Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Musa Stephen Honlue]

Why don’t you just deploy IPv6?

If your upstream supports IPv6 excellent, just go ahead and ask an IPv6 link, 
pretty straightforward.

Else if your upstream doesn’t do IPv6 yet, ask them to do so for you.

And if they don’t want to do so, just pick one of your favorite transition 
mechanism and move on.

Sent from my iPhone

> On 5 Aug 2021, at 10:30, james jones  wrote:
> 
> 
> hey everyone,
> 
> Been a while since I had to deal with NetOps stuff. Was wondering, where do 
> you go these days to get IPv4 blocks? It seems like getting assignments is 
> hard due to exhaustion. I have found some "Auction" sites but it all feels 
> very scammy. Any info would be appreciated.
> 
> 
> -James

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

The single biggest problem with IPv4 is NAT. The primary cause of NAT is 
address shortage. As such, I’d argue that IPv6 solves the two biggest problems 
with IPv4. 

Problem is that those who want to wait until everyone else moves forward before 
they do are a sufficient mass to severely hamper forward progress. 

Owen


> On Aug 6, 2021, at 08:10, Fred Baker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 6, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
>> 
>> v6 isn't a solution today for v4 problems.
> 
> I don't know that IPv6 was ever intended to be a solution to IPv4 problems 
> per se. It was intended to be an IPv4 replacement to provide connectivity.

Re: happy birthday, jon

[Randy Bush]

> He'd be 78 today.

yes, being a year senior, he used to give me a hard time about his being
older and wiser.  i think it was just his way of pulling rank :)

> Still miss him, he was a great mentor and human being.

indeed.

still at usc; cool!  patience and perseverance.

randy

Re: happy birthday, jon

[Celeste Anderson]

He'd be 78 today.  Still miss him, he was a great mentor and human being.

--celeste

Get Outlook for Android


From: NANOG  on behalf of Randy Bush 

Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 11:48:18 AM
To: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: happy birthday, jon

RE: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Jean St-Laurent via NANOG]

What is the average price per ip  address for /24 with good reputation vs /24 
with questionable reputation?

 

Can you extrapolate too to /21 and /20?

 

Jean

 

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Tony Wicks
Sent: August 5, 2021 4:08 PM
To: 'NANOG' 
Subject: RE: Where to get IPv4 block these day

 

Contact eddie at   iptrading.com , I have used 
their services several times and never had any issues.

 

 

 

On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 23:35 Alex Wacker mailto:a...@alexwacker.com> > wrote:

Ipv4.global is very reliable. I’ve sold blocks there

 

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:28 AM james jones mailto:james.v...@gmail.com> > wrote:

hey everyone,

 

Been a while since I had to deal with NetOps stuff. Was wondering, where do you 
go these days to get IPv4 blocks? It seems like getting assignments is hard due 
to exhaustion. I have found some "Auction" sites but it all feels very scammy. 
Any info would be appreciated.

 

 

-James

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Bjørn Mork]

Randy Bush  writes:

> what i love most about the why ipv6 {has not deployed | does not work
> for me | must be used immediately if not sooner | ...} is that it
> provides such a rich field for posting to nanog etc.  and folk think of
> new brilliant discussion points every day.  

+1

The endless repetitions brings back that warm fuzzy USENET-feeling.
Thanks NANOG!


Bjørn

Re: Abuse Contact Handling

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

Since my first formal abuse desk job in 2001 to now, all at large email 
providers, I’ve seen a lot of junk come to abuse mailboxes, that is true.

YMMV depending on what sort of network you run / service you provide and what 
sort of customers you take on, but you do get a non trivial number of 
actionable complaints.

--srs

From: Tom Beecher 
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 11:42:48 PM
To: Suresh Ramasubramanian 
Cc: Mike Hammett ; Matt Corallo ; NANOG 

Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling

If you’re complaining about having to maintain an abuse desk or putting a dummy 
address into your whois records, sturgeons law says most of the time you’re the 
sort of provider who doesn’t want to staff an abuse desk.

