February 2011 - Test - lists.nanog.org

Internet number resource policy in the ARIN region
by John Curran 04 Feb '11

04 Feb '11

Nanog Folks - Your participation makes a significant difference in the ARIN number resource policy, and while you may think that there's not much going on, the truth is that there are significant number of policy proposals at any given moment, and to the extent that you care about the actual policies used in number resource management, it would be very helpful if you could read and comment on policies while they are being developed. Please find attached the results of the last Advisory Council (AC) meeting; discussions of these proposals are taking place on the ARIN PPML mailing list and are open to all parties. Information on the Policy Development Process, the PPML mailing list, and the current proposals are all included in the attached message. Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN Begin forwarded message: From: ARIN <info(a)arin.net<mailto:info@arin.net>> Date: February 3, 2011 4:44:40 PM EST To: arin-ppml(a)arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2011 In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 28 January 2011 and made decisions about several draft policies and proposals. The AC recommended that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt the following draft policy: ARIN-2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements The AC selected the following proposals as draft policies for adoption discussion online and at the ARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Each draft policy will be posted shortly to the PPML. ARIN-prop-119. Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy ARIN-prop-120. Protecting Number Resources ARIN-prop-121. Better IPv6 Allocation for ISPs ARIN-prop-123. Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure ARIN-prop-127. Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension The AC added the following proposal to their docket but decided not to select it as a draft policy at this time: ARIN-prop-126. Compliance Requirement The AC abandoned the following proposals: ARIN-prop-128. Replacement of Section 4.2.4.4 ARIN-prop-129. IPv4 Addresses for Process Participants ARIN-prop-130. IPv4 Transition Reservation for Every ASN The AC abandoned ARIN-prop-128 due to opposition on the list, and because there is insufficient time to implement the proposal through the normal PDP. As a result, the proposal would need to be a Board Emergency PDP action to have any effect. The AC understands that the use of the emergency process requires that there be significant risk to ARIN should the Board allow a situation to continue. This matter does not warrant the use of the emergency process. The AC abandoned ARIN-prop-129 and ARIN-prop-130 because they violate the community principle of needs-based assignments. The PDP states, “Any member of the community, including a proposal originator, may initiate a Discussion Petition if they are dissatisfied with the action taken by the Advisory Council regarding any specific policy proposal.” Proposals 126, 128, 129 and 130 may be petitioned (Discussion Petition) to try to change them into draft policies for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List and at the April Public Policy Meeting. The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html Draft Policy and Policy Proposal texts are available at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Regards, Communications and Member Services American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) _____________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML(a)arin.net) Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info(a)arin.net if you experience any issues.

1 0

Re: Egypt 'hijacked Vodafone network'
by andrew.wallace 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Marshall Eubanks <tme(a)americafree.tv> wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2011, at 2:20 PM, andrew.wallace wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Scott Brim <scott.brim(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 02/03/2011 10:14 EST, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >>>> >>>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:24 AM, andrew.wallace wrote: >>>> >>>>> Mobile phone firm Vodafone accuses the Egyptian authorities of >>>>> using its network to send pro-government text messages. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12357694 >>>> >>>> Here is their PR >>>> >>>> http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/press.html >>>> >>>> Note that this is entirely legal, under "the emergency powers >>>> provisions of the Telecoms Act" >>> >>> Which is legal, Vodafone's protest or the government's telling them to >>> send messages? afaik the agreement was that the operator would have >>> preloaded canned messages, agreed on in advance with the government, and >>> now the government is telling them to send out arbitrary messages they >>> compose on the spot. >>> >>> >> >> I wonder if these messages were blockable by the end-user or if they were being sent as a service announcement from Vodafone. >> >> Certainly, if the government were sending the messages under the company name then something sounds wrong about that. >> >> What I would like is to hear from someone who received the messages and what their experiences were. >> > > They were described to me as being "from Vodafone." I assumed that this meant that they were service messages. > > Marshall A text message received Sunday by an Associated Press reporter in Egypt appealed to the country's "honest and loyal men to confront the traitors and criminals and protect our people and honor." Another urged Egyptians to attend a pro-Mubarak rally in Cairo on Wednesday. The first was marked as coming from "Vodafone." The other was signed: "Egypt Lovers." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110203/ap_on_hi_te/eu_egypt_cell_phones Andrew

3 2

Re: And so it ends...
by Brandon Butterworth 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

> But are they going to go up against someone big? > > Do Lilly, DuPont and Merck need /8? HP need a /7? You decide. Make a policy proposal, if enough agree the database changes and is reflected in many ISP networks. "we route therefore you are" I imagine (ianal) they would have to sue every ISP using ARIN data, I don't see how ARIN should be sued for changing some text in their memmers database at the request of their members. If the prefix concerned wasn't in use on the net I imagine they'd have a hard time but they're probably all reading this and thinking "let's just advertise it in case someone land grabs anyway". If there were to be good reason to do this I imagine peopel would try a more friendly approach first. If the space was used in, for example, China on services that the legacy user never used and the new user never needed to contact the legacy user they'd probably not even notice. brandon

1 0

Re: Egypt 'hijacked Vodafone network'
by andrew.wallace 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Scott Brim <scott.brim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/03/2011 10:14 EST, Marshall Eubanks wrote: >> >> On Feb 3, 2011, at 9:24 AM, andrew.wallace wrote: >> >>> Mobile phone firm Vodafone accuses the Egyptian authorities of >>> using its network to send pro-government text messages. >>> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12357694 >> >> Here is their PR >> >> http://www.vodafone.com/content/index/press.html >> >> Note that this is entirely legal, under "the emergency powers >> provisions of the Telecoms Act" > > Which is legal, Vodafone's protest or the government's telling them to > send messages? afaik the agreement was that the operator would have > preloaded canned messages, agreed on in advance with the government, and > now the government is telling them to send out arbitrary messages they > compose on the spot. > > I wonder if these messages were blockable by the end-user or if they were being sent as a service announcement from Vodafone. Certainly, if the government were sending the messages under the company name then something sounds wrong about that. What I would like is to hear from someone who received the messages and what their experiences were. Andrew

2 1

Egypt 'hijacked Vodafone network'
by andrew.wallace 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Mobile phone firm Vodafone accuses the Egyptian authorities of using its network to send pro-government text messages. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12357694 Andrew

3 2

NANOG 51: Tutorial: IPv6 Technology Overview Part II - Missing Slides
by chip 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Anyone have slides for Part 2 of the IPv6 Technology Overview from Cisco? http://nanog.org/meetings/nanog51/abstracts.php?pt=MTcyMiZuYW5vZzUx&nm=nano… Part 1 is there but Part 2 seems to be missing. Thanks! --chip -- Just my $.02, your mileage may vary, batteries not included, etc....

1 0

Re: quietly....
by Jay Ashworth 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen(a)delong.com> > The point I'm trying to get across to you is that your security does > NOT come from NAT. It comes from the stateful inspection mechanism and > the policies you set within that stateful inspection mechanism. The > unfortunate problem is that an entire generation of engineers has > grown up not knowing the difference between stateful inspection and > NAT because hardly any products contained stateful inspection without > NAT and stateful inspection with address translation is a mouthful > and NAT is a syllable. The point you *appear* to be trying to make is that *NO* security comes from NAT, and that is not a defensible argument. If that's not what you mean to say, you might want to reexamine your phrasing. :-) Cheers, -- jra

1 0

Re: quietly....
by Jay Ashworth 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Owen DeLong" <owen(a)delong.com> > On Feb 2, 2011, at 8:34 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > I won't run an edge-network that *isn't* NATted; my internal > > machines > > have no business having publicly routable addresses. No one has > > *ever* > > provided me with a serviceable explanation as to why that's an > > invalid > > view. > > Good luck with that when you become an IPv4 island. Strawman, Owen; the content of my assertion clearly was meant to be interpreted in the context of the current, 98% IPv4 Internet, and extrapolated to IPv6; I was pretty clearly not suggesting that I want to stay IPv4 as the rest of the Net leaves... as you imply. Cheers, -- jra

1 0

Five /8s allocated to RIRs - no unallocated IPv4 unicast /8s remain
by Leo Vegoda 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

Hi, The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of five /8 IPv4 blocks: one to each RIR, in February 2011. You can find the updated IANA IPv4 registry at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.txt Please update your filters as appropriate. There are no more unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s in the IANA IPv4 Address Space Registry. Kind regards, Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager, IANA ICANN

1 0

Re: quietly....
by Brandon Butterworth 03 Feb '11

03 Feb '11

> > You can do that today. For instance, this is what I have in a test = > > setup. (However, the ISC dhcpd can only do either v4 or v6, not both at = > > the same time.) > > Which is a limitation that we intend to address. It was more time > sensitive to get a DHCPv6 server out there than a integrated > DHCPv4/DHCPv6 server. No date has been set for this yet. > > > subnet6 2001:960:7bf:d::/64 > > { > > option dhcp6.name-servers 2001:1af8:2:5::2; > > option dhcp6.domain-search "bonjour.muada.nl"; > > range6 2001:960:7bf:d::1000 2001:960:7bf:d::1fff; > > } Just need to add default route in there and make dhcpd do RA then the user can turn off RA on their routers and not care that DHCPv6 doesn't include default router. Future proof, if/when it gets added natively too it'll just carry on with no reconfig. brandon

4 3