Slashdot Mirror

Who cares about TLDs, what I want to know is who controls the IPs?

It's not how many are free now.. It's how fast we are consuming the space.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

Eleven /8 blocks where assigned this year (06). There is 71 blocks left, of which some are not usable (10/8, 127/8, ..), so that leaves about 6 years of ipv4 address space with current consumption.

Tighter address (re)usage and (even) more NAT are likely to into place before that.

Someone should tell IANA about that...

You misunderstood it.
The conversation is about IP VERSION not IP PROTOCOL NUMBER, that are assigned by IANA: http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers

If you're going to convince people you're all about security, you don't do "port23". You do "port22".

If anyone's confused, take a look at /etc/services on your local *nix. Failing that, take a look at the IANA assigned port numbers reference.

(2000::/16 - 3fff::/16)

... which happens to be equivalent to 2000::/3, but yes, the "s" pretty much takes the cake.

HP+DEC has two entire class A (isn't it interesting that they were side by side?)

Whoa. Working from your document, if this trend contiues they will next buy Apple, and then MIT. That would be a powerhouse indeed.

Although really, they should go the other way, buying Xerox and nabbing whatever the hell 14/8 is used for. Then they could have the world's only /6. That would either be the world's coolest dorky thing, or the world's dorkiest cool thing. I can't tell which.

• BBN has three entire class A
• HP+DEC has two entire class A (isn't it interesting that they were side by side?)
• Halliburton has their own class A
• multicast reserves 16 x class A but is largely unused

They received their Class A in 1992. So that may have been the case, but then they received theirs before IBM and even the USPS.

Without more details, I'd say it's a case of forward thinking.

They are part of the IANA reserved IP blocks. There are many of them. Currently they shouldn't be used anywhere, but no future guarantees.

Reference:

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

I can't speak to suitabilty for firewalling (perhaps the Chinese govt could help, there;)), but I have found this list - http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space - to be quite useful in a couple instances of trying to determine where a give class A block is registered.

If I understand this,
RIPE == Europe
APNIC == Asia/Pacific
AfriNIC == Africa
ARIN == US

There is probably more to that, but I leave that as an exercise for those enquiring minds that want to know...

Well whoever own the 34/8 subnet, they are getting used as a source for some spoofed packets Im seeing on my router trying to access a high number port. Almost looks like a scan for a Trojan.

But then again, are they really being spoofed? Who can say for sure. Im still keeping in mind that that has been a part of my firewall ruleset for over 6 years, and April of this year was the first month I saw them from that address/port.

Take a look at who owns that netblock.

The United Nations
The European Union
NATO
Interpol
World Health Organization
International Civil Aviation Organization
The International Telecommunications Union
The Red Cross

I don't know what to say about this one though:
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR)

And more: Google it

Not to mention the sloppy rules for registration:

To register in the .int domain, the applicant must be an intergovernmental organization that meets the requirements found in RFC 1591. In brief, the .int domain is used for registering organizations established by international treaties between or among national governments. Only one registration is allowed for each organization. There is no fee for registering an .int domain name.

What about the sole (both administrator and technical) contact for the entire Iraq domain?

Try here http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ip-addresses.htm and here http://www.cert.mil/techtips/whois_by_ipaddr.htm as starting places.

Under a rock, I imagine - I thought IANA's authority trumped anything local.

No - here are the details of the 40,000 or so AS numbers handed out by IANA. There is also a set of weekly statistics posted on NANOG which shows that 21,484 of these AS numbers can be seen in the global routing table. Only 8,867 of these guys advertise a single prefix, so to get 181,747 routes there are a lot of ASes advertising multiple prefixes.

fwiw, http://google.ch/ is great for people in Switzerland.

According to IANA, anyway. Their servers crash because they "open their doors" to 1,000-odd people? Pathetic.

Oops. I actually meant this letter: http://www.iana.org/cctld/af/razeeq-letter-13aug02 .pdf.

Although I think the first letter is suspicious enough in itself.

Kieren

I wrote the story in question. You clearly didn't look very hard. Here is a link to a pdf of the letter "signed" by Mohammed Stanekzai - http://www.iana.org/cctld/af/stanekzai-to-iana-10a ug02.pdf.

You can read the IANA report here. You should also note the miraculously good timing of the letter in terms of US administration control.

I tried to contact Mr Stanekzai by phone and email after the takeover and failed. No one had heard a thing from him from the first day of the bombing of Kabul. And yet the US on the ground had found him and got him to agree to hand over the whole Afghan internet domain. Incredible. US representatives were also unfortunately unable to tell me how I might be able to contact Mr Stanekzai. For a man that ran an entire's country's Internet, you would think Mr Stanekzai would also be able to access his email.

Kieren

I wrote the story in question. You clearly didn't look very hard. Here is a link to a pdf of the letter "signed" by Mohammed Stanekzai - http://www.iana.org/cctld/af/stanekzai-to-iana-10a ug02.pdf.

You can read the IANA report here. You should also note the miraculously good timing of the letter in terms of US administration control.

