Hi Nick and List
Yes it's possible. The dud DNS response in some parts of the internet was
the public IP address being used by their proxy server. I'm not sure what
the proxy is, but it's a windows box. I was going to try to dig trace but
by then the poisoning suddenly stopped happening. Any othe
Hi guys,
we, a Berlin / Germany based carrier, are looking for a smart documentation
(shelfs, connections, fibers) and visualization tool for our ADVA-based
DWDM-enviroment. Do you have any suggestions or hints for me? We’re testing
„cableScout“, the only one I found, next week but. Unfortunat
Greetings:
In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a
number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying
Agreement. Acceptance of this agreement is required in order to gain
access to ARIN's Trust Anchor Locator (TAL).
Given the size and num
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:57:05 -0500, Andrew Gallo said:
> In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a
> number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying
> Agreement.
Do we have a handle on *why* organizations are having issues with the
agreement?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:04 AM, wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:57:05 -0500, Andrew Gallo said:
>
>> In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a
>> number of organizations that will not or cannot sign ARIN's RPKI Relying
>> Agreement.
>
> Do we have a handle on *why* o
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:21 AM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:04 AM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:57:05 -0500, Andrew Gallo said:
>>
>>> In the past few months, I've spoken with, or heard second hand, from a
>>> number of organizations that will not or cannot sign AR
Honestly, that's what I'm trying to figure out as well. In my informal
conversations, what I got was that lawyers read the agreement, said 'no,
we wont sign it' and then dropped it. If specific legal feedback isn't
making it back to ARIN, then we need to start providing it, otherwise,
the agr
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Gallo wrote:
> In my informal conversations, what I got was that lawyers read the agreement,
> said 'no, we wont sign it' and then dropped it. If specific legal feedback
> isn't making it back to ARIN, then we need to start providing it,
All the specific l
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:35 AM, Andrew Gallo wrote:
> Honestly, that's what I'm trying to figure out as well. In my informal
> conversations, what I got was that lawyers read the agreement, said 'no, we
> wont sign it' and then dropped it. If specific legal feedback isn't making
> it back to AR
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
> > On Dec 4, 2014, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Gallo wrote:
> > In my informal conversations, what I got was that lawyers read the
> agreement, said 'no, we wont sign it' and then dropped it. If specific
> legal feedback isn't making it back to ARI
Anybody have a contact at Amazon AWS?
I sent in a spam complaint, and got back the below response - while I give them
kudos for actually, you know, responding, I'm pretty sure that we can all agree
that "sending the same canned message to email addresses scraped off websites"
is the very defini
>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Gallo wrote:
>> In my informal conversations, what I got was that lawyers read
>>the agreement, said 'no, we wont sign it' and then dropped it. If
>>specific legal feedback isn't making it back to ARIN, then we
>>need to start providing it,
Hi Andrew,
The s
Wether the addresses were gleaned using specially trained hedgehogs
or by people looking at the sites to target who they're going to
SPAM, targeted UCE is still UCE.
Apparently AWS doesn't grok that.
At 11:15 AM 04/12/2014, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. wrote:
Anybody have a contact at Amazon AWS
- Original Message -
> From: "Ca By"
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
> > All the specific legal feedback I’ve heard is that this is a
> > liability
> > nightmare, and that everyone wants ARIN to take on all the
> > liability, but
> > nobody wants to pay for it. Ar
On 12/4/2014 11:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:
On Dec 4, 2014, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Gallo wrote:
In my informal conversations, what I got was that lawyers read
the agreement, said 'no, we wont sign it' and then dropped it. If
specific legal feedback isn't making it back to ARIN, then we
need to st
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>> All the specific legal feedback I’ve heard is that this is a liability
> nightmare,
>> and that everyone wants ARIN to take on all the liability, but nobody
>> wants to pay for it. A
Hello,
On 12/4/2014 2:33 PM, Andrew Gallo wrote:
>
> On 12/4/2014 11:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Understood and good point. I've heard rumblings of setting up a
> non-ARIN TAL, though I wonder what the value is in separating RPKI from
> the registry. Wouldn't this put us in the same position
Hello,
On 12/4/2014 2:33 PM, Andrew Gallo wrote:
>
> On 12/4/2014 11:22 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> Understood and good point. I've heard rumblings of setting up a
> non-ARIN TAL, though I wonder what the value is in separating RPKI from
> the registry. Wouldn't this put us in the same position
On 12/4/14, 10:35 AM, "Andrew Gallo" wrote:
>Honestly, that's what I'm trying to figure out as well. In my informal
>conversations, what I got was that lawyers read the agreement, said 'no,
>we wont sign it' and then dropped it. If specific legal feedback isn't
>making it back to ARIN, then we
On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> ...
