FCC: 2019 CSRIC Working Groups Announced - Volunteers?

The 2019 FCC Communications Security Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) has announced their new working groups for the new cycle. CSRIC is seeking volunteers to serve on various working groups. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-19-689A1.pdf Working Group 1: Alert

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

> Editor's note: This draft has not been submitted to any formal > process. It may change significantly if it is ever submitted. > You are reading it because we trust you and we value your > opinions. *Please do not recirculate it.* Please join us in > testing patches

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

Most importantly, if you're running out of 1918 space is a totally different problem than running out of global routable space. If you patch common OSes for 240/4 usability but a significant fraction of say unpatched OSes, IOT, consumer routers, old random net cruft necessary for infrastructure

Re: 240/4 (Re: 44/8)

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 20:14 , Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> 2. It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP >> stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s >> being evaluated against a global >>

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 18:54 , John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2019, at 9:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> ... >> The only thing I dispute here is that I’m pretty sure that the principals of >> ARDC did request ARIN to make ARDC the controlling organization of the >> resource. The question

Re: 44/8 RDNS is still broken!

On 7/22/19 10:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > That would be ARDC, not ADCR, but here’s the problem… As far as most of us > are concerned, it was inappropriate for ARIN to hand them control of the > block in the first place. We were fine with them doing the record keeping > and providing POC services,

240/4 (Re: 44/8)

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019, Owen DeLong wrote: 2. It was decided that the effort to modify each and every IP stack in order to facilitate use of this relatively small block (16 /8s being evaluated against a global run rate at the time of roughly 2.5 /8s per month, mostly

Re: 44/8

So the elephant in the room: now that Precedent has been set - how do I purchase some of the 44 block? :)

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 15:33 , Michel Py wrote: > >>> William Herrin wrote : >>> The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space. >>> It remains reserved/unusable. > > +1 > >> Fred Baker wrote : >> Speaking for myself, I don't see the point. It doesn't solve

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 14:03 , John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:44 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: >> ... >> There's a bit of magic. If ARIN's board of directors decided to up and start >> taking people's existing IPv4 allocations and selling them to Amazon to beef >> up the ARIN

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:24 , John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2019, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: >> >> Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name >> field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated >> to a _purpose_. > >

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 13:36 , John Curran wrote: > > On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman > wrote: >> >> The change in character/purpose of the network has operational impacts to >> me, and as such should have been done as an IANA action (as the original

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 9:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > ... > The only thing I dispute here is that I’m pretty sure that the principals of > ARDC did request ARIN to make ARDC the controlling organization of the > resource. The question here is whether or not it was appropriate or correct > for ARIN

Re: 44/8

- On Jul 22, 2019, at 5:54 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: Hi Owen, >> On Jul 21, 2019, at 12:28 , Sabri Berisha wrote: >> Only when it becomes cheaper to go IPv6 than to use legacy V4 will V6 be >> adopted >> by large corporations. Well, the ones that are governed by beancounters

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 8:47 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:36:40 -, John Curran said: > >> There is no such creature as a “special purpose” RIR; Regional Internet >> Registries serve the general community in a particular geographic regions as >> described by ICANN ICP-2.

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 12:15 , Naslund, Steve wrote: > > I think the Class E block has been covered before. There were two reasons to > not re-allocate it. > > 1. A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those > addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 22, 2019, at 10:16 , William Herrin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran > wrote: > > On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin > > wrote: > > > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good > >

Re: 44/8

> On Jul 21, 2019, at 12:28 , Sabri Berisha wrote: > > - On Jul 21, 2019, at 4:48 AM, nanog nanog@nanog.org wrote: > > Hi, > >> All of this puts more pressure on the access networks to keep IPv4 running >> and >> inflates the price of the remaining IPv4 addresses. > > Exactly. Which

Re: 44/8

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 20:36:40 -, John Curran said: > There is no such creature as a “special purpose” RIR; Regional Internet > Registries serve the general community in a particular geographic regions as > described by ICANN ICP-2. OK, I'll bite then. Which RIR allocates address space to

Re: 44/8

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe wrote: > > > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. > > T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to > > customers and nat's it. > --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Ca By > > My understanding is that is not currently

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:31 PM Scott Weeks wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe wrote: > > > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. > > T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to > > customers and nat's it. > > > --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: >

RE: 44/8

>> Michel Py wrote : >> As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and >> nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks >> because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks. > Jerry Cloe wrote : > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD

Re: 44/8

On Mon Jul 22, 2019 at 06:33:17PM -0400, Paul Timmins wrote: > And after 75 messages, nobody has asked the obvious question. When is > ARDC going to acquire IPv6 resources on our behalf? Instead being all > worried about legacy resources we're highly underutilizing. I didn't want to spoil a

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe wrote: > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. > T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to > customers and nat's it. --- cb.li...@gmail.com wrote: From: Ca By My understanding is that is not currently commonly the

RE: 44/8

From:Michel Py As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the questionable and nevertheless widespread squatting of 30/8 and other un-announced DoD blocks because 10/8 is not big enough for some folks. --- je...@jtcloe.net wrote: From: Jerry Cloe There's already widespread use

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:02 PM Jerry Cloe wrote: > There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. T-Mobile commonly > assigns 26/8 space (and others) to customers and nat's it. > > My understanding is that is not currently commonly the case

RE: 44/8

There's already widespread use (abuse ?) of DOD /8's. T-Mobile commonly assigns 26/8 space (and others) to customers and nat's it.   -Original message- From:Michel Py Sent:Mon 07-22-2019 05:36 pm Subject:RE: 44/8 To:William Herrin ; CC:North American Network Operators‘ Group ; As an

