Re: Carriers need to independently verify LOAs

[Matt Erculiani]

Nothing is stopping the perpetrator of a BGP hijack as a result of a forged
or otherwise illegitimate LOA from facing civil litigation as a result of
revenue loss or other harm done.

This thread and others like it highlight that there is absolutely some
negligence here and could very well find itself in an evidence pile at some
point in the future.

So there IS liability, but the lack of solid precedent means that the bean
counters can't assign a dollar amount to the risk associated with blindly
accepting LOAs, and therefore it might as well not exist.

Someday, somebody will have the pants sued off them because they let their
new customer hijack the hell out of a government entity, bank, oil company,
etc. and we'll start to see better processes.

-Matt

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:59 AM Sean Donelan  wrote:

>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, Peter Beckman wrote:
> > And while it would be nice if everyone "independently verified every LOA"
> > the cost of doing so in the far-too-many edge cases is business-endingly
> > high.
>
> If carriers faced legal liability, with appropriate incentatives, I'd bet
> they would solve the verification problem -- quickly, cheaply.
>
> No liability -- no reason to solve the problem.
>
>

-- 
Matt Erculiani
ERCUL-ARIN

Re: Carriers need to independently verify LOAs

[Sean Donelan]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, Peter Beckman wrote:

And while it would be nice if everyone "independently verified every LOA"
the cost of doing so in the far-too-many edge cases is business-endingly
high.


If carriers faced legal liability, with appropriate incentatives, I'd bet 
they would solve the verification problem -- quickly, cheaply.


No liability -- no reason to solve the problem.

Re: Carriers need to independently verify LOAs

[Peter Beckman]

US/Canada (ideally all of NANPA) Carriers need to standardize the porting
process.

Right now, I have an anecdotal database for each carrier which requires a
slightly different process. For Verizon Wireless, you have to generate a
Port Out PIN for each number, which expire after 7 days. Excellent! But
only if there isn't a Freeze on the number.

For another, you have to call to get your account number and PIN, as you
cannot get it without calling the carrier, and it is different.

For some carriers, the address on file isn't the End-user's address, which
causes regular and constant rejections. Must request a CSR.

For Google Voice, pay $3 first, then unlock.

For $random_carrier, provide anything and they release the number, without
notice to anyone.

Many carriers do not require an LOA to Port, usually where porting is
automated, and the automated carriers require a PIN and Account Number and
service/billing address to ensure numbers don't get "accidentally" ported,
either due to fraud or a typo.

And while it would be nice if everyone "independently verified every LOA"
the cost of doing so in the far-too-many edge cases is business-endingly
high.

It is the lack of a standard that all carriers share that cause these
problems.

In Europe, you generate a UUID, give the UUID and number to Port to the new
carrier, and it's done. If every NANPA carrier allowed the End-User to
generate a UUID for Porting Out that expired after 7 days, all of this
inconsistency would go away. Mostly. Probably.

Beckman

On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, Joe Greco wrote:


On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:20:22PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

Anecdotal: With the prior consent of the DID holders, I have successfully
ported peoples' numbers using nothing more than a JPG scan of a signature
that looks like an illegible 150 dpi black and white blob, pasted in an
image editor on top of a generic looking 'phone bill'.


All carriers should independently verify any LOAs received for account
changes.

Documents received from third-parties, without independently verifying
with the customer of record, using the carriers own records, are just junk
papers.

Almost no carriers verify LOAs by contacting the customer of record.
Worse, they call the phone number on the letterhead provide by the scammer
for "verification."


Presumably we're kinda talking about a problem parallel to the
Internet ASN/IP space LOA problem here.

It would be awesome if there were a nice easy way to identify the
responsible parties, so you could figure out WHOIS the appropriate
party to contact.  If you've ever tried Googling a company with a
hundred thousand employees, calling their contact number on the Web,
and getting through to anybody who knows anything at all about IT,
well, you can spend a day at it and still have gotten nowhere.

It's too bad that this information is so frequently redacted for
privacy.

... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"-Asimov



---
Peter Beckman  Internet Guy
beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---

Re: Carriers need to independently verify LOAs

[Joe Greco]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:20:22PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2021, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
> >Anecdotal: With the prior consent of the DID holders, I have successfully
> >ported peoples' numbers using nothing more than a JPG scan of a signature
> >that looks like an illegible 150 dpi black and white blob, pasted in an
> >image editor on top of a generic looking 'phone bill'.
> 
> All carriers should independently verify any LOAs received for account 
> changes.
> 
> Documents received from third-parties, without independently verifying 
> with the customer of record, using the carriers own records, are just junk 
> papers.
> 
> Almost no carriers verify LOAs by contacting the customer of record. 
> Worse, they call the phone number on the letterhead provide by the scammer 
> for "verification."

Presumably we're kinda talking about a problem parallel to the
Internet ASN/IP space LOA problem here.

It would be awesome if there were a nice easy way to identify the
responsible parties, so you could figure out WHOIS the appropriate
party to contact.  If you've ever tried Googling a company with a
hundred thousand employees, calling their contact number on the Web,
and getting through to anybody who knows anything at all about IT,
well, you can spend a day at it and still have gotten nowhere.

It's too bad that this information is so frequently redacted for
privacy.

... JG
-- 
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way
through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that
democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"-Asimov

Carriers need to independently verify LOAs

[Sean Donelan]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2021, Eric Kuhnke wrote:

Anecdotal: With the prior consent of the DID holders, I have successfully
ported peoples' numbers using nothing more than a JPG scan of a signature
that looks like an illegible 150 dpi black and white blob, pasted in an
image editor on top of a generic looking 'phone bill'.


All carriers should independently verify any LOAs received for account 
changes.


Documents received from third-parties, without independently verifying 
with the customer of record, using the carriers own records, are just junk 
papers.


Almost no carriers verify LOAs by contacting the customer of record. 
Worse, they call the phone number on the letterhead provide by the scammer 
for "verification."


The U.S. Postal Service used to let random people change mail forwarding 
orders, without verifying with the original and new addresses. As you can 
guess, there were lots of fake forwarding orders and criminal activity. 
After USPS begin verifying mail forwarding orders by sending a letter to 
the ORIGINAL address and NEW address, mail forwarding fraud declined.  Not 
zero, but declined.

Re: Carriers

[WILLIAM E JENSEN via NANOG]

There are several parties in that building. Perhaps Peering DB will 
yield you useful starting points:

https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/89

-- 
Bill Jensen, Network Engineer
UW-Madison DoIT Network Services
Rm B116 CSSC, 1210 W. Dayton St., Madison, WI  53706


On 1/22/20 9:02 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Maybe those with their own glass, but they wouldn't know anything 
> about anyone coming in on IRUs.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> 
> *From: *"Daniel Corbe" 
> *To: *"Rod Beck" 
> *Cc: *Nanog@nanog.org
> *Sent: *Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:30:00 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Carriers
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Rod Beck 
>  <mailto:rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com>> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal
>     is there. Anyone else?
>
> 222 West Washington Ave, Madison.
>
> Surely the landlord would have a list of carriers providing service 
> into the property.
>

Re: Carriers

[Rod Beck]

I tend to agree. Looks at least on the surface useful.

Regards,

Roderick.


From: NANOG  on behalf of Mick O'Donovan 

Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 1:04 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: Re: Carriers

Great resource Mehmit,

Many thanks for sharing.

Mick

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:29:19PM -1000, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> live.infrapedia.com shows various options
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 16:47 Brandon Svec 
> wrote:
>
> > I have a tool that tells me this at that address:
> >
> > *ACC Business*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/222+W+WASHINGTON+AVE?entry=gmail&source=g>
> > *TPx*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/222+W+WASHINGTON+AVE?entry=gmail&source=g>
> > *CenturyLink*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/222+W+WASHINGTON+AVE?entry=gmail&source=g>
> > *Windstream*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/222+W+WASHINGTON+AVE?entry=gmail&source=g>
> > *Spectrum Business*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/222+W+WASHINGTON+AVE?entry=gmail&source=g>
> > *AT&T*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/222+W+WASHINGTON+AVE?entry=gmail&source=g>
> > *CenturyLink*
> > Distance: 37 feet
> > 244 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/244+W+WASHINGTON+AVE?entry=gmail&source=g>
> > *TPx*
> > Distance: 37 feet
> > 244 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/244+W+WASHINGTON+AVE?entry=gmail&source=g>
> > *ACC Business*
> > Distance: 37 feet
> > 244 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/244+W+WASHINGTON+AVE?entry=gmail&source=g>
> > *Security Made Simple with Cisco Meraki: *http://bit.ly/MerakiSecure
> >
> > *Brandon Svec*
> > CA C-7 Lic. #822064
> > <https://www.cslb.ca.gov/OnlineServices/CheckLicenseII/LicenseDetail.aspx?LicNum=822064>
> > .ılı.ılı. Cisco Meraki CMNA
> >
> > *15106862204 <15106862204> voice | sms**teamonesolutions.com
> > <http://teamonesolutions.com/>*
> >
> >
> > *14729 Catalina St. San Leandro, CA 94577
> > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/14729+Catalina+St.+San+Leandro,+CA+94577?entry=gmail&source=g>*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:49 AM Rod Beck 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is
> >> there. Anyone else?
> >>
> >> 222 West Washington Ave, Madison
> >> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/222+West+Washington+Ave,+Madison?entry=gmail&source=g>.
> >>
> >>
> >> Roderick Beck
> >> VP of Business Development
> >>
> >> United Cable Company
> >>
> >> www.unitedcablecompany.com<http://www.unitedcablecompany.com>
> >>
> >> New York City & Budapest
> >>
> >> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
> >>
> >> 36-70-605-5144
> >>
> >>
> >> [image: 1467221477350_image005.png]
> >>
> > --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903

Re: Carriers

[Rod Beck]

Availability of dark fiber is limited. Pretty much limited to lit transport. 
Neither Zayo nor Crown Castle have metro networks.

Regards,

Roderick.


From: Neader, Brent 
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 4:10 PM
To: Rod Beck 
Cc: 'nanog@nanog.org' 
Subject: RE: Carriers


5nines is in that building, they list available carriers on their spec sheet, 
it is a pretty respectable selection.  Unsure of how the MMR or cross connects 
work in building though.



https://datacenter.5nines.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/62/2019/10/5NINES-Data-Center-PDF.pdf







From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 9:02 AM
To: Daniel Corbe 
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: EXT_Re: Carriers



Maybe those with their own glass, but they wouldn't know anything about anyone 
coming in on IRUs.


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

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





From: "Daniel Corbe" mailto:dan...@corbe.net>>
To: "Rod Beck" 
mailto:rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com>>
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org<mailto:Nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:30:00 PM
Subject: Re: Carriers





On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Rod Beck 
mailto:rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com>> wrote:

Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is there. 
Anyone else?



222 West Washington Ave, Madison.



Surely the landlord would have a list of carriers providing service into the 
property.

Re: Carriers

[Jay Hanke]

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:12 AM Neader, Brent
 wrote:
>
> 5nines is in that building, they list available carriers on their spec sheet, 
> it is a pretty respectable selection.  Unsure of how the MMR or cross 
> connects work in building though.
>

It's a semi free for all. You'll want to get into the suite where most
of your connections are located.

RE: Carriers

[Neader, Brent]

5nines is in that building, they list available carriers on their spec sheet, 
it is a pretty respectable selection.  Unsure of how the MMR or cross connects 
work in building though.

https://datacenter.5nines.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/62/2019/10/5NINES-Data-Center-PDF.pdf



From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 9:02 AM
To: Daniel Corbe 
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: EXT_Re: Carriers

Maybe those with their own glass, but they wouldn't know anything about anyone 
coming in on IRUs.


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

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


From: "Daniel Corbe" mailto:dan...@corbe.net>>
To: "Rod Beck" 
mailto:rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com>>
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org<mailto:Nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:30:00 PM
Subject: Re: Carriers


On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Rod Beck 
mailto:rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com>> wrote:
Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is there. 
Anyone else?

222 West Washington Ave, Madison.

Surely the landlord would have a list of carriers providing service into the 
property.

Re: Carriers

[Mike Hammett]

Maybe those with their own glass, but they wouldn't know anything about anyone 
coming in on IRUs. 




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

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

- Original Message -

From: "Daniel Corbe"  
To: "Rod Beck"  
Cc: Nanog@nanog.org 
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:30:00 PM 
Subject: Re: Carriers 






On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Rod Beck < rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com > 
wrote: 




Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is there. 
Anyone else? 



222 West Washington Ave, Madison. 



Surely the landlord would have a list of carriers providing service into the 
property. 

Re: Carriers

[Daniel Corbe]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:47 PM Rod Beck 
wrote:

> Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is
> there. Anyone else?
>
> 222 West Washington Ave, Madison.
>

Surely the landlord would have a list of carriers providing service into
the property.

Re: Carriers

[Mick O'Donovan]

Great resource Mehmit,

Many thanks for sharing.

Mick

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 05:29:19PM -1000, Mehmet Akcin wrote:
> live.infrapedia.com shows various options
> 
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 16:47 Brandon Svec 
> wrote:
> 
> > I have a tool that tells me this at that address:
> >
> > *ACC Business*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > 
> > *TPx*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > 
> > *CenturyLink*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > 
> > *Windstream*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > 
> > *Spectrum Business*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > 
> > *AT&T*
> > Distance:On-Net
> > 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > 
> > *CenturyLink*
> > Distance: 37 feet
> > 244 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > 
> > *TPx*
> > Distance: 37 feet
> > 244 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > 
> > *ACC Business*
> > Distance: 37 feet
> > 244 W WASHINGTON AVE
> > 
> > *Security Made Simple with Cisco Meraki: *http://bit.ly/MerakiSecure
> >
> > *Brandon Svec*
> > CA C-7 Lic. #822064
> > 
> > .ılı.ılı. Cisco Meraki CMNA
> >
> > *15106862204 <15106862204> voice | sms**teamonesolutions.com
> > *
> >
> >
> > *14729 Catalina St. San Leandro, CA 94577
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:49 AM Rod Beck 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is
> >> there. Anyone else?
> >>
> >> 222 West Washington Ave, Madison
> >> .
> >>
> >>
> >> Roderick Beck
> >> VP of Business Development
> >>
> >> United Cable Company
> >>
> >> www.unitedcablecompany.com
> >>
> >> New York City & Budapest
> >>
> >> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
> >>
> >> 36-70-605-5144
> >>
> >>
> >> [image: 1467221477350_image005.png]
> >>
> > --
> Mehmet
> +1-424-298-1903

Re: Carriers

[Mehmet Akcin]

live.infrapedia.com shows various options

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 16:47 Brandon Svec 
wrote:

> I have a tool that tells me this at that address:
>
> *ACC Business*
> Distance:On-Net
> 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> 
> *TPx*
> Distance:On-Net
> 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> 
> *CenturyLink*
> Distance:On-Net
> 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> 
> *Windstream*
> Distance:On-Net
> 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> 
> *Spectrum Business*
> Distance:On-Net
> 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> 
> *AT&T*
> Distance:On-Net
> 222 W WASHINGTON AVE
> 
> *CenturyLink*
> Distance: 37 feet
> 244 W WASHINGTON AVE
> 
> *TPx*
> Distance: 37 feet
> 244 W WASHINGTON AVE
> 
> *ACC Business*
> Distance: 37 feet
> 244 W WASHINGTON AVE
> 
> *Security Made Simple with Cisco Meraki: *http://bit.ly/MerakiSecure
>
> *Brandon Svec*
> CA C-7 Lic. #822064
> 
> .ılı.ılı. Cisco Meraki CMNA
>
> *15106862204 <15106862204> voice | sms**teamonesolutions.com
> *
>
>
> *14729 Catalina St. San Leandro, CA 94577
> *
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:49 AM Rod Beck 
> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is
>> there. Anyone else?
>>
>> 222 West Washington Ave, Madison
>> .
>>
>>
>> Roderick Beck
>> VP of Business Development
>>
>> United Cable Company
>>
>> www.unitedcablecompany.com
>>
>> New York City & Budapest
>>
>> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
>>
>> 36-70-605-5144
>>
>>
>> [image: 1467221477350_image005.png]
>>
> --
Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903

Re: Carriers

[Brandon Svec]

I have a tool that tells me this at that address:

*ACC Business*
Distance:On-Net
222 W WASHINGTON AVE
*TPx*
Distance:On-Net
222 W WASHINGTON AVE
*CenturyLink*
Distance:On-Net
222 W WASHINGTON AVE
*Windstream*
Distance:On-Net
222 W WASHINGTON AVE
*Spectrum Business*
Distance:On-Net
222 W WASHINGTON AVE
*AT&T*
Distance:On-Net
222 W WASHINGTON AVE
*CenturyLink*
Distance: 37 feet
244 W WASHINGTON AVE
*TPx*
Distance: 37 feet
244 W WASHINGTON AVE
*ACC Business*
Distance: 37 feet
244 W WASHINGTON AVE
*Security Made Simple with Cisco Meraki: *http://bit.ly/MerakiSecure

*Brandon Svec*
CA C-7 Lic. #822064

.ılı.ılı. Cisco Meraki CMNA

*15106862204 <15106862204> voice | sms**teamonesolutions.com
*


*14729 Catalina St. San Leandro, CA 94577*




On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 9:49 AM Rod Beck 
wrote:

> Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is
> there. Anyone else?
>
> 222 West Washington Ave, Madison.
>
> Roderick Beck
> VP of Business Development
>
> United Cable Company
>
> www.unitedcablecompany.com
>
> New York City & Budapest
>
> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
>
> 36-70-605-5144
>
>
> [image: 1467221477350_image005.png]
>

Re: Carriers

[Jamie Stephens]

If I had to guess that is in Spectrum’s footprint.  They will be able to
service it

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:49 PM Rod Beck 
wrote:

> Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is
> there. Anyone else?
>
> 222 West Washington Ave, Madison
> .
>
>
> Roderick Beck
> VP of Business Development
>
> United Cable Company
>
> www.unitedcablecompany.com
>
> New York City & Budapest
>
> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
>
> 36-70-605-5144
>
>
> [image: 1467221477350_image005.png]
>

Carriers

[Rod Beck]

Does anyone know who are the providers in this building? US Signal is there. 
Anyone else?

222 West Washington Ave, Madison.


Roderick Beck

VP of Business Development

United Cable Company

www.unitedcablecompany.com

New York City & Budapest

rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com

36-70-605-5144


[1467221477350_image005.png]

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Mark Delany]

> What I've seen happen more often than that:
> 
> Server goes partly belly-up, queue fills up.  Backup process runs, backing up 
> the
> queue. (Optionally here: Reboot the server and lose the queue).  Much later, 
> the
> server hits another issue that requires recovering from backups - and they 
> restore
> a truly ancient copy.

Particularly as mail servers tend to check for expired messages
*after* a delivery attempt. This means a restored queue containing
ancient messages will most likely be given one last delivery attempt
prior to bouncing. One real example comes from the qmail-send man
page:

   queuelifetime
Number of seconds a message can stay in the queue.  Default:
604800 (one week).  After this time expires, qmail-send will try
the message once more, but it will treat any temporary delivery
failures as permanent failures.

Combine that with the fact that it's not unheard of for SMS servers to
be derived from mail servers (since they do virtually the same thing)
and an accidental queue restore or server revivication seems the most
plausible.


Mark.

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Jim Stapleton]

It doesn't seem to be simply a matter of backlogged messages finally going
out. My friend replied to the mystery messages received from me and I
thought she was accidentally responding on the wrong thread. Her texts
seemed spontaneous and disjointed which is why I assumed she was on the
wrong thread. When we talked about it, it became clear she thought she was
responding to me and sent me a screenshot of the messages she was replying
to. I keep a copy of every message so I was able to locate the point in
time in the past where this dialog happened and found the 2/14 timestamps.
But here's the thing. She had interacted with me correctly at the time back
on 2/14. The message did not get stuck and undelivered. This was a resend
of a set of completed messages.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:07 PM Sean Donelan  wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > I run mailing lists.  I’ve had times where I find something stuck in
> > the system and instead of just deleting it, I actually try to make sure
> > it goes out based on the original intent.  This has resulted in me
> > sending out e-mails a year or two later at times.
>
> Ok, you run mailing lists mostly on an amatuer (personal, unpaid) basis.
>
> Every commercial organization delivering customer records should have a
> record retention/archive schedule.  Holding on to customer data longer
> than necessary for business purposes is just increasing your liability
> when something goes wrong.  And it always goes wrong.
>
> Many tech startup companies never think about record retention schedules,
> or their privacy policy says 'indefinitely', which means the lawyer wrote
> something down in the policy but no one really thought about it.
>
> Western Union learned that lesson with telegrams a hundred years ago.
> Tech firms keep re-learning old lessons, the hard way.
>

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Peter Beckman]

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Matt Hoppes wrote:


“During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously
undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile
operators’ subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement.

how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but
worked and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?


 Monitoring and audits usually come after a failure of some sort. Nobody
 thought they needed to make sure all servers are checked for queued unsent
 messages, because the software will *always* do the "right thing."

 I'm sure email didn't have the 5 day deletion after non-delivery when it
 first started out either. Someone got an email a few months late and
 decided some cleanup needed to happen.

 Now you've got custom software running everywhere and similar alerting and
 purging requirements were not made explicitly on how long to hold onto the
 messages.

 I run a phone company and we do hold messages that cannot be delivered for
 a period of time less than a week, but I get paged when that queue holds
 more than X messages or any one message exceeds Y time since attempted
 send. It's not hard, but I've seen lots of pretty obvious issues like this
 overlooked and virtually every company regardless of size, even Amazon.

Beckman
---
Peter Beckman  Internet Guy
beck...@angryox.com http://www.angryox.com/
---

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:43:41PM -0500, Mark Stevens wrote:
> Reading Syniverse's cause of trouble (lame excuse) tells me their data
> handling processes are poor and seemingly shady since I do not buy reason
> for the trouble.

Agreed.  So how many other messages have been delayed, lost, forwarded
incorrectly, or...sold to third parties?

(Note that I'm not saying Syniverse did that last one.  What I'm saying
is that an operation like this inevitably affords plenty of opportunities
for employees to engage in a little freelance capitalism of their own
or for third parties to simply help themselves.)

---rsk

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[bzs]

This can be a "curse" of highly available servers which stay up for a
year or more, some of mine will.

A mail delivery process locks messages in the queue for delivery and
then the process hangs.

Subsequent delivery attempts will honor the lock so they never go out,
nor are they even timed out.

It's not a terrible idea to have a scheduled process, like once a day,
which kills all delivery processes just for this reason, or any which
are more than, say, an hour or two old. It's an easy script to write
and mail delivery programs are or should be resiliant to receiving a
kill signal.

There are other scenarios possible but one would have to know their
entire software and network architecture to speculate.

-- 
-Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD   | 800-THE-WRLD
The World: Since 1989  | A Public Information Utility | *oo*

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Jim Shankland]

On 11/8/19 10:34 AM, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:


Esp on Valentine’s day.  Of all the days that clear communication is 
important.  I’d be very interested in their reasoning for why these 
messages were not sent and held.



Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
Hope we're still together
When this reaches you.

(Sorry, it's Friday afternoon. I'll show myself out.)

Jim


**

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Carsten Bormann]

On Nov 8, 2019, at 20:38, Chris Kimball  wrote:
> 
> Oct 24, 2019

I’ve seen the date.

But have you seen the content?

> The Cross-Carrier Messaging Initiative will help drive the next generation of 
> messaging for consumers and businesses.

Hello?

> Looks to be within the last month!

Of 2006?

Grüße, Carsten

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Valdis Klētnieks]

On Fri, 08 Nov 2019 11:23:17 -0800, Jared Geiger said:

> What likely happened is that messages were queued on host to go out, SMPP
> binds go down, queue fills up, host crashes. Then someone realizes the host
> is down and brings it back up and the queue empties when the load is low.

What I've seen happen more often than that:

Server goes partly belly-up, queue fills up.  Backup process runs, backing up 
the
queue. (Optionally here: Reboot the server and lose the queue).  Much later, the
server hits another issue that requires recovering from backups - and they 
restore
a truly ancient copy.

