Looks like they found a new willing partner.
AS32335 PACIFICINTERNETEXCHANGE-NET - Pacific Internet Exchange LLC.
http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595
http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/
Marc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like they found a new willing partner.
AS32335 PACIFICINTERNETEXCHANGE-NET - Pacific Internet Exchange LLC.
http://cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS27595
http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/
Hi, WatchMy.Net is a new community service to alert you when your prefix
has been hijacked, in real-time.
Following the discussion on NANOG a couple of weeks ago on what to do if
your prefix is hijacked, people mentioned that detection-wise, free
services are limited (to certain communities or
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like they found a new willing partner.
I like how their web page says Network Uptime: 03:56:55 up 1562 days,
17:51 (100%) 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.03, 0.02
Now, the difference between host and network aside, I find the idea of
This report has been generated at Fri Sep 12 21:18:50 2008 AEST.
The report analyses the BGP Routing Table of AS2.0 router
and generates a report on aggregation potential within the table.
Check http://www.cidr-report.org for a current version of this report.
Recent Table History
Date
Hello Gadi,
Gadi Evron wrote:
Hi, WatchMy.Net is a new community service to alert you when your prefix
has been hijacked, in real-time.
Very good initiative. You can count on me as one of your users.
Note that apparently it doesn't seem to be working as expected yet.
Indeed I already received
Many thanks to all the replies and help. There are some star performers
working for NTT, kudos to them for their professionalism and brainpower.
Follow-up question:
We've seen great improvement by testing throughput using
ChinaNetworkCommunications, AS4837. Before we switch service, does
BGP Update Report
Interval: 11-Aug-08 -to- 11-Sep-08 (32 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS2.0
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS9583 271701 3.4% 208.5 -- SIFY-AS-IN Sify Limited
2 - AS1803 133578 1.7%
On 12/09/2008, at 10:42 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Hi, WatchMy.Net is a new community service to alert you when your
prefix
has been hijacked, in real-time.
Hi Gadi,
I just had a quick play with this, as I've been considering hacking
together something similar.
It is trivially easy for an
I've been using IAR and PHAS, but I've noticed IAR seems to work a
bit better and much faster. Recently we changed our ASN, and seconds
after we started announcing prefixes under thew new ASN I received the
email alerts from IAR. I did not receive anything from PHAS. Although
I have in the past,
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Arnaud de Prelle wrote:
Hello Gadi,
Gadi Evron wrote:
Hi, WatchMy.Net is a new community service to alert you when your prefix
has been hijacked, in real-time.
Very good initiative. You can count on me as one of your users.
Note that apparently it doesn't seem to be
On Sat, 13 Sep 2008, Nathan Ward wrote:
On 12/09/2008, at 10:42 PM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Hi, WatchMy.Net is a new community service to alert you when your prefix
has been hijacked, in real-time.
Hi Gadi,
I just had a quick play with this, as I've been considering hacking together
something
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Christian Koch wrote:
I've been using IAR and PHAS, but I've noticed IAR seems to work a
bit better and much faster. Recently we changed our ASN, and seconds
after we started announcing prefixes under thew new ASN I received the
email alerts from IAR. I did not receive
Hi, Arnaud. The design is to only watch the origin ASN, not the other
ASNs in the path. Support for doing something with the transit portion
wof the AS_PATH will be added, probably a very simple alert if X is
in there or alert if Y is not in there.
As others have said it's imperfect so ideas
Nathan wrote:
It is trivially easy for an attacker to falsify the origin AS. If 'they' are
not doing it already, then I'm quite surprised.
This isn't really a good thing to alarm on, in my opinion. Or, maybe it is,
but
there should be big bold text explaining that it's not reliable as
Nathan wrote:
My best quick hack solution so far is to fire off a traceroute and make sure
that the traceroute gets ICMP TTL expire messages from IP addresses that are
in
prefixes originated from all the ASes in the ASPATH.
Still forgeable, but a bit more difficult.. still far from perfect
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, William Hamilton wrote:
What's amusing about having one user on that particular host?
That's the _front page of their corporate web site_. It doesn't say
host it says that's their _network_.
-Bill
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, William Hamilton wrote:
What's amusing about having one user on that particular host?
That's the _front page of their corporate web site_. It doesn't say
host it says that's their _network_.
You already made that distinction - Now, the difference between
Avi Freedman wrote:
Certainly if anyone wants to see the dynamics, who has advertised what now and
in the deep dark past, etc Renesys would be the place to go as far as I know.
RIS provides data in a searchable MySQL database for three months.
All we've ever collected is kept in a raw data
Hi Erik -
There's a great button about Usenet -
Reading Usenet is like drinking from a firehose;
Posting to Usenet is like shouting from a mountaintop;
Archiving Usenet is like saving used toilet tissue.
BGP may be somewhat more important, useful, and the results consumable
in the
looks to me as if they are just using output of 'top' and displaying
it there as it were for network stats.
output of top from one of my boxes..
top - 11:39:48 up 3 days, 20:56, 3 users, load average: 0.07, 0.21, 0.16
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Bill Woodcock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:42 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
[On-list comment. Off-list comments longer.]
On Thursday 11 September 2008 22:23:35 Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
If I have either a peering agreement or a transit arrangement with a
written
contract, then that contract supports my 'rights' under
On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Oh, and I notice you ignored my question, again. I won't bother
copy/pasting it here just to have you continue to ignore it, I think
the audience gets the point - you don't have an answer.
