Engineering contact at RocketFiber

2017-02-17 Thread Eric Dugas
Anyone from RocketFiber's engineering group on this list? Contact me off-list please! Eric

Re: gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders

2017-02-17 Thread Christian de Larrinaga
It's a pretty shocking development. It's one thing to nobble a single network under the IP Act to interfere with equipment but to use a neutral exchange to nobble shared infrastructure used across US and UK and ... is a completely different can of worms. I don't exercise a vote anymore at LINX

Weekly Routing Table Report

2017-02-17 Thread Routing Analysis Role Account
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, MENOG, SAFNOG, SdNOG, BJNOG, CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to

Re: gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders

2017-02-17 Thread Brandon Butterworth
On Fri Feb 17, 2017 at 05:19:32PM +, William Waites wrote: > So instead of saying, "we have this new spying law in the UK and we need > to rejigg the decision-making at LINX so we will be ready in case we are > required to do something that must be kept secret" Yes but "hey government, swivel

Re: gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders

2017-02-17 Thread William Waites
> On Feb 17, 2017, at 16:46, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > > There is one problem: The article is factually incorrect on multiple points. It would be interesting to know what points those are, it reads mostly accurately to me. > The proposed constitutional changes are in the

Re: gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders

2017-02-17 Thread Patrick W. Gilmore
There is one problem: The article is factually incorrect on multiple points. So comparing A to B when B is a fairy tale does not make much sense. The proposed constitutional changes are in the public domain. -- TTFN, patrick P.S. Full disclosure, I am a LINX director. So maybe I’m saying this

Re: gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders

2017-02-17 Thread Ken Chase
Just meant it as a parallel operational example. Both situations, while legally distinct, present the same operational issues. Purposely breaking things - and then being required to keep the breakage secret - is going to mess up a whole lot of things. (How does Chinese operators handle this?)

Re: gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders

2017-02-17 Thread Mike Hammett
I'm not sure Cogent is on any IXes? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Ken Chase" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 9:56:23 AM

gagging *IX directors re snoop/block orders

2017-02-17 Thread Ken Chase
And when you go to figure out why that IP wont ping through Cogent on your exchange, and start troubleshooting but can't get any answers as to why things are bust... [ Clearly now an operational issue for NANOG. ] Purposely breaking routing and not being able to talk about why is going to set

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

2017-02-17 Thread Florian Weimer
* > On Friday, 17 February, 2017 08:29, "Florian Weimer" said: > >> Of course they do, see the arrest of Augusto Pinochet. > > Universal Jurisdiction is supposed to cover the likes of war crimes, > torture, extrajudicial executions and genocide, that are generally > agreed to

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

2017-02-17 Thread t...@pelican.org
On Friday, 17 February, 2017 08:29, "Florian Weimer" said: > Of course they do, see the arrest of Augusto Pinochet. Universal Jurisdiction is supposed to cover the likes of war crimes, torture, extrajudicial executions and genocide, that are generally agreed to be crimes

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

2017-02-17 Thread Florian Weimer
* Todd Crane: > I am not familiar with Cogent’s architecture but why couldn’t they > just null route the IP address at their edge routers from within > Spain? I am not a lawyer but from what I understand, since the Spanish > government has zero say on what goes on outside of their borders, Of

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

2017-02-17 Thread Florian Weimer
* Jared Mauch: > So risk avoidance on the part of the 100k other sites hosted by CF is > now a conspiracy? Conspiracy is perhaps a bit too strong, but I would be annoyed if someone took my business, but then deliberately undermined the service they provide. Of course, if it's all part of the

Re: backbones filtering unsanctioned sites

2017-02-17 Thread Florian Weimer
* Andrew Paolucci: > Can anyone with a Cogent connection in Canada verify that they are > impacted as well? I think it's global. I tried sites in Canada and Germany, and the traces look like deliberate blocking of /32s. I don't have a BGP view for these sites, though. Why wouldn't it be