headers
Phil Dyer | 1 Feb 01:38

Re: US DOJ victim letter

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis <at> lewis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Bryan Horstmann-Allen wrote:

>> Bit odd, if it's a phish. Even more odd if it's actually from the Fed.
>
>
> It's definitely real, but seems like they're handling it as incompetently as
> possible.

Yep. That sounds about right.

Man, I'm feeling left out. I kinda want one now.

phil
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Greg Raileanu | 1 Feb 01:41
Favicon

Re: Route Optimization Software / Appliance

Hi.
Just FYI, we have already launched a stable release.
Feel free to contact me off-list if interested.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ryan Pavely | 1 Feb 01:43
Favicon

Re: US DOJ victim letter

I really enjoyed the fact that I called the number, on what I learned 
later was a "Sample", and when I picked the option to speak with an 
agent I got "The mailbox is full" message.  I feel safe...

   Ryan Pavely
    Director Research And Development
    Net Access Corporation
    http://www.nac.net/

On 01/31/2012 7:38 PM, Phil Dyer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jon Lewis<jlewis <at> lewis.org>  wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Bryan Horstmann-Allen wrote:
>>> Bit odd, if it's a phish. Even more odd if it's actually from the Fed.
>>
>> It's definitely real, but seems like they're handling it as incompetently as
>> possible.
>
> Yep. That sounds about right.
>
> Man, I'm feeling left out. I kinda want one now.
>
> phil
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kelvin Williams | 1 Feb 01:49

Fwd: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks)

I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP.  :)

We're still not out of the woods, announcing /24s and working with upper
tier carriers to filter out our lists.  However, I just got this response
from Phoenix NAP and found it funny.  The "thief" is a former customer,
whom we terminated their agreement with.  They then forged an LOA,
submitted it to CWIE.net and Phoenix NAP and resumed using space above and
beyond their terminated agreement.  So now any request for assistance to
stop our networks from being announced is now responded to with an
instruction to contact the thief's lawyer.

kw

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kelvin Williams <kwilliams <at> altuscgi.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements
To: noc <at> phoenixnap.com

We'll be forwarding this to our peers in the industry--rather funny that
Phoenix NAP would rather send us to the attorney of the people stealing our
space than bothering to perform an ARIN WHOIS search, or querying any of
the IRRs.

Interesting...  Very interesting...  So, who all do you have
there--spammers and child pornographers?  Is this level of protection what
you give to them all?

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Brandon S <BrandonS <at> phoenixnap.com> wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 59 comments |
headers
goemon | 1 Feb 01:56

Re: Fwd: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks)

I think the correct term for this is "bullet proof hosting". Now you know 
where to go.

-Dan

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, Kelvin Williams wrote:

> I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP.  :)
>
> We're still not out of the woods, announcing /24s and working with upper
> tier carriers to filter out our lists.  However, I just got this response
> from Phoenix NAP and found it funny.  The "thief" is a former customer,
> whom we terminated their agreement with.  They then forged an LOA,
> submitted it to CWIE.net and Phoenix NAP and resumed using space above and
> beyond their terminated agreement.  So now any request for assistance to
> stop our networks from being announced is now responded to with an
> instruction to contact the thief's lawyer.
>
> kw
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Kelvin Williams <kwilliams <at> altuscgi.com>
> Date: Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements
> To: noc <at> phoenixnap.com
>
>
> We'll be forwarding this to our peers in the industry--rather funny that
> Phoenix NAP would rather send us to the attorney of the people stealing our
> space than bothering to perform an ARIN WHOIS search, or querying any of
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Mario Eirea | 1 Feb 02:09

Re: Wireless Recommendations

Aruba AP 105. This version comes with a virtual controller that can manage 16 APs without the need of an
additional controller. For high capacity areas I would go with Ruckus. 

