March 2022 - Test - lists.nanog.org

VPN-enabled advance fee fraud
by Andrew G. Watters 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Nutshell version: a group of criminals who appear to be in Mexico have created an entire fake law firm and deal flow in the U.S., with Photoshopped notary seals and wire instructions. They reportedly use ExpressVPN-- the owner of the IP block used by the suspects states that it leased the IP block to ExpressVPN under a Letter of Authorization. The suspects make money by causing victims to wire advance fees to Mexico as part of selling their timeshares, and possibly other transactions. My client has lost $70k or so thus far. He has received legit-looking documents, but upon even a cursory electronic inspection they are obvious forgeries. So this gang is savvy enough to steal money, but really reckless as well, which may explain why they are risking clicking on my links as well. I spoke with the lawyer who they are impersonating, and it was news to him that he is in New York City running a law firm considering that he retired in another state many years ago. So the suspects are offshore and I'm not sure what I can do. But I would still rather have their IP addresses than nothing. Can I have a recommendation on the best way to pursue user data from VPN providers such as ExpressVPN? I already sent in a notice to preserve logs for the involved ASN, and I'm headed to Federal court in the next few days to see if I have a chance to get even some of the victim's money back-- or at least an injunction shutting down the suspects' online presence. Any tips on getting VPN user data (or best practices in this type of situation) would be greatly appreciated. Best, Andrew Watters -- Andrew G. Watters Rællic Systems andrew(a)raellic.com +1 (415) 261-8527 https://www.raellic.com

7 8

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203210957.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Dear John: 1) " ... everyone, said it's a foolish idea ... ": Oh, "everyone", really? Are you sure? Please name a couple who expressed their judgments based on */facts/*. Otherwise, you may be fooling everyone with rumors to perpetuate a myth. 2) By the way, through constructive criticism, we learned to characterize our EzIP as an */overlay/* network. With this very concise definition, EzIP is now ready to face real bullets. You may want to follow discussions about our work more closely. Regards, Abe (2022-03-21 15:36) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 Message: 5 Date: 20 Mar 2022 13:58:18 -0400 From: "John Levine"<johnl(a)iecc.com> To:nanog@nanog.org Cc:aychen@avinta.com Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Message-ID:<20220320175819.7C27C3976150(a)ary.qy> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It appears that Abraham Y. Chen<aychen(a)avinta.com> said: > ??? C.??? Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. > Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses. > > ??? D.??? I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 > requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support. For people who don't follow the IETF lists, here's a summary of the responses. Mr. Chen thought it was a good idea, everyone else, and I mean everyone, said it's a foolish idea and not worth pursuing. R's, John ------------------------------ -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203210955.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Hi, Randy: Great analogy. Regards, Abe (2022-03-21 15:30) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 Message: 12 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 03:08:55 -0700 From: Randy Bush<randy(a)psg.com> To: Joe Maimon<jmaimon(a)jmaimon.com> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group<nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Message-ID:<m2ils7ehxk.wl-randy(a)psg.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > Is this is how the IETF ivory tower residents likes to try and > suppress debate the ietf is an echo chamber; and if you are not in it, you do not count. https://archive.psg.com/051000.sigcomm-ivtf.pdf randy End of NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 ************************************** -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203210953.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Hi, Joe: 1) "... how the IETF ivory tower residents likes to try and suppress debate, ... ": Interesting metaphor. Along this line, I wonder whether those bouncers on the draw bridge realize that technology has advanced to the point that there are other ways to get around the road block, such as taking over the country side to leave the ivory tower in isolation, or parachuting to bypass the draw bridge? Regards, Abe (2022-03-21 12:34) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 23 Message: 11 Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 05:31:50 -0400 From: Joe Maimon<jmaimon(a)jmaimon.com> To: John Levine<johnl(a)iecc.com>,nanog(a)nanog.org Cc:aychen@avinta.com Subject: Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203151549.AYC Message-ID:<62384606.2030300(a)jmaimon.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed John Levine wrote: > It appears that Abraham Y. Chen<aychen(a)avinta.com> said: >> C. Recently, we were made aware of the Int-Area activities. >> Attempts to reach the Group Chairs have not received any responses. >> >> D. I just received an Int-Area Digest Vol 199, Issue 14 >> requesting IETF to reactivate the IPv4 support. > For people who don't follow the IETF lists, here's a summary of > the responses. Mr. Chen thought it was a good idea, everyone > else, and I mean everyone, said it's a foolish idea and not > worth pursuing. > > R's, > John > *ahem* Is this is how the IETF ivory tower residents likes to try and suppress debate, by relegating all group think dissenters as white noise nobodies? And if they have succeeded in doing such on their own forums, its more telling about their own process problems than anything else. I sincerely hope I am mistaken in your characterization of the many fine individuals who have repeatedly gone on record in support of maintaining IPv4 responsibly until such time as it is properly obsoleted. While I can understand being considered a nobody, other more notable definitely not nobodies have even on this tired topics' nth thread made themselves heard and some fairly clearly. History will continue to show that the IETF pursued the path of pain for the internet. Joe ------------------------------ -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0

A quick note of appreciation
by Etienne-Victor Depasquale 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

I've occasionally posted to this list, but mostly take a seat in the audience. *** And what a show this is! *** First-class technical discussions, updated news, timely responses. God bless NANOG, and may this community keep up its invaluable contribution to networking, and thereby, to all of society. With humble gratitude, Etienne -- Ing. Etienne-Victor Depasquale Assistant Lecturer Department of Communications & Computer Engineering Faculty of Information & Communication Technology University of Malta Web. https://www.um.edu.mt/profile/etiennedepasquale

1 0

Survey on DNS resolver operations and DNSSEC
by Moritz Müller 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Hi everyone, The DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) add integrity and authenticity to the Domain Name System (DNS). Now, more than 17 years after their standardization, we would like to hear from DNS recursive resolver operators about their experience with DNSSEC. For this reason, we have set up a short survey. It’s directed mainly towards organisations that run a recursive resolver. Filling out the survey should take roughly 5 to 10 minutes. https://forms.gle/FxTD9FofaogdvLqcA (link directs to Google Forms) This survey is carried out by SIDN Labs (https://sidnlabs.nl) and by the Swedish Internet Foundation (https://internetstiftelsen.se/en/) You can contact us via email: moritz.muller(a)sidn.nl Please excuse us, if you have received this email via different mailing lists. — Moritz Müller Research Engineer at SIDN Labs

1 0

Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Re: 202203141407.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 21 Mar '22

21 Mar '22

Hi, Fred: 0) Thank you for a set of references. 1) We cited only one IETF Draft (Wilson, et al.) among them, because it was the first and only one that clearly stated its limitation (Section 2. Caveats of Use). More importantly, it was written by three top APNIC officials. Later efforts on this topic have not introduced (based on my reading) any more essence to the topic. 2) "... I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put it more simply.... ": With your knowledge of the past, you are uniquely qualified to critique on our work. However, it would be more expedient for everyone, if you could first read through at least the Abstract and the Conclusions of the EzIP IETF Draft, before commenting. This is because EzIP proposal is based on the same general idea as the references you cited, but with a slight extra step that produced a series of surprising results. In particular, we took the "Caveats" above to our hearts before proceeding. So, please put such issues behind you while reviewing our work. Thanks, Regards, Abe (2022-03-14 14:39) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 15 Message: 17 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 21:26:11 -0700 From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf(a)gmail.com> To: "Abraham Y. Chen" <aychen(a)avinta.com>, William Herrin <bill(a)herrin.us> Cc: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: 202203071610.AYC Re: Making Use of 240/4 NetBlock Message-ID: <79746DEC-8C8B-4D6D-B1D6-CB0A0003A1DC(a)gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mar 12, 2022, at 8:15 AM, Abraham Y. Chen <aychen(a)avinta.com> wrote: > 2) On the other hand, there was a recent APNIC blog that specifically reminded us of a fairly formal request for re-designating the 240/4 netblock back in 2008 (second grey background box). To me, this means whether to change the 240/4 status is not an issue. The question is whether we can identify an application that can maximize its impact. > > https://blog.apnic.net/2022/01/19/ip-addressing-in-2021/ I think there might be value in reviewing the discussion of the related Internet Drafts https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddress-rec… https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-deshpande-intarea-ipaddre… https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-wilson-class-e-02 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-wilson-class-e https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fuller-240space-02 https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?q=draft-fuller-240space The walkaway I had from these discussions was that while changing the definition of the address space would allow RIRs to sell more IPv4 address space for a few weeks (such as happened to APNIC when the last /8's were handed out), there were not enough addresses in the identified pools to solve the address shortage. So it was in the end a fool's errand. If you want to have address space to address the current shortage, you need an addressing architecture with more addresses. I was there for those discussions, and I'm not sure how to put it more simply. ------------------------------ -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

7 9

Latest from ICANN: Quantum Computers + N85 Peering Forum
by Nanog News 20 Mar '22

20 Mar '22

Latest from ICANN: Quantum Computers are "Interesting"… But Don't Lose your Head *An Interview with ICANN, Paul Hoffman * In a recent publication, written by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), chief technology officer Paul Hoffman discussed the hot topic of Quantum Computing and the DNS. NANOG had the opportunity to talk to Hoffman to better understand the current status + future of quantum computing. Learn what questions our community should be asking + and how much discussion we should be giving this topic at this time. *READ NOW <https://www.nanog.org/stories/latest-from-icann-quantum-computers-are-inter…>* Peering Forum: Now Accepting Applications Peering Coordination Forums are an incredible way to network with others in the industry! The 90-minute session will occur during the hybrid NANOG 85 conference, which will kick off in Montreal on Jun. 6. Please note that participants must be physically present to attend. NANOG 85 Peering Forum applications will remain open until we have received twenty applications or the deadline date of May 31. *SUBMIT NOW <https://www.nanog.org/events/nanog-85/peering-forum/>*

2 2

Weekly Global IPv4 Routing Table Report
by Routing Table Analysis Role Account 18 Mar '22

18 Mar '22

This is an automated weekly mailing describing the state of the Global IPv4 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 https://thyme.apnic.net. If you have any comments please contact Philip Smith <pfsinoz(a)gmail.com>. IPv4 Routing Table Report 04:00 +10GMT Sat 19 Mar, 2022 BGP Table (Global) as seen in Japan. Report Website: https://thyme.apnic.net Detailed Analysis: https://thyme.apnic.net/current/ Analysis Summary ---------------- BGP routing table entries examined: 893722 Prefixes after maximum aggregation (per Origin AS): 336639 Deaggregation factor: 2.65 Unique aggregates announced (without unneeded subnets): 429362 Total ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 72897 Prefixes per ASN: 12.26 Origin-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 62565 Origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 25680 Transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10332 Transit-only ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 379 Average AS path length visible in the Internet Routing Table: 4.3 Max AS path length visible: 53 Max AS path prepend of ASN (265020) 50 Prefixes from unregistered ASNs in the Routing Table: 912 Number of instances of unregistered ASNs: 921 Number of 32-bit ASNs allocated by the RIRs: 38812 Number of 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 32314 Prefixes from 32-bit ASNs in the Routing Table: 151357 Number of bogon 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 32 Special use prefixes present in the Routing Table: 1 Prefixes being announced from unallocated address space: 510 Number of addresses announced to Internet: 3068411904 Equivalent to 182 /8s, 228 /16s and 64 /24s Percentage of available address space announced: 82.9 Percentage of allocated address space announced: 82.9 Percentage of available address space allocated: 100.0 Percentage of address space in use by end-sites: 99.5 Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 303150 APNIC Region Analysis Summary ----------------------------- Prefixes being announced by APNIC Region ASes: 233925 Total APNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 66327 APNIC Deaggregation factor: 3.53 Prefixes being announced from the APNIC address blocks: 228912 Unique aggregates announced from the APNIC address blocks: 94588 APNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 12486 APNIC Prefixes per ASN: 18.33 APNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 3554 APNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1720 Average APNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.6 Max APNIC Region AS path length visible: 29 Number of APNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 7686 Number of APNIC addresses announced to Internet: 