RE: 44/8

>> William Herrin wrote : >> The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to convert it to unicast space. >> It remains reserved/unusable. +1 > Fred Baker wrote : > Speaking for myself, I don't see the point. It doesn't solve anything, As an extension of RFC1918, it would have solved the

Re: 44/8

And after 75 messages, nobody has asked the obvious question. When is ARDC going to acquire IPv6 resources on our behalf? Instead being all worried about legacy resources we're highly underutilizing. Ham Radio is supposed to be about pushing the art forward. Let's do that. -KC8QAY On 7/22/19

Re: 44/8

The fundamental reason given, from several sources, was that our experience with IPv4 address trading says that no matter how many IPv4 addresses we create or recover, we won't obviate the need for a replacement protocol. The reasons for that are two: (1) IPv4 isn't forward compatible with

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:44 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > ... > There's a bit of magic. If ARIN's board of directors decided to up and start > taking people's existing IPv4 allocations and selling them to Amazon to beef > up the ARIN scholarship fund, the recourse would include going to IANA and >

Re: 44/8

On 7/22/19 12:15 PM, Naslund, Steve wrote: > 1. A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those > addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle > them. Not to mention all the legacy devices that barely do IPv4 at all, and know nothing about IPv6. Legacy

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 1:36 PM John Curran wrote: > On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > > ... > > That's why a real RIR for this space would have had a policy development > process where *the community* could weigh in on ideas like "sell of 1/4 of > it so we can have a big

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:47 PM John Curran wrote: > > In which case, I’d recommend contacting Hank Magnuski to obtain > documentation of your particular interpretation, as there are no published > policy documents which indicate anything other than an allocation from the > general purpose IPv4

Re: 44/8

silently deleting the thread isn't noise. posting that was, randy. t On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 4:23 PM Randy Bush wrote: > my deep sympathies go out to those folk with real work to do whose mail > user agents do not have a `delete thread` key sequence. >

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 4:17 PM, Matthew Kaufman mailto:matt...@matthew.at>> wrote: The change in character/purpose of the network has operational impacts to me, and as such should have been done as an IANA action (as the original purpose was arguably also set by IANA action, when IANA was Jon

Re: 44/8

my deep sympathies go out to those folk with real work to do whose mail user agents do not have a `delete thread` key sequence.

Re: 44/8

The change in character/purpose of the network has operational impacts to me, and as such should have been done as an IANA action (as the original purpose was arguably also set by IANA action, when IANA was Jon Postel, and simply not documented very well): I am the network administrator for a

Re: 44/8

So wall of text, but here is the RFC chain. Hank Magnuski was the original person marked as the 'reference', which is interpreted as 'responsible individual' in these documents. This changed in 1987, when Philip R. Karn was now reflected in that field. The last RFC I can find that explicitly

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 3:35 PM, William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:24 PM John Curran mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote: > Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach > organizations to the purpose-based allocations You’ve suggested that

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:24 PM John Curran wrote: > > Nothing in the publicly vetted policies demanded that you attach > organizations to the purpose-based allocations > > You’ve suggested that this network was some special “purpose-based” > allocation, but failed to point to any actual policy

Re: 44/8

On 22 Jul 2019, at 1:16 PM, William Herrin wrote: > > Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name > field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated to > a _purpose_. Bill - The block in question is a /8 research assignment made with

Re: 44/8

The agreement in using the space specifically has you agree you were not using it for commercial purposes. Don’t be quick to jump to assumptions, we are an ISP but applied for a/24 so that we could advertise it out because we have a large number of amateur radio repeaters another amateur radio

RE: 44/8

I think the Class E block has been covered before. There were two reasons to not re-allocate it. 1. A lot of existing code base does not know how to handle those addresses and may refuse to route them or will otherwise mishandle them. 2. It was decided that squeezing every bit of

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:04 PM William Herrin wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM andrew.brant via NANOG > wrote: > >> Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for >> future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted >> all existing

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:56 AM andrew.brant via NANOG wrote: > Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for > future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted > all existing allocations. > The IPv6 loonies killed all IETF proposals to

Re: 44/8

Whatever happened to the entire class E block? I know it's reserved for future use, but sounds like that future is now given that we've exhausted all existing allocations.Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: William Herrin Date: 7/22/19 12:16

Re: 44/8

I’ll add to this in saying that I’m a qualified amateur radio licensed Two issues: I’ve been denied access to the space twice. Commercial entities are advertising within the space that are not amateur related. The fish smell permeates On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 07:34 William Herrin wrote:

Contact for Crown Media in California

Hi, Looking for a contact number for Crown Media in Studio City, CA. Need access for a technician into that location. Thanks Mike Mackley Crown Castle Fiber

Re: 44/8

On 7/22/19 10:16 AM, William Herrin wrote: Respectfully John, this wasn't a DBA or an individual figuring the org name field on the old email template couldn't be blank. A class-A was allocated to a _purpose_. You've not only allowed but encouraged that valuable resource to be reassigned to

Re: 44/8

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 6:02 AM John Curran wrote: > On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good > > reasons and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, > > it looks like ARIN was complicit in the

RE: AS3549 NOC contacts? Another BGP hijack

Our info is up to date on the whois with ARIN where the issuance is from https://whois.arin.net/rest/asn/AS3549/pft?s=3549 Preferred is ipad...@centurylink.com From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Bolitho Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 4:33

Re: 44/8

On 21 Jul 2019, at 7:32 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > Having read their explanation, I think the folks involved had good reasons > and the best intentions but this stinks like fraud to me. Worse, it looks > like ARIN was complicit in the fraud -- encouraging and then supporting the > folks