I tried to contact Mr Stanekzai by phone and email after the takeover and failed. No one had heard a thing from him from the first day of the bombing of Kabul. And yet the US on the ground had found him and got him to agree to hand over the whole Afghan internet domain. Incredible. US representatives were also unfortunately unable to tell me how I might be able to contact Mr Stanekzai. For a man that ran an entire's country's Internet, you would think Mr Stanekzai would also be able to access his email.

Kieren

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

grep for "iana reserved"

Some more Russian profanity, from exotic lands far away: http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm

nafi.ga (Gabon)
su.ca (Canada)
zho.pa (Panama)
h.er (Eritrea)
dur.ac (Ascension Island)
pedof.il (Israel)
mnepoe.by (Belorussia)
pidar.as (American Samoa)
eb.an (Netherlands Antilles)
idina.hu (Hungary)

Not Russian, but still fun:
*.bj (Benin) No comments necessary.
ba.ca (Canada) Just for you, anime fanboys :-)

This is by no means exhaustive, of course.

Sigh... You don't seem to understand the difference between SMTP and HTTP. You also forgot part of the announcement:

"These clients are not available on Linux, due to patent restrictions on HardenedHTTP and HardenedSMTP. Systems administrators: you must upgrade to Microsoft Exchange Server 12 and Microsoft IIS 7.1 for Windows Server, or Apple OS X Server 12 with iWeb and iMail servers. Other mail servers do not support the patented NoSpam(TM) authentication protocols."

It may be just that simple... but that's not very simple.

This comment advocates a

( ) technical (x) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam . Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
(X) System administrators will not put up with it
(x) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(x) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasu

-1, wrong.

tftp 69/tcp Trivial File Transfer
tftp 69/udp Trivial File Transfer

Also, congress probably will not be able to choose the port number...
* 1. UNASSIGNED PORT NUMBERS SHOULD NOT BE USED. THE IANA WILL ASSIGN *
* THE NUMBER FOR THE PORT AFTER YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN APPROVED. *
—http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers (last updated 17 November 2005)

-1, wrong.

tftp 69/tcp Trivial File Transfer
tftp 69/udp Trivial File Transfer
—http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers (last updated 17 November 2005)

Well... not quite. Blocking *.xxx names from a DNS server would not prevent one from accessing questionable sites directly by IP address. Of course, with many wesites sharing IP addresses via virtual servers, that access doesn't work so well these days... and requiring such sharing (with the default IP address site being clean) might not be too onerous a regulatory measure. And there's the additional problem that ISPs would have pressure to block DNS queries to XXX, which in the future would relegate a complete DNS feed to the same bin as a complete NNTP feed is these days: rare, premium pay, and mostly the province of perverts. But these are fairly minor socio-technical issues.

The real problem with the Orem loon's suggestion is that of those 65000 "channels" she refers to, a lot already have dedicated traffic, and we need some for on-the fly outgoing connections. (Although removing all outgoing port connections would clean up the internet completely....) Still, the Port 30 suggestion above is about as good as this could hope for.

It was short sighted of the Bush administration to block the XXX domain. I suspect the main problem is that they don't want ANY sexually explict material out there, and the XXX domain would "legitimize" it. On the other hand, considering how whitehouse.com looked for a couple years, I can only imaging what whitehouse.xxx would turn out to be like. Maybe that worry was really behind their objection....

....Currently we have less than 50 percent world-wide Internet penetration, and we have used most of the address space....

We keep hearing this, but what isn't emphasized is that there are over 75(!) class A-equivalent (/8) networks available that IANA is holding in reserve.

In fact, organizations are returning /8 networks to IANA control and they are not being reallocated.

Does IANA have an unpublished agenda to force IPV6 upon us?

Currently we have less than 50 percent world-wide Internet penetration, and we have used most of the address space.

Um, no.

Take a look at the IPv4 address space. Over a third of the addresses are still unused.

Now, I understand that this is a result of the stingyness in handing out IPv4 addresses due to the address crunch -- I'm ready for IPv6 to go mainstream, so the /48 I get from freenet6 will be usable -- goodbye silly NAT hacks! -- but the statement that we're nearly out of addresses is untrue.

I wonder how the Iraq ccTLD (.iq) might have been handled under UN governance - although I am not particularly biased on this issue I found it interesting that the process was well underway almost 18 months ago, and that the legitimacy of the 'Coalition Provisional Authority' was accepted apparently without question. Strange this not be considered when the criminal history of the previous custodian was of paramount importance.

http://www.iana.org/reports/iq-report-05aug05.pdf
In June 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority formally contacted ICANN regarding the steps necessary for redelegation of the .IQ ccTLD. In December 2004, Prime Minister Allawi sent ICANN a letter designating the appropriate party representing Iraq and requesting that ICANN begin the process of redelegating the domain to the National Communications and Media Commission of Iraq.

Conclusion
The structure proposed by NCMC [National Communications and Media Commission] and endorsed by the Iraq Government is to have NCMC undertake management of the .IQ ccTLD under appropriate oversight of the Iraq Government concerning the national policy interests. NCMC and the Iraq Government also acknowledge and support ICANN's responsibility for coordinating management of the DNS, including the .IQ ccTLD, to safeguard global technical coordination interests. In reviewing the request, in light of the Iraq Government's endorsement of NCMC as the appropriate manager, the IANA concludes that the .IQ ccTLD should be redelegated to NCMC.

