- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Geo location to IP mapping
by Alain Hebert 15 May '06

15 May '06

Yeap, I'm moron. You didn't know it yet? ----- Come on... "The way we disperse static IP" ain't imagination, its fact... We spread a /20 on dynamic dialup and dsl over 2 provinces and since most of the residential services is build like this you cannot get a read of where that ip user is located, unless you have also access to our customers db and authentication account db too. The best you'll get is country. Even then we have some that are LanEx'ed in europe and usa. (FYI: English is not my first language btw... so dont expect too much) David Schwartz wrote: >> I'm sure that everybodies here understand that the city databases >>cannot be accurate more than 50%. >> >> > > They *cannot* be? > > > >> The way we disperse static IP on commercial accounts there is not >>way they can figure out where the destination is. >> >> The last best guest will be the peer router before my routers. >> >> For me the country db is good enought for basic webalizer report for >>the customers websites. >> (This way my customers dont waste queries to countries.nerd.dk on >>non-spam related things) >> >> > > This is a pure argument from lack of imagine. They most certainly can be. > > Hypothetically, consider a company that had access to sales and account >databases from sites like eBay, Amazon, and the like. It extracts from this >database IP/city pairs. From this, it could do much better than 50%. > > You are basing your conclusions on your own lack of imagination. > > DS > > > > -- Alain Hebert ahebert(a)pubnix.net PubNIX Inc. P.O. Box 175 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 5T7 tel 514-990-5911 http://www.pubnix.net fax 514-990-9443

4 4

Re: Geo location to IP mapping
by Robert Bonomi 15 May '06

15 May '06

> From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Mon May 15 17:42:13 2006 > From: Kevin Day <toasty(a)dragondata.com> > Subject: Re: Geo location to IP mapping > Date: Mon, 15 May 2006 17:40:23 -0500 > > We use a Geo/IP location database. It's surprisingly accurate, with a > few exceptions. > [[ sneck ]] > > Comparing the database to the IP that our customers used to make > purchases we exceed 95% accuracy in identifying the country, and > 75-85% in city/state. The big exception is AOL, since their IP > assignments are pretty well randomized with respect to geography. *dynamically* randomized, no less, or so I've been told. As in: _all_ the customer session addresses are assigned out of *one* DHCP pool. I thought that 'unlikely', considering the mayhem on internal routing tables, but the AOL rep was rather insistant that that _was_ the case. They also have 'virtual' POPs, where they just backhaul ('tens if not hundreds' of miles, in same cases) voice, rather than having any physical equipment present.

1 0

Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
by Robert Bonomi 15 May '06

15 May '06

> From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Thu May 11 12:41:20 2006 > Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:40:22 -0400 > From: Alain Hebert <ahebert(a)pubnix.net> > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 08:46:40 -0400 > > From: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> > > To: ip(a)v2.listbox.com > > Subject: [IP] ICANN rejects .xxx domain > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > As reported in: > > > > http://abcnews.go.com/Business/print?id=1947950 > > > > ICANN has reversed their earlier preliminary approval, and has now > > rejected the "dot-xxx" adult materials top-level domain. I applaud > > this wise decision by ICANN, which should simultaneously please both > > anti-porn and free speech proponents, where opposition to the TLD > > has been intense, though for totally disparate reasons. > > > > Nick's AP piece referenced above notes that there are still > > Congressional efforts to mandate such a TLD. It is important > > to work toward ensuring that these do not gain traction. > > Why? > > If we can coral them in it and legislate to have no porn anywhere > else than on .xxx ... should fix the issue for the prudes out there. And _that_ is *precisely* "why not". <grin> When you figure out _how_ to accomplish the 'and' part of your statement, *world-wide*, and _how_long_ it would take to do so, *AND*CAN*GET*UNIVERSAL* *AGREEMENT* about what has to be inside the coral(sic), well, then, and -only- then can one consider 'what _useful_ purpose' such a TLD would serve. Note also: attempting to impose additional restrictions on _existant_, registered domains would likely constitute breach of contract. With big liabilities attached -- look at what the hijacking of 'sex.com' ended up costing the registrar that let it happen. Restricting future domain registrations _in_an_exsiting_TLD_ raises a separate can of worms, regarding existing registry operator and registrar contracts.

3 2

Why ICANN did the Right Thing [Was: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx doma in]
by Fergie 13 May '06

13 May '06

Without going into baseless arguments and innuendo, I would suggest that folks ponder the editorial over on OUT-LAW.com which has very thougtful overview of why ICANN did the Right Thing (tm) in this case: http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=6914 I tend to agree with them. Cheers, - ferg -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(a)netzero.net or fergdawg(a)sbcglobal.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/

2 1

S-BGP Research Survey
by Paul Main 13 May '06

13 May '06

Greetings, We are two graduate students at the University of California at Irvine. My partner and I are conducting a research project on Secure BGP for our Advanced Networks course. In particular, we want to know how willing organizations are to implement Secure BGP. We have created a survey about Secure BGP. If you have time, we invite you to take part in this survey. It is only 10 multiple choice questions long, and it should take about 2 minutes. The survey does not require a great deal knowledge about Secure BGP, so all are welcome. The survey is completely anonymous, and your identity is not recorded in any way (email, IP address). The URL for the survey is: http://eee.uci.edu/survey/sbgp We thank you for your time. -Paul Main and Paul DiGioia

1 0

Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
by Robert Bonomi 12 May '06

12 May '06

> From: Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400 > Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain > > On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 tv(a)pobox.com (Todd Vierling) wrote: > > The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side > > effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity > > namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and > > arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1) > > people. > > As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and > pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])? That's right, you =couldn't=. In the first case, *WHO* runs that server? What if you are the -only- hit in that hash bucket? What do you do if *nobody* is running a server for that hash bucket when you want to register a name that hashes into it? The current DNS architecture has a 1:1 correspondence with 'levels', 'zones', zone administrators, and administrative authority. Every 'TLD' has its own, *independant*, administrative policies. Some of them have 'structured' second levels, (e.g. .uk., .tw., .jp) others *don't* (e.g. .no, .fr, .ca, .ch). If you just eliminate the top level, then *which* ("in the end, there can only be one") of the various '.com.{CC}" registrars gets to control the 'new' ".com", and what happens to the registrations in all the _other_ '.com.{CC}" 2nd-levels that are now disenfranchised? If you eliminate all the 'structured' name elements, you have a 'mell of a hess' of name collisions to deal have to resolve. *who* gets to use 'McDonalds', for example. the American hamburger chain, or the Scots Clan? Who gets to use "yellowpages"? (anybody remember why Sun had to change the name of their network directory service?) who gets "shaw", 'shaw.ca', or 'shaw.com'? They're *not* the same company. :) > There are probably good answers to people's suggestions for change but > working backwards from "that's the way we've always done it" with > trailing remarks intended to stifle a response isn't, to my mind, an > answer. It is 'unworkable'. because there's a *whole*lot* more to it than just the technical matter of 'serving' DNS records. And any proposal that views things from _that_ standpoint only, is, by *definition*, defective. > The best answer I can think of off-hand is that dropping .com etc > wouldn't add much, if anything. Any savings in typing would be off-set > by having to generate non-colliding names which would've been .com and > .org, etc. It would just be creating a new TLD, the null TLD moving > collision avoidance left by one. It also eliminates one layer in the 'distribution' of load. resulting in a several (decimal) order-of-magnitude concentration of (a) data, and (b) queries, to the top-level servers. The effect of 'b' can be ameliorated by deploying that same several-orders-of magnitude number of additional root servers. the increase in the size of the 'local' database is a whole different issue -- *and* the fact that is is being more-or-less constantly updated; *unlike* the 'root' zone, where the TLDs are fairly static. An argument could be made for splitting '.com' into, say '.com01' through '.com64', by arbitrarily re-assigning all the existing .com's into random members of the new set. *AND* prohibiting any 'party' from owning/controlling the 'same' second-level name in more than one of those TLDs. Continue to allow 'challenges' to a registration, based on trademark, etc. but "deactivate" the 'infringing' registration, rather than 'turn it over to the other party'. This allows for multiple parties who _have_ rights to the same name to all use the same '2nd level' element w/o conflict. A better argument can be made for eliminating almost all of the 'generic' TLDs. '.int' (or an equivalent) needs to be kept around for organizations that are _not_ under the jurisdication of any national government. The other 'classic' generics (.mil, .gov, .net, .com, and .org) could be folded into '.us' as structured 2nd-level names, as is done in many other national TLDs. Note: this proposal _also_ defuses the issue of having ICANN establish UDRP. Since the all the names conflicts now occur under a single body of law, already-established court procedure in *each* jurisdiction can be used to resolve issues in _that_ jurisdiction. "Bye-bye" to the cross-border conflicts/issues on *that* matter. *IF* one is going to have 'generic' TLDs, I'd suggest they should be reserved for major multi-national operations. e.g. the '.net' TLD reserved for network operators with 'physical presense' in at least (say) 25 countries, a .net.{CC} domain in each of those countries, _and_ 'direct' allocation of an IP address block for each of those 'national' operations. > > As to .XXX: > > To my mind the real camel's nose in the tent is that to create it > would seem to urge or at least validate its enforcement and coercive > means would necessarily arise (civil lawsuits, criminal charges, > regulatory apparatus.) *ABSENT* a prohibition on such 'content' under other TLDs, there is nothing to enforce. It was proposed as a place where porn operators _can_ register, not where they _must_ register. *WITHOUT* even getting into the differences in 'definiton' for what would have to be so registered, depending on geography. What do you do with stuff that is _legally_ displayed in public, and openly sold, in Denmark, that mere possession of would get you arrested in the U.S.A.? > Otherwise of what use would it be, in terms of the conceptions of its > champions as opposed to unintended consequences? The champions "think": 1) that all the purveyors of such would _voluntarily_ choose to register there, because, by having a 'place' where such stuff is 'officially sanctioned', they won't get hassled for having/selling such stuff. 2) that those who want to block access to such stuff would have a very simple and effective means of doing so. > The deeper problem is the conception by many (unwashed) that someone > must be in charge, Yeah, it's a misconception, but can you point to _anything_else_ of a man-made nature where there is nobody that is in charge, nor ultimately responsible for it? What we have here is an 'act of man' that is on a par with an 'act of nature', or alternatively, an 'act of God'. It's not really suprising that the 'unwashed' don't 'get it' -- it just may qualify for the term 'unique' in that respect. Whether this uniqueness is a 'good thing', and how long it can survive, remain to be seen. > we used to get calls asking for contact info for > the Internet complaint dept, and they didn't mean us. People were > often shocked to hear that we had no answer. I'm glad _I_ didn't get any of those calls -- it would have been *VERY* *DIFFICULT* to resist giving out Al "I was instrumental in the founding of the Internet" Gore's name and number. If he wants the credit, he gets the blame, too! :) > > And widespread conceptions like that have a way of materializing, sans > some force of resistance. > > I suppose some may say it's 10 years too late for that comment. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* > > From owner-nanog(a)merit.edu Fri May 12 14:51:36 2006 > From: Barry Shein <bzs(a)world.std.com> > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400 > To: "Todd Vierling" <tv(a)pobox.com> > Cc: "Jim Popovitch" <jimpop(a)yahoo.com>, nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain > > > > On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 tv(a)pobox.com (Todd Vierling) wrote: > > The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side > > effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity > > namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and > > arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1) > > people. > > As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and > pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])? > > There are probably good answers to people's suggestions for change but > working backwards from "that's the way we've always done it" with > trailing remarks intended to stifle a response isn't, to my mind, an > answer. > > The best answer I can think of off-hand is that dropping .com etc > wouldn't add much, if anything. Any savings in typing would be off-set > by having to generate non-colliding names which would've been .com and > .org, etc. It would just be creating a new TLD, the null TLD moving > collision avoidance left by one. > > As to .XXX: > > To my mind the real camel's nose in the tent is that to create it > would seem to urge or at least validate its enforcement and coercive > means would necessarily arise (civil lawsuits, criminal charges, > regulatory apparatus.) > > Otherwise of what use would it be, in terms of the conceptions of its > champions as opposed to unintended consequences? > > The deeper problem is the conception by many (unwashed) that someone > must be in charge, we used to get calls asking for contact info for > the Internet complaint dept, and they didn't mean us. People were > often shocked to hear that we had no answer. > > And widespread conceptions like that have a way of materializing, sans > some force of resistance. > > I suppose some may say it's 10 years too late for that comment. > > -- > -Barry Shein > > The World | bzs(a)TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com > Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide > Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo* >

