Re: netstat -s

[Carsten Bormann]

On Jul 17, 2019, at 20:54, Randy Bush  wrote:
> 
> do folk use `netstat -s` to help diagnose on routers/switches?

I have used netstat -s on hosts to look at error counters if a switch or router 
was suspect.
But that was a while ago (anyone remember when NFS corrupted all your files if 
one of your routers or the NIC had a bit error outside the protection provided 
by the Ethernet CRC?).

Today, I have the problem that netstat -s doesn’t seem to work right on macOS.
Many counter values are nonsensical, or simply zero.  
I was guessing this was due to NIC offload, but I haven’t analyzed further.  
If anyone knows more about recent macOS netstat -s, I’d love to hear more 
details.

(Oh, and if there are recent (< 2 years old) statistics of ECT penetration in 
real networks, I’d love to know, too.)

Grüße, Carsten

Re: Bgpmon alternatives?

[Töma Gavrichenkov]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:44 PM Hank Nussbacher  wrote:
> On 18/07/2019 08:44, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> > Qrator guy there.
> > Real-time notifications are there but are only available on a
> > commercial basis, because basically real time is expensive to compute.
> > The rest is free.
>
> What about once a day notification of BGP hijack?  Is that also
> expensive to compute?

That's in the works, but honestly we see no user demand for that.
Either it's real time, or it's not needed.  Therefore, it's not a high
priority.

> I have an account and cannot find any
> documentation of realtime notifications nor its cost.  All I found was
> this - https://qrator.net/en/pricing .   Can you send links to the BGP
> hijack notification service and its cost?

This is basically a noncommercial service, so there's really no price
list.  Depends on an IP prefix count, but around $500/mo./ASN would be
about enough for us to cover our expenses and to afford a couple beers
at the end of the month.

--
Töma

Re: 44/8

[Owen DeLong]

I think there is a key misconception here. 

The original IANA delegation to “Amateur Radio Digital Communication” was not 
to any organization with such a name, but was a statement of the purpose of the 
delegation. An individual who initiated the process took on the administration 
of the block in trust on behalf of the global amateur radio community. At the 
time of this allocation, there was only one global IP address registry and no 
such thing as an RIR. 

The subsequent formation of an organization by that name and transfer of 
administrative control into that organization went largely without objection by 
the amateur radio community because:

1. Most of us probably didn’t even know it happened. 

2. Those that did likely expected this organization to continue as previous 
administrators in trust on behalf of the community. 

From my perspective, the delegation of a large block to CAIDA for an unrelated 
purpose now looks like an initial test of “can we get away with this”. 

I honestly don’t know who is behind ARDC (the organization), but some of the 
names bandied about are people I know and believe to be deserving of the 
benefit of the doubt. As such, I’m still trying to learn more before I go full 
tilt hostile on this, but it seems to me that something is definitely rotten in 
the state here. 

Once I have a few more facts (or believe I’m unlikely to be able to get them), 
I’ll be filing a fraud report with ARIN. 

I encourage others with any relevant information or knowledge of the history of 
44/8 to do the same. 

Owen


> On Jul 19, 2019, at 08:34, Matt Harris  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM John Curran  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Matt - 
>> 
>> Chris is correct.   Those who received IPv4 address blocks by InterNIC (or 
>> its predecessors) prior to the inception of ARIN on 22 December 1997 are 
>> legacy resource holders, and continue to receive those same registry 
>> services for those blocks (Whois, reverse DNS, ability to update) without 
>> any need for an agreement with ARIN.  This has been provided without any fee 
>> to the original registrants (or their legal successors) as recognition of 
>> their contributions to the early Internet.
> 
> Hey John, I understand that, however my understanding is that the 
> establishment of an ARIN RSA is required prior to the transfer of a block or 
> a portion or a block via ARIN (such as the transfer of 44.192/10). Thus, this 
> would mean that the 44/8 block is now governed by an (well, more than one, 
> now that it's split) ARIN RSA (or LRSA) whereas it was not before.  Is that 
> not correct?  
> 
> Thanks! 
> 

Re: 44/8

[William Herrin]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 6:02 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> I honestly don’t know who is behind ARDC (the organization), but some of
> the names bandied about are people I know and believe to be deserving of
> the benefit of the doubt. As such, I’m still trying to learn more before I
> go full tilt hostile on this, but it seems to me that something is
> definitely rotten in the state here.
>

Personally I've never heard of ARDC. The name I hear is ARRL, the American
Radio Relay League. The name I'll hear when I go to the Hamfest (Ham Radio
swap meet) in Chehalis tomorrow morning is ARRL. It's the same name I heard
at the big annual meet in Dayton and the smaller hamfests I went to back in
Virginia and Maryland. If a /8 was allocated for amateur radio and someone
was needed to formally administer it, I'm not clear why it wouldn't happen
under the umbrella of ARRL.

Their side of the story is at https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/

The nutshell is, "It was our unanimous decision to place one quarter of the
AMPRNet address space on the market and to prudently invest the proceeds of
that sale in what we hope will be a perpetual endowment."

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William Herrin
b...@herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/

Re: Multi-day GNSS Galileo outage -- Civilization survives

[George Herbert]

Worthwhile noting however that they’re not reliably pushing notifications to 
people on their notifications list.

Worthwhile checking fundamentals you do depend on with your own low level 
monitoring.

-George

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 18, 2019, at 10:30 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
>> 
>> So much for the disaster scenarioes about a global clamity, planes falling 
>> out the sky, the end of civil society because a global navigation satellite 
>> system fails.  The European Galileo GNSS was down for days, and life went on.
> 
> It wasn't even in full production, and I am not aware of much equipment that 
> solely relies on Galileo.
> 
> A lot of devices today can use multiple GNSS and this is great, as this 
> incident shows that one of them can go offline. Relying on only one of them 
> is risky.
> 
> This outage and its lack of ramifications doesn't imply that if GPS went 
> offline there woulnd't be consequences. Galileo is just a few years old, and 
> wasn't even in production. If GPS would go offline, you'd see a lot different 
> fallout. Lots of things rely on GPS solely.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 18 Jul 2019, at 11:40 PM, Majdi S. Abbas 
mailto:m...@latt.net>> wrote:
...
There are some potential legal title questions around this,
and if ARIN is facilitating transactions with questionable history,
that is something the Internet community might be concerned about.

