Re: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474 (Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
[cc: to hostmaster@arin.net, maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null]
This is an odd thing to do because you don't say what action you would like ARIN to take. What do you think ARIN should do?
ASHandle: AS4474 Comment: The information for this ASN has been reported to Comment: be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment: been unsuccessful.
Clearly ARIN has already done something about AS4474. So what else do you think they should do? Note that you might want to take this type of discussion onto the ARIN Public Policy mailing list which is open to anyone whether they are an ARIN member or not. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html#ppml --Michael Dillon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael.Dillon@radianz.com wrote:
[cc: to hostmaster@arin.net, maybe now it will get their attention instead of going into /dev/null]
This is an odd thing to do because you don't say what action you would like ARIN to take. What do you think ARIN should do?
Maybe not clear from the message I sent to NANOG, but which should be clear to ARIN: Update the AS4474 contact information. Apparently nLayer is using it, thus they should be listed there. Then again it doesn't help as they are not reachable through the contact address (noc@nlayer.net) provided in the AS4436 object. One does get a XML ticket number back though. But no response whatsoever, except now from a customer of theirs.
ASHandle: AS4474 Comment: The information for this ASN has been reported to Comment: be invalid. ARIN has attempted to obtain updated data, but has Comment: been unsuccessful.
Clearly ARIN has already done something about AS4474.
Yup, stating that the ASN is in a completely uncontactable state, which is what I mentioned. RegDate: 1995-03-08 Updated: 2003-07-31 Thus from those two dates we can say that it has not been contactable for over almost a year.
So what else do you think they should do?
Contact nLayer and see what they are now doing with this ASN.
Note that you might want to take this type of discussion onto the ARIN Public Policy mailing list which is open to anyone whether they are an ARIN member or not. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html#ppml
Yes, I am aware of this list and also saw your proposal for making sure that objects that are in the ARIN registry also contain valid and contactable information. For people not having seen the petion for the proposal: http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/ppml/2593.html The above case makes your point clear very well as nLayer seems not to be available to comments on their noc@nlayer.net address _and_ they are using an ASN which is shown to be not contactable at all. I would add to the proposal that resources, thus ASN's/inet[6]num's and others that have been allocated at one point and when trying to verify the contacts for those addresses seem to be unreachable should be giving a month to respond and if not a public message should be sent out that the resource has been revoked tracing the origins of that resource to find organisations that are peering/accepting that resource and contact them to see if they have a contact for that resource. If a company is unable to respond in a month it is in a very very bad shape and should not be seen as a responsible entity on the internet. Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFcCzwAA7O0An279t7H4xDPUE/gyOzIgB8Yq 26awAJ40P8OEatMPI/hutAiLGcZSgI6lqA== =TL53 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Before you started a rant on nanog@merit.edu about this inconsistent-as problem on an inet6 route, did you think about posting a polite, "Please, someone from nlayer, contact me off-list," message; or how about an email to the inet6 carrier(s) from which you learnt the routes? It seems to me that you've taken an issue which could've been handled in a polite manner, and turned it into an nlayer-bashing thread. You have: 1) encouraged nlayer's peers to depeer them 2) accused nlayer of being spammers 3) forwarded private corrospondence you received from third parties in response to your original post back to nanog@merit.edu as well as the hostmaster@arin.net role account, as if the ARIN staff have nothing better to do than read your complaint about an AS# they have already marked as having invalid contact information. I think I prefer reading about the IRC packet kiddies. If OseK would care to lend his unique perspective and considerable insight to this thread, I would be most grateful. -- Jeff S Wheeler
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
Before you started a rant on nanog@merit.edu about this inconsistent-as problem on an inet6 route, did you think about posting a polite, "Please, someone from nlayer, contact me off-list," message; or how about an email to the inet6 carrier(s) from which you learnt the routes?
Which has been done already last year on this very list when it was already pointed out that they where not contactable. Yes, I checked the archives. As for the 'inet6 carrier' I learn the routes from, which of the 42? See http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/ for more information. Indeed we monitor the IPv6 routes to find & fix these anomalies where possible. Someone has to do the dirty job. Like I mentioned on the list Powerdcom, one of their upstreams, confirmed that nLayer was sending them the prefiix using AS4474. Just to be sure, it is also visible in RIS (http://ris.ripe.net) and on RouteViews.
It seems to me that you've taken an issue which could've been handled in a polite manner, and turned it into an nlayer-bashing thread.
If they would simply respond to inquiries that are sent to the contact address given in the whois for their ASN it wouldn't need to come to that. Also I have no intention on any bashing whatsoever as that is totally uncalled for and doesn't do any good either. They haven't responded to this inquiry yet either. This was the North American Network Operators Group list wasn't it?
You have:
1) encouraged nlayer's peers to depeer them
You mean that sentence at the bottom of the message clearly explaining the situation asking their peers to consider trying to contact them and if not possible to depeer? Which *IS* a normal action that ISP's should take when they cannot even reach a peer. Or do you simply let them linger away? You sound like I can force everyone to decide their network policy for them. I don't think so, I don't even want that.
2) accused nlayer of being spammers
Which they have proven to be, see last years NANOG threads.
3) forwarded private corrospondence you received from third parties
Which is indeed not such a polite thing to do, but was neccesary to be able to point out that their 'customers' do know about nLayer using an ASN that has been marked as a spam source since last year.
response to your original post back to nanog@merit.edu as well as the hostmaster@arin.net role account, as if the ARIN staff have nothing better to do than read your complaint about an AS# they have already marked as having invalid contact information.
For which they can now fill in the blanks as at least their customers and one of their upstream peers have mentioned that they are using it.
I think I prefer reading about the IRC packet kiddies.
Then use your blacklist and block message from me (jeroen@unfix.org) or using this subject. Quite easy isn't it?
If OseK would care to lend his unique perspective and considerable insight to this thread, I would be most grateful.
Sorry, but I guess you are confusing the humor list with NANOG. Apparently I hit quite a hot spot seeing some of the 'nice' 'private' replies being sent to me by 'customers' of nLayer. I wonder why there even is an internet if one can't even make a notice of some weird usage of Internet resources. But this subject is about why an ASN that is marked as uncontactable which also has been seen as a big spam source is being used by a entity which seems to be uncontactable, I am still waiting for their response and I am quite sure these messages have reached them by now. Or are they still 'migrating' from their spam/hijacked ASN to their own? Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQBGBAERAgAQCRApqihSMz58IwUCQFcRvAAAgxwAnRGWAgzZSmtaRVjZnVXZskrF fmGOAJ9lA43+u9Z768FOAgAZ++o2eGs5IQ== =rqS+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (3)
-
Jeff S Wheeler -
Jeroen Massar -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com