> Maybe it would be helpful for the ARIN Counsel to document in a more
> public way (than the RPA) what the concerns are and how that
> translates into 'different risk than the publication of whois data' ?
This is apparently being discu
On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
> Those are operational matters, implemented by the staff, governed by the
> board, who is informed by their legal council and staff. That is part of
> the reason why I brought some of the issues to the NANOG community, since
> interaction with ARIN
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:53 PM, John Curran wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
>> Those are operational matters, implemented by the staff, governed by the
>> board, who is informed by their legal council and staff. That is part of
>> the reason why I brought some of the i
Bill Woodcock writes:
>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Gallo wrote:
>>
>> In my informal conversations, what I got was that lawyers read the
>> agreement, said 'no, we wont sign it' and then dropped it. If
>> specific legal feedback isn't making it back to ARIN, then we need
>> to start p
On Dec 4, 2014, at 1:01 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> I am happy to champion the change that you seek (i.e. will get it reviewed
>> by legal and brought before the ARIN Board) but still need clarity on what
>> change you wish to occur -
>>
>>A) Implicit binding to the indemnification/warrant di
>>On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> > All the specific legal feedback I’ve heard is that this is a
>> > liability
>> > nightmare, and that everyone wants ARIN to take on all the
>> > liability, but
>> > nobody wants to pay for it.
WG] Has there been any actual discussion
>> Comparing what you do with Time Warner cable seems like pure hyperbole and
>> an attempt
>> as CEO to inflame community discussion at minimum.
>
> Actually, it is to remind folks that such indemnification language is
> sought by most ISPs, despite their services being used in a mission
> crit
> On 4 Dec 2014, at 18:53, John Curran wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:32 PM, George, Wes wrote:
>> Those are operational matters, implemented by the staff, governed by the
>> board, who is informed by their legal council and staff. That is part of
>> the reason why I brought some of the issue
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:17 AM, George, Wes wrote:
> WG] Has there been any actual discussion about how much "nobody" would
> have to pay for ARIN (or another party) to fix the balance of liability
> and provide a proper SLA that led to "no, I don't want to pay for that"
> responses from those who
On 12/4/14, 1:13 PM, "John Curran" wrote:
>>>I am happy to champion the change that you seek (i.e. will get it
>>>reviewed
>>> by legal and brought before the ARIN Board) but still need clarity on
>>>what
>>> change you wish to occur -
>>>
>>>A) Implicit binding to the indemnification/warran
On Dec 4, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 2014, at 10:17 AM, George, Wes wrote:
>> WG] Has there been any actual discussion about how much "nobody" would
>> have to pay for ARIN (or another party) to fix the balance of liability
>> and provide a proper SLA that led to "no
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:11 AM, Robert Seastrom wrote:
> I suspect you would get a similar answer if you asked people "Would you be
> willing to pay ARIN for whois services" or "would you be willing to pay ARIN
> for in-addr.arpa services”.
Actually, since those are relatively inexpensive, I su
On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:39 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:35 AM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
> Note that the claims that could ensue from an operator failing to follow best
> practices
> and then third-parties suffering an major operational outage is likely to be
> large
On Dec 4, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> I (similar to Rob) have my own concerns about RPKI but do feel that
> this is an ARIN specific construct/wall that has been raised without
> action yet from ARIN.
Jared -
Please be specific - are you referring to the indemnification claus
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:17:34 -0800, Bill Woodcock said:
> the RPKI costs are many orders of magnitude higher
Orders of magnitude? Seriously? I can buy it costs 2x or 3x.
But an additional 2 or 3 zeros on the price?
pgp_PXDy5bSuP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:21 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
>
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:17:34 -0800, Bill Woodcock said:
>> the RPKI costs are many orders of magnitude higher
>
> Orders of magnitude? Seriously? I can buy it costs 2x or 3x.
> But an additional 2 or 3 zeros on the price?
Yep,
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 2:19 PM, John Curran wrote:
>
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>>
>> I (similar to Rob) have my own concerns about RPKI but do feel that
>> this is an ARIN specific construct/wall that has been raised without
>> action yet from ARIN.
>
> Jared -
>
> P
Am I correct in thinking that the SIDR work going on in the IETF takes the
registries out of the real-time processing of route
authentication/attestation?
