RE: So Cal Verizon Business FIOS to Frontier cutover
Hi Paul I will email you privately to address your concerns. Regards Marla Azinger Supervisor Network ENG IP Address Management -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Paul B. Henson Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 5:27 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: So Cal Verizon Business FIOS to Frontier cutover So the transition from Verizon to Frontier is coming up, and I recently got a notice from Verizon pointing me to the following website: http://meetfrontier.com/ Evidently one of the things Verizon did not sell to Frontier is their IP address space, as it seems customers with static IP addresses are going to have to change their allocations :(. I have five statics, and while it is not the end of the world, it will certainly be annoying to have to reconfigure not only my equipment but also update the configurations of my clients that access it and the other service providers I access who restrict based on it . I was hoping to get some simple additional information regarding this migration, such as: * How far in advance of the cutover will we be notified? * How far in advance of the cutover will we be supplied with the new static IP addresses? * How big will the cutover window be, and will it be attended or unattended? * How will reverse DNS resolution be handled? So I called the phone number on the website that was provided for questions or additional information. I'm not quite sure why they provided it, as the person who answered it had absolutely no information to provide other than that that was already on the website, and said they were unable to direct me to anyone who could provide any further information; I guess it was for people who needed the website read to them? Any chance there is a Frontier engineer on the list who might be able to provide this information, anonymously if necessary :)? Or someone who has gone through a Verizon to Frontier FIOS static IP address transition in another location who might describe their experience with the assumption it will be similar in California? As far as reverse DNS, the only thing I can seem to find is this: http://hostmaster.frontier.com/reverse.html Which talks about "Business Class DSL and Dedicated Internet" customers, not sure if it applies to FIOS? What I'd really like is to get my PTR entries delegated to me via CNAMEs so I could control the TTLs and update them whenever I wanted to without having to hassle the provider (one of my colleagues has this arrangement with charter business cable), Verizon was never willing to do that. On another note, does anybody have any idea regarding Frontier's position on rolling out IPv6 for business FIOS :)? Hopefully they won't be quite as archaic and stuck in the mud as Verizon has been on that topic :(. Thanks much for any info. This communication is confidential. Frontier only sends and receives email on the basis of the terms set out at http://www.frontier.com/email_disclaimer.
RE: dns on fios/frontier
This issue has now been resolved. Cheers Marla Frontier Communications -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:48 AM To: Azinger, Marla Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: dns on fios/frontier Looking into this and getting it to the right crew at Frontier. thanks, marla. the atlas probe nick found *seemed* to be able to ping, but not resolve dns. can i claim abuse when an old geek asks for ping or dig and gets back jason web glorp? it may be restful, but not on these old eyes. :) randy
RE: dns on fios/frontier
Looking into this and getting it to the right crew at Frontier. Marla -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 8:42 AM To: Dave Pooser Cc: North American Network Operators' Group Subject: Re: dns on fios/frontier On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 8:21 AM, Dave Pooser dave-na...@pooserville.com wrote: On 4/20/15, 1:54 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: [ reposted from subscribed address blush ] anyone on fios/frontier can please run a quickie and see if you can get to http://psg.com/? in the other message you make clear 'a frontier customer on the fios infrastructure'... you do mean that, not 'a frontier customer OR a verizon fios customer' right? (they don't share, necessarily, the same DNS or transit paths/equipment)
RE: G/L Coding for RIR resources
I don’t use a credit card. I expense through finance RIR fees go under a Maintenance code Database stuff would go under a Contractor code Cheers Marla -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 11:13 AM To: Bill Blackford Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: G/L Coding for RIR resources On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Bill Blackford bblackf...@gmail.com wrote: Group. How do your respective bean counting teams code RIR resources, ASN's, Addr allocations, etc.? Software subscription? Licensing? honestly I bet in a lot of places: Office Supplies because: 1) no one's finance department accounts for this sort of expense request 2) it ends up on someone's 'corporate card' 3) this is all easier than explaning to 'finance' how an RIR works and why it's important to pay them this year, again...
RE: Done a physical security audit lately?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOZM5ZwN0kM nope not a problem -Original Message- From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 12:08 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: Done a physical security audit lately? hard to do physical security protections on a 1.5mile radius around your assets, eh? reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef5Kmjw7R4k also, see vijay's presentation: (slide 12) http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/presentations/Monday/gill-keynote.pdf -chris (point about general physical security reviews not withstanding) On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/05/272015606/sniper-attack -on-calif-power-station-raises-terrorism-fears -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
RE: Done a physical security audit lately?
Can't get anything past you Chris! :-) Um Yeah! Why wouldn't it be!? -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 12:34 PM To: Azinger, Marla Cc: Jay Ashworth; nanog list Subject: Re: Done a physical security audit lately? On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Azinger, Marla marla.azin...@ftr.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOZM5ZwN0kM nope not a problem wait, wait, wait... check out the video at :54 is that an f'ing unicorn?? I think it is! -Original Message- From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 12:08 PM To: Jay Ashworth Cc: nanog list Subject: Re: Done a physical security audit lately? hard to do physical security protections on a 1.5mile radius around your assets, eh? reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef5Kmjw7R4k also, see vijay's presentation: (slide 12) http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/presentations/Monday/gill-keyno te.pdf -chris (point about general physical security reviews not withstanding) On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:55 PM, Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com wrote: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/05/272015606/sniper-attac k -on-calif-power-station-raises-terrorism-fears -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
RE: minimum IPv6 announcement size
There are many ways to mediate this. No matter what one is chosen a balance between market, Networks and policy will need to be met. And in the end Networks will do what is best for their network. However if there is a norm of some kind, then at least there will be a target to hover around. Market Networks- Pro- Entities managing the health of their network would be less willing to route what would result in overload. Con- The more financially healthy Entities can afford faster turn over and burn to new routers and circuit upgrades. The upper hand of growth goes to them since overload wouldn't be as much as an internal issue as it would be to other smaller networks. The global scheme gets lost in the eye of the mighty dollar. This is not anything new market pattern wise but Larger/Financially healthy entities would survive better than any smaller provider. Policy Pro- there would be a set standard to target Con- policy is managed by the community and not always supporting every business model equally. Plus policy can become a moving target as we have witnessed with IPv4. List Publishing-Policy Pro- qualified ASN's are approved a range of subnet size of route advertisements and any too specific/smaller advertisements are ignored if not on the list. Con- this is policy. No one tells a network what to do. Set Boundary policy Pro- something exists as a target to help manage the issue Con- policy is very likely to become a moving target. No one tells a network what to do. Keep Head in Sand Pro- Happy Con- Calamity...but when? Or will there be a new option...the next best thing. Hope in one hand and @#$$ in the other. One usually fills up faster. Somehow the community needs to choose one of these paths. My 2 cents Marla -Original Message- From: Patrick [mailto:na...@haller.ws] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:23 AM To: bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: minimum IPv6 announcement size On 2013-09-26 08:52, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4... Yeah, but who doesn't run CIDR now? Get everyone in the IPv6 pool now; we'll inevitably add hacks later
RE: Time for a lounge mailing list
I'm sending this to the proper request email. This is a decent idea that I support. NANOG Crew please read the below email and consider establishing a separate socializing email address so operational topics only exist on the current email list. Cheers Marla Azinger -Original Message- From: Daniel Senie [mailto:d...@senie.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 8:47 AM To: NANOG list Subject: Time for a lounge mailing list It's been clear for a very long time that the NANOG crowd likes to socialize. At NANOGs, social settings are where connections are made, beers consumed, sometimes scuba dives shared or other local attractions explored. It is certainly a good thing, and fosters much useful discussion among peers who become friends. That said, the nanog@nanog.org mailing list often is overrun with non-operational discussion. Certainly there are some good examples today, such as job titles, or arguing about the best way to rid the list of a troll. Creation of a second mailing list to handle non-operational, social traffic for the nanog crowd would be one way to keep the main list on topic. Might even boost productivity, as folks could more easily defer reading and responding to the non-operational stuff until their off-hours. So how about it? lou...@nanog.org? offto...@nanog.org?
RE: 32-bit AS numbers
Hi Iljitsch- This statement isnt entirely correct. Im not sure if this is just a word smithing error in your email or if the management of this issue in the ARIN region isnt well known. I can only address the ARIN region but in that region if there is a 16 bit ASN in the free pool it will be given out before a 32 bit one. They are going to manage the ASN free pool by lower bit number out first. Granted if zero 16 bit ASN's are in the pool then the only thing going out at the time would be a 32 bit ASN. However, I just wanted to clarify for the ARIN region that 16 bit ASN assignments will not be halted. If they exist in the free pool they will be used. Cheers! Marla Azinger Frontier Communications -Original Message- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:iljit...@muada.com] Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 1:32 AM To: NANOG list Subject: 32-bit AS numbers Hi all, As you (hopefully) know, as of 1-1-2010, the RIRs will only be giving out 32-bit AS numbers. I'm writing an article for Ars Technica about this, and I was wondering about the perspective of network operators who may be faced with customers with a 32-bit AS number in the near future, and how the vendor support for 32-bit AS numbers is working out. If you send me info in private mail, let me know your title/ affiliation and whether I can quote you or not. Iljitsch
RE: Hijacked Blocks
I haven't followed this entire string. Are you saying ARIN is repeatedly handing out address space to known abusers? If that's the case then yes, some form of policy should be worked on. If on the administrative level ARIN is not researching returned blocks for abuse complaints and working to clean them up, then...I suppose policy could be proposed. I'm just not sure if that's really where the brunt of assignments to abusers is happening. From experience I learned the most effective place for abuse stopping is at the network level. Back in 2001 my network had serious problems with this. Making a sale was more important than ensuring abuse didn't occur. However, I worked to install a policy that required customer review before assigning them address space. If public records showed abuse (which was really easy to find) or public records showed a business model that would be really only something leading to abuse complaints then engineering had the veto power to not permit the potential customer onto our network. We managed to go from allot of abuse to essentially zero in 1 year. Then we worked to clean up the damaged blocks. Granted, if a network or company goes out of business they wont care if the addresses are clean when they return them to ARIN. So maybe this is where some proposal could focus. Also, if this is a case where an entity is able to qualify for direct ARIN allocations and they are habitual at turning over because their business is essentially abusing the network, then policy could focus there as well. Its easy to create a new company name, but from experience the owners name still stays the same for the most part, so a review of the company before allocation would catch that. In reality, we would all benefit if policy to stop it before it happens and policy to clean it up before reissuing existed at the registry and the network level. It would be interesting to see what legal and staff would have to say about taking those types of measures. Controlling this type of abuse and the clean up of it is one of the older arguments for not permitting just anyone direct allocations from ARIN. Abuse and clean up is better managed and cared for at the larger Network levels. Im not looking to open a debate on this last comment. ;o) Its just something that popped into my head as to one of the explanations for why specific levels of qualifications for direct allocations from ARIN existed with IPv4. My 2cents. sorry if it seemed long Cheers, Marla Azinger Frontier Communications Sr Data Engineer -Original Message- From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 9:40 AM To: Chris Marlatt Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Hijacked Blocks On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Chris Marlatt cmarl...@rxsec.com wrote: Christopher Morrow wrote: The end of the discussion was along the lines of: Yes, we know this guy is bad news, but he always comes to us with the proper paperwork and numbers, there's nothing in the current policy set to deny him address resources. Happily though he never pays his bill after the first 12 months so we just reclaim whatever resources are allocated then. (yes, comments about more address space ending up on BL's were made, and that he probably doesn't pay because after the first 3 months the address space is 'worthless' to him...) How should this get fixed? Is it possible to make policy to address this sort of problem? -chris If this is the case one could argue that ARIN should be reserving this worthless address space to be used when they receive similar requests in the future. There's no reason personX should get fresh, clean address space when they make additional requests. That implies some process changes inside ARIN (I think) and effectively saving 'your old space' for some period of time in escrow for you. This doesn't sound unreasonable, perhaps you put forth some policy verbiage on ppml? -chris
RE: Hijacked Blocks
FYI- I have forwarded this conversation to ARIN ppml as this is now a topic for that mailing list more than NANOG. Cheers Marla Azinger ARIN AC VC -Original Message- From: Azinger, Marla [mailto:marla.azin...@frontiercorp.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:29 AM To: Christopher Morrow; Chris Marlatt Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Hijacked Blocks I haven't followed this entire string. Are you saying ARIN is repeatedly handing out address space to known abusers? If that's the case then yes, some form of policy should be worked on. If on the administrative level ARIN is not researching returned blocks for abuse complaints and working to clean them up, then...I suppose policy could be proposed. I'm just not sure if that's really where the brunt of assignments to abusers is happening. From experience I learned the most effective place for abuse stopping is at the network level. Back in 2001 my network had serious problems with this. Making a sale was more important than ensuring abuse didn't occur. However, I worked to install a policy that required customer review before assigning them address space. If public records showed abuse (which was really easy to find) or public records showed a business model that would be really only something leading to abuse complaints then engineering had the veto power to not permit the potential customer onto our network. We managed to go from allot of abuse to essentially zero in 1 year. Then we worked to clean up the damaged blocks. Granted, if a network or company goes out of business they wont care if the addresses are clean when they return them to ARIN. So maybe this is where some proposal could focus. Also, if this is a case where an entity is able to qualify for direct ARIN allocations and they are habitual at turning over because their business is essentially abusing the network, then policy could focus there as well. Its easy to create a new company name, but from experience the owners name still stays the same for the most part, so a review of the company before allocation would catch that. In reality, we would all benefit if policy to stop it before it happens and policy to clean it up before reissuing existed at the registry and the network level. It would be interesting to see what legal and staff would have to say about taking those types of measures. Controlling this type of abuse and the clean up of it is one of the older arguments for not permitting just anyone direct allocations from ARIN. Abuse and clean up is better managed and cared for at the larger Network levels. Im not looking to open a debate on this last comment. ;o) Its just something that popped into my head as to one of the explanations for why specific levels of qualifications for direct allocations from ARIN existed with IPv4. My 2cents. sorry if it seemed long Cheers, Marla Azinger Frontier Communications Sr Data Engineer -Original Message- From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 9:40 AM To: Chris Marlatt Cc: John Curran; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Hijacked Blocks On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Chris Marlatt cmarl...@rxsec.com wrote: Christopher Morrow wrote: The end of the discussion was along the lines of: Yes, we know this guy is bad news, but he always comes to us with the proper paperwork and numbers, there's nothing in the current policy set to deny him address resources. Happily though he never pays his bill after the first 12 months so we just reclaim whatever resources are allocated then. (yes, comments about more address space ending up on BL's were made, and that he probably doesn't pay because after the first 3 months the address space is 'worthless' to him...) How should this get fixed? Is it possible to make policy to address this sort of problem? -chris If this is the case one could argue that ARIN should be reserving this worthless address space to be used when they receive similar requests in the future. There's no reason personX should get fresh, clean address space when they make additional requests. That implies some process changes inside ARIN (I think) and effectively saving 'your old space' for some period of time in escrow for you. This doesn't sound unreasonable, perhaps you put forth some policy verbiage on ppml? -chris
RE: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation, replaced by registered use
Another one that could be discussed at the ARIN policy bof. Also, Im forwarding this to the ARIN ppml for any further discussion. Cheers Marla -Original Message- From: David Conrad [mailto:d...@virtualized.org] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 11:44 AM To: Douglas Otis Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Repeated Blacklisting / IP reputation, replaced by registered use On Sep 14, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Douglas Otis wrote: Perhaps ICANN could require registries establish a clearing-house, where at no cost, those assigned a network would register their intent to initiate bulk traffic, such as email, from specific addresses. ICANN can't require the RIRs do anything outside of what is specifically mentioned in global addressing policies. If you think this would be valuable and that it would make sense as a global addressing policy, then you should propose it in the RIR policy forums, get consensus amongst the five RIRs and have them forward it to ICANN as a global policy. Regards, -drc
RE: LoA (Letter of Authorization) for Prefix Filter Modification?
I use RWHOIS for proof of who we assign and allocate address space to. I dont believe an LOA is any more valid or secure than my RWHOIS data base that I keep and update on a daily basis. In this case I find it a waste of time when people ask me for LOA's when they can verify the info on my RWHOIS site. And I point these people to my RWHOIS site when they ask for LOA as opposed to wasting my time on creating paperwork. However, if you dont have something like that set up, then I do see the value in people asking for LOA and thus helping to ensure address space isnt getting hijacked. My 2 cents Marla Azinger Frontier Communications -Original Message- From: Joe Greco [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:22 AM To: Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: LoA (Letter of Authorization) for Prefix Filter Modification? Joe Greco wrote: How do you verify the authenticity of anything? This is a common problem in the Real World, and is hardly limited to LoA's. How do you prove that what was on Pages 1 to (N-1) of an N page contract contained the words you think they said? I knew a guy, back in the early days, who habitually changed the SLA's in his contracts so that he could cancel a contract for virtually no reason at all ... the folly of mailing around contracts as .doc files in e-mail. But even failing that, it's pretty trivial to reprint a document, so where do you stop, do you use special paper, special ink, watermarking of documents, initial each page, all of the above, etc? what about using a digital signation of e.g. a pdf version of a scan? Try putting that up next to an apparently legitimate but actually subtly modified paper contract with signatures, in a court of law, and feel free to inform us of which one the court finds more compelling. In an environment where there's an established history and standard procedures, they're typically going to prefer the familiar method. In our world, if we were to have some sort of crypto-based way to have a netblock owner sign something like that, yeah, that'd be great, and it would mean that the community would generally be able to manage the issue without having to resort to faxed-around LoA's, etc., but we don't have that infrastructure, or even a common/widespread LoA system. Sigh. I'm not arguing that some sort of technical/crypto infrastructure for authorizing the advertisement of space shouldn't be developed, and in fact I think it should. However, as an interim step, things like LoA's are much better than nothing at all, and worrying about the authenticity of an LoA is probably not worth the time and effort, given the way these things tend to work out. If there's cause for concern, those who are receiving the LoA's will ramp up the paranoia. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again. - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
RE: IP Allocations and moving AS numbers
Shane- Please redirect your email questions to ARIN ppml or discuss. That will be a better forum for you with these type of questions. I will also email you on the side. Cheers! Marla Azinger Frontier Communications AC Chair -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shane Owens Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:35 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: IP Allocations and moving AS numbers All, I have been all but gone from IP management and BGP administration tasks for over 2 years while teaching myself telecom as a CLEC. I recently had a past business acquaintance contact me that is currently reselling bandwidth and using a 3rd parties network to do so. He currently has about 15 /24 address blocks through this 3rd party and wants to move to his own AS number and away from theirs. I know when I was last involved it seemed a pretty difficult process to do this through ARIN. Has the process changed at all recently? I am going to help them get the AS number and get the process started, but when asked if they could keep their existing IP address I explained that the existing 3rd party would need to write a letter stating that they are willing to transfer those IP's to your AS, ARIN would have to approve it and it may be a bit of a hassle. They are currently running 7 data centers nationally and are willing to migrate IP's, but would rather not if they can help it. Does this sound about right? I am going to go read the ARIN pages tonight to see if I can answer this myself, but don't have time during the workday to do a lot of research on this myself. Figure someone here probably knows already. Shane Owens DNA Communications [EMAIL PROTECTED] (w)815-562-4290 x-201 (c)815-793-3822
RE: ULA BoF
Or that its really short notice. The posting came out right before a long holiday weekend. Then the following week is very busy after such a weekend. Sorry, but my plate is to full and my ability to attend the BOF may be sketchy due to work needs. Marla -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:05 PM To: Randy Bush Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: ULA BoF Perhaps the difficulty in finding one says something of the operational virtues of ULA. Owen On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:51 AM, Randy Bush wrote: we still need a operator to make a short summary preso extolling the virtues of ula central at the bof. randy
