Hi Liudvikas,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
On Mar 23, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Liudvikas Bukys wrote:
Hi, I saw your document Preparing an IPv6 Addressing Plan after its URL was
posted to NANOG.
I have one small comment that perhaps you would consider in future revisions:
The use
* Dobbins, Roland (rdobb...@arbor.net) wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Martin Millnert wrote:
Announcing this high and loud even before fixes were available would not
have exposed more users to threats, but less.
An argument against doing this prior to fixes being available is
On Mar 24, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Joakim Aronius wrote:
Surely the value of stolen certs are higher if the public do not know that
they exist.
A wider swathe of interested parties would know of their existence, and their
existence would be officially confirmed, which would make them more
* Roland Dobbins:
A wider swathe of interested parties would know of their existence,
and their existence would be officially confirmed, which would make
them more valuable.
This is at odds with what happens in other contexts. Disclosure
devalues information.
--
Florian Weimer
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html
Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5 million
by Milton Mueller on Wed 23 Mar 2011 10:30 PM EDT | Permanent Link |
ShareThis
Wake up call for our friends in the Regional Internet Registries. Nortel,
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a
/13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Eugen Leitl eu...@leitl.org wrote:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html
Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells IPv4 address block for $7.5
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 09:10 -0400, Jay Nakamura wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a
/13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
Yeah, I was trying to work that out -- well done for persevering. :)
Jay Nakamura zeusda...@gmail.com wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a
/13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
From the court documents I gather that it is a collection of miscellaneous
blocks that Nortel acquired over the years, presumable via corporate MA.
However there
Why would Microsoft need this many IP's? I could see the benefiting
service providers much more.
On 03/24/2011 09:27 AM, Tony Finch wrote:
Jay Nakamurazeusda...@gmail.com wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a
/13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
From the court
yay cloud.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 6:32 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.comwrote:
Why would Microsoft need this many IP's? I could see the benefiting service
providers much more.
On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:06 AM, Nathalie Trenaman wrote:
Hi Liudvikas,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
On Mar 23, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Liudvikas Bukys wrote:
Hi, I saw your document Preparing an IPv6 Addressing Plan after its URL
was posted to NANOG.
I have one small comment
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote:
Why would Microsoft need this many IP's? I could see the benefiting service
providers much more.
Microsoft runs Hotmail. Office Live and a bunch of other services you
might have heard of.
And if every common or garden
On Mar 24, 2011, at 6:20 AM, Tom Hill wrote:
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 09:10 -0400, Jay Nakamura wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a
/13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
Yeah, I was trying to work that out -- well done for persevering. :)
Sounds like the pieces of
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 01:27:29PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
Jay Nakamura zeusda...@gmail.com wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a
/13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
From the court documents I gather that it is a collection of miscellaneous
blocks that Nortel
In a message written on Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:32:21AM -0400, Bret Clark wrote:
Why would Microsoft need this many IP's? I could see the benefiting
service providers much more.
I think the more interesting question is why would Microsoft pay
$7.5 million for something they can, at least for
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another
question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert
to the Arin pool. I understand that these were legacy addresses but...
Aaron
Sent
* Leo Bicknell
I think the more interesting question is why would Microsoft pay
$7.5 million for something they can, at least for the moment, get
for free.
A very interesting question indeed!
However, they can only get them for free from ARIN if they can document
an immediate demand. Perhaps
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:27:58 CDT, Aaron Wendel said:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another
question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert
to the Arin pool. I understand
Harald Koch c...@pobox.com writes:
On 3/23/2011 11:05 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
To my surprise, I did not see a mention in this community of the
latest proof of the complete failure of the SSL CA model to actually
do what it is supposed to: provide security, rather than a false sense
of
Just wondering if Microsoft has to justify the address space once they
change ownerships with Arin ?
