June 2003 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: Another hijacked range???
by william＠elan.net 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/5654 > > Why didnt the County file charges? hijacking... thats terrorism right? :-) This is not the same "hijacking" and you know it! But they can file charges for identity fraud and theft of resources. For FBI to investigate they want $5000 of losses from the victim (or victims). Also when IP block is sold, this is profiting from illegally obtained goods (well not "goods" but they can classify it as such). This is fraud of different type (as somebody else pointed legally this would be "Pecunary fraud through misrepresentation of ownership") and they can also prosecute those who got the money but again highier amounts then $500 are needed for them to get really into this. Multiple confirmed cases of buying ip blocks from the same person/groupwould help there. (Note: I incidently posted reply to this email on another mail list, apologies to those who have see this twice) --- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. william(a)elan.net

2 2

Security Requirements Intnernet Draft (a request for comments)
by George M. Jones 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

I've published an Internet Draft on "Security Requirements for Devices Implementing IP". You can view it at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jones-opsec-00.txt This is an outgrowth of a document used by UUNET (my former employer) to sanity check/security qualify equipment for connection to the backbone. The point of publishing the document is to start discussion. There is a mailing list set up: opsec(a)ops.ietf.org. Subscribe by sending a message to "majordomo(a)ops.ietf.org" with "subscribe opsec" in the body. The point of the document is to create a useful list that network operators can use to communicate their securtiy requirements to vendors. Please have a look and comment. Thanks, ---George Jones

1 0

Another hijacked range???
by Roy 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

Found this note in another mailing list.

2 1

RE: Minimum prefix length?
by Ejay Hire 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

This doesn't seem to be much of a problem with prefixes less than or equal to /24. Domestically, Verio is the big exception. They seem to filter anything longer than a /20. -Ejay -----Original Message----- From: Temkin, David [mailto:temkin@sig.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:04 PM To: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Minimum prefix length? A few years ago I had an issue with a few of the larger carriers rejecting my routes (from a natural Class B space) because their prefix length was too short (at one point I simply had the /16 divided into two /17's and this still got rejected in some places). I can't remember which carriers exactly, but it may have been some larger transit providers like AboveNet/etc. Anyone know what the current attitude is by carriers about this? Nowadays with ever-growing memory and CPU it doesn't seem like it's as much of an issue. In an environment where we're all trying to conserve address space watching natural boundries doesn't seem all that smart. 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.

2 1

FW: Minimum prefix length?
by Temkin, David 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

Randy - please stop sending these to me - you send me one every time I post to NANOG. If you don't like the signature that's appended to my emails (not by my choice), and the litigious society we live in, go ahead and block all email from me. Replies directly to you to stop sending me these emails have gone unanswered, which is why I am mentioning this here. -----Original Message----- From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:34 PM To: Temkin, David Subject: Re: Minimum prefix length? you have sent a message to me which seems to contain a legal warning on who can read it, or how it may be distributed, or whether it may be archived, etc. i do not accept such email, and have therefore deleted it. do not expect further response. randy 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.

4 3

RE: FW: Minimum prefix length?
by Temkin, David 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

I'm glad to hear there is actually some precedent. As I mentioned to someone privately, I could go ahead and use a @yahoo.com or some other webmail service, but I prefer doing anything work related via email such as this "officially" rather than covertly. I may go ahead and switch at some point, though. Ironic, though, that you're 100% correct- that signature is going to be archived publically, which goes against what it claims. -----Original Message----- From: Stephen J. Wilcox [mailto:steve@telecomplete.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:51 PM To: Temkin, David Cc: nanog(a)merit.edu Subject: Re: FW: Minimum prefix length? Whilst we're sidetracking... I took some counsel on this not so long ago to see whether these were just novelty signatures or if they were real legal stuff. Turns out they could actually be used legally, interesting I thought. Howevers its curious that signatures such as this claiming to be confidential are posted to a list which is very much public and archived in several public websites.. not sure how right it is to autoappend them to all your mails as well as the private ones! Steve On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Temkin, David wrote: > > Randy - please stop sending these to me - you send me one every time I > post to NANOG. If you don't like the signature that's appended to my > emails (not by my choice), and the litigious society we live in, go > ahead and block all email from me. > > Replies directly to you to stop sending me these emails have gone > unanswered, which is why I am mentioning this here. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Bush [mailto:randy@psg.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 4:34 PM > To: Temkin, David > Subject: Re: Minimum prefix length? > > > you have sent a message to me which seems to contain a legal warning > on who can read it, or how it may be distributed, or whether it may be > archived, etc. > > i do not accept such email, and have therefore deleted it. do not > expect further response. > > randy > > > 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. > > > 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.

1 0

AS-701 multihop BGP peering session?
by Jeffrey Haas 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

I hate using NANOG as a NOC of last resort, but it looks like this is my best option. We recently migrated our IP connectivity to UU-Net/MCI/whatever you want to call them these days. I've migrated the majority of our BGP topology collection feeds to the new IP space (anyone want to give us your routes?) and decided that now we're a UU-Net customer, I'd try to get a feed from UU-Net. Apparently they only want to feed our border router, not the route collection host. If anyone has any suggestions on who to deal with at UU-Net that might have a little more clue on this type of situation, it would be appreciated. -- Jeff Haas NextHop Technologies

5 4

High Speed IP-Sec
by Leo Bicknell 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

I'm looking for a high speed (300-1000Mbps) IPSec solution. I need basic functionality only, a frame in one side pops out the other side. For the moment I don't care if this is a layer 2 or a layer 3 device. For the application in mind it's just between two points. I need a supported product, not some home-grown set of bits, and cost is the major factor. Most units at this speed do a lot of other stuff (firewall features, vpn clients, ids, other junk), and cost a lot of money as a result. Since there are FreeBSD/Linux boxes getting close to that throughput with accelerator cards I figure someone has to make the stripped down solution for a reasonable price. Any pointers welcomed. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell(a)ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request(a)tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

4 4

WilTel Communications
by Tom Daly 11 Jun '03

11 Jun '03

Hi, Anyone have any experiences with WilTel Communications? One of my upstreams is considering adding them to thier BGP blend, and I am trying find out about their network. Please contact me off list if you can offer any general comments or experiences. Regards, Tom -- Tom Daly tom(a)dyndns.org Chief Infrastructure Officer Dynamic DNS Network Services http://www.dyndns.org/

1 0

mac.com abuse
by Bernard Becker 10 Jun '03

10 Jun '03

> >Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 22:13:38 -0400 >From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner(a)nic-naa.net> >Subject: Re: off-topic, contact needed at mac.com > >Looking for a human (or even an auto-ACK-mailbot) at any of: > {abuse,hostmaster,postmaster}(a){mac,apple}.com >has proven fruitless. If anyone has a pointer I'd appreciate it. mac.com is wholly owned and run by apple.com. abuse(a)apple.com should work. If not, send email to the Tech Contact as shown in whois. Eddings, Kenneth (KE557) eddingsk(a)APPLE.COM If that fails bounce your request off of: Chuq Von Rospach (chuq(a)apple.com) Apple IS&T Mail List Gnome While he runs all of Apple mail lists, he is not technically the spam or abuse guy but he may be able to point you in the right direction. Please be polite, he's a great guy. -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Bernard Becker, Sr. Partner, Proxy Communications Corporation. If you're absurdly interested in my life: <http://www.proxy.net/resume.html> Life's too short to do DOS support. [Formerly <becker(a)apple.com> National Systems Engineer, Apple Canada] Proxy Communications Corporation 73 Adair Rd. Toronto, ON M4B 1V6 Tel. 416-751-3599 Cel. 416-435-6165 Pgr. 416-245-5544 Pgr. 98916 becker(a)proxy.net

1 0