If you want services from LACNIC (as well as any other RIR), you need to sign
the contracts (legal part) and know the policies.
In that case you will reach *that* text in both pages.
Google doesn't necessarily is right when doing translations, specially,
because, as said several times, the
On 1/24/21 2:18 PM, Masataka Ohta wrote:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
If you don't like it, stop complaining, and send a policy proposal,
It is wast of time to complain or to modify practically
obsoleted policy.
Masataka Ohta
[selects folder "NANOG" in
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
If you don't like it, stop complaining, and send a policy proposal,
It is wast of time to complain or to modify practically
obsoleted policy.
Masataka Ohta
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
In the case of LACNIC it is spanish, it is clearly indicated in
the web site,
I can't see it clearly indicated in LACNIC web site, at all.
Where is it? How does it stated?
[Jordi] There may be some problem with your browser or Internet
connectivity that is missing
Cool nice work Ron! Maybe a new subject for what this is really about ...
--
J. Hellenthal
The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a
lot about anticipated traffic volume.
> On Jan 24, 2021, at 13:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG
> wrote:
>
> Again,
Again, I'm not saying is the best way, is what the community *decided* before I
added a clarification. The 50% was not a change, just to make it explicit, what
was the actual interpretation.
If you don't like it, stop complaining, and send a policy proposal, I could
even support it, but I'm
El 24/1/21 15:25, "NANOG en nombre de Masataka Ohta"
escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> To summarize several responses:
You don't.
> In the case of LACNIC it is spanish, it is clearly indicated in the
> web site,
I can't see it clearly indicated in
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
I fully understand what you mean, however, I don’t think this is a
problem even if all the RIRs ask for “%50 or even 100%” of usage in
the region.
So, you don't know how most, if not all, ISPs are operating
their network.
> That will make your life more
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
To summarize several responses:
You don't.
In the case of LACNIC it is spanish, it is clearly indicated in the
web site,
I can't see it clearly indicated in LACNIC web site, at all.
Where is it? How does it stated?
> I've already informed LACNIC
I fully understand what you mean, however, I don’t think this is a problem even
if all the RIRs ask for “%50 or even 100%” of usage in the region.
That will make your life more complex, as you will need to obtain addresses
from each RIR. In the worst case, if all them ask for the same:
If
On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 1:11 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG <
nanog@nanog.org> wrote:
> When you sign a contract with a RIR (whatever RIR), is always 2 parties,
> so majority of resources operated in the region (so to have the complete
> context) clearly means that you are using in the region
To summarize several responses:
Every RIR decides which one is their official languages for the policies,
contracts, etc.. In case of discrepancies, the one that is binding is the
official one.
In the case of LACNIC it is spanish, it is clearly indicated in the web site,
and in the policy
When you sign a contract with a RIR (whatever RIR), is always 2 parties, so
majority of resources operated in the region (so to have the complete context)
clearly means that you are using in the region >50% of the provided IPs.
El 23/1/21 3:06, "Mark Andrews" escribió:
Majority only
Mark Andrews wrote:
Majority only means >50%
But actual word used by LACNIC is "mainly" as Jordi wrote:
: *“Mainly” is understood to mean more than 50%.
: (https://www.lacnic.net/681/2/lacnic/)
: The 50% was not there before, so I submitted a "recent"
: policy proposal that reached
In article <2debf180-f514-4183-afa5-6e0cf9a73...@isc.org> you write:
>If 40% of address are used in LACNIC, 30% in APNIC and 30% in RIPE then the
>majority of addresses by region
>are in the LACNIC region.
Most of us would call that a plurality. Majority means more than half.
What does this
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 9:07 PM Mark Andrews wrote:
> Majority only means >50%
> when there are 2 parties.
>
> When there is more than 2 parties the majority can be less than 50%. When
> there is more than 2 parties, one uses the term “absolute majority” to
> indicate >50%.
At least in
Majority only means >50%
when there are 2 parties.
When there is more than 2 parties the majority can be less than 50%. When
there is more than 2 parties, one uses the term “absolute majority” to indicate
>50%.
There are more than 2 RIRs.