Majdi -

If you believe that fraud has occurred with respect to an update of the ARIN 
registry, then please report it here - 
https://www.arin.net/reference/tools/fraud_report/

Be specific in your report regarding what change you believe was in error and 
why – we investigate all such reports and will correct any changes made in 
error.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: netstat -s

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 05:54:49PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> do folk use `netstat -s` to help diagnose on routers/switches?

I (mostly) use it on firewalls, but yes, it's something I turn
to fairly often (along with other incantations of netstat, plus
lsof and other tools).

---rsk

Re: 44/8

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:13:24PM -0400,
 Majdi S. Abbas  wrote 
 a message of 26 lines which said:

>   Amusingly, they still seem to be advertising the covering
> aggregate,

Are you sure? RIPE stat shows it stopped one month ago

Same thing on other looking glasses.

Re: SHAKEN/STIR Robocall Summit - July 11 2019 at FCC

[John Curran]

On 11 Jul 2019, at 3:23 PM, Michael Thomas  wrote:
> 
> I used to think that email spam was a law enforcement problem too, but it's 
> become very clear that law enforcement has little to no interest in solving 
> geeks' problems.

Law enforcement deals with legal entities (persons, organizations) and 
jurisdictions (i.e. physical locations) in determining both applicable law and 
appropriate enforcement authority. 

The Internet does not provide reliable attribution of entity or locale, thus 
precluding any efficient use of our existing law enforcement framework – it is 
no surprise that our Internet design choices have such consequences. 

c'est la vie sur Internet,
/John

Re: 44/8

[Adam Korab]

On 07/18/2019 at 23:08, Job Snijders wrote:
> A potential upside is that hamnet operators maybe have access to some RPKI
> services now!

OK, I'll bitehow do you mean?

--Adam

Re: Bgpmon alternatives?

[Konstantinos Koutalis]

I've been testing out thousandeyes for the past 1,5-2 month(s) and I'm very
happy with it.
Depending on what you want to do with it, it can be expensive but for my
current employer it's worth the investment due to the extra visibility it
provides.

-- Kostas (Konstantinos) Koutalis

Sent from my OnePlus 6

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019, 03:17 TJ Trout  wrote:

> Anyone know of a hosted alternative to bgpmon? I'm testing Qrator but I
> can't determine if it will notify in real-time of a prefix hijack?
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 9:23 AM Matt Corallo  wrote:
>
>> There's also https://github.com/NLNOG/bgpalerter (which I believe
>> they're trying to turn into a website frontend based on RIS, but I run it
>> with patches for as_path regexes and it works pretty well).
>>
>> On Jun 16, 2019, at 07:40, Michael Hallgren  wrote:
>>
>> RIS Live API is a choice for this.
>>
>> mh
>> Le 16 juin 2019, à 13:21, Brian Kantor  a écrit:
>>>
>>> That would be wonderful.  Thank you!
>>>  - Brian
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 03:59:29AM -0700, Mike Leber wrote:
>>>
  I'm sure if it doesn't do exactly that already, we can add it shortly.

  Some of planned functionality for hijack detection is already live.
  That's one of the main reasons for creating this service.

  Mike.

  On 6/16/19 2:48 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:

>  On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 02:25:40AM -0700, Mike Leber wrote:
>
>>  As a beta service you can try out rt-bgp.he.net.  This is a real time
>>  bgp monitoring service we are developing.
>>
>  It's interesting, but I don't see any way to do what I primarily
>  use the existing BGPMon for: watch for hijacks.
>
>  That is, set up one or more prefixes to be continuously monitored
>  and have the monitor send me an email alert when that prefix or a
>  subnet of it begins to be announced by someone new.
>
>  For example, if I have told it to monitor 44.0.0.0/8 and someone
>  somewhere begins announcing it, or perhaps 44.1.0.0/16, I'd very
>  much like to know about that, along with details of who and where.
>
>  Then if that announcement is authorized, I can tell the monitoring
>  service that this new entry is NOT a hijack, and it won't bug me
>  about it again.
>
>  Can it be persuaded to do this?
>   - Brian
>

Re: 44/8

[Michael Hayler]

On 19/07/18 11:02, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> So.. this is/was a legacy allocation, right?  with some 'not great'
> contact/etc info...
> the ARIN folk could have said: "Well sure! if the current folk who
> control access can positively show they do AND they don't mind parting
> with a /10... ok?"
> 
> This ends up with a /10 of a /8 with better registration information
> and MAYBE better records keeping over time, right?
> that seems like a win to the ARIN community?

I see at least 2 /16 out of the mentioned /10 that are well documented in the 
HamnetDB.

As far as I know, there is an ongoing renumbering "project" to get Services out 
of 44.224/16 and 44.225/16 here in DL, but
from my perspective that is not finished yet. So that promisses some fun ...

also, I do not see the Covering /8 Route anymore at our Internet Edge Routers.


-- 

Best Regards
Michael Hayler (DC1SHM)

Re: 44/8

[Matt Harris]

On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:45 PM William Waites  wrote:

>
> Then we can decide, openly and transparently, if, for example, some piece
> of
> 44/8 should be returned to IANA for allocation to the RIRs.
>

This sounds like the more correct answer with regard to what should be done
with space that isn't and is probably never going to be used that is
allocated to a community organization.

After reading the analogy above regarding spectrum space, I shudder to
think what the community response would be if the FCC were to tacitly allow
the ARRL to receive several million (or billion in this case) dollars from,
say, Verizon in exchange for some part of our exclusive amateur bands.
Indeed the ARRL has a fund (the "Spectrum Defense Fund") with the purpose
of employing lawyers and public policy folks to help prevent our community
resources from shrinking out from under us.

73's - K1RIN

Re: 44/8

[Brielle]

> On Jul 19, 2019, at 6:03 AM, John Curran  wrote:
> Be specific in your report regarding what change you believe was in error and 
> why – we investigate all such reports and will correct any changes made in 
> error. 

Actually, I’d love to hear an official statement from ARIN about the state of 
this transfer - it’s legitimacy, ARINs involvement with it, who approved of the 
transfer (if any) etc.

Was ARIN not involved?  If not, why not?  44/8 isn’t like a normal assignment.  
It’s a legacy assignment likely with stipulations from when it was originally 
assigned to the HAM group(s).

From the outside, this smells fishy and reeks of backroom deals.

I remember when ARIN was handing out /20s to shell company spam spewers on a 
daily basis, with fraudulent Whois records and companies that were formed the 
day before just to get clean IP space to spew from.

The drawn out bullshit I had to deal with just to legitimately transfer a 
legacy /24 from an old consulting company to my new one, where you (ARIN) 
demanded we hand over confidential business documents including asset lists, 
company financials...

So yeah, some of us kinda view this with a huge level of awe and disgust.  I’m 
not a HAM license holder, but that doesn’t mean that situations like this don’t 
make me worry.

Re: 44/8

[Seth Mattinen]

On 7/19/19 6:33 AM, Matt Harris wrote:


After reading the analogy above regarding spectrum space, I shudder to 
think what the community response would be if the FCC were to tacitly 
allow the ARRL to receive several million (or billion in this case) 
dollars from, say, Verizon in exchange for some part of our exclusive 
amateur bands. Indeed the ARRL has a fund (the "Spectrum Defense Fund") 
with the purpose of employing lawyers and public policy folks to help 
prevent our community resources from shrinking out from under us.



But clearly the cell carriers need all the spectrum, for only they know 
what's best for us.

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 19 Jul 2019, at 10:37 AM, Brielle mailto:br...@2mbit.com>> 
wrote:

On Jul 19, 2019, at 6:03 AM, John Curran 
mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:
Be specific in your report regarding what change you believe was in error and 
why – we investigate all such reports and will correct any changes made in 
error.

Actually, I’d love to hear an official statement from ARIN about the state of 
this transfer - it’s legitimacy, ARINs involvement with it, who approved of the 
transfer (if any) etc.

Was ARIN not involved?  If not, why not?  44/8 isn’t like a normal assignment.  
It’s a legacy assignment likely with stipulations from when it was originally 
assigned to the HAM group(s).

As stated before, ARIN did receive and process a request from the 44/8 
registrant to transfer a portion of the block to another party.

For all transfer requests, we review and confirm:

- That the source of the transfer is the legal entity which holds the rights to 
the address block in the registry
- That the transfer is authorized by an registered officer of that legal entity
- That the recipient org has approval per policy to receive an address block of 
the appropriate size

You may have other questions that are better referred to the registrant 
(Amateur Radio Digital Communications); e.g. regarding why the request was made 
–
I will note that the contact information for the block is current in the Whois 
database, and available at 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Matt Harris]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:38 AM Brielle  wrote:

>
> > On Jul 19, 2019, at 6:03 AM, John Curran  wrote:
> > Be specific in your report regarding what change you believe was in
> error and why – we investigate all such reports and will correct any
> changes made in error.
>
> Actually, I’d love to hear an official statement from ARIN about the state
> of this transfer - it’s legitimacy, ARINs involvement with it, who approved
> of the transfer (if any) etc.
>

That would be an interesting read.


> Was ARIN not involved?  If not, why not?  44/8 isn’t like a normal
> assignment.  It’s a legacy assignment likely with stipulations from when it
> was originally assigned to the HAM group(s).
>

So my understanding based on what Job has said in this thread, without
looking myself, is that it seems as though 44/8 was brought under an ARIN
RSA either as part of this deal or as a pre-requisite to this deal
happening. Hence it's no longer "legacy" space that isn't covered by an RIR
RSA but is instead now covered by an ARIN RSA.

This is interesting because amateur radio is a global (and beyond - the
folks on the ISS participate!) pursuit, one which is officially sanctioned
by almost every national government in the world, and which has
international involvement overseen by the ITU (
https://life.itu.int/radioclub/ars.htm).

A /8 is an exceptionally large IPv4 block, and governance thereof, when
held in trust for the benefit of a greater community, should always be
transparent. At the very least, we must admit that there was a tremendous
failure of transparency here.

- Matt (K1RIN)

Re: Multi-day GNSS Galileo outage -- Civilization survives

[Mel Beckman]

I suspect the Vatican was involved :)

 -mel 

> On Jul 19, 2019, at 12:20 AM, George Herbert  wrote:
> 
> Worthwhile noting however that they’re not reliably pushing notifications to 
> people on their notifications list.
> 
> Worthwhile checking fundamentals you do depend on with your own low level 
> monitoring.
> 
> -George
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2019, at 10:30 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
>>> 
>>> So much for the disaster scenarioes about a global clamity, planes falling 
>>> out the sky, the end of civil society because a global navigation satellite 
>>> system fails.  The European Galileo GNSS was down for days, and life went 
>>> on.
>> 
>> It wasn't even in full production, and I am not aware of much equipment that 
>> solely relies on Galileo.
>> 
>> A lot of devices today can use multiple GNSS and this is great, as this 
>> incident shows that one of them can go offline. Relying on only one of them 
>> is risky.
>> 
>> This outage and its lack of ramifications doesn't imply that if GPS went 
>> offline there woulnd't be consequences. Galileo is just a few years old, and 
>> wasn't even in production. If GPS would go offline, you'd see a lot 
>> different fallout. Lots of things rely on GPS solely.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: 44.192.0.0/10 sale

[Brian Kantor]

Because questions have arisen here that are well answered by
a short series of postings from the 44net mailing list, at the
request of the author [Phil Karn] and others, I am reposting
them here.
- Brian


From: Phil Karn 
Subject: [44net] 44.192.0.0/10 sale

Hello all,

I've not been active here, but some of you may remember me as the guy
who first got TCP/IP going on amateur packet radio way back in 1986. At
one time, my name was registered as the owner of the block. This makes
me one of a VERY small group of people with any arguable personal
property interest in network 44. And yes, 25% of this space, which is
VERY unlikely to ever be used by hams, has been sold to Amazon.

Rather than try to personally profit from this, we all readily agreed to
place the *entire* proceeds of this sale into a 501(c)(3) charity
chartered to support amateur digital radio and related developments. No
one is buying a yacht or a mansion. As a tax-exempt charity, our tax
returns and related documents will be publicly available so you can see
what is being done. Like the rest of the amateur community, all of you
will have the opportunity to apply for grants and do good things for
amateur radio with them.

73, Phil

_


On 7/18/19 21:25, Gavin Rogers wrote:
> On 19/07/2019 12:19 pm, Phil Karn wrote:
>> Like the rest of the amateur community, all of you
>> will have the opportunity to apply for grants and do good things for
>> amateur radio with them.
> I don't know much about US-registered charities and tax law, but will
> this include amateurs and clubs located outside of the US? 

Sure. We'd like to cast the net as widely as possible for worthy grant
recipients. Doesn't matter where they are in the world, as long as the
purpose is consistent with our charter, which is to benefit amateur
digital radio and related development. That's a worldwide activity.

