February 2019 - Test - lists.nanog.org

A Deep Dive on the Recent Widespread DNS Hijacking Attacks
by Stephane Bortzmeyer 23 Feb '19

23 Feb '19

Very good article, very detailed, with a lot of technical precisions, about the recent domain name hijackings (not using the DNS, just good old hijackings at registrar or hoster). https://krebsonsecurity.com/2019/02/a-deep-dive-on-the-recent-widespread-dn…

3 2

Cogent v6 Blackhole server issues???
by John Von Essen 22 Feb '19

22 Feb '19

2 days ago my IPv6 BGP session to Cogent's Blackhole server went down (2001:550:0:1000::421C:802), I've spent all morning emailing their NOC and I'm getting nowhere. Anyone else seeing this? Im in the Phila Metro area. -John

2 2

Weekly Routing Table Report
by cscora＠apnic.net 22 Feb '19

22 Feb '19

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Internet Routing Table as seen from APNIC's router in Japan. The posting is sent to APOPS, NANOG, AfNOG, SANOG, PacNOG, SAFNOG TZNOG, MENOG, BJNOG, SDNOG, CMNOG, LACNOG and the RIPE Routing WG. Daily listings are sent to bgp-stats(a)lists.apnic.net For historical data, please see http://thyme.rand.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>. Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 23 Feb, 2019 Report Website: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 738085 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 285259 Deaggregation factor: 2.59 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 355452 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 63351 Prefixes per ASN: 11.65 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 54573 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 23640 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 8778 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 273 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.2 Max AS path length visible: 28 Max AS path prepend of ASN ( 16327) 25 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 33 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs: 36 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 25890 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 21087 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 91866 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 24 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 1 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 266 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 2843064419 Equivalent to 169 /8s, 117 /16s and 184 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 76.8 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 76.8 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.2 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 247477 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 200761 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 57719 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.48 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 197814 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 81690 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 9461 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 20.91 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2664 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1406 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.1 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 26 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4462 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 769878530 Equivalent to 45 /8s, 227 /16s and 106 /24s APNIC AS Blocks 4608-4864, 7467-7722, 9216-10239, 17408-18431 (pre-ERX allocations) 23552-24575, 37888-38911, 45056-46079, 55296-56319, 58368-59391, 63488-64098, 64297-64395, 131072-139577 APNIC Address Blocks 1/8, 14/8, 27/8, 36/8, 39/8, 42/8, 43/8, 49/8, 58/8, 59/8, 60/8, 61/8, 101/8, 103/8, 106/8, 110/8, 111/8, 112/8, 113/8, 114/8, 115/8, 116/8, 117/8, 118/8, 119/8, 120/8, 121/8, 122/8, 123/8, 124/8, 125/8, 126/8, 133/8, 150/8, 153/8, 163/8, 171/8, 175/8, 180/8, 182/8, 183/8, 202/8, 203/8, 210/8, 211/8, 218/8, 219/8, 220/8, 221/8, 222/8, 223/8, ARIN Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by ARIN Region ASes: 218439 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 103601 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.11 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 217467 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 104185 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18390 