Hey guys,
Anybody else in the Pacific Northwest notice some sites down? I'm using
Comcast here at home, and I can't reach anything over at Hurricane Electric.
I can confirm that HE is reachable from the University of Washington.
Thanks,
Ashoat
Never mind, back up! Apparently there was a problem at Comcast.
Thanks,
Ashoat
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:07 PM, Ashoat Tevosyan
ash...@cs.washington.eduwrote:
Hey guys,
Anybody else in the Pacific Northwest notice some sites down? I'm using
Comcast here at home, and I can't reach anything
Yeah, I saw it too. My traceroute was dying at an IP belonging to Global
Crossing and the DNS looked like it was at 11 Great Oaks. I called Comcast to
report it, but they just kept saying I should reboot my modem.
On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Ashoat Tevosyan wrote:
Never mind, back up!
We contacted GBLX and the issue was resolved shortly thereafter. Last
time this happened one of their internal routers hung and someone kicked
it. No idea if this was the same type of issue.
In this case, more that just traffic between us and Comcast was
affected, at least according to a
Did you wait 30 seconds before you plugged it back in?
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:02 AM, John A. Kilpatrick j...@hypergeek.net wrote:
Yeah, I saw it too. My traceroute was dying at an IP belonging to Global
Crossing and the DNS looked like it was at 11 Great Oaks. I called Comcast
On Aug 12, 2010, at 11:36 PM, Jeff Walter wrote:
In this case, more that just traffic between us and Comcast was affected, at
least according to a friend of mine who's on Comcast.
Yeah, things were wonky for a while. Like the application for programming my
Harmony One couldn't contact
It always amaze me how the word de-regulated is so misused.
When there is a monopoly the regulation is in fact very very light: Acme co is
the monopoly and government cash in dividends/license fees and just check they
don't do anything really silly.
When there is competition this is when you
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Jeff Walter je...@he.net wrote:
We contacted GBLX and the issue was resolved shortly thereafter. Last time
this happened one of their internal routers hung and someone kicked it. No
idea if this was the same type of issue.
In this case, more that just
On 8/12/2010 11:42 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
There are definite reports that it affected connectivity to some
portions of Yahoo
for some comcast users in the Bay Area as well.
Matt
*offers a new roll of duct tape to Comcast for their routers*
Just got confirmation from GBLX... Router seized.
Hi,
This probably seems like an unusual request, but we urgently need to install
some equipment in Equinix HK and are having problems applying some iLO
licenses, Does anyone have a spare KVM in the datacenter there that we can
purchase from you, rather than ordering one and drop shipping it which
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:52:06 PDT, Jeff Walter said:
Just got confirmation from GBLX... Router seized. Perhaps some WD-40 is
in order?
No caffeine yet. Did you mean router froze up, or router taken into
possession by creditors and/or law enforcement officials? ;)
pgpYOKNVcQp1i.pgp
At the risk of getting called out for posting possibly operationally
significant stuff in the middle of a massive retrospective about
WCOM's acquisitions, here's a circleid post from a couple days ago
from John Curran at ARIN.
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3. ARIN says no, B hasn't
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:44:12AM -0700, Owen DeLong said:
6. ARIN receives a fraud/abuse complaint that A's space is being used by B.
7. ARIN discovers that A is no longer using the space in accordance with
their RSA
8. ARIN reclaims the space and A and B are left to figure out who
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com wrote:
6. ARIN receives a fraud/abuse complaint that A's space is being used
by B.
7. ARIN discovers that A is no longer using the space in accordance
with their RSA
8. ARIN reclaims the space and A and B are left
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:44:12AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as
Jeff,
Go for it. I've always wondered what ARIN had between it's legs.
Andrew
On 8/13/2010 1:53 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
On Fri,
how does ARIN or whomever deal with similar situations where someone is
advertising un-allocated, un-assigned by ARIN IP space in NA? do they have a
deal/agreement with the 'backbone' providers?
-g
6.ARIN receives a fraud/abuse complaint that A's space is being used by B.
7.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:23:56PM +0430, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
9. I could point out so many cases of justification abuse or
outright fraudulent justification and I bet nothing would actually
transpire.