I suppose US legal restrictions on dealing with certain "pariah"
countries might come into play (e.g., North Korea) but that's a very
short list and there isn't much ham radio in them anyway.

We're already thinking about things like:

Educational grants to students who are hams;

Existing amateur radio 501(c)(3) organizations;

Development of *freely available* technology: hardware, software,
protocols, etc

Field trials, demonstrations, pilot projects, educational outreach, etc;

This list is NOT exhaustive by any means, and in fact we'll be looking
for good ideas from anyone who has them. We want to be as transparent
about this as possible.

Again, though we might have been able to establish a *personal* property
claim over network 44, we all quickly decided to not open that can of
worms and instead sign everything over to the ARDC. Face it, given who
we are we'd probably just spend the money on ham radio development
ourselves. This is a much better way to do it.

73, Phil

_

On 7/18/19 21:38, David Ranch wrote:
>
> Wow!  This is rather big news but has also been VERY opaque to the
> AMPR community.  I'm also surprised that the sale has already occurred
> and not auctioned off to say the highest bidder?  Since ARDC is a
> corporation, when will we learn about the sale price and how this
> money will be *really* spent?
>
> The bottom of https://www.ampr.org/amprnet/ does cover a little of
> this but it's all too vague for my tastes. 


I didn't like the secrecy either, but it was necessary given the nature
of the process. We are precluded by the terms of the sale from giving
precise figures at this time, but suffice it to say that we (Brian,
actually) worked *very* hard to get the best possible price. I am fully
satisfied that he did. Everyone with any arguable legal property
interest in 44/8 was fully informed and consented to give up that
interest and have it benefit ham radio instead. I didn't even think
twice about it.

Remember, this is an IRS 501(c)(3) charity, which means there are strict
rules on transparency, how money can be spent and how it must be
accounted for. Tax returns and other documents are public information.

One of the most important rules for a non-profit, which the IRS takes
pretty seriously, is a prohibition on "self dealing". This is how Donald
Trump's personal charity got shut down.

73, Phil

_

On 7/18/19 22:08, David Ranch wrote:
>
>> I have so many words for the conspiracy theorists and negative
>> naysayers,
>> but Ill hold that back and not contribute to the shitstorm.
>
> My main concern is what will stop the ARDC board from selling the next
> 25% or 50% of 44 space?

The fact that, unlike 44.192.0.0/10, it's being used by hams?

I personally approved the sale on two conditions:

1) The block wasn't being used by hams and had no viable prospect of
being used by hams.

[Editor's note: minor correction: 44.224.0.0/15 *was* in use as an
unrouted internal network by a German ham radio society; they have
been given a 

Re: 44/8

[Tom Beecher]

>
> Was ARIN not involved?  If not, why not?  44/8 isn’t like a normal
> assignment.  It’s a legacy assignment likely with stipulations from when it
> was originally assigned to the HAM group(s).
>

My recollection from some years ago was that the IANA assignments done
before the RIR system were not done with legally binding agreements as they
are today.

In the absence of proof that there were IANA legal restrictions on 44/8,
that should likely not be assumed.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:40 AM Brielle  wrote:

>
> > On Jul 19, 2019, at 6:03 AM, John Curran  wrote:
> > Be specific in your report regarding what change you believe was in
> error and why – we investigate all such reports and will correct any
> changes made in error.
>
> Actually, I’d love to hear an official statement from ARIN about the state
> of this transfer - it’s legitimacy, ARINs involvement with it, who approved
> of the transfer (if any) etc.
>
> Was ARIN not involved?  If not, why not?  44/8 isn’t like a normal
> assignment.  It’s a legacy assignment likely with stipulations from when it
> was originally assigned to the HAM group(s).
>
> From the outside, this smells fishy and reeks of backroom deals.
>
> I remember when ARIN was handing out /20s to shell company spam spewers on
> a daily basis, with fraudulent Whois records and companies that were formed
> the day before just to get clean IP space to spew from.
>
> The drawn out bullshit I had to deal with just to legitimately transfer a
> legacy /24 from an old consulting company to my new one, where you (ARIN)
> demanded we hand over confidential business documents including asset
> lists, company financials...
>
> So yeah, some of us kinda view this with a huge level of awe and disgust.
> I’m not a HAM license holder, but that doesn’t mean that situations like
> this don’t make me worry.
>

Re: 44/8

[Matt Harris]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 9:54 AM John Curran  wrote:

>
> As stated before, ARIN did receive and process a request from the 44/8
> registrant to transfer a portion of the block to another party.
>
> For all transfer requests, we review and confirm:
>
> - That the source of the transfer is the legal entity which holds the
> rights to the address block in the registry
> - That the transfer is authorized by an registered officer of that legal
> entity
> - That the recipient org has approval per policy to receive an address
> block of the appropriate size
>
> You may have other questions that are better referred to the registrant
> (Amateur Radio Digital Communications); e.g. regarding why the request was
> made –
> I will note that the contact information for the block is current in the
> Whois database, and available at <
> https://search.arin.net/rdap/?query=44.0.0.0>
>

Hey John,
I think perhaps the relevant questions for ARIN here are:

1> How did the organization currently holding the rights to the 44/8 block
come to hold those rights, and how did ARIN verify that it held those
rights?
2> Did ARIN ensure that the establishment of an ARIN RSA for the 44/8 block
did not violate any prior agreements related to the stewardship of the 44/8
block? If so, how was this done?
3> What were the terms under which the rights to the 44/8 block was held by
said organization prior to the establishment of an ARIN RSA?
4> When was an ARIN RSA established which covered the 44/8 block?

The bigger question here is how we got to the point where an organization
with virtually no transparency came to hold the legal rights to a community
asset without any sort of oversight or contractual obligations with regard
to management of said resource. Ultimately that means figuring out if the
legacy agreements by which 44/8 was held by the organization did indeed
include encumberences on the sale or transfer of the space (which would
make sense, if I am giving stewardship of a large community asset to an
organization, I'm going to include stipulations about what they can't do
with it, and selling it to a for-profit entity for cash is going to be #1
on that list.)

Thanks,
Matt

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:06 AM, Matt Harris  wrote:
> 
> Hey John,
> I think perhaps the relevant questions for ARIN here are:
> ...

