Randy Bush ra...@psg.com writes:
well, not exactly. to quote myself from the other week in another forum
[ 30 lines deleted ]
Sorry to drone on, but these three really need to be differentiated.
The truly wonderful thing about the evolution of BGP security is its
elegant simplicity. It
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Dave Pooser wrote:
...and all we need is for billion-dollar corporations to start putting
moral rectitude ahead of profits.
Well, heck, that should start happening any day now! And then FedEx will
deliver my unicorn!
/snark
Your unicorn has been impounded by Customs.
jms
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote:
What the internet really needs is Tier1 and Tier2 providers participating
in the internet who care, regardless of the popularity or size of
netblocks or issues involved. And by care, I mean, providers
efficiently investigating reports of hijacking or
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against prefix
hijacking]?
So far the track record of the US government trying to make laws
regarding technology and the Internet has been less than stellar.
The DMCA is already bad enough, but we continue to see things like
PROTECT
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against
prefix hijacking]?
While I'm certain that's largely rooted in lawmakers who are not technically
savvy, I wonder if we-as-an-industry couldn't (or, shouldn't) be doing more to
move internal values and policies into defensible
On 2/2/12 12:32 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against prefix
hijacking]?
So far the track record of the US government trying to make laws
regarding technology and the Internet has been less than stellar.
...
While I agree with Ray's
So, new law? I don't think its necessary.
YMMV,
Eric
The problems are manifold. First of all, a nation's laws only extend to the
borders of that nation. The UN is not a government, it is a diplomatic body so
it really can't enact anything either. The Internet community is global and
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:22 PM, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
The fundamental problem is there is no absolute source of truth in who
is entitled to use which resource.
Well, the absolute truth would be the whois service maintained by the
RIRs, regarding who is the contact for what
On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 07:53:53AM +, George Bonser wrote:
Back in the old days, people cared about policing bad behavior.
And I believe that is all that is needed today. We simply, as a
community, need to decide that we aren't going to tolerate such
behavior. It really is that
On 2/1/12 8:43 PM, Jimmy Hess mysi...@gmail.com wrote:
Simple government regulation is of limited value, since the problem
network
may be overseas.
So government regulation won't work
What the internet really needs is Tier1 and Tier2 providers participating
in the internet who care,
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Joe Provo wrote:
The suits won, and many nerds either threw in with them or revealed
their affinity for the easy life and gave up. Being principled and
turning away dirty money or exercising the fire the customer clause
tends to be disliked by corporate officers.
bottom
The suits won, and many nerds either threw in with them or revealed
their affinity for the easy life and gave up. Being principled and
turning away dirty money or exercising the fire the customer clause
tends to be disliked by corporate officers.
bottom line -- the only way to fix this
On 2/2/12 21:59 , Randy Bush wrote:
The suits won, and many nerds either threw in with them or revealed
their affinity for the easy life and gave up. Being principled and
turning away dirty money or exercising the fire the customer clause
tends to be disliked by corporate officers.
bottom
I hear there's this thing called RPKI that does origin validation
pedantic
well, not exactly. to quote myself from the other week in another forum
--
Just to be clear, as people keep calling BGP security 'RPKI'
In the current taxonomy, there are three pieces, the RPKI, RPKI-based
origin
I'm not a lawyer nor an operator.
Imagine that instead of www.google.com, it was www.whitehouse.gov
At some point, I suspect that this gets service to get it fixed RIGHT NOW.
At some point, the guys informing you it's RIGHT NOW show up with badges.
Where is Milo Medin when we need him?
The
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that
space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with
the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's customer should
resolve this issue
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Hal Murray hmur...@megapathdsl.net wrote:
I'm not a lawyer nor an operator.
Imagine that instead of www.google.com, it was www.whitehouse.gov
At some point, I suspect that this gets service to get it fixed RIGHT NOW.
At some point, the guys informing you it's
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, David Conrad wrote:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that space. We
have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with the RIR nor the RIR's
customer. The RIR and/or the
We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce
that space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this
context) with the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's
customer should resolve this issue with our customer.
Contracts are generally not a valid
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that
space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with
the RIR nor the RIR's
On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:16 AM, George Bonser wrote:
We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce
that space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this
context) with the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's
customer should resolve this issue with
Once upon a time, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com said:
Let's say I had a business in space in a building I was leasing at 100 Main
Street, Podunk, USA. Now let's say you didn't renew the lease so I moved to
a building up the block but put the 100 Main Street address on my new
location and
AFAIK there's no law covering the use of what party X considers their
32 bit numbers (assigned by party A) by party Y.
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be?
(I honestly don't know the answer is to this question, and am asking in earnest
for opinions on the subject)
Nathan
Once upon a time, Nathan Eisenberg nat...@atlasnetworks.us said:
AFAIK there's no law covering the use of what party X considers their
32 bit numbers (assigned by party A) by party Y.
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be?
(I honestly don't know the answer is to this
On 2/1/12 10:16 AM, George Bonser wrote:
Let's say I had a business in space in a building I was leasing at 100 Main
Street, Podunk, USA. Now let's say you didn't renew the lease so I moved to
a building up the block but put the 100 Main Street address on my new
location and continued to
On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
AFAIK there's no law covering the use of what party X considers their 32
bit numbers (assigned by party A) by party Y.
The US bankruptcy courts have treated these as property that can be
sold/transferred comparable to other assets. (See threads
I'm told IP addresses aren't property.
Neither is the address painted on your curb. So it's ok for me to paint over
the number in front of your house and paint your house number on my curb, right?
The issue isn't about property. It is about stealing an ADDRESS making
impossible for the
Take the ex-customer and their immediate upstream providers to small claims and
sue each of them for the maximum amount for your time and trouble in dealing
with the issue. If they don't show, get a judgment and put a lien on their
stuff until they pay up.
