Re: ARIN / RIR Pragmatism (WAS: Re: RADB)
it's just a consequence that our initial idea was just about to protect allocations of our members - not about secure routing at all On 26 Oct 2014, at 14:40, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Oct 26, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: 20% coverage in lacnic low? how do ipv6 and dnssec compare (which is damned sad)? over 2,000 in ripe and over 8%? how does that compare to ipv6? arin, 388 and 0.7%, a joke. LACNIC numbers (as a percent) are quite good, but my question was why only RIPE has the very impressive total count of ROAs. You can clearly point to ARIN's legal treatment of the risks involved, but that is not applicable in the APNIC case You don't feel there's any correlation between RIPE's IRR approach and their RPKI success? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: ARIN / RIR Pragmatism (WAS: Re: RADB)
John - it is not about RPK I - our initial goal was to deploy some kind of certification to resources allocated to our members Dmitry If we use for it some SIDR developments - may be - it is a mistake or misentrepration - but what's true that we never thougy On 26 Oct 2014, at 14:40, John Curran jcur...@arin.net wrote: On Oct 26, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: 20% coverage in lacnic low? how do ipv6 and dnssec compare (which is damned sad)? over 2,000 in ripe and over 8%? how does that compare to ipv6? arin, 388 and 0.7%, a joke. LACNIC numbers (as a percent) are quite good, but my question was why only RIPE has the very impressive total count of ROAs. You can clearly point to ARIN's legal treatment of the risks involved, but that is not applicable in the APNIC case You don't feel there's any correlation between RIPE's IRR approach and their RPKI success? /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet
John, I like your approach - simply no comments I think the way as your legislation guys decided to follow can be absolutely wrong. My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing countires and US native commercial interests that you (not you personally - of course) aimed to protect All this discussion have only financial background - no more. Dima PS You can reference not only to magazines - but more on House of Representatives which expressed their opinions more openly. On Aug 4, 2012, at 12:47 AM, John Curran wrote: On Aug 3, 2012, at 2:06 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: [Feels operational to me.] http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260299/us_house_to_itu_hands_off_the_internet.html The U.S. House of Representatives voted late Thursday to send a message to the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union that the Internet doesn't need new international regulations. The vote was unanimous: 414-0 Unanimous? I didn't think this congress could agree the earth is round unanimously. It is can be useful (particularly during an election year) to make certain that there is no doubt regarding the resolve of government with respect to positions being taken in international negotiations. In this case, I believe that the message is now quite clear... :-) /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet
The real issue is not laid in their economics - but in ours - our legacy players(mobile are the same) We simply try to hide our own problems behind their issues and use them again to protect our market interests - no more. On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:03 AM, John Curran wrote: On Aug 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Dmitry Burkov db...@burkov.aha.ru wrote: My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing countires Dmitry - There is a very real financial issue that developing countries face with affording the infrastructure that their citizens want to use (and often used to access to VoIP and streaming media services) I do think that there needs to be ample discussion of these concerns, but do not assume that a regulatory regime is the only available solution the issues raised. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: US House to ITU: Hands off the Internet
in my stupid opinion it is the problem of a new global still developing global market - key dominated players are from our countries - which see on them as on strategical national strategic assets. Should I explain more? Or it is already clear? I classified censorship and IPR protection in the same manner or I mistaken? On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Burkov wrote: The real issue is not laid in their economics - but in ours - our legacy players(mobile are the same) We simply try to hide our own problems behind their issues and use them again to protect our market interests - no more. On Aug 4, 2012, at 2:03 AM, John Curran wrote: On Aug 3, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Dmitry Burkov db...@burkov.aha.ru wrote: My opinion that the real problem laid in financial issues with developing countires Dmitry - There is a very real financial issue that developing countries face with affording the infrastructure that their citizens want to use (and often used to access to VoIP and streaming media services) I do think that there needs to be ample discussion of these concerns, but do not assume that a regulatory regime is the only available solution the issues raised. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Re: F-ckin Leap Seconds, how do they work?
On Jul 5, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Vadim Antonov wrote: On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 20:48 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: Given that we don't seem to be able to eliminate the absurdity of DST, I doubt that either of those proposals is likely to fly. Russian govt. did eliminate DST. http://www.rt.com/news/daylight-saving-time-abolished/ :) http://themoscownews.com/vote/20120629/189902272-results.html --vadim
Re: rpki vs. secure dns?
Danny, just one more comment. So named vendor's support can be the worst case when there are no practical ways to deploy and it is absolutely not clear - should we follow this hierarchical model - I think it is the key point as we pushed ourselves by inertia to this way of thinking. Imho - it is way to nowhere in such form We need more flexible, distributed architecture behind - no matter - which interests will be lobbied as we have got already. On Apr 30, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Danny McPherson wrote: On Apr 28, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Alex Band wrote: All in all, RPKI has really good traction and with native router support in Cisco, Juniper and Quagga, this is only getting better. We should be more careful with statements such as this, they're conflating important things that add to the confusion in this area. None of these implementations support RPKI today. What they support is a new protocol for onboarding routing policy data (some call this a [VRP], essentially prefix,origin bindings) into soft state in a router. -danny [VRP] https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/74-120417.sidr-origin.pdf
Re: rpki vs. secure dns?
Randy - you know that I'm enough stupid- means straightforward - may be the way is not only technical (recomendations design) - but also to combine with some policy changes as splitting allocations and assignments (may be changing who is responsible for what?) Or we follow the traditional way(means hierarchy) or we are capable to introduce one more level for flexebility - we should be honest that all techinical design just follows some political or quasi-political decisions. But I think it can be changed. Dima On Apr 30, 2012, at 7:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote: We need more flexible, distributed architecture behind - no matter - which interests will be lobbied as we have got already. as i agree that there is a problem, i *very* eagerly await your proposal randy
Re: BBC reports Kenya fiber break
On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:12 AM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote: we had an instance of B root there for a season. connectivity was a problem and we pulled the node in 2001. /bill You should install it on sattelite dima On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:45:16PM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Justin M. Streiner strei...@cluebyfour.org wrote: On Wed, 29 Feb 2012, Rodrick Brown wrote: There's about 1/2 a dozen or so known private and government research facilities on Antarctica and I'm surprised to see no fiber end points on that continent? This can't be true. Constantly shifting ice shelves and glaciers make a terrestrial cable landing very difficult to implement on Antarctica. Satellite connectivity is likely the only feasible option. There are very few places in Antarctica that are reliably ice-free enough of the time to make a viable terrestrial landing station. Getting connectivity from the landing station to other places on the continent is another matter altogether. There were INOC-DBA phones at several of the Antarctic stations, for quite a few years. We could see connectivity to them go up and down as the satellites rose above the horizon and set again. -Bill -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJPTwztAAoJEG+kcEsoi3+HpgwP/2wjrnyjCoBrLgQYC/rsjVYe uE8X9ZcnkAkBYI5Q3Aa3ZeVYNbUaX6OChgnsXlt+1v962Lja+V78QuthVDRCJ1Dp Z5T+XtiIQB4u11lhN55mx8cPXbAKubGCduyCzjBBi+QqE5ayqqCocBHAItxYOMd7 RRS5ijNUKVMtGIWWWHAdMFAdGuy3zOIt/9oWkq9jJo30RJkEVR6pi7b/sGmM7rjX XLVc1RPtCmtDkALohRyQOPrMJ2k7284fJ49t2P2Z/8yBbvJtGRmRBkTiUNis0wtx Ndxed96TaNwwF3snE/zAxu6xCZnjR5trzC586b3ULS2sGSSo2W63AjOqzpMtb8HG /hlK2GuaAe1vy9Qa+6XDwVJZqbkzPKzrNv7A3RjNvFkTapPGwk1FI7SBO46CUqHh y2xED78JrIcoKTbC927eWrrArFGRe4ujx+w2D5enlZJT/vGonDScsE/ISAxITbCx QHbtoAWIjVbraN1UZx+g9hvYOb3AT04zkTImQCj0Kj42COx729WvR7anrkwNNAJV uqQyLK2wyS9ItyG3U54tECeGVeK0nn9Gyuhp9wdIKI4Qs+JHxXb2eHFqzbn9OZHB O7PhbBTW3h+viNUkK2NnoiFbQP3E3ZzzNAKjTN9hWa15uGOKum5xUxSZFCD47BuD J2CjI8dx5PhmLTbcZS4C =M/np -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Nanog-futures] Moving Forward - What kind of NANOG do we want?
On 04.07.10 1:27, joel jaeggli wrote: On 2010-07-03 13:08, Andy Davidson wrote: On 3 Jul 2010, at 04:29, Simon Lyall wrote: Unless people serious intended for the organisation to have regular [1] meetings outside of North America (which I doubt) No, don't. The rest of the world already has $regionNOG. If Nanog becaome WorldNOG, someone would make, err, NANOG again. Part of the reason that the rest of the world that *nog is because people came to nanog found the format useful and made it their own, or because nanog participants went there and helped set them up. strange for me - as two or three years ago when I first time attended NANOG - I was first and last guy from Russia and - in principle - from exSU who attended NANOG (excapt emigrants) - it doesn't means that nobody on the list - but nanog image - like flaming list... regards, Dima we can see from the number of new attendees we get everytime we have a meeting that geogrphic proximity plays heavy role in the utility of nogs. Andy ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: Feds disable movie piracy websites in raids
On 02.07.10 0:27, Randy Bush wrote: The question is because gTLDs operations are in the USA, does it mean that the USA have control over all those domain names? the usg controls the cctlds too. you know better... randy
Re: The Economist, cyber war issue
On 02.07.10 2:01, Randy Bush wrote: There is a part 2 as well and this is a bug or a feature? I see it is a feature ...