Matt - 

ARIN doesn’t publicly discuss details of any specific registration requests; 
you would need to refer any of those questions to the registrant. 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Christopher Morrow]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:58 AM Matt Harris  wrote:

>Hence it's no longer "legacy" space that isn't covered by an RIR RSA but is 
>instead now covered by an ARIN RSA.
>

'RIR RSA" is not a thing.
Legacy blocks are basically drifting in the winds... there's no
requirement on the holders to do anything really..
If they choose to they could have (in the ARIN region) signed a LRSA,
but that's even been removed, in favor
of the now much more watered down RSA.

Re: 44/8

[Marco Paesani]

Hi Guys
Today there are over 200 networks announced on big internet on 44/8.
It's normal ?

Ciao,


Il giorno ven 19 lug 2019 alle ore 17:17 John Curran  ha
scritto:

> On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:06 AM, Matt Harris  wrote:
> >
> > Hey John,
> > I think perhaps the relevant questions for ARIN here are:
> > ...
>
> Matt -
>
> ARIN doesn’t publicly discuss details of any specific registration
> requests; you would need to refer any of those questions to the registrant.
>
> Thanks,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>

-- 

Marco Paesani


Skype: mpaesani
Mobile: +39 348 6019349
Success depends on the right choice !
Email: ma...@paesani.it

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:12 AM, Christopher Morrow  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:58 AM Matt Harris  wrote:
> 
>> Hence it's no longer "legacy" space that isn't covered by an RIR RSA but is 
>> instead now covered by an ARIN RSA.
> 
> 'RIR RSA" is not a thing.
> Legacy blocks are basically drifting in the winds... there's no
> requirement on the holders to do anything really..
> If they choose to they could have (in the ARIN region) signed a LRSA,
> but that's even been removed, in favor
> of the now much more watered down RSA.

Matt - 

Chris is correct.   Those who received IPv4 address blocks by InterNIC (or its 
predecessors) prior to the inception of ARIN on 22 December 1997 are legacy 
resource holders, and continue to receive those same registry services for 
those blocks (Whois, reverse DNS, ability to update) without any need for an 
agreement with ARIN.  This has been provided without any fee to the original 
registrants (or their legal successors) as recognition of their contributions 
to the early Internet.

Some legacy resource holders opt to sign a “legacy registration services 
agreement” by which ARIN provides specific and well-defined legal rights to the 
registrant – this is the same RSA as other ARIN customers, but ARIN caps the 
total annual maintenance fees that are incurred by legacy resource holders.  An 
RSA is also required to receive services that the community has funded the 
developed since ARIN’s inception, such as resource certification services. 

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: netstat -s

[J. Hellenthal via NANOG]

Personaly I think that circumstance weighs the benifits of the utilities
used to diagnose a problem. Given any instance, you use the utilities
available to you to see that problem through to completion of a proper
result.

The question in hand is very broad but particular to an instance that is
trying to be solved.

1. Dev is trying to weight whether its worth while to consider
diagnosing a problem that considers the use of netstat with an option
that in its legacy use was quite considerable debug output.

2. Regardless of the system the old method is still supported but is the
output still supported and enough to gain evidential knowledge of the
current facts.

3. Will the rseult gathhered by this and the effort be well worth
considering the target be gainful toward the final intended result.


With that said, Randy I personally think that you already have the
annswer that you were looking for given the minimal input ... maybe 3-4
actual interactions of the utility but given that, I think I would sum
it up as people don't know the actual usefulness of netstat(1) these
days and why it was originaly put out there and what they could gain by
instances where they may be required to use it to set themselves on a path
to correct the pronlem they are currently facing.



On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 08:31:38AM -0400, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 05:54:49PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> > do folk use `netstat -s` to help diagnose on routers/switches?
> 
> I (mostly) use it on firewalls, but yes, it's something I turn
> to fairly often (along with other incantations of netstat, plus
> lsof and other tools).
> 
> ---rsk

-- 
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: 44/8

[Tom Beecher]

>
> If they choose to they could have (in the ARIN region) signed a LRSA,
> but that's even been removed, in favor
> of the now much more watered down RSA.
>

I believe ARCD would have been required to sign an LRSA (if they had not
previously) in order to transfer the block to Amazon.

Also, a question for perhaps John here.

Organization:   Amazon Technologies Inc. (AT-88-Z)
>

https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/agreements/rsa_faq/#legacy-resource-holder-faq

How do I know if my legacy number resources are already covered under an
> LRSA or not?

Typically, any legacy number resources that are covered under an LRSA will
> be associated with an Organization ID ending in a “-Z”. If you have any
> questions regarding your legacy resources, please contact ARIN’s
> Registration Services Department. You may contact the Registration Services
> Help Desk at +1.703.227.0660 or by submitting an Ask ARIN
> 
>  ticket via your ARIN Online account.


Unless there was a clerical error somewhere, is this telling us that
44.192.0.0/10 remains classified as a legacy resource? I didn't think that
was possible given that Amazon was not the original assignee.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:19 AM Christopher Morrow 
wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:58 AM Matt Harris  wrote:
>
> >Hence it's no longer "legacy" space that isn't covered by an RIR RSA but
> is instead now covered by an ARIN RSA.
> >
>
> 'RIR RSA" is not a thing.
> Legacy blocks are basically drifting in the winds... there's no
> requirement on the holders to do anything really..
> If they choose to they could have (in the ARIN region) signed a LRSA,
> but that's even been removed, in favor
> of the now much more watered down RSA.
>

Re: 44/8

[Matt Harris]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM John Curran  wrote:

>
> Matt -
>
> Chris is correct.   Those who received IPv4 address blocks by InterNIC (or
> its predecessors) prior to the inception of ARIN on 22 December 1997 are
> legacy resource holders, and continue to receive those same registry
> services for those blocks (Whois, reverse DNS, ability to update) without
> any need for an agreement with ARIN.  This has been provided without any
> fee to the original registrants (or their legal successors) as recognition
> of their contributions to the early Internet.
>

Hey John, I understand that, however my understanding is that the
establishment of an ARIN RSA is required prior to the transfer of a block
or a portion or a block via ARIN (such as the transfer of 44.192/10). Thus,
this would mean that the 44/8 block is now governed by an (well, more than
one, now that it's split) ARIN RSA (or LRSA) whereas it was not before.  Is
that not correct?

Thanks!

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:34 AM, Matt Harris 
mailto:m...@netfire.net>> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:29 AM John Curran 
mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:

Matt -

Chris is correct.   Those who received IPv4 address blocks by InterNIC (or its 
predecessors) prior to the inception of ARIN on 22 December 1997 are legacy 
resource holders, and continue to receive those same registry services for 
those blocks (Whois, reverse DNS, ability to update) without any need for an 
agreement with ARIN.  This has been provided without any fee to the original 
registrants (or their legal successors) as recognition of their contributions 
to the early Internet.

Hey John, I understand that, however my understanding is that the establishment 
of an ARIN RSA is required prior to the transfer of a block or a portion or a 
block via ARIN (such as the transfer of 44.192/10). Thus, this would mean that 
the 44/8 block is now governed by an (well, more than one, now that it's split) 
ARIN RSA (or LRSA) whereas it was not before.  Is that not correct?

Matt -

ARIN doesn’t discuss details of specific registrations publicly; you need to 
refer any such questions to the registrant.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:33 AM, Tom Beecher 
mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:

If they choose to they could have (in the ARIN region) signed a LRSA,
but that's even been removed, in favor
of the now much more watered down RSA.

I believe ARCD would have been required to sign an LRSA (if they had not 
previously) in order to transfer the block to Amazon.

Also, a question for perhaps John here.

Organization:   Amazon Technologies Inc. (AT-88-Z)

https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/agreements/rsa_faq/#legacy-resource-holder-faq

How do I know if my legacy number resources are already covered under an LRSA 
or not?
Typically, any legacy number resources that are covered under an LRSA will be 
associated with an Organization ID ending in a “-Z”. If you have any questions 
regarding your legacy resources, please contact ARIN’s Registration Services 
Department. You may contact the Registration Services Help Desk at 
+1.703.227.0660 or by submitting an Ask 
ARIN 
ticket via your ARIN Online account.

Unless there was a clerical error somewhere, is this telling us that 
44.192.0.0/10 remains classified as a legacy resource? I 
didn't think that was possible given that Amazon was not the original assignee.

Tom -

ARIN doesn’t discuss details of specific registrations publicly; you need to 
refer any such questions to the registrant.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Tom Beecher]

Understood on specifics. But can you comment on the general ARIN policy on
the topic? My understanding was that once a legacy resource was transferred
, it was permanently removed as a legacy resource.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:42 AM John Curran  wrote:

> On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:33 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
>
>
> If they choose to they could have (in the ARIN region) signed a LRSA,
>> but that's even been removed, in favor
>> of the now much more watered down RSA.
>>
>
> I believe ARCD would have been required to sign an LRSA (if they had not
> previously) in order to transfer the block to Amazon.
>
> Also, a question for perhaps John here.
>
> Organization:   Amazon Technologies Inc. (AT-88-Z)
>>
>
>
> https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/agreements/rsa_faq/#legacy-resource-holder-faq
>
> How do I know if my legacy number resources are already covered under an
>> LRSA or not?
>
> Typically, any legacy number resources that are covered under an LRSA will
>> be associated with an Organization ID ending in a “-Z”. If you have any
>> questions regarding your legacy resources, please contact ARIN’s
>> Registration Services Department. You may contact the Registration Services
>> Help Desk at +1.703.227.0660 or by submitting an Ask ARIN
>> 
>>  ticket via your ARIN Online account.
>
>
> Unless there was a clerical error somewhere, is this telling us that
> 44.192.0.0/10 remains classified as a legacy resource? I didn't think
> that was possible given that Amazon was not the original assignee.
>
>
> Tom -
>
> ARIN doesn’t discuss details of specific registrations publicly; you need
> to refer any such questions to the registrant.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>

Re: 44/8

[Matt Harris]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:41 AM John Curran  wrote:

> On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:34 AM, Matt Harris  wrote:
>
> Hey John, I understand that, however my understanding is that the
> establishment of an ARIN RSA is required prior to the transfer of a block
> or a portion or a block via ARIN (such as the transfer of 44.192/10). Thus,
> this would mean that the 44/8 block is now governed by an (well, more than
> one, now that it's split) ARIN RSA (or LRSA) whereas it was not before.  Is
> that not correct?
>
>
> Matt -
>
> ARIN doesn’t discuss details of specific registrations publicly; you need
> to refer any such questions to the registrant.
>

Without discussing any specific registration whatsoever, my understanding
is that what I stated is the case as a matter of policy. Was just looking
for confirmation that my reading of ARIN policy docs was not incorrect. :)

Thanks!

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:46 AM, Tom Beecher 
mailto:beec...@beecher.cc>> wrote:

Understood on specifics. But can you comment on the general ARIN policy on the 
topic? My understanding was that once a legacy resource was transferred , it 
was permanently removed as a legacy resource.

As noted earlier, general ARIN policy is as follows -

Those who received IPv4 address blocks by InterNIC (or its predecessors) prior 
to the inception of ARIN on 22 December 1997 are legacy resource holders, and 
continue to receive those same registry services for those blocks (Whois, 
reverse DNS, ability to update) without any need for an agreement with ARIN.  
This has been provided without any fee to the original registrants (or their 
legal successors) as recognition of their contributions to the early Internet.

Some legacy resource holders opt to sign a “legacy registration services 
agreement” by which ARIN provides specific and well-defined legal rights to the 
registrant – this is the same RSA as other ARIN customers, but ARIN caps the 
total annual maintenance fees that are incurred by legacy resource holders.  An 
RSA is also required to receive services that the community has funded the 
developed since ARIN’s inception, such as resource certification services.


Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44/8

[Tom Beecher]

Good deal. Thanks John, have a great weekend!

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 11:52 AM John Curran  wrote:

> On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:46 AM, Tom Beecher  wrote:
>
>
> Understood on specifics. But can you comment on the general ARIN policy on
> the topic? My understanding was that once a legacy resource was transferred
> , it was permanently removed as a legacy resource.
>
>
> As noted earlier, general ARIN policy is as follows -
>
> *Those who received IPv4 address blocks by InterNIC (or its predecessors)
> prior to the inception of ARIN on 22 December 1997 are legacy resource
> holders, and continue to receive those same registry services for those
> blocks (Whois, reverse DNS, ability to update) without any need for an
> agreement with ARIN.  This has been provided without any fee to the
> original registrants (or their legal successors) as recognition of their
> contributions to the early Internet.*
>
> *Some legacy resource holders opt to sign a “legacy registration services
> agreement” by which ARIN provides specific and well-defined legal rights to
> the registrant – this is the same RSA as other ARIN customers, but ARIN
> caps the total annual maintenance fees that are incurred by legacy resource
> holders.  An RSA is also required to receive services that the community
> has funded the developed since ARIN’s inception, such as resource
> certification services. *
>
>
>
> Thanks!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>

Re: 44/8

[John Curran]

On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:50 AM, Matt Harris 
mailto:m...@netfire.net>> wrote:

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:41 AM John Curran 
mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:
On 19 Jul 2019, at 11:34 AM, Matt Harris 
mailto:m...@netfire.net>> wrote:
Hey John, I understand that, however my understanding is that the establishment 
of an ARIN RSA is required prior to the transfer of a block or a portion or a 
block via ARIN (such as the transfer of 44.192/10). Thus, this would mean that 
the 44/8 block is now governed by an (well, more than one, now that it's split) 
ARIN RSA (or LRSA) whereas it was not before.  Is that not correct?

