Re: an IP hijacking attempt
Hi Brian On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:51 PM Brian Turnbow via NANOG wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > > > > > Tracing it back to the originator of the route is of course a good first > step. > > Yes, we have done that and the results were not good. The company that created the LOA is registered in the Seychelles and they > have IPs that were/are being revoked by Afrinic > remarks:* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > remarks:* * > remarks:* This IP prefix will be reclaimed and * > remarks:* returned to the free pool by AFRINIC * > remarks:* on the 5th March 2021.* > remarks:* * > remarks:* For more information, please contact * > remarks:* AFRINIC at hostmas...@afrinic.net * > remarks:* * > remarks:* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Would you care to share the said prefix? Cheers, Noah
Re: Perhaps it's time to think about enhancements to the NANOG list...?
On Sun, 21 Mar 2021, 16:30 Willy Manga, wrote: > Hi, > > On 21/03/2021 16:00, nanog-requ...@nanog.org wrote: > > Message: 13 > > Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 12:46:57 -0600 > > From: David Siegel > >[...] > > The board has been thinking about enhancements to the NANOG list for a > > couple of years now, with the goal of creating a modern interface that > the > > younger generation of engineers will be more comfortable using. > > May I suggest that if you *really* want such enhancement, perhaps > upgrade the mailing-list to mailman3. > It's still mailman but with those 'modern' features. > > But more importantly (not only for NANOG by the way), maybe some kind of > 'mailing-list 101' can be helpful sometimes. Many $vendors are fighting > hard to make people forget what an email is. > Well baby boomers & gen-x will struggle to dump mail...I mean it simple and just works. We were trying to get a community of newbie techies mostly millennials & gen-z to actively engage on a list we subscribed them too for the past 2 years and believe me, I can count no more than 10 posts mainly from we few mailing list folk... When we requested for feedback, them gen-z cried out loud for interactions to happen on some social media app through groups or channels, and since they are the target audience and the majority, we settled for discord and telegram which they actively engage on :-). We still maintain the mailing list though and most announcement are done via it but things are changing hey Noah >
Re: OT: Re: Younger generations preferring social media(esque) interactions.
On Mon, 22 Mar 2021, 18:56 Grant Taylor via NANOG, wrote: > On 3/21/21 8:03 AM, Noah wrote: > > Well baby boomers & gen-x will struggle to dump mail...I mean it simple > > and just works. > > Indeed. > > There's also the fact that it comes to you as opposed to you going to it. > > > We were trying to get a community of newbie techies mostly millennials & > > gen-z to actively engage on a list we subscribed them too for the past 2 > > years and believe me, I can count no more than 10 posts mainly from we > > few mailing list folk... > > > > When we requested for feedback, them gen-z cried out loud for > > interactions to happen on some social media app through groups or > > channels, and since they are the target audience and the majority, we > > settled for discord and telegram which they actively engage on :-). > > I must be ignorant as I don't grok this. > > Are they willing to use a (traditional) forum (of sorts) that is > dedicated to the venue? Or Are they wanting things to come to them > wherever they happen to be today? E.g. Facebook group, Discord, Slack, > etc? > We only attempted to get them to be active on the mailing list and not traditional forums... But to be honest, they are more active on the messaging apps like Telegram (which allows almost unlimited members per group or channel) and like I said, discord and we move them to discord after trying slack channels. Bottom line, the UI/UX seems to be what cuts for Gen-z members of our tech community. We still send important announcements via the mailing list for historical and archiving purposes also to allow those who miss chat messages (without scrolling through hundreds of chats messages) to get such important posts in their email inbox. Noah
Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day
On Fri, 6 Aug 2021, 18:11 Fred Baker, wrote: > > > > On Aug 6, 2021, at 6:48 AM, Josh Luthman > wrote: > > > > v6 isn't a solution today for v4 problems. > > I don't know that IPv6 was ever intended to be a solution to IPv4 problems > per se. When a seed is planted in soil, a number of factors (moisture, condition of soil, water, enegy/light) contribute to its chances of germination. Assuming all the factors remain constant, the growth of the germinated plant also depend on a wide range of factors. A maize seed for instance take a spontaneous natural process of 3 to 6 months to become corn. It was intended to be an IPv4 replacement to provide connectivity. > Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6? Majority of people I know (due to economic factors) own lowend android handsets with no support for v6. This group forms majority of eyeballs that contribute revenue to local Telecoms whose network is heavily CGNAT. Noah >
Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day
On Fri, 6 Aug 2021, 18:35 Fred Baker, wrote: > > > > On Aug 6, 2021, at 8:22 AM, Noah wrote: > > > > Do majority of smart handsets OS today support v6? > > > > Majority of people I know (due to economic factors) own lowend android > handsets with no support for v6. This group forms majority of eyeballs that > contribute revenue to local Telecoms whose network is heavily CGNAT. > > Handsets - Cameron would be in a better place than I to discuss this, but > certainly anything used to connect to his network (T-Mobile) does, and > enables access with IPv4 turned off. That includes at least iPhone (the > handset I use to access his network), IPhones handsets this part of the world are not common handsets to majority of the end-users who are not middle class folk and even most middle class folk still settle for cost effective Android handsets. and Android. https://thirdinternet.com/ipv6-on-mobile-devices/ For a tech savvy end-user the above tutorial is useful and only useful if the Teleco has made the effort to provide v6. Most data bundles are auto configured with v4 and v6 disabled for the obvious reasons that is CGNAT still rocks. > > As to other systems, Apple and Linux platforms, and more recently Windows, > supports IPv6, and has for quite a while. Issues there tend to be in > specific applications (due to the socket interface). > Ack but this is for only those tech savvy end-users with keep interest for v6. NAT still works and misconceptions of NAT providing some level of unknown security are still widely common. Noah >