At my previous job for an ISP, I was the abuse desk among my other 
responsibilities.

Fully 50% of "abuse" reports were "STOP PINGING ME".  Another 20% were one 
gentleman who forwarded every spam message he ever received, adamantly refusing 
to use the 'Report Spam' button in our webmail application.

Even today, in my current role,I have had countless 'abuse' issues escalated to 
my level that turned out to be things that have nothing to do with our network 
at all.

When reporters don't understand the difference between 'abuse' and 'annoyance', 
abuse mailboxes become nothing more than a relic of the past.

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:52 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian 
mailto:ops.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
If the way x is managing their network or (not) managing their customers means 
my network and my customers are affected ..

route leaks? packet kiddies? phish sites? spammers? whatever.  If what you’re 
doing or not doing affects someone else, expect complaints, possibly to your  
upstreams if you aren’t receptive to these.

Not everybody mailing your abuse address is reporting random alerts their $50 
home router’s firewall throws up, or is trying to spam you.

OK. All that stuff happens but is easy enough to filter out, and well, spammers 
who add an abuse address to their lists deserve all the blocking they get.

If you’re complaining about having to maintain an abuse desk or putting a dummy 
address into your whois records, sturgeons law says most of the time you’re the 
sort of provider who doesn’t want to staff an abuse desk.

--srs

From: NANOG 
mailto:gmail@nanog.org>> on 
behalf of Mike Hammett mailto:na...@ics-il.net>>
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 7:51:04 PM
To: Matt Corallo mailto:na...@as397444.net>>
Cc: NANOG mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling

"we don’t get to tell someone they’re managing their network wrong"

Sure we do. They don't have to listen, but we get to tell them. RFCs are full 
of things that one shall not do, must do, etc. We shame network operators all 
of the time for things they do that affect the global community.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com


From: "Matt Corallo" mailto:na...@as397444.net>>
To: "Mike Hammett" mailto:na...@ics-il.net>>
Cc: "NANOG" mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 8:50:00 AM
Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling

Costs real money to figure out, for each customer scanning parts of the 
internet, if they’re doing it legitimately or maliciously. Costs real money to 
look into whether someone is spamming or just sending bulk email that customers 
signed up for. And what do you do if it is legitimate? Lots of abuse reports 
don’t follow X-ARF, so now you have to have a human process than and chose 
which ones to ignore. Or you just tell everyone to fill out a common web form 
and then the data is all nice and structured and you can process it sanely.

Like Randy said, we don’t get to tell someone they’re managing their network 
wrong. If you don’t want to talk to AWS, don’t talk to AWS. If you want them to 
manage their network differently, reach out, understand their business 
concerns, help alleviate them. Maybe propose a second Abuse Contact type that 
only accepts X-ARF that they can use? There’s lots of things that could be done 
that are productive here.

Matt


On Aug 6, 2021, at 08:08, Mike Hammett 
mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote:


I suppose if they did a better job of policing their own network, they wouldn't 
have as much hitting their e-mail boxes.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com


From: "Matt Corallo" mailto:na...@as397444.net>>
To: "Mike Hammett" mailto:na...@ics-il.net>>, "NANOG" 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 3:44:43 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling

There's a few old threads on this from last year or so, but while unmonitored 
abuse contacts are terrible, similarly,
people have installed automated abuse contact spammer systems which is equally 
terrible. Thus, lots of the 

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Randy Bush]

>> It was intended to be an IPv4 replacement to provide connectivity.
>> Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6?
> Actually, yes.  Many mobile networks are all v6 internally with NAT to
> external v4 sites.

what i love most about the why ipv6 {has not deployed | does not work
for me | must be used immediately if not sooner | ...} is that it
provides such a rich field for posting to nanog etc.  and folk think of
new brilliant discussion points every day.  

randy

---
ra...@psg.com
`gpg --locate-external-keys --auto-key-locate wkd ra...@psg.com`
signatures are back, thanks to dmarc header butchery

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Tom Beecher]

>
> IPhones handsets this part of the world are not common handsets to
> majority of the end-users who are not middle class folk and even most
> middle class folk still settle for cost effective Android handsets.
>

Android has had IPv6 support for what,10 years now? (Ignoring the SLAAC vs
DHCPv6 Holy Wars intentionally.)

