I was an Erols customer during that time. What's the story?
From: NANOG on behalf
of William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:01 AM
To: Douglas Fischer
Cc: NANOG
Subject: Re: SFI/SBI/Transit - Dumping
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:35 AM Douglas Fischer
There is no specific story on the focus.
My objective is to go a bit beyond the technical aspects of Peering, or
De-peering.
At the first moment, I don't mention some cases that I have in mind,
exactly to avoid the polemic and focus on the aspects around the cases.
I will give a hypothetic
* fischerdoug...@gmail.com (Douglas Fischer) [Tue 16 Mar 2021, 11:32 CET]:
And then??
Can this be considered an anti-competitive act?
I think you're asking this on the wrong list. We're network operators,
not lawyers with a specialisation in competitive markets regulation.
--
> On Mar 15, 2021, at 15:07 , Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> I think it’s a general matter of public interest how this reassignment of a
> massive government-owned block of well over sixteen million IP addresses
> happened. Even if not fraudulent, the public has a right to know who is
> behind this
NANOGers -
FYI - Outcome of the community consultation on the Future of ARIN’s
Unauthenticated IRR.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
Begin forwarded message:
From: ARIN mailto:i...@arin.net>>
Subject: [ARIN-consult] ACSP Consultation 2021.1: Future of
On 3/16/21 13:18, Niels Bakker wrote:
I think you're asking this on the wrong list. We're network operators,
not lawyers with a specialisation in competitive markets regulation.
Well, yes and no...
No, we aren't lawyers, but yes in that there is some merit to the
question from a
Job -
You suggest "ARIN can manage cleanup of a select few objects” but alas,
responsibility for proper routing entry hygiene lies with the individual
parties that have placed information in the routing registry.
Decisions on ARIN services are ultimately under the authority of the ARIN Board
Hi John,
It seems that you are trying to abdicate responsibility, but at the end of the
day those individual parties are placing information in "better" routing
registries such as RPKI that you can leverage to clean up the "lesser"
ARIN-NONAUTH routing registry. So those individuals are taking
https://status.azure.com/en-us/status
SUMMARY OF IMPACT: Starting at approximately 19:15 UTC on 15 Mar 2021, a subset
of customers may experience issues authenticating into Microsoft services,
including Microsoft Teams, Office and/or Dynamics, Xbox Live, and the Azure
Portal.
CURRENT STATUS:
Good afternoon,
I work retail at a tech store in Canada as my day job, and we've been
experiencing issues today only with activating Microsoft product cards. Unsure
if it's related to the other Microsoft issues, but it's a good possibility as
no other product card activations for other vendors
Martin -
ARIN has already taken responsibility by making available authenticated IRR and
PRKI services as sought by the community, and I concur that individual parties
are also taking responsibility by placing their routing information in these
and similar services.
ARIN will encourage such
I'm tightening up some network-edge filters, and in the process of
testing filtering with IPv6, I found that there is a lot of ICMP
link-local (fe80::) to ff02:: activity at an IX. Is any of this
necessary? I am wary of over-filtering that cuts down functionality and
doesn't increase
Dear John,
Thank you for extending the deadline with another 6 months. Obviously 6
months amidst a global pandamic would never be enough time. :-)
Both John Sweeting [1] and myself [2] assert there are tens of thousands
of objects for which the relationship between the object's existence and
the
https://status.office365.com/
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 4:49 PM Nathanael Cariaga
wrote:
> WVD seems to be affected as well... tak tsk tsk. I guess this is part of
> Monday blues? :P
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 4:39 AM Andrey Khomyakov, <
> khomyakov.and...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I didn't
Hey,
> I'm tightening up some network-edge filters, and in the process of
> testing filtering with IPv6, I found that there is a lot of ICMP
> link-local (fe80::) to ff02:: activity at an IX. Is any of this
> necessary? I am wary of over-filtering that cuts down functionality and
Dunno,
On 3/16/21 17:15, Saku Ytti wrote:
Dunno, ff02::1 would be very necessary (i.e. ND), ff02:: I have no
idea. But you should do yourself favor, before you drop ICMP packets,
allow ND:
Not that you should see it over an exchange point, but LDPv6 runs over
ff02::2. In case that's your style,
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:33 AM Douglas Fischer
wrote:
> There is no specific story on the focus.
> My objective is to go a bit beyond the technical aspects of Peering, or
> De-peering.
>
> At the first moment, I don't mention some cases that I have in mind,
> exactly to avoid the polemic and
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:30 AM Douglas Fischer
wrote:
> ---
> The "SteveAndEdNet", a CDN Company, decides to extend its branchs until
> "Kingdom of Far Far Away", and creates a POP there.
> Installs itself on "DorisInnDatacenter", connects with some IXPs over there,
> connects some PNIs with
18 matches
Mail list logo