I recently got a replay of a bunch of email messages from 2002.  I admit not at 
all
understanding what procedure failures (multiple) resulted in reloading a mail 
spool
from 2002.


pgpksv4F8soAg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Sean Donelan]

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019, Jared Mauch wrote:
I run mailing lists.  I’ve had times where I find something stuck in 
the system and instead of just deleting it, I actually try to make sure 
it goes out based on the original intent.  This has resulted in me 
sending out e-mails a year or two later at times.


Ok, you run mailing lists mostly on an amatuer (personal, unpaid) basis.

Every commercial organization delivering customer records should have a 
record retention/archive schedule.  Holding on to customer data longer 
than necessary for business purposes is just increasing your liability 
when something goes wrong.  And it always goes wrong.


Many tech startup companies never think about record retention schedules, 
or their privacy policy says 'indefinitely', which means the lawyer wrote

something down in the policy but no one really thought about it.

Western Union learned that lesson with telegrams a hundred years ago.
Tech firms keep re-learning old lessons, the hard way.

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Ben Cannon]

That’d be an incredibly obtuse, excessive, and horrible order.   And it’d be 
the very first time that’s ever happened...


-Ben Cannon
CEO 6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
b...@6by7.net <mailto:b...@6by7.net>




> On Nov 8, 2019, at 10:50 AM, David Hubbard  
> wrote:
> 
> Playing devil’s advocate, perhaps they were under emergency court order to 
> not deliver texts for a certain duration, market, who knows what, and that 
> order just ended, but some type of non-disclosure / secrecy directive 
> continues to exist… may have just had to come up with something to say 
> because their other agreements would not have permitted discarding the texts… 
> 😊
>  
> David
>  
> From: NANOG  on behalf 
> of Mark Stevens 
> Date: Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:45 PM
> To: "nanog@nanog.org" 
> Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that 
> appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019
>  
> Reading Syniverse's cause of trouble (lame excuse) tells me their data 
> handling processes are poor and seemingly shady since I do not buy reason for 
> the trouble.
> 
> On 11/8/2019 1:34 PM, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:
>> Esp on Valentine’s day.  Of all the days that clear communication is 
>> important.  I’d be very interested in their reasoning for why these messages 
>> were not sent and held.
>>  
>> From: NANOG  <mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> On 
>> Behalf Of Oliver O'Boyle
>> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 1:31 PM
>> To: Matt Hoppes  
>> <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>
>> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group  
>> <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
>> Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that 
>> appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019
>>  
>> We apologize for finally getting around to our job and doing what we were 
>> paid to do...
>>  
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Matt Hoppes 
>> > <mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> wrote:
>>> “During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously 
>>> undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile 
>>> operators’ subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement. 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but 
>>> worked and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?
>>> 
>>> On Nov 8, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brandon Svec >> <mailto:bs...@teamonesolutions.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> From: 
>>>> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/
>>>>  
>>>> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/>
>>>>  
>>>> It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..
>>>>  
>>>> "Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform called Syniverse 
>>>> to relay messages. The vendor said in a statement that its IT staff 
>>>> unknowingly caused the texts to be delivered this week."
>>>> -Brandon
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell >>> <mailto:br...@interlinx.bc.ca>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
>>>>> > Does anyone have any more information on this?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
>>>>> are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
>>>>> messages?  And why?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> b.
>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> -- 
>> :o@>

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Trevor Manternach]

I believe Syniverse only comes into play when you text someone on a
different carrier than your own. Syniverse is basically the middle-man for
that message delivery, and a server of theirs just spooled ~150k messages
until someone rebooted/fixed that server.

It sounds like these messages were never originally delivered to begin
with, so "re-sent" is not exactly accurate.

--
Trevor Manternach


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:56 AM Brandon Svec 
wrote:

> From:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/
>
> It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..
>
> "Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform called
> Syniverse to relay messages. The vendor said in a statement that its IT
> staff unknowingly caused the texts to be delivered this week."
> -Brandon
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
>> > Does anyone have any more information on this?
>>
>> Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
>> are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
>> messages?  And why?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> b.
>>
>>

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Clayton Zekelman]

Under emergency court order not to deliver 
texts?  Not delivering tens of thousands of 
messages would appear to be abuse of the legal process if it were true.


Scary

At 01:50 PM 08/11/2019, David Hubbard wrote:
Playing devil’s advocate, perhaps they were 
under emergency court order to not deliver texts 
for a certain duration, market, who knows what, 
and that order just ended, but some type of 
non-disclosure / secrecy directive continues to 
exist… may have just had to come up with 
something to say because their other agreements 
would not have permitted discarding the texts…


David

From: NANOG 
 
on behalf of Mark Stevens 

Date: Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:45 PM
To: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text 
messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019


Reading Syniverse's cause of trouble (lame 
excuse) tells me their data handling processes 
are poor and seemingly shady since I do not buy reason for the trouble.


On 11/8/2019 1:34 PM, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:
Esp on Valentine’s day.  Of all the days that 
clear communication is important.  I’d be very 
interested in their reasoning for why these messages were not sent and held.


From: NANOG 
<mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> 
On Behalf Of Oliver O'Boyle

Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 1:31 PM
To: Matt Hoppes 
<mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text 
messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019


We apologize for finally getting around to our 
job and doing what we were paid to do...


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Matt Hoppes 
<<mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> 
wrote:
“During an internal maintenance cycle last 
night, 168,149 previously undelivered text 
messages were inadvertently sent to multiple 
mobile operators’ subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement.



how do you inadvertently send messages that were 
supposed to be sent but worked and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?


On Nov 8, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brandon Svec 
<<mailto:bs...@teamonesolutions.com>bs...@teamonesolutions.com> wrote:
From: 
<https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/>https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/


It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..

"Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text 
platform called Syniverse to relay messages. The 
vendor said in a statement that its IT staff 
unknowingly caused the texts to be delivered this week."

-Brandon




On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell 
<<mailto:br...@interlinx.bc.ca>br...@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:

On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
> Does anyone have any more information on this?

Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
messages?  And why?

Cheers,
b.



--
:o@>





--

Clayton Zekelman
Managed Network Systems Inc. (MNSi)
3363 Tecumseh Rd. E
Windsor, Ontario
N8W 1H4

tel. 519-985-8410
fax. 519-985-8409

RE: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Chris Kimball via NANOG]

AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon Form Joint Venture to Transform Messaging 
Experience
Oct 24, 2019
The Cross-Carrier Messaging Initiative will help drive the next generation of 
messaging for consumers and businesses.

Looks to be within the last month!

-Original Message-
From: Carsten Bormann 
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 2:29 PM
To: Chris Kimball 
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear 
to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[EXTERNAL]

OK, I understand the part about text messages from February 2019 being sent on 
now, but…

> On Nov 7, 2019, at 23:42, Chris Kimball via NANOG  wrote:
>
> https://investors.sprint.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2019/ATT-Sprint-T-Mobile-and-Verizon-Form-Joint-Venture-to-Transform-Messaging-Experience/default.aspx

Are we sure this isn’t a press release from 2008?

Grüße, Carsten

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - -

The information contained in this electronic message may be confidential, and 
the message is for the use of intended recipients only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, do not disseminate, copy, or disclose this communication or 
its contents. If you have received this communication in error, please 
immediately notify me by replying to the email or call MIS Alliance at 
617-500-1700 and permanently delete this communication.

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Carsten Bormann]

OK, I understand the part about text messages from February 2019 being sent on 
now, but…

> On Nov 7, 2019, at 23:42, Chris Kimball via NANOG  wrote:
> 
> https://investors.sprint.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2019/ATT-Sprint-T-Mobile-and-Verizon-Form-Joint-Venture-to-Transform-Messaging-Experience/default.aspx

Are we sure this isn’t a press release from 2008?

Grüße, Carsten

RE: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Kain, Becki (.)]

If they just realized a server was down, from 2/14, just now, I’d say they have 
bigger support issues


From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Jared Geiger
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 2:23 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear 
to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

What likely happened is that messages were queued on host to go out, SMPP binds 
go down, queue fills up, host crashes. Then someone realizes the host is down 
and brings it back up and the queue empties when the load is low. Since it 
included many carriers, might have been a message routing server in the middle 
of their platform.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:52 AM David Hubbard 
mailto:dhubb...@dino.hostasaurus.com>> wrote:
Playing devil’s advocate, perhaps they were under emergency court order to not 
deliver texts for a certain duration, market, who knows what, and that order 
just ended, but some type of non-disclosure / secrecy directive continues to 
exist… may have just had to come up with something to say because their other 
agreements would not have permitted discarding the texts… 😊

David

From: NANOG 
mailto:dino.hostasaurus@nanog.org>>
 on behalf of Mark Stevens mailto:mana...@monmouth.com>>
Date: Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:45 PM
To: "nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>" 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>
Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear 
to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

Reading Syniverse's cause of trouble (lame excuse) tells me their data handling 
processes are poor and seemingly shady since I do not buy reason for the 
trouble.

On 11/8/2019 1:34 PM, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:
Esp on Valentine’s day.  Of all the days that clear communication is important. 
 I’d be very interested in their reasoning for why these messages were not sent 
and held.

From: NANOG <mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> On Behalf 
Of Oliver O'Boyle
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 1:31 PM
To: Matt Hoppes 
<mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear 
to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

We apologize for finally getting around to our job and doing what we were paid 
to do...

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Matt Hoppes 
mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> 
wrote:
“During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously 
undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile operators’ 
subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement.


how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but worked 
and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?

On Nov 8, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brandon Svec 
mailto:bs...@teamonesolutions.com>> wrote:
From: 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/

It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..

"Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform called Syniverse to 
relay messages. The vendor said in a statement that its IT staff unknowingly 
caused the texts to be delivered this week."
-Brandon





On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell 
mailto:br...@interlinx.bc.ca>> wrote:
On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
> Does anyone have any more information on this?

Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
messages?  And why?

Cheers,
b.


--
:o@>

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Jared Geiger]

What likely happened is that messages were queued on host to go out, SMPP
binds go down, queue fills up, host crashes. Then someone realizes the host
is down and brings it back up and the queue empties when the load is low.
Since it included many carriers, might have been a message routing server
in the middle of their platform.

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 10:52 AM David Hubbard 
wrote:

> Playing devil’s advocate, perhaps they were under emergency court order to
> not deliver texts for a certain duration, market, who knows what, and that
> order just ended, but some type of non-disclosure / secrecy directive
> continues to exist… may have just had to come up with something to say
> because their other agreements would not have permitted discarding the
> texts… 😊
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> *From: *NANOG  on
> behalf of Mark Stevens 
> *Date: *Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:45 PM
> *To: *"nanog@nanog.org" 
> *Subject: *Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight
> that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019
>
>
>
> Reading Syniverse's cause of trouble (lame excuse) tells me their data
> handling processes are poor and seemingly shady since I do not buy reason
> for the trouble.
>
> On 11/8/2019 1:34 PM, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:
>
> Esp on Valentine’s day.  Of all the days that clear communication is
> important.  I’d be very interested in their reasoning for why these
> messages were not sent and held.
>
>
>
> *From:* NANOG   *On
> Behalf Of *Oliver O'Boyle
> *Sent:* Friday, November 08, 2019 1:31 PM
> *To:* Matt Hoppes 
> 
> *Cc:* North American Network Operators' Group 
> 
> *Subject:* Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight
> that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019
>
>
>
> We apologize for finally getting around to our job and doing what we were
> paid to do...
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Matt Hoppes <
> mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:
>
> “During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously
> undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile
> operators’ subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement.
>
>
>
>
>
> how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but
> worked and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brandon Svec 
> wrote:
>
> From:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/
>
>
>
> It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..
>
>
>
> "Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform called
> Syniverse to relay messages. The vendor said in a statement that its IT
> staff unknowingly caused the texts to be delivered this week."
>
> -Brandon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell 
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
> > Does anyone have any more information on this?
>
> Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
> are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
> messages?  And why?
>
> Cheers,
> b.
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> :o@>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Blake Hudson]

Jared Mauch wrote on 11/8/2019 12:33 PM:



On Nov 8, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Matt Hoppes  
wrote:

“During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously undelivered 
text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile operators’ 
subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement.


how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but worked 
and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?

