- Test - lists.nanog.org

New RIPE NCC IPv4 blocks pingable addresses
by Alex Le Heux 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear Colleages, The IANA recently allocated the IPv4 address ranges 92/8 and 93/8 to the RIPE NCC. The following pingable addresses are now available in these blocks: 92.192.0.1 92.255.248.1 93.192.0.1 93.255.248.1 More information regarding the debogonising project can be found here: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/ Best regards, Alex Le Heux RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst

2 1

RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
by Frank Bulk 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 02:31:25PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote: > > I understand your frustration and appreciate your efforts to contact the > > sources of abuse, but why indiscriminately block a larger range of IPs than > > what is necessary? > > 1. There's nothing "indiscriminate" about it. > > I often block /24's and larger because I'm holding the > *network* operators responsible for what comes out of > their operation. Define network operator: the AS holder for that space or the operator of that smaller-than-slash-24 sub-block? If the problem consistently comes from /29 why not just leave the block in and be done with it? I guess this begs the question: Is it best to block with a /32, /24, or some other range? Sounds a lot like throwing something against the wall and seeing what sticks. Or vigilantism. > If they can't hold the outbound abuse down to a minimum, then > I guess I'll have to make up for their negligence on my end. Sure, block that /29, but why block the /24, /20, or even /8? Perhaps your (understandable) frustration is preventing you from agreeing with me on this specific case. Because what you usually see is an IP from a /20 or larger and the network operators aren't dealing with it. In the example I gave it's really the smaller /29 that's the culprit, it sounds like you want to punish a larger group, perhaps as large as an AS, for the fault of smaller network. > I don't care why it happens -- they should have thought through > all this BEFORE plugging themselves in and planned accordingly. > ("Never build something you can't control.") Agreed. > > Neither I nor J. Oquendo nor anyone else are required to > spend our time, our money, and our resources figuring out which > parts of X's network can be trusted and which can't. It's not that hard, the ARIN records are easy to look up. Figuring out that network operator has a /8 that you want to block based on 3 or 4 IPs in their range requires just as much work. > It is entirely X's responsibility to make sure that its _entire_ > network can be permitted the privilege of access to ours. > And (while I don't wish to speak for anyone else), > I think we're prepared to live with a certain amount of low-level, > transient, isolated noise. Noise like that is inevitable part of the job. > We are not prepared to live with persistent, systemic attacks > that are not dealt with even *after* complaints are > filed. (Which shouldn't be necessary anyway: if we can see inbound > hostile traffic to our networks, surely X can see it outbound from > theirs. Unless X is too stupid, cheap or lazy to look. Packets do > not just fall out of the sky, y'know?) Smaller operators, like those that require just a /29, often don't have that infrastructure. Those costs, as I'm sure you aware, are passed on to companies like yourself that have to maintain their own network's security. Again, block them, I say, just don't swallow others up in the process. > 2. "necessary" is a relative term. > > Example: I observed spam/spam attempts from 3,599 hosts on > pldt's network during January alone. I've blocked > everything they have, because I find it *necessary* > to not wait for the other N hosts on their network > to pull the same stunt. I've found it *necessary* to take > many other similar measures as well because my time, > money and resources are limited quantities, so I must > expend them frugally while still protecting the operation > from overtly hostile networks. That's my point: you want to spend time dealing with the other 8 networks because you blacked them, out, too? > That requires pro-active measures and it requires ones > that have been proven to be effective. > > If X, for some value of X, is unhappy about this, then X should have > thought of that before permitting large amounts of abuse to escape > its operation over an extended period of time. Had X done its job > to a baseline level of professionalism, then this issue would not > have arisen, and we'd all be better off for it. Agreed, but economics usually dictate otherwise. > So. If you (generic you) can't keep your network from being > a persistent and systemic abuse source, then unplug it. Now. They want to run a business, too. So when you blacklist they will end up calling you asking for mercy, telling you that it's been cleaned up. Inevitably something/someone gets infected, you black them out, rinse, repeat. > If on other hand, you decide to stick around anyway while letting the > crap flow: no whining when other people find it necessary to > take steps to defend themselves from your incompetence. > > ---Rsk

7 7

4 Byte AS deployment
by Jac Kloots 10 Apr '07

10 Apr '07

FYI: SURFnet has setup a 4 byte AS using Quagga and is currently announcing 2 prefixes originating from AS3.5 IPv4: 145.125.0.0/20 (Worldwide visible) http://www.ris.ripe.net/cgi-bin/lg/index.cgi?rrc=RRC001&query=12&arg=%5C.5 IPv6: 2001:610:160::/48 (Only visible to the RIPE RIS project and is part of a full feed from AS3.5) http://www.ris.ripe.net/cgi-bin/lg/index.cgi?rrc=RRC001&query=16&arg=2001%3… I guess this IPv6 prefix is the first prefix announced from a 4byte AS. Regards, Jac -- Jac Kloots Network Services SURFnet bv The Netherlands