* Off-topic, but can someone explain to me why (at least with ISC dhcpd) I can't assign IPs on two different subnets on the same physical LAN? Can this be done with a different DHCP server? Is there any kind of limitation to the protocol that makes this impossible, or is it just an implementation problem?

See the IPv6 address space allocations, published by IANA. As another poster mentioned, if your IPv6 address doesn't start with a 2 or a 3, you don't have IPv6 connectivity.

the generic Top level domains are .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro .travel .gov domain is reserved exclusively for the United States Government, .edu, .mil domain is reserved exclusively for the United States Military, .int domain is used only for registering organizations established by international treaties between governments;
there are 235 country codes controlled by the respective countries and they can do as they please with them, I have a domain registered through the Kingdom of Tonga

the generic Top level domains are .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro .travel .gov domain is reserved exclusively for the United States Government, .edu, .mil domain is reserved exclusively for the United States Military, .int domain is used only for registering organizations established by international treaties between governments;
there are 235 country codes controlled by the respective countries and they can do as they please with them, I have a domain registered through the Kingdom of Tonga

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

grep for "Reserved"

It's "not worth it" simply because of the greedy bastards hoarding those /8's. Let's see who is hoarding all that space...
003/8 - GE
004/8, 008/8, 046/8 - BBN
009/8 - IBM
015/8 - HP
016/8 - DEC
017/8 - Apple
018/8 - MIT
019/8 - Ford ...
045/8 - Interop Show Network !!

And then there's the US GOVERNMENT with 8+ /8's -- more if you count the number of big contractors holding /8's.

does East Timor get it's own 2-letter country code or not?

East Timor does have it's own country code, .tp. I've got some East Timorese websites bookmarked.

I was just about to go attempt to register an Iq domain when I found this. No mention of Texas for the Iq domain, it all says "Bagdad". Not sure what that means, but I figured I'd throw it out there.

In any case, you can register an .Iq domain here. Since this particular site bundles trademarks with domain names, I imagine that there are probably quite a few other sites that allow you to register .Iq domains.

BTW, I just answered my own question.

http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space

HTH

The three major Transport Layer (DoD model) protocols in TCP/IP are TCP, UDP, and ICMP. There are others, like IGMP and other multicasting protocols, but these are not as major as those three.

There are quite a few more than that.

Let them try to take control of the Internet. We have nothing to worry about because all they will do is write carefully worded letters.

Seriously, why does the UN need to be involved? I thought that each country had control over its own TLD, and assigned number authorities are assigned to each continent. . The root servers themselves are located all over the world.

AFAIK, the only thing the US really has a "monopoly" on is the .com, .net, and .org domains, as well as anything else ICANN may want to create. But for the UN to use that as a pretext to take over the ENTIRE Internet? I don't think so. Besides you only have to take one look at their track record to extrapolate the doom of the Internet should they somehow push this through.

You'd think there would be some restriction against 1-letter TLDs, but I can't find anything in the RFCs. I did find RFC 1591, which says "it is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created", besides the country-code TLDs and the generic TLDs: EDU, COM, ORG, NET, GOV, MIL, and INT. I'd imagine that due to this, there's some code out there that assumes TLDs must be exactly 2 or 3 letters long.

Four-letter top-level domains (INFO and NAME, along with BIZ) have been around since 2001. Other new gTLDs have been added since then: MUSEUM, COOP, AERO, PRO, with JOBS possibly on the way. The full info can be found at the IANA. I've seen a few BIZ and INFO domains, and an AERO domain once. I don't think I've seen any of the others. On the whole, I'd say none of them ever really caught on. And yet they've got a few more in the works. Morons!

Read what this guy writes with a pinch of salt - he can't even get basic facts right.

http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ip-addresses.htm

IANA is actually who allocates IP addresses by allocating blocks to various other agencies like ARIN and RIPE.

kashani

Your assuming that the 'port' concept is universal to all protocols above the IP layer. There is much more than just TCP and UDP traffic flying around. http://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/

IPv7 is taken as is IPv8 and IPv9...we're up to IPv10. Somehow I think we'll need more than four bits in this field in the foreseeable future. Maybe IPv69 will be the one that finally takes off.

Whoa, so you're still running the OS X beta or what?

Ever since 10.3 Safari does resumable downloads. And if you want a proper FTP program:

Cyberduck is free, it's even GPL (w00t!) and it's pure Cocoa beauty
http://cyberduck.ch/

P.S.: and no, that .ch doesn't mean China

=)

I must admit I had never figured that port 0 was valid but I can't see any reason in RFC 793 - Transmission Control Protocol that prohibits port 0 being used and IANA's port number document merely says that it is "reserved".

However :

# sshd -p 0 -D
Bad port number.

it might be a neat hack if firewalls skip port 0 or some such

port 53 is DNS not SMB (135-139)
if they blocked 53 you wouldnt get very far unless memorising ip addresses is your thing

http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers