Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

Agreed Brian From: Mel Beckman Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 7:07 PM To: Fred Baker Cc: Brian R ; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain +1 -mel beckman On Mar 14, 2022, at 9:29 PM, Fred Baker wrote:  My viewpoint, and

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

+1 -mel beckman On Mar 14, 2022, at 9:29 PM, Fred Baker wrote:  My viewpoint, and the reason I recommended against it, is that it gives Putin something he has wanted for a while, which is a Russia in which he is in control of information flows. We do for him what he has wanted for perhaps

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

My viewpoint, and the reason I recommended against it, is that it gives Putin something he has wanted for a while, which is a Russia in which he is in control of information flows. We do for him what he has wanted for perhaps 20 years, and come out the bad guys - “the terrible west gut us

Re: Not Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock

But the RIRs are the ones fielding requests for IPv4 space, and have some notion of how policy implementation might work in practice, so should have a lot of useful input. On March 14, 2022 at 00:45 niels=na...@bakker.net (Niels Bakker) wrote: > * b...@theworld.com (b...@theworld.com) [Mon 14

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

I can understand governments wanting this to be an option but I would let them do blocking within their countries to their own people if that is their desire. This is another pandoras box. Its bad enough that some countries control this already to block free flow of information. If global DNS

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

As bad as it is to break an internet service, it's even worse technical side of your idea. Given that there is an agency in Russia that has the ability to intercept and modify all DNS queries, countering your "idea" is trivial. They will just route root servers locally and setup their own

Re: Juniper vMX Trial - fake news?

Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 01:29:41PM -0500, Matt Harris: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:23 PM Daryl G. Jurbala > wrote: > > > The last time I worked with vMX was several years ago. The image was > > outdated to the point of having to fire up an older version of VMWare to > > export the two VMs so I

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203141407.AYC

If you want to garner discussion or support for your draft RFC, it's probably better to have that conversation via the appropriate IETF channels. On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:43 PM Abraham Y. Chen wrote: > Hi, Fred: > > 0)Thank you for a set of references. > > 1)We cited only one IETF

Re: Juniper vMX Trial - fake news?

+1 for cRPD - Thomas Scott | mr.thomas.sc...@gmail.com On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:42 PM Tom Beecher wrote: > cRPD is a pretty nifty product as well. Some interesting little tricks you > can do with that. > > (Although I don't think they free trial that, those licenses are quite > reasonable as

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203141407.AYC

Hi, Fred: 0)    Thank you for a set of references. 1)    We cited only one IETF Draft (Wilson, et al.) among them, because it was the first and only one that clearly stated its limitation (Section 2. Caveats of Use). More importantly, it was written by three top APNIC officials. Later

Re: Juniper vMX Trial - fake news?

cRPD is a pretty nifty product as well. Some interesting little tricks you can do with that. (Although I don't think they free trial that, those licenses are quite reasonable as well. ) On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 2:34 PM Matt Harris wrote: > Matt Harris​ > | Infrastructure Lead > 816‑256‑5446 > |

Re: Juniper vMX Trial - fake news?

Jon, Contact me off list with your business email and I'll look into it. On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:24 PM Daryl G. Jurbala wrote: > The last time I worked with vMX was several years ago. The image was > outdated to the point of having to fire up an older version of VMWare to > export the two

Re: Juniper vMX Trial - fake news?

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 1:23 PM Daryl G. Jurbala wrote: > The last time I worked with vMX was several years ago. The image was > outdated to the point of having to fire up an older version of VMWare to > export the two VMs so I could import them back into 6. The > documentation barely existed.

Re: Juniper vMX Trial - fake news?

> > It looked a lot lot an abandoned project. So unless something has > changed in the last few years it's not looking good. > It's absolutely not abandoned. There have been vMX images up for download for every mainline Junos revision since at least 18.2 that I can recall. The documentation can

Re: Juniper vMX Trial - fake news?

The last time I worked with vMX was several years ago. The image was outdated to the point of having to fire up an older version of VMWare to export the two VMs so I could import them back into 6. The documentation barely existed. I had to figure out which vmware adapters corresponded to

Juniper vMX Trial - fake news?

Has anyone here actually been granted a vMX trial to demo the thing? Their page makes it seem dead simple (https://www.juniper.net/us/en/dm/vmx-trial-download.html) - just request an account and/or trial and you're off to the races with a 60 day temp license. I've had two customers now asking

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List, Members, (was Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

Hi, Fred: 0)    Thanks for sharing your references to IPv6 statistics. 1)    However, you might have looked this topic too deeply and missed the overview. Through our study of EzIP, we have discovered two aspects of this topic that frequently mislead readers:     A.    IPv6 equipment

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

On Mar 12, 2022, at 5:47 AM, Patrick Bryant wrote: > > > The impact of any action would take time (days) to propagate. > I assert that ‘days’ is extremely optimistic.