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:56 AM Noah  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021, 18:35 Fred Baker,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 6, 2021, at 8:22 AM, Noah  wrote:
>> >
>> > Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6?
>> >
>> > Majority of people I know (due to economic factors) own lowend android
>> handsets with no support for v6. This group forms majority of eyeballs that
>> contribute revenue to local Telecoms whose network is heavily CGNAT.
>>
>> Handsets - Cameron would be in a better place than I to discuss this, but
>> certainly anything used to connect to his network (T-Mobile) does, and
>> enables access with IPv4 turned off. That includes at least iPhone (the
>> handset I use to access his network),
>
>
> IPhones handsets this part of the world are not common handsets to
> majority of the end-users who are not middle class folk and even most
> middle class folk still settle for cost effective Android handsets.
>
> and Android. https://thirdinternet.com/ipv6-on-mobile-devices/
>
>
>
> For a tech savvy end-user the above tutorial is useful and only useful if
> the Teleco has made the effort to provide v6.
>
> Most data bundles are auto configured with v4  and v6 disabled for the
> obvious reasons that is CGNAT still rocks.
>
>
>>
>> As to other systems, Apple and Linux platforms, and more recently
>> Windows, supports IPv6, and has for quite a while. Issues there tend to be
>> in specific applications (due to the socket interface).
>>
>
>
> Ack but this is for only those tech savvy end-users with keep interest for
> v6.
>
> NAT still works and misconceptions of NAT providing some level of unknown
> security are still widely common.
>
> Noah
>
>>

happy birthday, jon

[Randy Bush]

Re: Abuse Contact Handling

[Tom Beecher]

>
> If you’re complaining about having to maintain an abuse desk or putting a
> dummy address into your whois records, sturgeons law says most of the time
> you’re the sort of provider who doesn’t want to staff an abuse desk.


At my previous job for an ISP, I was the abuse desk among my other
responsibilities.

Fully 50% of "abuse" reports were "STOP PINGING ME".  Another 20% were one
gentleman who forwarded every spam message he ever received, adamantly
refusing to use the 'Report Spam' button in our webmail application.

Even today, in my current role,I have had countless 'abuse' issues
escalated to my level that turned out to be things that have nothing to do
with our network at all.

When reporters don't understand the difference between 'abuse' and
'annoyance', abuse mailboxes become nothing more than a relic of the past.

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 11:52 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian 
wrote:

> If the way x is managing their network or (not) managing their customers
> means my network and my customers are affected ..
>
> route leaks? packet kiddies? phish sites? spammers? whatever.  If what
> you’re doing or not doing affects someone else, expect complaints, possibly
> to your  upstreams if you aren’t receptive to these.
>
> Not everybody mailing your abuse address is reporting random alerts their
> $50 home router’s firewall throws up, or is trying to spam you.
>
> OK. All that stuff happens but is easy enough to filter out, and well,
> spammers who add an abuse address to their lists deserve all the blocking
> they get.
>
> If you’re complaining about having to maintain an abuse desk or putting a
> dummy address into your whois records, sturgeons law says most of the time
> you’re the sort of provider who doesn’t want to staff an abuse desk.
>
> --srs
> --
> *From:* NANOG  on behalf of
> Mike Hammett 
> *Sent:* Friday, August 6, 2021 7:51:04 PM
> *To:* Matt Corallo 
> *Cc:* NANOG 
> *Subject:* Re: Abuse Contact Handling
>
> "we don’t get to tell someone they’re managing their network wrong"
>
> Sure we do. They don't have to listen, but we get to tell them. RFCs are
> full of things that one shall not do, must do, etc. We shame network
> operators all of the time for things they do that affect the global
> community.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Matt Corallo" 
> *To: *"Mike Hammett" 
> *Cc: *"NANOG" 
> *Sent: *Friday, August 6, 2021 8:50:00 AM
> *Subject: *Re: Abuse Contact Handling
>
> Costs real money to figure out, for each customer scanning parts of the
> internet, if they’re doing it legitimately or maliciously. Costs real money
> to look into whether someone is spamming or just sending bulk email that
> customers signed up for. And what do you do if it is legitimate? Lots of
> abuse reports don’t follow X-ARF, so now you have to have a human process
> than and chose which ones to ignore. Or you just tell everyone to fill out
> a common web form and then the data is all nice and structured and you can
> process it sanely.
>
> Like Randy said, we don’t get to tell someone they’re managing their
> network wrong. If you don’t want to talk to AWS, don’t talk to AWS. If you
> want them to manage their network differently, reach out, understand their
> business concerns, help alleviate them. Maybe propose a second Abuse
> Contact type that only accepts X-ARF that they can use? There’s lots of
> things that could be done that are productive here.
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2021, at 08:08, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>
> 
> I suppose if they did a better job of policing their own network, they
> wouldn't have as much hitting their e-mail boxes.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> --
> *From: *"Matt Corallo" 
> *To: *"Mike Hammett" , "NANOG" 
> *Sent: *Thursday, August 5, 2021 3:44:43 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Abuse Contact Handling
>
> There's a few old threads on this from last year or so, but while
> unmonitored abuse contacts are terrible, similarly,
> people have installed automated abuse contact spammer systems which is
> equally terrible. Thus, lots of the large hosting
> providers have deemed the cost of actually putting a human on an abuse
> contact is much too high.
>
> I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I totally get why large
> providers just say "we can better protect a web form
> with a captcha than an email box, go use that if there's real abuse".
>
> Matt
>
> On 8/5/21 09:14, Mike Hammett wrote:
> > What does the greater operator community think of RIR abuse contacts
> that are unmonitored autoresponders?
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
>
>

Weekly Routing Table Report

[Routing Analysis Role Account]

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.

The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG
TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG.

Daily listings are sent to bgp-st...@lists.apnic.net

For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net.

If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith .

Routing Table Report   04:00 +10GMT Sat 07 Aug, 2021

Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net
Detailed Analysis:  http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/

Analysis Summary


BGP routing table entries examined:  858507
Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS):  325171
Deaggregation factor:  2.64
Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets):  412640
Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 71734
Prefixes per ASN: 11.97
Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   61663
Origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   25430
Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   10071
Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:330
Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table:   4.3
Max AS path length visible:  54
Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 48366)  51
Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table:  1071
Number of instances of unregistered ASNs:  1077
Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs:  36808
Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   30644
Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table:  142180
Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:26
Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table:1
Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space:519
Number of addresses announced to Internet:   3039667968
Equivalent to 181 /8s, 45 /16s and 167 /24s
Percentage of available address space announced:   82.1
Percentage of allocated address space announced:   82.1
Percentage of available address space allocated:  100.0
Percentage of address space in use by end-sites:   99.5
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  285316

APNIC Region Analysis Summary
-

Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes:   230457
Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation:   65961
APNIC Deaggregation factor:3.49
Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks:  225882
Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks:91010
APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   11824
APNIC Prefixes per ASN:   19.10
APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix:   3352
APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:   1688
Average APNIC Region AS path length visible:4.5
Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 37
Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table:   6999
Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet:  773736192
Equivalent to 46 /8s, 30 /16s and 71 /24s
APNIC AS Blocks4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431
(pre-ERX allocations)  23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319,
   58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-147769
APNIC Address Blocks 1/8,  14/8,  27/8,  36/8,  39/8,  42/8,  43/8,
49/8,  58/8,  59/8,  60/8,  61/8, 101/8, 103/8,
   106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8,
   116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8,
   123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8,
   163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8,
   203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8,
   222/8, 223/8,

ARIN Region Analysis Summary


Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes:251200
Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation:   115100
ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.18
Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks:   250776
Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks:119453
ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table:18877
ARIN Prefixes per ASN:13.28
ARIN 

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[John Levine]

It appears that Noah  said:
>It was intended to be an IPv4 replacement to provide connectivity.
>
>Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6?