I run mailing lists.  I’ve had times where I find something stuck in the system 
and instead of just deleting it, I actually try to make sure it goes out based 
on the original intent.  This has resulted in me sending out e-mails a year or 
two later at times.

- Jared



Timing can be critical, which is why SMTP servers often expire and 
return queued messages after 12-72hrs (maybe a week at most). Any 
messages that can't be returned are eventually discarded and a message 
is sent to the mail server's administrator. Sounds like none of that 
actually happens within Syniverse's TXT/SMS delivery system. Someone is 
asleep at the wheel if 100-200k messages are stuck in queue for months.

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[David Hubbard]

Playing devil’s advocate, perhaps they were under emergency court order to not 
deliver texts for a certain duration, market, who knows what, and that order 
just ended, but some type of non-disclosure / secrecy directive continues to 
exist… may have just had to come up with something to say because their other 
agreements would not have permitted discarding the texts… 😊

David

From: NANOG  on behalf 
of Mark Stevens 
Date: Friday, November 8, 2019 at 1:45 PM
To: "nanog@nanog.org" 
Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear 
to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

Reading Syniverse's cause of trouble (lame excuse) tells me their data handling 
processes are poor and seemingly shady since I do not buy reason for the 
trouble.

On 11/8/2019 1:34 PM, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:
Esp on Valentine’s day.  Of all the days that clear communication is important. 
 I’d be very interested in their reasoning for why these messages were not sent 
and held.

From: NANOG <mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org> On Behalf 
Of Oliver O'Boyle
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 1:31 PM
To: Matt Hoppes 
<mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear 
to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

We apologize for finally getting around to our job and doing what we were paid 
to do...

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Matt Hoppes 
mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> 
wrote:
“During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously 
undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile operators’ 
subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement.


how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but worked 
and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?

On Nov 8, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brandon Svec 
mailto:bs...@teamonesolutions.com>> wrote:
From: 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/

It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..

"Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform called Syniverse to 
relay messages. The vendor said in a statement that its IT staff unknowingly 
caused the texts to be delivered this week."
-Brandon




On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell 
mailto:br...@interlinx.bc.ca>> wrote:
On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
> Does anyone have any more information on this?

Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
messages?  And why?

Cheers,
b.


--
:o@>

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Mark Stevens]

Reading Syniverse's cause of trouble (lame excuse) tells me their data 
handling processes are poor and seemingly shady since I do not buy 
reason for the trouble.


On 11/8/2019 1:34 PM, Kain, Becki (.) wrote:


Esp on Valentine’s day.  Of all the days that clear communication is 
important.  I’d be very interested in their reasoning for why these 
messages were not sent and held.


*From:* NANOG  *On Behalf Of *Oliver O'Boyle
*Sent:* Friday, November 08, 2019 1:31 PM
*To:* Matt Hoppes 
*Cc:* North American Network Operators' Group 
*Subject:* Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight 
that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019


We apologize for finally getting around to our job and doing what we 
were paid to do...


On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Matt Hoppes 
<mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> wrote:


“During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149
previously undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to
multiple mobile operators’ subscribers," Syniverse said in a
statement.

how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be
sent but worked and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?


On Nov 8, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brandon Svec
mailto:bs...@teamonesolutions.com>>
wrote:

From:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/

It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..

"Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform
called Syniverse to relay messages. The vendor said in a
statement that its IT staff unknowingly caused the texts to be
delivered this week."

-Brandon

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell
mailto:br...@interlinx.bc.ca>> wrote:

On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG
wrote:
> Does anyone have any more information on this?

Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the
NSA already
are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s
text
messages?  And why?

Cheers,
b.


--

:o@>

RE: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Kain, Becki (.)]

Esp on Valentine’s day.  Of all the days that clear communication is important. 
 I’d be very interested in their reasoning for why these messages were not sent 
and held.

From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Oliver O'Boyle
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2019 1:31 PM
To: Matt Hoppes 
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group 
Subject: Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear 
to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

We apologize for finally getting around to our job and doing what we were paid 
to do...

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Matt Hoppes 
mailto:mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net>> 
wrote:
“During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously 
undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile operators’ 
subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement.


how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but worked 
and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?

On Nov 8, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brandon Svec 
mailto:bs...@teamonesolutions.com>> wrote:
From: 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/

It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..

"Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform called Syniverse to 
relay messages. The vendor said in a statement that its IT staff unknowingly 
caused the texts to be delivered this week."
-Brandon





On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell 
mailto:br...@interlinx.bc.ca>> wrote:
On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
> Does anyone have any more information on this?

Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
messages?  And why?

Cheers,
b.


--
:o@>

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Jared Mauch]

> On Nov 8, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Matt Hoppes  
> wrote:
> 
> “During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously 
> undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile 
> operators’ subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement. 
> 
> 
> how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but 
> worked and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?

I run mailing lists.  I’ve had times where I find something stuck in the system 
and instead of just deleting it, I actually try to make sure it goes out based 
on the original intent.  This has resulted in me sending out e-mails a year or 
two later at times.

- Jared

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Oliver O'Boyle]

We apologize for finally getting around to our job and doing what we were
paid to do...

On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 1:27 PM Matt Hoppes <
mattli...@rivervalleyinternet.net> wrote:

> “During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously
> undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile
> operators’ subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement.
>
>
> how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but
> worked and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?
>
> On Nov 8, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brandon Svec 
> wrote:
>
> From:
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/
>
> It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..
>
> "Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform called
> Syniverse to relay messages. The vendor said in a statement that its IT
> staff unknowingly caused the texts to be delivered this week."
> -Brandon
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
>> > Does anyone have any more information on this?
>>
>> Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
>> are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
>> messages?  And why?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> b.
>>
>>

-- 
:o@>

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Matt Hoppes]

“During an internal maintenance cycle last night, 168,149 previously 
undelivered text messages were inadvertently sent to multiple mobile operators’ 
subscribers," Syniverse said in a statement. 


how do you inadvertently send messages that were supposed to be sent but worked 
and sent? Isn’t that the desired outcome?

> On Nov 8, 2019, at 12:54 PM, Brandon Svec  wrote:
> 
> From: 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/
> 
> It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..
> 
> "Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform called Syniverse to 
> relay messages. The vendor said in a statement that its IT staff unknowingly 
> caused the texts to be delivered this week."
> -Brandon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell  
>> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
>> > Does anyone have any more information on this?
>> 
>> Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
>> are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
>> messages?  And why?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> b.
>> 

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Brandon Svec]

From:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/11/08/thousands-people-just-got-text-messages-sent-valentines-day/2527660001/

It seems there is a company that has everyone's text messages..

"Some mobile carriers rely on a third-party text platform called Syniverse
to relay messages. The vendor said in a statement that its IT staff
unknowingly caused the texts to be delivered this week."
-Brandon





On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:47 AM Brian J. Murrell 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
> > Does anyone have any more information on this?
>
> Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
> are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
> messages?  And why?
>
> Cheers,
> b.
>
>

Re: all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Brian J. Murrell]

On Thu, 2019-11-07 at 22:42 +, Chris Kimball via NANOG wrote:
> Does anyone have any more information on this?

Yeah, like who (in the private sector -- we all knew the NSA already
are doing this) has access to and is archiving *everyone*s text
messages?  And why?

Cheers,
b.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

all major US carriers received text messages overnight that appear to have been sent around Valentine's Day 2019

[Chris Kimball via NANOG]

Does anyone have any more information on this?

Users on Twitter report that T-Mobile said "that there is a known issue of 
texts being resent/spoofed and said not to worry about it."

https://twitter.com/ThelocalfilmMN/status/1192434609197375488


https://investors.sprint.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-release-details/2019/ATT-Sprint-T-Mobile-and-Verizon-Form-Joint-Venture-to-Transform-Messaging-Experience/default.aspx

thoughts?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - -

The information contained in this electronic message may be confidential, and 
the message is for the use of intended recipients only. If you are not the 
intended recipient, do not disseminate, copy, or disclose this communication or 
its contents. If you have received this communication in error, please 
immediately notify me by replying to the email or call MIS Alliance at 
617-500-1700 and permanently delete this communication.

Re: Why don't large carriers use alternate communication routes?

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:19:15PM -0400, Sean Donelan 
wrote:
> Are the penalties for subscribe outages so minimal that it makes business 
> sense not to use backup alternate routes?

There are penalties for subscriber outages?  Do tell!  Where?

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Why don't large carriers use alternate communication routes?

[Sean Donelan]

This is an op-ed, but most California internet folks know about recurring 
outages for a decade on this fiber route.  What was unusual is the local 
governments eventually used public funds to help pay for an east-west 
alternate fiber route.


Instead of leasing capacity on alternate routes, the dominate carrier 
continued to use the single fiber route (which it owns).  And the customer 
outages continue.


Are the penalties for subscribe outages so minimal that it makes business 
sense not to use backup alternate routes?



https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2017/oct/10/two-years-ago-t-promised-end-mass-telecommunicatio/

Two Years Ago, AT&T Promised to End Mass Telecommunication Outages. How’s 
That Working Out?

RE: Find carriers that peer in two IX's

[Adam Gregory]

Although this will not give you a side by side comparision I have been using 
the HE exchange report.  Maybe that will help.

https://bgp.he.net/report/exchanges


Best Regards,

--
adam gregory

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Dovid Bender
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 11:25 AM
To: NANOG 
Subject: Find carriers that peer in two IX's

Hi,

Does anyone know of a tool like PeeringDB where I can select two exchanges
say TELX 60 Hudson and then SIX (Seattle IX) and find all carriers that
have a presence in both locations?

TIA.

Dovid

Re: Find carriers that peer in two IX's

[Martin Hannigan]

Which will also have dramatically different results. An IX is not a good
key for a carrier search.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 12:32 Marty Strong via NANOG 
wrote:

> > TELX 60 Hudson and then SIX (Seattle IX)
>
> IX or building? Telx 60 Hudson is a building and SIX is an IX.
>
> Regards,
> Marty Strong
> --
> Cloudflare - AS13335
> Network Engineer
> ma...@cloudflare.com
> +44 7584 906 055
> smartflare (Skype)
>
> https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/13335
>
> > On 15 Sep 2017, at 17:08, Mehmet Akcin  wrote:
> >
> > +carrier
> >
> > "Hurricane Electric"
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Job Snijders  wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:25:10AM -0400, Dovid Bender wrote:
> >>> Does anyone know of a tool like PeeringDB where I can select two
> >> exchanges
> >>> say TELX 60 Hudson and then SIX (Seattle IX) and find all carriers that
> >>> have a presence in both locations?
> >>
> >> a bit hacky ;-)
> >>
> >> Vurt:~ job$ comm -1 -2 <(curl -s https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/13 |
> jq
> >> ".data | .[] | .net_set | .[] | .name" | sort) <(curl -s
> >> https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/325 | jq ".data | .[] | .net_set | .[]
> |
> >> .name" | sort)
> >> "Amazon.com"
> >> "Cloudflare"
> >> "Default Route, LLC"
> >> "Digital Realty | Telx"
> >> "Facebook"
> >> "Facebook"
> >> "Faction Inc."
> >> "Google Inc."
> >> "Highwinds Network Group, Inc"
> >> "Hurricane Electric"
> >> "IPTP Networks"
> >> "ISPrime, LLC."
> >> "Internap"
> >> "Internet2 TransitRail"
> >> "Limelight Networks Global"
> >> "Microsoft"
> >> "NTT DATA Services - HCLS Cloud"
> >> "Netflix"
> >> "Nitel"
> >> "OpenDNS, Inc."
> >> "Packet Clearing House AS42"
> >> "Packet Clearing House"
> >> "Sipartech"
> >> "SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. (an IBM Company)"
> >> "Verizon Digital Media Services (EdgeCast Networks)"
> >> "Wolfe"
> >> "Yahoo!"
> >> Vurt:~ job$
> >>
>
>

Re: Find carriers that peer in two IX's

[Marty Strong via NANOG]

> TELX 60 Hudson and then SIX (Seattle IX)

IX or building? Telx 60 Hudson is a building and SIX is an IX.

Regards,
Marty Strong
--
Cloudflare - AS13335
Network Engineer
ma...@cloudflare.com
+44 7584 906 055
smartflare (Skype)

https://www.peeringdb.com/asn/13335

> On 15 Sep 2017, at 17:08, Mehmet Akcin  wrote:
> 
> +carrier
> 
> "Hurricane Electric"
> 
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Job Snijders  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:25:10AM -0400, Dovid Bender wrote:
>>> Does anyone know of a tool like PeeringDB where I can select two
>> exchanges
>>> say TELX 60 Hudson and then SIX (Seattle IX) and find all carriers that
>>> have a presence in both locations?
>> 
>> a bit hacky ;-)
>> 
>> Vurt:~ job$ comm -1 -2 <(curl -s https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/13 | jq
>> ".data | .[] | .net_set | .[] | .name" | sort) <(curl -s
>> https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/325 | jq ".data | .[] | .net_set | .[] |
>> .name" | sort)
>> "Amazon.com"
>> "Cloudflare"
>> "Default Route, LLC"
>> "Digital Realty | Telx"
>> "Facebook"
>> "Facebook"
>> "Faction Inc."
>> "Google Inc."
>> "Highwinds Network Group, Inc"
>> "Hurricane Electric"
>> "IPTP Networks"
>> "ISPrime, LLC."
>> "Internap"
>> "Internet2 TransitRail"
>> "Limelight Networks Global"
>> "Microsoft"
>> "NTT DATA Services - HCLS Cloud"
>> "Netflix"
>> "Nitel"
>> "OpenDNS, Inc."
>> "Packet Clearing House AS42"
>> "Packet Clearing House"
>> "Sipartech"
>> "SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. (an IBM Company)"
>> "Verizon Digital Media Services (EdgeCast Networks)"
>> "Wolfe"
>> "Yahoo!"
>> Vurt:~ job$
>> 

Re: Find carriers that peer in two IX's

[Dovid Bender]

Thanks.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:40 AM, Job Snijders  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:25:10AM -0400, Dovid Bender wrote:
> > Does anyone know of a tool like PeeringDB where I can select two
> exchanges
> > say TELX 60 Hudson and then SIX (Seattle IX) and find all carriers that
> > have a presence in both locations?
>
> a bit hacky ;-)
>
> Vurt:~ job$ comm -1 -2 <(curl -s https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/13 | jq
> ".data | .[] | .net_set | .[] | .name" | sort) <(curl -s
> https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/325 | jq ".data | .[] | .net_set | .[] |
> .name" | sort)
> "Amazon.com"
> "Cloudflare"
> "Default Route, LLC"
> "Digital Realty | Telx"
> "Facebook"
> "Facebook"
> "Faction Inc."
> "Google Inc."
> "Highwinds Network Group, Inc"
> "Hurricane Electric"
> "IPTP Networks"
> "ISPrime, LLC."
> "Internap"
> "Internet2 TransitRail"
> "Limelight Networks Global"
> "Microsoft"
> "NTT DATA Services - HCLS Cloud"
> "Netflix"
> "Nitel"
> "OpenDNS, Inc."
> "Packet Clearing House AS42"
> "Packet Clearing House"
> "Sipartech"
> "SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. (an IBM Company)"
> "Verizon Digital Media Services (EdgeCast Networks)"
> "Wolfe"
> "Yahoo!"
> Vurt:~ job$
>

Re: Find carriers that peer in two IX's

[Mehmet Akcin]

+carrier

"Hurricane Electric"

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Job Snijders  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:25:10AM -0400, Dovid Bender wrote:
> > Does anyone know of a tool like PeeringDB where I can select two
> exchanges
> > say TELX 60 Hudson and then SIX (Seattle IX) and find all carriers that
> > have a presence in both locations?
>
> a bit hacky ;-)
>
> Vurt:~ job$ comm -1 -2 <(curl -s https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/13 | jq
> ".data | .[] | .net_set | .[] | .name" | sort) <(curl -s
> https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/325 | jq ".data | .[] | .net_set | .[] |
> .name" | sort)
> "Amazon.com"
> "Cloudflare"
> "Default Route, LLC"
> "Digital Realty | Telx"
> "Facebook"
> "Facebook"
> "Faction Inc."
> "Google Inc."
> "Highwinds Network Group, Inc"
> "Hurricane Electric"
> "IPTP Networks"
> "ISPrime, LLC."
> "Internap"
> "Internet2 TransitRail"
> "Limelight Networks Global"
> "Microsoft"
> "NTT DATA Services - HCLS Cloud"
> "Netflix"
> "Nitel"
> "OpenDNS, Inc."
> "Packet Clearing House AS42"
> "Packet Clearing House"
> "Sipartech"
> "SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. (an IBM Company)"
> "Verizon Digital Media Services (EdgeCast Networks)"
> "Wolfe"
> "Yahoo!"
> Vurt:~ job$
>

Re: Find carriers that peer in two IX's

[Job Snijders]

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:25:10AM -0400, Dovid Bender wrote:
> Does anyone know of a tool like PeeringDB where I can select two exchanges
> say TELX 60 Hudson and then SIX (Seattle IX) and find all carriers that
> have a presence in both locations?

a bit hacky ;-)

Vurt:~ job$ comm -1 -2 <(curl -s https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/13 | jq ".data 
| .[] | .net_set | .[] | .name" | sort) <(curl -s 
https://peeringdb.com/api/ixlan/325 | jq ".data | .[] | .net_set | .[] | .name" 
| sort)
"Amazon.com"
"Cloudflare"
"Default Route, LLC"
"Digital Realty | Telx"
"Facebook"
"Facebook"
"Faction Inc."
"Google Inc."
"Highwinds Network Group, Inc"
"Hurricane Electric"
"IPTP Networks"
"ISPrime, LLC."
"Internap"
"Internet2 TransitRail"
"Limelight Networks Global"
"Microsoft"
"NTT DATA Services - HCLS Cloud"
"Netflix"
"Nitel"
"OpenDNS, Inc."
"Packet Clearing House AS42"
"Packet Clearing House"
"Sipartech"
"SoftLayer Technologies, Inc. (an IBM Company)"
"Verizon Digital Media Services (EdgeCast Networks)"
"Wolfe"
"Yahoo!"
Vurt:~ job$

Find carriers that peer in two IX's

[Dovid Bender]

Hi,

Does anyone know of a tool like PeeringDB where I can select two exchanges
say TELX 60 Hudson and then SIX (Seattle IX) and find all carriers that
have a presence in both locations?

TIA.

Dovid

Re: ISPs/Carriers in LATA 138

[Benjamin Hatton]

I have Fiber / DOCSIS / EPON in some rural areas of LATA 138,  Where
exactly are you looking? feel free to respond off list.



On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 6:52 PM,  wrote:

>
> I'm looking for a solution to provide one-weekend per year access in a
> rural area 20 km outside Binghamton NY, LATA 138
>
>
> Can anyone provide any recomendations?
>
> Robin
>
> kb3ien
>
>

Re: ISPs/Carriers in LATA 138

[Keefe John]

Try the local WISP.

http://www.plexicomm.net/

Keefe

On 8/3/2015 5:52 PM, kb3ien+na...@databit7.com wrote:


I'm looking for a solution to provide one-weekend per year access in a 
rural area 20 km outside Binghamton NY, LATA 138



Can anyone provide any recomendations?

Robin

kb3ien

ISPs/Carriers in LATA 138

[kb3ien+nanog]

I'm looking for a solution to provide one-weekend per year access in a 
rural area 20 km outside Binghamton NY, LATA 138



Can anyone provide any recomendations?

Robin

kb3ien

Re: CDNs for carriers

[Blake Hudson]

Christopher Morrow wrote on 6/29/2015 9:25 AM:

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Jared Mauch  wrote:

This being said, there is not a single solution to everything.  Chris mentioned 
using DNS, which is a nice method assuming you see all the queries within your 
traffic cone.


sorry, I meant that you could just look at the reverse dns for some of
the higher traffic sources/destinations... you can ALSO look at your
recursive dns servers to see what folk are looking up 'often'... which
is a third tool to use. (presuming you see all/most/representative-set
of your customers, yes)


For hosts with no (or meaningless) reverse DNS, I've found that browsing 
to the IP in question via HTTPs will often provide an SSL certificate 
with lots of useful information.


--Blake

Re: CDNs for carriers

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
> This being said, there is not a single solution to everything.  Chris 
> mentioned using DNS, which is a nice method assuming you see all the queries 
> within your traffic cone.


sorry, I meant that you could just look at the reverse dns for some of
the higher traffic sources/destinations... you can ALSO look at your
recursive dns servers to see what folk are looking up 'often'... which
is a third tool to use. (presuming you see all/most/representative-set
of your customers, yes)

Re: CDNs for carriers

[Jared Mauch]

> On Jun 29, 2015, at 9:59 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> 
> Simple flows wouldn't necessarily tell you if you're pulling a bunch from a 
> Netflix caching box on your upstream somewhere. You'd think you had a huge 
> amount going to your current upstream because technically you do, but a local 
> cache or peer could alter that significantly. As we've been starting up our 
> IX, we're finding that we can send lists of ASNs and prefixes and the various 
> CDNs will tell us how much traffic they see going to our customers. Combine 
> that with what flows tell you and I think you've got a good approach. 
> 
> What are some good approaches to determining traffic levels to not only ASNs, 
> but also that ASN's downstream ASNs? You may have ASNs A, B, C, D and E in 
> your flows. Say none of them represent more than 5% of your traffic by 
> themselves. If B, C, D and E all purchase transit from A and you can 
> reasonably peer with A, you actually can move 25% of your traffic over to a 
> peer. Maybe there is no good approach at doing that without a bunch of manual 
> work or paying someone else to do it. 
> 
> Looking at some stats from one of our customers that is also going through 
> Equinix Chicago, for their average inbound ~37% of traffic was Netflix, 
> Google was 34% and the next highest was Apple at 5%. Note that Akamai had 
> left Chicago Equinix by this point, so they wouldn't be reflected in those 
> numbers. Those percentages are percent of all traffic they send to Equinix. I 
> believe about 2/3s of their total transit went to Equinix when that got 
> turned up. Their total traffic went up once joining the Equinix IX, 
> presumably because they were now bypassing some congestion somewhere. 
> 

Sure.  There are a lot of dynamics to consider.  It’s fairly easy to look at 
TCP speeds and retransmissions to determine the link speed involved.  I’ve seen 
many CDNs quickly identify congested or paths without congestion and engage in 
some adaptive behaviors.

This being said, there is not a single solution to everything.  Chris mentioned 
using DNS, which is a nice method assuming you see all the queries within your 
traffic cone.

- Jared

Re: CDNs for carriers

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
> Simple flows wouldn't necessarily tell you if you're pulling a bunch from a 
> Netflix caching box on your upstream somewhere. You'd think you had a huge 
> amount going to your current upstream because technically you do, but a local 
> cache or peer could alter that significantly.

probably dns and flow gets you some more traction, right?
meaning: "gosh 1.2.3.0/26 is sending us LOTS of traffic... oh:
nslookup 1.2.3.4 == hosta.networkb.netflix.com, ah-ha!"

where ptr records are generated I suppose like:
$ host 63.88.73.108
108.73.88.63.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer
108.73.88.63.ashburn.google-ggc.verizon.com.

Also, often just port/protocol are helpful enough... you won't know
without looking (at the OP's traffic I mean), which it sounds like
hasn't really been done yet?

Re: CDNs for carriers

[Mike Hammett]

Simple flows wouldn't necessarily tell you if you're pulling a bunch from a 
Netflix caching box on your upstream somewhere. You'd think you had a huge 
amount going to your current upstream because technically you do, but a local 
cache or peer could alter that significantly. As we've been starting up our IX, 
we're finding that we can send lists of ASNs and prefixes and the various CDNs 
will tell us how much traffic they see going to our customers. Combine that 
with what flows tell you and I think you've got a good approach. 

