North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: 2001:590::/32 announced by both AS4436 (nLayer) and AS4474(Global Village, no contact in whois, but seems to be nLayer...)
- From: Jeroen Massar
- Date: Tue Mar 16 09:43:08 2004
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> Before you started a rant on firstname.lastname@example.org 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
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 email@example.com as well as the
> firstname.lastname@example.org 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 (email@example.com)
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?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook
Comment: Jeroen Massar / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----