Matt -

ARIN doesn’t discuss details of specific registrations publicly; you need to 
refer any such questions to the registrant.

Without discussing any specific registration whatsoever, my understanding is 
that what I stated is the case as a matter of policy. Was just looking for 
confirmation that my reading of ARIN policy docs was not incorrect. :)

Matt -

Legacy resource holders may transfer a portion of their number resources 
without bringing the entire block under a registration services agreement.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: 44.192.0.0/10 sale

[Bryan Fields]

On 7/19/19 11:02 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
> Because questions have arisen here that are well answered by
> a short series of postings from the 44net mailing list, at the
> request of the author [Phil Karn] and others, I am reposting
> them here.
>   - Brian

Brian,

You've done fuck all for ARDC for years, actively held back deployment of
44net for the better part of 20 years, and now you orchestrate this backroom
deal.

You and Phil have proven how corrupt you are.  Do the honorable thing and
resign.  Phil too.

For shame.
-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

Re: 44.192.0.0/10 sale

[J. Hellenthal via NANOG]

Well there is a very limited view


On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:13:24PM -0400, Bryan Fields wrote:
> On 7/19/19 11:02 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
> > Because questions have arisen here that are well answered by
> > a short series of postings from the 44net mailing list, at the
> > request of the author [Phil Karn] and others, I am reposting
> > them here.
> > - Brian
> 
> Brian,
> 
> You've done fuck all for ARDC for years, actively held back deployment of
> 44net for the better part of 20 years, and now you orchestrate this backroom
> deal.
> 
> You and Phil have proven how corrupt you are.  Do the honorable thing and
> resign.  Phil too.
> 
> For shame.
> -- 
> Bryan Fields
> 
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> http://bryanfields.net

-- 
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: 44.192.0.0/10 sale

[Mel Beckman]

Bryan,

I appreciate you passing on information about technical background regarding 
the 44/10 sale, but before this discussion goes any further down a rathole, let 
me point out tour vitriol is off-topic and doesn’t belong on this list. I for 
one don’t appreciate you airing amateur radio laundry here. Please take it 
off-line. 

-mel via cell

> On Jul 19, 2019, at 9:13 AM, Bryan Fields  wrote:
> 
>> On 7/19/19 11:02 AM, Brian Kantor wrote:
>> Because questions have arisen here that are well answered by
>> a short series of postings from the 44net mailing list, at the
>> request of the author [Phil Karn] and others, I am reposting
>> them here.
>>- Brian
> 
> Brian,
> 
> You've done fuck all for ARDC for years, actively held back deployment of
> 44net for the better part of 20 years, and now you orchestrate this backroom
> deal.
> 
> You and Phil have proven how corrupt you are.  Do the honorable thing and
> resign.  Phil too.
> 
> For shame.
> -- 
> Bryan Fields
> 
> 727-409-1194 - Voice
> http://bryanfields.net

Microsoft Outlook Issue

[Nathanael Catangay Cariaga]

This might be an off topic since this is a confirmed issue with Microsoft
but I'm just wondering how vast are the affected users on this issue.

west coast user here.


-nathan

Re: Microsoft Outlook Issue

[Ross Tajvar]

What's the issue?

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:35 PM Nathanael Catangay Cariaga <
ncari...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This might be an off topic since this is a confirmed issue with Microsoft
> but I'm just wondering how vast are the affected users on this issue.
>
> west coast user here.
>
>
> -nathan
>

Re: 44.192.0.0/10 sale

[Matt Hoppes]

This discussion has been long, and I believe I've skimmed it -- but if 
this was already discussed and answered I apologize...


The 44/8 block was assigned, if I'm not mistaken, specifically for 
Amateur Radio use and Brian and all made sure that happened that way.


Does not the sale of the block (or partial) violate the original 
covenants and such set forth.

Re: Microsoft Outlook Issue

[Nathanael Catangay Cariaga]

I got this from the O365 Health Status Page:

[image: image.png]

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:38 AM Ross Tajvar  wrote:

> What's the issue?
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:35 PM Nathanael Catangay Cariaga <
> ncari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This might be an off topic since this is a confirmed issue with Microsoft
>> but I'm just wondering how vast are the affected users on this issue.
>>
>> west coast user here.
>>
>>
>> -nathan
>>
>

Re: Microsoft Outlook Issue

[Nathanael Catangay Cariaga]

Taken from MS O365 Health Portal:

*Title: Can't access email User Impact: Users may be unable to connect to
the Exchange Online service. More info: Other services with dependencies on
Exchange Online, such as calendar access through Microsoft Teams, could
also be intermittently unavailable. Current status: We're continuing to
repair the communication issue between mailbox-hosting infrastructure and
components that facilitate access and other users actions. In parallel,
we're exploring additional potential mitigation actions to more quickly
restore service. Scope of impact: This issue could potentially affect any
of your users if they are routed through the affected infrastructure. Start
time: Friday, July 19, 2019, at 9:30 AM UTC Root cause: A potential
communication issue between service components that host the affected
mailboxes and infrastructure that facilitates user connections is affecting
access to Exchange Online. Next update by: Friday, July 19, 2019, at 5:30
PM UTC*

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:38 AM Ross Tajvar  wrote:

> What's the issue?
>
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:35 PM Nathanael Catangay Cariaga <
> ncari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This might be an off topic since this is a confirmed issue with Microsoft
>> but I'm just wondering how vast are the affected users on this issue.
>>
>> west coast user here.
>>
>>
>> -nathan
>>
>

Re: Microsoft Outlook Issue

[Ross Tajvar]