774245760 Equivalent to 46 /8s, 38 /16s and 13 /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, 131072-151865 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: 260871 Total ARIN prefixes after maximum aggregation: 119697 ARIN Deaggregation factor: 2.18 Prefixes being announced from the ARIN address blocks: 260758 Unique aggregates announced from the ARIN address blocks: 124070 ARIN Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 18990 ARIN Prefixes per ASN: 13.73 ARIN Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 6894 ARIN Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1964 Average ARIN Region AS path length visible: 3.8 Max ARIN Region AS path length visible: 28 Number of ARIN region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 4399 Number of ARIN addresses announced to Internet: 1295848960 Equivalent to 77 /8s, 61 /16s and 22 /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, 393216-401308 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, 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: 256192 Total RIPE prefixes after maximum aggregation: 117094 RIPE Deaggregation factor: 2.19 Prefixes being announced from the RIPE address blocks: 253439 Unique aggregates announced from the RIPE address blocks: 150184 RIPE Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 28118 RIPE Prefixes per ASN: 9.01 RIPE Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 12042 RIPE Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 3970 Average RIPE Region AS path length visible: 4.3 Max RIPE Region AS path length visible: 31 Number of RIPE region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 10664 Number of RIPE addresses announced to Internet: 714103680 Equivalent to 42 /8s, 144 /16s and 91 /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 196608-213403 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: 114231 Total LACNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 27446 LACNIC Deaggregation factor: 4.16 Prefixes being announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 114217 Unique aggregates announced from the LACNIC address blocks: 48188 LACNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 10929 LACNIC Prefixes per ASN: 10.45 LACNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 2627 LACNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 2203 Average LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 4.9 Max LACNIC Region AS path length visible: 53 Number of LACNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 8619 Number of LACNIC addresses announced to Internet: 176277248 Equivalent to 10 /8s, 129 /16s and 199 /24s LACNIC AS Blocks 26592-26623, 27648-28671, 52224-53247, 61440-61951, 64099-64197, 262144-273820 + 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: 27591 Total AfriNIC prefixes after maximum aggregation: 5397 AfriNIC Deaggregation factor: 5.11 Prefixes being announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 35886 Unique aggregates announced from the AfriNIC address blocks: 11899 AfriNIC Region origin ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 1613 AfriNIC Prefixes per ASN: 22.25 AfriNIC Region origin ASes announcing only one prefix: 563 AfriNIC Region transit ASes present in the Internet Routing Table: 319 Average AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 5.2 Max AfriNIC Region AS path length visible: 34 Number of AfriNIC region 32-bit ASNs visible in the Routing Table: 946 Number of AfriNIC addresses announced to Internet: 107632640 Equivalent to 6 /8s, 106 /16s and 88 /24s AfriNIC AS Blocks 36864-37887, 327680-329727 & ERX transfers AfriNIC Address Blocks 41/8, 45/8, 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 9808 9117 8886 46 CHINAMOBILE-CN China Mobile Communicati 7545 5894 788 697 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 4538 4708 4192 74 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese 7552 3602 1330 19 VIETEL-AS-AP Viettel Group, VN 7713 3487 1038 51 TELKOMNET-AS-AP PT Telekomunikasi Indon 45899 3435 1880 56 VNPT-AS-VN VNPT Corp, VN 4766 2499 11121 602 KIXS-AS-KR Korea