Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

> The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown,
which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.

What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.

As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...

I'm cutting the crosspost.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>>The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

>I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
>I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown,
>which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.

Why would you believe that?

>What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
>other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.

>As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...

Google has never counteracted spam.

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 21:52:33 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:

> Am 15.12.2023 um 20:45:06 Uhr schrieb Spiros Bousbouras:
>
>> I don't seem able to connect to IPv6 addresses in general so that's not
>> related to eternal-september.
>
> Then check if your system has an IPv6 address (not fe80 or fd00, those
> can't be used for internet communication).

This!

IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
routes magically start working when you get your users to disable IPv6.

Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere with
it.

Am 18.12.2023 um 12:19:45 Uhr schrieb noel:

> IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
> routes magically start working when you get your users to disable
> IPv6.

The something in the network is broken.

Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to
understand IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.

> Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
> with it.

Firewall admins must understand IPv6.

I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.

In article <ulp1ea$3e2k2$1@dont-email.me>,
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 18.12.2023 um 12:19:45 Uhr schrieb noel:
>
>> IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
>> routes magically start working when you get your users to disable
>> IPv6.
>
>The something in the network is broken.
>
>Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to
>understand IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
>Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.
>
>> Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
>> with it.
>
>Firewall admins must understand IPv6.
>
>I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.
>

I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

Am 18.12.2023 um 13:06:43 Uhr schrieb The Doctor:

> I need to get an IPv6 block myself.

You can get that from your local RIR, but you also need an ISP that is
willing to route that to your home.

On 12/18/23 02:55, Marco Moock wrote:
> The something in the network is broken.

I've run into plenty of network breakages in IPv6 that aren't broken in
IPv4.

Remember, the network of interconnected IPv4 devices is completely
different than the network of interconnected IPv6 devices. Even if they
use the same physical link, they are not the same network.

IPv4 could be compared to roads while IPv6 could be compared to rail.
(At least in the U.S.A.) There are far, Far, FAR more IPv4 routes /
miles of roads in than there IPv6 routes / miles of rail. Yes, many of
the same destinations have both IPv4 / road and IPv6 / rail
interconnecting them. However they many, if not likely, take completely
different paths between locations.

> Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to
> understand IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
> Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.

Puttying a raw dotted quad IPv4 address in an AAAA record is bad.
Putting an encoded IPv4 address in an AAAA is perfectly fine. There are
two or three common ways to do this.

> Firewall admins must understand IPv6.

IPv6 firewall admins must understand IPv6.

Not all firewalls handle IPv6 traffic and their admins don't /need/ to
understand IPv6. Though I completely agree that they /should/ have a
basic understanding of IPv6.

> I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.

I've run IPv6 personally and professionally for more than 15 years.

Most of the time IPv6 just works. Some of the times IPv6 breaks in
weird ways that IPv4 doesn't break. Sometimes the river has washed out
the rail bridge and the IPv6 route is broken while road around carries
IPv4 just fine. Two different routes for two different protocols.

There are more subtle IPv6 routing problems than I would expect to have
and it's very disappointing.

Some days I think DNSSEC adoption is going better than IPv6 deployment.

--
Grant. . . .

On 12/18/23 07:06, The Doctor wrote:
> I need to get an IPv6 block myself.

I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.

Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
provider and as such block access from them.

There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".

I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers. But mostly with
what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.

Grant. . . .

In article <ulph6a$3gslt$1@dont-email.me>,
Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> wrote:
>Am 18.12.2023 um 13:06:43 Uhr schrieb The Doctor:
>
>> I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
>
>You can get that from your local RIR, but you also need an ISP that is
>willing to route that to your home.
>

Just a local RIR in Canada then.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> I'm cutting the crosspost.
>
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> >Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote
>
> >>The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.
>
> >I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
> >I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown,
> >which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.
>
> Why would you believe that?
>
> >What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
> >other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.
>
> >As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...
>
> Google has never counteracted spam.
>

IMHO, Wally's off his trolley; either that or just plain trolling.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
<snipeco.1@gmail.com>

Google to close Usenet gateway; my pet rock Gordon cheered.

Am 18.12.2023 um 08:03:58 Uhr schrieb Grant Taylor:

> Puttying a raw dotted quad IPv4 address in an AAAA record is bad.
> Putting an encoded IPv4 address in an AAAA is perfectly fine. There
> are two or three common ways to do this.

As long as that address directs to a NAT64 gateway that is reachable
from the internet, that is fine. But some clueless people use
IPv4-mapped addresses in AAAA records and those are not routed, so you
get back an ICMP no route to dst.

See here for that support ticket:
https://forum.newrelic.com/s/hubtopic/aAX8W0000015BUvWAM/bamnrdatanet-resolves-with-wrong-aaaarecords

Sn!pe <snipeco.1@gmail.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>I'm cutting the crosspost.

>>Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote

>>>>The shutdown may have been expedited by recent events.

>>>I have no evidence of this circumstantial claim based on timing alone, but
>>>I suspect maybe Google killed 'something' in preparation for this shutdown,
>>>which is what allowed all the google-based spam to suddenly flood the ngs.

>>Why would you believe that?

>>>What that 'something' might have possibly been, I cannot hope to say -
>>>other than it may have been what opened the previously-closed floodgates.
>>>As such, it may have been the prelude that we saw in the past few weeks...

>>Google has never counteracted spam.

>IMHO, Wally's off his trolley; either that or just plain trolling.

It's always time to declare a seamusing, isn't it.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> It's always time to declare a seamusing, isn't it.

To me, it smells like Arlen.

--
^Ï^. Sn!pe, PA, FIBS - Professional Crastinator
<snipeco.1@gmail.com>

Google to close Usenet gateway; my pet rock Gordon cheered.

On 12/18/23 09:16, Marco Moock wrote:
> As long as that address directs to a NAT64 gateway that is reachable
> from the internet, that is fine. But some clueless people use
> IPv4-mapped addresses in AAAA records and those are not routed, so you
> get back an ICMP no route to dst.

I wonder if IPv4 would have had a route to the encoded IPv4 address.

> See here for that support ticket:
> https://forum.newrelic.com/s/hubtopic/aAX8W0000015BUvWAM/bamnrdatanet-resolves-with-wrong-aaaarecords

I'm only part way through it, but it's shaping up to be an interesting read.

--
Grant. . . .

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:55:37 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:

> Am 18.12.2023 um 12:19:45 Uhr schrieb noel:
>
>> IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
>> routes magically start working when you get your users to disable IPv6.
>
> The something in the network is broken.
>
> Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to understand
> IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
> Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.

Yep

>
>> Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
>> with it.
>
> Firewall admins must understand IPv6.
>
> I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.

I've run it since anout 2010/11 or there abouts and yes, its simple
enough but requires more than just unfettered localhost

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/18/23 07:06, The Doctor wrote:
>> I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
>
>I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
>before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
>
>Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
>to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
>provider and as such block access from them.
>
>There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
>unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
>network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
>
>I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers. But mostly with
>what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.

That happens in the IPv4 world more and more as well. The content
providers have the notion of an "eyeball network" which locks out
things like VPN providers, tunnel providers, people like me who
implement their internet breakout through a rented machine in a
colocation, public Wifi hotspots, enterprise networks...

This is becoming as obnoxioius as spam filters. Internet slowly stops
being fun.

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

On 12/18/23 15:07, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 12/18/23 07:06, The Doctor wrote:
>> I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
>
> I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
> before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
>
> Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
> to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
> provider and as such block access from them.
>
> There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
> unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
> network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
>
> I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers.  But mostly with
> what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.
>
>
>
> Grant. . . .

IPv4 has the same problem. This is nothing to do with IPv6, and
everything to do with capitalism being shit.

As Marc said, they whitelist certain networks as "eyeball networks". If
your IP doesn't happen to belong to such a network, too bad - you're
obviously a scraper, so the site says, fuck off! It's as bad as email
spam filtering.

*Actual* scrapers, of course, can rent SOCKS proxies located on eyeball
networks, in bulk quantities, from a business whose entire business
model is to sell SOCKS proxies on eyeball networks, for about $0.50 a
month per proxy (cheaper in bulk). This is even better access to eyeball
networks than eyeballs like yours or mine have. So you have two
businesses fighting each other, achieving nothing in reality, but
wasting money, and everybody loses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 11:25:00 +0100, immibis <news@immibis.com> wrote:
>On 12/18/23 15:07, Grant Taylor wrote:
>> On 12/18/23 07:06, The Doctor wrote:
>>> I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
>>
>> I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
>> before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
>> Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
>> to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
>> provider and as such block access from them.
>> There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
>> unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
>> network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
>> I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers.� But mostly with
>> what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.
>> Grant. . . .
>
>IPv4 has the same problem. This is nothing to do with IPv6, and
>everything to do with capitalism being shit.
>As Marc said, they whitelist certain networks as "eyeball networks". If
>your IP doesn't happen to belong to such a network, too bad - you're
>obviously a scraper, so the site says, fuck off! It's as bad as email
>spam filtering.
>*Actual* scrapers, of course, can rent SOCKS proxies located on eyeball
>networks, in bulk quantities, from a business whose entire business
>model is to sell SOCKS proxies on eyeball networks, for about $0.50 a
>month per proxy (cheaper in bulk). This is even better access to eyeball
>networks than eyeballs like yours or mine have. So you have two
>businesses fighting each other, achieving nothing in reality, but
>wasting money, and everybody loses.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

in the xmas spirit . . .
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=bullshit+jobs
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=eyeball+network

(at least google2news may be laid to rest)

On 12/19/23 04:25, immibis wrote:
> This is nothing to do with IPv6,

I find the problem to be multiple orders of magnitude worse on IPv6 than
I do on IPv4.

So I think that it has at least something to do with IPv6 vs IPv4. ;-)

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/19/23 04:25, immibis wrote:
>> This is nothing to do with IPv6,
>
>I find the problem to be multiple orders of magnitude worse on IPv6 than
>I do on IPv4.
>
>So I think that it has at least something to do with IPv6 vs IPv4. ;-)

Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
protocol that everybody uses.

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:

> Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
> in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
> protocol that everybody uses.

Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an
operational network.

On 12/19/23 15:28, Tom Furie wrote:
> Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
> have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
> would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an
> operational network.

Neighbor Discovery (think ARP) in IPv6 is uses ICMPv6. So you can't
block it completely and have IPv6 work.

You might be able to prevent forwarding of ICMPv6 between interfaces and
still use it locally.

--
Grant. . . .

Am 19.12.2023 um 21:28:15 Uhr schrieb Tom Furie:

> Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that
> they have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of
> "stealth", it would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and
> still have an operational network.

That is already a stupid idea with IPv4, because it also uses ICMP
(Typ3 Code 4) fragmentation needed packages to indicate that the PMTU
is smaller. Although, fragmentation by a router is also possible, it is
not mandatory to do it.

Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> wrote:
>Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
>> Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
>> in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
>> protocol that everybody uses.
>
>Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
>have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
>would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an
>operational network.

Thankfully blocking ICMPv6 completely renders IPv6 inoperational so
that the problem can be noticed immediately. The problems caused by
blocking ICMPv4 are a LOT more subtle to track down.

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>
> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
> them to.

I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
longer offered.

>
> I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
> preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
> did recently.

The amount of spam seems to have been increasing daily for about two
years now. I see this not only in Usenet.
The bots are becoming more intelligent, for example, through AI.

> Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
> wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
> the spam was no longer detected and prevented.

I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
short time.

--
Best regards,
Timo