(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 run the
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
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 probably
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 insanity
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
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
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 Homeland Security (DHS), which was created after
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.
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
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 Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)
Alrighty
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 leadership,
Douglas Maughan, an official with the Department
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 'users'
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
-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 tears, I
are not
assigned yet. Following are some...
99.245.135.129
99.246.224.1
99.244.192.1
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Frank Bulk
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 2:14 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: RE: IP Block 99/8
Please provide a pingable IP
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
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:
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
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:
. 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 networks
(701/702/703
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
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
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
on
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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 not
of government.
My .02
Jerry
- Original Message -
From: J. Oquendo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Patrick W. Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nanog@merit.edu
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: IP Block 99/8 (DHS insanity - offtopic)
Bill Woodcock wrote
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 about
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 taking a
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
now
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
(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
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 entity that gives
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
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 assigned to our
To: 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 Canada. We
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?
--bill
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
on the shelf for now.
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/
44 matches
Mail list logo
