bgp.potaroo.net down
bgp.potaroo.net (port 80) has been down now for 2 days. Anyone around in Telstraland? Thanks, Hank Nussbacher http://www.interall.co.il
Re: Spain was offline
On 01.09 13:47, Martin Hannigan wrote: I can't get a TLD zone? But back to the root servers. Are you agreering with me that if I announce F and I root's netblocks inside of my own network that everyone would be ok with that? C'mon Joe, straight answer on that one. :) Straight answer: No. Exercises: Who is responsible if this set-up fails? Who is responsible if it lies? Who is likely to get blamed for any failures? Would this require explicit consent from all customers subject to such treatment? Would this require a possibility for each custoemr to opt out of such a scheme? And - ah yes - what particular problem does such a set-up solve? Daniel helps operating K helped create nsd measures dns
Re: Spain was offline
I can't get a TLD zone? But back to the root servers. Are you agreering with me that if I announce F and I root's netblocks inside of my own network that everyone would be ok with that? Who is responsible if this set-up fails? Who is responsible if it lies? Who is likely to get blamed for any failures? Would this require explicit consent from all customers subject to such treatment? Would this require a possibility for each custoemr to opt out of such a scheme? Aren't all of these questions private issues between the private network operator and their customers? The same thing applies to companies who use IP addresses inside their private networks that are officially registered to someone else. This is a fairly common practice and yet it rarely causes problems on the public Internet. Since Internet network operators are generally not regulated in how they operate their IP networks, it seems to me that the people who say that it is not proper to announce root netblocks in a private network are really calling for network regulation by an external authority. And - ah yes - what particular problem does such a set-up solve? It seemed to me to be a theoretical question not intended to solve a particular problem. However, theoretically, a network that sources a lot of DDoS traffic to root servers could do this to attract the traffic to their local copy of the root server in order to analyze it. Theoretically, this is something that would be enabled by the hypothetical situation described above. --Michael Dillon
Clueful Contact at Cingular
Can anyone connect me to someone with some clout at Cingular? I'm trying to get in touch with someone for their net ops. before going public with some issues they've been having. Cheers, jonathan - Jonathan Lassoff 0xC8579EE5
Re: Spain was offline
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:07:02PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't get a TLD zone? But back to the root servers. Are you agreering with me that if I announce F and I root's netblocks inside of my own network that everyone would be ok with that? Who is responsible if this set-up fails? Who is responsible if it lies? Who is likely to get blamed for any failures? Would this require explicit consent from all customers subject to such treatment? Would this require a possibility for each custoemr to opt out of such a scheme? Aren't all of these questions private issues between the private network operator and their customers? The same thing applies to companies who use IP addresses inside their private networks that are officially registered to someone else. This is a fairly common practice and yet it rarely causes problems on the public Internet. I agree (and hence disagree with Daniel) - all networks are privately operated, and it is up to their admins to do whatever they wish providing a) their actions are limited to their borders (dont announce the netblocks to other asns) b) their customers get what they pay for - if you start meddling with things like redirecting dns not founds to your page - your customers should understand that before they buy this consitutes operating a private company and a private consumer agreement.. so whats the issue? this may not be technical utopia but we live in a commercial world.. Steve
AFNOG 2007 ANNOUNCEMENTS
AfNOG and AfriNIC Joint Announcement: Meetings in April/May 2007 8th AfNOG Meeting AfriNIC-6 Meeting The African Network Operators' Group (AfNOG) and the African Network Information Centre (AfriNIC) are pleased to announce that the 8th AfNOG Meeting and the AfriNIC-6 Meeting will be held in Abuja, Nigeria, in April/May 2007. About the entire event AfNOG and AfriNIC are jointly organizing a two-week event that includes the AfNOG Workshop on Network Technology (offering advanced training in a week-long hands-on workshop), several full-day Advanced Tutorials, a one-day AfNOG Meeting, and a two-day AfriNIC Meeting. In addition, several side meetings and workshops will be hosted in collaboration with other organizations such as the AAU and ISOC. Further information about the event may be found at http://www.afnog.org/afnog2007/ and http://www.afrinic.net/meeting/. Timetable AfNOG Workshop 23 - 27 April 2007 (Sunday - Friday) AfriNIC IPV6 W/shop 28 - 29 April 2007 (Saturday - Sunday) AfREN Meeting 28 - 29 April 2007 (Saturday - Sunday) AfNOG Tutorials 29 - 30 April 2007 (Sunday - Monday) AfriNIC LIR W/shop 30 April (Monday) AfNOG Meeting 1 May 2007 (Tuesday) AfriNIC-6 Meeting 2 - 3 May 2007 (Wednesday - Thursday) INET Africa Day 4 May 2007 (Friday) Venue The exact venue has not yet been finalized. Updated information will be made available at http://www.afnog.org/afnog2007/ and http://www.afrinic.net/meeting/. About AfNOG AfNOG (see http://www.afnog.org/) is a forum for cooperation and the exchange of technical information between operators of Internet-connected networks in Africa. AfNOG has organized an event like this one every year since 2000. About AfriNIC AfriNIC (see http://www.afrinic.net/) is a Regional Internet Registry (RIR), responsible for Internet Number resources Mangement in the Africa region. AfriNIc organizes two Public Policy meetings every year (see http://www.afrinic.net/meeting/).
Re: Spain was offline
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:05:01 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg said: Would this require explicit consent from all customers subject to such treatment? Would this require a possibility for each custoemr to opt out of such a scheme? Anybody from Earthlink want to answer that one? :) pgpt1GlIqbOEQ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Spain was offline
At 06:05 AM 9/4/2006, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: On 01.09 13:47, Martin Hannigan wrote: I can't get a TLD zone? But back to the root servers. Are you agreering with me that if I announce F and I root's netblocks inside of my own network that everyone would be ok with that? C'mon Joe, straight answer on that one. :) Straight answer: No. Exercises: Who is responsible if this set-up fails? Who is responsible if it lies? Who is likely to get blamed for any failures? The burden is already on the provider. The providers answer the call when these things break or perform badly. Would this require explicit consent from all customers subject to such treatment? I don't think so. There's no guarantee that an internal route facing a customer is RIPE K ROOT. Peers may feel differently, but I wouldn't advocate exporting (unless they did and perhaps would pay me for better access to the application). That's different. [ snip ] -M (thanks for operating K, it is one of the better ones from my measurements but that's part of the problem now isn't it? Consistency in some areas.) -- Martin Hannigan(c) 617-388-2663 Renesys Corporation(w) 617-395-8574 Member of Technical Staff Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED]