Actually, yes.  Many mobile networks are all v6 internally with NAT to external 
v4 sites.

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Michael Thomas]

On 8/6/21 8:35 AM, Fred Baker wrote:



On Aug 6, 2021, at 8:22 AM, Noah  wrote:

Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6?

Majority of people I know (due to economic factors) own lowend android handsets 
with no support for v6. This group forms majority of eyeballs that contribute 
revenue to local Telecoms whose network is heavily CGNAT.

Handsets - Cameron would be in a better place than I to discuss this, but 
certainly anything used to connect to his network (T-Mobile) does, and enables 
access with IPv4 turned off. That includes at least iPhone (the handset I use 
to access his network), and Android. 
https://thirdinternet.com/ipv6-on-mobile-devices/

As to other systems, Apple and Linux platforms, and more recently Windows, 
supports IPv6, and has for quite a while. Issues there tend to be in specific 
applications (due to the socket interface).


I thought I had heard that there were carriers out there that are mainly 
(always?) using v6 to the phones? i assume they just nat somewhere for 
v4 sites?


And wouldn't it take effort to *disable* v6 capability for iphones and 
android? with happy eyeballs it just sort of works.


Mike

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Noah]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021, 18:35 Fred Baker,  wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 6, 2021, at 8:22 AM, Noah  wrote:
> >
> > Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6?
> >
> > Majority of people I know (due to economic factors) own lowend android
> handsets with no support for v6. This group forms majority of eyeballs that
> contribute revenue to local Telecoms whose network is heavily CGNAT.
>
> Handsets - Cameron would be in a better place than I to discuss this, but
> certainly anything used to connect to his network (T-Mobile) does, and
> enables access with IPv4 turned off. That includes at least iPhone (the
> handset I use to access his network),


IPhones handsets this part of the world are not common handsets to majority
of the end-users who are not middle class folk and even most middle class
folk still settle for cost effective Android handsets.

and Android. https://thirdinternet.com/ipv6-on-mobile-devices/



For a tech savvy end-user the above tutorial is useful and only useful if
the Teleco has made the effort to provide v6.

Most data bundles are auto configured with v4  and v6 disabled for the
obvious reasons that is CGNAT still rocks.


>
> As to other systems, Apple and Linux platforms, and more recently Windows,
> supports IPv6, and has for quite a while. Issues there tend to be in
> specific applications (due to the socket interface).
>


Ack but this is for only those tech savvy end-users with keep interest for
v6.

NAT still works and misconceptions of NAT providing some level of unknown
security are still widely common.

Noah

>

Re: Abuse Contact Handling

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

If the way x is managing their network or (not) managing their customers means 
my network and my customers are affected ..

route leaks? packet kiddies? phish sites? spammers? whatever.  If what you’re 
doing or not doing affects someone else, expect complaints, possibly to your  
upstreams if you aren’t receptive to these.

Not everybody mailing your abuse address is reporting random alerts their $50 
home router’s firewall throws up, or is trying to spam you.

OK. All that stuff happens but is easy enough to filter out, and well, spammers 
who add an abuse address to their lists deserve all the blocking they get.

If you’re complaining about having to maintain an abuse desk or putting a dummy 
address into your whois records, sturgeons law says most of the time you’re the 
sort of provider who doesn’t want to staff an abuse desk.

--srs

From: NANOG  on behalf of Mike 
Hammett 
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 7:51:04 PM
To: Matt Corallo 
Cc: NANOG 
Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling

"we don’t get to tell someone they’re managing their network wrong"

Sure we do. They don't have to listen, but we get to tell them. RFCs are full 
of things that one shall not do, must do, etc. We shame network operators all 
of the time for things they do that affect the global community.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com


From: "Matt Corallo" 
To: "Mike Hammett" 
Cc: "NANOG" 
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 8:50:00 AM
Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling

Costs real money to figure out, for each customer scanning parts of the 
internet, if they’re doing it legitimately or maliciously. Costs real money to 
look into whether someone is spamming or just sending bulk email that customers 
signed up for. And what do you do if it is legitimate? Lots of abuse reports 
don’t follow X-ARF, so now you have to have a human process than and chose 
which ones to ignore. Or you just tell everyone to fill out a common web form 
and then the data is all nice and structured and you can process it sanely.

Like Randy said, we don’t get to tell someone they’re managing their network 
wrong. If you don’t want to talk to AWS, don’t talk to AWS. If you want them to 
manage their network differently, reach out, understand their business 
concerns, help alleviate them. Maybe propose a second Abuse Contact type that 
only accepts X-ARF that they can use? There’s lots of things that could be done 
that are productive here.

Matt


On Aug 6, 2021, at 08:08, Mike Hammett  wrote:


I suppose if they did a better job of policing their own network, they wouldn't 
have as much hitting their e-mail boxes.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com

Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com


From: "Matt Corallo" 
To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG" 
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 3:44:43 PM
Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling

There's a few old threads on this from last year or so, but while unmonitored 
abuse contacts are terrible, similarly,
people have installed automated abuse contact spammer systems which is equally 
terrible. Thus, lots of the large hosting
providers have deemed the cost of actually putting a human on an abuse contact 
is much too high.

I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I totally get why large providers 
just say "we can better protect a web form
with a captcha than an email box, go use that if there's real abuse".

Matt

On 8/5/21 09:14, Mike Hammett wrote:
> What does the greater operator community think of RIR abuse contacts that are 
> unmonitored autoresponders?
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Fred Baker]

> On Aug 6, 2021, at 8:22 AM, Noah  wrote:
> 
> Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6?
> 
> Majority of people I know (due to economic factors) own lowend android 
> handsets with no support for v6. This group forms majority of eyeballs that 
> contribute revenue to local Telecoms whose network is heavily CGNAT.

Handsets - Cameron would be in a better place than I to discuss this, but 
certainly anything used to connect to his network (T-Mobile) does, and enables 
access with IPv4 turned off. That includes at least iPhone (the handset I use 
to access his network), and Android. 
https://thirdinternet.com/ipv6-on-mobile-devices/

As to other systems, Apple and Linux platforms, and more recently Windows, 
supports IPv6, and has for quite a while. Issues there tend to be in specific 
applications (due to the socket interface).


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Noah]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021, 18:11 Fred Baker,  wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 6, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Josh Luthman 
> wrote:
> >
> > v6 isn't a solution today for v4 problems.
>
> I don't know that IPv6 was ever intended to be a solution to IPv4 problems
> per se.


When a seed is planted in soil, a number of factors (moisture, condition of
soil, water, enegy/light) contribute to its chances of germination.

Assuming all the factors remain constant, the growth of the germinated
plant also depend on a wide range of factors.

A maize seed for instance take a spontaneous natural process of 3 to 6
months to become corn.


It was intended to be an IPv4 replacement to provide connectivity.
>

Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6?

Majority of people I know (due to economic factors) own lowend android
handsets with no support for v6. This group forms majority of eyeballs that
contribute revenue to local Telecoms whose network is heavily CGNAT.

Noah

>

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Fred Baker]

> On Aug 6, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Josh Luthman  wrote:
> 
> v6 isn't a solution today for v4 problems.

I don't know that IPv6 was ever intended to be a solution to IPv4 problems per 
se. It was intended to be an IPv4 replacement to provide connectivity.