If 40% of address are used in LACNIC, 30% in APNIC
Peace,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 3:24 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> My proposal added the clarification that "majority" is understood as
> "over 50%".
>
> And the proposal is denied to be unreasonable by Toma and, more
>
> On Jan 21, 2021, at 12:59 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>
> > How many other Belize defuncts do they have? How many offshore countries
> > like Belize are there in the region?
>
> Based on my cursory knowledge of offshore corporate registrations in Belize,
> Panama and the Cayman Islands,
Joe Provo wrote:
If someone chooses to operate in a region without backing that
choice with sufficient resources, perhaps it isn't a wise choice?
Within LACNIC region, the official language is English in
"South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands" (and,
though there is disputes, "Falkland
Joe Provo wrote:
It should also be noted that you can't expect a Russian company
having some business in LACNIC region read document of LACNIC
not in English or Russian, which is why some reservation
statements I mentioned could have been essentially important.
The onus is on the entity that
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 08:18:08PM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
[snip]
> It should also be noted that you can't expect a Russian company
> having some business in LACNIC region read document of LACNIC
> not in English or Russian, which is why some reservation
> statements I mentioned could have
El 22/1/21 13:25, "NANOG en nombre de Masataka Ohta"
escribió:
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
> My proposal added the clarification that "majority" is understood as
"over 50%".
And the proposal is denied to be unreasonable by Toma and, more
aggressively, by me.
I'm not sure how to interpret your response, but was not a meant of attacking
anyone, on the other way around, I put my own example that *not being member of
any RIR (not having resources in any of them, but having customers in all the
regions, and helping them in that)* I'm contributing to
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
My proposal added the clarification that "majority" is understood as "over 50%".
And the proposal is denied to be unreasonable by Toma and, more
aggressively, by me.
So?
> The staff was already interpreting the policy like that, because
> usually when
No, what I'm saying is that the original text of the policy *BEFORE* I send my
proposal to amend it was:
"majority" (not clarifying what is majority)
My proposal added the clarification that "majority" is understood as "over 50%".
The staff was already interpreting the policy like that,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
Policies in each RIR are developed by the (global) community. I live
in Madrid, EU, my RIR is RIPE NCC, RIPE community, however, I
contribute to policy making process in all the regions (all the
RIRs), even if I've no resources in any of them.
I
I would think as long as most of the LACNIC addresses are used in region they
are fine. Without going and reading the policies in full, I would expect that
there would be a exception for multinationals to allow them to get addresses
from wherever they held a significant usage.
--
Mark
Sorry to have sent uneditted text.
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
First think to clarify: In the Spanish version, the text is (mayoría)
"majority" (that's why I said the translation as mainly, to me -not a
native English-, is wrong).
I'm afraid you have already stated:
> *“Mainly” is
I think you're missing the point about what are policies in the RIRs.
Policies in each RIR are developed by the (global) community. I live in Madrid,
EU, my RIR is RIPE NCC, RIPE community, however, I contribute to policy making
process in all the regions (all the RIRs), even if I've no
Hi Toma,
First think to clarify: In the Spanish version, the text is (mayoría)
"majority" (that's why I said the translation as mainly, to me -not a native
English-, is wrong).
Note also that the original text, before my policy proposal already said the
same, but didn't stated if
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
Not at all.
The "top" mandate of any RIR, in terms or resource allocation, is
what the policies say.
Within LACNIC, yes, of course. LACNIC can specify some document
specifies the policy to be followed by all the employees of LACNIC.
However, that is a
Peace,
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, 12:27 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG:
> The numbering resources under the stewardship of LACNIC must be
> distributed among organizations legally constituted within its service
> region [COBERTURA] and mainly *serving networks and services operating in
> this
Not at all.
The "top" mandate of any RIR, in terms or resource allocation, is what the
policies say.
The document that you linked is just a "guide" and unfortunately, unless I
missed it, the document doesn't have a "publication date", but I bet is several
years old. Further to that is
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via NANOG wrote:
No, this is not correct. LACNIC policies, state:
that LACNIC has contradicting statements is a problem
of LACNIC and you can not say others that the statement
of your choice is the one others must follow.
