96.2.0.0/16 Bogons

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Eric Ortega wrote:

> I am a network engineer for Midcontinent Communications
We are an ISP in
> the American Midwest. Recently, we were allocated a new
network
> assignment: 96.2.0.0/16. We've been having major issues
with sites still
> blocking this network. I normally wouldn't blanket post
to the group,
> but I'm looking to hit as many direct network
engineers/operators as
> possible.  Would it be possible to have people do a
quick check on their
> inbound filters?

Pingable IP address in that network please 

- --
COO
Entanet International
T: 0870 770 9580
http://www.enta.net/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


iD8DBQFF4xiRR+KszLBLUT8RAnR/AJ43MzH5PUaTflUsPU95MUp4iuZolQCf
cJAZ
Y6j4ipQBBseS/VhdvT8ry6c=
=t+y8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> I am a network engineer for Midcontinent Communications
We are an ISP in
> the American Midwest. Recently, we were allocated a new
network
> assignment: 96.2.0.0/16. We've been having major issues
with sites still
> blocking this network. I normally wouldn't blanket post
to the group, but
> I'm looking to hit as many direct network
engineers/operators as possible.
> Would it be possible to have people do a quick check on
their inbound
> filters?

you may find the presentation i will be giving on thursday
(bali time)
at apricot/apnic relevant, even though it is not being given
in the
USA.

randy

> We found out last Thursday we were blocking that range
(our customer base is
> across the state line from this Midcon).  Our upstream
internet provider,
> who manages the BGP side of things, had had their
automated Bogon update
> process stalled since last fall. =)

frank, could your links be in

   http://psg.com/f
ilter-candidates.txt

would love to know if anyone knows that indeed they were
caught in
that list.  fyi, the ASns listed are.  would very much
appreciate 
  o if you see your asn listed
  o go to http://psg.com/f
ilter-candidates.txt
  o get the links associated with your as
  o and tell us if indeed that link was filtering 96/8 97/8
or 98/8
    about 22/23 jan 2007

thanks!

randy

174
209
286
293
701
702
703
721
1239
1267
1273
1299
1668
2152
2497
2500
2828
2854
2914
3257
3292
3320
3343
3356
3491
3549
3561
4323
4637
4755
4761
4766
5400
5539
5568
6429
6453
6461
6467
6471
6517
6619
6730
7018
7473
7474
7575
8468
8928
9942
10026
11908
11955
12180
12695
12956
13237
15412
15830
17557
19029
19094
19151
19158
19752
21318
21413
21414
21922
22291
22773
23342
23504
25462
25973
29226
29278
29668
32869

-30-

i know its all the rage to post/shame the offending parties
(those whois filtering
policies don't reflect our own) - BUT -   how hard would it
be for you perl jocks
to publish the ASNs of the "good guys"

--bill

> i know its all the rage to post/shame the offending
parties (those
> whois filtering policies don't reflect our own)

bull

we are trying to validate experimental results.  sorry if
that
offends you or you do your research result validation
differently.

randy

On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:25:13AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > i know its all the rage to post/shame the
offending parties (those
> > whois filtering policies don't reflect our own)
> 
> bull
> 
> we are trying to validate experimental results.  sorry
if that
> offends you or you do your research result validation
differently.
> 
> randy

	none taken... although "name/shame" as a
technique for
	validating experimetnal results is a tried & ture
method,
	an equally valid technique is to look in the other
direction
	and praise/name those whose practices match your expected
	results. ...  i'd prefer to see the full curve, not just
the
	sigma-six folks on the left side.


--bill

bmanningkaroshi.com wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:25:13AM +0900, Randy Bush
wrote:
>>> i know its all the rage to post/shame the
offending parties (those
>>> whois filtering policies don't reflect our
own)
>> bull
>>
>> we are trying to validate experimental results. 
sorry if that
>> offends you or you do your research result
validation differently.
>>
> 
> 	none taken... although "name/shame" as a
technique for
> 	validating experimetnal results is a tried & ture
method,
> 	an equally valid technique is to look in the other
direction
> 	and praise/name those whose practices match your
expected
> 	results. ...  i'd prefer to see the full curve, not
just the
> 	sigma-six folks on the left side.

your issues might be better based if you knew anything about
what was
happening instead of shooting off mouth in dark.

as i already said, but somehow you missed.  preso will be
this afternoon
(gmt+8).  i will try to post a pointer here.

randy

randy

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 07:49:40AM +0800, Randy Bush wrote:
> bmanningkaroshi.com wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 08:25:13AM +0900, Randy
Bush wrote:
> >>> i know its all the rage to post/shame the
offending parties (those
> >>> whois filtering policies don't reflect our
own)
> >> bull
> >>
> >> we are trying to validate experimental
results.  sorry if that
> >> offends you or you do your research result
validation differently.
> >>
> > 
> > 	none taken... although "name/shame" as
a technique for
> > 	validating experimetnal results is a tried &
ture method,
> > 	an equally valid technique is to look in the
other direction
> > 	and praise/name those whose practices match your
expected
> > 	results. ...  i'd prefer to see the full curve,
not just the
> > 	sigma-six folks on the left side.
> 
> your issues might be better based if you knew anything
about what was
> happening instead of shooting off mouth in dark.
> 
> as i already said, but somehow you missed.  preso will
be this afternoon
> (gmt+8).  i will try to post a pointer here.
> 
> randy

	your interpersonal skills are improving.
	will be interesting in the reported progress of your
experiments.
	
--bill (gmt+10)

> your interpersonal skills are improving.

well, at least i am actually doing research instead of doing
nothing but
blindly whining abour anything by others that moves.

e.g. you may want to contemplate the silliness of your
suggestion that
we list all the asns' links that were not troubled.  the
list of
suspected troubled links is a few kb.  the list of good
links would be
gigabytes and no one would look at it.

many thanks to those isps who have helped us with the
validation so far.
 the results have been quite cheering.

fwiw, the preso we gave a few hours ago on this research
project is at

   htt
p://rip.psg.com/~randy/070228.apnic-bogons.pdf

randy