Total of 164 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri May 3 00:53:02 EDT 2019
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
23.78% | 39 | 18.00% | 747852 | arin-ppml@arin.net
3.05% |5 | 14.67% | 609511 |
Jordi, your interlocutor has just described paradise on Earth. It's all
perfect, ARIN customers represent what's most ethical in mankind, ARIN is
the ultimate perfection of efficiency and bad clients can be counted on the
fingers of one hand. Throw away your prop-266 because it's totally
> On May 2, 2019, at 8:31 PM, Michel Py
> wrote:
>
>> Tom Samplonius wrote :
>> Well, since transit providers universally use IRR, it is unlikely that
>> hijacks
>> even work, unless there are legacy ports where IRR was not implemented.
>
> Oh wow big help here, if hijacks can't work, why
> Tom Samplonius wrote :
> Well, since transit providers universally use IRR, it is unlikely that hijacks
> even work, unless there are legacy ports where IRR was not implemented.
Oh wow big help here, if hijacks can't work, why discuss them in the first
place.
Right on. Hijacks do not happen,
I think John already provided good information about this topic in the
other message. What I have to say is that people believe in what
normally makes them feel better, not necessarily in what it really is.
The RIR Registry has ways to enforce its policies and is backed for
that, even if it
The president of ARIN describes his institution as an RIR with appropriate
and functional policies. This is what we can deduce from his speech
whenever he describes the performance of his institution. This same
attitude can be seen in RIPE.
"Violation can have consequence".
It seems that the
> Tal, Guy wrote :
> Did someone invoke my presence? Or are you talking about Trust Anchor Locator?
We need you to install yourself on popular RPKI software distributions :P
> Carlos Friaças wrote :
> That's really news to me.
> As long as you don't announce it to other networks i don't see an
> On 2 May 2019, at 11:35 pm, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>
> There is no role, for example, for a government or anyone else to
> come tell ATT,
> Verizon, Level3, etc, what they are and are not allowed to put or have
> in their routing tables, and furthermore, which internet standards
> they have to
On 5/2/2019 06:26 PM, Tal, Guy wrote:
Did someone invoke my presence? Or are you talking about Trust Anchor Locator?
Probably. About half way down the third page of the Google search
results for "TAL networking", I found a reference to
draft-ietf-sidrops-https-tal-08...
People, this
Hi,
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Leibrand wrote:
(...)
However, some hijackers decide to use unallocated space or space which is
likely to be held by closed companies -- so a contact by the legitimate
owner becomes highly unlikely.
In that case, who is the party who is
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 6:38 PM Scott Leibrand
wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 3:06 PM Carlos Friaças wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>
>> > Do you have any reason to believe that ARIN getting involved in
>> real-time notification of BGP hijacking, with or without
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 3:06 PM Carlos Friaças wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> > Do you have any reason to believe that ARIN getting involved in
> real-time notification of BGP hijacking, with or without firmly worded
> language and with or without an implied threat, will
Hi,
On Thu, 2 May 2019, John Santos wrote:
What is TAL? Google search is useless, so don't tell me to look it up.
I could make an easy joke with a recent TV Series context, but i won't :-)
TAL = Trust Anchor Locator.
https://www.arin.net/resources/manage/rpki/tal/
The thing is that
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 3:17 PM John Santos wrote:
> What is TAL? Google search is useless, so don't tell me to look it up.
>
The Trust Anchor Locator for RPKI, a cryptographic key. You need a contract
with ARIN in which you agree to indemnify them before you have a legal
right to
Did someone invoke my presence? Or are you talking about Trust Anchor Locator?
Guy
-Original Message-
From: ARIN-PPML On Behalf Of John Santos
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 3:18 PM
To: arin-ppml@arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] prop266 - re-framing the discussion
What is TAL? Google
On Thu, 2 May 2019, John Curran wrote:
(...)
Is it really appropriate for the RIR system become embroiled in routing
enforcement before the ISPs show widespread support for good routing hygiene?
Yes, it is appropriate.
Carlos
ps: total support for MANRS and RPKI.
/John
John Curran
Hi,
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Tom Samplonius wrote:
Well, since transit providers universally use IRR, it is unlikely that
hijacks even work, unless there are legacy ports where IRR was not implemented.
Yes, filters do fail sometimes... :/
http://peering.exposed/ has a list of IX that
On May 2, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Tom Samplonius
mailto:tsamplon...@ubn.ca>> wrote:
The Internet Society has created the MANRS initiative
(https://www.manrs.org/) to encourage all networks globally to implement route
security (among other things), but strangely there hasn't been a single mention
What is TAL? Google search is useless, so don't tell me to look it up.
On 5/2/2019 06:09 PM, Carlos Friaças via ARIN-PPML wrote:
Hi,
Just a small note to say that i completely agree with you regarding the
TAL issue.
From a global perspective, and to aid in RPKI deployment, the TAL issue
Hi,
Just a small note to say that i completely agree with you regarding the
TAL issue.
From a global perspective, and to aid in RPKI deployment, the TAL issue
needs to be solved...
Regards,
Carlos
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Michel Py wrote:
Scott Leibrand wrote :
But if we do decide we want
Hi,
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Michel Py wrote:
Carlos Friaças wrote :
That's really news to me.
This is quite common in Europe as well, I hear. Probably faster to answer "who does not do
it" than "who does".
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Do you have any reason to believe that ARIN getting involved in real-time
notification of BGP hijacking, with or without firmly worded language and with
or without an implied threat, will be any more effective than current methods of
shutting down
> On May 2, 2019, at 2:11 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> Do you have any reason to believe that ARIN getting involved in real-time
> notification of BGP hijacking, with or without firmly worded language and
> with or without an implied threat, will be any more effective than current
> methods
> Scott Leibrand wrote :
> But if we do decide we want ARIN to create acceptable standards of conduct
> with
> regard to routing, and fine resource holders who violate it, under threat of
> resource revocation if those fines aren't paid, there will need to be a *lot*
A *LOT* indeed
> of work
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Let's start with an easy one : what do we do with ARIN members who hijack
>> DoD space ?
>> It is no secret that 30.0.0.0/8 has become RFC1918 bis.
>> They don't announce it, but they use it. I shows up in traceroutes.
>>
Do you have any reason to believe that ARIN getting involved in real-time
notification of BGP hijacking, with or without firmly worded language and
with or without an implied threat, will be any more effective than current
methods of shutting down hijacks once they've started? My impression is
If the hijacking entity is not and ARIN customer, ARIN likely has a
relationship with adjacent ASN's that propagate the hijacked BGP routes and
can at the very least notify them that they are propagating routes that
have been reported as being hijacked.
They can further repeat the statement with a
> On May 2, 2019, at 3:30 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> El 2/5/19 11:23, "Owen DeLong" mailto:o...@delong.com>>
> escribió:
>
> Speaking only for myself...
>
>
>> On May 2, 2019, at 00:55 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
>>
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Michel Py wrote:
I think that some of the participants in this thread have little idea of what
could happen if we open Pandora's box.
Let's start with an easy one : what do we do with ARIN members who hijack DoD
space ?
It is no secret that 30.0.0.0/8 has become RFC1918
John,
Thanks for clarifying!
I'm biased by the RIPE NCC process, where everything reverts back to
before the agreement was signed, service-wise (as i read it). Unless the
holder agrees to move from LEGACY to ALLOCATED status, of course.
I'll also doublecheck with RIPE NCC folks that
> On May 2, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Carlos Friaças via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
> ...
> It seems evident that a RIR can't revoke legacy space. Ever.
Carlos -
In the case of ARIN that would be incorrect, as ARIN has revoked legacy address
space from parties that have violated registry policies.
ARIN
Hi,
It's not really an issue about the "global routing system".
If an hijacker has a set of "target networks" and finds all of them in the
same NAP/IXP, he just needs to join and inject the hijacks through the
NAP/IXP, without any upstream involved.
The problem here is effective use of
Jordi, your concern is intimately backed by ethical behavior. You will
never reach an agreement with anyone who despises or disregards ethics as
the basic directive for all human activities.
If I were you I would limit myself to describing the harmful effects that
you intend to avoid and would ask
On Thu, 2 May 2019, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <0fc93580-db31-0505-9b1a-a5f57731f...@gmail.com>,
Fernando Frediani wrote:
Why people always believe they "own" IP address space and nobody can
take it from them as if it was a router or a server purchased with a
invoice and
In message
Jimmy Hess wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:14 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
> wrote:
>> Where I am and where you are, there is really only one single
>> entity that has complete responsiblity for both, and it's called the State
>> of California government. It isn't always pretty, and
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 7:18 AM Adam Thompson wrote:
> Instead of focusing on whether the current proposal is or isn’t in scope,
I suggest we re-cast the discussion as follows:
>
> So far, we have unanimous community agreement that BGP hijacking is bad.
> So far, we have broad agreement that
In message <0fc93580-db31-0505-9b1a-a5f57731f...@gmail.com>,
Fernando Frediani wrote:
>Why people always believe they "own" IP address space and nobody can
>take it from them as if it was a router or a server purchased with a
>invoice and declared in their annual balance ?
Well, owners of
On May 2, 2019, at 12:19 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
If a member is abusing the rights of other members, by hijacking their
resources, then the registry information is not valid, at least during the time
this event is happening.
Jordi -
If you mean
Thanks, David. I’d rather focus on what we CAN do or MIGHT be able to do,
instead of focusing on the negative side of things.
So the carrot hasn’t worked, over the last 20yrs. That’s fairly clear. (Nor
has it utterly failed, but its degree of success is noticeably less than
perfect.)
Maybe
Jordi, with your permission I would like to try to summarize this situation
to what really matters. IMHO.
All players in this community want and defend a free Internet correctly.
Wonderful! But they hesitate to assume the responsibilities that this
freedom obviously demands. We are all
Adam,
Thank you, for trying to reframe the discussion, I think this is a useful
direction to try to move the discussion forward.
More below;
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:16 AM Scott Leibrand
wrote:
> Do we have any evidence that 1) a significant fraction of BGP hijacking
> (announcement in BGP
Hi John,
El 2/5/19 19:03, "John Curran" escribió:
On 2 May 2019, at 12:38 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
In any members association, the association is legitimated to act against
members that don’t follow the rules.
It is not a matter of “police”, nobody is
On 2 May 2019, at 12:38 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
In any members association, the association is legitimated to act against
members that don’t follow the rules.
It is not a matter of “police”, nobody is asking the RIR to be the Internet
police
Hi John,
El 2/5/19 18:36, "John Curran" escribió:
On 2 May 2019, at 11:48 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
As said before, I’m fine if the RIRs don’t want to take actions, but they must
have clear rules (policy text) that allows the victims to claim by other means
if
On 02/05/2019 13:38, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML wrote:
Having specific wording will **immediately** allow courts and judicial
experts, to confirm that it was against the rules of the association.
Done.
Exactly ! I think that's a very import point to take in mind and focus
about this
On 2 May 2019, at 11:35 AM, William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:50 PM Fernando Frediani
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Why people always believe they "own" IP address space and nobody can
take it from them as if it was a router or a server purchased
In any members association, the association is legitimated to act against
members that don’t follow the rules.