Re: Where to get IPv4 block these day
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, 17:01 Josh Luthman, wrote: > Do you have any v4 addresses? If so, why don't you do 100% v6 and then > sell your v4 space for some extra cheddar? > Rather than sell v4, why not return to the registry for free for reallocation to those resource members with need.? Cheers, Noah
Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021, 00:50 Baldur Norddahl, wrote: > Hello > Hi > > BUT - how is this so different from what many many other parties have > done? I think we all know some huge ISPs that got much larger blocks than > strictly needed, and which now are profiting directly or indirectly. > By profiting.. do you mean through those ISP providing a wide range of IP related services? Or do you mean by the said ISPs involving themselves in an IPv4 leasing business model without any transport protocol between the said ISPs and the end-user? Cheers, Noah
Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021, 02:56 Mark Seiden, wrote: > i’ll save you some time. > > larus Foundation seems to be a shell in Hong Kong. with one employee named > as the “Chair” since 1/2019. (She was previously > executive assistant to the CEO of Larus Cloud Service Limited, and before > that at University.). There is an org chart but nobody > on Linkedin has said they hold any of the positions. > > (As far as I can tell, HK does not appear to be completely transparent > about charitable foundations, but Larus Foundation Limited > is listed on the govt list as a tax exempt charitable foundation, > effective 10/08/2020.) > > and then there’s > > LARUS Limited > > tagline: "The Best IP Address Solutions On The Planet” which seems to be > in the same business as the plaintiff. > > > Hm, he’s the CEO since 2016 according to LinkedIn. > And the above sums up the whole dishonesty. Noah
Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation
On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 12:33 PM Vincentz Petzholtz < v.petzho...@syseleven.de> wrote: > +1 on the "pro" side to keep this topic in focus (even on the NANOG list). > The community can not accept a situation where someone successfully stale > a RIR in order to max profit Considering Cloud Innovation contributes peanuts, literally a few thousand dollars as a resource member who figured, it's worthwhile operating a mini-RIR without operating any reasonably Internet Infrastructure anywhere. > (probably on the expense of the other [local] LIRs). > This is actually to the expense of the majority 1800 local LIR's across AFRICA who since the creation of AFRINIC have contributed to the currently frozen coffers through annual membership, and majority of who rightfully operate in Africa and have rightfully continued to support the advancement of the Internet in Africa for the benefit of the continent in the past 20 years that today, the impact of the Internet and communication has brought about fundamental change from a socio-economic perspective. Cheers, Noah
Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation
On Sat, 28 Aug 2021, 21:25 Mehmet Akcin, wrote: > I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this? > *4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs* All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the members/requestors. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en Principle #4 of ICP-2 goes to emphasise a very important aspect of Internet Number Management which is "fair distribution of resources". >From the context of a party without reasonable Internet Infrastructure, lacks an ASN, has no IPv6 allocation. Would you call the over 6 million IPv4 allocations to an entity that does not participate in the Internet ecosystem itself, fair distribution? Noah
Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation
Owen, On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, wrote: > > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > >> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his > business model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing > policy. > > > > And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity. > > Yes… Because it is permitted by the rules as they exist. Cloud Innovation your employer is in the business of leasing IPv4 addresses in Asia, USA and Europe etc. AFRINIC has never permitted this and Ashil from AFRINIC publicly stated as such in the below archived thread. https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html You always claim policy blah blah blah in your defence of Cloud Innovation Ltd and Larus business model. But there it is. AFRINIC has never approved any IPv4 space for purposes of leasing them for money as through they were a product. Noah
Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation
Owen On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, wrote: > > So yes, I continue to work for and support Lu in this capacity because in > this case, I believe AFRINIC has overstepped its mandate If you believe, then we leave it at that. Its beliefs. and acted contrary to its own policies and bylaws as they are written. AFRINIC has never approved IPv4 for the purpose of leasing them as some product in the manner in which your employer Larus/CIL does. This is why, both you and Lu have been asked a simple question which is... Is the purpose for which you are using the IPs today (leasing them for a dollar), the same purpose for which your justified the needs when you first applied for them from AFRINIC? Yes or No? Noah
Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 03:08 Owen DeLong, wrote: > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:19 , Noah wrote: > > > Owen, > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, wrote: > >> >> >> > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> > >> >> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his >> business model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing >> policy. >> > >> > And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity. >> >> Yes… Because it is permitted by the rules as they exist. > > > Cloud Innovation your employer is in the business of leasing IPv4 > addresses in Asia, USA and Europe etc. > > > Not my employer, my client. > > AFRINIC has never permitted this and Ashil from AFRINIC publicly stated as > such in the below archived thread. > > > Yet their policies do not prohibit it. > AFRINIC policies are developed by the community in-line with AFRINIC constitution and related RSA is signed by resource members in-line with the AFRINIC constitution which enshrines the objectives of AFRINIC as the RIR for Africa region. If you can find someplace where it is actually documented as a violation of > policy, then by > all means, provide that, but you have so far failed to do so despite > repeatedly bringing up this argument. > I will quote from the AFRINIC bylaws (constution) here https://afrinic.net/bylaws/ 3.4) The Company shall have, both within and outside the Republic of Mauritius, full capacity to carry and/or undertake any business or activity, including but not limited to the following objects: 1. to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for the purposes of enabling communications via open system network protocols and to assist in the development and growth of the Internet in the African region; 2. to promote the representation of AFRINIC membership and the Internet community of the African region by ensuring open and transparent communication and consensus-driven decision-making processes; 3. to promote responsible management of Internet resources throughout the African region, as well as the responsible development and operation of Internet infrastructures; > It’s simply not sufficient to say “they never allowed this” if it’s not > prohibited by actual policy. > Allocation policies are such that resource members abide by the AFRINIC constitution. See above section 3.4 and the relevant subsections that refer to management of number resource in reference to Africa region. > > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html > > You always claim policy blah blah blah in your defence of Cloud Innovation > Ltd and Larus business model. > > But there it is. AFRINIC has never approved any IPv4 space for purposes of > leasing them for money as through they were a product. > > > Except that they have and do every day… ISPs all lease IPv4 space for > money. That’s what they do with them. They certainly don’t use > them exclusively on their own networks… They lease them to their customers. > AFRINIC has never approved IPv4 for purposes of leasing. There is a public statement to this effect. > The key difference between the majority of them and Cloud Innovation is > that most of them also include connectivity service in the lease > and/or provide the lease in conjunction with some form of connectivity > service. However, there’s nothing in the policy manual or the bylaws > to support a requirement that leasing and connectivity be tied to each > other. > What justification did Cloud Innovation provide to AFRINIC when requesting for those millions of IPs? Cheers Noah > Owen > >
Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 05:08 John Kristoff, wrote: > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:29:48 -0700 > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the > internet. > > Hi Owen, > > Your statement above I have to insist is simply incorrect. In addition > to the traditional services that are relied upon in a variety of daily > operations (e.g. WHOIS, IRR, DNS reverse delegations), the increasingly > important RPKI TAs/PPs services are of utmost importance in the daily > operations of an increasing number of networks within and outside their > region. They are just a different kind of infrastructure service > operator than we may be commonly thing of when it comes to network > operations. > +1 as its important to remind folk the above and most importantly to provide the additional distinct role of the RIR and their importance beyond just managing INR allocations. Noah > John >
Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation
On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, 22:46 Owen DeLong via NANOG, wrote: > > > > On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:48 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/1/21 00:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > >> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost? > >> > >> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July, > including > >> the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem > in the first > >> place). I don’t know who the other two were. > >> > >> Everyone else got paid for July. > >> > >> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal > expenses > >> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with > salaries > >> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler > heads at > >> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before > they run > >> out of money from that reprieve. > > > > This is rich! > > > > Of course, one should expect people to be mentally settled and do good > work when they have no security or clarity about whether they will get paid > at the end of each month. > > > > These aren't robots, mate. People have real thoughts and real feelings. > > > > Stress is not intangible... it releases cortisol, which delivers a > number of physiological side effects that work against good health. > Financial insecurity is just about the worst stress anyone has to deal with. > > > > None of us would sleep well if we knew that our source of income is not > guaranteed, despite what some may say about "As such, there shouldn't be > any problems with salaries..." > > > > Mark. > > Well… I don’t see you calling out the stress and cortisol actions for the > various staff and customers of Cloud Innovation or Larus in your postings > when AFRINIC first issued an existential threat to their business based on > made-up policies that don’t actually exist. > M see below. > As such, I’d argue that AFRINIC attacked a much larger population first. You are not being honest Owen. See below an extract from AFRNIC CEO message on the termination of CIL. > - In order not to disrupt Internet connectivity of the relevant users especially in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, all affected users will exceptionally be granted a grace period of 90 days to consider other available options in their best interests. Consequently, the actual reclamation of the relevant number resources will occur following the expiry of the grace period. Eddy Kayihura Chief Executive Officer, African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC) So how did AFRINIC attack the so called larger population you are claiming about? All Cloud Innovation Ltd clients had been given 90 days to work things out with AFRINIC. Cheers, Noah
Powerline Broadband Usecases
Hi Folks I would like to find out if there are any known State run broadband connectivity services for homes? I mean government providing IP based connectivity over grid power? Noah
Re: Powerline Broadband Usecases
Hi Jay On Mon, 27 Sep 2021, 20:17 Jay Hennigan, wrote: > On 9/27/21 10:04, Noah wrote: > > Hi Folks > > > > I would like to find out if there are any known State run broadband > > connectivity services for homes? I mean government providing IP based > > connectivity over grid power? > > If you're referring to broadband over power lines or BPL, Yap that exactly. that > experiment TTBOMK died well over a decade ago. Attenuation, performance, > and interference to licensed radio users were the main factors. > Any references or existing reports on those past decade use cases you could point me too? Much appreciated. Noah > -- > Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net > Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 > 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV >
Re: jon postel
On Sun, 16 Oct 2022, 23:24 Randy Bush, wrote: > it's been 24 years, and we still live in his shadow and stand on his > shoulders. we try not to stand on his toes. > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > randy > ./noah >
Re: jon postel
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, 00:18 Randy Bush, wrote: > my favorite is > > It's perfectly appropriate to be upset. Ack I thought of it in a slightly > different way--like a space that we were exploring and, in the early days, > we figured out this consistent path through the space: IP, TCP, and so on. > the impact of IP, TCP in improving human life across the globe in the last decades can not be overstated. Human enginuity through names like Google have enabled the age of information and access to information through addresses and digital trade routes have continued to ensure peace for humanity on the positive side of the communications spectrum. What's been happening over the last few years is that the IETF is filling > the rest of the space with every alternative approach, not necessarily any > better. Every possible alternative is now being written down. And it's > not > useful. -- Jon Postel > I suppose original human ideas and thoughts tends to stand the taste of time. Iterations often times leads back to the beginning. Noah >
Re: A straightforward transition plan (was: Re: V6 still not supported)
Hi John, So, It was assumed that IPv4 depletion would effectively lead to the adoption of IPv6. This has not been the case in the last decade save for a very few countries in the world. It was also assumed that IPv6 only networks would crop all over the place as a result, providing the same interconnectivity benefits enjoyed by the IPv4 internet. Out of curiosity,did the emergency of transfer markets slow IPNG adoption while creating prolonged dependence on IPv4? Cheers, *.**/noah* On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 4:03 PM John Curran wrote: > On 24 Mar 2022, at 5:19 AM, Mark Delany wrote: > > > On 24Mar22, Greg Skinner via NANOG allegedly wrote: > > straightforward transition plan > > > in-hand working transition strategy > > > nor a straightforward transition > > > The words quoted above are mine, not Greg’s, so let’s send the blame in my > direction not his… :-) > > Any such "transition plan" whether "working" or "straightforward" is > logically > impossible. > > > That entirely depends on what is meant by “straightforward transition > plan”… If one means a plan that provides that “Network ABC will transition > on this date with this approach, and then Network JKL will transition using > this approach, then network XYZ shall transition on this date, etc. ” then > you are indeed correct – such a command-and-control approach is not "the > Internet way", comrade. > > If by “straightforward transition plan” one means a clear and rational set > of options that allows networks to plan their own migration from IPv4-only > to IPv6, while maintaining connectivity to IPv4-only hosts and with a level > of effort reasonable comparable to just running IPv4, then I would > disagree, as such an "IPng transition plan” was achievable, expected, and > we collectively failed to deliver on it (as noted below) > > The "Technical Criteria for Choosing IP The Next Generation (IPng)” > [RFC1726] did have a specific requirement in this regard (see quoted > section attached to this email), and that requirement postulated that > “there will be IPv4 hosts on the Internet effectively forever. IPng must > provide mechanisms to allow these hosts to communicate, even after IPng has > become the dominant network layer protocol in the Internet.” It also > noted that we must be able to run dual-stack with a comparable level of > effort as IPv4-only, but that dual-stack alone was not sufficient and > actual interoperability mechanisms would be required between IPv4 and IPng > for IPng success. > > The IPng recommendation [RFC 1752, > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1752] proceeded with the SIPP > proposal as the basis for IPv6, just noting some weakness with respect to > satisfying this IPng transition requirement – > >The biggest problem the reviewers had with SIPP was with IPAE, SIPP's >transition plan. The overwhelming feeling was that IPAE is fatally >flawed and could not be made to work reliably in an operational >Internet. > > > The work to meet this requirement was punted to a newly-defined IETF IPng > Transition (NGTRANS) Working Group - the working group was to design the > mechanisms to necessary for a straightforward transition of the Internet > from IPv4 to IPv6 and to give advice on what procedures and techniques are > preferred. NGTRANS did define a set of dual-stack and tunneling solutions > [RFC 4213], but didn’t get to actual interoperability mechanisms or clear > roadmap of options that would have met IPng’s requirement for > straightforward transition plan. > > In fact, what happened instead is that dual-stack (aka “Ships in the > Night” - both protocols should be able to run on the same host unaware of > the others existence) ended up as the de facto IPv6 transition strategy, > and anything more was left to be researcher/vendor/user defined… For > those who want a really nice summary of the state of affairs on IPv6 > transition around 2008 (more than 10 years after the IPng recommendation) I > would suggest Geoff Huston’s "IPv6 Transition at IETF 72” summary in the > IETF Journal <https://www.ietfjournal.org/ipv6-transition-at-ietf-72/> – > as usual, Geoff does a great job with a rather complex topic. > > So instead of having a clear & straightforward menu of options for network > operators on how to deploy IPv6 in parallel in their network without > breaking anything (i.e. a set of coherent strategies to choose from that > would have constituted a “a straightforward transition plan”), we ended up > with an explosion of transition approaches in various states of > functionality, side-effects, and maturity – the exact opposite of what a > network operator wants
Re: IP range for lease
Hi KARIM, Considering the fact that IPs are requested on need-basis by resource holders to number your own networks/systems and that of your clients? Any reason why MEKTEL would want to offer IPs for lease? Cheers, *.**/noah* On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 6:16 PM KARIM MEKKAOUI wrote: > Dear NANOG Community, > > > > MEKTEL has a block of IPs that would like to offer in parts or in total > for lease and would like to know from your experience your comments on the > following: > >1. The right price >2. The challenges you faced >3. Was it easy to get back your IPs >4. Was your IPs black listed because of the inappropriate use >5. Any other issue we need to care about >6. Etc., etc. > > > > Thank you in advance > > > > KARIM > > MEKTEL INC. > > >
Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership
On Fri, 15 Sept 2023, 15:06 John Curran, wrote: > Indeed - AFRINIC has been going through quite a bit over the few months – > including loss of their governing board – but the receiver appointment > actually provides a fairly straightforward path towards resolution. > John, The receiver appointed showed up at AFRINIC offices with an IT contractor who is a party directly involved in ligitations against AFRINIC. How is such an act a fairly straight forward path forward. ? Noah
Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership
On Fri, 15 Sept 2023, 15:53 John Curran, wrote: > Noah - > > Indeed, that was a less than ideal situation – but I will note that the > technical advisor was sent away by the Receiver once the Receiver was > apprised of his litigation against AFRINIC. > John It was not a less than ideal situation. Please dont take things lightly here. This issue of the so called Technical Advisor showing up with the Official Receiver at AFRINIC offices is a real concern to us considering the lack of transparency by the OR on the matter. Noah > Thanks, > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > On Sep 15, 2023, at 8:49 AM, Noah wrote: > > > > On Fri, 15 Sept 2023, 15:06 John Curran, wrote: > >> Indeed - AFRINIC has been going through quite a bit over the few months – >> including loss of their governing board – but the receiver appointment >> actually provides a fairly straightforward path towards resolution. >> > > John, > > The receiver appointed showed up at AFRINIC offices with an IT contractor > who is a party directly involved in ligitations against AFRINIC. > > How is such an act a fairly straight forward path forward. ? > > Noah > > >
Re: abha
We remembered her and her contribution to AfNOG earlier years during the recent Africa Internet Summit months ago. On Sun, 20 Oct 2019, 19:39 Randy Bush, wrote: > abha ahuja died this day in 2001. we miss her. > > randy > > http://www.neebu.net/~khuon/abha/ >
Re: NANOG Security Track: Route Security
+1 On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 7:53 am Job Snijders, wrote: > Hi all, > > Speaking as presenter in this track, I’d be fine with video recording and > online distribution. In fact, I’d encourage it, I don’t assume any secrecy > or confidentiality in this meeting. > > Perhaps for the NANOG74 meeting it is too late to organize video > recording, but going forward I’m a proponent of recording everything. It > creates more value for both the presenters and the global community. > > Kind regards, > > Job >
Re: Legal system as a weapon (was Re: AFRINIC placed in receivership)
Hi David Thanks for sharing this. So, its seems like Lu is continuing with his legal intimadations across other RIR regions. Christopher Hawker, should not be intimidated. I was the first internet community members to be sued by Lu and I believe Amin was the second and Brian and Benedict cases followed across the AFRINIC region who also faced similar legal suits. Some of the defamation cases across various high courts have since been dismissed after over one year litigations and defending ourselves. I personally never thought of seeking support from anyone as no one came to offer it. But I remained positive with my legal counsel who was able to take up the case within my means and continued to legally represent me and defend me within my financial means. I believe the same is true for both Amin in Nigeria, Brian in Malawi and Benedict in TZ. We believe in what we stand for across Africa in as far as AFRINIC is concerned and it is worthwhile experience for the future of Africa for we understand how digital transformation has impacted out continent with the small IPv4 space that was allocated to us by IANA when AFRINIC was formed. We have managed to do something with it in the last decades to transform out continent and no bully shall deter us from the noble cause. In any case, all the best to Christopher Hawker and in case you need some ideas or references on how to go about Lu, please reach out. Noah On Fri, 29 Sept 2023, 01:48 David Conrad, wrote: > Somewhat related (at least one of the principals is the same) and perhaps > of interest to some here. While I have strong opinions on the topic, > provided without comment: > > https://www.gofundme.com/f/supporting-and-protecting-internet-governance > > Regards, > -drc > > On Sep 13, 2023, at 6:27 PM, Bryan Fields wrote: > > > I think this qualifies as potentially operational. > > Afrinic placed in receivership, board elections to be held in six months: > https://archive.ph/jOFE4 > -- > Bryan Fields > > 727-409-1194 - Voice > http://bryanfields.net > > >
Re: N92 Keynote: APNIC's Geoff Huston - "Whatever Happened to IPv6?" + More
Yes "whatever happened to IPv6"? This should be an interesting Keynote and I cant wait? Noah On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, 22:14 Nanog News, wrote: > *N92 Keynote: APNIC's Geoff Huston to Present "Whatever Happened to IPv6?"* > *Leading Researcher on IPv4 Exhaustion Will Shine a Light into a Very Dark > Tunnel* > > "The mantra of 'transition to IPv6' has been with us for so long that it > seems we are stuck rather than transitioning elsewhere," Huston said. > > > <https://nanog.org/stories/articles/nanog-92-keynote-apnics-geoff-huston-to-present-whatever-happened-to-ipv6/> > *READ MORE > <https://nanog.org/stories/articles/nanog-92-keynote-apnics-geoff-huston-to-present-whatever-happened-to-ipv6/>* > > *Check Out Our 2023 Annual Report! * > > In 2023, NANOG discussed long-term goals to guide the organization back to > sustainable footing in the post-pandemic reality. This included refining > the framework of goals and identifying specific targets for 2023. > > *ANNUAL REPORT <https://nanog.org/about/who-we-are/annual-report/>* > > *Sponsor a NANOG Beer N' Gear!* > > *Showcase your newest technologies + solutions + more! * > >- Increase your brand’s visibility + reach >- Amplify your organization’s message >- Connect with industry influencers + decision makers >- Empower people + inspire change > > > *Contact swinst...@nanog.org for more info.* > *Take Advantage of NANOG 92 Socials* > *Connect with Your Peers in a Casual Environment!* > > NANOG Socials are an incredible opportunity to get to know your peers in > the industry + foster important relationships in a relaxed, casual > environment. > > ***Please note the Women In Tech Mixer will take place Sunday, 20, Oct. > BEFORE the NANOG 92 Meeting. > > *NANOG SOCIALS* <https://nanog.org/events/nanog-92/socials/> > > > >
Re: Can an IXP sell IP transit?
Fundamentally, wouldnt that require the said IXP to be able to send full internet feed (v4 + v6) beyond the peering LAN routes? In some jurisdictions, the regulators require Transit Providers to have some sort of ISP license to sell such capacity. Noah On Mon, 4 Nov 2024, 19:46 Douglas Fischer, wrote: > Can an IXP sell traffic? > This is a rhetorical question. > I know that it can... In fact, it is obvious that it can. > > It is quite common to see several companies buying and selling traffic > through IXPs. > But whenever I have been involved with more serious companies, it was > common for this type of traffic to be over a Bilateral VLAN between the > Downstream and Upstream, and the ASs involved were from the operations > themselves (different from the ASN used by Route-Servers). > > But I have seen a reasonably large scenario in which the IXP operator, > maintaining the MLPA LAN with the pair of Route-Servers, adds another > participant with the SAME ASN as the route-servers, and through this > participant starts to sell traffic. > > This seemed very strange to me! > And that is why I came to ask if this is correct or not. > I would appreciate any guidance on the subject. > > In fact, there were other aggravating factors that worried me: > - The IXP activation information itself (VLAN, IPv4/IPv6, Route-Servers, > etc.) was indistinguishable from the information in the transit BGP > session. And the extra Billing information for anything sent by the transit > was not explicit. > - The routes reported exchanged by this transit had the ASN transparency > function in the AS-Path. > > Thanks in advance! > -- > Douglas Fernando Fischer > Engº de Controle e Automação >
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, wrote: > > > 2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by the > ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories. > > While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is unclear > to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to > create/perpetuate a cartel). > I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel? Noah
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 23:48 William Herrin, wrote: > On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, > wrote: > >> > 2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by > the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories. > >> > >> While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is > unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to > create/perpetuate a cartel). > > > > I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel? > > A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control > over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can > perform it. That doesn't make sense. Are we trying to imply that the RIR's are a geographic monopoly? What makes an RIR? Is it, its administrators/managers of the registry or is it, its resource members and other stakeholders? Every system has its own modus operandi. Last I checked, they are member based and rules of engagement are set by the members. If members want change in price, there is a process. One of which includes change of leadership with new mandate such as review of pricing etc. Noah
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley, wrote: > Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin: > > On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, > wrote: > > >> > 2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by > the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories. > > >> > > >> While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is > unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to > create/perpetuate a cartel). > > > > > > I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel? > > > > A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control > > over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can > > perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel. > > And, to the extent that the service provider must excel. > > Competition is healthy for all enterprise. > The registries are more than just an enterprise boss. Noah >
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:50 Owen DeLong, wrote: > The RIRs each have a geographic monopoly and at their creation, this is > required by ICP-2 (the original). This has nothing to do with where you > land on any of your subsequent questions. > Are the European Union or African Union, geographic monopolies? The NRO cartel has agreed to specific territories served by each RIR, > granting each a geographic monopoly. > You write as if a couple of guys formed an organization and decided how the system must work. FWIW, the RIRs (NRO) are an outcome of wider internet community engagents that lasted years if not decade for which you historically particpated in as a member of the said communities. Most of the rules of engagent were decided through wider consultations at policy debates and some by those elected by various internet communities. Do not confuse the RIR/NRO system with the pseudo-private enterprises operated by sole propriators who believe that they can change a system that has served the public so well for decades and continue to do so. Because organizations served by RIRs are not constrained by those > boundaries, many operate in more than one region and the rules get fuzzy, > but in general, territorial exclusivity is long established. > And countries do have some embassies in different other countries. > I’m not saying this is good or bad. I see benefits to it, but I also see > reasons it might be better to phase it out. > > In any case, it might be worth considering granting a certain right of a > registrant to transfer the servicing of their registration to the RIR of > their choosing. > Each region has its own rules of engagement. When such registrant decides to play in a certain service region, they must comply with existing rules of the game in the said region. Noah >
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong, wrote: > > > On Nov 18, 2024, at 13:11, Noah wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2024, 22:33 heasley, wrote: > >> Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:04PM -0800, William Herrin: >> > On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:39 PM Noah wrote: >> > > On Sun, 17 Nov 2024, 22:06 David Conrad via NANOG, >> wrote: >> > >> > 2. I'm not convinced that the service regions should be limited by >> the ICP to non-overlapping geographic territories. >> > >> >> > >> While geographic monopolies may have made sense in the past, it is >> unclear to me how/why they make sense today (unless the point is to >> create/perpetuate a cartel). >> > > >> > > I am curious as to what you mean by create/perpetuate a cartel? >> > >> > A group of geographical monopolies who between them have total control >> > over what the essential service costs and whether anybody else can >> > perform it. It might as well be the definition of a cartel. >> >> And, to the extent that the service provider must excel. >> >> Competition is healthy for all enterprise. >> > > The registries are more than just an enterprise boss. > > > They really aren’t. Contrary to the theories you keep pushing, they are > businesses. They are not state agencies or quasi state agencies. They are > not granted enforcement powers or any extraordinary legislative or judicial > powers. They are run of the mill not-for-profit businesses. > Your theory here is nonsense. Can you perhaps think before you respond on some issues. A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions. Can you share any such proof or fillings that any of the RIR have shareholders and those shareholders distribute dividends or payouts annually to the RIR stockholders? Noah >
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 00:16 William Herrin, wrote: > On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 12:36 PM Noah wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2024, 22:44 Owen DeLong, wrote: > >> They really aren’t. Contrary to the theories you keep pushing, they are > >> businesses. They are not state agencies or quasi state agencies. > >> They are not granted enforcement powers or any extraordinary > >> legislative or judicial powers. They are run of the mill not-for-profit > businesses. > > > > A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who > > once all taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue > > or bottomline .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board > resolutions. > > Noah, > > You are correct that a non-profit organization does not have owners > and thus does not produce profits for distribution to owners. Instead, > it has a board of directors with a legal duty to assure it operates > consistent with its non-profit mission. > Indeed... > Owen is correct that in every other respect, a non-profit organization > functions like any ordinary business. > Bill, For the purposes of regulatory compliances, an NGO ought to ensure it meets its statutory liabilies just like any legal entity. However, referring to the RIRs system as a cartel is misleading. We are choosing to throw the word cartel around as if the RIR lack accountability and operate without oversight yet we all here are members of such RIRs and we as a community have participated in the policy development processes that bore the rules of engagement for which the RIR system have operated-in for decades. The administrators or if you will staff/employees of these RIR's run them based on bylaws/constitutions that resource members have enacted. The policies each RIR follows to manage number resources in each region came to be through community consensus through the policy development processes that are open to public participation. How then can some of you claim that the RIRs are some sort of cartel. Are we saying that we the resource members who agreed on a constitutions for managing these organizations and go on to bankroll the systems through membership fees together with the wider internet communities who decide on the rules of engagement through the PDP, created cartels organizations in concert through our collective actions? Noah
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024, 20:25 Owen DeLong, wrote: > > A business has private or public shareholders or stockholders who once all > taxes have been deducted on the legal entity's annual revenue or bottomline > .. the stockholders then enjoys dividends through board resolutions. > > > The Red Cross is a business. Kaiser permanents is a business. Neither fits > your description above. > > You have described one structure of a corporation, but the definition of a > business is much broader. > The corporation of resource members are not a business that is why they are structured as not-for-profit organisations. In the case of RIR such as a legal entity AFRINIC, we resource members through our bylaws appoint directors as* guarantors so as to comply with the Mauritius Companies Act and meet statutoty liabilities and that's just about it. We dont take profits.* > > Can you share any such proof or fillings that any of the RIR have > shareholders and those shareholders distribute dividends or payouts > annually to the RIR stockholders? > > > No, instead, I have pointed out the error in your definition of a > business. Perhaps you should think on this a bit more before posting > nonsense. > There is no error in my defination. The confusion is with your language English which we can agree to disagree. In my language Swahili, the word "business" translates to "Biashara". https://sw.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biashara AFRINIC sio Biashara. RIR sio Biashara ya mtu au watu binafsi. Noah >
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:18 John Levine, wrote: > It appears that Owen DeLong via NANOG said: > >Is there any one of the 5 jurisdictions where RIRs operate that do not > define the existing RIR in that jurisdiction as a business? > > > >I know, for example that ARIN is definitely a business by the applicable > definition. > > ARIN is a Virginia nonstock corporation which has a 501(c)(3) charitable > registration with the IRS. > > It seems to be a theological argument whether you consider that to be a > business. Most definitions > of business include an intention to make a profit, which rules out ARIN. > > >I’m less familiar with the legal frameworks and charters of the other > three, but I’m pretty sure RIPE NCC > > is a business by the rules there. > > RIPE is a non-profit association under Dutch law. LACNIC is a non-profit > association under Uruguay law. > Same theological argument. > > APNIC is an Australian Pty Ltd so you can make a somewhat stronger > argument that it's a business, > although in practice it seems to operate a lot like ARIN, RIPE, and LACNIC. > We put above The small anti-RIR folks, think of RIR as book keepers doing some sort of commercial exchange of goods (IPv$) which they consider as a commodity to be traded for direct financial gains. They both reject the ideals of membership-based cooperation and need-based resource allocation for public use to deliver digital good&services and they instead subscribe to straight up profit based transactions without any digital services provisions. Therefore its in their best interest to make such claims as RIRs are straight up businesses. > At this point I wouldn't try to guess what Afrinic is. > And nor is Afrinic a Business. Its a cooperation of members limited by guarantee as long as we the guarantors ensure compliance to statutory liabilities inline with the company Act of Mauritius. The system basically operate as a not-for-profit. It pays debts ( in otherwords taxes) as required by the law and that just about it. Noah
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:47 William Herrin, wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:21 AM Noah wrote: > > In the case of RIR such as a legal entity AFRINIC, we resource > > members through our bylaws appoint directors as guarantors > > so as to comply with the Mauritius Companies Act and meet > > statutoty liabilities and that's just about it. We dont take profits. > > > Can either one of you explain what possible difference it makes > whether the rest of us consider the RIRs a business? The RIRs are legal not-for-profit cooperations with a clear not-for-profit mandate. Period. Noah
Re: Shaping the Future of ICP-2: Community Input Extended to December 2024
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 22:03 William Herrin, wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2024 at 10:52 AM Noah wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, 21:47 William Herrin, wrote: > >> Can either one of you explain what possible difference it makes > >> whether the rest of us consider the RIRs a business? We all agree that > >> the RIRs have no shareholders and thus are not engaged in maximizing > >> their shareholders' value. > > > > The RIRs are legal not-for-profit cooperations with a clear > not-for-profit mandate. Period. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference Government and Private enterprise are two different entities. Noah. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > -- > William Herrin > b...@herrin.us > https://bill.herrin.us/ >
Re: Free pass NANOG
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025, 06:19 steve ulrich, wrote: > a not (IMHO) unreasonable proposed corrollary ... > > throughout the 21st century, humanity has also demonstrated that the > purportedly maximally-efficient distribution of resources afforded by > late-stage capitalism has rarely been accompanied by truly altruistic > motives; > renowned economist dambisa moyo alludes in detail to this in her submission titled "dead aid". and every capitalist across the spectrum should interrogate the parameters > associated with deals that seem (perhaps superficially) too good to be true. > More so when socialist mentality ends up crippling the modern man from using his own faculty to find the means to his own survival. Noah
Re: nanog53 network status
Nick, we actually do limit the client power settings, by default, for the very reasons you mention. Noah On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > On 10/10/2011 16:01, Anton Kapela wrote: > > Please relay any outstanding issues my way--I'll route to Verilan, > > which is handling the network and wireless support for the meeting. > > If Verilan has the ability to limit client power settings, these should > also be reduced as far as possible. Some drivers ignore these hints, > because the software driver authors know that MOAR POWER means better > connectivity, right?. Verilan may find that completely disabling a tiny > number of badly-behaved clients can dramatically improve quality of service > for everyone else. > > Nick > > > -- Noah K. Weis Verilan, Inc. m: +1-503-902-2491
Re: nanog53 network status
More on network status: We identified a link between 2 switches that was having intermittent physical errors just a bit ago. The offending copper bits have been thrown to the depths of hell. There were several access points in the center of Millenium Hall that were fed via this link and, as such, most likely contributed to some of the issues people were seeing this morning. Should anyone need to speak with any of the network team for any reason at all, we are located in Parlor 1 on the 3rd floor. Cheers, Noah -- Noah K. Weis Verilan, Inc. m: +1-503-902-2491
new guest room SSID for NANOG
All, The hotel is in the process of deploying an SSID throughout the guest room network that terminates to the NANOG external router, rather than the hotel's gateway. The SSID is NANOG-guest. They stated it will take a couple of hours to be fully operational in the guest room space. As always, please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Noah -- Noah K. Weis Verilan, Inc. m: +1-503-902-2491
NEW ON THE BLOCK
Hello,
I am new on the block.
Kind regards,
Noah Adablah
RF Systems Manager
Africa Online Holdings Ltd
Tel : +233-21-211823
Cell: + 233 246541404
Email: <mailto:noah...@africaonline.com.gh> noah...@africaonline.com.gh
AIM: noahadablah
cid:image001.jpg@01C8D62B.E2CE7C60
A Member of the Telkom South Africa Group
Africa Online Disclaimer and Confidentiality Note
This e-mail, its attachments and any rights attaching hereto are, unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise, the property of Africa Online Holdings
(Mauritius) Limited and / or its subsidiaries ("the Group"). It is
confidential and intended for the addressee only. Should you not be the
addressee and have received this e-mail by mistake, kindly notify the
sender, delete this e-mail immediately and do not disclose or use the same
in any manner whatsoever. Views and opinions expressed in this e-mail are
those of the sender unless clearly stated as those of the Group. The Group
accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss or damages, however incurred,
resulting from the use of this e-mail or its attachments. The Group does not
warrant the integrity of this e-mail, nor that it is free of errors,
viruses, interception or interference. For more information about Africa
Online, please visit our website at <http://www.africaonline.com>
http://www.africaonline.com
<>
Re: Roku Network Contact
Looks like ocue...@roku.com (Oscar Cuevas) is listed as the NOC contact for their AS: https://whois.arin.net/rest/asn/AS394557/pft https://whois.arin.net/rest/poc/CUEVA24-ARIN Kind regards, Noah On 19/02/2024 15:47, Jason Canady wrote: Does anyone here have a network contact for Roku? Need some assistance. Thank you! Best Regards, Jason
