I think that this message hasn't been shared here.
Regards
as
-- Forwarded message -
From: Israel Rosas
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 at 16:12
Subject: [lacnog] 2022 MANRS Ambassadors
To: LACNOG
Dear all,
Happy Monday! I’m reaching out to you to announce that today we are opening
th
Proper filtering from the upstream providers.
.as
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 9:25 PM Alejandro Acosta <
alejandroacostaal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately RPKI is not useful in this case.
>
> Question: What else could be done to prevent this?
>
>
> Alejandro,
>
>
>
> On 6/12/19 12:05 PM, Philip
Mark
Invalid according to RPKI or IRR? Or both?
Regards
as
On Tue, 10 Dec 2019, 18:22 Randy Bush, wrote:
> mark,
>
> > Just to let this group know that we've started the process of
> > activating the dropping of Invalids for all our eBGP customers.
>
> cool. any stats and lessons appreciated.
Would be M-lab (https://www.measurementlab.net/about/) what you are looking
for?
.as
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 at 13:20 Max Tulyev wrote:
> Thank you!
>
> I got one more reply off-list - and again it is connected to SamKnows.
>
> But I can't figure out what SamKnows uses as the destination for tests?
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 at 07:08 Dovid Bender wrote:
> Consumers can always chose with their wallet.
>
>
As long as you have options, which is the basic problem. There isn't real
alternative options.
Will
You can send me the ticket number(s) by email.
Also, if anyone else has (have) similar issues feel free to email me.
Regards
as
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 at 15:17, Will OBrien via NANOG wrote:
> Since google is abandoning RS routes, we worked on setting up IX peering
> across the board.
>
> Al
What about the PRBI project for an IXP?
I think that is working, possibly it just need a hand. If possible, I would
like to put my effort in something that is working and improve it rather
than start something else from scratch.
Regards
as
On Sat, 12 Aug 2017 at 14:15 Mike Hammett wrote:
> Rea
The Latin American and Caribbean Peering Forum LACPF-2018 will be held in
Panama City, Panama on the April 30th, 2018. The goal of the LACPF is to
promote and provide collaboration spaces in topics related to
interconnection and peering, IXPs, CDNs, transport capacity, and colo
facilities among oth
One big problem (IMHO) of DDoS is that sources (the host of botnets)
may be completely unaware that they are part of a DDoS. I do not mean the bot
machine, I mean the ISP connecting those.
In the other hand the target of a DDoS cannot do anything to stop to
attack besides addin
arset="us-ascii"
>
>
> On Dec 8, 2010, at 7:28 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>> One big problem (IMHO) of DDoS is that sources (the host of botnets)
>> may be completely unaware that they are part of a DDoS. I do not mean the
>> bot machine, I mean th
e" botnet.
>
> Jeff
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Arturo Servin
> wrote:
>>
>> On 8 Dec 2010, at 13:12, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote:
>>
>>> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:53:51 +
>>> From: "Dobbins, Roland"
>>>
There are some pieces in the RPKI puzzle.
One is the definitions of protocols, that one is very advanced in the
SIDR WG in the IETF. Not RFCs yet but I am sure we will se some soon.
Another piece are repositories of CA's and ROAs and Trust Anchors. RIRs
have the
GNS3
http://www.gns3.net/
This is another network simulator, mainly for academic research.
NS-2
http://www.isi.edu/nsnam/ns/
And you can always setup some virtual machines with DNSs, hosts and
routers with open-source software.
regards,
-as
On 17 Jan 2011, at 11:58, James Jon
I agree with Alex that without a hosted solution RIPE NCC wouldn't have
so many ROAs today, for us, even with it, it has been more difficult to roll
out RPKI among our ISPs. As many, I do not think that a hosted suits to
everybody and it has some disadvantages but at leas it could help
I think the issue is not between valid vs invalid, but that using
route-maps and local preference a "more specific not valid" route would be used
over another "less specific valid" because of the routing decision process,
right?
Perhaps this would help?
http://www.ietf.org/mai
We have been doing it for a few months.
http://www.lacnic.net/en/registro/espacio-disponible-ipv4.html
We are working in a new model to forecast the available space over time
and in providing the data so anybody can do their own graphs.