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Abuse Contact Handling

[Mike Hammett]

"we don’t get to tell someone they’re managing their network wrong" 

Sure we do. They don't have to listen, but we get to tell them. RFCs are full 
of things that one shall not do, must do, etc. We shame network operators all 
of the time for things they do that affect the global community. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt Corallo"  
To: "Mike Hammett"  
Cc: "NANOG"  
Sent: Friday, August 6, 2021 8:50:00 AM 
Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling 



Costs real money to figure out, for each customer scanning parts of the 
internet, if they’re doing it legitimately or maliciously. Costs real money to 
look into whether someone is spamming or just sending bulk email that customers 
signed up for. And what do you do if it is legitimate? Lots of abuse reports 
don’t follow X-ARF, so now you have to have a human process than and chose 
which ones to ignore. Or you just tell everyone to fill out a common web form 
and then the data is all nice and structured and you can process it sanely. 


Like Randy said, we don’t get to tell someone they’re managing their network 
wrong. If you don’t want to talk to AWS, don’t talk to AWS. If you want them to 
manage their network differently, reach out, understand their business 
concerns, help alleviate them. Maybe propose a second Abuse Contact type that 
only accepts X-ARF that they can use? There’s lots of things that could be done 
that are productive here. 


Matt 






On Aug 6, 2021, at 08:08, Mike Hammett  wrote: 







I suppose if they did a better job of policing their own network, they wouldn't 
have as much hitting their e-mail boxes. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt Corallo"  
To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG"  
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 3:44:43 PM 
Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling 

There's a few old threads on this from last year or so, but while unmonitored 
abuse contacts are terrible, similarly, 
people have installed automated abuse contact spammer systems which is equally 
terrible. Thus, lots of the large hosting 
providers have deemed the cost of actually putting a human on an abuse contact 
is much too high. 

I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I totally get why large providers 
just say "we can better protect a web form 
with a captcha than an email box, go use that if there's real abuse". 

Matt 

On 8/5/21 09:14, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> What does the greater operator community think of RIR abuse contacts that are 
> unmonitored autoresponders? 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 

Re: Abuse Contact Handling

[Matt Corallo]

Costs real money to figure out, for each customer scanning parts of the 
internet, if they’re doing it legitimately or maliciously. Costs real money to 
look into whether someone is spamming or just sending bulk email that customers 
signed up for. And what do you do if it is legitimate? Lots of abuse reports 
don’t follow X-ARF, so now you have to have a human process than and chose 
which ones to ignore. Or you just tell everyone to fill out a common web form 
and then the data is all nice and structured and you can process it sanely.

Like Randy said, we don’t get to tell someone they’re managing their network 
wrong. If you don’t want to talk to AWS, don’t talk to AWS. If you want them to 
manage their network differently, reach out, understand their business 
concerns, help alleviate them. Maybe propose a second Abuse Contact type that 
only accepts X-ARF that they can use? There’s lots of things that could be done 
that are productive here.

Matt


> On Aug 6, 2021, at 08:08, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> I suppose if they did a better job of policing their own network, they 
> wouldn't have as much hitting their e-mail boxes.
> 
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
> 
> From: "Matt Corallo" 
> To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG" 
> Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 3:44:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling
> 
> There's a few old threads on this from last year or so, but while unmonitored 
> abuse contacts are terrible, similarly, 
> people have installed automated abuse contact spammer systems which is 
> equally terrible. Thus, lots of the large hosting 
> providers have deemed the cost of actually putting a human on an abuse 
> contact is much too high.
> 
> I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I totally get why large providers 
> just say "we can better protect a web form 
> with a captcha than an email box, go use that if there's real abuse".
> 
> Matt
> 
> On 8/5/21 09:14, Mike Hammett wrote:
> > What does the greater operator community think of RIR abuse contacts that 
> > are unmonitored autoresponders?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> > 
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com

Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day

[Josh Luthman]

v6 isn't a solution today for v4 problems.

Insults are not productive.

