Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. ---Rsk

RE: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

There's a big difference between signing that the books are right (it matters!) and filling out paperwork for ARIN. The first is one of his primary duties as an officer of the company, the second won't even make his secretary's "to do" list. It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing s

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Rich Kulawiec wrote: If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. But they can't do that without impacting revenue. In order to continue charging fees that are who

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space issue to the CxO level -- if it was interested in honesty, ARIN would have required a notarized statement by the person submitti

tools for BGP

Hi, I am interested in commercial tools for managing BGP. I would be interested to hear which commercial tools BGP administrators recommend or like; and why they like them. I would be equally interested to learn which tools people don't like, and why. If people don't feel able to name tools, th

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Oddly enough, someone proposed something very much along these lines at a couple of RIR meetings (see "IPv4 Soft Landing"), and in fact used the 'driving into a brick wall' analogy. Many of the folks who commented on that policy proposal felt it was inappropriate for RIRs to dictate busine

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Rich Kulawiec wrote: If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. Report such cases to ARIN:

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:19 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: Rich Kulawiec wrote: If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. But they can't do that without impacting reve

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 8:19 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: Rich Kulawiec wrote: If the effort that will go into administering this went instead into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. But they can't do that without impacting revenue

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:01 AM, John Curran wrote: C) We've routinely lowered fees since inception, not raised them. Well I'm not sure what your definitely of "routinely" is, but we've not seen in decrease in our fees any time in the past 8 ye

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

John Curran wrote: A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take action without the Internet community first making some policy on what action should be taken... Please get together with folks of similar mind either via PPML or via Public Policy meeting at the the Open P

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

David Conrad wrote: The term "legacy" here is relevant. Under what agreement would an RIR evaluate an allocation that occurred prior to the existence of the RIR? And when the folks who received legacy space and don't like this upstart RIR nosing around in their business, the legal fees that th

RE: Malicious code just found on web server

We have seen this twice recentlywe have tracked it back to a worm which steals unencrypted ftp information from a desktop. We tracked it down because it occured on 7 or 8 sites that were on different servers both Linux and Windows...some had no database associated with them. The only common

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Roger Marquis wrote: Not sure what could be cited as presidence either, except perhaps the transition from feudal landowning aristocracies a few centuries back. Except they weren't pushing to transition people to LANDv6, just fighting to determine who held control of the

CN=Ali Khurram/O=KFPW is out of the office.

I will be out of the office starting 30/03/2009 and will not return until 26/04/2009. UNITED GROUP This email message is the property of United Group. The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: John Curran wrote: A) ARIN's not ignoring unneeded legacy allocations, but can't take action without the Internet community first making some policy on what action should be taken... Please get together with folks of similar mind either via P

Re: tools for BGP

--- irfan.zakiud...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Irfan Zakiuddin I am interested in commercial tools for managing BGP. -- Have you looked at the NANOG mailing list and meeting archives yet? If not, you should do so. There is a lot of info the

Re: Malicious code just found on web server

> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:52:57 -0700 > From: Paul Ferguson > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Nick Chapman > wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Neil wrote: > > >> > >> But if you figure out how they got write access to a static website, I'd > >> love to hear it. > > > > > >

Re: IXP

On Monday 20 April 2009 18:57:01 Niels Bakker wrote: > Ethernet has no administrative boundaries that can be delineated. > Spanning one broadcast domain across multiple operators is therefore > a recipe for disaster. Isn't this the problem that NBMA networks like ATM were built for? > Cheap,

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:39:47 -0400, Joe Greco wrote: Knowing that blatant lying about IP space justifications has been an ongoing game in the community, ARIN has decided to "do something" about it. ... That game has been going on for over a decade. I've seen it first hand as far back as '96

RE: tools for BGP

BGP BGPlay a web based service, freely available to the community since 2004, which allows graphical inspection of interdomain routing evolution using public BGP data collected by www.routeviews.org and by www.ris.ripe.net. BGPmon can monitor your prefixes and alert you in case of a 'interesting

RE: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

From: Frank Bulk - iName.com [mailto:frnk...@iname.com] > > It appears that ARIN wants to raise the IP addressing space > issue to the CxO level -- if it was interested in honesty, > ARIN would have required a notarized statement by the person > submitting the request. If ARIN really wants to g

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: B) Technical standards for NAT & NAPT are the IETF's job, not ARIN's. Too true, but no reason ARIN could not be taking a more active role. This is after all, in ARIN's best interest, not the IETF's. There is work happening in the behave

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

> Oddly enough, someone proposed something very much along these lines > at a couple of RIR meetings (see "IPv4 Soft Landing"), and in fact > used the 'driving into a brick wall' analogy. Many of the folks who > commented on that policy proposal felt it was inappropriate for RIRs > to dict

