On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 8:50 AM John Curran wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2020, at 5:01 AM, Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
> wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity, since we aren't affected by this ourselves, I know of
> cases where Cogent has sub-allocated IP space to its customers but which
> those customers
Make sure they send evidence to complia...@arin.net so Cogent doesn't keep
getting away with it.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 2:21 PM Darin Steffl wrote:
> Cogent is still violating this whois suspension.
>
> A couple wisp's I know were contacted by cogent in the last week after
> receiving their ASN.
Cogent is still violating this whois suspension.
A couple wisp's I know were contacted by cogent in the last week after
receiving their ASN.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020, 12:57 PM Justin Wilson wrote:
> This shall be my answer from now on.
>
> > On Jan 27, 2020, at 1:22 PM, Dovid Bender wrote:
> >
>
This shall be my answer from now on.
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 1:22 PM, Dovid Bender wrote:
>
> I find it interesting that they say their clients didn't see it as an issue.
> Whenever they called and asked if I want transit my answer always was when
> they had v6 peering to He and Gooogle we
as well, for quite some time now.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -Aaron
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of James Breeden
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 7:04 PM
> >> To: Rich
G [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of James Breeden
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 7:04 PM
>> To: Rich Kulawiec; North American Network Operators' Group
>> Subject: RE: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmm. Won
ell, for quite some time now.
>
>
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of James Breeden
> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 7:04 PM
> To: Rich Kulawiec; North American Network Operators' Group
> Subject: RE: FYI - Suspension of Cogent
On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:17 PM Tom Hill wrote:
> On 09/01/2020 17:09, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> > But at least Cogent is not a security and/or anti-spam vendor (or is
> > it?). A security services company (iThreat) spammed all IANA gTLD
> > contacts this week, with the ever lasting excuse of "it's
On 09/01/2020 17:09, Rubens Kuhl wrote:
> But at least Cogent is not a security and/or anti-spam vendor (or is
> it?). A security services company (iThreat) spammed all IANA gTLD
> contacts this week, with the ever lasting excuse of "it's opt-out".
Everlasting, unless you're operating under the
>
> Will Cogent stop pestering the community with illicitly harvested
> contact information? Will they switch to more nefarious tactics? Who
> knows... Everyone likes having money, after-all.
>
>
But at least Cogent is not a security and/or anti-spam vendor (or is it?).
A security services company
On 08/01/2020 13:53, Joe Provo wrote:
>> This is a disproportionate response IMHO. $0.02
>>
>> YMMV,
>
> And mine certainly does. Well over a decade of documented
> misbehavior with requests for them to cease certainly makes
> this an appropriate response. I will always applaud an
>
, 2020 7:04 PM
To: Rich Kulawiec; North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: RE: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois
Hmm. Wonder if this can be used to cancel some cogent services... I mean, they
technically aren't providing access to the full internet now. 路♂️樂
Sent via
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 05:45:39PM -0500, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 08:51 John Curran wrote:
>
> > On 7 Jan 2020, at 5:01 AM, Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity, since we aren't affected by this ourselves, I know of
> > cases where Cogent has
On 8/Jan/20 00:59, Matthew Walster wrote:
>
> Same origin, RPKI ROA would be valid.
True. But if one of multiple origins was ROA'd, others that aren't would
be marked as Invalid.
Mark.
I will also say that ARIN does not appear to take suspension like this lightly
at all… It has taken many years and I’m betting (at least) scores of complaints
about this chronic behavior by Cogent prior to ARIN taking this action.
I know that I personally have filed a number of fully documented
> From: NANOG On Behalf Of John Curran
> Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 11:43 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois
> Importance: High
>
> On 22 Sep 2019, at 8:52 AM, Tim Burke <mailto:t...@tburke.us>> wrote:
>
> That
I have to +1 this. I've been solicited many times by them myself and it's sad
to see the information used that way.
When I worked at another carrier I helped stop this as well with the sales
people. They were creative, but it does at least violate the social norms of
the industry at minimum
:02 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: North American Network Operators' Group
Subject: Re: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:54:22PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> That said, if there's a stern warning about Cogent abusing the system,
> maybe their customers findi
On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:54:22PM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> That said, if there's a stern warning about Cogent abusing the system,
> maybe their customers finding out is a good thing for the overall
> community. ;-)
And that is what I would suggest: reply to all queries with a notice
that
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020, 21:16 Mark Tinka, wrote:
>
>
> On 7/Jan/20 12:01, Martijn Schmidt via NANOG wrote:
> > So while the IP space is registered to Cogent and allocated to its
> > customer, the AS-path might be something like ^174_456$ but it's
> > entirely possible that ARIN would observe it as
ary 7, 2020 4:48:58 PM
Subject: Re: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:46 PM Martin Hannigan < hanni...@gmail.com > wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 08:51 John Curran < jcur...@arin.net > wrote:
On 7 Jan 2020, at 5:01 AM, Martijn Sc
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 4:46 PM Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 08:51 John Curran wrote:
>
>> On 7 Jan 2020, at 5:01 AM, Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Out of curiosity, since we aren't affected by this ourselves, I know of
>> cases where Cogent has
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 08:51 John Curran wrote:
> On 7 Jan 2020, at 5:01 AM, Martijn Schmidt via NANOG
> wrote:
> >
> > Out of curiosity, since we aren't affected by this ourselves, I know of
> cases where Cogent has sub-allocated IP space to its customers but which
> those customers originate
On 7 Jan 2020, at 5:01 AM, Martijn Schmidt via NANOG wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, since we aren't affected by this ourselves, I know of cases
> where Cogent has sub-allocated IP space to its customers but which those
> customers originate from their own ASN and then announce to multiple
On 7/Jan/20 13:12, Martijn Schmidt wrote:
> I don't think Cogent signed ROAs for any of their legacy IP space from
> which they make sub-allocations to customers.. so for networks doing ROV
> it should just evaluate to an unknown state, rather than an invalid state.
Indeed... it was just a
On 1/7/20 11:16 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
> Well, they would certainly be blocked by RPKI unless ROA's for those
> originations are created.
>
> Mark.
I don't think Cogent signed ROAs for any of their legacy IP space from
which they make sub-allocations to customers.. so for networks doing ROV
it
On 7/Jan/20 12:01, Martijn Schmidt via NANOG wrote:
> Out of curiosity, since we aren't affected by this ourselves, I know
> of cases where Cogent has sub-allocated IP space to its customers but
> which those customers originate from their own ASN and then announce
> to multiple upstream
Out of curiosity, since we aren't affected by this ourselves, I know of cases
where Cogent has sub-allocated IP space to its customers but which those
customers originate from their own ASN and then announce to multiple upstream
providers.
So while the IP space is registered to Cogent and
I have two separate entries for sets of phone numbers/email addresses,
associated with my name, that must be in Cogent's CRM system as cold leads.
About every six months I am contacted by a new person whom I've never heard
of before. My theory is that each newbie Cogent sales rep has been
* David Guo via NANOG
> Good News! But we still received several spams from Cogent for our RIPE and
> APNIC ASNs.
If you are an EU/EEA citizen, you may object to their use of your personal
information for marketing purposes (or for any purpose at all), as well as
request erasure.
(Note:
Peace,
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 7:17 PM David Hubbard
wrote:
> When they spam me I typically just ask if they have
> IPv6 to Google and never hear back…
Same here. Each time they reach out to me I quickly send them to
investigate if they are able to lift the stupid 100th percentile
requirement
Peace,
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 6:36 AM Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Can you define exactly what services have been blocked?
> IRR/ROA/TLA registry updates, etc? Were they blocked
> ^174 or 174$? This is a precedent AFAIK. I’d like to
> understand consequences.
+1
--
Töma
On 6 Jan 2020, at 11:43 PM, Stephen Wilcox
mailto:swil...@ixreach.com>> wrote:
Out of interest, what does it take to have an ARIN contract or core ARIN
services revoked? Is there such a threshold, does breach of contract ever
result in consequential action?
This seems more like a talking
very interesting, so it will have quite a bit of collateral impact on
innocent cogent customers? I like this, because merely removing cogents
access probably wouldn't sway them much.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 8:30 PM John Curran wrote:
> ARIN has suspended service for all Cogent-registered IP
ARIN has suspended service for all Cogent-registered IP address blocks.
Customers with their own IP blocks blocks that are simply being announced by
Cogent are not affected.
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Jan 6, 2020, at 9:44 PM, Ross Tajvar
Yeah this raises a great point - I'm curious how ARIN is differentiating
between cogent and cogens customers when monitoring for prohibited access.
Particularly those customers whose IPs belong to and are announced by
Cogent.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020, 10:38 PM Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
> — shifting a
— shifting a side thread
John,
I have no stake in this, so far, but I have a few questions.
Can you define exactly what services have been blocked? IRR/ROA/TLA
registry updates, etc? Were they blocked ^174 or 174$? This is a precedent
AFAIK. I’d like to understand consequences. In case I
Am 06.01.20 um 16:58 schrieb David Guo via NANOG:
> Good News! But we still received several spams from Cogent for our RIPE
> and APNIC ASNs.
They seem to look at changes in more databases than just ARIN...
Several months ago I received a new ASN from RIPE for a company that is in
business for
ARIN has repeatedly informed Cogent that their use of the ARIN Whois for
solicitation is contrary to the terms of use and that they must stop. Despite
ARIN’s multiple written demands to Cogent to cease these prohibited activities,
ARIN has continued to receive complaints from registrants that
When they spam me I typically just ask if they have IPv6 to Google and never
hear back…
From: NANOG on behalf of David Guo via NANOG
Reply-To: David Guo
Date: Monday, January 6, 2020 at 11:06 AM
To: John Curran , "nanog@nanog.org"
Subject: RE: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to
Good News! But we still received several spams from Cogent for our RIPE and
APNIC ASNs.
From: NANOG On Behalf Of John Curran
Sent: Monday, January 6, 2020 11:43 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: FYI - Suspension of Cogent access to ARIN Whois
Importance: High
On 22 Sep 2019, at 8:52 AM, Tim
thank you thank you thank you
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 10:44 AM John Curran wrote:
> On 22 Sep 2019, at 8:52 AM, Tim Burke wrote:
>
>
> That is just The Cogent Way™, unfortunately. I just had (yet another)
> Cogent rep spam me using an email address that is _only_ used as an ARIN
> contact,
On 22 Sep 2019, at 8:52 AM, Tim Burke mailto:t...@tburke.us>>
wrote:
That is just The Cogent Way™, unfortunately. I just had (yet another) Cogent
rep spam me using an email address that is _only_ used as an ARIN contact,
trying to sell me bandwidth. When I called him out on it, with
43 matches
Mail list logo
