever that means. > > ARIN is not

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

>> Is it possible for you to share that filter list you have for china? >> im getting bogged down by those ssh-bruts as well coming in from >> china. >> >> Good ones available here : in several notations (including Cisco ACL) : http://www.okean.com/antispam/china.html Cheers, Michael Hols

ARIN XXV Policy Discussions

One important note for NANOG folks - The ARIN XXV Public Policy and Members Meeting will be held in 10 days in Toronto. There are policy proposals which may effect you being discussed. You may participate in discussing these on the ARIN PPML mailing list or during the meeting via remote particip

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Curtis Maurand wrote: > > According to the docs that I read that's 1250 for the first year and 100/yr > thereafter. The big boys pay more up front, but pay $100.00 per year > thereafter. There's the competitive disadvantage. AT&T, Comcast, > Time-Warner pay $100.0

RE: FCC dealt major blow in net neutrality ruling favoring Comcast

In Europe you rarely encounter courts circumscribing regulatory power. And it is well known that the District Court is dominated by anti-regulatory judges. -Original Message- From: Michael Holstein [mailto:michael.holst...@csuohio.edu] Sent: Tue 4/6/2010 7:40 PM To: Patrick W. Gilmor

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On 4/8/2010 7:18 PM, Gary E. Miller wrote: Since I just need one /64 that is $1,250/yr for the /64. That puts me at a large competitive disadvantage to the big boys. According to the docs that I read that's 1250 for the first year and 100/yr thereafter. The big boys pay more up front, bu

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 9, 2010, at 8:27 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > Eventually InterNIC was disbanded, and components went in various > directions. ARIN landed the numbering assignment portion of InterNIC. > Along with that, maintenance of the legacy resources drifted along to > ARIN. Correct (ARIN is the successor

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:29:07PM -0600, Beavis wrote: > Is it possible for you to share that filter list you have for china? See ipdeny.com for allocations covering about 225 countries. Alternatively, please see http://www.okean.com/asianspamblocks.html for lists that cover China and Korea only.

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Kevin Stange wrote: > > On 04/08/2010 01:47 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote: >> If there was an automatic website that just handed out up to a /40 on >> demand, and charged a one-time fee of $100, I don't think the space >> would ever be exhausted, there isn't enough money. > >

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

[context restored] > > > If you don't have a contract with ARIN, why should ARIN provide > > > you with anything? > > [I replied] > > Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN > > i do not think that statement is defensible > > there is a difference between caring and being willing to giv

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Apr 8, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Joe Greco wrote: > > The problem, as I've heard it, is that ARIN's fees are steep in order to > pay for various costs. Since there isn't the economy of scale of hundreds > of millions of domain names, and instead you just have ... what? Probably > less than a hundred

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> The vast majority of people who need address space in North America > are ARIN members. These ARIN members are happy with the current > organisation. If the set of people who need IP address tend towards > being happy with the current system, there is no reason to change it > for a new system, wh

Re: Behold - the Address-Yenta!

> The question discussed is the practice of performing resource review > as a result of fraudulent applications. no. what was being discussed was transfers. you turned left, asserted that they were fraudulent, and told people to turn in their neighbors. randy

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

In my experience ARIN/RIR policies have not been a noticeable barrier to IPv6 adoption. Lack of IA/security gear tops the list for my clients, with WAN Acceleration a runner-up. /TJ On Apr 9, 2010 7:23 AM, "Joe Greco" wrote: > > I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't thi

Re: Behold - the Address-Yenta!

On Apr 9, 2010, at 4:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote: > > john, addresses are assets. ... Randy - You may believe that IP addresses are assets; feel free to do so. ARIN's position follows RFC 2008 and RFC 2050 and will continue to do so until the community directs otherwise. For the legal discussion, s

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

$quoted_author = "Joe Greco" ; > > > Perhaps the true issue is that what you see as broken is perceived as > > "working > > as intended" by much of the community and membership? > > That's a great point. Would you agree, then, that much of the community > and membership implicitly sees little v

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 06:09:19AM -0500, Joe Greco wrote: > > > 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 > > >   numbering resources, > > > > Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. > > And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to I

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

$quoted_author = "Joe Greco" ; > > Using the organization to justify the need for the organization is > circular reasoning. I would have thought the role ARIN (and the other RIRs) has to play is clear from it's charter (registration of number resources to ensure uniqueness and fair allocation of

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > I have my doubts, based on a ~decade of observation. I don't think ARIN > > is deliberately evil, but I think there are some bits that'd be hard to > > fix. > > I believe that anything at ARIN which the community at large and the > membership > can come to consensus is broken will be relativ

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> > 1) Justify why we need a heavy bureaucracy such as ARIN for IPv6 > >   numbering resources, > > Because the members of ARIN (and the other four RIRs) want it that way. > And because nobody has yet made a serious proposal to ICANN that > would replace ARIN. Using the organization to justify th

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> Excellent questions... The direction with respect to ARIN is that the > Board has spent significant time considering this issue and the > guidance provided to date is that ARIN is to focus on its core mission > of providing allocation and registration services, and be supportive > of other relate

Re: Behold - the Address-Yenta!

>> Or are you indicating the mechanisms I described are in some way >> fraudulent? > Potentially, yes. pfui. the current security level is chartreuse. you will get 15,000 free flier miles for spying on your neighbor. john, addresses are assets. people will transfer assets. get over it. two f

Re: APNIC's report on traffic directed to 1.0.0.0/8

On 4/7/10 10:22 PM, Scott Howard wrote: http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2010/04/msg2.html (There's also a PDF version with easier to enlarge images at http://www.potaroo.net/studies/1slash8/1slash8.pdf ) It was a nice read. But it didn't indicate where (source AS

Re: Behold - the Address-Yenta!

On 4/8/10 8:02 PM, John Curran wrote: On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:51 PM, David Conrad wrote: In the cases I'm aware of (which were some time ago), there was (to my knowledge) no fraud involved. If you see more recent cases of this occurring, please report them. Or are you indicating the mechanisms

Re: ARIN IP6 policy for those with legacy IP4 Space

> Because a legacy holder doesn't care about ARIN i do not think that statement is defensible there is a difference between caring and being willing to give up rights for no benefit

Re: BGP hijack from 23724 -> 4134 China?

:-) ;-) ;-) And now for the political analysis in our morning programming broadcasted to North America: Beware of unintentionally helping the Chinese government to implement the Great Firewall by blocking packet flow right there in the land of Free Speech(TM). The satisfaction of vigorously lo

  1   2   >