Is RPKI a stop-gap while we wait for full path validation? Should we be
focusing our energies in that area?
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 2:19 PM, S
On 12/4/14, 1:34 PM, "Bill Woodcock" wrote:
>I’ve asked a lot of people, “Would you be willing to pay ARIN for RPKI
>services,” and the answer has always been “no.” Until I get a “yes,”
>it’s hard to put a number (other than zero) on how the market values
>RPKI.
WG] well, if it wasn't clear fr
On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> the fact it’s taken 3 months to reach the board is of concern
Jared, ARIN is now nine years in to applying thrust to this pig. The board
does in fact revisit it with some frequency, since it’s expensive and the
primary thing blocking other sof
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 11:28:42 -0800, Bill Woodcock said:
> > On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:21 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote:
> > Orders of magnitude? Seriously? I can buy it costs 2x or 3x.
> > But an additional 2 or 3 zeros on the price?
> Yep, thats why all this is at issue. If it were cheap, and
On 12/4/14, 2:34 PM, "Andrew Gallo" wrote:
>Am I correct in thinking that the SIDR work going on in the IETF takes the
>registries out of the real-time processing of route
>authentication/attestation?
WG] no, but they're at least discussing ways of making the dependencies
less fragile and more s
Anybody got codes valid for December?
On 14 Nov 2014 18:07, "Wakefield, Thad M."
wrote:
> Since there was some interest in the Udemy CCNA training, I'll risk
> forwarding these additional discounts:
>
> Remember that this is ONLY for the month of NOVEMBER!
> *** CCNA Course is now $24 with coupon
On 12/4/14, 2:19 PM, "Sandra Murphy" wrote:
>Which begs the question for me -- ARIN already operates services that
>operators rely upon. Why are they different? Does ARIN run no risk of
>litigation due to some perceived involvement of those services in
>someone's operational outage?
WG] I'm h
have some juniper but not cisco.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Bacon Zombie wrote:
> Anybody got codes valid for December?
> On 14 Nov 2014 18:07, "Wakefield, Thad M."
> wrote:
>
> > Since there was some interest in the Udemy CCNA training, I'll risk
> > forwarding these additional discounts
Share them anyway? Juniper's certs have enough demand as well :)
On 12/5/2014 午前 05:13, Eric Litvin wrote:
have some juniper but not cisco.
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Bacon Zombie wrote:
Anybody got codes valid for December?
On 14 Nov 2014 18:07, "Wakefield, Thad M."
wrote:
Since th
> From: amitch...@isipp.com
> Subject: Anybody at Amazon AWS?
> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 09:15:36 -0700
> To: nanog@nanog.org
>
> Anybody have a contact at Amazon AWS?
>
> I sent in a spam complaint, and got back the below response - while I give
> them kudos for actually, you know, responding, I
This pig is less aerodynamic, and fewer people are pushing.
In-addr DNS and whois are simple and well-understood protocols, with many
programmer-years of software development behind them.
The problem isn't the marginal cost of a single transaction, that might only be
one or two orders of mag
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 2:41 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:
>
>
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 11:33 AM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> the fact it’s taken 3 months to reach the board is of concern
>
> Jared, ARIN is now nine years in to applying thrust to this pig. The board
> does in fact revisit it with some freque
On Dec 4, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> the fact it’s taken 3 months to reach the board is of concern to me for an
> issue
> that was raised (prior to the October meeting) by operators, andwhere you
> were an active part of the discussion afterwards in the back of the plenary
> room.
Replying offline to Theo. Schwer zu finden.
Roy
*Roy Hirst* | 425-556-5773 | 425-324-0941 cell
XKL LLC | 12020 113th Ave NE, Suite 100 | Kirkland, WA 98034 | USA
On 12/4/2014 5:21 AM, Theo Voss wrote:
Hi guys,
we, a Berlin / Germany based carrier, are looking for a smart documentation
(shelfs
Hi,
thanks! I guess one of the most exhaustive and freely-available
route-views data to analyze is from RIPE Routing Information Service
project? For example if I would like to analyze a certain prefix
announced by a certain AS for time period from 1.11.2014 to
30.11.2014, then I should download r
On Dec 4, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
> ...
> Which begs the question for me -- ARIN already operates services that
> operators rely upon. Why are they different? Does ARIN run no risk of
> litigation due to some perceived involvement of those services in someone's
> operational ou
52 matches
Mail list logo
