Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
If possible, it would be Good if APNIC could also make contact with the
rightful owners of the following additional 3 Japanese blocks,
Because whois contact information is, seemingly by acquisition
and relocation, obsolete, it should be impossible for APNIC
to do
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:56 PM Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2019, at 9:46 PM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:46 PM Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Elad,
> >>
> >> Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make
On 9/16/19 7:21 PM, Mike Lyon wrote:
> 1. Sprint peering battle. Google it
> 2. He.net peering battle. Google it.
> 3. Google IPv6 peering battle. Google it.
>
> All of which point to them being pompous assholes.
Add in Level3, Telia, ESnet, and I'm sure I'm forgetting others here.
Hurricane
On Sep 17, 2019, at 9:46 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:46 PM Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Elad,
>>
>> Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make
>> route objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:46 PM Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
wrote:
>
> Hi Elad,
>
> Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make route
> objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as a
> fallback for RPKI?
>
> Best regards,
> Martijn
Hi Elad,
Is this policy officially documented by AFRINIC somewhere? Can you make route
objects for legacy AFRINIC resources in their RIR operated IRRDB as a fallback
for RPKI?
Best regards,
Martijn
From: Elad Cohen
Sent: 18 September 2019 00:40:13
To: Martijn
Hi Ronald,
I think we have to place our trust somewhere somehow.. I certainly don't have
the time nor the skill-set which would be needed to perform due diligence on
the ownership of every IP block on the Internet, and though you make a laudable
effort of it yourself this responsibility can't
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:49 PM Ronald F. Guilmette
wrote:
>
> In message
> ,
> Martijn Schmidt wrote:
>
> >Hi Elad,
> >
> >If you were to create RPKI ROAs for the IPs in question...
>
> Thanks Martijn, for reminding me of a follow-up point that I had intended
> to make regarding my recent post
Hi Elad,
If you were to create RPKI ROAs for the IPs in question that'd end the
discussion about prefix ownership once and for all. It's the best way to
definitively prove, in public, that the accusations of theft are false. And it
also helps to protect your resources from accidental leaks or
In message <9567b241-12ce-4728-8e73-ff7143907...@apnic.net>,
Vivek Nigam wrote:
>APNIC has contacted the custodians of 139.44.0.0/16 and 168.198.0.0/16 and
>brought this matter to their attention.
Excellent. Thank you.
If possible, it would be Good if APNIC could also make contact with the
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 6:24 AM Emile Aben wrote:
>
> Hi NANOG,
>
> in light of a recent discussion on RIS-live, and a question on where
> best have RIS peers, this might be of interest to the NANOG crowd:
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/how-diverse-is-ris
>
thanks for taking a look at
> The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my
> name, by Ronald Guilmette
is he a cogent sales rep? that would explain a lot!
The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my name, by
Ronald Guilmette, are not true at all and they are completely false, in my hand
there are all the purchases approval for purchasing ipv4 and that were paid
completely by me.
Anyone who wants confirmation the ips
Hi Ronald,
APNIC has contacted the custodians of 139.44.0.0/16 and 168.198.0.0/16 and
brought this matter to their attention.
Regards,
Vivek
Member Services Manager, APNIC
From: Ronald F. Guilmette
Date: Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 6:30 PM
Subject: Cogent & FDCServers: Knowingly aiding and
In message , Elad Cohen wrote:
>The defamatory and invective words, the mudslinging and slander of my name,
> by Ronald Guilmette, are not true at all and they are completely false, in
> my hand there are all the purchases approval for purchasing ipv4 and that
>were paid completely by me.
>
On 16/Sep/19 21:55, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
>
>
> The point is that you must expect inbound traffic to any prefix you
> advertise to the outside world, even a more specific announcement is
> also being advertised. There are legitimate circumstances where an
> ISP would prefer the
On 16/Sep/19 20:26, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
>
>
> Not always.
No, longest match ALWAYS wins.
>
> E.g. imagine an ISP who has two connections to the outside world: one
> through a major ISP and the other through an IX.
>
> Such an ISP would be quite inclined both financially and technically
Hi NANOG,
in light of a recent discussion on RIS-live, and a question on where
best have RIS peers, this might be of interest to the NANOG crowd:
https://labs.ripe.net/Members/emileaben/how-diverse-is-ris
best regards,
Emile Aben
RIPE NCC
18 matches
Mail list logo