My two cents.
Jeff
if you have data on abuse, please use the ARIN abuse
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:36 AM, John Levine wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addres
ses/
Discuss. :-)
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say,
On 8/13/10 2:06 PM, Aaron Wendel wrote:
You know I love you Owen. :)
9. A sues ARIN for tortuous contract interference.
10. B sues ARIN for same.
11. C and D join the law suit.
12. Judges step in.
13. ARIN gets mired in lawsuit after lawsuit
14. Dogs and cats start living together
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3. ARIN says no, B hasn't shown that they need it
4. A and B say screw it, and B announces the
This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet
Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan.
The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, AusNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, LacNOG,
CaribNOG and the RIPE Routing Working Group.
Daily listings are sent to
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:15:51PM -0400, John R. Levine said:
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer the chunk to B
3. ARIN says no, B
On 28/07/2010 15:17, Tony Finch wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Joe Greco wrote:
Weren't the FCC and att recently suggesting that VoIP was the future of
telephony?
BT are currently upgrading the UK's phone system to VOIP. But it's running
on a private network.
Aren't BT still failing to trust
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon? One which refuses to process a
revocation list on the basis of the function of the certificate is useless.
The revocation list only has
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon? One which refuses to process a
revocation list on the basis of the function of the
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:49 +, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon?
no.
One which refuses to process a revocation list on the basis of the
function of the certificate is useless.
no, it's not. ssl as a form of identity assurance itself is what is
I would consider a transit provider who subverted an ARIN revocation to be
disreputable, and seek other sources of transit.
easy to say, but the reality is you may chose not to do so due to logistical,
monetary or management/boss reasons which trumps your constitutionally
balanced
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:15 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
...
10. ARIN attempts to allocate the /20 to someone else, who is not amused.
Note that at this point ARIN presumably has no more v4 space left, so a
threat never to allocate more space to A or B isn't very scary. Given its
limited
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 06:49:35PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said:
Is this upstream going to cut that customer off and
lose the revenue, just to satisfy ARIN's bleating?
Isn't this a little bit like an SSL daemon? One which refuses to process a
revocation list on the basis of the
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
...
Right, and Im answering my own question here, for (8) about the reclaiming -
what upstream is going to stop carrying prefixes from a downstream that's
'illegally' announcing them? Is this upstream going to cut that customer off
and
lose the
I've tried to deal with that a few times - mainly by writing up the
first upstream AS. Usually they don't care (and every time I have
noticed someone blatantly stealing space, it's been spammers).
Good filtering at the transit provider border IMNSHO is the best way to
solve this problem.
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:17:50PM -0400, John Curran said:
Ken -
ARIN maintains the WHOIS based on what the community develops for
policies; what's happens in routing tables is entirely up to the
ISP community. No bleating or large sticks here, just turning
the policy
If someone who was downstream from this provider in a similar situation, I'd
say there is a stronger propensity for them to not 'do the right thing'.
which by
the way isn't a law, so who says its right?its a set of guide lines a
group of
folks put together.
But the reality is
On Aug 13, 2010, at 1:55 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
could you provide 4 numbers for me please?
% of ARIN managed resource covered by standard RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource covered by legacy RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource not otherwise covered?
On 8/13/10 10:42 AM, Brandon Galbraith wrote:
Alternate #4: A rents the space to B without ARIN knowing it, while A
continues to claim that the space belongs to them.
This already happens as we speak with IP brokers.
~Seth
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:25:56PM +, Nathan Eisenberg said:
But the reality is that you asserted your intention to follow those
guidelines when you requested the allocation, did you not?
If an upstream accepts announcements from a revoked block, what is to stop
them from accepting
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:24:45 EDT, Ken Chase said:
I'm indicating (the probably obvious) that these pressures will certainly
increase over time, and as one other member pointed out, the sticks may become
neccessary - and the community will have to become more 'constitutionally
ethical' in
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:36 PM, John Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/psst_interested_in_some_lightly_used_ip_addresses/
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say,
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 03:43:11PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
On Aug 13, 2010, at 1:55 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
could you provide 4 numbers for me please?
% of ARIN managed resource covered by standard RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource covered by legacy
% of ARIN managed resource covered by standard RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource covered by legacy RSA?
% of ARIN managed legacy resource not otherwise covered?
% of ARIN region entities (A B above) that have offices/relationships
with other RIRs that have a
Those who do not understand market are doomed to reimplementing it, badly.
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and B wants to buy? Trying
to fend off the imaginary monopolistic hobgoblin?
Or simply killing the incentive to actually do something about conservation
and, yes,
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and B wants to
buy? Trying to fend off the imaginary monopolistic hobgoblin?
self-justification for arin's existence, flying people around to lotso
meetings, fancy hotels, ...
at the rirs, income and control are more important than the health
On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
We'll work on generating these numbers to the extent
possible for the upcoming meeting; back in April, I noted
that we had about 21% of the legacy space (by total IP
address count) under an LRSA (6%) or RSA (15%). For now,
this is first
We'll work on generating these numbers to the extent
possible for the upcoming meeting; back in April, I noted
that we had about 21% of the legacy space (by total IP
address count) under an LRSA (6%) or RSA (15%). For now,
this is first order estimate for your second and third
On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:37 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
thanks. but i meant when you report at meeting, on web site, whatever.
please report both, not just the one with the larger number.
Yes, will do.
/John
thanks. but i meant when you report at meeting, on web site, whatever.
please report both, not just the one with the larger number.
Yes, will do.
thanks
randy
On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:35 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and B wants to
buy? Trying to fend off the imaginary monopolistic hobgoblin?
self-justification for arin's existence, flying people around to lotso
meetings, fancy hotels, ...
at the rirs,
(and to answer Randy - the only control over the administration is based
on the policies adopted. Reduce the corpus of applicable policy if that
is your desire.)
we created careers for junior policiy weenies. arin and other rirs have
become well-funded playgrounds for the semi-clued who
I know of several large providers that would stop routing such rogue space.
Any provider that isn't prepared to deal with such a possible customer threat
or problem you don't want to be associating with. They likely harbor other
badness as well.
It may take some time to catch up to them but
I've tried to deal with that a few times - mainly by writing up the
first upstream AS. Usually they don't care (and every time I have
noticed someone blatantly stealing space, it's been spammers).
Has there ever been a case where ARIN has tried to take a block back
from a party to whom they had
On 13/08/10 21:04 -, John Levine wrote:
I've tried to deal with that a few times - mainly by writing up the
first upstream AS. Usually they don't care (and every time I have
noticed someone blatantly stealing space, it's been spammers).
Has there ever been a case where ARIN has tried to
On Aug 13, 2010, at 4:06 PM, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
my assertion to Owen was that his views would apply directly
to the folks under a standard RSA. My reading of the
LRSA suggests that ARIN has a much narrower remit on recovery
of resources covered by
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:00:04PM -0400, Jared Mauch said:
I know of several large providers that would stop routing such rogue
space.
Really? They'd take a seriously delinquent (and we're only talking about non
payment after several months to Arin, not spammers or other 'criminal'
elements)
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 04:18:01PM -0500, Dan White said:
Make a public example of the situation. Assign such a block to an ARIN
member with extensive legal resources who's willing to send some nasty
letters out, and back it up with court action to establish legal
precedence.
Or ARIN
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:19:20PM -0400, John Curran wrote:
if this characterization is in ballpark, then Owens view on
reclaimation only holds for ~30% of the resource under ARIN
administration.
31% (33/106) of the address space managed by ARIN is per-RSA,
and ARIN's
I agree with you.the context around my statement is if the downstream
believed or has some validity to a claim that they are being unjustly treated
or over sighted by ARIN (or others). it wasn't about procuring blocks from a
criminal, rather when ARIN says you are no longer entitled to
to make it easiest to understand, i might grind it up into /24
equivalents and present as percentages
Type % of all space% of type space% of total holders % of type
holders
RSA 31%
no-RSA
LRSA 6%
no-LRSA
...
I'm not against ARIN, I think they have good intentions. I'd like to think
so
anyway.