Also APNIC has some very useful d
Is it really a better alternative? Do we want to pay the cost of a
fully distributed RPKI architecture?
Or do we just abandon the idea of protecting the routing infrastructure?
There is no free-lunch, we just need to select the price that we want
to pay.
-as
O
Not working in the Internet access business but as Internet citizen
this sounds interesting.
You would need some motivations to make ISPs register and perhaps some
kind of validation in the future. But as initial step it sounds cool.
.as
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Andrei Robachevsky
wro
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
> Is there some technical reason that BGP is not an option? You could allow
> them to announce their AT&T space via you as a secondary.
unless it is a /26, /25 or something shorter.
Even with a /24 things may get messy.
IPv4 is coming to a
No Happy Eyeballs?
Perhaps also time to ditch XP and IE for something new as well.
-as
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Random IPv6 complaint of the day: redirects from FCC.gov to pay.gov fail
> when clients have IPv6 enabled. Work fine if IPv6 is off. One more set
HE should work then, perhaps another problem + IPv6.
-as
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Windows 8 running Google Chrome as the browser.
>
> Matthew Kaufman
>
>
> On 3/17/2014 11:46 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>
> No Happy Eyeballs?
>
&g
On 12 Jun 2011, at 09:38, Fabio Mendes wrote:
> 2011/6/11 Matthew Palmer
>
>>
>> The router isn't assigning an address, it's merely telling everyone on the
>> segment what the local prefix and default route is. As such, there's no
>> reason why the router should try to register a DNS entry.
>
They also made Interface Message Processors, like the grandpas of
routers.
.as
On 8 Aug 2011, at 12:29, Peter Stockli wrote:
> Wow, BBN, the reason we use the @ sign, second .com Domain, former AS1.
>
> Lots of history ;)
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Rick Altmann wrote:
>
>
What's the prefix you claim is hijacked?
/as
On 20 Aug 2011, at 22:05, Denis Spirin wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I was hired by the Russian ISP company to get it back to the business. Due
> to impact of the financial crisis, the company was almost bankrupt, but then
> found the investor and
These prefix are originated by AS31733 which seems to be assigned to
the same organisation than the ASN, which in turn seems to be you.
I can see AS12182 in the path but not originating the route. So I do
not understand what are your claiming.
.as
On 20 Aug 2011, at 23:05, De
ed it
on.
> No, I'm not a venture capitalist, but IT specialist.
>
> I am too sleepy, so replied to Adrian directly while wanted to post in the
> list.
If you are claiming right over these prefixes I suggest you to contact
RIPE NCC.
/as
>
> 2011/8/21 Arturo Se
at 6:01 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>> If you are claiming right over these prefixes I suggest you to contact
>> RIPE NCC.
>
> And that will do what exactly?
>
> Back when I worked at an RIR, a prefix was "misplaced". When I contacted the
> (country monopo
NAT444 alone is not enough.
You will need to deploy it along with 6rd or DS-lite.
Whilst you still have global v4, use it. The best is to deploy
dual-stack, but that won't last for too long.
Regards,
as-
On 1 Sep 2011, at 15:36, Serge Vautour wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Th
What do you mean with "purchasing or renting IPv4".
Last time that I check it was not possible in the RIR world.
If you mean "hijacking" unused IPv4 space, that's another history.
.as
On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:11, Joly MacFie wrote:
> I'd welcome comments as to solutions to
Yes, I forgot that one.
ARIN and APNIC allows it, LACNIC will when it reaches the last /12 (so
now is not possible). RIPE NCC and Afrinic do not have a policy yet AFAIK.
-as
On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:35, David Conrad wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Arturo Servin wr
I agree with Benson.
In fact, for this "problem" I find irrelevant that IPv4 is running out.
They are just looking for good reputation IP nodes.
-as
On 7 Oct 2011, at 16:03, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> I don't see anything new in the article, and would classify parts of it as
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>ARIN and APNIC allows it, LACNIC will when it reaches the last /12
>> (so now is not possible). RIPE NCC and Afrinic do not have a policy yet
>> AFAIK.
>
> RIPE's LIR IPv4 listing service has 1x /20 lis
I imagine that those proposals are not from users …
I would add "tyrannical" telcos cracking down on their own customers.
-as
On 7 Oct 2011, at 14:20, Claudio Lapidus wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Martin Millnert wrote:
>
>> I've seen tyrannical governm
Same from LACNIC. This would have justify a /44 or separate /48s for
each site.
/as
On 31 Oct 2011, at 12:45, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Ideally, you should put a /48 at each location.
>
> Speaking from my experience with getting v6 spac
Why don't you use just a tunnelbroker?
I would take just a few minutes to setup a tunnel. From there, you can
do a lot of stuff inside your network.
My 2 cents
/as
On 1 Nov 2011, at 18:36, Meftah Tayeb wrote:
> Hello folks,
> i'm posting this Message to both nanog and afnog li
/24 as minimal allocation is only for end-users and critical
infrastructure.
For ISPs (LIRs) the minimal allocation is /22.
/as
On 16 Nov 2011, at 00:30, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> LACNIC: /24 - http://lacnic.net/en/politicas/manual3.html
I wonder if they are using private IP addresses.
-as
On 21 Nov 2011, at 13:32, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> On an Illinois water utility:
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45359594/ns/technology_and_science-security
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
On 22 Nov 2011, at 13:38, Joel Maslak wrote:
> 1) Not having IPv6 at all. I expect to get it on my DSL in about 10 years or
> so when the equipment my line on is old enough to be replaced under a 15 or
> 20 year replacement cycle.
>
> 2) Bandwidth caps probably affect people a lot more than
It is in beta and in spanish, though:
http://simon.labs.lacnic.net/simon/api
http://simon.labs.lacnic.net/simon
http://simon.labs.lacnic.net/simon/participate/
If you found it useful we could create an english version.
Regards
as
On 04/12/2012 19:05, Tal Mizrahi wrote:
> Hi,
>
Perhaps because you are addressing to a bunch of Internet engineers
that (we) are used to create standards in open forums where everybody
have a say.
For the new Internet world "available to all participants in the ITU-T,
on exactly the same terms as drafts of other Recommendation
It works for me (http)
Cannot ping, so maybe they filtered the whole ICMPv6 and you have a MTU
problem. But that is only a guessing.
as
On 18/12/2012 13:36, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:3
On 7 Mar 2013, at 02:50, Dobbins, Roland wrote:
>
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
>> I would pitch it as follows: We need to at least have IPv6 access to
>> troubleshoot/understand customers that have dual-stack technology.
>
> That's a great point, but my guess is that th
Pretty much the same process that I have seen in many ISPs and
enterprises.
Regards.
as
On 07/03/2013 11:32, John Curran wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2013, at 5:42 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>> Yes, but this is an argument to deploy the whole IPv6 thing, not
>> aga
Yes, BCP38 is the solution.
Now, how widely is deployed?
Someone said in the IEPG session during the IETF86 that 80% of the
service providers had done it?
This raises two questions for me. One, is it really 80%, how to measure
it?
Second, if it were 80%
, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Arturo Servin
> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, BCP38 is the solution.
>>
>> Now, how widely is deployed?
>>
>> Someone said in the IEPG session during the IETF86 that 80% of the
>> s
I think BCP it is a solution. Perhaps not complete but hardy any single
solution would be suitable for a complex problem as this one.
If you are the end-user organization with a multihomed topology you
apply BCP38 within your own scope. This will help to have less spoofed
Masataka,
Do you have data to support your claim?
I would said that poor BCP38 deployment it is because a lack of
economical incentive. I have only empirical data to support my claim
though (which is private conversations with ISPs not doing it and saying
that they do not see a co
It does if I am not the sender.
.as
On 3/18/13 12:10 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>> >If you are the end-user organization with a multihomed topology you
>> > apply BCP38 within your own scope. This will help to have less spoofed
>&
The last presentations that I saw about it said that we are going to be
fine:
http://www.iepg.org/2011-11-ietf82/2011-11-13-bgp2011.pdf
http://www.iepg.org/2011-11-ietf82/iepg-20.pdf
Regards,
as
On 20/03/2013 02:53, Randy Bush wrote:
> i am not saying bgp and forwarding can deal wi
On 20/03/2013 09:07, Aled Morris wrote:
> On 20 March 2013 11:44, Arturo Servin <mailto:arturo.ser...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
> The last presentations that I saw about it said that we are
> going to be
> fine:
>
> http://www.iepg.org/
On 3/20/13 12:26 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> Arturo,
>
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>> For example I know there are enterprises that would like to multihome
>>> but they find the current mechanism a barrier to this - for a start they
>&
On 21/03/2013 04:23, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> Are you suggesting that geolocation is inaccurate enough to misplace
> Europe with Asia?
Yes, sometimes very inaccurate.
Just go to an IETF meeting and you will be placed all around the globe.
It is a corner case, but it shows
And do not forget
http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38
:)
-as
On 3/27/13 2:17 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> Please reference:
>
> http://openresolverproject.org/
> http://spoofer.csail.mit.edu/
> http://blog.cloudflare.com/deep-inside-a-dns-amplification-ddos-attack
>
> ...and
I am afraid you are right.
It is going to cost us money and time, but unfortunately I do not see
another way out.
/as
On 3/27/13 6:19 PM, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> As I mentioned on another list earlier today, let's face it -- this is
> going to require a large-scale, very public,
On 4/8/13 9:41 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Apr 7, 2013, at 23:27 , Tore Anderson wrote:
>
>> > * Owen DeLong
>> >
>>> >> The need for CGN is not divorced from the failure to deploy IPv6, it
>>> >> is caused by it.
>> >
>> > In a historical context, this is true enough. If we had accomplished
Yes.
We figured this out and we are starting a program (or a set of
activities) to promote the deployment of IPv6 in what we call "End-users
organizations" (basically enterprises, universities). We are seeing much
lower adoption numbers than our ISP's categories.
One basi
It works to me, a different one by the way:
telnet -6 imap.gmail.com 993
Trying 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::6c...
Connected to gmail-imap.l.google.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
]
^]
telnet> q
Connection closed.
The same one, works too:
telnet 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::6c 993
Trying 2607:f8b0
Not sure if this is what you are looking for:
http://www.traceroute.org/#Route%20Servers
/as
On 8 Jan 2012, at 22:31, David Prall wrote:
> Both AT&T and Hurricane Electric have access for this.
>
> A quick list of them.
> http://www.netdigix.com/servers.html
>
> Majority of these are
Manish,
Nice tool.
Is it possible to see the "history" of a prefix?
Regards,
.as
On 13 Jan 2012, at 18:19, Manish Karir wrote:
>
> All,
>
> We would like to announce the availability of the bgpTables Project at Merit
> at: http://bgptables.merit.edu
> bgpT
how the notion of time can help answer a question.? What would be
> an example of a query
> that uses time?
>
> Thanks.
> -manish
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2012, at 12:53 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>> Manish,
>>
>> Nice tool.
&g
You could use RPKI and origin validation as well.
We have an application that does that.
http://www.labs.lacnic.net/rpkitools/looking_glass/
For example you can periodically check if your prefix is valid:
http://www.labs.lacnic.net/rpkitools/looking_glass/rest/
as just suggesting to add a more deterministic way to detecting
hijacks.
Regards,
as
>
> 2012/1/20 Arturo Servin
>
>You could use RPKI and origin validation as well.
>
>We have an application that does that.
>
>http://www.labs.lacnic.ne
One option is to use RPKI and origin validation. But it won't help much
unless prefix holders create their certificates and ROAs and networks operators
use those to validate origins. It won't solve all the issues but at least some
fat fingers/un-expierience errors.
We are runni
On 11 Mar 2012, at 09:48, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 9 Mar 2012, at 10:02 , Jeff Wheeler wrote:
>
>> The way we are headed right now, it is likely that the IPv6 address
>> space being issued today will look like "the swamp" in a few short
>> years, and we will regret repeating this obvi
Try RIS from RIPE NCC or routeviews.
regards,
as
Sent from my mobile device
(please excuse typoss and brevit.)
On 13 Mar 2012, at 11:54, Walter Keen wrote:
>
> Trying to work on an interesting project, where it would be nice to monitor
> the routing table of a collection of routers, store
Another reason to not use them.
Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it
shouldn't be more than that) in "touching code, (hopefully) testing that code,
deploying it, training customer support staff to answer questions, updating
documentation, etc."
k minimal. And probably more if the company exceeds 50,000
> employees.
>
> Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> Another reason to not use them.
>
> Seriusly, if they cannot expend some thousands of dollars (because it
> shouldn't be more than that) in "touc
Summary: Do not use NSI, if you are. Switch.
/as
On 29 Mar 2012, at 13:32, Matt Ryanczak wrote:
> On 3/28/12 11:00 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>> once, years ago, Netsol -did- have a path for injecting records.
>> It was prototype
>> code with the engineering team. I
Anurag,
You have a rogue RA in your network. Now is just an annoying DoS, but
it can easily be turned in a real security concern.
I suggest to either deploy properly IPv6 or disable it. I am more on
the former, but it is your choice.
Regards
-as
On 16 Apr 2012, at 15:09, Anura
On 17 May 2012, at 00:47, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Could someone make:
>> 2) put the graphs at 'not rpki.net' on rpki.net (too)
>
> no. that is the exact point. the graph to which i pointed is on rob's
> site. these are data each relying party can collect and see for
> themselves and their point
I wouldn't be so picky to have an static IP address in my phone, bur
for sure I want a global IPvx one.
-as
On 25 May 2012, at 15:00, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Joel jaeggli wrote:
>> On 5/25/12 07:35 , valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
>>> And the
On 26 May 2012, at 08:33, Matt Ryanczak wrote:
> On 5/25/12 2:35 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't be so picky to have an static IP address in my phone, bur
>> for sure I want a global IPvx one.
>
> but would you want that dynamic IP address behi
Wouldn't BCP38 help?
/as
On 15 Jun 2012, at 11:59, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57453738-83/fbi-dea-warn-ipv6-could-shield-criminals-from-police/
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth Baylink
> j...
e whatever unnallocated IPv6 space
(2F10:baba:ba30:e8cf:d06f:4881:973a:c68) to SPAM and then go invisible and use
another one (2E10:baba:ba30:e8cf:d06f:4881:973a:c68)
Regards,
as
On 17 Jun 2012, at 13:24, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:10:59 -0400, Artur
If the ISP fails to filter my bogus space and leak that route to the
Internet (which happens today everyday with IPv4, and will with IPv6) I would
get my return path.
Again, if every ISP followed BCP 38 that would not happen (IPv6 and
IPv4). But they are not, and probably they
On 17 Jun 2012, at 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> Lather rinse repeat with a better choice of address...
>
> 2001:550:3ee3:f329:102a3:2aff:fe23:1f69
>
> This is in the ARIN region...
>
> It's from within a particular ISP's /32.
>
> Has that ISP delegated some overlapping fraction to another I
On 18 Jun 2012, at 09:48, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:50 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
>>
>> On 17 Jun 2012, at 20:29, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lather rinse repeat with a better choice of address...
>>>
>>>
It was not DNS issue, but it was a clear case on how community-support helped.
Some of us may even learn some new tricks. :)
Regards,
as
Sent from mobile device. Excuse brevity and typos.
On 27 Jun 2012, at 05:07, Daniel Rohan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer
On 28 Jun 2012, at 08:05, Tei wrote:
> On 27 June 2012 09:50, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> (specially for a Web site written in
>> PHP)?
>>
>
> We software makers have a problem, when a customer ask for a
> application, often theres a wen project that already do it ( for the
> most part is a
Oh!
We had it as a test service. We didn't know that it was been used by
more people, so probably somebody turn it off.
I will look around to restart it.
Thanks!
as
On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:37, Tina TSOU wrote:
> We got offline after discussion in NANOG in May. This IPv6
The licence expired.
We will see if we can get another one.
Cheers,
as
On 25 Jul 2012, at 15:58, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> Oh!
>
> We had it as a test service. We didn't know that it was been used by
> more people, so probably somebody turn
Or better.
Sign your prefixes and create ROAs to monitor any suspicious activity.
There is an app for that:
http://bgpmon.net
Besides the normal service you can use also RPKI data to trigger alarms of
possible hijacks
http://www.labs.lacnic.net/rpkitools/looking_glass
There is something that I think they call DNS. It may help.
:)
.as
On 19 Sep 2012, at 02:27, Mike Hale wrote:
> You know what sucks worse than NAT?