1 0

RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
by Robert Bonomi 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

> From: "Frank Bulk" <frnkblk(a)iname.com> > Subject: RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks > Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:20:59 -0500 > > > If they can't hold the outbound abuse down to a minimum, then > > I guess I'll have to make up for their negligence on my end. > > Sure, block that /29, but why block the /24, /20, or even /8? Perhaps your > (understandable) frustration is preventing you from agreeing with me on this > specific case. Because what you usually see is an IP from a /20 or larger > and the network operators aren't dealing with it. In the example I gave > it's really the smaller /29 that's the culprit, it sounds like you want to > punish a larger group, perhaps as large as an AS, for the fault of smaller > network. BLUNT QUESTIONS: *WHO* pays me to figure out 'which parts' of a provider's network are riddled with problems and 'which parts' are _not_? *WHO* pays me to do the research to find out where the end-user boundaries are? *WHY* should _I_ have to do that work -- If the 'upstream provider' is incapable of keeping _their_own_house_ clean, why should I spend the time trying to figure out which of their customers are 'bad guys' and which are not? A provider *IS* responsible for the 'customers it _keeps_'. And, unfortunately, a customer is 'tarred by the brush' of the reputation of it's provider. > Smaller operators, like those that require just a /29, often don't have that > infrastructure. Those costs, as I'm sure you aware, are passed on to > companies like yourself that have to maintain their own network's security. > Again, block them, I say, just don't swallow others up in the process. If the _UPSTREAM_ of that 'small operator' cannot 'police' its own customers, Why should _I_ absorb the costs that _they_ are unwilling to internalize? If they want to sell 'cheap' service, but not 'doing what is necessary', I see no reason to 'facilitate' their cut-rate operations. Those who buy service from such a provider, 'based on cost', *deserve* what they get, when their service "doesn't work as well" as that provided by the full-price competition. _YOUR_ connectivity is only as good as the 'reputation' of whomever it is that you buy connectivity from. You might want to consider _why_ the provider *keeps* that 'offensive' customer. There would seem to be only a few possible explanations: (1) they are 'asleep at the switch', (2) that customer pays enough that they can 'afford' to have multiple other customers who are 'dis-satisfied', or who may even leave that provider, (3) they aren't willing to 'spend the money' to run a clean operation. (_None_ of those seems like a good reason for _me_ to spend extra money 'on behalf of' _their_ clients.)

16 19

RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
by Frank Bulk 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

The managed services they currently offer don't include egress filtering (L3 to L7) on their business customer's networks. >From the discussion here it sounds like that naked pipes, even if properly SWIPed, ought not to be sold, but that all traffic should be checked on the way out. It sounds like a good idea, but I'm guessing few network operators do that for their customer networks, whether that's due to lack of centralization or cost. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Frank Bulk Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 3:49 PM To: 'nanog(a)merit.edu' Subject: RE: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks > If they're properly SWIPed why punish the ISP for networks > they don't even > operate, that obviously belong to their business customers? How can you tell that they don't operate a network from SWIP records? Seems to me that lots of network operators sell "managed services" to businesses which means that the network operator is the one operating the business customers' networks. Let's face it, the whole SWIP system and whois directory concept was poorly implemented way back in the 1980s and it is completely inadequate on an Internet that is thousands of times larger than it was when SWIP and whois were first developed. How many of you were aware that whois was originally intended to record all users of the ARPAnet from each site so that networking departments could justify the funds they were spending on high-speed 56k frame relay links? --Michael Dillon

1 0

Re: Abuse procedures... Reality Checks
by J. Oquendo 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