-Original Message-
From: Tore Anderson [mailto:tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:40 AM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, sells
On Mar 24, 2011, at 7:40 AM, Tore Anderson wrote:
They can only get them for free from ARIN if they can document
an immediate demand. Perhaps they don't have an immediate demand…
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All receipt of
address space, whether from the
At 15:40 24/03/2011 +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
Either way, it sure seems they're speculating that the market price of
an IPv4 address is going to rise to more than US$11.25.
Anything that has ceased to be produced and has demand will go up in
value. Just rename IPv4 as Pontiac GTO.
-Hank
Harald Koch c...@pobox.com wrote:
This story strikes me as a success - the certs were revoked immediately, and
it took a surprisingly short amount of time for security fixes to appear all
over the place.
It would have been much easier if certificate revocation actually worked
properly.
On 24/03/11 10:09 -0400, Harald Koch wrote:
On 3/23/2011 11:05 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
To my surprise, I did not see a mention in this community of the
latest proof of the complete failure of the SSL CA model to actually
do what it is supposed to: provide security, rather than a false sense
Which is especially funny since Comodo is citing the fact that they've
had no OCSP requests for the bad certs as evidence that they haven't
been used.
--Richard
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tony Finch d...@dotat.at wrote:
Harald Koch c...@pobox.com wrote:
This story strikes me as a
* Bill Woodcock
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All
receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a
transfer, is needs-based.
I've understood that this claim is undisputed *only* for address space
that is covered by the ARIN LRSA or any other
On 03/24/2011 10:06 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 01:27:29PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
Jay Nakamurazeusda...@gmail.com wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a
/13,/15,/19,/21 and a /22.
From the court documents I gather that it is a collection of
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All
receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a
transfer, is needs-based. Anything else would be removing a critical
resource from use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:27 58AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another
question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that in the event of bankruptcy ips revert
to the Arin pool. I understand
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/3/23/4778509.html
Read the comment at the end (attached here for reference).
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
Re: Nortel, in bankruptcy, Requests Approval of Sale of IPv4
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All
receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a
transfer, is needs-based. Anything else would be removing a critical
resource from use.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:34:13AM -0400, Steven Bellovin wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:27 58AM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules.
Another question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA says that
Actually ARIN rules don't say anything about bankruptcy. However, in the event
that
the organization ceases to exist and there is no successor organization taking
over
the network infrastructure under an 8.2 transfer, yes, the resources would
revert to
ARIN.
The only other (legitimate)
Does anyone know or works for Comcast that can deal with DNS Issues? Please
reply to me :)
Thanks
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All
receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a
transfer, is needs-based. Anything else would be removing a critical
resource from use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canute
Thank you Randy. Give Canute a
IN-ADDR.ARPA NAMESERVER CHANGE COMPLETE
This is a courtesy notification of the completion of a change to
the nameserver set for the IN-ADDR.ARPA zone.
There is no expected impact on the functional operation of the DNS
due to this change.
There are no actions required by DNS server operators or
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Tore Anderson
tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com wrote:
* Bill Woodcock
They can only get them _at all_ if they can document need. All
receipt of address space, whether from the free-pool or through a
transfer, is needs-based.
I've understood that this claim
John,
On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:42 AM, John Curran wrote:
As usual, I will simply point out to folks that ARIN will indeed
administer the policy as adopted, and will explain it as necessary in
various courtrooms.
Oddly, when I said something similar a few years back, I was accused of
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:15 AM, William Herrin wrote:
Legacy address transferability has been disputed before. Kremen v.
ARIN. Kremen lost.
Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on anything related to address policy:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2007/01/kremen_loses_ch_1.htm
Regards,
-drc
Agreed,
Look at:
http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf
Even assuming Kremen was decided as ARIN says; United States District Courts
can and do disagree.
On Mar 24, 2011, at 2:24 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Yes, Kremen lost, but not based on
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone and
datacenter design. I am particularly interested in operational challenges for
running AS per region e.g. one AS for US, one EU etc or I have heard folks do
one AS per DC. I particularly don't see any advantage in doing
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ernie Rubi erne...@cs.fiu.edu wrote:
http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf
Even assuming Kremen was decided as ARIN says; United States District Courts
can and do disagree.
Hi Ernie,
The case you refer to was a
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:10:14 -0400, Larry Blunk l...@merit.edu wrote:
On 03/24/2011 10:06 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 01:27:29PM +, Tony Finch wrote:
Jay Nakamurazeusda...@gmail.com wrote:
666,624 is kind of odd number, isn't it? That comes out to a
/13,/15,/19,/21 and
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:40 AM, Tore Anderson tore.ander...@redpill-linpro.com
wrote:
* Leo Bicknell
I think the more interesting question is why would Microsoft pay
$7.5 million for something they can, at least for the moment, get
for free.
A very interesting question
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:07 PM, aa...@wholesaleinternet.net wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 11:10:14 -0400, Larry Blunk l...@merit.edu wrote:
On 03/24/2011 10:06 AM, Joe Provo wrote:
Exhibit B expressly indicates they were listed but filed under seal;
interesting to request that. Previous
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2011, at 8:43 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 09:27:58 CDT, Aaron Wendel said:
That's a good question. Maybe they can't qualify under Arin rules. Another
question will be: how is Arin going to handle it?
Im pretty sure that the RSA
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:15:45 EDT, William Herrin said:
Legacy address transferability has been disputed before. Kremen v.
ARIN. Kremen lost.
Yes, but Microsoft's lawyers can probably beat up ARIN's lawyers.
pgp5OIWovGzD3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone and
datacenter design. I am particularly interested in operational challenges for
running AS per region e.g. one AS for US, one EU etc
Alright, how about this - let's wait and see what the bankruptcy judge says.
Which firm do you practice for?
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:05 PM, William Herrin wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Ernie Rubi erne...@cs.fiu.edu wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Ernie Rubi erne...@cs.fiu.edu wrote:
Alright, how about this - let's wait and see what the bankruptcy judge says.
With bated breath.
-Bill
--
William D. Herrin her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. .. Web:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone and
datacenter design. I am particularly interested in operational challenges
for running AS per region
On Mar 24, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Harald Koch wrote:
On 3/23/2011 11:05 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
To my surprise, I did not see a mention in this community of the
latest proof of the complete failure of the SSL CA model to actually
do what it is supposed to: provide security, rather than a false
Multiple AS, one per region, is about extracting maximum revenue from
your client base. In 2000 we had no technical reason to do it, I can't see
a technical reason to do it today. This is a layer 8/9 issue.
jy
On 25/03/2011, at 5:42 AM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
I have seen age old
On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for backbone
and datacenter design. I am particularly interested
On Mar 24, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Disclosure devalues information.
I think this case is different, given the perception of the cert as a 'thing'
to be bartered.
---
Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net //
- Original Message -
From: Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net
To: nanog group nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, 25 March, 2011 9:33:27 AM
Subject: Re: The state-level attack on the SSL CA security model
On Mar 24, 2011, at 6:41 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Disclosure devalues
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Franck Martin fra...@genius.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Roland Dobbins rdobb...@arbor.net
To: nanog group nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Friday, 25 March, 2011 9:33:27 AM
Subject: Re: The state-level attack on the SSL CA security model
On Mar 24,
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
Multiple AS, one per region, is about extracting maximum revenue from
your client base. In 2000 we had no technical reason to do it, I can't see
a technical reason to do it today. This is a layer 8/9 issue.
Quoting Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com:
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS for
backbone and datacenter design. I am particularly interested in
operational challenges for running AS per region e.g. one AS for US,
one EU etc or I have heard folks do one AS per DC. I
On Mar 24, 2011, at 5:45 PM, David Conrad wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
Multiple AS, one per region, is about extracting maximum revenue from
your client base. In 2000 we had no technical reason to do it, I can't see
a technical reason to do it today. This
Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 14:26 -0700, Bill Woodcock a écrit :
On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
I have seen age old discussions on single AS vs multiple AS
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Harald Koch c...@pobox.com wrote:
On 3/23/2011 11:05 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
To my surprise, I did not see a mention in this community of the
latest proof of the complete failure of the SSL CA model to actually
do what it is supposed to: provide security,
Owen,
I (and I presume Eric Goldman, author of the post I referenced) was looking at
Judge James Ware's actual ruling
(http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:2006cv02554/181054/41/).
I don't see anything in there discussing that 'the transfer had to be done
Hi All - I am new to this mailer. Hopefully my question is posed to the
correct list.
I am using 2.5 Tbps as the peak volume of peering traffic over all peering
points for a Tier 1 ISP, for some modeling purposes. Is that a reasonable
estimate?
Thanks
Ravi
While it's a very interesting read and it's always nice to know
what Danny is up to, the concept is a pretty extreme corner
case when you consider the original question. I took the original
question to be about global versus regional AS in a provider
backbone.
On the other hand if we'd had
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Graham Wooden gra...@g-rock.net wrote:
with one site being in the middle. I only have one public AS, but I have
selected doing the confederation approach (which some may consider to be
overkill with only three edges).
There are really several issues to
List,
since there are IRR databases operated by non-RIRs, does one need to
register a prefix in any RIR-DB at all, to see it reachable on the
Internet?
Have there been any presentations/research done on reachability of
RIR-registered vs non-RIR-registered vs completely unregistered
Would someone from Google please contact me offlist? You're geolocating some
of $DAYJOB's IP space to the Netherlands, and I'm not sure how to fix it.
Sadly, very few of my $DAYJOB's customers in Seattle are fluent in Dutch.
(If there's an obvious form somewhere to fix this, and I missed it,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Nathan Eisenberg
nat...@atlasnetworks.us wrote:
Would someone from Google please contact me offlist? You're geolocating some
of $DAYJOB's IP space to the Netherlands, and I'm not sure how to fix it.
Sadly, very few of my $DAYJOB's customers in Seattle are
On 25Mar2011, at 09.17, Michael Hallgren wrote:
Le jeudi 24 mars 2011 à 14:26 -0700, Bill Woodcock a écrit :
On Mar 24, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 12:42 PM, Zaid Ali z...@zaidali.com wrote:
I have seen
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:13 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
At your suggestion, I went to the IGP blog and read the last comment. I see
there is a response by Ernie Rubi to your blog comment, which captures my
question so well that (with apologies to Mr Rubi) I'll quote him:
Mr. Rubi is likely
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 08:13:46PM -0500, Benson Schliesser wrote:
[snip]
It's obvious that ARIN, as well as other whois database providers,
should pay attention to the proceedings. But under what premise
might ARIN act as a party to this lawsuit?
The proper question might be that if neither
What is needed is for the networks in the transit-free club to decide
they will not honor any gray market route advertisements resulting
from extra-normal transfers of this nature, whether the announcement
is from a peer or a customer. As we are all aware, no real dent was
ever made in routing
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 3/24/2011 7:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community
participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs to the assignee.
Would de-peer with Microsoft (or
On Mar 24, 2011, at 11:15 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Kaufman matt...@matthew.at wrote:
On 3/24/2011 7:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community
participants voluntarily route traffic for those IPs
Bankruptcy courts have done this with phone numbers, read my paper - the 'phone
number as assets' in bankruptcy cases are cited in there.
Just saying
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 24, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:24 PM, John Curran
On 3/24/2011 10:34 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
On Mar 24, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Ravi Ramaswamy wrote:
Tier 1 ISP is a nebulous term.
Indeed it is. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tier_1_network for more information. I'm
guessing you are using Tier 1
On Mar 24, 2011, at 9:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
So I wonder rhetorically speaking.. what happens when a bankruptcy
court accidentally sells something that doesn't actually exist,
...
Because that's what IP addresses are. Totally worthless unless community
participants voluntarily route
78 matches
Mail list logo