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 11.83 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6858 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1855 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 24 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 2587 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1079283360 Equivalent to 64 /8s, 84 /16s and 142 /24s 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, 39936-40959, 46080-47103 53248-55295, 62464-63487, 64198-64296, 393216-399260 ARIN Address Blocks 3/8, 4/8, 6/8, 7/8, 8/8, 9/8, 11/8, 12/8, 13/8, 15/8, 16/8, 17/8, 18/8, 19/8, 20/8, 21/8, 22/8, 23/8, 24/8, 26/8, 28/8, 29/8, 30/8, 32/8, 33/8, 34/8, 35/8, 38/8, 40/8, 44/8, 45/8, 47/8, 48/8, 50/8, 52/8, 53/8, 54/8, 55/8, 56/8, 57/8, 63/8, 64/8, 65/8, 66/8, 67/8, 68/8, 69/8, 70/8, 71/8, 72/8, 73/8, 74/8, 75/8, 76/8, 96/8, 97/8, 98/8, 99/8, 100/8, 104/8, 107/8, 108/8, 128/8, 129/8, 130/8, 131/8, 132/8, 134/8, 135/8, 136/8, 137/8, 138/8, 139/8, 140/8, 142/8, 143/8, 144/8, 146/8, 147/8, 148/8, 149/8, 152/8, 155/8, 156/8, 157/8, 158/8, 159/8, 160/8, 161/8, 162/8, 164/8, 165/8, 166/8, 167/8, 168/8, 169/8, 170/8, 172/8, 173/8, 174/8, 184/8, 192/8, 198/8, 199/8, 204/8, 205/8, 206/8, 207/8, 208/8, 209/8, 214/8, 215/8, 216/8, RIPE Region Analysis Summary ---------------------------- Prefixes being announced by RIPE Region ASes: 202798 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 96883 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.09 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 199086 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 118225 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 25850 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 7.70 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 11486 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3635 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 28 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 7860 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 716922304 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 187 /16s and 93 /24s 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 40960-45055, 47104-52223, 56320-58367 59392-61439, 61952-62463, 64396-64495 196608-210331 RIPE Address Blocks 2/8, 5/8, 25/8, 31/8, 37/8, 46/8, 51/8, 62/8, 77/8, 78/8, 79/8, 80/8, 81/8, 82/8, 83/8, 84/8, 85/8, 86/8, 87/8, 88/8, 89/8, 90/8, 91/8, 92/8, 93/8, 94/8, 95/8, 109/8, 141/8, 145/8, 151/8, 176/8, 178/8, 185/8, 188/8, 193/8, 194/8, 195/8, 212/8, 213/8, 217/8, LACNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------ Prefixes being announced by LACNIC Region ASes: 95402 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 22763 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.19 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 96829 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 41885 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 8110 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 11.94 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2206 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1523 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.0 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 25 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 5656 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 173272832 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 83 /16s and 239 /24s LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-270748 + ERX transfers LACNIC Address Blocks 177/8, 179/8, 181/8, 186/8, 187/8, 189/8, 190/8, 191/8, 200/8, 201/8, AfriNIC Region Analysis Summary ------------------------------- Prefixes being announced by AfriNIC Region ASes: 20651 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 4271 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.84 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 26623 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 9235 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1247 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 21.35 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 426 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 245 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.4 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 21 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 522 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 103365888 Equivalent to 6 /8s, 41 /16s and 61 /24s AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-328703 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 102/8, 105/8, 154/8, 196/8, 197/8, APNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 7545 4654 542 544 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 4538 4653 4192 74 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese 45899 3244 1737 111 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN 7552 3094 1240 49 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 4766 2805 11127 770 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom, KR 9829 2752 1496 552 BSNL-NIB National Internet Backbone, IN 9808 2524 8699 26 CMNET-GD Guangdong Mobile Communication 9394 2326 4906 29 CTTNET China TieTong Telecommunications 4755 2143 422 180 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerl 17974 2005 968 50 TELKOMNET-AS2-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indo Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 6327 3584 1326 92 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 11492 3517 227 602 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 22773 3303 2977 165 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 16509 2491 5369 1051 AMAZON-02 - Amazon.com, Inc., US 16625 2272 1261 1743 AKAMAI-AS - Akamai Technologies, Inc., 20115 2151 2744 535 CHARTER-20115 - Charter Communications, 18566 2123 405 108 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US 30036 2105 349 221 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom 209 2090 5094 584 CENTURYLINK-US-LEGACY-QWEST - CenturyLi 5650 2089 3074 1462 FRONTIER-FRTR - Frontier Communications Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 12479 5337 1626 137 UNI2-AS, ES 39891 3649 195 21 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 8551 3249 378 45 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne 20940 2635 550 1911 AKAMAI-ASN1, US 12389 2224 2221 637 ROSTELECOM-AS, RU 34984 2060 340 533 TELLCOM-AS, TR 9121 1679 1692 18 TTNET, TR 13188 1604 100 46 TRIOLAN, UA 9009 1344 145 747 M247, GB 8402 1298 545 15 CORBINA-AS OJSC "Vimpelcom", RU Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 5579 3330 591 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 10620 2745 411 1053 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 11830 2699 384 34 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad 6503 1508 433 54 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V., MX 7303 1418 947 237 Telecom Argentina S.A., AR 28573 1284 2246 195 CLARO S.A., BR 6147 1269 377 28 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., PE 3816 1022 506 114 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP, C 11172 931 144 66 Alestra, S. de R.L. de C.V., MX 13999 929 533 244 Mega Cable, S.A. de C.V., MX Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 1226 393 21 LINKdotNET-AS, EG 37611 926 107 9 Afrihost, ZA 24835 847 636 22 RAYA-AS, EG 36992 808 1534 57 ETISALAT-MISR, EG 36903 807 406 151 MT-MPLS, MA 8452 688 1731 20 TE-AS TE-AS, EG 29571 486 70 13 ORANGE-COTE-IVOIRE, CI 37492 470 470 57 ORANGE-, TN 15399 428 45 11 WANANCHI-, KE 37342 420 32 1 MOVITEL, MZ Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 5579 3330 591 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 12479 5337 1626 137 UNI2-AS, ES 7545 4654 542 544 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 4538 4653 4192 74 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese 39891 3649 195 21 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 6327 3584 1326 92 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 11492 3517 227 602 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 22773 3303 2977 165 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communi 8551 3249 378 45 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne 45899 3244 1737 111 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggr summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 12479 5337 5200 UNI2-AS, ES 4538 4653 4579 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Research Net 7545 4654 4110 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 39891 3649 3628 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 6327 3584 3492 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 8551 3249 3204 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 22773 3303 3138 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications 45899 3244 3133 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN 7552 3094 3045 