A friend just told me that Cybernet told him there is a Switzerlandwide Internet Problem.
Does anybody know something?
Online Consulting AG, Michele Capobianco, System Administrator, Weststrasse 38, CH-9500 Wil
Phone +41 (0)71 913 31 31, Fax +41 (0)71 913 31 32
> Von: Arnold Nipper <arnold(a)nipper.de>
> Datum: 23. Dezember 2018 um 08:16:51 MEZ
> An: DENOG <denog(a)lists.denog.de>
> Betreff: Wtr: BGP Experiment
> Erholsame Feiertage und viele Grüße
> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
> Betreff: BGP Experiment
> Datum: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:05:26 -0500
> Von: Italo Cunha <cunha(a)dcc.ufmg.br>
> An: NANOG <nanog(a)nanog.org>, DISCO experiment mailing list
> We would like to inform you of an experiment to evaluate alternatives
> for speeding up adoption of BGP route origin validation (research
> paper with details [A]).
> Our plan is to announce prefix 188.8.131.52/24 with a valid
> standards-compliant unassigned BGP attribute from routers operated by
> the PEERING testbed [B, C]. The attribute will have flags 0xe0
> (optional transitive [rfc4271, S4.3]), type 0xff (reserved for
> development), and size 0x20 (256bits).
> Our collaborators recently ran an equivalent experiment with no
> complaints or known issues [A], and so we do not anticipate any
> arising. Back in 2010, an experiment using unassigned attributes by
> RIPE and Duke University caused disruption in Internet routing due to
> a bug in Cisco routers [D, CVE-2010-3035]. Since then, this and other
> similar bugs have been patched [e.g., CVE-2013-6051], and new BGP
> attributes have been assigned (BGPsec-path) and adopted (large
> communities). We have successfully tested propagation of the
> announcements on Cisco IOS-based routers running versions 12.2(33)SRA
> and 15.3(1)S, Quagga 0.99.23.1 and 1.1.1, as well as BIRD 1.4.5 and
> We plan to announce 184.108.40.206/24 from 8 PEERING locations for a
> predefined period of 15 minutes starting 14:30 GMT, from Monday to
> Thursday, between the 7th and 22nd of January, 2019 (full schedule and
> locations [E]). We will stop the experiment immediately in case any
> issues arise.
> Although we do not expect the experiment to cause disruption, we
> welcome feedback on its safety and especially on how to make it safer.
> We can be reached at disco-experiment(a)googlegroups.com.
> Amir Herzberg, University of Connecticut
> Ethan Katz-Bassett, Columbia University
> Haya Shulman, Fraunhofer SIT
> Ítalo Cunha, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
> Michael Schapira, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
> Tomas Hlavacek, Fraunhofer SIT
> Yossi Gilad, MIT
> [A] https://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2018/program.html
> [B] http://peering.usc.edu
> [C] https://goo.gl/AFR1Cn
> [E] https://goo.gl/nJhmx1
> Arnold Nipper
> email: arnold(a)nipper.de
> mobile: +49 172 2650958
More than 10 years ago Init7 unplugged from the Exchange formerly known
as TIX Telehouse Internet Exchange in Zurich.
When we decided to do this, it was evident that SwissIX was offering
much more value for money, in fact, SwissIX offered ports without
recurring monthly fees. SwissIX was completely community driven and a
lot of volunteer work made it happen. The fact of free ports made
SwissIX big in the number of participants. (Disclaimer: I was president
of the SwissIX association between 2004 and 2009).
This has changed. The SwissIX association decided to charge for ports
above 1 Gigabit a few years ago, in order to renew the infrastructure
and to pay a salary for operations (to my knowledge SwissIX pays one
part time employee). I respect that decision, while I was not supporting
it. Consequently Init7 downgraded to 1 Gigabit then and did not accept
new peers ever since.