Telecom, KR 9498 2386 475 238 BBIL-AP BHARTI Airtel Ltd., IN 45090 2146 1438 79 TENCENT-NET-AP Shenzhen Tencent Compute 4755 2109 429 197 TATACOMM-AS TATA Communications formerl Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-APNIC ARIN Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 16509 6301 10248 2649 AMAZON-02, US 11492 4455 295 726 CABLEONE, US 22773 3944 3060 368 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US 7155 3895 263 26 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US 16625 3654 1883 2572 AKAMAI-AS, US 6327 3412 1318 62 SHAW, CA 749 2883 50780 2139 DNIC-AS-00749, US 30036 2612 374 163 MEDIACOM-ENTERPRISE-BUSINESS, US 209 2518 4962 428 CENTURYLINK-US-LEGACY-QWEST, US 20115 2255 3042 499 CHARTER-20115, US Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-ARIN RIPE Region per AS prefix count summary --------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 12479 6817 1730 149 UNI2-AS, ES 9121 6703 1692 17 TTNET, TR 8551 4012 378 38 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne 20940 3945 3349 220 AKAMAI-ASN1, NL 39891 3818 220 33 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 12389 2959 2274 909 ROSTELECOM-AS, RU 6849 2803 355 21 UKRTELNET, UA 9009 2468 248 1285 M247, GB 34984 2198 355 622 TELLCOM-AS, TR 47331 2087 329 1597 TTNET, TR Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-RIPE LACNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 10485 3427 552 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 10620 3473 519 715 Telmex Colombia S.A., CO 11830 2431 369 62 Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad 13999 1709 292 474 Mega Cable, S.A. de C.V., MX 6503 1446 354 524 Axtel, S.A.B. de C.V., MX 28573 1396 2332 248 CLARO S.A., BR 3816 1254 666 146 COLOMBIA TELECOMUNICACIONES S.A. ESP, C 6147 1091 370 21 Telefonica del Peru S.A.A., PE 26615 1047 2349 136 TIM SA, BR 11664 1008 192 446 Techtel LMDS Comunicaciones Interactiva Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-LACNIC AfriNIC Region per AS prefix count summary ------------------------------------------ ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 24863 1584 393 21 LINKdotNET-AS, EG 24835 1545 523 32 RAYA-AS, EG 36992 1300 1518 262 ETISALAT-MISR, EG 36903 1199 545 114 MT-MPLS, MA 29571 908 64 62 ORANGE-COTE-IVOIRE, CI 36935 729 521 40 Vodafone-, EG 6713 612 1863 34 IAM-AS, MA 15399 514 51 34 WANANCHI-, KE 37342 469 32 1 MOVITEL, MZ 23889 422 232 16 MauritiusTelecom, MU Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet-AFRINIC Global Per AS prefix count summary ---------------------------------- ASN No of nets /20 equiv MaxAgg Description 8151 10485 3427 552 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 9808 9117 8886 46 CHINAMOBILE-CN China Mobile Communicati 12479 6817 1730 149 UNI2-AS, ES 9121 6703 1692 17 TTNET, TR 16509 6301 10248 2649 AMAZON-02, US 7545 5894 788 697 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 4538 4708 4192 74 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Rese 11492 4455 295 726 CABLEONE, US 8551 4012 378 38 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Interne 20940 3945 3349 220 AKAMAI-ASN1, NL Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-ASnet Global Per AS Maximum Aggregation summary ----------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Net Savings Description 9808 9117 9071 CHINAMOBILE-CN China Mobile Communications Grou 9121 6703 6686 TTNET, TR 12479 6817 6668 UNI2-AS, ES 7545 5894 5197 TPG-INTERNET-AP TPG Telecom Limited, AU 4538 4708 4634 ERX-CERNET-BKB China Education and Research Net 8551 4012 3974 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 7155 3895 3869 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US 39891 3818 3785 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 11492 4455 3729 CABLEONE, US 20940 3945 3725 AKAMAI-ASN1, NL Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-CIDRnet List of Unregistered Origin ASNs (Global) ----------------------------------------- Bad AS Designation Net Originated Transit AS Transit AS Name 398083 UNALLOCATED 5.104.72.0/24 399587 UT, US 398083 UNALLOCATED 5.133.124.0/24 399587 UT, US 33123 UNALLOCATED 8.10.69.0/24 11168 SCC, US 62828 UNALLOCATED 8.21.130.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US 393266 UNALLOCATED 8.23.52.0/24 46887 LIGHTOWER, US 18604 UNALLOCATED 8.25.204.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US 394936 UNALLOCATED 8.33.224.0/24 22442 HOU-PHONOSCOPE, US 54338 UNALLOCATED 8.33.241.0/24 6461 ZAYO-6461, US 395438 UNALLOCATED 8.42.206.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US 395056 UNALLOCATED 8.45.133.0/24 3356 LEVEL3, US Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-badAS Prefixes from the Special Purpose Address Registry (Global) ----------------------------------------------------------- Prefix Origin AS Description 192.88.99.0/24 6939 HURRICANE, US Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-spar Advertised Unallocated Addresses -------------------------------- Unassigned Network ASN Information AS Name 23.133.168.0/24 Origin: 400442 VULPINE-AS-01, CA 23.133.168.0/24 Transit: 21700 NEPTUNE-NETWORKS, US 23.141.0.0/24 Origin: 395350 UNASSIGNED 23.141.0.0/24 Transit: 11426 TWC-11426-CAROLINAS, US 27.100.7.0/24 Origin: 56096 UNASSIGNED 27.100.7.0/24 Transit: 45455 TH-2S1N-AP Two S One N Co Ltd, Internet 41.57.124.0/22 Origin: 37442 UNASSIGNED 41.57.124.0/22 Transit: 37204 TELONE, ZW 41.57.124.0/23 Origin: 37442 UNASSIGNED 41.57.124.0/23 Transit: 37204 TELONE, ZW Complete listing at https://thyme.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 /8:16 /9:13 /10:40 /11:102 /12:305 /13:588 /14:1205 /15:2042 /16:13573 /17:8317 /18:13893 /19:25167 /20:43310 /21:52283 /22:108378 /23:95482 /24:528212 /25:796 /26:0 /27:0 /28:0 /29:0 /30:0 /31:0 /32:0 Advertised prefixes smaller than registry allocations ----------------------------------------------------- ASN No of nets Total ann. Description 9121 5850 6703 TTNET, TR 12479 5794 6817 UNI2-AS, ES 8151 4140 10485 Uninet S.A. de C.V., MX 8551 3477 4012 BEZEQ-INTERNATIONAL-AS Bezeqint Internet Backbo 11492 3368 4455 CABLEONE, US 6327 3224 3412 SHAW, CA 39891 3130 3818 ALJAWWALSTC-AS, SA 7155 2988 3895 VIASAT-SP-BACKBONE, US 22773 2935 3944 ASN-CXA-ALL-CCI-22773-RDC, US 6849 2658 2803 UKRTELNET, UA Complete listing at https://thyme.apnic.net/current/data-sXXas-nos Number of /24s announced per /8 block (Global) ---------------------------------------------- 1:1841 2:1064 3:154 4:7 5:3782 6:112 7:5 8:1563 9:1 11:172 12:1714 13:303 14:2389 15:179 16:42 17:375 18:147 20:194 21:4 22:188 23:5542 24:2342 25:6 27:2605 29:19 31:2418 32:96 34:1 35:66 36:1751 37:4387 38:2651 39:699 40:150 41:3914 42:999 43:2093 44:292 45:16077 46:4124 47:348 49:1667 50:1937 51:107 52:1373 53:1 54:358 55:772 56:8 57:58 58:1807 59:1198 60:966 61:2270 62:2462 63:1942 64:5523 65:2308 66:4864 67:2965 68:1174 69:4155 70:1350 71:660 72:3076 74:2669 75:1423 76:716 77:2104 78:3888 79:3098 80:1960 81:1700 82:1479 83:1216 84:1344 85:3644 86:719 87:1969 88:2674 89:3242 90:514 91:7611 92:2011 93:2592 94:3491 95:4763 96:1310 97:347 98:988 99:865 100:75 101:1035 102:1983 103:28696 104:4274 105:469 106:853 107:2505 108:795 109:4214 110:2073 111:3286 112:2008 113:1525 114:1490 115:1958 116:1905 117:2515 118:2271 119:1866 120:1673 121:1062 122:2550 123:2116 124:1612 125:2110 128:1176 129:1195 130:916 131:2072 132:760 133:373 134:1935 135:290 136:878 137:874 138:2431 139:1270 140:1132 141:1378 142:1283 143:1478 144:1238 145:345 146:1776 147:1483 148:2208 149:1635 150:855 151:1077 152:1825 153:458 154:3669 155:1444 156:1897 157:1237 158:1028 159:2075 160:2421 161:1322 162:3452 163:1229 164:1653 165:1605 166:682 167:1718 168:3757 169:698 170:4448 171:821 172:3056 173:3075 174:1022 175:1128 176:3508 177:4565 178:3443 179:1975 180:2274 181:2941 182:3260 183:1946 184:2388 185:19422 186:4324 187:3667 188:3864 189:3088 190:8847 191:1307 192:11068 193:8562 194:6964 195:4967 196:2937 197:2356 198:6015 199:6035 200:7514 201:5670 202:10508 203:10028 204:4548 205:3380 206:3759 207:3400 208:4038 209:4640 210:4258 211:2436 212:3997 213:3391 214:1162 215:67 216:6427 217:2639 218:1257 219:597 220:1950 221:983 222:849 223:2140 End of report

1 0

Re: V6 still not supported Re: 202203181218.AYC
by Abraham Y. Chen 18 Mar '22

18 Mar '22

Dear Borg: 1) " ... I dont see a way of extending IPv4 without making it a new protocol. ... new IP protocol that is much more similar to IPv4, just extends address space. ... ": I believe that you will be pleasantly surprised at the proposal summarized by the the below whitepaper. It proposes an overlay architecture over the current Internet. As such, assignable IPv4 addresses are extended without the baggage of the current Internet and no new protocol. To begin the deployment, all need be done is "*/disabling/* the program code that has been */disabling/* the use of the 240/4 netblock" in routers. https://www.avinta.com/phoenix-1/home/RevampTheInternet.pdf 2) The "transition" will be mostly transparent from ordinary users' point of view, because IoTs do not need be reprogrammed. Please feel free to ask me to describe specific issues that you may come across. Regards, Abe (2022-03-18 12:43) ------------------------------ NANOG Digest, Vol 170, Issue 20 Message: 33 Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 09:36:40 +0100 (CET) From:borg@uu3.net To:nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: V6 still not supported Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.2203180928500.16585@cube> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII While Im dont like IPv6, I see it as a bad idea. >From my knowledge I dont see a way of extending IPv4 without making it a new protocol. It was not designed that way. What I would LOVE to see that someone will pop in with new IP protocol that is much more similar to IPv4, just extends address space and fixes some well know issues. (for example remove netmask and use prefixlen/CIDR). Other importand aspect is some kind of IPvX -> IPv4 interop, so you can quickly put clients into new protocol and they have access to entire IPv4 internet out of the box. Also, we need to please enterprises so we need largish RFC1918 space too. Just my 2 cents again ---------- Original message ---------- From: Matt Hoppes<mattlists(a)rivervalleyinternet.net> To: Joe Maimon<jmaimon(a)jmaimon.com>,bzs(a)theworld.com, Tom Beecher<beecher(a)beecher.cc> Cc: NANOG<nanog(a)nanog.org> Subject: Re: V6 still not supported Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2022 23:34:19 -0500 At this point I would*love* to see IPv4 get extended, a software patch applied to devices, and IPv6 die a quick painless death. > Its not impossible to envision that IPv4 does not ever go away but actually > gets extended in such a way that it obsoletes IPv6. The longer this drags out > the less implausible it seems. > > Joe > > -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

1 0