Same here. I'm honestly surprised that there is as much dissention from this
attitude as there seems to be...
Yes, we have returns, revocations, and reclamations occurring routinely.
They're covered
BGP Update Report
Interval: 05-Aug-10 -to- 12-Aug-10 (7 days)
Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS131072
TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS
Rank ASNUpds % Upds/PfxAS-Name
1 - AS346425838 2.5%1174.5 -- ASC-NET - Alabama Supercomputer
Network
2 - AS5536
This report has been generated at Fri Aug 13 21:11:36 2010 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
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:39:42PM +, bmann...@vacation.karoshi.com said:
Thanks for this John. My hope is that folks will try and
avoid using the courts as the arbitor in the event of
dispute over right to use.
--bill
Civil courts is one thing - criminal courts
John - you do not get it...
First of all, I don't want your organization to have ANY policy at all.
Being just a title company for IP blocks is well and good - and can be
easily done at maybe 1% of your budget. Title companies do not tell
people if they can buy or sell, they just record the
Randy Bush wrote:
(and to answer Randy - the only control over the administration is based
on the policies adopted. Reduce the corpus of applicable policy if that
is your desire.)
we created careers for junior policiy weenies. arin and other rirs have
become well-funded playgrounds for the
Mikel Jimenez Fernandez wrote:
Good news for IPV6 fans!
Forwarding on behalf of APNIC.
2010 and will be making allocations from these ranges in the near
future:
49/8
101/8
More netblocks to block against spam I say. :-|
Someone on another list posted this, you may wish to update your
Roland Perry wrote:
Kenny Sallee writes
So the whole 'myth' of Internet doubling every 100 days to me is
something someone (ODell it seems) made up to appease someone higher
in the chain or a government committee that really doesn't get it.
[Whether it was really 100 days, or 200 days...] a
First of all, I don't want your organization to have ANY policy at all.
Where'd you get your AS number, again?
On Aug 13, 2010, at 6:33 PM, Vadim Antonov wrote:
John - you do not get it...
First of all, I don't want your organization to have ANY policy at all.
Unfortunately, Vadim, even No Policy *is* a policy.
Being just a title company for IP blocks is well and good - and can be
easily done at
On Aug 13, 2010, at 5:46 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
to make it easiest to understand, i might grind it up into /24
equivalents and present as percentages
Acknowledged,
/John
If you know of actual fraud or abuse, please report it to ARIN. ARIN does
investigate and attempt to resolve those issues.
Owen
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Andrew Kirch wrote:
Jeff,
Go for it. I've always wondered what ARIN had between it's legs.
Andrew
On 8/13/2010 1:53 PM,
On Aug 13, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Ken Chase wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 02:15:51PM -0400, John R. Levine said:
I don't entirely understand the process. Here's the flow chart as far
as I've figured it out:
1. A sells a /20 of IPv4 space to B for, say, $5,000
2. A tells ARIN to transfer
On Aug 13, 2010, at 6:03 PM, Ken Chase wrote:
I don't know what to suggest, but perhaps a more binding set of policies for
ARIN members to engage in policing/responding to shutdown requests on the
community's behalf and some penalties for not upholding agreements is in
order.
Ken -
Be
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Vadim Antonov a...@kotovnik.com wrote:
How come ARIN has any say at all if A wants to sell and
B wants to buy? Trying to fend off the imaginary
monopolistic hobgoblin?
Because that portion of the address-using community, people just like
you, that shows up and
John - you do not get it...
vadim, i assure you curran gets it. he has been around as long as you
and i. the problem is that he has become a fiduciary of an organization
which sees its survival and growth as its principal goal, free business
class travel for wannabe policy wonks as secondary,
Yet most of the bad ideas in the past 15 years have actually come from
the IETF (TLA's, no end site multihoming, RA religion), some of which
have actually been fixed by the RIR's.
no, they were fixed within the ietf. that's my blood you are taking
about, and i know where and by whom it was
Nathan,
On Aug 13, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
I'm not against ARIN, I think they have good intentions. I'd like to think
so anyway.
