Re: Indonesian ISP Moratel announces Google's prefixes
Nobody said a Moratel customer announced a Google prefix, they said the issue was within Moratel. This is a really good article that explains the issue in detail, maybe read it again? http://blog.cloudflare.com/why-google-went-offline-today-and-a-bit-about Steve On 7 November 2012 05:07, Jian Gu guxiaoj...@gmail.com wrote: Where did you get the idea that a Moratel customer announced a google-owned prefix to Moratel and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place? according to the blog, all google's 4 authoritative DNS server networks and 8.8.8.0/24 were wrongly routed to Moratel, what's the possiblity for a Moratel customers announce all those prefixes? On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore patr...@ianai.net wrote: On Nov 06, 2012, at 23:48 , Jian Gu guxiaoj...@gmail.com wrote: What do you mean hijack? Google is peering with Moratel, if Google does not want Moratel to advertise its routes to Moratel's peers/upstreams, then Google should've set the correct BGP attributes in the first place. That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. If a Moratel customer announced a Google-owned prefix to Moratel, and Moratel did not have the proper filters in place, there is nothing Google could do to stop the hijack from happening. Exactly what attribute do you think would stop this? -- TTFN, patrick On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Anurag Bhatia m...@anuragbhatia.com wrote: Another case of route hijack - http://blog.cloudflare.com/why-google-went-offline-today-and-a-bit-about I am curious if big networks have any pre-defined filters for big content providers like Google to avoid these? I am sure internet community would be working in direction to somehow prevent these issues. Curious to know developments so far. Thanks. -- Anurag Bhatia anuragbhatia.com Linkedin http://in.linkedin.com/in/anuragbhatia21 | Twitterhttps://twitter.com/anurag_bhatia| Google+ https://plus.google.com/118280168625121532854
Re: DNS Changer items
FYI RIPE reallocated these blocks. Whilst I understand they didn't want the court order, this seems a bit silly, doesn't that now make the machines residing in these blocks special - even if the owners arent miscreants, it makes them a viable target. https://www.ripe.net/internet-coordination/news/clarification-on-reallocated-ipv4-address-space-related-to-dutch-police-order inetnum: 93.188.160.0 - 93.188.167.255 netname: LT-HOSTING-20120810 descr: Aurimas Rapalis trading as II Hosting Media country: US inetnum: 85.255.112.0 - 85.255.127.255 netname: INEVO-NET descr: Inevo Labs SRL country: RO On 13 July 2012 19:48, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote: On Jul 7, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: - Original Message - From: Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:20:55 -0400, Andrew Fried said: The dns-ok.us site is getting crushed from all the sudden media interest. One wonders why it's so hard to get the media interested when it would be *helpful*. DNS Changer gets traction like 3 days before the drop dead date, IPv6 gets on the radar *after* we run out of v4 /8's to give to regionals, etc... Reactive is easier to justify to the powers that be than proactive. It's easier to justify *not* being smart enough to deal with the problem when it doesn't cause a major disruption? When it isn't causing a major problem, the powers that be have a harder time understanding the need to act. Once it is causing a major disruption, the powers that be have no trouble understanding the need to act. This is not veneration of stupidity, it is human nature. Often summarized in the colloquialism The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Owen -- Director / Founder IX Reach Ltd E: steve.wil...@ixreach.com M: +44 7966 048633 Tempus Court, Bellfield Road, High Wycombe, HP13 5HA, UK.
Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
Hmm I find this topic quite interesting. First is the belief that the Internet will suddenly break on the day when the last IP block is allocated by an RIR - the fact that most of the v4 space is currently not being announced may mean we have many years before there are real widespread shortages Second is the belief that this will prompt a migration to IPv6, as though moving to an entirely different and largely unsupported protocol stack is the logical thing to happen. Surely it is easier and far cheaper by use of existing technology for example for organisations to make efficient use of their public IPs and deploy NATs? As technology people we are looking at v6 as the clean bright future of IP, but the real world is driven by economics and I dont see v6 as being economically viable in the near future I'm also yet to hear a convincing explanation of how v6 and v4 are expected to interoperate in a v4 internet that contains v6 islands... Steve On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:33:25AM -0400, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: I'm working on it ... But I think it will be really difficult to capture in a couple of pages what the document try to explain ! Regards, Jordi De: Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fecha: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:25:22 +0200 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: nanog@nanog.org Asunto: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 On 27-jun-2007, at 21:08, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: I've published a document trying to analyze the IPv4 exhaustion problem and what is ahead of us, considering among others, changes in policies. http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroomid=3004 Ugh, a link to a page with a link... Do you have an executive summary for us? ** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 ! http://www.ipv6day.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6
multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams. the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level Steve On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +, Christian Kuhtz wrote: Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is pretty pointless. -- Sent from my BlackBerry. -Original Message- From: Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33 To:Donald Stahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote: That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer 7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3. If we'd (the community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to Google's applications whether the content came from a site hosted on a v4 address, or a v6 address, or even both. If Google does not have v6 connectivity then how are they going to crawl those v6 sites? I think we're debating from very similar positions... v6 isn't the ideal scenario of '96 extra bits for free', because if life was so simple, we wouldn't need to ask this question. Andy
v6 multihoming (Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6)
Hi Christian, I am not seeing how v4 exhaustion, transition to v6, multihoming in v6 and destruction ov DFZ are correlated. If you took everything on v4 today and migrated it to v6 tomoro the routing table would not grow - actually by my calculation it should shrink (every ASN would only need one prefix to cover its current and anticipated growth). So we'll see 22 routes reduce to 25000. The technology we have now is not driving multihoming directly and v4 vs v6 is not a factor there. So in what way is v6 destroying DFZ? Steve On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 02:13:50PM +, Christian Kuhtz wrote: Amazink! Some things on NANOG _never_ change. Trawling for trolls I must be. If you want to emulate IPv4 and destroy the DFZ, yes, this is trivial. And you should go ahead and plan that migration. As you well known, one of the core assumptions of IPv6 is that the DFZ policy stay intact, ostensibly to solve a very specific scaling problem. So, go ahead and continue talking about migration while ignoring the very policies within which that is permitted to take place and don't let me interrupt that ranting. Best Regards, Christian -- Sent from my BlackBerry. -Original Message- From: Stephen Wilcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:55:06 To:Christian Kuhtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Donald Stahl [EMAIL PROTECTED], nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 multihoming is simple, you get an address block and route it to your upstreams. the policy surrounding that is another debate, possibly for another group this thread is discussing how v4 to v6 migration can operate on a network level Steve On Fri, Jun 29, 2007 at 01:37:23PM +, Christian Kuhtz wrote: Until there's a practical solution for multihoming, this whole discussion is pretty pointless. -- Sent from my BlackBerry. -Original Message- From: Andy Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:27:33 To:Donald Stahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: The Choice: IPv4 Exhaustion or Transition to IPv6 On 29 Jun 2007, at 14:24, Donald Stahl wrote: That's the thing .. google's crawlers and search app runs at layer 7, v6 is an addressing system that runs at layer 3. If we'd (the community) got everything right with v6, it wouldn't matter to Google's applications whether the content came from a site hosted on a v4 address, or a v6 address, or even both. If Google does not have v6 connectivity then how are they going to crawl those v6 sites? I think we're debating from very similar positions... v6 isn't the ideal scenario of '96 extra bits for free', because if life was so simple, we wouldn't need to ask this question. Andy
Re: [Nanog-futures] Fascist police force or team of gardeners?
On 27 Nov 2007, at 14:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Looking at the recent drop in list traffic which coincides with Martin Hannigan's campaign of stern warning letters to various people, I wonder whether things are heading in the right direction. were they deserved? (I honestly have no idea.. can you provide examples or counterexamples) Will NANOG become a better list with a team of fascist police officers scrutinizing every posting? http://www.infiltrated.net/nanogpolice.jpg clearly not but lets begin with the evidence :) Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Objection: RE: [admin] Re: EU Official: IP Is Personal
On 29 Jan 2008, at 15:57, Steve Gibbard wrote: On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Robert E. Seastrom wrote: Pete Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And seriously, can we stop with the if you don't like it, you must volunteer to serve on it to effect your desired changes mantra? Why? The people who bellyache and the people who have skin in the game are by and large a disjoint set. As someone who's put up (in more ways than one), I encourage those who are not willing to put up to shut up. Speaking as somebody who has put up a few times, and who has been more recently shutting up most of the time... For the record, I don't care if that particular thread dies; it'd strayed off-topic. However, I think the policy interpretation is too strict and warrants clarification. Reasonable people may disagree with any particular MLC action, however, I don't think that overall policy interpretation is too strict right now. It seems to me that there are two issues, topicality and quality. I'm not generally finding the NANOG list worth reading these days, and that makes me sad. I don't think I've noticed anything particularly off-topic recently. The mailing list committee must be doing a good job of dealing with that sort of thing. What I am seeing is discussion threads going on and on and on, long after there's nothing new left to say. Mostly this seems to be a fairly small group of people who appear to feel compelled to voice strong opinions over and over again on every topic that comes up, whether it's something they know anything about or not. I I think that is evidenced also on nanog-futures. How to measure the true satisfaction of the community I don't know but I don't see evidence that NANOG posts or diversity is decreasing. Is there a problem or is the list just evolving and not everyone likes it? Steve don't think those people add any value to the discussion, and I don't think the hordes of people who generally jump in to argue with them from different but equally uninformed perspectives do either. But, most of the time those people are on-topic. They're just not useful or interesting. I'd be quite happy to see the list administrators going to some of the most frequent posters and asking them to post less, whether on topic or not. -Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
Re: [Nanog-futures] Question about permanent bans
On 28 Feb 2008, at 08:32, Joel Jaeggli wrote: Martin Hannigan wrote: Do folks think that we ought to do a charter amendment to allow for permanent bans? That seems like a huge issue and that we may want to get an up or down vote. The way we would address it is either adding it as a power of the MLC, or even the SC -- then right a non charter procedure to develop the how. We have one person banned for life and a day and we don't seem to have a way to address that. We addressed it in v.01 of the MLC where we wanted the decks cleared of bans and added everyone back in, but then we were forced to re-ban said miscreant. Please advise. I would do two things: characterize it as indefinite rather than permanent. Assign right of review to the sc without guidelines as to when or how review might occur. yes altho i would make sure that review occurs periodically.. these things are highly unusual (1 person in all these years) so i don't think it hurts to keep things in the discussion every few months. i was on that MLC and was disappointed it had to be that way you may even want to try unbanning some time just to test the water, that would seem to be within the spirit of things, no? Steve ___ Nanog-futures mailing list Nanog-futures@nanog.org http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog-futures