-Mario Eirea

On Jan 31, 2012, at 11:46 AM, "Joel jaeggli" <joelja <at> bogus.com> wrote:

> On 1/30/12 12:46 , Jim Gonzalez wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>>                I am looking for a Wireless bridge or Router that will
>> support 600 wireless clients concurrently (mostly cell phones).  I need it
>> for a proof of concept. 
> 
> an aruba controller and 8 dual radio aps.
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks in advance
>> 
>> Jim 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
David Conrad | 1 Feb 02:15

Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks)

> I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP.  :)

In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:

- A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started announcing address space a customer of theirs
provided.  Unfortunately, the address space wasn't the ISP's customer's to provide.
- When the ISP was notified by both their RIR and the organization to which the address space was rightfully
delegated, the ISP's response was:

"We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that space.  We have neither a
contractual relationship (in this context) with the RIR nor the RIR's customer.  The RIR and/or the RIR's
customer should resolve this issue with our customer."

It as an eye-opening experience.

Regards,
-drc

On Jan 31, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Kelvin Williams wrote:

> 
> We're still not out of the woods, announcing /24s and working with upper
> tier carriers to filter out our lists.  However, I just got this response
> from Phoenix NAP and found it funny.  The "thief" is a former customer,
> whom we terminated their agreement with.  They then forged an LOA,
> submitted it to CWIE.net and Phoenix NAP and resumed using space above and
> beyond their terminated agreement.  So now any request for assistance to
> stop our networks from being announced is now responded to with an
> instruction to contact the thief's lawyer.
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 54 comments |
headers
PC | 1 Feb 02:26
Picon

Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks)

Curious, What was the outcome of this?

In any case, I'm hoping the major Tier-1s do the right thing and filter the
rogue annoucements, while allowing the OP's.  Hopefully after enough
pressure and dysfunction, they will give it up.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:15 PM, David Conrad <drc <at> virtualized.org> wrote:

> > I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix NAP.
>  :)
>
> In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
>
> - A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started announcing
> address space a customer of theirs provided.  Unfortunately, the address
> space wasn't the ISP's customer's to provide.
> - When the ISP was notified by both their RIR and the organization to
> which the address space was rightfully delegated, the ISP's response was:
>
> "We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that
> space.  We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with
> the RIR nor the RIR's customer.  The RIR and/or the RIR's customer should
> resolve this issue with our customer."
>
> It as an eye-opening experience.
>
> Regards,
> -drc
>
> On Jan 31, 2012, at 4:49 PM, Kelvin Williams wrote:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Kelvin Williams | 1 Feb 02:31

Re: [#135346] Unauthorized BGP Announcements (follow up to Hijacked Networks)

We started announcing /24s, combined with the shorter path it seems to be
fine.

Still jumping through hoops upstream.
On Jan 31, 2012 8:26 PM, "PC" <paul4004 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Curious, What was the outcome of this?
>
> In any case, I'm hoping the major Tier-1s do the right thing and filter
> the rogue annoucements, while allowing the OP's.  Hopefully after enough
> pressure and dysfunction, they will give it up.
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:15 PM, David Conrad <drc <at> virtualized.org> wrote:
>
>> > I hope none of you ever get hijacked by a spammer housed at Phoenix
>> NAP.  :)
>>
>> In the dim past, I had a somewhat similar situation:
>>
>> - A largish (national telco of a small country) ISP started announcing
>> address space a customer of theirs provided.  Unfortunately, the address
>> space wasn't the ISP's customer's to provide.
>> - When the ISP was notified by both their RIR and the organization to
>> which the address space was rightfully delegated, the ISP's response was:
>>
>> "We have a contractual relationship with our customer to announce that
>> space.  We have neither a contractual relationship (in this context) with
>> the RIR nor the RIR's customer.  The RIR and/or the RIR's customer should
>> resolve this issue with our customer."
>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Ronald Bonica | 1 Feb 02:29
Favicon

RE: US DOJ victim letter

Folks,

I received a DoJ Victim Notification letter yesterday, which was pretty amazing considering the fact that
I don't run a network.

My letter referenced "United States v. Menachem Youlus". I suspect that the letters that you guys received
referenced a different case. Do I have that right?

                                                      Ron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Dyer [mailto:phil <at> cluestick.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 7:39 PM
> To: nanog <at> nanog.org
> Subject: Re: US DOJ victim letter
> 
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis <at> lewis.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Bryan Horstmann-Allen wrote:
> 
> >> Bit odd, if it's a phish. Even more odd if it's actually from the
> Fed.
> >
> >
> > It's definitely real, but seems like they're handling it as
> incompetently as
> > possible.
> 
> 
> Yep. That sounds about right.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane