[ apologies for the long post ]
On 2003-03-11 19:57:04 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Also, on a side rant hereWhy do all the RIR's have to give out
> whois data in different, incompatible, referal-breaking formats?
The reason for the different formats is partly historical, and
partial
It's probably harder for anyone on this list to take BandyRush seriously
than the other posters in question.
:-)
Owen
--On Wednesday, March 12, 2003 22:01 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:27:51 EST, Andy Dills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Not be offended if somebody didn't kn
Can you and he please take the gender debate off-list?
Thanks,
Owen
--On Wednesday, March 12, 2003 17:36 -0800 JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Miss Rothschild wrote:
On 2003-03-11-21:01:00, JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Note to Mr. Dill, this is not intended to pick on you specificall
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Sprickman) [Wed 12 Mar 2003, 00:22 CET]:
> Seriously though, somewhere there is a popular site that is non-profit in
> nature that would trade say a month of free access for the hassle of being
> put into a widely-blocked block.
Apparently hack.co.za has recently been
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:27:51 EST, Andy Dills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Not be offended if somebody didn't know my gender?
Fortunately, none of the simians on the list have objected to being
classified as 'banana eaters' ;)
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jack Bates
> Sent: March 12, 2003 9:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks)
>
>
>
> From: "Vivi
From: "Vivien M."
> I've had the opposite problem (people thinking I'm female, when I'm
not...),
> and it can get quite annoying, I agree.
>
Is this a pick up list? Find the guy or gal of your dreams that can think
too? I figure that you either earn people's respect or admiration or you
don't. Ma
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, JC Dill wrote:
> It is offensive to many people (both male and female) when someone
> automatically assumes that an "unknown" person is male. Especially since:
>
> Females aged 2 and up accounted for 50.4 percent of U.S.
> Internet users in May, edging out their
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JC Dill
> Sent: March 12, 2003 8:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks)
>
> It is offensive to many people (bo
Miss Rothschild wrote:
On 2003-03-11-21:01:00, JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Note to Mr. Dill, this is not intended to pick on you specifically,
it's just a convenient place to butt in)
Ahem. It's _MS._ Dill, thank you.
Please post with a gender-specific name if you want to take offense
whe
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Peter E. Fry wrote:
> Andy Dills wrote:
> >
> > Sure. If the NSPs would just filter the bogon routes, nobody else would
> > have to bother. Why is it that they don't?
>
> Filter (public, private and transit) peers or customers...? Or
> themselves?
Yes.
Andy
Andy Dills wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > maybe we should not encourage those who do not have time, talent,
> > and inclination to install bogon route filters that need to be
> > maintained?
>
> Sure. If the NSPs would just filter the bogon routes, nobody else would
> ha
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > The problem is small mom&pop ISPs and companies where the NOC and the
> > senior secretary share a desk, and possibly a name.
>
> maybe we should not encourage those who do not have time, talent,
> and inclination to install bogon route filters that ne
> The problem is small mom&pop ISPs and companies where the NOC and the
> senior secretary share a desk, and possibly a name.
maybe we should not encourage those who do not have time, talent,
and inclination to install bogon route filters that need to be
maintained?
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 18:22:14 EST, Charles Sprickman said:
> Hey, I already came up with the slashdot idea.
An excellent choice - the average slashdot reader would resent any implication
that they were using a substandard clueless ISP, and would complain in a most
vociferous manner.. ;)
pgp0
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:58:10 MST, "Alec H. Peterson" said:
> How about if we all chip in to hire a bunch of out of work consultants to
> fly to the NOCs of the various backbones who are being boneheaded to
> educate them with a clue-by-four?
I suspect the problem isn't the backbones that have a
JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sure you can. You just need content unimportant enough that no one (the
>end users on a network that is still blocking 69/8, AND the networks
>that put up the sacrificial target host on a 69/8 IP) is truly hurt if
>the connection fails, but important enough
I'm trying to get some time to actually put it in a router and test, but
I believe there is a way to get similar functionality through a combination
of route-map entries. When I have actual router config (I'll be testing on
Cisco, but if anyone want's to provide me a Juniper testbed, I'll be happy
Thus spake "Jack Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> After the renumber, I'll
> only have 69/8 space, which means all critical services such as my mail,
> dns, and web servers will all be affected. I hear it now. "I didn't
receive
> mail from so and so!" I check the logs and don't see an established
> co
Thus spake "JC Dill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> p.s. Please don't cc me on replies, or on replies to replies, etc. I
> get the list email just fine and I don't need more than one copy of any
> given email. Really.
1) nanog can sometimes take hours to forward posts to all members
2) the people dir
for all of the $adjective schemes and ideas that have been posted, has
anyone (besides jon and few others affected) been doing anything
substanitive?
outreach, more than any technical 'magic' that we can come up with, is the
only 'real' solution (subjective real, what is real to me probably doesn
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Adam Rothschild wrote:
> On 2003-03-11-21:01:00, JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > failure will lead to the broken networks being fixed and clue being
> > distributed.
>
> How do I configure my routers and web servers for that?
no ip clue-inhibit
ip bgp redistribute-clu
Stephen J Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, David Luyer wrote:
> > Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > >
> > > > In short, it doesn't. Longer answer, if the ISP configures
> > > > his router correctly, he can actually refuse to accept
> > > > adverti
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, David Luyer wrote:
>
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > > In short, it doesn't. Longer answer, if the ISP configures
> > > his router correctly, he can actually refuse to accept
> > > advertisements from other sessions that
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > In short, it doesn't. Longer answer, if the ISP configures
> > his router correctly, he can actually refuse to accept
> > advertisements from other sessions that are longer versions
> > of prefixes received through this
> In addition, sometimes the problem is that my user just needs to put the
> crack pipe down. I just don't feel comfortable with this last one anymore,
> though. I can't be sure it's the crack. It could be the IPs. How do I know?
I'm not a major router admin. I manage a couple dozen /24's and th
From: "Andy Dills"
> Are you ok with a solution of patiently waiting for some sort of critical
> mass to occur with each new /8 that gets allocated? Sooner or later,
> enough content will be in 69/8 (and other commonly filtered /8s) that
> people will be forced to fix their filters. But is that t
On 2003-03-11-21:01:00, JC Dill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> > (Note to Mr. Dill, this is not intended to pick on you specifically,
> > it's just a convenient place to butt in)
>
>
> Ahem. It's _MS._ Dill, thank you.
Please post with a gender-specific name if you want to take offense
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 06:01:00PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
>
> Ahem. It's _MS._ Dill, thank you.
Woops, my apologies _MS._ Dill. The JC is ambiguous.
> Maybe next time you will stop and think "will this make me look like a
> sexist idiot in front of engineers across the entire planet"? before
>
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:44:11PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
Charles Sprickman wrote:
Seriously though, somewhere there is a popular site that is non-profit in
nature that would trade say a month of free access for the hassle of being
put into a widely-blocked block.
The
From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
>
> I don't see your point. Packets with bogon sources are just one class of
> spoofed packets. As I've explained earlier S-BGP or soBGP with uRPF will
> get rid of bogons. Neither this or bogon filters on the host will do
> anything against non-bogon spoofed packets.
.
Sincerely,
Todd A. Blank
CTO
IPOutlet LLC
614.207.5853
-Original Message-
From: McBurnett, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:00 PM
To: JC Dill; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Put part of Google on 69/8 (was Re: 69/8...this sucks)
Idea #2..
CNN.com-- Put some
e not just me. With all of us
pounding away the problems clear quickly.
- Original Message -
From: "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JC Dill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:17 PM
Subje
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:44:11PM -0800, JC Dill wrote:
>
> Charles Sprickman wrote:
>
> >Seriously though, somewhere there is a popular site that is non-profit in
> >nature that would trade say a month of free access for the hassle of being
> >put into a widely-blocked block.
>
> The suggesti
Idea #2..
CNN.com-- Put some of their content.. They would probrably really enjoy
the publicity.. And that would really be an educational point..
Anybody here from there???
Jim
> The suggestion of putting Yahoo or Google on a 69/8 IP led me to this
> idea:
>
> Google could put their *beta*
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >
> > As such, is a BGP feed a panacea? No. Is it a step in the right direction?
> > Yes. Will it solve the problem by itself? No. Will it improve the
>
> So, someone feel fre
Charles Sprickman wrote:
Seriously though, somewhere there is a popular site that is non-profit in
nature that would trade say a month of free access for the hassle of being
put into a widely-blocked block.
The suggestion of putting Yahoo or Google on a 69/8 IP led me to this
idea:
Google could
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > Look, there's no quick fix solution here.
>
> so let's see how much of a kludge we can make to show how clever
> we are.
Excellent point...but then, what to do?
Have we given up and decided that addressing the 69/8 (and similar, future
issues) is a s
To a degree the problem is ability to reach proper persons. I'd like to be
able to enter as# or ip and immediatly get email for a tech who knows what
to do. Radb is supposed to provide some of these functionalities, so does
ip whois, so does dns whois. Usually one of these will get you what you
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Randy Bush wrote:
> so let's see how much of a kludge we can make to show how clever
> we are.
Hey, I already came up with the slashdot idea.
Seriously though, somewhere there is a popular site that is non-profit in
nature that would trade say a month of free access for the
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
> In short, it doesn't. Longer answer, if the ISP configures his router
> correctly, he can actually refuse to accept advertisements from other
> sessions that are longer versions of prefixes received through this session.
How???
--On Tuesday, March 11, 2003 16:47 -0500 Randy Bush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so let's see how much of a kludge we can make to show how clever
we are.
How about if we all chip in to hire a bunch of out of work consultants to
fly to the NOCs of the various backbones who are being boneheaded to
e
> Look, there's no quick fix solution here.
so let's see how much of a kludge we can make to show how clever
we are.
randy
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Rick Duff wrote:
> I've never posted to the list, just lurk, for over a year now, but this
> has to be said. Can we please take this discussion off-list to private
> conversation. It's gotten worse then spam. I see a nanog message and
> just start deleting them now.
Come on.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 11:38:23AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> As such, is a BGP feed a panacea? No. Is it a step in the right direction?
> Yes. Will it solve the problem by itself? No. Will it improve the
So, someone feel free to smack me if I'm mentioning something which has
been disc
> I agree.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Rick Duff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 2:09 PM
> To: 'Larry J. Blunk'; 'Andy Dills'
> Cc: 'Ejay Hire'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: 69/8...this sucks
>
>
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Larry J. Blunk
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:01 PM
To: Andy Dills
Cc: Ejay Hire; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 69/8...this sucks
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Ejay Hire wrote:
>
> > Er, guys... How does this fix the pr
>
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Ejay Hire wrote:
>
> > Er, guys... How does this fix the problem of a Malicious user
> > advertising a more specific bogon route?
>
> Come on...clearly you haven't been paying attention.
>
> You need LDAP filters. LDAP filters and a South Vietnamese revolution
> agai
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Ray Bellis wrote:
> Most people seem to think it would be impractical to put the root name
> servers in 69.0.0.0/8
>
> Why not persuade ARIN to put whois.arin.net in there instead? It
> shouldn't take the people with the broken filters *too* long to figure
> out why they ca
I think Rob's server scans all the registry web pages for announced
changes and then either modifies the list automatically or sets off an
alarm to have the pages and list modified. I may be corrected but I think
the process is either entirely or mostly automated.
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Owen DeLo
Hi again, Owen.
] Frankly, I was unaware of Rob's server.
For everyone who hasn't received our copious spam. :)
http://www.cymru.com/Bogons/
] Right now, I'm betting that Rob's server requires someone in Rob's
] organization to keep up to date on all the RIRs and manually tweak
] the contents
Great. If you can get _EVERYONE_ to listen to Rob's server, I'm all for
it. Frankly, I was unaware of Rob's server. However, I think it makes
more sense to have the people maintaining the data distribute the data
directly from the source. Right now, I'm betting that Rob's server requires
someon
Look, there's no quick fix solution here. It's going to take real
effort and real work. However, the _REASON_ all those pages reference
sample bogon filters is because there isn't a global bogon filter
that is dynamically updated available. If there was, and people were
aware of it, they'd use i
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> > If all routes in the routing table are good (which soBGP and S-BGP can
> > do for you) and routers filter based on the contents of the routing
> > table, hosts will not see any bogon packets except locally generated
> > ones so they shouldn't have bog
Thus spake "Ray Bellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Most people seem to think it would be impractical to put the root name
> servers in 69.0.0.0/8
>
> Why not persuade ARIN to put whois.arin.net in there instead? It
> shouldn't take the people with the broken filters *too* long to figure
> out why they
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> In short, it doesn't. Longer answer, if the ISP configures his router
> correctly, he can actually refuse to accept advertisements from other
> sessions that are longer versions of prefixes received through this session.
>
> However, it's primarily int
Monday, March 10, 2003, 7:44:43 PM, you wrote:
H> Well... I am pretty sure Tier1 backbones are up-to-date on the bogon
H> filters :-)
H> As we've already discussed, it's really the smaller networks with outdated
H> bogons or with admins who don't know what they are doing..
Bingo. No silly bgp
3 11:22 AM
To: Stephen J. Wilcox
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 69/8...this sucks
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
It seems to me that it would be relatively simple to solve this problem
by doing the following:
1. ICANN (or an ICANN designee, such as ARIN) shall issue an
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Ejay Hire wrote:
> Er, guys... How does this fix the problem of a Malicious user
> advertising a more specific bogon route?
Come on...clearly you haven't been paying attention.
You need LDAP filters. LDAP filters and a South Vietnamese revolution
against the IRRs for being
Er, guys... How does this fix the problem of a Malicious user advertising a more
specific bogon route?
-Original Message-
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:22 AM
To: Stephen J. Wilcox
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 69/8...this sucks
> If all routes in the routing table are good (which soBGP and S-BGP can
> do for you) and routers filter based on the contents of the routing
> table, hosts will not see any bogon packets except locally generated
> ones so they shouldn't have bogon filters of their own. So this will
> indeed solv
--On Tuesday, March 11, 2003 11:18 AM + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2. Each RIR should operate one or more routers with an open
peering
policy which will perform the following functions:
I agree that the RIR is the right source for the data but I think that
BGP is
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
It seems to me that it would be relatively simple to solve this problem
by doing the following:
1. ICANN (or an ICANN designee, such as ARIN) shall issue an ASN range
of 20 ASNs to be used as BOGON-ORIGINATE.
Why not just one or private/reserve
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> > Fortunately, in this particular case there is a solution on the horizon:
> > S-BGP or soBGP. These BGP extensions authenticate all prefix
> > announcements, so there is no longer any need to perform bogon filtering
> > on routing information. uRPF can th
Thanks for your support Jim. I've gotten mixed feedback to my proposal
here for a centralized bogon filter from the RIRs via BGP, but I will
say there's been more support than opposition. (Most of the support has
been sent to me, not the list, while most of the opposition has been
to the list, ho
Well Jon,
I spent some time reading your message below, and trying to look
at if I experienced the issue, just what I would have done differently, or
what would have been more meaningful in your initial email blast... Here
are some of my thoughts...
First since you are taking the
From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
> Fortunately, in this particular case there is a solution on the horizon:
> S-BGP or soBGP. These BGP extensions authenticate all prefix
> announcements, so there is no longer any need to perform bogon filtering
> on routing information. uRPF can then be used to fil
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Todd A. Blank wrote:
> I continue to agree that moving critical resources (see below) to these
> new blocks is the best approach I have seen or heard in the months since
> I made the original post. This approach punishes the clueless instead
> of the people that already know
> 2. Each RIR should operate one or more routers with an open
peering
>policy which will perform the following functions:
I agree that the RIR is the right source for the data but I think that BGP
is the wrong protocol for publishing the data. Would you give a BGP fe
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It seems to me that it would be relatively simple to solve this problem by
> doing the following:
>
> 1.ICANN (or an ICANN designee, such as ARIN) shall issue an ASN range
> of 20 ASNs to be used as BOGON-ORIGINATE.
Why not just one or private
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> The suggestion is to move ALL root, and as many TLD as possible,
> servers into the new space. Nobody has said "move one or two",
> which indeed would be ineffective.
So, you cant get people to fix bogons but you can get them all to fix their dns
cache
At 05:16 PM 10-03-03 -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
OK... I'm late to this discussion (been mostly ignoring it due to volume in
other places), but, Sean's 911->855 mail makes me wonder...
It seems to me that it would be relatively simple to solve this problem by
doing the following:
1. ICANN (or a
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:19:38 -0500, McBurnett, Jim wrote:
>If you read PPML, there is a HUGE push via Owen DeLong's Policy
>2003-1a to help with some aspects of the whois Contact..
>his policy is mainly based on the abuse contact, But I think may
>get extended to all contacts eventually...
>Owen-
>From Chris Adams:
> This isn't meant to be a pick on you (we've got some SWIPs filed
> incorrectly that we are working on). I've just run into more and more
> cases where ARIN (or other RIR, but I'm typically interested in ARIN
> info) info is out of date. Maybe ARIN should periodically
> send
Once upon a time, Michael Whisenant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> You could reach MANY NASA locations, but those at one particular center,
> and that issue was related to a firewall update at ONLY one particular
> center. This filter was placed in after August when the cental bogon was
> removed at
> That's a non-solution that will never happen. How many networks are going
> to trust joe somebody to inject null routes into their backbone? Will
> UUNet/Sprint/C&W/Level3/etc. trust me or Rob to tell them what's a bogon
> and what's not? I really doubt it. They might have an easier time
> t
From: jlewis
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 9:18 PM
> I know some writers watch nanog for potential stories. Wake up guys, this
> should be one...if not for the news value "ARIN gives out unusable IPs,
> future of the Net in question", then at least for the public service value
> of getting the wo
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Frank Scalzo wrote:
> We don't need the adminstrative headache of ICANN/ARIN/RIRs on this.
> Someone could just do it with a private ASN and advertise the route with
> an arbitrarily null routed next-hop.
That's a non-solution that will never happen. How many networks are g
y, March 10, 2003 8:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 69/8...this sucks
OK... I'm late to this discussion (been mostly ignoring it due to volume in
other places), but, Sean's 911->855 mail makes me wonder...
It seems to me that it would be relatively simple to solve t
OK... I'm late to this discussion (been mostly ignoring it due to volume in
other places), but, Sean's 911->855 mail makes me wonder...
It seems to me that it would be relatively simple to solve this problem by
doing the following:
1. ICANN (or an ICANN designee, such as ARIN) shall issue an A
this has been raised an issue before... but vanity ip address are a very
very bad idea.
joelja
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
>
> > You want to move things like gtld servers,
> > yahoo/google (and other 'important' things), including
>
> Do a deal with some porn hosters,
> You want to move things like gtld servers,
> yahoo/google (and other 'important' things), including
Do a deal with some porn hosters, they get 69.69.69.69
in exchange for advertising tons of free porn there
on their next spam run - win/win
brandon
From: "Ray Bellis"
>
> Why not persuade ARIN to put whois.arin.net in there instead? It
> shouldn't take the people with the broken filters *too* long to figure
> out why they can't do IP assignment lookups...
>
You are presuming that people are doing IP assignment lookups from the
affected netw
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Jared Mauch wrote:
> You want to move things like gtld servers,
> yahoo/google (and other 'important' things), including
> things like oscar.toc.aol.com into these.
No, if you really want to stir things up, start an article on slashdot,
let the posters whip themselves
> After this 69.0.0.0/8 thing is sorted out I guess
> we can move the "critical resources" over to 202.0.0.0/7
> to track down all the idiots blocking that range (trying
> to decide if I should put a smilie here).
>
> I nominate the arin.net nameservers.
Most people seem to think it would be imp
Hi, NANOGers.
] I bet for example we could get Rob Thomas to update his templates to
] include scarier warnings...
For the right amount of coffee, I just might. ;) Seriously, I'm all for
it. Here is what I have on the Bogon List page:
NOTE WELL! IANA allocations change over time, so plea
SL> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:28:55 +1300 (NZDT)
SL> From: Simon Lyall
SL> After this 69.0.0.0/8 thing is sorted out I guess we can move
SL> the "critical resources" over to 202.0.0.0/7 to track down
SL> all the idiots blocking that range (trying to decide if I
SL> should put a smilie here).
Ag
FS> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:41:56 -0500
FS> From: Frank Scalzo
FS> What we can REALISTICALLY accomplish is to lean on the people
FS> who publish books/web pages/templates/etc. to include big
FS> scary warnings about using bogon filters and outline WHY they
And all the existing books, webpages
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Simon Lyall wrote:
> Could someone publish a name of a valid resource (or even pingable ip) in
> 69/8 space? This would allow people to test their (and their upsteams)
> filters quickly while we wait for the list to come out.
69.atlantic.net (69.28.64.8) is a loopback on our
> I'm not trying to start a flame war here, just pointing out
> that a variety of feeds meet many more requirements, and that there
> are several types of data feeds available now. This includes the
> recently added pure text bogon files, suitable for easy parsing.
>
> http://www.cymru.com/Bogon
expert.
-Original Message-
From: Kevin Loch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:22 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 69/8...this sucks
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
>
>>I repeat my suggestion that a number of DNS root-servers or
gtld-servers
>>be ren
From: "Simon Lyall"
>
> Could someone publish a name of a valid resource (or even pingable ip) in
> 69/8 space? This would allow people to test their (and their upsteams)
> filters quickly while we wait for the list to come out.
>
The BrightNet nameservers are both in 69.8.2.0/24 for now.
ns.
DR> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:10:35 +0100
DR> From: Daniel Roesen
DR> Can you point out where the rule is written that noone is to
DR> announce a prefix with length le 7? Just we don't see it now
DR> doesn't mean we won't see it sometime in the future...
Ditto ge 25. I might have missed the RF
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Todd A. Blank wrote:
> I continue to agree that moving critical resources (see below) to these
> new blocks is the best approach I have seen or heard in the months since
> I made the original post. This approach punishes the clueless instead
> of the people that already know
DB> Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:58:20 -0800 (PST)
DB> From: Doug Barton
DB> Ah, sorry, I wasn't aware of the full extent of your
DB> crack-smoking-ness. :) You'll never get all of the root
DB> server operators to agree on this (or much of anything), so
I'm sorry, I'm having trouble grepping my m
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:28:23PM +, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> Assuming one's upstreams and peers lack 'deny le 7'.
Can you point out where the rule is written that noone is to
announce a prefix with length le 7? Just we don't see it now
doesn't mean we won't see it sometime in the future...
Re
Maybe we should suggest that ARIN also host some of their stuff on this
block :-)
Todd
IPOutlet LLC
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:52 PM
To: E.B. Dreger
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: 69/8...this sucks -- Central
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> The suggestion is to move ALL root, and as many TLD as possible,
> servers into the new space. Nobody has said "move one or two",
> which indeed would be ineffective.
Ah, sorry, I wasn't aware of the full extent of your crack-smoking-ness.
:) You'll nev
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 01:39:26PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
>
> Oh, I agree that there are times when BGP is used in a single uplink
> scenario, but it is not common. However, someone pointed me to ip verify
> unicast source reachable-via any which seems to be available on some of the
> cisco Serv
Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
I repeat my suggestion that a number of DNS root-servers or gtld-servers
be renumbered into 69/8 space. If the DNS "breaks" for these neglected
networks, I suspect they will quickly get enough clue to fix their ACLs.
Nice idea in principal (from a purist point of view) bu
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