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 10:36 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: Thanks for the reply John, but PPML has not worked to-date. Too many legacy interests willing and able to veto any such attempt at a sustainable netblock return policy. Not sure how us folks, of a similar mind as it were, would be able to c

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a big cop out to me. A) If ARIN is so concerned about the potential depletion of v4 resources, they should be taking a more proactive roll in proposing potential solutions and start conversation rather then saying that the

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Frank Bulk - iName.com wrote: There's a big difference between signing that the books are right (it matters!) and filling out paperwork for ARIN. The first is one of his primary duties as an officer of the company, the second won't even make his secretary's "to do

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:58 PM, David Hubbard wrote: Raising the price won't help; there's already a huge amount of wasted address space by web hosts selling IP addresses to customers who need them solely for 'seo purposes' rather It's a common request we see. We refuse it, and point them to the

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Shane Ronan wrote: C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it is being spent in a reasonable manner, and the fees are where they n

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: Mr Curran, given the response you've seen from the group, and in particular the argument that most CEO's or Officers of firms will simply sign off on what they IT staff tells them (as they have little to no understanding of the situation), Yo

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Pe

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Kevin Loch wrote: > Shane Ronan wrote: > > C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be >> interesting for the group to see where all our money is going, since it's >> obviously not going to outreach and solution planning. Perhaps it is bein

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

I suspect at more than a few companies the "Net Admin" can get a 10 minute slot on the CTO's calendarin 2042. In the wonderful game of pass it up the food chain it probably looks something like this: Net-Admin: This IPv6 stuff is important, we should already be deploying it full

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

12+M divided by the 3300 "members" is just shy of $4,000 per customer. Small nit... Not all customers are members. Owen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: I'm not sure if anyone agrees with me, but these responses seem like a big cop out to me. A) If ARIN is so concerned about the potential depletion of v4 resources, they should be taking a more proactive roll in proposing potential solutions

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: > Since > virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I > refuse it. SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but m

Re: Malicious code just found on web server

On 21/04/2009, at 5:23 AM, Mike Lewinski wrote: Paul Ferguson wrote: Most likely SQL injection. At any given time, there are hundreds of thousands of "legitimate" websites out there that are unwittingly harboring malicious code. Most of the MS-SQL injection attacks we see write malicious

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Jo Rhett wrote: Let's translate that: There is no consensus in the community who defines goals and objectives for ARIN to do Something. And there is no consensus because the process and/or community has not been capable of the task. Design-by-committee is a problem we are all familiar with.

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: Since virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I refuse it. SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. Right. Also, monthly bandwidth monitoring/shaping/capping are more easily done using one i

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: Since virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I refuse it. SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. Absolutely. But SEO on pure virtual sites is not ;-) -- Jo Rh

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Ken A wrote: Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: Since virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I refuse it. SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. Right. Also, monthly bandwidth monitoring/shapin

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Jo Rhett wrote: It's a common request we see. We refuse it, and point them to the Google documentation that shows that unique IPs don't help or hurt their SEO standings. Some "customers" have wised up and when providing IP justification, they don't mention SEO anymore.

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:55 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: Some "customers" have wised up and when providing IP justification, they don't mention SEO anymore. However, I've seen several requests in the past couple weeks from customers/prospective customers wanting /24's or larger subnets (or they're not

MRTG in Fourier Space

Maybe a slightly off topic math-geek kind of question to take time out from the ARIN/death-of-IPv4/IPv6-evangalist thread of the week. Has anyone found any value in examining network utilization numbers with Fourier analyses? After staring at pretty MRTG graphs for a bit too long today, I'm wonder

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 02:51:11PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: > On Apr 21, 2009, at 1:58 PM, David Hubbard wrote: >> Raising the price won't help; there's already a huge amount >> of wasted address space by web hosts selling IP addresses >> to customers who need them solely for 'seo purposes' rather >

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 04:41:46PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote: > > On Apr 21, 2009, at 4:22 PM, Ken A wrote: >> Chris Adams wrote: >>> Once upon a time, Jo Rhett said: Since virtual web hosting has no technical justification for IP space, I refuse it. >>> SSL and FTP are techincal justifi

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams wrote: SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual host with any modern webserver / browser. (Server Name Indication (SNI) [RFC3546, sec 3.1]) FTP? Who uses

Re: MRTG in Fourier Space

Hi Crist, On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 05:12:04PM -0700, Crist Clark wrote: > > Has anyone found any value in examining network utilization > numbers with Fourier analyses? After staring at pretty > MRTG graphs for a bit too long today, I'm wondering if > there are some interesting periodic character