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 11492 3517 2915 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Network Transit AS Description 230105 UNALLOCATED 38.110.79.0/24 23015 CMC180-TOR-AS - Cambridge Merc 268721 UNALLOCATED 45.171.152.0/22 263877 rede banda larga, BR 268721 UNALLOCATED 45.171.152.0/23 263877 rede banda larga, BR 268721 UNALLOCATED 45.171.152.0/24 263877 rede banda larga, BR 268721 UNALLOCATED 45.171.153.0/24 263877 rede banda larga, BR 268721 UNALLOCATED 45.171.154.0/23 263877 rede banda larga, BR 268721 UNALLOCATED 45.171.154.0/24 263877 rede banda larga, BR 268721 UNALLOCATED 45.171.155.0/24 263877 rede banda larga, BR 266842 UNALLOCATED 45.238.156.0/22 265680 HNTELCO S.A, HN 1358592 UNALLOCATED 103.134.14.0/23 63956 COLO-AS-AP Colocation Australi Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Prefixes from private and non-routed address space (Global) ----------------------------------------------------------- Prefix Origin AS Description 198.18.1.19/32 7497 CSTNET-AS-AP Computer Network Information Cente Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-dsua Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Network Origin AS Description 23.175.32.0/24 4508 NEUSTYLE - NeuStyle, CA 27.100.7.0/24 56096 UNKNOWN 27.126.156.0/22 55827 UNKNOWN 27.126.156.0/23 55827 UNKNOWN 27.126.158.0/23 55827 UNKNOWN 41.76.136.0/22 37500 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.76.140.0/22 37500 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.78.92.0/22 14988 BTC-GATE1, BW 41.78.180.0/23 37265 -Reserved AS-, ZZ 41.220.48.0/20 36900 -Reserved AS-, ZZ Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-add-IANA Number of prefixes announced per prefix length (Global) ------------------------------------------------------- /1:0 /2:0 /3:0 /4:0 /5:0 /6:0 /7:0 /8:12 /9:10 /10:36 /11:100 /12:291 /13:567 /14:1134 /15:1906 /16:13369 /17:7906 /18:13896 /19:25719 /20:39953 /21:46096 /22:92157 /23:75178 /24:416835 /25:949 /26:833 /27:892 /28:27 /29:7 /30:15 /31:0 /32:197 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 12479 4216 5337 UNI2-AS, ES 6327 3358 3584 SHAW - Shaw Communications Inc., CA 39891 2946 3649 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 11492 2770 3517 CABLEONE - CABLE ONE, INC., US 8551 2705 3249 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 22773 2543 3303 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC - Cox Communications 11830 2044 2699 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad y Telec 18566 2018 2123 MEGAPATH5-US - MegaPath Corporation, US 30036 1852 2105 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS - Mediacom Communi 5650 1761 2089 FRONTIER-FRTR - Frontier Communications of Amer Complete listing at http://thyme.rand.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1606 2:885 4:22 5:2755 6:47 7:1 8:1179 12:1859 13:313 14:1905 15:38 16:4 17:221 18:59 20:49 23:2583 24:2521 25:2 27:2560 31:2075 32:94 35:36 36:823 37:3033 38:1689 39:294 40:122 41:3139 42:739 43:2007 44:143 45:6726 46:3262 47:250 49:1343 50:1094 51:191 52:1024 54:289 55:1 56:6 57:41 58:1708 59:1064 60:494 61:2054 62:2040 63:1794 64:4986 65:2194 66:4821 67:2697 68:1161 69:3514 70:1326 71:600 72:2375 74:2755 75:512 76:547 77:1689 78:1764 79:2325 80:1710 81:1446 82:1115 83:867 84:1104 85:2164 86:553 87:1537 88:1014 89:2426 90:216 91:6573 92:1234 93:2473 94:2494 95:3246 96:921 97:346 98:940 99:206 100:86 101:1149 102:416 103:20069 104:3513 105:247 106:871 107:1761 108:697 109:3685 110:1629 111:1874 112:1395 113:1438 114:1132 115:1716 116:1697 117:1917 118:2140 119:1617 120:1048 121:1031 122:2286 123:1639 124:1448 125:1959 128:1245 129:680 130:526 131:1626 132:721 133:218 134:1050 135:240 136:555 137:707 138:2037 139:842 140:574 141:820 142:801 143:1042 144:838 145:505 146:1259 147:794 148:1690 149:782 150:779 151:1008 152:1013 153:321 154:2584 155:984 156:1689 157:907 158:670 159:1923 160:1517 161:916 162:2674 163:784 164:1133 165:1569 166:434 167:1393 168:3266 169:869 170:4010 171:557 172:1106 173:2182 174:1012 175:880 176:2314 177:4012 178:2542 179:1347 180:2104 181:2430 182:2674 183:1090 184:1164 185:14787 186:3741 187:2403 188:2890 189:1956 190:8346 191:1455 192:10044 193:6583 194:5376 195:4055 196:3001 197:1649 198:5786 199:5967 200:7174 201:5069 202:10185 203:10184 204:4612 205:2991 206:3237 207:3294 208:3967 209:4234 210:3931 211:1990 212:3055 213:2891 214:1076 215:52 216:5970 217:2195 218:916 219:579 220:1857 221:996 222:993 223:1444 End of report