In fairness, he sent me an answer privately.
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
Daily listings are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For historical data, please see http://thyme.apnic.net.
If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith [EMAIL
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:50:15PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
I see in http://www.onesc.net/communities/as3356/ that L3 doesn't permit
customers to multihome the 4/8 space that they inherited from BBN, via
GTE, etc, ad nauseum...
and I'm curious whether anyone knows why? It sounds like
On Friday 12 September 2008 04:29:13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/
For your reading enjoyments, their peering guidelines verbiage is at
http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/?page=peering and their transit SLA is
at
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:50:15PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
I see in http://www.onesc.net/communities/as3356/ that L3 doesn't permit
customers to multihome the 4/8 space that they inherited from BBN, via
GTE, etc, ad nauseum...
and I'm curious whether anyone knows
Looks interesting, but it only takes a fairly short list of ASNs for a
prefix. For our big CIDR blocks, we have WAY too many ASNs to enter them
all, so it's pretty useless for me. I need to be able to enter at very
least a dozen ASes and I suspect may folks have a LOT more then that.
For now,
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you have NO
RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a right. You
responded with: If I have either a peering agreement ... then that contract
supports my 'rights'
This is easy.
Hey Cogent (174), AboveNet (6461), and NTT/Verio (2914),
Could you guys please be sure you're not routing the following rogue
customer prefixes?
58.65.238.0/24
58.65.239.0/24
64.28.176.0/20
67.130.99.0/24
67.210.0.0/21
67.210.8.0/22
67.210.13.0/24
67.210.14.0/23
69.1.78.0/24
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Friday 12 September 2008 04:29:13 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/
For your reading enjoyments, their peering guidelines verbiage is at
http://www.pacificinternetexchange.net/?page=peering and their transit SLA is
at
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Looks interesting, but it only takes a fairly short list of ASNs for a
prefix. For our big CIDR blocks, we have WAY too many ASNs to enter them
all, so it's pretty useless for me. I need to be able to enter at very
least a dozen ASes and I suspect may
It might be useful to have an option to generate an example alert mail for
purposes of setting up necessary mail processing rules and that sort. Just a
thought.
- S
-Original Message-
From: Gadi Evron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 3:13 PM
To: Kevin Oberman
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US
providers, their identity is presumably known. This discussion has now been
going on for long enough that it's presumably passed the
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Paul Wall wrote:
This is easy.
Hey Cogent (174), AboveNet (6461), and NTT/Verio (2914),
Could you guys please be sure you're not routing the following rogue
customer prefixes?
I think your argument might be more convincing with those
NOCs/abuse-desks if you provided or
Mail being what it is today, testing message delivery is an excellent
idea. I'll implement that feature this weekend.
Andy
Skywing wrote:
It might be useful to have an option to generate an example alert mail for
purposes of setting up necessary mail processing rules and that sort. Just a
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Skywing wrote:
It might be useful to have an option to generate an example alert mail for
purposes of setting up necessary mail processing rules and that sort. Just a
thought.
Good point. Any suggestions from folks here on how they would like it to
be built?
- S
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Andrew Fried wrote:
Mail being what it is today, testing message delivery is an excellent
idea. I'll implement that feature this weekend.
I think he meant he wants to be able to get an example alert to his inbox
on registration/on request so he can special filters which
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:24:33 EDT, Lamar Owen said:
peers carries great weight (as it should, of course). But, in section IV(I)
PIE makes a connection guarantee. That is their right to do, obviously, but
Playing devil's advocate here - it guarantees a connection, but does it also
guarantee
-Original Message-
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:34 PM
To: Jay R. Ashworth
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:50:15PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
I see in
Gadi Evron wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Skywing wrote:
It might be useful to have an option to generate an example alert mail
for purposes of setting up necessary mail processing rules and that
sort. Just a thought.
Good point. Any suggestions from folks here on how they would like it to
be
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Heather Schiller wrote:
Gadi Evron wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Skywing wrote:
It might be useful to have an option to generate an example alert mail for
purposes of setting up necessary mail processing rules and that sort.
Just a thought.
Good point. Any suggestions
Ah, both reasons really; setup mail flow rules, verify mail delivery, and
create appropriate whitelist entries if need be to make sure that notifications
tend not to mysteriously vanish. All general things that I like to do for any
new mail-based monitoring system.
- S
-Original
Hi, Hobbit - we met back in the late 80s / early 90s at various New Jersey
things
such as Trenton Computer Fair, but you probably don't remember me; Tigger
says hi as well...
Be Liberal in what you accept, be conservative in what you send,
and be really really clear in your error messages,
except
Blocking port 25 has become popular, not only with
walled-garden connectivity services that are really scared of their
customers running their own servers (e.g. most cable modem companies),
but also with other ISPs that don't want to deal with the problems
of having customers who are spamming
Hi Bill,
Bill Stewart wrote:
In some sense, anything positive you an accomplish by blocking Port 25
you can also accomplish by leaving the port open and advertising the IP
address
on one of the dynamic / home broadband / etc. block lists,
which leaves recipients free to whitelist or blacklist
Arnaud de Prelle wrote:
I think that most of us (me included) are already using it but the
problem is that they don't have BGP collectors everywhere in the world.
This is in fact a generic issue for BGP monitoring.
In this case it's very important to have a lot of collectors broadly
47 matches
Mail list logo