Same here. I'm honestly surprised that there is as much dissention from this
attitude as there seems to be...
I suspect the issue arises
Here I know we have eaten costs of term liability and cancelled
contracts more than the dollar figures you have mentioned below to
keep the net clean. Sad that it appears you may not be willing to put
the money where your mouth is.
how noble of you. and how perceptive to equate legitimate
On Aug 13, 2010, at 10:55 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
...
if the iana could get out from under lawyers and domainer greed, and go
back to simply being bookkeeper for the internet, they could do the
automated solution today. well, with some months of setup. and we
could get rid of 95% of the costs
If the allocation and reassignment of address space has no policy
associated with it, then there's no doubt that most of the registry
functions can be automated, and there's no need for the associated
policy development process, public policy meetings, travel, conference
calls. Quite a bit
the fracking rirs, in the name of marla and and lee, actually went to
the ietf last month with a proposal to push address policy back to the
ietf from the ops. and they just did not get thomas's proposal to
move more policy from ietf back to ops.
and, to continue the red herring with jc, i
On Aug 13, 2010, at 11:32 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
If the allocation and reassignment of address space has no policy
associated with it, then there's no doubt that most of the registry
functions can be automated, and there's no need for the associated
policy development process, public policy
one start would be for arin to have the guts not to pay travel
expenses of non-employees/contractors.
ARIN Suggestion process:
https://www.arin.net/participate/acsp/index.html
If you submit it, I will bring it to the Board for consideration. In
fairness, I will tell you that I'll also
On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:17 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
thanks for reaffirming that talking to arin is a waste of time.
If you're going to recommend that we not pay for travel for the
ARIN AC, I'm going to recommend otherwise and point out that the
AC members need to hear from the community, and
John,
I will concur with Randy that much of the travel that ARIN funds is
excessive. ARIN has a booth at trade shows so i'm going to guess that
entire setup with travel costs about $20,000 - 50,000 per show. Why?
To convince me to use ARIN for my IP space needs? To convince us to
switch to IPv6?
Funny!
On one hand people talk about ARIN providing IP allocation at nearly zero cost
and on the other hand talking that ARIN goes after companies that use their
allocation for abuse (which has a non trivial cost and potential expensive
lawsuits)...
Do you know what you want?
On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:12 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
ARIN needs to investigate these companies and start reclaiming space.
Pose as a customer, see if they'll sell you a /24 or shorter on a
dedicated server for some arbitrary reason, and if so they're busted.
From there launch a full
John,
I have privately e-mailed you 5 x /18 and 3 x /19 that are being
abused. If ARIN takes action against even one of these allocations I
will commend you publicly. I'll go do the investigation for you if you
need evidence.
Best regards, Jeff
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:07 AM, John Curran
On Aug 13, 2010, at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
Vendors are neglecting to support IPv6 because there is no demand.
It would probably be useful to be public about which vendors are still saying
there is no demand for IPv6.
Meanwhile, there are hosting companies, dedicated server companies,
On Aug 14, 2010, at 1:00 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
John,
I have privately e-mailed you 5 x /18 and 3 x /19 that are being
abused. If ARIN takes action against even one of these allocations I
will commend you publicly. I'll go do the investigation for you if you
need evidence.
I'm not
You seem to be suggesting that ARIN (and presumably the other RIRs)
invest more in policing the address space and otherwise regulating the
market. How much are you willing to pay for that service?
and how would it make the internet any better?
randy
On Aug 14, 2010, at 12:32 AM, Jeffrey Lyon wrote:
John,
I will concur with Randy that much of the travel that ARIN funds is
excessive. ARIN has a booth at trade shows so i'm going to guess that
entire setup with travel costs about $20,000 - 50,000 per show. Why?
To convince me to use ARIN
I'm not sure it would make the internet better but it would reinforce
integrity in a general sense. If we're to get away with lying on
justification I might as well go grab a few /18's before the last /8
is issued.
Jeff
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
You seem
I'm not sure it would make the internet better
then i don't want to pay for it. if you have not noticed, money is
tight, and it ain't gonna get better.
randy
97 matches
Mail list logo