1 0

SpaceX Starlink progress, external analysis
by Eric Kuhnke 22 Feb '19

22 Feb '19

ISPs throughout the United States that currently operate 11 GHz FCC Part 101 licensed microwave links have begun receiving PCCNs from Starlink. These specify the RF parameters and lat/long locations of the Starlink earth stations. If you have received one of these, I'd be very interested in taking a look at it. The eventual as-built locations of the earth stations will all be public in the FCC's databases (ULS, international bureau, etc). It appears as though the first generation of Starlink satellites will operate as relays in a bent pipe configuration. The design goal for satellite-to-satellite trunk links has been scrapped or postponed. In this method, a satellite or set of satellites in the same orbital plane will need to have LOS visibility to both a CPE terminal and a Starlink earth station. For example, an earth station located near the fiber huts and ISP POPs in Cheyenne, WY would provide the uplink for customers in the same moving spot beam, while it was over WY, such as rural CPEs on remote ranches.

1 0

A Zero Spam Mail System [Feedback Request]
by Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan 21 Feb '19

21 Feb '19

Hello Everyone, My name is Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan. I'm the guy who proposed SMTP over TLS on Port 26 <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001439/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users…> last month. I'm also the guy who attacked (???) John Levine. Today I have something to show you. Long story short.... I solved the email spam problem. Well... Actually I solved it long time back. I'm just ready to disclose it today. Again... Yeah.. Yeah.. Yeah... If only I had a dime for every time people insult me for saying "I solved the spam problem" They usually start with the insult like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" These guys always are the know-it-all assholes. They don't listen. They don't want to listen. They are like barking dogs. If one started to bark, everyone else gets the courage to do the same thing. I'm tired of fighting these assholes in every mailing list. I'm on your side morons. So how about you all knock it off? Six months back, it was John Levine who humiliated me in the DMARC list. Apparently, for him 50 words are enough to attack me. Töma Gavrichenkov and Suresh Ramasubramanian even started to defend this man saying 50 words are enough to judge a 50,000 words paper. [We are gonna figure it out today] ---------------------------------- @Töma Gavrichenkov In theory, I can easily recall a few cases in my life when going > through just 50 words was quite enough for a judgment. How can you be so sure that you didn't fuck up none of the lives of these "few cases"? Or in more technical terms, How can you be absolutely sure that there is no "False Positives"? ---------------------------------- @Suresh Ramasubramanian Yes, 50 words are more than enough to decide a bad idea is bad. You don't > have to like that, or like any of us, but facts are facts Merely appending the text "facts are facts" not gonna convert a bullshit statement into a fact. You know what's the meaning of the word "fact"? It's a statement that can be proved TRUE. Let's do a little experiment. 100 researchers presents their lifetime work to us. Each of their research paper contain 50,000 words. We are gonna judge them. You are gonna judge them based on only the first 50 words. And I'm gonna judge them by tossing a coin. Can you guess who is gonna fuck up less number of researcher lives? I'm claiming that I solved the email spam problem. If that's true, then you should know, common sense is one of the very basic requirement for that. I designed my email system. Every inch of it. I wrote my research paper. Every word of it. I made my prototype video. Every second of it. So I'm the captain of my ship. Not you. But you all think you know my system better than me? That too, with only 50 words? My research paper has around 50,000 words. And you think 50 words are enough to judge my work? Let me make sure I get this right. You are all saying, you know what's in the rest of the 49,950 words based on only the first 50 words? That's stupid on so many levels. If you are gonna do a half-assed job and relay that misinformation to thousands of people, why volunteer in the first place? And by the way, by saying you are all doing half-assed job, I'm actually insulting the people who are REALLY doing the half-assed job. ---------------------------------- John Levine vs. me One month back, some of you may have noticed a thread created by John Levine <https://web.archive.org/web/20190218001726/https://lists.gt.net/nanog/users…> where he goes like "He's Forum Shopping". The whole gist of that message was "We already have DANE and MTA-STS. We don't a third solution". And then I used some harsh words to defend myself. But that was the Season 2 of his "Shitshow". The Season 1 was aired 6 months back. You all missed that show. This is what happened in Season 1. 1. Six months back, I posted on three mailing list saying "I solved the email spam problem" and asked them to provide feedback on my invention. Those three mailing lists were SPF, DKIM and DMARC. That's because my solution relied on them and those three were the only email related mailing lists I knew at that time. 2. In DMARC community, John Levine started to insult me after reading only the first 50 words. 3. Dave Crocker joined the cast and did a flawless job on abusing me. He asked me to kill my project. I told him he is being rude. And this is what he replied for that <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/dave.png>. He is one of the most radical and ignorant person I have seen in tech. He didn't even stop for a moment and think "Am I attacking an Innocent person?". He even went to other mailing lists to attack me. He abused all his power and kept on attacking me just to have some "dopamine orgasm". Something tells me he slept peacefully on that day. 4. And then bunch of other guys joined. So the whole thread gone crazy. This is because John Levine successfully distributed wrong version of the story to thousands of people with only 50 words. 