Good to know, but this is probably better suited for the Outages mailing
list.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:51 PM Nathanael Catangay Cariaga <
ncari...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Taken from MS O365 Health Portal:
>
> *Title: Can't access email User Impact: Users may be unable to connect to
> the Exchange Online service. More info: Other services with dependencies on
> Exchange Online, such as calendar access through Microsoft Teams, could
> also be intermittently unavailable. Current status: We're continuing to
> repair the communication issue between mailbox-hosting infrastructure and
> components that facilitate access and other users actions. In parallel,
> we're exploring additional potential mitigation actions to more quickly
> restore service. Scope of impact: This issue could potentially affect any
> of your users if they are routed through the affected infrastructure. Start
> time: Friday, July 19, 2019, at 9:30 AM UTC Root cause: A potential
> communication issue between service components that host the affected
> mailboxes and infrastructure that facilitates user connections is affecting
> access to Exchange Online. Next update by: Friday, July 19, 2019, at 5:30
> PM UTC*
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 12:38 AM Ross Tajvar  wrote:
>
>> What's the issue?
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:35 PM Nathanael Catangay Cariaga <
>> ncari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This might be an off topic since this is a confirmed issue
>>> with Microsoft but I'm just wondering how vast are the affected users on
>>> this issue.
>>>
>>> west coast user here.
>>>
>>>
>>> -nathan
>>>
>>

Re: 44/8

[Phil Karn]

> And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was
> KC, who
> also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding an amateur
> radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.

You are not in possession of all the facts.

KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.

--Phil

Re: 44/8

[Mikael Abrahamsson]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote:

And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was 
KC, who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding 
an amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.


You are not in possession of all the facts.

KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.


https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=KC6KCC

The grant date was 2018-02-21.

So both of the above statements can be true at the same time since I have 
no idea when KC joined the ARDC board. When was that?


Also, reading: http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/ARDC

"It solely manages and allocates Internet address space, subnets of 
network 44 (AMPRNet), to interested Amateur Radio operators."


Seems ARDC does more than this nowadays.

--
Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: 44/8

[Mel Beckman]

Please take this off-topic argument off the Nanog list.

-mel via cell

> On Jul 19, 2019, at 11:17 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote:
> 
>>> And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was KC, 
>>> who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding an 
>>> amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.
>> 
>> You are not in possession of all the facts.
>> 
>> KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.
> 
> https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=KC6KCC
> 
> The grant date was 2018-02-21.
> 
> So both of the above statements can be true at the same time since I have no 
> idea when KC joined the ARDC board. When was that?
> 
> Also, reading: http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/ARDC
> 
> "It solely manages and allocates Internet address space, subnets of network 
> 44 (AMPRNet), to interested Amateur Radio operators."
> 
> Seems ARDC does more than this nowadays.
> 
> -- 
> Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se

Re: 44/8

[Jon Lewis]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:


On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote:


 And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was KC,
 who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding an
 amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.


 You are not in possession of all the facts.

 KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.


https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=KC6KCC

The grant date was 2018-02-21.

So both of the above statements can be true at the same time since I have no 
idea when KC joined the ARDC board. When was that?


Also, reading: http://wiki.ampr.org/wiki/ARDC

"It solely manages and allocates Internet address space, subnets of network 
44 (AMPRNet), to interested Amateur Radio operators."


Seems ARDC does more than this nowadays.


Not meaning to pour fuel on the fire...but KC was affiliated with (CFO) 
ARDC at least as far back as 2015.  Do a search for Amateur Radio Digital 
Communications at https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail


Also of interest, ARDC was only incorporated (in CA) in 2011, 
"anonymously" since the Articles of Incorporation filed with the state in 
2011 are signed with no printed name, using an illegible signature.


How does an organization incorporated years after 44/8 was set aside for 
amatuer radio use end up "owning" it enough to have the right to sell a 
portion of it?


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: 44/9, 44.128/10 (was 44/8)

[Bryan Fields]

On 7/19/19 2:17 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2019, Phil Karn wrote:
> 
>>> And one of the principal people in the network telescope project was 
>>> KC, who also weaseled herself onto the ARDC board without even holding 
>>> an amateur radio license.  Conflict of interest here, holy carp.
>>
>> You are not in possession of all the facts.
>>
>> KC (Kim Claffy) is KC6KCC.
> 
> https://www.fccbulletin.com/callsign/?q=KC6KCC
> 
> The grant date was 2018-02-21.

That is of that callsign, she was KM6PUK before she got KC6KCC, and KM6PUK was
granted  01/31/2018, assuming she took the Tech exam with Greater Los Angeles
Amateur Radio Group VEC some time before that.

> So both of the above statements can be true at the same time since I have 
> no idea when KC joined the ARDC board. When was that?

I was critical of this since at least 2012.  John Gilmore was also on the
board and was unlicensed at the time.

> https://web.archive.org/web/20150505073655/http://www.ampr.org/people.html>
https://web.archive.org/web/20160504045206/https://www.ampr.org/about/who-we-are/

This is a moot point as having a valid amateur license is about the lowest bar
any board member should have.  90% of this list can take the exam and pass
without studying.

The bigger question is what have any of the board members done in the time
they've been on the board.  Certainly not reach out to the users of the
resource.  There has been no communication from them until now.

>From an operational standpoint, RDNS for many subnets is still broken.

-- 
Bryan Fields

727-409-1194 - Voice
http://bryanfields.net

AS3549 NOC contacts? Another BGP hijack

[Dmitry A.Deineka]

Greetings,

Unfortunately, n...@gblx.net is not accepting emails anymore. Someone from
AS3549 announced one of our network (more specific route) 46.28.67.0/24.

It's not major impact but it's like that at least RIPE whois  has outdated
contact information about responsive persons.

Can someone kindly share contact email of AS3549 (Centurylink?) NOC or
other direct contacts?

Regards,
  Dmitry

-- 
  Dmitry A.Deineka
  ITLDC

Re: AS3549 NOC contacts? Another BGP hijack

[Mike Bolitho]

NOC is 877-453-8353. That will get you the legacy Global Crossing (Level 3)
teams.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019, 2:12 PM Dmitry A.Deineka  wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> Unfortunately, n...@gblx.net is not accepting emails anymore. Someone from
> AS3549 announced one of our network (more specific route) 46.28.67.0/24.
>
> It's not major impact but it's like that at least RIPE whois  has outdated
> contact information about responsive persons.
>
> Can someone kindly share contact email of AS3549 (Centurylink?) NOC or
> other direct contacts?
>
> Regards,
>   Dmitry
>
> --
>   Dmitry A.Deineka
>   ITLDC
>