It is not a matter of “police”, nobody is asking the RIR to be the Internet
police as some folks stated in this discussion (here or in other lists). Saying
that is basically
On 2 May 2019, at 11:48 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
As said before, I’m fine if the RIRs don’t want to take actions, but they must
have clear rules (policy text) that allows the victims to claim by other means
if they wish. This is a way for the
The missing link in your assertion is that for the former you have police
(and other bodies) to enforce them... and for BGP you have only good will :)
El jue., 2 de may. de 2019 a la(s) 10:37, Fernando Frediani (
fhfredi...@gmail.com) escribió:
> The same way the existence of laws stating
Hello,
Adam Thompson wrote:
My suggested direction to the AC and/or the board would therefore be:
Find something ARIN can do to help combat the problem (more
effectively).
This post is in reaction to "more effectively".
I'd like to please remind the community of the efforts ARIN and the
On 02/05/2019 12:41, Scott Leibrand wrote:
If the hijacker is someone with no relationship with ARIN, we can’t
punish them by kicking them out of a club they’re not a member of. If
you’re ok with ARIN doing nothing about hijacks by entities who don’t
have ARIN resources, fine: that’s the
El 2/5/19 17:39, "ARIN-PPML en nombre de Nicolas Antoniello"
escribió:
ARIN (and so the other RIRs like LACNIC) are doing things to combat the problem
more effectively, like fostering RPKI deployment and so... but police stuff
remains (and I think it must remain) out of the scope of
El 2/5/19 17:36, "ARIN-PPML en nombre de William Herrin"
escribió:
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:50 PM Fernando Frediani wrote:
Why people always believe they "own" IP address space and nobody can
take it from them as if it was a router or a server purchased with a
invoice and declared
Not sure if this is really the main discussion but the point about
owning IP addresses was an example of something that is actually the
correct way it works, despite what happens in practice people don't own
it, cannot sell it (even if they believe they have the absolute right to
sell -
> On May 2, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>
>> On 02/05/2019 12:16, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>>
>> ARIN’s only authority is to over their registry of who “has” which
>> addresses, so the only thing I can imagine they could do would be to
>> threaten to revoke unrelated
Hi Nicolás,
El 2/5/19 17:34, "Nicolas Antoniello" escribió:
Jordi,
As I´ve mentioned @ LACNIC discussions regarding this policy: the existence of
a statement in ARIN policy manual saying that something like this is "bad" is
not going to make anyone go to do it in another place.
El 2/5/19 17:16, "ARIN-PPML en nombre de Scott Leibrand"
escribió:
Do we have any evidence that 1) a significant fraction of BGP hijacking
I will say that even if it solves a single case (going to the extreme), is good
to have it. We often do policies that have a single case. We try
ARIN (and so the other RIRs like LACNIC) are doing things to combat the
problem more effectively, like fostering RPKI deployment and so... but
police stuff remains (and I think it must remain) out of the scope of RIRs.
Regards,
Nicolas
El jue., 2 de may. de 2019 a la(s) 09:19, Adam Thompson (
The same way the existence of laws stating certain practices are wrong
and forbidden doesn't stop people from committing crimes.
Fernando
On 02/05/2019 12:33, Nicolas Antoniello wrote:
Jordi,
As I´ve mentioned @ LACNIC discussions regarding this policy: the
existence of a statement in ARIN
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:50 PM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
> Why people always believe they "own" IP address space and nobody can
> take it from them as if it was a router or a server purchased with a
> invoice and declared in their annual balance ?
>
Several reasons.
1. Revocation of a properly
Jordi,
As I´ve mentioned @ LACNIC discussions regarding this policy: the existence
of a statement in ARIN policy manual saying that something like this is
"bad" is not going to make anyone go to do it in another place. And so,
it's not going to prevent any BGP bad practice (not the ones made on
On 02/05/2019 12:16, Scott Leibrand wrote:
ARIN’s only authority is to over their registry of who “has” which
addresses, so the only thing I can imagine they could do would be to
threaten to revoke unrelated registrations from a transit provider who
willfully or negligently accepted the BGP
Do we have any evidence that 1) a significant fraction of BGP hijacking
(announcement in BGP of address space registered by an RIR to another
organization that has not authorized them to use it) is being performed by
organizations that have other address space directly registered to them by an
On 02/05/2019 07:30, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML wrote:
So, you’re saying that if an ARIN member is **acting** against the
exclusive rights of use resources allocated to other members, not by
accident, and repeatedly, is just **fine** and ARIN should not even
remind the member that he
Instead of focusing on whether the current proposal is or isn’t in scope, I
suggest we re-cast the discussion as follows:
1. So far, we have unanimous community agreement that BGP hijacking is bad.
2. So far, we have broad agreement that “something ought to be done” about
BGP hijacking,
El 2/5/19 15:50, "hostmas...@uneedus.com" escribió:
On Thu, 2 May 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> Hi Albert,
>
> El 2/5/19 15:02, "arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net en nombre de
hostmas...@uneedus.com" escribió:
>
>On Thu, 2 May 2019,
Hi,
On Thu, 2 May 2019, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote:
The only potential issue is that the policy adopted in each region must apply
to ALL BGP Hijacking, not just the region involved. Otherwise the bad actors
will simply choose to hijack numbers in a different region to avoid the
policy.
Hi Joe,
El 2/5/19 15:11, "Joe Provo" escribió:
[see Disclaimer]
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:30:38PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
ARIN-PPML wrote:
[snip]
> So, you???re saying that if an ARIN member is *acting* against
> the exclusive rights of use resources
[see Disclaimer]
On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 12:30:38PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
[snip]
> So, you???re saying that if an ARIN member is *acting* against
> the exclusive rights of use resources allocated to other members,
> not by accident, and repeatedly, is just *fine* and
On Thu, 2 May 2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML wrote:
2. CONDITIONS OF SERVICE
(1) The exclusive right to be the registrant of the Included Number
Resources within the ARIN database;
(2) The right to use the Included Number Resources within the ARIN
database;
This above kinda sums
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 12:12 AM Owen DeLong wrote:
> To be clear to all those that are supporting this as a discussion petition…
> It is not.
> It is a petition to have the board of trustees reconsider the determination
> by the AC that
> the proposal was out of scope of the PDP.
Exactly;
Hi Owen,
El 2/5/19 11:23, "Owen DeLong" escribió:
Speaking only for myself...
On May 2, 2019, at 00:55 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
Hi Owen,
I think that the comparison with a property is not good, so I'm top posting to
make it simple.
ARIN is providing a
Speaking only for myself...
> On May 2, 2019, at 00:55 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> I think that the comparison with a property is not good, so I'm top posting
> to make it simple.
>
> ARIN is providing a registration service for unique and exclusive rights
> On May 2, 2019, at 00:26 , Marilson Mapa wrote:
>
> To be clear:
>
> It's impressive what you, Owen, do to disqualify ARIN-prop-266. And it's
> amazing how some people strive not to discuss illicit acts by members of the
> community. The justification that it is outside the scope of the
Hi Owen,
I think that the comparison with a property is not good, so I'm top posting to
make it simple.
ARIN is providing a registration service for unique and exclusive rights for
resources, following a membership organization model.
Let's take another similar "association membership model".
To be clear:
It's impressive what you, Owen, do to disqualify ARIN-prop-266. And it's
amazing how some people strive not to discuss illicit acts by members of
the community. The justification that it is outside the scope of the PDP or
NRPM does not hold. Try to reconcile opposing arguments with
> On May 1, 2019, at 23:30 , Carlos Friaças via ARIN-PPML
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Joe, All,
>
> On Wed, 1 May 2019, Joe Provo wrote:
>
> (...)
>> "Distribution function" is indeed merely agreeing that the data
>> recorded in the registry is accurate. There's no dibursement of
>> anything.
>
>
77 matches
Mail list logo