2 1

Weekly Routing Table Report
by Routing Analysis Role Account 12 May '06

12 May '06

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfs(a)cisco.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 13 May, 2006 Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 187926 Prefixes after maximum aggregation: 103847 Unique aggregates announced to Internet: 92133 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 22144 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 19260 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 9194 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2884 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 65 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 3.5 Max AS path length visible: 20 Max AS path prepend of ASN (34527) 16 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 8 Unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 7 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 0 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 10 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 1537532840 Equivalent to 91 /8s, 164 /16s and 227 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 41.5 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 60.0 Percentage of available address space allocated: 69.1 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 92673 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 39467 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 16505 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 37191 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 18298 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2551 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 723 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 390 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.5 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 15 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 225571808 Equivalent to 13 /8s, 113 /16s and 243 /24s Percentage of available APNIC address space announced: 70.5 APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911 APNIC Address Blocks 58/7, 60/7, 121/8, 122/7, 124/7, 126/8, 202/7 210/7, 218/7, 220/7 and 222/8 ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 97394 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 57662 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 71480 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 26470 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10699 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 4012 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 989 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.3 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 18 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 292694272 Equivalent to 17 /8s, 114 /16s and 41 /24s Percentage of available ARIN address space announced: 75.9 ARIN AS Blocks 1-1876, 1902-2042, 2044-2046, 2048-2106 (pre-ERX allocations) 2138-2584, 2615-2772, 2823-2829, 2880-3153 3354-4607, 4865-5119, 5632-6655, 6912-7466 7723-8191, 10240-12287, 13312-15359, 16384-17407 18432-20479, 21504-23551, 25600-26591, 26624-27647, 29696-30719, 31744-33791 35840-36863 ARIN Address Blocks 24/8, 63/8, 64/5, 72/6, 76/8, 199/8, 204/6, 208/7 and 216/8 RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 37578 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 25126 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 34591 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 23239 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 7989 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 4186 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1317 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.0 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 20 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 249447620 Equivalent to 14 /8s, 222 /16s and 68 /24s Percentage of available RIPE address space announced: 78.3 RIPE AS Blocks 1877-1901, 2043, 2047, 2107-2136, 2585-2614 (pre-ERX allocations) 2773-2822, 2830-2879, 3154-3353, 5377-5631 6656-6911, 8192-9215, 12288-13311, 15360-16383 20480-21503, 24576-25599, 28672-29695 30720-31743, 33792-35839, 38912-39935 RIPE Address Blocks 62/8, 80/5, 88/6, 193/8, 194/7, 212/7 and 217/8 LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 11350 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 3662 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 9429 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 5479 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 684 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 224 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 131 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.1 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 16 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 26940672 Equivalent to 1 /8s, 155 /16s and 21 /24s Percentage of available LACNIC address space announced: 40.1 LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, plus ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 189/8, 190/8, 200/7 AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 2131 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 892 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 1469 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 956 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 156 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 49 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 25 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 3.4 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 13 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 4072960 Equivalent to 0 /8s, 62 /16s and 38 /24s Percentage of available AfriNIC address space announced: 12.1 AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 196/8 APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 4134 1133 7079 216 CHINANET-BACKBONE 4755 909 259 73 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 9583 900 109 16 Sify Limited 4766 683 4435 304 Korea Telecom (KIX) 1221 615 1556 471 Telstra Pty Ltd 9498 566 211 67 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 7545 531 124 70 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 17488 501 31 7 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 17676 487 7029 109 Softbank BB Corp. 9443 450 110 81 Primus Telecommunications 4802 384 81 175 Wantree Development 17849 347 22 111 Telecommunications Technology 18101 343 85 23 Reliance Infocom Ltd Internet 2907 336 1749 312 SINET Japan 17557 329 28 158 Pakistan Telecom 9929 325 221 58 China Netcom Corp. 17974 310 133 16 PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 7474 299 211 229 SingTel Optus Pty Ltd 9800 273 410 67 CHINA UNICOM 9837 266 78 159 Powertel Ltd ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7018 1516 6228 968 AT&T WorldNet Services 4323 1292 734 256 Time Warner Telecom 6197 1007 620 473 BellSouth Network Solutions, 721 995 21945 304 DLA Systems Automation Center 174 957 5787 902 Cogent Communications 19029 950 151 109 New Edge Networks 18566 939 272 8 Covad Communications 701 933 8011 774 UUNET Technologies, Inc. 2386 873 521 673 AT&T Data Communications Serv 1239 847 2805 599 Sprint 209 707 3563 555 Qwest 19262 699 2104 165 Verizon Global Networks 20115 692 606 373 Charter Communications 22773 660 1745 45 Cox Communications, Inc. 7011 634 218 412 Citizens Utilities 11492 630 86 23 Cable One 852 582 1085 384 Telus Advanced Communications 19916 563 49 54 OLM LLC 855 542 244 64 Canadian Research Network 3602 537 127 109 Sprint Canada, Inc. RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 702 578 1952 454 UUNET - Commercial IP service 3301 307 1071 293 TeliaNet Sweden 3352 296 1628 30 Ibernet, Internet Access Netw 8220 294 474 267 COLT Telecommunications 3320 286 3989 240 Deutsche Telekom AG 680 245 2025 242 DFN-IP service G-WiN 3246 234 504 224 Song Networks 6746 230 89 206 Dynamic Network Technologies, 8708 217 275 200 Romania Data Systems S.A. 24863 209 40 9 LINKdotNET AS number 8551 202 198 24 Bezeq International 3215 198 1664 94 France Telecom Transpac 3269 198 2134 72 TELECOM ITALIA 1257 192 742 167 SWIPnet Swedish IP Network 8866 180 37 16 Bulgarian Telecommunication C 6830 175 765 35 UPC Distribution Services 30890 175 16 63 SC Kappa Invexim SRL 786 171 1778 171 The JANET IP Service 5400 170 347 140 BT Ignite European Backbone 9121 168 931 27 TTnet Autonomous System LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 708 1083 222 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 22047 417 158 11 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. 