- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by Bill Mojo 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

Our client wants to purchase a number of IPv4 addresses. Yes we know ARIN allocates them but many people have had problems routing the new addresses and we don't have the time for those sort of problems. If you have arpas for sale get in touch. Bill Study Business at USQ's Australian Graduate School of Business. http://www.usq.edu.au/faculty/business/usqagsb/

14 19

RE: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp
by Temkin, David 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

And something else a lot of people tend to forget - just because space isn't in the tables doesn't mean it's not in use. There are companies that connect to thousands of other companies (see the financial markets) that require unique addressing between companies with non-colliding address ranges. 10.x.x.x doesn't quite cut it. -DT -----Original Message----- From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen@sprunk.org] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 6:01 PM To: Daniel Golding; Kai Schlichting Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes Subject: Re: Get as much IP space as you ever dreamed of, was: Re: Looking to buy IPv4 addresses from class C swamp Thus spake "Daniel Golding" <dgold(a)FDFNet.Net> > ARIN needs to repo any space that has [not] been advertised for a > reasonable length of time, and reissue it. So you're claiming that ARIN should revoke any allocations, including those made before it came into existence, simply because the addresses aren't in the global tables? If that's the position of the community, that's a drastic change from assertions made in the IETF WGs and may affect address allocation guidelines and even some protocol work. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking IMPORTANT:The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.

10 21

Re: mobile.att.net dead
by Alex Rubenstein 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

Yes, SkyTel^H^H^H^H^H^HMCI does have clueful folks -- they were one of the last paging companies we dealt with. Also on the very clued side, believe it or not, was Sprint Paging (dunno if they are around anymore) who resold PageNET, and recently, for us, TSR Wireless had extremely good service, and an unlimited paging product. On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Vincent J. Bono wrote: > Skytel does both SNPP and TAP. > > We use them both, plus their tech staff were very helpful. > > -vb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alex Rubenstein" <alex(a)nac.net> > To: <jspam(a)netbahamas.com> > Cc: "Kai Schlichting" <kai(a)pac-rim.net>; <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:27 AM > Subject: Re: mobile.att.net dead > > > > > > > > OK, perhaps > > > > > > Back in the day when we had pagers (they still make those?), we'd find > > > > that emailing things to pagers wasn't the brightest idea around. > > > > should have read > > > > > > Back in the day when we had pagers (they still make those?), we'd find > > > > that USING IP to ACCESS OUR pagers wasn't the brightest idea around. > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, jspam(a)netbahamas.com wrote: > > > > > If you have a clueful paging provider, they should let you do SNPP. > Think > > > of it as TAP over IP. > > > > > > http://www.snpp.info/ > > > > > > > > -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- > > -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- > > > > > -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --

1 0

Re: The in-your-face hijacking example, was: Re: Who is announcing bogons?
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

At 06:09 AM 30-04-03 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: >That may be true, but what does a provider do when they are presented with >written 'authority to use address space' from a customer? Certianly if the >customer provides 'proper' documentation that the ip space is available >for them to route, and that they have authority from the 'owner' to do >this... what is an ISP to do? Aside from route the blocks? Just had a case today where a downstream "clueless" tier-4 ISP got a new customer. The "clueless" customer wants his /24 to be announced. We asked for proof of ownership. Clueless customer sends official letter to clueless tier-4 ISP, who tells us "route it now!" We do a check in APNIC and see it is part of a larger /19 assigned to someone else (probably clueless's customer former upstream ISP). We told clueless tier-4 ISP that we can't announce the /24. I am now waiting for an email stating "but Bulbul ISP never checked APNIC, so why should you?" These battles are won slowly and one at a time. -Hank

1 0

Re: Missing registrations (when is a bogon not a bogon)
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

At 11:38 PM 29-04-03 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: >Based on the e-mail I got, I think several people missed Hank Nussbacher >and Barry Greene's presentation at the last NANOG. We got a new volunteer, Terry Baranski to help out with the load. >http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/hank.pdf > >In the presentation they list several ASN and Network blocks in use, but >not registered in any database. We just got Lucent to correct their announcements. They had been announcing: Network Origin AS Description 135.0.0.0/13 10455 Lucent Technologies and with the help of Internap they have now fixed their announcement to comply with what appears in ARIN. >The US Department of Defense (AS 568) wins the prize for the most >unregistered network blocks being announced. But they weren't alone. If anyone can help out here - it would be appreciated. We have been sending emails to anyone and everyone in AS568 since January - all of them generating not a single reply. So if the US Military can hijack a few IPs, we will have a hard time convincing spammers and their shills to stop hijacking other available address space: Network Origin AS Description 132.0.0.0/10 568 DISO-UNRRA 137.0.0.0/13 568 DISO-UNRRA 158.0.0.0/13 568 DISO-UNRRA 192.153.136.0/21 568 DISO-UNRRA 192.172.0.0/19 568 DISO-UNRRA >If you are going to start blackholing unregistered network blocks, I >suggest checking if the current user has nuclear weapons. But once again, >which ISP's aren't filtering? Obviously, there are some since we do see these announcements pop up here and there. -Hank

1 0

Missing registrations (when is a bogon not a bogon)
by Sean Donelan 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

Based on the e-mail I got, I think several people missed Hank Nussbacher and Barry Greene's presentation at the last NANOG. http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/hank.pdf In the presentation they list several ASN and Network blocks in use, but not registered in any database. The US Department of Defense (AS 568) wins the prize for the most unregistered network blocks being announced. But they weren't alone. If you are going to start blackholing unregistered network blocks, I suggest checking if the current user has nuclear weapons. But once again, which ISP's aren't filtering?

1 0

Re: mobile.att.net dead
by George William Herbert 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

>If you are relying on AT&T's paging/SMS service (for your phones) to be >alerted to (most certainly undesirable) operational events (or if you are >replying to them via the 2-way SMS service), this is a good time for a >backup pager: [...] >Both are dead like a door stop, and we can speculate on wether they >are located in the same physical building, on the same routed interface, >and the same physical switch, which failed the single processor >blade driving both of them. POI: AT&T wireless service response to wireless phone trouble report about 30 min ago was that AT&T wireless and AT&T long distance stopped communicating a little while ago for reasons not clearly known to AT&T wireless. Facility somewhere go boom? Cable cut? -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

2 1

Opinions on Qwest
by Steve Francis 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Anyone care to share their opinions on Qwest for transit currently? There was some talk about lack of clue/responsiveness in their noc about a year ago. How are things currently? Thanks. (No competing sales invitations, please sales people.)

2 1

Question about 223/8
by Jack Bates 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

I'm confused about the argument I believe that went on not too long ago concerning 223/8. What documentation governs how IANA allocates address space, including special use space? The reason I ask is that I was perusing RFC 3330 and noted that it specifically stated that the basis for the reservation of 223.255.255.0/24 no longer applied and that the block was subject to future allocation to a RIR. Yet there was an argument about it. -Jack

3 3

Time to bring back "Connected Status"
by Sean Donelan 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

In the beginning was the ARPANET, When SRI and BBN handled the NIC and NOC for the Internet, there was a field in the WHOIS database called "Connected Status." People could request IP networks (Class A/B/C) from SRI, but BBN would only route networks with the Connected Status on the ARPANET. You could do Whois queries to check the status of any network address. Companies could request IP addresses for internal use, without connected status. Around the time the NSFNET took over, the database sources started diverging. Connected Status was deleted from the WHOIS database. There was only one WHOIS database. NSFNET kept a seperate database of which networks were allowed to use the NSFNET. I know about all the routing specificiation language efforts, but is it possible to go back and do something simple? For networks which are announced on the Internet, add a Connected field to the regional address registries listing the AS Number(s) which could announce the network. Private, internal only networks would have an Unconnected status.

4 3