I am not a lawyer and I am not
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be?
(I honestly don't know the answer is to this question, and am asking in
earnest for opinions on the subject)
Nathan
Well, calling the law on someone is kind of the whiner's way out anyway. It
would seem that the community could
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 15:00, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be?
(I honestly don't know the answer is to this question, and am asking in
earnest for opinions on the subject)
Nathan
Well, calling the law on someone is kind of
In message 20120201201012.ge10...@hiwaay.net, Chris Adams writes:
Once upon a time, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com said:
Let's say I had a business in space in a building I was leasing at 100 Main
Street, Podunk, USA. Now let's say you didn't renew the lease so I moved to
a building up
The problem is no one will actually blacklist a big ASN because its not
in the individual best interest, which scales greatly with size. RPKI
is pretty much the only real fix for this if the chain until the major
carrier refuses to delist, and RPKI has it's own issues.
-Blake
Sadly, you're
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 15:21, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com wrote:
The problem is no one will actually blacklist a big ASN because its not
in the individual best interest, which scales greatly with size. RPKI
is pretty much the only real fix for this if the chain until the major
carrier
Where is Milo Medin when we need him?
how would he be helping?
He would have pulled the plug.
The story is from the very early days of the internet, probably long before
NANOG existed.
Milo worked at NASA and found a cracker from Finland on one of NASAs
machines. The link from Finland to
On 2/1/12 1:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 20120201201012.ge10...@hiwaay.net, Chris Adams writes:
Once upon a time, George Bonser gbon...@seven.com said:
Let's say I had a business in space in a building I was leasing at 100 Main
Street, Podunk, USA. Now let's say you didn't renew the
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
Phoenix NAP colluding to hijack address space and then balking when it
was brought to their attention is a perfect example someone could use to
say why we need to be regulated. And I'm sure it will eventually
There are
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote:
What the internet really needs is Tier1 and Tier2 providers participating
in the internet who care, regardless of the popularity or size of
netblocks or issues involved. And by care, I mean, providers
efficiently investigating reports of hijacking or
Where is Milo Medin when we need him?
how would he be helping?
He would have pulled the plug.
The story is from the very early days of the internet, probably long before
NANOG existed.
Milo worked at NASA and found a cracker from Finland on one of NASAs
machines. The link from
Back in the old days, people cared about policing bad behavior.
And I believe that is all that is needed today. We simply, as a community,
need to decide that we aren't going to tolerate such behavior. It really is
that simple. The problem seems to be getting people to act. In fact, as
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP. :)
We're still not out of the woods, announcing /24s and working with upper
tier carriers to filter out our lists. However, I just got this response
from Phoenix NAP and found it funny. The thief is a former customer,
I think the correct term for this is bullet proof hosting. Now you know
where to go.
-Dan
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Kelvin Williams wrote:
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP. :)
We're still not out of the woods, announcing /24s and working with upper
tier
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP. :)
In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
- A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started announcing address
space a customer of theirs provided. Unfortunately, the address space wasn't
the
Curious, What was the outcome of this?
In any case, I'm hoping the major Tier-1s do the right thing and filter the
rogue annoucements, while allowing the OP's. Hopefully after enough
pressure and dysfunction, they will give it up.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:15 PM, David Conrad
We started announcing /24s, combined with the shorter path it seems to be
fine.
Still jumping through hoops upstream.
On Jan 31, 2012 8:26 PM, PC paul4...@gmail.com wrote:
Curious, What was the outcome of this?
In any case, I'm hoping the major Tier-1s do the right thing and filter
the rogue
In message 7b85f9d8-ba9e-4341-9242-5eb514895...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix =
NAP. :)
In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
- A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started
On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that =
space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) =
with the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's customer =
should resolve this issue
On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 7b85f9d8-ba9e-4341-9242-5eb514895...@virtualized.org, David
Conrad
writes:
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix =
NAP. :)
In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
- A largish
Internet number resource certification and origin validation sure would be nice
here ;-)
-danny
On Jan 31, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Kelvin Williams wrote:
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP. :)
We're still not out of the woods, announcing /24s and working
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 7b85f9d8-ba9e-4341-9242-5eb514895...@virtualized.org, David
Conrad
writes:
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix =
NAP. :)
In
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:52:57 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
- A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started announcing
national telco. oooh ka...
And if I have a contract to commit murder that doesn't mean that
it is right nor legal. A contract can't get you out of dealing
with
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Tue Jan 31 19:57:51
2012
To: David Conrad d...@virtualized.org
From: Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org
Subject: Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked
Networks)
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:52:57 +1100
Cc: nanog
Internet number resource certification and origin validation sure
would be nice here ;-)
this is arin address space. arin is the only rir which has not deployed
and there is running code
randy
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:15 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that
space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with
the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's customer should
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, David Conrad wrote:
In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
- A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started announcing address
space a customer of theirs provided. Unfortunately, the address space wasn't
the ISP's customer's to provide.
- When
That may not be a bad idea. Have you gotten your company's lawyers
involved? They may be able to get some sort of court action started and get
things moving. They may also be able to compel the ISP's to act.
2012/1/31 Kelvin Williams kwilli...@altuscgi.com
I hope none of you ever get hijacked
In message d73af1af-b75e-49b6-937a-5fbe770ad...@virtualized.org, David Conrad
writes:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce =
that =3D
space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) =
=3D
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
And if I have a contract to commit murder that doesn't mean that
it is right nor legal. A contract can't get you out of dealing
with the law of the land and in most place in the world aiding and
abetting is illegal.
the topic at hand would appear to be
57 matches
Mail list logo