What are some good approaches to determining traffic levels to not only ASNs, 
but also that ASN's downstream ASNs? You may have ASNs A, B, C, D and E in your 
flows. Say none of them represent more than 5% of your traffic by themselves. 
If B, C, D and E all purchase transit from A and you can reasonably peer with 
A, you actually can move 25% of your traffic over to a peer. Maybe there is no 
good approach at doing that without a bunch of manual work or paying someone 
else to do it. 

Looking at some stats from one of our customers that is also going through 
Equinix Chicago, for their average inbound ~37% of traffic was Netflix, Google 
was 34% and the next highest was Apple at 5%. Note that Akamai had left Chicago 
Equinix by this point, so they wouldn't be reflected in those numbers. Those 
percentages are percent of all traffic they send to Equinix. I believe about 
2/3s of their total transit went to Equinix when that got turned up. Their 
total traffic went up once joining the Equinix IX, presumably because they were 
now bypassing some congestion somewhere. 




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



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


- Original Message -

From: "Jared Mauch"  
To: "Christopher Morrow"  
Cc: "nanog list" , "Ramy Hashish"  
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 8:44:18 AM 
Subject: Re: CDNs for carriers 


> On Jun 29, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote: 
> 
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ramy Hashish  
> wrote: 
>> do you have any figures about how much this 
>> recommended CDN save from the Internet BW? 
> 
> isn't that going to wholey depend on your traffic mix/matrix? 
> Wouldn't it be helpful to look at where your users send/receive 
> traffic and then figure out the best next addition? 
> 
> Maybe your best bet isn't another CDN, but better/more/wider peering 
> with folk 2+ AS hops out from your current next-hop-as set? 

I would say that step 1 is to figure out where your traffic is going. 
Generically saying “CDN” isn’t enough to know what the results are. 

Once you’ve determined where the traffic is going/coming from you can start to 
make educated decisions vs just “CDN” guessing. An enterprise profile looks 
much different than residential for example. 

I recall some companies calling our NOC “under attack” because their software 
update server went down and the machines failed safe and were all fetching 
software updates from “the internet” vs the internal caching proxy. 

If you have money to spend, there are a few vendors out there from cheap to 
 that will help you look at the traffic to make these decisions. 

If you don’t have money to spend, look at NFSen/pmacct. You may be able to spin 
up a low-cost VM at your local cloud provider (e.g.: digital ocean). 

Remember to export both your v6 and v4 (ip classic) flows as these can widely 
differ. 

Look for common ASNs or IP ranges. 

I’m sure there’s numerous consultants on the list that would also assist you in 
this process. 

Hope this helps. 

- jared 

Re: CDNs for carriers

[Jared Mauch]

> On Jun 29, 2015, at 9:33 AM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ramy Hashish  wrote:
>> do you have any figures about how much this
>> recommended CDN save from the Internet BW?
> 
> isn't that going to wholey depend on your traffic mix/matrix?
> Wouldn't it be helpful to look at where your users send/receive
> traffic and then figure out the best next addition?
> 
> Maybe your best bet isn't another CDN, but better/more/wider peering
> with folk 2+ AS hops out from your current next-hop-as set?

I would say that step 1 is to figure out where your traffic is going.  
Generically saying “CDN” isn’t enough to know what the results are. 

Once you’ve determined where the traffic is going/coming from you can start to 
make educated decisions vs just “CDN” guessing.  An enterprise profile looks 
much different than residential for example.

I recall some companies calling our NOC “under attack” because their software 
update server went down and the machines failed safe and were all fetching 
software updates from “the internet” vs the internal caching proxy.

If you have money to spend, there are a few vendors out there from cheap to 
 that will help you look at the traffic to make these decisions.

If you don’t have money to spend, look at NFSen/pmacct.  You may be able to 
spin up a low-cost VM at your local cloud provider (e.g.: digital ocean).

Remember to export both your v6 and v4 (ip classic) flows as these can widely 
differ.

Look for common ASNs or IP ranges.

I’m sure there’s numerous consultants on the list that would also assist you in 
this process.

Hope this helps.

- jared

Re: CDNs for carriers

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Ramy Hashish  wrote:
> do you have any figures about how much this
> recommended CDN save from the Internet BW?

isn't that going to wholey depend on your traffic mix/matrix?
Wouldn't it be helpful to look at where your users send/receive
traffic and then figure out the best next addition?

Maybe your best bet isn't another CDN, but better/more/wider peering
with folk 2+ AS hops out from your current next-hop-as set?

Re: CDNs for carriers

[Valdis . Kletnieks]

On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 14:53:57 +0200, Ramy Hashish said:

> Does anybody recommend a CDN to work beside GGC and AKAMAI?

I would think that talking to Netflix about hosting one of their
boxes would be the obvious next step?


pgpJmGzrRp4N0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: CDNs for carriers

[Patrick W. Gilmore]

Netflix:


Frankly, those three are roughly the same size, and the only ones anywhere near 
that size.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On Jun 29, 2015, at 08:53 , Ramy Hashish  wrote:
> 
> Hello there,
> 
> Does anybody recommend a CDN to work beside GGC and AKAMAI? and if you have
> a real life deployment, do you have any figures about how much this
> recommended CDN save from the Internet BW? (currently both of GGC and
> AKAMAI saves about 40% of our Internet BW)
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ramy

CDNs for carriers

[Ramy Hashish]

Hello there,

Does anybody recommend a CDN to work beside GGC and AKAMAI? and if you have
a real life deployment, do you have any figures about how much this
recommended CDN save from the Internet BW? (currently both of GGC and
AKAMAI saves about 40% of our Internet BW)

Thanks,

Ramy

RE: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[frnkblk]

My second educated guess is that those initial (BPON) ONTs only supported
FastE client interface(s), and that Verizon's new (GPON) ONTs support GigE
client interfaces.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Huff
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:11 AM
To: Joel Esler (jesler); Joe Klein
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

The earlier generation of ONT has 100MB Ethernet and MOCA. If you upgrade to
Quantum and order speeds > 100MB you'll need an ONT with gig-E and switch
from MOCA to wired Ethernet. The MOCA standard specifies up to 175MB, but I
don't think MOCA vendors have made any adapters > 100MB.




Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff    | Fax:   914-694-5669

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Joel Esler
(jesler)
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Joe Klein
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

I don't believe Quantum has any changes relative to the external of the
house.  Fios has been capable of pushing those speeds with the "old" modem
for years.  The difference between the old modem and the new one is that the
wireless is 802.11n whereas the old one was only capable of g.

--
Joel Esler
Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 13, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Joe Klein
mailto:jskl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Was in a meeting over 4 years ago, where the people from Verizon were
claiming they would be rolling out IPv6 for FIOS in the following years.
Still waiting.

Can anyone confirm or deny that Verizon FIOS requires an upgrade to the ONT
and router for its "FiOS Quantum" service in order to get IPv6?

Joe Klein
"Inveniam viam aut faciam"

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Matt Palmer
mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org>> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:07PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.li...@gmail.com<mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean
mailto:w...@willscorner.net>>
wrote:
Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
serve content up over v6.

nice!

Sorry to rain on your parade:

dhcp-7f01:~ jared% host -t  www.reddit.com<http://www.reddit.com>.
www.reddit.com<http://www.reddit.com> has no  record

"should be able to serve" != "are serving".

- Matt

--
If you are a trauma surgeon and someone dies on your table, [...] everyone
would know you "did your best".  When someone does something truly stupid
with their system and it dies and you can't resuscitate it, you must be
incompetent or an idiot.  -- Julian Macassey, in the Monastery

RE: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[frnkblk]

It's my educated guess that much of Verizon's initially FTTH deployment used
BPON, and that access gear didn't (and probably will never) support IPv6.
So to get IPv6 they need to move the customer to a GPON-enabled access
shelf, which apparently requires a new ONT because their initial ONTs were
BPON only.

Frank

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Justin M. Streiner
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 10:40 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Stephen Frost wrote:

> I'm still wondering when they're going to teach the Verizon FIOS people
> about the IPv6 goodness...

I've been barking up that three for nearly the past three years.  No 
definite answers thus far, other than the ONTs deployed in many customer 
locations might make IPv6 deployment a bit of a PITA, regardless of which 
model router you have on site.

Trying to get good answers on this from VZ sales/marketing contacts 
through $dayjob has not gotten much in the way of good answers either.

I have a v6 tunnel through Hurricane Electric that works very well, but it 
would be nice to go native.

jms

RE: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Matthew Huff]

It's much smaller J

Other than that, I don't know of anything else. I don't use their router anyway.



Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff| Fax:   914-694-5669

From: Joel Esler (jesler) [mailto:jes...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 11:38 AM
To: Matthew Huff
Cc: Joe Klein; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

So am I correct in assuming that unless you go >100Mb, and other than the N 
router to replace the G router, there isn't anything beneficial?

--
Joel Esler
Open Source Manager
Threat Intelligence Team Lead
Talos Group





On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Matthew Huff mailto:mh...@ox.com>> 
wrote:

The earlier generation of ONT has 100MB Ethernet and MOCA. If you upgrade to 
Quantum and order speeds > 100MB you'll need an ONT with gig-E and switch from 
MOCA to wired Ethernet. The MOCA standard specifies up to 175MB, but I don't 
think MOCA vendors have made any adapters > 100MB.




Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff| Fax:   914-694-5669

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Joel Esler (jesler)
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Joe Klein
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

I don't believe Quantum has any changes relative to the external of the house.  
Fios has been capable of pushing those speeds with the "old" modem for years.  
The difference between the old modem and the new one is that the wireless is 
802.11n whereas the old one was only capable of g.

--
Joel Esler
Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 13, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Joe Klein 
mailto:jskl...@gmail.com><mailto:jskl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Was in a meeting over 4 years ago, where the people from Verizon were
claiming they would be rolling out IPv6 for FIOS in the following years.
Still waiting.

Can anyone confirm or deny that Verizon FIOS requires an upgrade to the ONT
and router for its "FiOS Quantum" service in order to get IPv6?

Joe Klein
"Inveniam viam aut faciam"

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Matt Palmer 
mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org><mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org>> 
wrote:

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:07PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.li...@gmail.com<mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com><mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean 
mailto:w...@willscorner.net><mailto:w...@willscorner.net>>
wrote:
Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
serve content up over v6.

nice!

Sorry to rain on your parade:

dhcp-7f01:~ jared% host -t  
www.reddit.com<http://www.reddit.com><http://www.reddit.com>.
www.reddit.com<http://www.reddit.com><http://www.reddit.com> has no  record

"should be able to serve" != "are serving".

- Matt

--
If you are a trauma surgeon and someone dies on your table, [...] everyone
would know you "did your best".  When someone does something truly stupid
with their system and it dies and you can't resuscitate it, you must be
incompetent or an idiot.  -- Julian Macassey, in the Monastery

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Joel Esler (jesler)]

So am I correct in assuming that unless you go >100Mb, and other than the N 
router to replace the G router, there isn’t anything beneficial?

--
Joel Esler
Open Source Manager
Threat Intelligence Team Lead
Talos Group





On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Matthew Huff mailto:mh...@ox.com>> 
wrote:

The earlier generation of ONT has 100MB Ethernet and MOCA. If you upgrade to 
Quantum and order speeds > 100MB you'll need an ONT with gig-E and switch from 
MOCA to wired Ethernet. The MOCA standard specifies up to 175MB, but I don't 
think MOCA vendors have made any adapters > 100MB.




Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff| Fax:   914-694-5669

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Joel Esler (jesler)
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Joe Klein
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

I don't believe Quantum has any changes relative to the external of the house.  
Fios has been capable of pushing those speeds with the "old" modem for years.  
The difference between the old modem and the new one is that the wireless is 
802.11n whereas the old one was only capable of g.

--
Joel Esler
Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 13, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Joe Klein 
mailto:jskl...@gmail.com><mailto:jskl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Was in a meeting over 4 years ago, where the people from Verizon were
claiming they would be rolling out IPv6 for FIOS in the following years.
Still waiting.

Can anyone confirm or deny that Verizon FIOS requires an upgrade to the ONT
and router for its "FiOS Quantum" service in order to get IPv6?

Joe Klein
"Inveniam viam aut faciam"

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Matt Palmer 
mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org><mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org>> 
wrote:

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:07PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.li...@gmail.com<mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com><mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>>
 wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean 
mailto:w...@willscorner.net><mailto:w...@willscorner.net>>
wrote:
Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
serve content up over v6.

nice!

Sorry to rain on your parade:

dhcp-7f01:~ jared% host -t  
www.reddit.com<http://www.reddit.com><http://www.reddit.com>.
www.reddit.com<http://www.reddit.com><http://www.reddit.com> has no  record

"should be able to serve" != "are serving".

- Matt

--
If you are a trauma surgeon and someone dies on your table, [...] everyone
would know you "did your best".  When someone does something truly stupid
with their system and it dies and you can't resuscitate it, you must be
incompetent or an idiot.  -- Julian Macassey, in the Monastery

RE: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Matthew Huff]

The earlier generation of ONT has 100MB Ethernet and MOCA. If you upgrade to 
Quantum and order speeds > 100MB you'll need an ONT with gig-E and switch from 
MOCA to wired Ethernet. The MOCA standard specifies up to 175MB, but I don't 
think MOCA vendors have made any adapters > 100MB.




Matthew Huff | 1 Manhattanville Rd
Director of Operations   | Purchase, NY 10577
OTA Management LLC   | Phone: 914-460-4039
aim: matthewbhuff    | Fax:   914-694-5669

-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Joel Esler (jesler)
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 7:17 AM
To: Joe Klein
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

I don't believe Quantum has any changes relative to the external of the house.  
Fios has been capable of pushing those speeds with the "old" modem for years.  
The difference between the old modem and the new one is that the wireless is 
802.11n whereas the old one was only capable of g.

--
Joel Esler
Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 13, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Joe Klein 
mailto:jskl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Was in a meeting over 4 years ago, where the people from Verizon were
claiming they would be rolling out IPv6 for FIOS in the following years.
Still waiting.

Can anyone confirm or deny that Verizon FIOS requires an upgrade to the ONT
and router for its "FiOS Quantum" service in order to get IPv6?

Joe Klein
"Inveniam viam aut faciam"

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Matt Palmer 
mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org>> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:07PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.li...@gmail.com<mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean 
mailto:w...@willscorner.net>>
wrote:
Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
serve content up over v6.

nice!

Sorry to rain on your parade:

dhcp-7f01:~ jared% host -t  www.reddit.com<http://www.reddit.com>.
www.reddit.com<http://www.reddit.com> has no  record

"should be able to serve" != "are serving".

- Matt

--
If you are a trauma surgeon and someone dies on your table, [...] everyone
would know you "did your best".  When someone does something truly stupid
with their system and it dies and you can't resuscitate it, you must be
incompetent or an idiot.  -- Julian Macassey, in the Monastery

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Joel Esler (jesler)]

I don't believe Quantum has any changes relative to the external of the house.  
Fios has been capable of pushing those speeds with the "old" modem for years.  
The difference between the old modem and the new one is that the wireless is 
802.11n whereas the old one was only capable of g.

--
Joel Esler
Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 13, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Joe Klein 
mailto:jskl...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Was in a meeting over 4 years ago, where the people from Verizon were
claiming they would be rolling out IPv6 for FIOS in the following years.
Still waiting.

Can anyone confirm or deny that Verizon FIOS requires an upgrade to the ONT
and router for its "FiOS Quantum" service in order to get IPv6?

Joe Klein
"Inveniam viam aut faciam"

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Matt Palmer 
mailto:mpal...@hezmatt.org>> wrote:

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:07PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Morrow <
morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean 
mailto:w...@willscorner.net>>
wrote:
Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
serve content up over v6.

nice!

Sorry to rain on your parade:

dhcp-7f01:~ jared% host -t  www.reddit.com.
www.reddit.com has no  record

"should be able to serve" != "are serving".

- Matt

--
If you are a trauma surgeon and someone dies on your table, [...] everyone
would know you "did your best".  When someone does something truly stupid
with their system and it dies and you can't resuscitate it, you must be
incompetent or an idiot.  -- Julian Macassey, in the Monastery

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Bjoern A. Zeeb]

> On 14 Apr 2015, at 01:59 , Jared Mauch  wrote:
> 
> For those wondering, nearly 62% of VZ Wireless traffic is IPv6.

to a few select websites (not in term of overall traffic).

> http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Justin M. Streiner]

On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Stephen Frost wrote:


I'm still wondering when they're going to teach the Verizon FIOS people
about the IPv6 goodness...


I've been barking up that three for nearly the past three years.  No 
definite answers thus far, other than the ONTs deployed in many customer 
locations might make IPv6 deployment a bit of a PITA, regardless of which 
model router you have on site.


Trying to get good answers on this from VZ sales/marketing contacts 
through $dayjob has not gotten much in the way of good answers either.


I have a v6 tunnel through Hurricane Electric that works very well, but it 
would be nice to go native.


jms

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Jim Shankland]

On 4/13/15 8:17 PM, Joe Klein wrote:

Was in a meeting over 4 years ago, where the people from Verizon were
claiming they would be rolling out IPv6 for FIOS in the following years.
Still waiting.

C
For those of us of a certain age, I'm wondering: what was the year when 
you first heard that the entire Internet was going to be switching over 
to IPv6 Real Soon Now?


I distinctly remember my first time (who ever forgets?). I'm a little 
hazy on the exact year, but I know it started with a "1".


Jim

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Joe Klein]

Was in a meeting over 4 years ago, where the people from Verizon were
claiming they would be rolling out IPv6 for FIOS in the following years.
Still waiting.

Can anyone confirm or deny that Verizon FIOS requires an upgrade to the ONT
and router for its "FiOS Quantum" service in order to get IPv6?

Joe Klein
"Inveniam viam aut faciam"

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Matt Palmer  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:07PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > > On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Morrow <
> morrowc.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean 
> wrote:
> > >> Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
> > >> serve content up over v6.
> > >
> > > nice!
> >
> > Sorry to rain on your parade:
> >
> > dhcp-7f01:~ jared% host -t  www.reddit.com.
> > www.reddit.com has no  record
>
> "should be able to serve" != "are serving".
>
> - Matt
>
> --
> If you are a trauma surgeon and someone dies on your table, [...] everyone
> would know you "did your best".  When someone does something truly stupid
> with their system and it dies and you can't resuscitate it, you must be
> incompetent or an idiot.  -- Julian Macassey, in the Monastery
>
>

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Matt Palmer]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 09:42:07PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> > On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Morrow  
> > wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean  wrote:
> >> Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
> >> serve content up over v6.
> > 
> > nice!
> 
> Sorry to rain on your parade:
> 
> dhcp-7f01:~ jared% host -t  www.reddit.com.
> www.reddit.com has no  record

"should be able to serve" != "are serving".

- Matt

-- 
If you are a trauma surgeon and someone dies on your table, [...] everyone
would know you "did your best".  When someone does something truly stupid
with their system and it dies and you can't resuscitate it, you must be
incompetent or an idiot.  -- Julian Macassey, in the Monastery

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Stephen Frost  wrote:

>
> I'm still wondering when they're going to teach the Verizon FIOS people
> about the IPv6 goodness...


probably never as they are different operating companies with
different networks and network admins and monetary goals.

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Stephen Frost]

* Jared Mauch (ja...@puck.nether.net) wrote:
> For those wondering, nearly 62% of VZ Wireless traffic is IPv6.
> 
> http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/

I'm still wondering when they're going to teach the Verizon FIOS people
about the IPv6 goodness...

Thanks,

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Jared Mauch]

> On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> 
> that 'clearly' reddit could have cloudflare serve the endpoint from an
> ipv6 address, and thus populate a  in reddit.com's domain.
> 
> maybe it's not that simple.

Well, it usually really is but just like automation, ipv6 isn’t something that
many people have broad experiences with, and don’t cut+paste quite as well as
one would hope.  There are also *Way* too many people who memorize IP addresses
out there that have a harder time trying to store 128-bits in their memory vs
32-bits.

They also don’t want to lose track of where that IPv4 packet came from, so don’t
want a reverse proxy doing protocol tcp6 -> tcp4 mucking for them.

eg: ATT wireless/mobility could have their proxy connect() to an ipv6 address vs
ipv4 which my phone transits when on their network and the qname returns .
This was my favorite thing when running a transparent proxy on my home network,
it could turn all the traffic from hosts that might not naturally think of doing
modprobe ipv6 and turned them into IPv6 requests.

For those wondering, nearly 62% of VZ Wireless traffic is IPv6.

http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/

- Jared

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Finn Herzfeld]

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 9:42 PM, Jared Mauch  wrote:
>
>> On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Morrow  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean  wrote:
>>
>>> Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
>>> serve content up over v6.
>>>
>>
>> nice!
>
> Sorry to rain on your parade:
>
> dhcp-7f01:~ jared% host -t  www.reddit.com.
> www.reddit.com has no  record

I think will meant that because:
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;www.reddit.com.IN  A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
www.reddit.com. 300 IN  A   198.41.208.142
www.reddit.com. 300 IN  A   198.41.208.143
...lots more records...

and:
NetRange:   198.41.128.0 - 198.41.255.255
CIDR:   198.41.128.0/17
NetName:CLOUDFLARENET

that 'clearly' reddit could have cloudflare serve the endpoint from an
ipv6 address, and thus populate a  in reddit.com's domain.

maybe it's not that simple.

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Jared Mauch]

> On Apr 13, 2015, at 9:02 PM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean  wrote:
> 
>> Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
>> serve content up over v6.
>> 
> 
> nice!

Sorry to rain on your parade:

dhcp-7f01:~ jared% host -t  www.reddit.com.
www.reddit.com has no  record

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Will Dean  wrote:

> Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to
> serve content up over v6.
>

nice!

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Will Dean]

Reddit started using CloudFlare late last year, so they should able to 
serve content up over v6.


http://www.reddit.com/r/blog/comments/2ftv08/hell_its_about_time_reddit_now_supports_fullsite/ckcoww2

(http://www.redditblog.com/2014/09/hell-its-about-time-reddit-now-supports.html)

Christopher Morrow <mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>
April 13, 2015 at 5:22 PM

good news! it's only really 3 places that need update, since reddit is
(still?) an amazon aws customer.
Ca By <mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com>
April 13, 2015 at 5:20 PM
Good news (that i have not personally verified) !

Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T all launched the Samsung Galaxy S6 
with

IPv6 on by default.

Given the growth and importance of mobile to Internet, it is great to see
this progress from the mobile carriers.

Just for those keeping score, of the top 10 Alexa website for the USA,
these major websites prefer IPv6 or prefer NAT44 / NAT64 from the mobile
networks

1. Google -- prefers IPv6
2. Facebook -- prefers IPv6
3. Youtube -- prefers IPv6
4. Amazon -- prefers NAT -- :(
5. Yahoo! -- prefers IPv6
6. Wikipedia -- prefers IPv6
7. Twitter -- prefers NAT -- :(
8. Ebay -- prefers NAT -- :(
9. Linkedin -- prefers IPv6
10. Reddit -- prefers NAT -- :(

Dear Amazon, Twitter, Ebay, and Reddit -- please consider this your
personal invitation to introduce IPv6 to your service.

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Jim Popovitch]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Ca By  wrote:
> Good news (that i have not personally verified)  !
>
> Verizon

This is not new for VZW, they've been defaulting to IPv6 since my
first Galaxy Nexus (2011).

-Jim P.

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[James Downs]

> On Apr 13, 2015, at 14:20, Ca By  wrote:

> Dear Amazon, Twitter, Ebay, and Reddit -- please consider this your
> personal invitation to introduce IPv6 to your service.

Skype doesn’t appear to have any IPv6 infrastructure.

-j

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Owen DeLong]

Now if only T-Mobile would launch IPv6 for I-Devices!!

No, blaming Apple for not implementing your chosen transition mechanism is not 
a valid excuse.