11172 324 110 84 Servicios Alestra S.A de C.V 16814 318 20 8 NSS, S.A. 6147 262 126 22 Telefonica Del Peru 14117 205 12 6 Telefonica del Sur S.A. 10481 181 72 8 Prima S.A. 7303 164 77 21 Telecom Argentina Stet-France 11556 132 80 4 Cable-Wireless Panama 21826 132 16 21 INTERCABLE 6503 129 149 78 AVANTEL, S.A. 19169 125 8 27 Telconet 14259 116 10 12 GTD Internet S.A. 23216 112 21 9 RAMtelecom Telecomunicaciones 5639 109 12 9 Telecommunications Services o 6505 109 88 79 Global One Communicaoes Ltda 7910 105 7 10 ANDINET ON LINE 19429 103 58 44 E.T.B. 18822 98 7 9 TELEFONICA MANQUEHUE 14571 97 25 3 Internet Group do Brasil AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 3741 278 803 233 The Internet Solution 8452 168 60 7 TEDATA 6713 145 135 11 Itissalat Al-MAGHRIB 2018 123 314 104 Tertiary Education Network 5536 121 8 18 Internet Egypt Network 24835 117 50 7 RAYA Telecom - Egypt 33783 105 6 2 EEPAD TISP TELECOM & INTERNET 2905 73 155 66 The Internetworking Company o 20928 57 16 2 Noor Advanced Technologies AS 15475 53 84 4 Nile Online 5713 39 294 35 Telkom SA Ltd 15706 31 8 3 Sudatel Internet Exchange Aut 33774 30 7 20 AS Number for Telecom Algeria 12455 28 6 3 Jambonet Autonomous system 23889 26 8 11 MAURITIUS TELECOM 8524 24 1 4 AUCEGYPT Autonomous System 16637 24 14 22 Johnnic e-Ventures 10798 22 1 13 Standard Bank of South Africa 2561 19 6 2 Egyptian Universities Network 21280 19 5 5 Swift Global Kenya Ltd.Is an Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 4323 1292 1036 Time Warner Telecom 18566 939 931 Covad Communications 4134 1133 917 CHINANET-BACKBONE 9583 900 884 Sify Limited 19029 950 841 New Edge Networks 4755 909 836 Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Aut 721 995 691 DLA Systems Automation Center 22773 660 615 Cox Communications, Inc. 11492 630 607 Cable One 6197 1007 534 BellSouth Network Solutions, 19262 699 534 Verizon Global Networks 19916 563 509 OLM LLC 5668 531 508 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 9498 566 499 BHARTI BT INTERNET LTD. 17488 501 494 Hathway IP Over Cable Interne 8151 708 486 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 855 542 478 Canadian Research Network 7545 531 461 TPG Internet Pty Ltd 3602 537 428 Sprint Canada, Inc. 22047 417 406 VTR PUNTO NET S.A. List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 65241 PRIVATE 65.90.71.0/24 10794 Bank of America 65128 PRIVATE 193.110.50.0/24 24652 Juniper Networks, Eu 37890 UNALLOCATED 202.179.160.0/20 17930 Japan Digital Serve 24409 UNALLOCATED 203.119.29.0/24 9808 Guangdong Mobile Com 65280 PRIVATE 203.197.161.0/24 4755 Videsh Sanchar Nigam 65280 PRIVATE 203.200.14.0/24 4755 Videsh Sanchar Nigam 65280 PRIVATE 203.200.21.0/24 4755 Videsh Sanchar Nigam 36366 UNALLOCATED 216.130.247.0/24 174 Cogent Communication Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 132.0.0.0/10 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 137.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 158.0.0.0/13 721 DLA Systems Automation Center 183.206.196.0/24 2188 FR-RENATER-ASTER 192.44.0.0/24 5501 Fraunhofer Gesellschaft 192.44.0.0/19 702 UUNET - Commercial IP service 192.70.164.0/24 25689 National Research Council of 192.84.205.0/24 719 LANLINK autonomous system 192.119.135.0/24 270 NASA 192.172.0.0/19 721 DLA Systems Automation Center Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:18 /9:9 /10:9 /11:28 /12:90 /13:202 /14:361 /15:706 /16:8815 /17:3200 /18:5296 /19:11633 /20:13071 /21:11325 /22:14552 /23:15646 /24:101883 /25:387 /26:267 /27:214 /28:64 /29:70 /30:49 /31:0 /32:31 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 18566 922 939 Covad Communications 19029 881 950 New Edge Networks 7018 801 1516 AT&T WorldNet Services 6197 796 1007 BellSouth Network Solutions, 9583 728 900 Sify Limited 4323 634 1292 Time Warner Telecom 11492 621 630 Cable One 2386 597 873 AT&T Data Communications Serv 19916 557 563 OLM LLC 7011 543 634 Citizens Utilities 4766 493 683 Korea Telecom (KIX) 855 416 542 Canadian Research Network 5668 413 531 CenturyTel Internet Holdings, 15270 394 425 PaeTec.net -a division of Pae 1239 385 847 Sprint 702 359 578 UUNET - Commercial IP service 6198 357 508 BellSouth Network Solutions, 6517 357 387 Yipes Communications, Inc. 8151 351 708 UniNet S.A. de C.V. 17849 347 347 Telecommunications Technology Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 4:8 8:41 12:1627 13:1 15:12 16:3 17:3 18:4 20:43 24:739 25:1 30:2 32:59 38:213 40:54 41:1 44:3 47:6 52:4 55:1 56:3 57:25 58:149 59:192 60:181 61:853 62:762 63:1926 64:3171 65:2254 66:3002 67:608 68:657 69:1490 70:328 71:82 72:702 73:23 74:34 80:773 81:630 82:602 83:391 84:386 85:527 86:393 87:331 88:84 89:185 124:273 125:383 128:159 129:187 130:114 131:311 132:33 133:8 134:159 135:46 136:178 137:75 138:198 139:70 140:468 141:136 142:373 143:164 144:227 145:39 146:326 147:136 148:331 149:186 150:114 151:85 152:68 153:107 154:6 155:198 156:98 157:145 158:161 159:171 160:88 161:75 162:261 163:146 164:180 165:213 166:163 167:246 168:488 169:128 170:336 171:14 183:1 190:72 192:5751 193:3381 194:2613 195:1828 196:845 198:3900 199:3229 200:4453 201:934 202:6611 203:6860 204:3893 205:2089 206:2401 207:2948 208:2060 209:3788 210:1912 211:682 212:1198 213:1468 214:357 215:41 216:4147 217:1157 218:272 219:193 220:654 221:358 222:147 End of report