Pete Templin wrote: > > John R Levine wrote: > >> I don't have PI space, but I do have a competent ISP so I've never >> had any >> mail problems due to adjacent addresses. > > Having a competent ISP isn't a guarantee of exemption...only a > contributor. As evidenced by the discussion, some people choose the > scope of their wrath arbitrarily. > > pt > Frank Bulk wrote: > Sounds a lot like throwing something against the wall and > seeing what sticks. Or vigilantism. Vigilatism would be me causing offender's router to flap out of existence. Matthew Black wrote: > Um, with that reasoning, why not just block the whole /0 and > be done with it? Why should filtering on this level have to be done. Why not prevent one's own users from sending out bad traffic. I can see why large provider would have an issue with this, but how about using IDS' on the way out as well. This way not one machine on your network can harm another machine on your own for starters, and someone elses. Sound too Zen. > Why not get yourself some sort of IDS/IPS > system or fully firewall your hosts. What happens when this isn't an option. What do you do when managing networks on budgets that didn't call for extra equipment. Should I let a network of mine get compromised for the sake of not having enough in the budget, or should I explain to the client after the compromise, "well you really didn't give me enough money." That will sure teach him a thing or two about technology they 1) don't care about 2) won't understand no matter how much its explained. Maybe I can repeat this to myself while I file unemployment papers. > If you have a spam problem, get an e-mail security > appliance which uses reputation filtering to reject > connections? And for those clients whose budgets constraints prevented this? Should I a) allow them to receive thousands of Viagra messages b) allow their logfiles to fill with thousands of entries and false positives on SSH attacks c) allow viruses and worms to make my job more difficult. I never stated my solution was a "best practice". I stated what I've been doing and strangely its been effective for me. Yes I do have to answer to clients on why THEIR clients, friends, etc have their providers blocked, and after it is explained to them along with logfiles to support my blocks, my clients are right behind me in blocking ranges. To me it isn't the automated blocking isn't that hard to do, that's what shell scripting is for and I have no problems blocking huge blocks (/8's) if need be. As I stated, if I can take the time to make sure nothing malicious is leaving my networks - which altogether is now comprised of about a /16 if I added all ranges up - then why can't some of these other networks do the same. Especially the ones who can actually afford to go out and drop a couple of thousand, even hundreds of thousands on so called security products. If I can do it via ACL's, Linux boxes, syslog, etc., without incurring more costs to my clients, surely some of you bigger cats can do the same. I look at is a bad policy, laziness, and lack of a clue or two. And I sincerely mean this in the utmost non-disrespectful logical - call it how I see it manner. No reason to have filth leaving your network. If it does its because of bureaucratic BS (policies), lack of how to administrate a network correctly or laziness. Maybe my next step will be to post some of the emails from admins who were contacted and responded with the same old "Oh our abuse desk is right now it." Or some other generic crap, all the while my net is getting hit up. Or to re-state the strangeness coming from a response from a CISSP in NASA: "We were doing test on our network which is why your machine was getting bruteforced..." Oh really? On a side note, kudos to those who do take the time to respond, and to those who actually take a minute or two to digest it all in after I've rambled on for too long... Next thread anyone ;) -- ==================================================== J. Oquendo http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1383A743 sil . infiltrated @ net http://www.infiltrated.net The happiness of society is the end of government. John Adams * J. Oquendo <sil(a)infiltrated.net>

1 0

Reminder: NANOG 40 presentation proposals due Thursday
by Steve Feldman 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

A reminder that proposals for presentations at NANOG 40 are due this Thursday, April 12. See http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0706/ callforpresent.html for more information. Also, meeting registration is now open, and hotel reservations are available. See the main NANOG site, http://www.nanog.org for details. Steve Feldman PC Chair

1 0

Slightly OT: Looking for an old domain for spam collection
by Ken Simpson 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

Hi There, Does anyone out there have an unused domain name that formerly received lots of email? I am looking for a source of "throw away" SMTP traffic. I don't need to own the domain -- just to have its MX'es redirected to our farm. Karma and humor will be gladly provided in exchange for your generosity. Thanks! Ken -- Ken Simpson, CEO MailChannels Corporation Reliable Email Delivery (tm) http://www.mailchannels.com

7 13

Localized Root Servers in Europe?
by Martin Hannigan 09 Apr '07

09 Apr '07

"Furthermore, at least one large ISP in Europe is doing the same thing, redirecting root server traffic to their own servers." http://www.circleid.com/posts/submit_comment/splitting_root_too_late/ "Furthermore, at least one large ISP in Europe is doing the same thing, redirecting root server traffic to their own servers. " Which large European operator has implemented this solution? I would love to see a talk at the next NANOG about how this works and how it performs. Best Regards, Martin (Note: Article quote slightly out of context. I tried to keep it to what may be on topic here..)

2 2

RE: Blocking mail from bad places
by Scott Weeks 08 Apr '07

08 Apr '07

--- michael.dillon(a)bt.com wrote:---------------- > Hey, you've just described the FUSSP! :-( Solution!? Since when is a description of one aspect of the problem, considered to be the solution. In a nutshell I said that the email SPAM problem is getting worse, not just measured by SPAM volumes or number of new SPAM techniques, but measured by the number of people turning to non-email communications channels. ------------------------------------------------- Part of what you said was this: > : Soon Internet email will be like IRC, a quaint > : service for Internet enthusiasts and oldtimers, > : but not a useful tool for businesses or ordinary > : individuals. What I meant was: when only a few folks use email, the spammers will go away. Like parasites on a dead animal body. The spammer-parasites will find something else to devour. Besides, it was just a joke. I should've turned my smiley around. ;-) scott

14 20