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:22:08 -0400, Ken A wrote: Also, monthly bandwidth monitoring/shaping/capping are more easily done using one ip per hosted domain... That's why the infrastructure is "virtualized" and you monitor at or behind the firewall(s) and/or load balancer(s) -- where it *is* one

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On 22/04/2009, at 7:25 AM, Jo Rhett wrote: On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: Mr Curran, given the response you've seen from the group, and in particular the argument that most CEO's or Officers of firms will simply sign off on what they IT staff tells them (as they have litt

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams wrote: >> SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. > > No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual host > with any modern webserver / browser. (Se

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

You really should go ask a CEO if he'd sign off on something that he doesn't understand. Really. I can assure you that your impression is wrong, and most CEOs don't prefer to be standing in court defending their actions. Actually, being a CTO of a company, I know that my CEO signs things

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

Not the annual report, the actual books and records, including details on individual expenses. On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Kevin Loch wrote: Shane Ronan wrote: C) Are ARIN's books open for public inspection? If so, it might be interesting for the group to see where all our money is going,

Any experience with EoMPLS PE switches?

Looking to migrate away from a VLAN centric core to provision client TLS circuits into something a little more scalable. EoMPLS seems like the apple to chew these days. Anyone have any experience with a cost effective EoMPLS PE (VPLS is likely going to be a necessity down the road too) tha

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Once upon a time, Ricky Beam said: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams wrote: > >SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. > > No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual host with > any modern webserver / browser. (Server Name Indication (

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests [re "impacting revenue"]

On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:19 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: Well... ARIN is structured with a bottom-up community driven policy process. That has served us well for many years, and, I think that changing it would be a mistake. However, in this case, that means that the following people are specifically

Yahoo mail admin

Can I get a yahoo mail services admin to contact me off list? the normal channels have been getting me nowhere. "a representative will be in touch with you in a few days" has been going on for about 2 weeks. Blake Pfankuch Connecting Point of Greeley Network Engineer 970-356-7224 [cid:image001

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 08:24:38PM -0400, Ricky Beam wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:40:30 -0400, Chris Adams wrote: > >SSL and FTP are techincal justifications for an IP per site. > > No they aren't. SSL will work just fine as a name-based virtual host with > any modern webserver / browser. (

The real issue

Is ARIN, who won't even take back large blocks of space from people who have long ago stopped using it and aren't paying anything for it, prepared to start filing civil suits against people who were assigned / 24's (and paid for them) due to inaccurate declaration?

Re: The real issue

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: > Is ARIN, who won't even take back large blocks of space from people who have > long ago stopped using it and aren't paying anything for it, prepared to > start filing civil suits against people who were assigned /24's (and paid > for them) due

Re: The real issue

It's means one of two things: 1) Recoup the unused space for paid reallocation or 2) Have the current "owner" pay the market rate for the IP space On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: Is ARIN, who won't even take back la

Re: The real issue

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: > It's means one of two things: > sure, but 'how' exactly? > 1) Recoup the unused space for paid reallocation > or arin never (nor do any RIR) guarantee routability, nor do they even a method to affect routability of a network. > 2) Have the

Re: The real issue

On Apr 21, 2009 19:46 Shane Ronan wrote: > 2) Have the current "owner" pay the market rate for the IP space I'm curious what the going rate on a /24 is? -bb

Re: The real issue

Very simple, just do it. On Apr 21, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: It's means one of two things: sure, but 'how' exactly? 1) Recoup the unused space for paid reallocation or arin never (nor do any RIR) guarantee routabi

Re: The real issue

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Shane Ronan wrote: > Very simple, just do it. > This isn't nike... I'm sorry for being obtuse, but they (arin) can't really do anything. I suspect that if they had to prosecute all folks in violation of the RSA they would have financial issues... and it wouldn't

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

Rich Kulawiec wrote: > If the effort that will go into administering this went instead > into reclaiming IPv4 space that's obviously hijacked and/or being > used by abusive operations, we'd all benefit. I use comcast space for abusive operations. I believe they charge me $40 a month for the priv

Re: Important New Requirement for IPv4 Requests

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:57:31 -0400, Matthew Palmer wrote: FTP? Who uses FTP these days? ... A depressingly large number of people use FTP. Attempts to move them onto something less insane are fruitless. Even when the tools support it (and plenty of "web design" tools don't appear to do a

ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads

A reminder that discussion of the following topics are off-topic for the NANOG list. * Website security * Corporate governance * Arin IP address policy Please ensure that posts are network operations orientated. Simon Lyall NANOG MLC ( on behalf of) -- Simon Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http

Re: The real issue

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Christopher Morrow wrote: arin never (nor do any RIR) guarantee routability, nor do they even a method to affect routability of a network. Sure they do. They can and have put pressure on networks to stop advertisements from being propagated. What they can actually do if

Re: The real issue

Shane Ronan wrote: Very simple, just do it. Ha! We have some legacy IP space in continous use here at ASN13345 for over 12 years now that was recently "revoked" for a few weeks (only to be later restored via a transfer once the exact definition of "ownership" in a member-owned cooperative wa

Re: downloading speed

Hey Chandra, You should check with your VP of IP Engineering, I have heard tell that he is a ³hard core engineer². I am sure he could have solved your problem. Cheers - On 4/18/09 1:50 PM, "chandrashakher pawar" wrote: > Dear Members, > > > > Thanks for your help and valuable information.

RE: The real issue

However if someone at ARIN had put in a call to say the top 10 transit providers and asked them to black-hole this space (which they might do) then where would you have been? -Original Message- From: Mike Lewinski [mailto:m...@rockynet.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:54 PM To: nanog

RE: The real issue

No, but they can sure send them a bill and then go after them for collections when they don't pay it. -Original Message- From: christopher.mor...@gmail.com [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Morrow Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 8:34 PM To: Shane Ronan Cc: nanog

RE: The real issue

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Shane Ronan wrote: However if someone at ARIN had put in a call to say the top 10 transit providers and asked them to black-hole this space (which they might do) then where would you have been? You say that as if it hasn't happened. ---

Re: The real issue

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Christopher Morrow wrote: > >> arin never (nor do any RIR) guarantee routability, nor do they even a >> method to affect routability of a network. > > Sure they do.  They can and have put pressure on networks to stop > adver

Re: The real issue

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: > However if someone at ARIN had put in a call to say the top 10 transit > providers and asked them to black-hole this space (which they might do) > then where would you have been? > 'not my customer, not my issue, you REALLY need to talk to AS

Re: The real issue

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: > No, but they can sure send them a bill and then go after them for > collections when they don't pay it. > where do you send the bill? For some even large organizations I've seen bills get shuffled to random places that didn't deal with 'bills

Re: The real issue

Shane Ronan wrote: No, but they can sure send them a bill and then go after them for collections when they don't pay it. 1) I don't care to pay higher member fees because ARIN has been going to court left and right. 2) ARIN membership hasn't voted for such, because they probably didn't wan

Re: ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads

> A reminder that discussion of the following topics are off-topic for the > NANOG list. > > * Website security > * Corporate governance > * Arin IP address policy > > Please ensure that posts are network operations orientated. How about the operational relevance of strategies of how to proceed

RE: The real issue

And exactly how are you determining it is 'unused'? Not announced to the internet? (which means virtually nothing as far as 'use' status of an IP block) For pete sake, the time has come to resolve the issues that prevent widespread adoption of IPv6: - resolve RIR IPv6 allocation hassles for r

Re: The real issue

'not my customer, not my issue, you REALLY need to talk to ASX who's their provider...' -Chris I don't believe this is how most ISP's would respond or there wouldn't be RBLs. On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:38 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Shane Ronan wrote: How

Re: The real issue

Simple, send it to the address and contact listed in their whois record. On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:40 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: where do you send the bill? For some even large organizations I've seen bills get shuffled to random places that didn't deal with 'bills' and then get dropped. Not ev

Re: The real issue

But you are okay with them raising your fees to go to court left and right to enforce the declarations made by CEO's of companies who are happily paying the fees for the space they've been assigned. On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:43 PM, Jack Bates wrote: 1) I don't care to pay higher member fees bec

Re: ADMIN: Reminder on off-topic threads

On 22/04/2009, at 3:57 PM, Joe Greco wrote: It may not be wise to wait until ARIN allocates 256.0.0.0/8 to someone and everyone chimes in to note that their routers are barfing on that. :-/ Now that *would* be amusing. -- Nathan Ward

Re: The real issue

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:59:24PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote: > ... that's somewhat hard since the current policies don't support > that, and there is no real legal stance for legacy-allocations... For > allocated post-legacy-times ARIN can start court proceedings, but ... > that's a lengthy

IPv6-capable hardware?

Anyone found a decent PE/DSLAM configuration for supporting IPv6 in a bridged architecture (No PPP)? So far, the best I've found is DSLAMs that don't have mandated "security" features and support q-in-q for mass tagging back to concentrators, but the only concentrator I've found to handle a var

IPv4 Anycast?

Hello NANOG, I noticed that more than 3K prefixes are with 2 Origin ASes. Are they the simplest cases of anycast? Or they are mainly due to misconfiguration? --- --Zhenkai