1 0

NANOG 37 - Early registration discount ends soon
by Steve Feldman 12 May '06

12 May '06

Just a reminder that the discounted early registration fee of $350 for NANOG 37 ends this Sunday, May 14. After that date, the fee rises to $400. If you haven't already, please register at: https://www.merit.edu/nanog/registration.form.html Also, some new items have been added to the agenda. For a current list, see: http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0606/topics.html See you in San Jose! Steve Feldman Program Committee chair

1 0

MISC/EMAIL: AOL Starts to Charge for Receiving eMail, DearAOL responds
by william(at)elan.net 12 May '06

12 May '06

Begin forwarded message: From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne(a)warpspeed.com> Date: May 10, 2006 6:59:52 PM EDT To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net(a)warpspeed.com> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] AOL Starts to Charge for Receiving eMail, DearAOL responds Reply-To: dewayne(a)warpspeed.com [Note: Posted on the behalf of EFF. DLH] DearAOL.com Coalition members, Well, it happened. Without informing either their users or senders, AOL last Friday turned on their Certified Mail system, and began to accept payment for delivering incoming mail. While we're disappointed in AOL's action, we're not surprised - nor are we discouraged. What is important is that the temptation to take money to skip spam filters does not spread throughout the industry. That's why we're asking other ISPs and webmail providers to state that they will not accept money for email. Can you help us? I've enclosed a letter you can send to your own ISP or web mail provider, asking them to state that they will not follow AOL's lead. The language we ask them to agree to is taken from a statement by representatives of Google's Gmail service, who told reporters last month that "[Gmail] does not accept payment to bypass its filters", and does not plan to charge senders. Customize it as you wish, and send it, ideally to their executives in charge of email delivery or higher: you may have to contact customer support to find the right person. Obviously, if you're an AOL customer, you may have a little trouble persuading your current ISP to agree! But if you use another web mail provider as well as AOL, or are considering switching to a competitor, perhaps you can send the same message to their staff instead. Thanks again for taking part in this effort. We really think AOL is shooting themselves in the foot by taking this money - and we're sure there are other companies who may be happy to learn from their mistakes. Best wishes, Danny O'Brien, Activism Co-ordinator, Electronic Frontier Foundation +1 415 436 9333 x121 ==============8><==== CUT HERE, AND SEND TO YOUR ISP ======8><============== As you may have seen in the press, many groups, including my own, have expressed concern with plans by AOL and Yahoo to charge payment from third-party senders to reach their customers' inboxes. I'm writing in the hope that you will be one of our list of ISPs and mailbox providers who publicly commit not to follow the same path - and who we highlight to consumers and the media as one of the good actors in the industry. We've asked AOL to re-consider their plans at http://www.dearaol.com/ . That open letter has been joined by six hundred organizations, representing over 15 million members, including individuals like Craig Newmark from Craig's List and organizations like the Service Roundtable, CSPR, the AFL-CIO, Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, EFF, and Oxfam America. Members of the coalition have gathered over 350,000 signatories in support. As part of this campaign, we're collecting names of ISPs and mailbox providers who are committed to delivering their customers' email without charging the sender. We'll be publicizing these ISPs to coalition members and to the press as companies that do the right thing. To that end, would your company consider agreeing to the language below? "We will not accept payment to bypass our anti-spam filters, nor charge senders to reach our users." Note that this wording neither excludes the possibility of adopting certification or authentication systems (all of the current certification systems such as Bonded Sender and Habeas would be acceptable, as would Goodmail under a different contractual arrangement than the current agreement with AOL). We've already had sign-on on these principles from Google's GMail, and we'd be delighted to include you in the growing list of companies we'll be publicizing. Let me know if you'd be interested in signing on. If you have any questions, you can contact the organizer of this campaign, Danny O'Brien, at danny(a)eff.org, or call him on +1 408 480 3412. PS - Here's an editorial and a couple of articles that have been written about this issue so far: Google will not follow AOL so no payment system planned for Gmail http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/ wpn-60-20060420NoGoodmailForGmail.html Paid e-mail will lead to separate, unequal systems http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14023726.htm Diverse Groups Team Up to Fight E-Mail Fee (AP) http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=1668695 Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>

2 1

BGP Update Report
by cidr-report＠potaroo.net 12 May '06

12 May '06

BGP Update Report Interval: 28-Apr-06 -to- 11-May-06 (14 days) Observation Point: BGP Peering with AS4637 TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS855 47228 4.1% 85.6 -- CANET-ASN-4 - Aliant Telecom 2 - AS7015 29981 2.6% 10.2 -- CCCH-AS2 - Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc 3 - AS9121 20524 1.8% 32.6 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 4 - AS17974 14648 1.3% 44.9 -- TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT TELEKOMUNIKASI INDONESIA 5 - AS3475 12670 1.1% 452.5 -- LANT-AFLOAT - NCTAMS LANT DET HAMPTON ROADS 6 - AS33783 9846 0.9% 93.8 -- 7 - AS702 9415 0.8% 12.4 -- AS702 MCI EMEA - Commercial IP service provider in Europe 8 - AS6478 9083 0.8% 6.6 -- ATT-INTERNET3 - AT&T WorldNet Services 9 - AS10139 8754 0.8% 66.8 -- MERIDIAN-PH-AP Meridian Telekoms 10 - AS577 8693 0.8% 35.1 -- BACOM - Bell Canada 11 - AS15105 8525 0.8% 38.4 -- NETWORKTELEPHONE - Network Telephone Corporation 12 - AS14410 7709 0.7% 1541.8 -- DALTON - MCM, Inc., DBA: Internet@Dalton 13 - AS5839 7263 0.6% 242.1 -- DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 14 - AS7018 7105 0.6% 4.9 -- ATT-INTERNET4 - AT&T WorldNet Services 15 - AS8151 6647 0.6% 9.3 -- Uninet S.A. de C.V. 16 - AS5803 6590 0.6% 74.0 -- DDN-ASNBLK - DoD Network Information Center 17 - AS23918 6557 0.6% 49.3 -- CBB-BGP-IBARAKI Connexion By Boeing Ibaraki AS 18 - AS18231 6410 0.6% 47.8 -- EXATT-AS-AP Exatt Technologies Private Ltd. 19 - AS18049 6291 0.6% 49.1 -- TINP-TW Taiwan Infrastructure Network Technologie 20 - AS9929 6237 0.6% 19.8 -- CNCNET-CN China Netcom Corp. TOP 20 Unstable Origin AS (Updates per announced prefix) Rank ASN Upds % Upds/Pfx AS-Name 1 - AS21027 3480 0.3% 3480.0 -- ASN-PARADORES PARADORES Autonomous System 2 - AS7684 2656 0.2% 2656.0 -- SAKURA-A SAKURA Internet Inc. 3 - AS14410 7709 0.7% 1541.8 -- DALTON - MCM, Inc., DBA: Internet@Dalton 4 - AS36565 1236 0.1% 1236.0 -- COUNTY-OF-MONTGOMERY-PA - County of Montgomery 5 - AS16705 2444 0.2% 1222.0 -- STORAGEAPPS - Storage Apps Inc. 6 - AS34382 1145 0.1% 1145.0 -- ASSYRUS-SRL-AS Assyrus Srl Maintainer 7 - AS34378 915 0.1% 915.0 -- RUG-AS Razguliay-UKRROS Group 8 - AS19982 3546 0.3% 886.5 -- TOWERSTREAM-PROV - Towerstream 9 - AS3043 2959 0.3% 739.8 -- AMPHIB-AS - Amphibian Media Corporation 10 - AS21260 1461 0.1% 730.5 -- POSITIVE-INTERNET-UK-AS Positive Internet UK AS 11 - AS23917 1318 0.1% 659.0 -- BRIBIE-NET-AS-AP Bribie Island Net Multihomed, Brisbane 12 - AS25816 5202 0.5% 578.0 -- TOURO - Touro College 13 - AS10571 1481 0.1% 493.7 -- GEOACCESS-AS - GeoAccess 14 - AS3475 12670 1.1% 452.5 -- LANT-AFLOAT - NCTAMS LANT DET HAMPTON ROADS 15 - AS25435 1225 0.1% 408.3 -- TELESONIQUE-AS Telesonique 16 - AS26138 367 0.0% 367.0 -- QUIK-INTERNET-TICOPA - Quik Internet of Ticopa 17 - AS31613 357 0.0% 357.0 -- CLNEVA-AS JSC Comline-Neva 18 - AS39017 356 0.0% 356.0 -- AUDIOTEX Kifissias 10-12 19 - AS33871 3461 0.3% 346.1 -- NORILSK-TELECOM-AS Norilsk-Telecom Ltd. 20 - AS33253 692 0.1% 346.0 -- OURAYNET - OurayNet TOP 20 Unstable Prefixes Rank Prefix Upds % Origin AS -- AS Name 1 - 62.81.240.0/24 3480 0.3% AS21027 -- ASN-PARADORES PARADORES Autonomous System 2 - 209.140.24.0/24 2956 0.2% AS3043 -- AMPHIB-AS - Amphibian Media Corporation 3 - 81.212.141.0/24 2711 0.2% AS9121 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 4 - 59.106.255.0/24 2656 0.2% AS7684 -- SAKURA-A SAKURA Internet Inc. 5 - 81.212.149.0/24 2508 0.2% AS9121 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 6 - 81.212.197.0/24 2169 0.2% AS9121 -- TTNET TTnet Autonomous System 7 - 61.0.0.0/8 1937 0.1% AS4678 -- FINE CANON NETWORK COMMUNICATIONS INC. 8 - 61.8.114.0/24 1693 0.1% AS9476 -- INTRAPOWER-AS-AP Intrapower 9 - 65.119.232.0/24 1557 0.1% AS14410 -- DALTON - MCM, Inc., DBA: Internet@Dalton 10 - 205.160.25.0/24 1556 0.1% AS14410 -- DALTON - MCM, Inc., DBA: Internet@Dalton 11 - 208.46.29.0/24 1553 0.1% AS14410 -- DALTON - MCM, Inc., DBA: Internet@Dalton 12 - 65.174.4.0/23 1522 0.1% AS14410 -- DALTON - MCM, Inc., DBA: Internet@Dalton 13 - 207.43.166.0/23 1521 0.1% AS14410 -- DALTON - MCM, Inc., DBA: Internet@Dalton 14 - 80.87.128.0/20 1459 0.1% AS21260 -- POSITIVE-INTERNET-UK-AS Positive Internet UK AS 15 - 205.70.12.0/24 1402 0.1% AS3475 -- LANT-AFLOAT - NCTAMS LANT DET HAMPTON ROADS 16 - 205.70.9.0/24 1401 0.1% AS3475 -- LANT-AFLOAT - NCTAMS LANT DET HAMPTON ROADS 17 - 205.70.8.0/24 1400 0.1% AS3475 -- LANT-AFLOAT - NCTAMS LANT DET HAMPTON ROADS 18 - 205.70.7.0/24 1399 0.1% AS3475 -- LANT-AFLOAT - NCTAMS LANT DET HAMPTON ROADS 19 - 205.70.1.0/24 1398 0.1% AS3475 -- LANT-AFLOAT - NCTAMS LANT DET HAMPTON ROADS 20 - 205.70.13.0/24 1397 0.1% AS3475 -- LANT-AFLOAT - NCTAMS LANT DET HAMPTON ROADS Details at http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net ------------------------------------ Copies of this report are mailed to: nanog(a)merit.edu eof-list(a)ripe.net apops(a)apops.net routing-wg(a)ripe.net afnog(a)afnog.org ausnog(a)ausnog.net

1 0