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

On Mar 12, 2022, at 5:47 AM, Patrick Bryant wrote: > > I don't like the idea of disrupting any Internet service. I certainly agree with that. Removing .ru from the root name servers will most certainly be as effective as removing certain words from dictionaries to prevent their use. As to

Re: Docusign

What are you looking for? Depending on the request, I may be able to help. Udeme On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:27 AM Bruno Vane wrote: > Hello, > > Anyone from Docusign here? >

Re: Geolocation Data : MAX MIND - Out of Sync

Hey Paschal, I've had this same issue previously with some geolocation DBs not reflecting locations correctly. I managed to fix the issue by maintaining a public RFC8805 geofeed and submitting it to the various DB providers via email and allowing

Re: Docusign

Hey Bruno, Would be better to describe what you're looking for instead of just asking if someone from Docusign is here, that way if they are here or if someone passes on your message to them they know what you need. Just my 2c. Regards, Peter On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:29 AM Bruno Vane wrote:

Re: Docusign

What are you looking for? Depending on the request, I may be able to help. On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:27 AM Bruno Vane wrote: > Hello, > > Anyone from Docusign here? >

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

It amazes me that these knee-jerk sanction reactions go so far down the regulatory rabbit hole before they are rejected by knowledgeable people. The idea that blocking the .ru domain would punish only the Russian government is as laughable as thinking that blocking the .tv domain would punish

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

Terrible idea on so many levels. -jim On Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 12:30 PM Patrick Bryant wrote: > I don't like the idea of disrupting any Internet service. But the current > situation is unprecedented. > > The Achilles Heel of general public use of Internet services has always > been the

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:30 AM Patrick Bryant wrote: > The .ru TLD could be globally disrupted by dropping the .ru zone from the 13 > DNS root servers. This would be the most effective action, but would require > an authoritative consensus. Hi Patrick, ICANN has already rejected this

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

> On Mar 12, 2022, at 11:47 AM, Patrick Bryant wrote: > Unlike Layer 3 disruptions, dropping or disrupting support for the .ru TLD > can be accomplished without disrupting the Russian population's ability to > access information and services in the West. Quoting from

RE: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

So much for livejournal then. From: NANOG On Behalf Of Patrick Bryant Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2022 5:47 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain WARNING: This message originated outside of Ford Motor Company. Use caution when opening attachments,

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

Thank you for you're support.?. -- J. Hellenthal The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > On Mar 12, 2022, at 04:47, Patrick Bryant wrote: > > I don't like the idea of disrupting any Internet service. But the

Re: Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

https://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2022-March/217815.html On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 11:29 AM Patrick Bryant wrote: > I don't like the idea of disrupting any Internet service. But the current > situation is unprecedented. > > The Achilles Heel of general public use of Internet services has

Dropping support for the .ru top level domain

I don't like the idea of disrupting any Internet service. But the current situation is unprecedented. The Achilles Heel of general public use of Internet services has always been the functionality of DNS. Unlike Layer 3 disruptions, dropping or disrupting support for the .ru TLD can be

Docusign

Hello, Anyone from Docusign here?

Re: Russia attempts mandating installation of root CA on clients for TLS MITM

>Mozilla is the only browser vendor these days that maintains its own >independent root CA storage for the browser. Chrome, Chromium, Safari, Edge, >IE etc all use whatever root CAs are trusted by the operating system. If they >can get Windows 10 client PCs pushed to retail with an image that

Geolocation Data : MAX MIND - Out of Sync

Hello, Not sure whether anyone out there is also experiencing this, seems MAX MIND ( [ https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip2-precision-demo | https://www.maxmind.com/en/geoip2-precision-demo  ] ) geo database is extremely out of sync with whois records on RIRs DBs. It's ok(not 100%) to submit

Re: V6 still not supported (was Re: CC: s to Non List Members, (was Re: 202203080924.AYC Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4, NetBlock))

On 14-03-2022 05:06, Fred Baker wrote: ... Where IPv6 has a problem today is with enterprise. IMHO, this is basically because enterprise is looking at the bottom line. If ISPs were to do what Mythic Beasts says they do, which is charge their users for address space, IPv6 is virtually free