>
> Memorizing an IPv6 address. ;)
Wait!
Are you suggesting to not use it as intended by RFC6598?
"to
be used as Shared Address Space to accommodate the needs of Carrier-
Grade NAT (CGN) devices. It is anticipated that Service Providers
will use this Shared Address Space to number the interfaces that
It won't.
Users do not care about IPv6 or IPv4. They want a fast and reliable
Internet connection.
If you think you can do that with IPv4, you don't need to do anything
(well, just plan for some budget for your CGNs). If not, better start
deploying IPv6.
.as
On 21/11/20
What do you mean with "deliberate migration"?
Users do not care and they will never have a "deliberate migration".
However ISPs do, if the user have IPv6 it is because the ISP deliberate
migrate to v6 by enable it in their backbone, networks and user's CPEs.
IMHO
Try LACNOG or GTER (aka Brazilian NOG group) emailing list.
May be somebody there could help.
Regards
as
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:09 PM, Brian Free wrote:
> Humberto,
> I have been contacted by a couple of engineers inside of Oi or its
> subsidiaries. I'm pursuing those options at the mome
Chris
Some that come to my mind:
draft-ietf-v6ops-balanced-ipv6-security and (not sure how up to date is
this one) RFC 6092 Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer
Premises Equipment (CPE) for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service
RFC 5157 IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning
Hey!
New message, please read <http://visa24.info/caught.php?o2hl>
Arturo Servin
There are a plenty of services/research doing that.
M-Lab
RIPE Atlas
Speedtest
to name some.
.as
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 at 10:35 Dovid Bender wrote:
> All,
>
> I had an idea to create a product where we would have a host on every
> EyeBall network. Customers could then connect to these hosts and
Laundered route
I like it.
Or re-originated laundered route (it has more meaning but a bit too long)
.as
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 at 09:33 Casey Russell wrote:
> I think Tony's on the right track here. I vote we call this "Route
> Laundering", the people who do it "Route Launderers", and the rout
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:15 PM, wrote:
> > How about Origin Obfuscation
>
> Obfuscation implies intent. Most leaks and mis-announcements don't
> have intent because they're whoopsies.
>
Well, if you take a route, change its origin as your own (or any other) and
re-announce it (perhaps just a
This draft is now RFC6441 and BCP 171
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6441
.as
On 6/10/13 11:49 PM, Jayram A. Deshpande wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> With IPv4 being almost exhausted[1] , I am curious to know how many net
> admins have the Bogon filtering ACLs still hanging around ?
>
> Goo
And this presentation by Geoff Huston:
http://iepg.org/2011-11-ietf82/2011-11-13-bgp2011.pdf
Regards,
as
On 6/22/13 11:48 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Yes… It will probably settle out somewhere around 100-125K routes.
> Owen -
>
> Can y
Hacker will love SDN ...
:)
Bye, bye dumb and resilient network ...
.as
On 8/17/13 8:02 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> A software defined network is one where the forwarding behavior can be
> completely defined
> in software running outside of the devices that perform the forwarding.
l survive as the rest of the decision points could converge and
> act as independent network snippets.
>
> -Jay.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Jeff Kell wrote:
>
>> On 8/17/2013 7:14 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>> Hacker will love SDN ...
I think is better idea to rate-limit your responses rather than
limiting the size of them.
AFAIK, bind has a way to do it.
.as
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Anurag Bhatia wrote:
> Hi ML
>
>
>
> Yeah I can understand. Even DNSSEC will have issues with it which makes me
> worry about rule eve
On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad wrote:
>> Amusingly enough, I personally (along with others) made arguments along
>> these lines back in 1995 or so when the IAB was coming out with
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1814.txt. Given the
Lucky you.
.as
On 11 Feb 2011, at 11:42, Josh Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Arturo Servin
> wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2011, at 04:51, Ricky Beam wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:31:21 -0500, David Conrad
>>> wrote:
Iljitsch,
In deed there were ERX unused space that were divided among RIRs, I
think it is referred as "various ERX" (pointed out by Tore).
http://bgp.potaroo.net/stats/nro/various.html
There were also ERX space transferred from ARIN DB (used to be in
InterNIC's) to RIRs becaus
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
