41/8 announcement

This came in from someone in Italy..

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  *****
Date: May 24, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: 41/8 announcement
To: rmikisagmail.com


> >Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT there
adsl clients but
> >instead of using the rfc1918 space like most
people, they use
> >unassigned
> >global /8s. Well 41/8 is one of there NATted
allocations for Turin. No
> >amount of emails will get them to respond, calling
isn't any better
> >as I
> >get only Italian speaking people at the other end.
Any ideas out
> >there?

Yes: you lose, sorry. 
Many of their networking people are less than clueful, and I
fear that
they are not going to renumber a whole city just to let
their customers
communicate with a few African networks...
Let me know if you need more information.
(Feel free to repost this if needed, but please remove my
name.)

--
ciao,
*******

-- 
cheers
Richard

 so how many ISPs will shun fastweb for hijacking address
space?
 (please do -NOT- respond, its a retorical question...)

--bill


On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:37:12AM +0300, Richard Mikisa
wrote:
> 
> This came in from someone in Italy..
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From:  *****
> Date: May 24, 2006 11:15 AM
> Subject: Re: 41/8 announcement
> To: rmikisagmail.com
> 
> 
> >>Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT
there adsl clients but
> >>instead of using the rfc1918 space like most
people, they use
> >>unassigned
> >>global /8s. Well 41/8 is one of there NATted
allocations for Turin. No
> >>amount of emails will get them to respond,
calling isn't any better
> >>as I
> >>get only Italian speaking people at the other
end. Any ideas out
> >>there?
> 
> Yes: you lose, sorry. 
> Many of their networking people are less than clueful,
and I fear that
> they are not going to renumber a whole city just to let
their customers
> communicate with a few African networks...
> Let me know if you need more information.
> (Feel free to repost this if needed, but please remove
my name.)
> 
> --
> ciao,
> *******
> 
> -- 
> cheers
> Richard

On May 24, 2006, at 4:37 AM, Richard Mikisa wrote:
[...]
>> >Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT
there adsl clients but
>> >instead of using the rfc1918 space like most
people, they use
>> >unassigned
>> >global /8s. Well 41/8 is one of there NATted
allocations for  
>> Turin. No
>> >amount of emails will get them to respond,
calling isn't any better
>> >as I
>> >get only Italian speaking people at the other
end. Any ideas out
>> >there?
>
> Yes: you lose, sorry. 
> Many of their networking people are less than clueful,
and I fear that
> they are not going to renumber a whole city just to let
their  
> customers
> communicate with a few African networks...

One of the points of NAT is to make renumbering easy.  Silly
them.

I have a rule: Your network, your rules.  If they want to be
 
disconnected from Africa, you can't stop them.  And they
are not  
"hijacking" the /8, it is not announced on the
'Net.  This is  
identical to a null route inside their ASN.  I would never
dream of  
telling them they cannot decide which netblocks should be
routeable  
inside their own ASN.

Fortunately, I have another rule: My network, my rules.  If
someone  
can find the real addresses for FastWeb uses for the NAT
pool and  
post it here (and other *NOG lists), networks can ensure
that  
FastWeb's end users will be unable to communicate with a
lot more  
than "a few African networks".  I think the show
of solidarity would  
be good for the 'Net.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Well, the noise helped some. We now have connectivity to
fastweb net.

On 5/24/06, bmanningvacation.karoshi.com <bmanningvacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
>  so how many ISPs will shun fastweb for hijacking
address space?
>  (please do -NOT- respond, its a retorical question...)
>
> --bill
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:37:12AM +0300, Richard
Mikisa wrote:
> >
> > This came in from someone in Italy..
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From:  *****
> > Date: May 24, 2006 11:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: 41/8 announcement
> > To: rmikisagmail.com
> >
> >
> > >>Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT
there adsl clients but
> > >>instead of using the rfc1918 space like
most people, they use
> > >>unassigned
> > >>global /8s. Well 41/8 is one of there
NATted allocations for Turin. No
> > >>amount of emails will get them to respond,
calling isn't any better
> > >>as I
> > >>get only Italian speaking people at the
other end. Any ideas out
> > >>there?
> >
> > Yes: you lose, sorry. 
> > Many of their networking people are less than
clueful, and I fear that
> > they are not going to renumber a whole city just
to let their customers
> > communicate with a few African networks...
> > Let me know if you need more information.
> > (Feel free to repost this if needed, but please
remove my name.)
> >
> > --
> > ciao,
> > *******
> >
> > --
> > cheers
> > Richard
>


-- 
cheers
Richard

On Wed, 24 May 2006, Richard Mikisa wrote:

> Well, the noise helped some. We now have connectivity
to fastweb net.

