On Thu, 2 Feb 2012, Dave Pooser wrote:
...and all we need is for billion-dollar corporations to start putting
moral rectitude ahead of profits.
Well, heck, that should start happening any day now! And then FedEx will
deliver my unicorn!
Your unicorn has been impounded by Customs.
jms
On 2/1/12 8:43 PM, "Jimmy Hess" wrote:
>Simple government regulation is of limited value, since the problem
>network
>may be overseas.
So government regulation won't work
>What the internet really needs is Tier1 and Tier2 providers participating
>in the internet who "care", regardless of
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:22 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> The fundamental problem is there is no absolute "source of truth" in who
> is entitled to use which resource.
>
Well, the "absolute truth" would be the whois service maintained by the
RIRs, regarding who is the contact for what resource.
N
>
> So, new law? I don't think its necessary.
>
> YMMV,
> Eric
The problems are manifold. First of all, a nation's laws only extend to the
borders of that nation. The UN is not a government, it is a diplomatic body so
it really can't enact anything either. The Internet community is global
On 2/2/12 12:32 PM, Ray Soucy wrote:
>> So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against prefix
>> hijacking]?
>
>
>
> So far the track record of the US government trying to make laws
> regarding technology and the Internet has been less than stellar.
...
While I agree with Ray
> > So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against
> prefix hijacking]?
While I'm certain that's largely rooted in lawmakers who are not technically
savvy, I wonder if we-as-an-industry couldn't (or, shouldn't) be doing more to
move internal values and policies into defensible
> So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be [a law against prefix
> hijacking]?
So far the track record of the US government trying to make laws
regarding technology and the Internet has been less than stellar.
The DMCA is already bad enough, but we continue to see things like
PROTECT
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote:
What the internet really needs is Tier1 and Tier2 providers participating
in the internet who "care", regardless of the popularity or size of
netblocks or issues involved. And by "care", I mean, providers
efficiently investigating reports of hijacking or
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Jimmy Hess wrote:
What the internet really needs is Tier1 and Tier2 providers participating
in the internet who "care", regardless of the popularity or size of
netblocks or issues involved. And by "care", I mean, providers
efficiently investigating reports of hijacking o
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Phoenix NAP colluding to hijack address space and then balking when it
> was brought to their attention is a perfect example someone could use to
> say why "we" need to be regulated. And I'm sure it will eventually
>
There are always going t
On 2/1/12 1:13 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> In message <20120201201012.ge10...@hiwaay.net>, Chris Adams writes:
>> Once upon a time, George Bonser said:
>>> Let's say I had a business in space in a building I was leasing at 100 Main
>> Street, Podunk, USA. Now let's say you didn't renew the lease s
>> Where is Milo Medin when we need him?
> how would he be helping?
He would have pulled the plug.
The story is from the very early days of the internet, probably long before
NANOG existed.
Milo worked at NASA and found a cracker from Finland on one of NASAs
machines. The link from Finland to
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 15:21, George Bonser wrote:
> > The problem is no one will actually blacklist a big ASN because its not
> > in the individual best interest, which scales greatly with size. RPKI
> > is pretty much the only real fix for this if the chain until the major
> > carrier refuses t
> The problem is no one will actually blacklist a big ASN because its not
> in the individual best interest, which scales greatly with size. RPKI
> is pretty much the only real fix for this if the chain until the major
> carrier refuses to delist, and RPKI has it's own issues.
>
> -Blake
Sadly, y
In message <20120201201012.ge10...@hiwaay.net>, Chris Adams writes:
> Once upon a time, George Bonser said:
> > Let's say I had a business in space in a building I was leasing at 100 Main
> Street, Podunk, USA. Now let's say you didn't renew the lease so I moved to
> a building up the block bu
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 15:00, George Bonser wrote:
> > So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be?
> >
> > (I honestly don't know the answer is to this question, and am asking in
> > earnest for opinions on the subject)
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> >
>
> Well, calling the law on someone is kind of
> So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be?
>
> (I honestly don't know the answer is to this question, and am asking in
> earnest for opinions on the subject)
>
> Nathan
>
>
Well, calling the law on someone is kind of the whiner's way out anyway. It
would seem that the community cou
Take the ex-customer and their immediate upstream providers to small claims and
sue each of them for the maximum amount for your time and trouble in dealing
with the issue. If they don't show, get a judgment and put a lien on their
stuff until they pay up.
I am not a lawyer and I am not tellin
>
> I'm told IP addresses aren't property.
Neither is the address painted on your curb. So it's ok for me to paint over
the number in front of your house and paint your house number on my curb, right?
The issue isn't about property. It is about stealing an ADDRESS making
impossible for the l
On Feb 1, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> AFAIK there's no law covering the use of what party X considers their 32
> bit numbers (assigned by party A) by party Y.
The US bankruptcy courts have treated these as property that can be
sold/transferred comparable to other assets. (See threads
On 2/1/12 10:16 AM, George Bonser wrote:
>
> Let's say I had a business in space in a building I was leasing at 100 Main
> Street, Podunk, USA. Now let's say you didn't renew the lease so I moved to
> a building up the block but put the 100 Main Street address on my new
> location and continue
Once upon a time, Nathan Eisenberg said:
> > AFAIK there's no law covering the use of what party X considers their
> > 32 bit numbers (assigned by party A) by party Y.
>
> So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be?
>
> (I honestly don't know the answer is to this question, and am asking
> AFAIK there's no law covering the use of what party X considers their
> 32 bit numbers (assigned by party A) by party Y.
So, to pose the obvious question: Should there be?
(I honestly don't know the answer is to this question, and am asking in earnest
for opinions on the subject)
Nathan
Once upon a time, George Bonser said:
> Let's say I had a business in space in a building I was leasing at 100 Main
> Street, Podunk, USA. Now let's say you didn't renew the lease so I moved to
> a building up the block but put the 100 Main Street address on my new
> location and continued to
On Feb 1, 2012, at 10:16 AM, George Bonser wrote:
"We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce
that space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this
context) with the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's
customer should resolve t
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 12:37 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
>>> "We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that
>>> space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with
>>> the RIR nor the RIR's customer.
> >> "We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce
> that space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this
> context) with the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's
> customer should resolve this issue with our customer."
> > Contracts are generally no
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, David Conrad wrote:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
"We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that space. We
have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with the RIR nor the RIR's
customer. The RIR and/or the RIR
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer nor an operator.
>
>> Imagine that instead of www.google.com, it was www.whitehouse.gov
>
>> At some point, I suspect that this gets service to get it fixed RIGHT NOW.
>> At some point, the guys informing you it's RIGHT NOW show
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:53 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
>> "We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that
>> space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with
>> the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's customer should
>> resolve this
I'm not a lawyer nor an operator.
> Imagine that instead of www.google.com, it was www.whitehouse.gov
> At some point, I suspect that this gets service to get it fixed RIGHT NOW.
> At some point, the guys informing you it's RIGHT NOW show up with badges.
Where is Milo Medin when we need him?
>
On Wed, 1 Feb 2012, Mark Andrews wrote:
And if I have a contract to commit murder that doesn't mean that
it is right nor legal. A contract can't get you out of dealing
with the law of the land and in most place in the world "aiding and
abetting" is illegal.
the topic at hand would appear to be
In message , David Conrad
writes:
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> >> "We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce =
> that =3D
> >> space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) =
> =3D
> >> with the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The
That may not be a bad idea. Have you gotten your company's lawyers
involved? They may be able to get some sort of court action started and get
things moving. They may also be able to compel the ISP's to act.
2012/1/31 Kelvin Williams
> I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed a
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, David Conrad wrote:
In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
- A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started announcing address
space a customer of theirs provided. Unfortunately, the address space wasn't
the ISP's customer's to provide.
- When th
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> "We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that
> space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with
> the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's customer should
> resolve this issu
> Internet number resource certification and origin validation sure
> would be nice here ;-)
this is arin address space. arin is the only rir which has not deployed
and there is running code
randy
> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Tue Jan 31 19:57:51
> 2012
> To: David Conrad
> From: Mark Andrews
> Subject: Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked
> Networks)
> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:52:57 +1100
> Cc: nanog@na
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 12:52:57 +1100, Mark Andrews said:
> > - A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started announcing
national telco. oooh ka...
> And if I have a contract to commit murder that doesn't mean that
> it is right nor legal. A contract can't get you out of dealing
> w
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
>>
>> In message <7b85f9d8-ba9e-4341-9242-5eb514895...@virtualized.org>, David
>> Conrad
>> writes:
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix =
>>> NAP. :)
>>
Internet number resource certification and origin validation sure would be nice
here ;-)
-danny
On Jan 31, 2012, at 7:49 PM, Kelvin Williams wrote:
> I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP. :)
>
> We're still not out of the woods, announcing /24s and working
On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <7b85f9d8-ba9e-4341-9242-5eb514895...@virtualized.org>, David
> Conrad
> writes:
>>> I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix =
>> NAP. :)
>>
>> In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
>>
On Jan 31, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>> "We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that =
>> space. We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) =
>> with the RIR nor the RIR's customer. The RIR and/or the RIR's customer =
>> should resolve this
In message <7b85f9d8-ba9e-4341-9242-5eb514895...@virtualized.org>, David Conrad
writes:
> > I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix =
> NAP. :)
>
> In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
>
> - A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started a
We started announcing /24s, combined with the shorter path it seems to be
fine.
Still jumping through hoops upstream.
On Jan 31, 2012 8:26 PM, "PC" wrote:
> Curious, What was the outcome of this?
>
> In any case, I'm hoping the major Tier-1s do the right thing and filter
> the rogue annoucements
Curious, What was the outcome of this?
In any case, I'm hoping the major Tier-1s do the right thing and filter the
rogue annoucements, while allowing the OP's. Hopefully after enough
pressure and dysfunction, they will give it up.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
> > I hope
> I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP. :)
In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
- A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started announcing address
space a customer of theirs provided. Unfortunately, the address space wasn't
the IS
I think the correct term for this is "bullet proof hosting". Now you know
where to go.
-Dan
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Kelvin Williams wrote:
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP. :)
We're still not out of the woods, announcing /24s and working with upper
tier c
I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP. :)
We're still not out of the woods, announcing /24s and working with upper
tier carriers to filter out our lists. However, I just got this response
from Phoenix NAP and found it funny. The "thief" is a former customer,
wh
49 matches
Mail list logo
