- Test - lists.nanog.org

Re: mobile.att.net dead
by Alex Rubenstein 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

Yes, SkyTel^H^H^H^H^H^HMCI does have clueful folks -- they were one of the last paging companies we dealt with. Also on the very clued side, believe it or not, was Sprint Paging (dunno if they are around anymore) who resold PageNET, and recently, for us, TSR Wireless had extremely good service, and an unlimited paging product. On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, Vincent J. Bono wrote: > Skytel does both SNPP and TAP. > > We use them both, plus their tech staff were very helpful. > > -vb > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alex Rubenstein" <alex(a)nac.net> > To: <jspam(a)netbahamas.com> > Cc: "Kai Schlichting" <kai(a)pac-rim.net>; <nanog(a)merit.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:27 AM > Subject: Re: mobile.att.net dead > > > > > > > > OK, perhaps > > > > > > Back in the day when we had pagers (they still make those?), we'd find > > > > that emailing things to pagers wasn't the brightest idea around. > > > > should have read > > > > > > Back in the day when we had pagers (they still make those?), we'd find > > > > that USING IP to ACCESS OUR pagers wasn't the brightest idea around. > > > > > > On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, jspam(a)netbahamas.com wrote: > > > > > If you have a clueful paging provider, they should let you do SNPP. > Think > > > of it as TAP over IP. > > > > > > http://www.snpp.info/ > > > > > > > > -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- > > -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- > > > > > -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex(a)nac.net, latency, Al Reuben -- -- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net --

1 0

Re: The in-your-face hijacking example, was: Re: Who is announcing bogons?
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

At 06:09 AM 30-04-03 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: >That may be true, but what does a provider do when they are presented with >written 'authority to use address space' from a customer? Certianly if the >customer provides 'proper' documentation that the ip space is available >for them to route, and that they have authority from the 'owner' to do >this... what is an ISP to do? Aside from route the blocks? Just had a case today where a downstream "clueless" tier-4 ISP got a new customer. The "clueless" customer wants his /24 to be announced. We asked for proof of ownership. Clueless customer sends official letter to clueless tier-4 ISP, who tells us "route it now!" We do a check in APNIC and see it is part of a larger /19 assigned to someone else (probably clueless's customer former upstream ISP). We told clueless tier-4 ISP that we can't announce the /24. I am now waiting for an email stating "but Bulbul ISP never checked APNIC, so why should you?" These battles are won slowly and one at a time. -Hank

1 0

Re: Missing registrations (when is a bogon not a bogon)
by Hank Nussbacher 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

At 11:38 PM 29-04-03 -0400, Sean Donelan wrote: >Based on the e-mail I got, I think several people missed Hank Nussbacher >and Barry Greene's presentation at the last NANOG. We got a new volunteer, Terry Baranski to help out with the load. >http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/hank.pdf > >In the presentation they list several ASN and Network blocks in use, but >not registered in any database. We just got Lucent to correct their announcements. They had been announcing: Network Origin AS Description 135.0.0.0/13 10455 Lucent Technologies and with the help of Internap they have now fixed their announcement to comply with what appears in ARIN. >The US Department of Defense (AS 568) wins the prize for the most >unregistered network blocks being announced. But they weren't alone. If anyone can help out here - it would be appreciated. We have been sending emails to anyone and everyone in AS568 since January - all of them generating not a single reply. So if the US Military can hijack a few IPs, we will have a hard time convincing spammers and their shills to stop hijacking other available address space: Network Origin AS Description 132.0.0.0/10 568 DISO-UNRRA 137.0.0.0/13 568 DISO-UNRRA 158.0.0.0/13 568 DISO-UNRRA 192.153.136.0/21 568 DISO-UNRRA 192.172.0.0/19 568 DISO-UNRRA >If you are going to start blackholing unregistered network blocks, I >suggest checking if the current user has nuclear weapons. But once again, >which ISP's aren't filtering? Obviously, there are some since we do see these announcements pop up here and there. -Hank

1 0

Missing registrations (when is a bogon not a bogon)
by Sean Donelan 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

Based on the e-mail I got, I think several people missed Hank Nussbacher and Barry Greene's presentation at the last NANOG. http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0302/ppt/hank.pdf In the presentation they list several ASN and Network blocks in use, but not registered in any database. The US Department of Defense (AS 568) wins the prize for the most unregistered network blocks being announced. But they weren't alone. If you are going to start blackholing unregistered network blocks, I suggest checking if the current user has nuclear weapons. But once again, which ISP's aren't filtering?

1 0

Re: mobile.att.net dead
by George William Herbert 30 Apr '03

30 Apr '03

>If you are relying on AT&T's paging/SMS service (for your phones) to be >alerted to (most certainly undesirable) operational events (or if you are >replying to them via the 2-way SMS service), this is a good time for a >backup pager: [...] >Both are dead like a door stop, and we can speculate on wether they >are located in the same physical building, on the same routed interface, >and the same physical switch, which failed the single processor >blade driving both of them. POI: AT&T wireless service response to wireless phone trouble report about 30 min ago was that AT&T wireless and AT&T long distance stopped communicating a little while ago for reasons not clearly known to AT&T wireless. Facility somewhere go boom? Cable cut? -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com

2 1

Opinions on Qwest
by Steve Francis 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Anyone care to share their opinions on Qwest for transit currently? There was some talk about lack of clue/responsiveness in their noc about a year ago. How are things currently? Thanks. (No competing sales invitations, please sales people.)

2 1

Question about 223/8
by Jack Bates 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

I'm confused about the argument I believe that went on not too long ago concerning 223/8. What documentation governs how IANA allocates address space, including special use space? The reason I ask is that I was perusing RFC 3330 and noted that it specifically stated that the basis for the reservation of 223.255.255.0/24 no longer applied and that the block was subject to future allocation to a RIR. Yet there was an argument about it. -Jack

3 3

Time to bring back "Connected Status"
by Sean Donelan 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

In the beginning was the ARPANET, When SRI and BBN handled the NIC and NOC for the Internet, there was a field in the WHOIS database called "Connected Status." People could request IP networks (Class A/B/C) from SRI, but BBN would only route networks with the Connected Status on the ARPANET. You could do Whois queries to check the status of any network address. Companies could request IP addresses for internal use, without connected status. Around the time the NSFNET took over, the database sources started diverging. Connected Status was deleted from the WHOIS database. There was only one WHOIS database. NSFNET kept a seperate database of which networks were allowed to use the NSFNET. I know about all the routing specificiation language efforts, but is it possible to go back and do something simple? For networks which are announced on the Internet, add a Connected field to the regional address registries listing the AS Number(s) which could announce the network. Private, internal only networks would have an Unconnected status.

4 3

RE: Who is announcing bogons?
by McBurnett, Jim 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

Sean, I am not a BGP Guru by any means but as I see it: there are more than 25 /8 that should not be routed at all... And they are easily summarized.. some can be /6 or less... I never tried that.. But should work.... If I go to AT&T and ask for a list of what should be routed, That will be a huge list and not summarizeable. Although there are routers on the market that have massive amounts of RAM and can handle oodles of routes, and some ISP's may want to do this. BUT the average net user can easily take a BGP Feed of say 25 /8 and 50 /16 or so and /dev null all is fine. Using my example of the blockage of APNIC /8s.. SPAM SPAM GONE Away..... So can many other problems... (I ACL'd 4 /8 from APNIC on a Mail server and lost 60-70 % of the inbound SPAM... Nice test, Syslog didn't like it none.....) To me Rob provides a great service, which I am ashamed to say, I am falling down to implement... If I could /dev null some of the ole task list I would do it now.... Anyway, JMHO.... Jim >-----Original Message----- >From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com] >Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:16 PM >To: nanog(a)merit.edu >Subject: Who is announcing bogons? > > > >On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, Rob Thomas wrote: >> ] Rob, on the other hand, has gained a lot of trust in maintaining >> ] a highly accurate list. >> Thanks very much. :) I can't accept all the credit though. > My thanks >> go out to all the members of Team Cymru. > >Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished. Jon Postel did a great >job maintaining the list of IP addresses. Paul Vixie did a great job >with the first Real-Time Blackhole List. But people move on, >and things >change. > >But my real question is why are negative bogon lists necessary? If you >ask providers, they all say they implement positive prefix list filters >on all their customers. So who is injecting the bogons? And >why do they >still have a network connection? > >Should we be spending time teaching people how to do positive prefix >filters, or trying to explain to them why the negative prefix filter >the last network administrator installed 2 years ago is out of date. > >What is the cross-over point? When does the number of lines in a bogon >list become larger than the positive prefix filter? If you >are going to >list every sub-allocation which isn't routed, why not just list the >allocations which should be routed? > > >

4 3

RE: Class "B" IP BLOCK
by Mark Segal 29 Apr '03

29 Apr '03

> I understand ARIN has made it difficult to sell IP addresses. > We have fixed > this problem by creating a corporation whose only asset is > the block of IP > addresses. How do you show effective utilization after the transfer? Its not just the assets.. It is also the customer base. mark -- Mark Segal Director, Data Services Futureway Communications Inc. Tel: (905)326-1570

1 0