On 2011-10-12 19:34 , Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> I don't buy the "bad-guys-rig-policies" thing... but well, I could be wrong.
Rigging is not the right name for it, which is why the original message
stated 'gaming', which is quite accurate. You just set up an official
(shell) company and thu
I don't buy the "bad-guys-rig-policies" thing... but well, I could be wrong.
But regarding your second comment, yes, I do believe that bad guys
take the path of least resistance whenever possible. At some point
IPv6 will look attractive to them and they will start using it.
My logs show that I ge
And I suppose the bad guys who are out there gaming RIPE etc policies are
not touching v6 with a bargepole?
Or are they stockpiling massive amounts of v6 space?
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo <
carlosm3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we should just allow this to go on u
Maybe we should just allow this to go on until all IPv4 space is so
polluted that no-one wants to use it anymore :-)
"Bad Reputation as an IPv6 Transition Driver"
Nice title for a PPT deck...
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Tore Anderson
wrote:
> * Martin Millnert
>
>> RIPE's LIR IPv4 listing
* Martin Millnert
> RIPE's LIR IPv4 listing service has 1x /20 listed, *right now*.
I wonder if that one was listed by mistake. The prefix in question,
128.0.16.0/20, was assigned to NetWave Ltd. by the NCC last Tuesday. If
it isn't a mistake, I wonder how they justified obtaining the prefix in
t
On 10/9/11 05:10 , Martin Millnert wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> IPv4 addresses will never run out in a strict sense of the word, it
>> will just become increasingly more difficult to reassign IPv4 address
>> space to those who need it.
>
> If you by difficult
Thanks, I didn't know that one.
I followed the link to "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies
for the RIPE NCC Service Region" and seems a good and simple approach.
Regards,
.as
On 9 Oct 2011, at 10:16, Martin Millnert wrote:
> Arturo,
>
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:5
Arturo,
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> ARIN and APNIC allows it, LACNIC will when it reaches the last /12 (so
> now is not possible). RIPE NCC and Afrinic do not have a policy yet AFAIK.
RIPE's LIR IPv4 listing service has 1x /20 listed, *right now*.
https://www.r
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> IPv4 addresses will never run out in a strict sense of the word, it
> will just become increasingly more difficult to reassign IPv4 address
> space to those who need it.
If you by difficult mean expensive, then I agree.
Regards,
Martin
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> IPv4 addresses will never run out in a strict sense of the word, it
> will just become increasingly more difficult to reassign IPv4 address
> space to those who need it.
And hopefully... the greater the address space "pressure" or
contenti
* Christopher Morrow:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Benson.
>>
>> In fact, for this "problem" I find irrelevant that IPv4 is running
>> out. They are just looking for good reputation IP nodes.
>
> isn't this a short-lived problem then?
I
On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> The important outcome is that transfers are documented. Making it easier for
> sellers to update Whois (so it points to the buyer) will encourage
> documentation. If "needs justification" is ever a disincentive to update
> Whois, then it
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> Granted, a seller that doesn't update Whois should be more worried about the
> reputation of the buyer. But regardless, it is incorrect to assume that
> "needs justification" will prevent bad actors from acquiring address blocks.
> Even
The important outcome is that transfers are documented. Making it easier for
sellers to update Whois (so it points to the buyer) will encourage
documentation. If "needs justification" is ever a disincentive to update
Whois, then it will discourage documentation.
Granted, a seller that doesn't
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> I'd welcome comments as to solutions to this. Or is it just scaremongering?
Probably scaremongering... but it does raise an interesting thought.
It provides another argument why RIRs don't need to abandon justified
need as a mandatory
criteria
> What do you mean with "purchasing or renting IPv4".
> Last time that I check it was not possible in the RIR world.
maybe you should look again. it's a new century.
randy
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:32 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> As for auctioning IP blocks, my experience is that hackers don't
> bother. If they want IP addresses beyond what the colo provider
> offers, they steal them: find a block of addresses not routed on the
> public Internet and forge LoAs they pr
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
>> Botnets buying up IPv4 address space
>>
>> http://j.mp/nMJ5Lr (Threat Post)
>
> I'd welcome comments as to solutions to this. Or is it just scaremongering?
Joly,
The author has drawn a relationship betw
Arturo,
On Oct 7, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> In fact, for this "problem" I find irrelevant that IPv4 is running out.
> They are just looking for good reputation IP nodes.
I suspect it is relevant to IPv4 because IPv6 has so little penetration. It
probably doesn't matter if
If not short-lived, then at least self-limiting.
--Richard
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Benson.
>>
>> In fact, for this "problem" I find irrelevant that IPv4 is running
>> out. T
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> I agree with Benson.
>
> In fact, for this "problem" I find irrelevant that IPv4 is running
> out. They are just looking for good reputation IP nodes.
isn't this a short-lived problem then?
I agree with Benson.
In fact, for this "problem" I find irrelevant that IPv4 is running out.
They are just looking for good reputation IP nodes.
-as
On 7 Oct 2011, at 16:03, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> I don't see anything new in the article, and would classify parts of it as
ote:
>
>> I'd welcome comments as to solutions to this. Or is it just scaremongering?
>> ...
>> Botnets buying up IPv4 address space
>>
>> http://j.mp/nMJ5Lr (Threat Post)
Domain names, IP addresses, network connectivity, etc - all of these are
resources th
Yes, I forgot that one.
ARIN and APNIC allows it, LACNIC will when it reaches the last /12 (so
now is not possible). RIPE NCC and Afrinic do not have a policy yet AFAIK.
-as
On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:35, David Conrad wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
>>
ments as to solutions to this. Or is it just scaremongering?
>>
>> j
>>
>> -- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Lauren Weinstein
>> Date: Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM
>>
>> Botnets buying up IPv4 address space
>>
>> http://j.mp/nMJ5Lr
On Oct 7, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> What do you mean with "purchasing or renting IPv4".
>
> Last time that I check it was not possible in the RIR world.
Seriously?
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsoft-pays-nortel-75-million-ipv4-address
The next phase
welcome comments as to solutions to this. Or is it just scaremongering?
>
> j
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Lauren Weinstein
> Date: Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM
>
> Botnets buying up IPv4 address space
>
> http://j.mp/nMJ5Lr (Threat Pos
I'd welcome comments as to solutions to this. Or is it just scaremongering?
j
-- Forwarded message --
From: Lauren Weinstein
Date: Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM
Botnets buying up IPv4 address space
http://j.mp/nMJ5Lr (Threat Post)
"Now, in one effort to get ar
28 matches
Mail list logo