Owen

> On Apr 13, 2015, at 2:20 PM, Ca By  wrote:
> 
> Good news (that i have not personally verified)  !
> 
> Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T all launched the Samsung Galaxy S6 with
> IPv6 on by default.
> 
> Given the growth and importance of mobile to Internet, it is great to see
> this progress from the mobile carriers.
> 
> Just for those keeping score, of the top 10 Alexa website for the USA,
> these major websites prefer IPv6 or prefer NAT44 / NAT64 from the mobile
> networks
> 
> 1.  Google -- prefers IPv6
> 2.  Facebook -- prefers  IPv6
> 3.  Youtube -- prefers  IPv6
> 4.  Amazon -- prefers NAT -- :(
> 5.  Yahoo!  -- prefers IPv6
> 6.  Wikipedia -- prefers IPv6
> 7.  Twitter -- prefers NAT -- :(
> 8.  Ebay -- prefers NAT -- :(
> 9.  Linkedin -- prefers IPv6
> 10.  Reddit -- prefers NAT -- :(
> 
> Dear Amazon, Twitter, Ebay, and Reddit -- please consider this your
> personal invitation to introduce IPv6 to your service.

Re: Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Christopher Morrow]

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Ca By  wrote:

> Dear Amazon, Twitter, Ebay, and Reddit -- please consider this your
> personal invitation to introduce IPv6 to your service.

good news! it's only really 3 places that need update, since reddit is
(still?) an amazon aws customer.

Galaxy S6 is IPv6 on all US National Mobile carriers

[Ca By]

Good news (that i have not personally verified)  !

Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T all launched the Samsung Galaxy S6 with
IPv6 on by default.

Given the growth and importance of mobile to Internet, it is great to see
this progress from the mobile carriers.

Just for those keeping score, of the top 10 Alexa website for the USA,
these major websites prefer IPv6 or prefer NAT44 / NAT64 from the mobile
networks

1.  Google -- prefers IPv6
2.  Facebook -- prefers  IPv6
3.  Youtube -- prefers  IPv6
4.  Amazon -- prefers NAT -- :(
5.  Yahoo!  -- prefers IPv6
6.  Wikipedia -- prefers IPv6
7.  Twitter -- prefers NAT -- :(
8.  Ebay -- prefers NAT -- :(
9.  Linkedin -- prefers IPv6
10.  Reddit -- prefers NAT -- :(

Dear Amazon, Twitter, Ebay, and Reddit -- please consider this your
personal invitation to introduce IPv6 to your service.

Re: Colo Internet Carriers in Atlanta Area

[Justin]

We have DCs in Suwanee and Atlanta. We use NTT and TWT at both.


On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Chris Lowe 
wrote:

> My organization is building a new data center in the Atlanta area.  I need
> to identify a couple of carriers stability is preferred over cost.
> Please let me know your preferred carriers as well as any carriers that
> you would stay away from.
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>

Colo Internet Carriers in Atlanta Area

[Chris Lowe]

My organization is building a new data center in the Atlanta area.  I need to 
identify a couple of carriers stability is preferred over cost.
Please let me know your preferred carriers as well as any carriers that you 
would stay away from.
Thanks! 



  

Re: Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

[Jason Hellenthal]

Lol

-- 
 Jason Hellenthal
 Inbox: jhellent...@dataix.net
 Voice: +1 (616) 953-0176
 JJH48-ARIN


On Jun 26, 2013, at 0:04, Lyndon Nerenberg  wrote:

> 
> On 2013-06-25, at 8:54 PM, Jason Hellenthal  wrote:
> 
>> Anyone got a pentagram packet and a weje board ?
> 
> Be careful, when you pull out the chalk to draw a pentaGRAM around your data 
> centre, that you don't – accidentally – draw a pentaGONE.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

On 2013-06-25, at 8:54 PM, Jason Hellenthal  wrote:

> Anyone got a pentagram packet and a weje board ?

Be careful, when you pull out the chalk to draw a pentaGRAM around your data 
centre, that you don't – accidentally – draw a pentaGONE.

Re: Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

[Jason Hellenthal]

Matter of fact the sky is full of lightening right now...

Anyone got a pentagram packet and a weje board ?

-- 
 Jason Hellenthal
 Inbox: jhellent...@dataix.net
 Voice: +1 (616) 953-0176
 JJH48-ARIN


On Jun 25, 2013, at 22:58, Sean Donelan  wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Nick Khamis wrote:
>> We are however trying to conform to RFC standards as pointed out by
>> Jev. You guys really need to look at this. It's easily implementable:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149
> 
> That remind me I need to finish my April 1 submission to the RFC editor
> for next year. This has been sitting in my todo pile for several
> years.
> 
> 
> RFC for publication on April 1, 
> 
> Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)
> 
> Abstract
> 
> The memo provides an overview and principles regarding Lawful Intercept(LI) 
> of networks using RFC 1149, "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams 
> on Avian Carriers."  National requirements are not addressed.
> 
> Overview and Rational
> 
> Avian Carriers have not provided law enforcement with advanced capabilities 
> to conduct covert surveillance of a subject's communications. When approached 
> by law enforcement, Avian Carriers take flight leaving behind difficult to 
> decode droppings of their activities. Identifying a specific packet stream 
> within a large flock of carriers is difficult. Due to the 3D ether space 
> available to carriers and their intrinsic collision avoidance systems, 
> although sometimes poorly implemented with windows, performing full content 
> communications interceptions can be hit or miss.
> 
> This memo does not address specific national requirements for eavesdropping. 
> Nevertheless, it may be important to public safety that carriers never use 
> any communication technology which could hinder law enforcement.s access to 
> the communications of a subject of a lawful order authorizing surveillance.
> 
> Avian Carriers have a long and distinguished history in communications. For 
> thousands of years they have been used to carry important messages to 
> military and business leaders.  However, they have also been used for 
> nefarious purposes ranging from possible financial market manipulation after 
> Napoleo's defeat at Waterloo to reports of enemy pigeons operating in England 
> during World War II.
> 
> 


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

[Jason Hellenthal]

Wow I can't believe this is still going around.

All you apparently need for this is a .gov spook possessed by evil entity X and 
all these avians will come crashing right into their federal widows like a DDoS.

Scary head spinning fun ;-)

-- 
 Jason Hellenthal
 Inbox: jhellent...@dataix.net
 Voice: +1 (616) 953-0176
 JJH48-ARIN


On Jun 25, 2013, at 22:58, Sean Donelan  wrote:

> 
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Nick Khamis wrote:
>> We are however trying to conform to RFC standards as pointed out by
>> Jev. You guys really need to look at this. It's easily implementable:
>> 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149
> 
> That remind me I need to finish my April 1 submission to the RFC editor
> for next year. This has been sitting in my todo pile for several
> years.
> 
> 
> RFC for publication on April 1, xxxx
> 
> Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)
> 
> Abstract
> 
> The memo provides an overview and principles regarding Lawful Intercept(LI) 
> of networks using RFC 1149, "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams 
> on Avian Carriers."  National requirements are not addressed.
> 
> Overview and Rational
> 
> Avian Carriers have not provided law enforcement with advanced capabilities 
> to conduct covert surveillance of a subject's communications. When approached 
> by law enforcement, Avian Carriers take flight leaving behind difficult to 
> decode droppings of their activities. Identifying a specific packet stream 
> within a large flock of carriers is difficult. Due to the 3D ether space 
> available to carriers and their intrinsic collision avoidance systems, 
> although sometimes poorly implemented with windows, performing full content 
> communications interceptions can be hit or miss.
> 
> This memo does not address specific national requirements for eavesdropping. 
> Nevertheless, it may be important to public safety that carriers never use 
> any communication technology which could hinder law enforcement.s access to 
> the communications of a subject of a lawful order authorizing surveillance.
> 
> Avian Carriers have a long and distinguished history in communications. For 
> thousands of years they have been used to carry important messages to 
> military and business leaders.  However, they have also been used for 
> nefarious purposes ranging from possible financial market manipulation after 
> Napoleo's defeat at Waterloo to reports of enemy pigeons operating in England 
> during World War II.
> 
> 


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

On 2013-06-25, at 8:24 PM, "Caruso, Anthony"  wrote:

> Yes, if you can identify the source of the grains, you know origin and flight 
> path prior to your lawn.  NSA approach's is getting the pigeon shit off of 
> everyone's lawn...

Then I am in favour of PRISM.  NSA: come vacuum all the pigeon shit off my 
boat!  Please!!!

Re: Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

On 2013-06-25, at 7:58 PM, Sean Donelan  wrote:

> The memo provides an overview and principles regarding Lawful Intercept(LI) 
> of networks using RFC 1149, "A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams 
> on Avian Carriers."  National requirements are not addressed.

Is scooping pigeon shit off my front lawn considered meta-data collection?

--lyndon

Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

[Sean Donelan]

On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, Nick Khamis wrote:

We are however trying to conform to RFC standards as pointed out by
Jev. You guys really need to look at this. It's easily implementable:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1149


That remind me I need to finish my April 1 submission to the RFC editor
for next year. This has been sitting in my todo pile for several
years.


RFC for publication on April 1, 

Assistance for Eavesdropping Legally on Avian Carriers (AELAC)

Abstract

The memo provides an overview and principles regarding Lawful 
Intercept(LI) of networks using RFC 1149, "A Standard for the Transmission 
of IP Datagrams on Avian Carriers."  National requirements are not 
addressed.


Overview and Rational

Avian Carriers have not provided law enforcement with advanced 
capabilities to conduct covert surveillance of a subject's communications. 
When approached by law enforcement, Avian Carriers take flight leaving 
behind difficult to decode droppings of their activities. Identifying a 
specific packet stream within a large flock of carriers is difficult. Due 
to the 3D ether space available to carriers and their intrinsic collision 
avoidance systems, although sometimes poorly implemented with windows, 
performing full content communications interceptions can be hit or miss.


This memo does not address specific national requirements for 
eavesdropping. Nevertheless, it may be important to public safety that 
carriers never use any communication technology which could hinder law 
enforcement.s access to the communications of a subject of a lawful order 
authorizing surveillance.


Avian Carriers have a long and distinguished history in communications. 
For thousands of years they have been used to carry important messages to 
military and business leaders.  However, they have also been used for 
nefarious purposes ranging from possible financial market manipulation 
after Napoleo's defeat at Waterloo to reports of enemy pigeons operating 
in England during World War II.

Re: leasing/managed offices in London, UK with 10gbe carriers POPs?

[Simon Lockhart]

On Sat May 25, 2013 at 05:34:34PM +0300, Andrius Kazimieras Kasparavi??ius 
wrote:
> I am sure there are already large office blocks with multiple
> 10gbe carrier POPs or am I? Maybe it is possible to save costs
> and time by choosing office with built-in good connectivity
> rather than wait months and multiple permits to dig the road
> etc..? 

Unlikely to find managed offices with multiple 10GE connections. In my 
experience, if they have 1GE shared between all tenants, then you're doing
well :)

That said, if you talk to the people with lots of fibre around London (Geo,
Zayo/Abovenet, Level3, etc), then you will probably find that you can pick
up a metro dark fibre hop back to one of the major datacentres for not too 
much money. If you shop around carefully, you may find that they have buildings
that they're either in, or immediately outside of, and digs won't be a major
issue.

Simon
-- 
Simon Lockhart |   * Server Co-location * ADSL * Domain Registration *
   Director|  * Domain & Web Hosting * Connectivity * Consultancy * 
  Bogons Ltd   | *  http://www.bogons.net/  *  Email: i...@bogons.net  * 

leasing/managed offices in London, UK with 10gbe carriers POPs?

[Andrius Kazimieras Kasparavičius]

Hi,

I was going through this database[1] looking for office
facilities/buildings with 10gbe carriers POPs already present, but only
datacentres are listed.

My requirement is low cost 10gbe connectivity to any London
datacentre where I could either get either low-cost few racks
hosting+partial transit.. Well multiple 1gig links might be ok
too.

I am sure there are already large office blocks with multiple
10gbe carrier POPs or am I? Maybe it is possible to save costs
and time by choosing office with built-in good connectivity
rather than wait months and multiple permits to dig the road
etc..? 

[1] https://www.peeringdb.com/private/facility_list.php

Thanks,