> (look at the Spanish version, English seems not
No, this is not correct. LACNIC policies, state:
1.14 Principles for Proper Administration and Stewardship
The fundamental principle is to distribute unique Internet numbering resources
according to the technical and operational needs of the networks currently
using, or that will use, these
Eric Kuhnke wrote:
Based on my cursory knowledge of offshore corporate registrations in
Belize, Panama and the Cayman Islands, identifying those locations which
are only mailboxes versus actual business office addresses should not be
overly complicated or difficult.
A problem, however, is
On January 21, 2021 at 12:39 nanog@nanog.org (Jean St-Laurent via NANOG) wrote:
>
> I feel this is a good example that a pen is mightier than a sword.
In all honesty have we really given the sword a chance in these cases?
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die| b...@theworld.com
> How many other Belize defuncts do they have? How many offshore countries
like Belize are there in the region?
Based on my cursory knowledge of offshore corporate registrations in
Belize, Panama and the Cayman Islands, identifying those locations which
are only mailboxes versus actual business
Peace,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 10:20 PM Fredrik Holmqvist / I2B
wrote:
> Just a question "this one hosted a Web site for a terrorist
> organization", which terrorist organizations web site did they host ?
>
"Hamas", until November. That was discussed before on the mailing list.
--
Töma
>
"The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of
Ron Guilmette, a researcher who has made it something of a personal
mission to de-platform conspiracy theorist and far-right groups."
Sounds horrible. But now that the American flag is a hate symbol not
surprising.
The
Well,
FYI: I'm not getting getting this kind of vibe from him, more like
of an IP Space janitor.
I'm wondering if it is a statement from Ron or the opinion of the
author of the article.
Myself, I'm jealous of Ron for having the capacity of doing this
kind of task =D on top
Hi.
Just a question "this one hosted a Web site for a terrorist
organization", which terrorist organizations web site did they host ?
---
Fredrik Holmqvist
On 2021-01-21 20:11, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
Peace,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:57 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
fraudulent business records
Peace,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:57 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
> fraudulent business records are used all over the world for things like
> this all the time. Calling for a complete audit of LACNIC feels quite
> extreme absent a pattern of issues, which doesn't seem to have been
> presented.
>
Listen,
> On Jan 21, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Jean St-Laurent via NANOG
> wrote:
>
> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/
For context, from the article:
"The pending disruption for DDoS-Guard and Parler comes compliments of Ron
Guilmette, a
In my recent ( last 24 months) dealings with LACNIC, they were very
thorough in validating information and enforcing documentation requirements
as we needed to modify some things after some corporate changes. Obviously
that may not be representative of all their operations, but they were quite
on
Peace,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 9:29 PM Tom Beecher wrote:
> am I the only one to believe that (given that LACNIC had allocated an IP
>> block to a company that doesn't conform to the LACNIC policies) what we
>> urgently need to see next is the complete audit of the LACNIC operations,
>> so that
>
> am I the only one to believe that (given that LACNIC had allocated an IP
> block to a company that doesn't conform to the LACNIC policies) what we
> urgently need to see next is the complete audit of the LACNIC operations,
> so that this doesn't look like selective enforcement?
>
LACNIC
DDOS-Guard is only hosting a temporary static page for Parler, they are not
hosting the full Parler application. (Source : Quote from Parler's CEO,
NYT, 1/19/21,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/technology/parler-russian-company.html)
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:55 PM Matt Erculiani
wrote:
>
Peace,
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021, 8:17 PM Jean St-Laurent via NANOG
wrote:
>
> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/ddos-guard-to-forfeit-internet-space-occupied-by-parler/
>
A disclaimer:
- Standing for the sanity of the Internet routing;
- Assuming (quite reliably) actual policy violation;
-
I'll add that after reading the article, it doesn't appear that Parler was
specifically targeted, just DDoS-Guard prior to becoming their new host.
Deplatforming of Parler wasn't really on anyone's radar back in November
when the complaint with LACNIC was filed and I'm not under the impression
I should have probably add more content or a comment.
I feel this is a good example that a pen is mightier than a sword.
I am impress by what I read in this article and would definitely like to
hear/read more, maybe coming from Ronald Guilmette?
Thanks all
Jean
From: NANOG
52 matches
Mail list logo