Josh Luthman
24/7 Help Desk: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373


On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 5:31 PM Ca By  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:54 PM Andy Ringsmuth  wrote:
>
>> *Sigh*
>>
>> I hear you. Have IPv6 at home perfectly fine via Spectrum.
>>
>> At work however, my provider (Allo Communications in Lincoln, Neb., FTTH
>> for 100% of the city, completely brand new network in the last 5 years) is
>> stuck on CGNAT and no IPv6 (unless you pay for IPv4 addresses which we of
>> course do as we need them). I don’t get it. They claim to be waiting on
>> their upstream providers last I heard. Which is, of all folks, Hurricane
>> Electric, one of the early big adopters of IPv6.
>
>
> *sigh*
>
> I know you are lazy.
>
> But my comment was focused on our industry’s collective negligence in
> acting together to deploy ipv6, failing embracing the bounty, and now
> collectively taking our punishment of being collectively captured by
> rent-seekers that have taken free community ipv4 resources and are now
> selling them back to us.
>
>
>>
>> 
>> Andy Ringsmuth
>> 5609 Harding Drive
>> Lincoln, NE 68521-5831
>> (402) 304-0083
>> a...@andyring.com
>>
>> “Better even die free, than to live slaves.” - Frederick Douglas, 1863
>>
>> > On Aug 5, 2021, at 3:19 PM, Ca By  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:09 PM Tony Wicks  wrote:
>> > Contact eddie at iptrading.com , I have used their services several
>> times and never had any issues.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Yep, this what it has come to.
>> >
>> > “I got a guy”
>> >
>> > Just keep buying addresses and slamming in NAT boxes folks …
>> >
>> > Here is a meme
>> >
>> > https://imgflip.com/i/5ipi7s
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 23:35 Alex Wacker  wrote:
>> >
>> > Ipv4.global is very reliable. I’ve sold blocks there
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 1:28 AM james jones 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > hey everyone,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Been a while since I had to deal with NetOps stuff. Was wondering,
>> where do you go these days to get IPv4 blocks? It seems like getting
>> assignments is hard due to exhaustion. I have found some "Auction" sites
>> but it all feels very scammy. Any info would be appreciated.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -James
>> >
>>
>>

Re: Abuse Contact Handling

[richey goldberg]

Is it even worth sending abuse reports anymore?   Currently we just
block bad IPs at our network border and move on but we have seen quite
an uptick lately in attacks and probes from domestic IPs (US) on our
VoIP platforms.Our #1 offender is coming from Microsoft Azure IPs.
  We have talked internally about sending abuse reports to various
networks but I'm wondering if it's even worth the effort.


-richey

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 10:44 PM goemon--- via NANOG  wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, Matt Corallo wrote:
> > Thus, lots of the large hosting providers have deemed the cost of
> > actually putting a human on an abuse contact is much too high.
>
> it seems they have decided that ending up on DBL is their abuse 
> monitoring/reporting mechanism.
>
> -Dan

Re: Abuse Contact Handling

[Mike Hammett]

I suppose if they did a better job of policing their own network, they wouldn't 
have as much hitting their e-mail boxes. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest-IX 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

- Original Message -

From: "Matt Corallo"  
To: "Mike Hammett" , "NANOG"  
Sent: Thursday, August 5, 2021 3:44:43 PM 
Subject: Re: Abuse Contact Handling 

There's a few old threads on this from last year or so, but while unmonitored 
abuse contacts are terrible, similarly, 
people have installed automated abuse contact spammer systems which is equally 
terrible. Thus, lots of the large hosting 
providers have deemed the cost of actually putting a human on an abuse contact 
is much too high. 

I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I totally get why large providers 
just say "we can better protect a web form 
with a captcha than an email box, go use that if there's real abuse". 

Matt 

On 8/5/21 09:14, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> What does the greater operator community think of RIR abuse contacts that are 
> unmonitored autoresponders? 
> 
> 
> 
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
> 
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com