5. Both Dave Crocker and John Levine are the bigshots there. So I knew no matter how much I cry for help, no one is gonna help me. 6. John seemed like a "decent-asshole" while compared to Dave Crocker. So I sent a private mail to John saying "John, I'm not really sure whether I can afford you since I have not raised any money yet. But let me give it a shot. Could you tell me how much you would charge to go through my presentation, demo video and give me a detailed feedback about my system?" [The reason I was ready to pay him is because he made it very clear in the DMARC thread by saying "Sorry, but I don't provide consulting for free". I thought if I make him read my document, he would go back and correct his mistake] 7. And this is what he replied for that. "Really, even if you had money, it wouldn't be worth your money or my time". [For the record, he come to this conclusion without even knowing what's inside in my document] 8. I said only "ok, thankyou" and then unsubscribed from the DMARC mailing list. [What more can you argue with a bunch of know-it-all morons who thinks they are all right?] 9. Six month later (last month), John started his shitshow again attacking my IETF proposal. He tried to make me look like an idiot again. And that's when I started to defend myself by using harsh words. 10. You all know the rest. ---------------------------------- One person told me on that thread to take John Levine's words as criticism. You see I have no problems with criticism. I usually thank people when they criticize my work. The best criticism usually follows this format. "I went through your paper (#1), your work is full of shit (#2), Here are the reasons (#3)" #1 says, the critic really knows what the author is talking about. #2 says, the critic is speaking his mind without any bullshit. #3 says, the critic has valid points for his criticism. However, I can't consider someone as critic who straightly go for #2. Especially when the whole argument was all about killing my work just because he is one of the inventor of MTA-STS. If I start to listen his words, then next time he will create a new thread to attack me for creating <this thread> saying "He's forum shopping. I already told him it's not worth his money and my time". What you want me to do in this case? Take that as criticism and move on? It's my 5 fucking years of research. I can't just let it go just because someone doesn't like my work. ---------------------------------- @Valdis Kletnieks You missed the part where the RFC says you *MUST* fall back to A if there's > no MX. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself; Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man" - George Bernard Shaw ---------------------------------- @John Levine I was trying to contribute to IETF the other day. One of the guy from DMARC list uses your words as a reason to attack me <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/utaattack.png> and asking me to turn down the proposal. You were watching that. If I really solved the email spam problem, that puts me in the "best problem solvers in the world" category. So how about you go back to the DMARC list and write a decent apology for posting misinformation to everyone? [Of course only if I solved the spam problem. That was my claim from the beginning right?] ---------------------------------- @Everyone Here is what you all should know. It's my 5 years of research. So it's worth more than 50 words. I started my work back in 2013 and I used to call my work "XMail" at that time. It's now called "Dombox" My prototype codebase has around 200,000 lines of code. [To be exact: 466,965 ++ 254,169 --] Sequoia Capital is one of the well known venture firm in the world. They have invested in over 250 companies since 1972, including Apple, Google, Oracle, PayPal, Stripe, YouTube, Instagram, Yahoo! and WhatsApp. Bill Coughran <https://www.sequoiacap.com/people/bill-coughran/> is a senior investor in Sequoia Capital. According to his linkedin profile, he started as a Programmer in the late 60s and held many engineering related positions over the years. Worked in Bell Laboratories for 20 years. Worked as SVP of Engineering in Google for 8.5 years. To quote his words "I have some level of expertise about the current email systems, which is why I was did some investigating". So this man is one of the toughest person to impress. But he is one of the nicest investor I have met. When I asked him whether he can take a look, he didn't insult me with words like "You think you are the inventor of FUSSP?" He just told me "Sure, I'd be happy to." He went through my entire paper and then sent me this mail <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/billcoughran.png>. He later turned me down because it's hard for a startup to distribute a new solution. Maybe he is right. Or maybe I'll overcome that too. [Today's discussion is about whether I solved the spam problem. Not about how I'm gonna distribute the solution] Yesterday I published my work on a medium blog post and linked my white paper. An engineer read my white paper and sent me this mail <https://www.dombox.org/nanog/riccardo.png>. These guys see value in my white paper because they completed my ~300 pages white paper. To the "50 words are enough" band members, let me tell you something. I'm the author of my work. It's my job to decide "what to show you" and "when to show you". I have posted my system summary in a medium blog post. When you reach 75% of the article, you will see a title called "Hot Gates Strategy". Everything you see above is pointless without the remaining 25% of the content. Put it this way, I have designed 75% of that system, only to have remaining 25% of the system. So yeah, even if you had 75% of the content, you still can't judge my work. Whether you all believe it or not, I'm the goddamn inventor of FUSSP. I can proudly say that because my system doesn't have the "spam" folder. So how about you all appreciate the guy who spent 5 years in chasing for a solution like a madman and succeeded in solving a challenging problem rather than spending your time in attacking me? [For the record, my single white paper plenty of problems. Email Spam is one of them] Looking forward to hear your feedback. People who complete my white paper, please post whether my claims are true or I'm just wasting everyone's time. [I'm going to bed now. So I may not be online for the next 8 hours. I'll respond to your queries after that] Thanks ---------------------------------- Materials: System Overview - https://medium.com/@Viruthagiri/dombox-the-zero-spam-mail-system-2b08ff7432… White Paper - https://www.dombox.org/dombox.pdf Flowcharts - https://www.dombox.org/flowcharts.pdf Prototype - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK2eSfCurx4 [This is the video I uploaded before posting to DMARC list. So the interface is little outdated] -- Best Regards, Viruthagiri Thirumavalavan Dombox, Inc.

39 74

RE: Cisco ASR's with RSP440 engines...
by Jakob Heitz (jheitz) 20 Feb '19

20 Feb '19

Wheeee! Thanks man! Jakob. -----Original Message----- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 15:26:38 +0000 From: Tom Hill <tom(a)ninjabadger.net> On 18/02/2019 21:50, John Von Essen wrote: > If anyone on here has experience with the ASR series running the > RSP440-SE or -TR, please contact me off-list. I'm trying to better > understand real world performance when it comes to handling a few full > BGP tables on these, it would be running as very basic edge router > primarily just doing BGP. I know the RSP440 is EOL, but the plan would > be to upgrade to RSP880 within a year. The 440 is a beast. Faster even than the 9001's RP. You'll be fine with a LOT of BGP edge work. :) The RSP880 is faster on paper, but I'll be impressed if you notice a difference over the 440 in terms of solely basic BGP edge functions. It of course has support for other things that you might need, however. (No idea why this would need to be offlist...) -- Tom

1 0

Ticketmaster
by Keefe John 20 Feb '19

20 Feb '19

Can someone from Ticketmaster contact me off-list? We have a customer who seems to be partially blocked from your website. Keefe John CEO Ethoplex Direct: 262.345.5200 -------------------- Ethoplex Business Internet http://www.ethoplex.com/ Signal Residential Internet http://www.signalisp.com/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/keefejohn/

2 1

Quick Script to check the uptime of ASR920's
by Erik Sundberg 20 Feb '19

20 Feb '19

All, I just created a quick script to check the uptime of a ASR920 via SNMP if you have a fairly long list of devices. It's a simple bash script and snmpwalk version 2c. Figured I would share it with you. Happy Friday Grab the code from GitHub: https://github.com/esundberg/CiscoRouterUptime It's a quick and dirty script and my first repo on github. Let me know if there any issues with it. Output Format in CSV DeviceName, IP, Uptime in Days, OK/Warning I set my warning to 800 Days, you can change this in the code ASR920list.txt ------------- ASR920-1.SEA1, 192.168.28.1, SuperSecretSNMPKey ASR920-2.SEA1, 192.168.28.2, SuperSecretSNMPKey ~~~~snip you get the idea~~~~ Output [user@Linux]$ ./CiscoRouterUptime.sh ASR920list.txt ASR920-1.SEA1, 192.168.28.1, 827, WARNING ASR920-2.SEA1, 192.168.28.2, 827, WARNING ASR920-2.ATL1, 192.168.23.2, 828, WARNING ASR920-1.ATL1, 192.168.23.1, 813, WARNING ASR920-1.CHI1, 192.168.21.3, 828, WARNING ASR920-1.NYC1, 192.168.25.1, 787, OK ASR920-2.CHI1, 192.168.21.4, 720, OK ASR920-3.CHI1, 192.168.21.5, 720, OK ASR920-1.DAL1, 192.168.26.3, 488, OK ASR920-4.CHI1, 192.168.21.6, 142, OK ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail. You must destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

5 7

fs.com dwdm equipment
by Samir Rana 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

Hello All, Does anybody have experience with fs.com dwdm equipment in their production environment? Are you they working without any issue? How's their warranty support if the issue arises? Thanks in advance for all the answers and help.

10 10

BGP topological vs centralized route reflector
by Mohammad Khalil 19 Feb '19

19 Feb '19

Dears Am trying to find some documents and practical implementations regarding bgp topological vs centralized route reflector(In-band vs out-of-band) Any good shares are appreciated

8 16