How was that achieved if their users still are within 41/8
locally?

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
williamelan.net

william(at)elan.net wrote:

>
> On Wed, 24 May 2006, Richard Mikisa wrote:
>
>> Well, the noise helped some. We now have
connectivity to fastweb net.
>
>
> How was that achieved if their users still are within
41/8 locally?
>
Can't be sure what they did, but I received an e-mail
asking me to check 
on my connectivity to them and well, it worked. From e-mails
received, 
turns out they have known about this for awhile now but just
didn't want 
to foot the cost of re-numbering. They claim they the clean
up work is 
on-going.

-- 
Richard

well they're not really hijacking it - as in they are not
announcing it or affecting unrelated networks on the
internet

its no different than a private firewall/security policy,
except we know they're doing it because they're broken not
because they intend to be denying connectivity to those
networks.

Steve

On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 10:31:24AM +0000, bmanningvacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> 
>  so how many ISPs will shun fastweb for hijacking
address space?
>  (please do -NOT- respond, its a retorical question...)
> 
> --bill
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:37:12AM +0300, Richard
Mikisa wrote:
> > 
> > This came in from someone in Italy..
> > 
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From:  *****
> > Date: May 24, 2006 11:15 AM
> > Subject: Re: 41/8 announcement
> > To: rmikisagmail.com
> > 
> > 
> > >>Turns out the folks at fastweb (Italy) NAT
there adsl clients but
> > >>instead of using the rfc1918 space like
most people, they use
> > >>unassigned
> > >>global /8s. Well 41/8 is one of there
NATted allocations for Turin. No
> > >>amount of emails will get them to respond,
calling isn't any better
> > >>as I
> > >>get only Italian speaking people at the
other end. Any ideas out
> > >>there?
> > 
> > Yes: you lose, sorry. 
> > Many of their networking people are less than
clueful, and I fear that
> > they are not going to renumber a whole city just
to let their customers
> > communicate with a few African networks...
> > Let me know if you need more information.
> > (Feel free to repost this if needed, but please
remove my name.)
> > 
> > --
> > ciao,
> > *******
> > 
> > -- 
> > cheers
> > Richard

-- 
Stephen J. Wilcox
BSc (Hons).  CCIE #10730
Technical Director, Telecomplete
http://www.telecomplet
e.co.uk/

      On Fri, 26 May 2006, Mikisa Richard wrote:
    > Can't be sure what they did, but I received an
e-mail asking me to check
    > on my connectivity to them and well, it worked.

Presumably they're double-natting.  I had to do that once
for Y2K 
compliance for three large governmental networks that were
all statically 
addressed in net-10 and wouldn't/couldn't renumber in
time.  In fact, 
there were _specific hosts_ which had the same IP address,
and _had to 
talk to each other_.  Gross.  But it can be done.

                                -Bill

On Fri, 26 May 2006, Bill Woodcock wrote:

>      On Fri, 26 May 2006, Mikisa Richard wrote:
>    > Can't be sure what they did, but I received an
e-mail asking me to check
>    > on my connectivity to them and well, it worked.
>
> Presumably they're double-natting.  I had to do that
once for Y2K
> compliance for three large governmental networks that
were all statically
> addressed in net-10 and wouldn't/couldn't renumber in
time.  In fact,
> there were _specific hosts_ which had the same IP
address, and _had to
> talk to each other_.  Gross.  But it can be done.

Please explain how. I simply can't imagine my computer
communicating
with another one with exactly same ip address - the packet
would never
leave it. The only way I see to achieve this is to have dns
resolver
on the fly convert remote addresses from same network into
some other
network and then NAT from those other addresses.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
williamelan.net

      On Fri, 26 May 2006, william(at)elan.net wrote:
    > The only way I see to achieve this is to have dns
resolver
    > on the fly convert remote addresses from same
network into some other
    > network and then NAT from those other addresses.

Split-horizon DNS, external to the clients, but basically,
yes.  Like I 
said, horrifically gross.

                                -Bill