The price for a 10 Gigabit port apparently was lowered recently to CHF
750 per month. Which sums up to CHF 9000 per year. The 2nd port is
cheaper: CHF 400 per month. Details can be found here:
I made a quick count of the ports and found ~100 ports with 10 Gigabit
and two 100 Gigabit ports (according to PeeringDB). Assuming that 50%
are secondary ports a quick estimate of the association revenue adds up
to this sum:
50* CHF 750 = CHF 450000
50* CHF 400 = CHF 240000
2* CHF 2600 = CHF 62400
Total ≃ CHF 750000 per year, not including membership fees
I suppose that this amount is sufficient to buy the complete equipment
required to operate the SwissIX peering mesh twice a year (yes, gear
gets cheaper these days; though it's an absurd example) and still
includes the salary of the one part time employee.
Since such a charging and revenue scheme is in force for several years I
suppose SwissIX has accumulated a seven-digit fortune. However it seems
that no one really knows about it, as the association of SwissIX didn't
make financial reports accessible on the website (I assume they have
been presented on the yearly General Meetings only, though it's not
possible for all association members to be part of it). So the question
remains for many of us: Where did the money go? SwissIX is hardly
visible in the international community, so I guess "money was spent for
Marketing" is not a valid answer.
SwissIX port fees are today among the most expensive in Europe (not
including any membership fees), and all of these Exchanges are way
bigger in terms of traffic and marketing efforts:
LINX 750£ + 424£ (1st, 2nd)
DE-CIX - no price list published anymore, depends on your negotiation
Equinix Paris: €400
MIX Milano €750 which includes 1/3 cabinet and power
SwissIX claims to be "Not for Profit". Equinix, in contrary, is listed
on the stock market. Still, the first 10 Gigabit port on Equinix Zurich
Exchange costs CHF 400 per month and includes a cross connect. That's
about half of the cost of the Not-for-Profit SwissIX.
More than 10 years ago, Init7 unplugged from the Exchange formerly known
as TIX Telehouse Internet Exchange in Zurich. Now we are reverting this
decision, as preconditions have reverted too. Init7 has cancelled it's
membership of the SwissIX association to the end of 2018 and will unplug
the remaining 1 Gigabit port anytime soon.
We are happy to accept new peering sessions at Equinix Exchange Zurich
as long as the requirements are met (no peering with customers or
customers of customers). We are also happy to accept new PNI peers in
any common location, if resources are available. Please send inquiries
to peering at init7 dot net.
Happy Peering and good luck, SwissIX.
PS. some useful URLs:
History of SwissIX: https://www.swissix.ch/about
Where it all started - SwiNOG 1: https://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog1/
Init7 (Switzerland) Ltd.
I have read:
And I have sniffed the traffic between my swisscom mobile Samsung
Mobile and my Website, but can't find any of the additional headers
disclosing my phone number.
Is there a trick to make a mobile phone disclose it's phone number
while connected via the mobile network's operator network?
How can 'website payment' operator like 'obligo' get the phone number
associated with a visitor? Obligo states they got the phone number
to bill 'from the service operator'.
Would it be possible, that a fraudster injects such headers from a
client to make obligo bill the wrong number?
PS: I know obligo's reputation.
Mit freundlichen Grüssen
I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden
Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00
CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01
Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch
....with a code that is sent by an SMS to confirm identity before transaction becomes confirmed..
> Am 07.12.2018 um 12:00 schrieb swinog-request(a)lists.swinog.ch:
> Send swinog mailing list submissions to
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of swinog digest..."
> Today's Topics:
> 1. How do website operators get the mobile phone number of
> visitors? (Benoit Panizzon)
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:54:04 +0100
> From: Benoit Panizzon <benoit.panizzon(a)imp.ch>
> To: swinog(a)swinog.ch
> Subject: [swinog] How do website operators get the mobile phone number
> of visitors?
> Message-ID: <20181206145404.74dcac40(a)go.imp.ch>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Hi List
> I have read:
> And I have sniffed the traffic between my swisscom mobile Samsung
> Mobile and my Website, but can't find any of the additional headers
> disclosing my phone number.
> Is there a trick to make a mobile phone disclose it's phone number
> while connected via the mobile network's operator network?
> How can 'website payment' operator like 'obligo' get the phone number
> associated with a visitor? Obligo states they got the phone number
> to bill 'from the service operator'.
> Would it be possible, that a fraudster injects such headers from a
> client to make obligo bill the wrong number?
> PS: I know obligo's reputation.
> Mit freundlichen Gr?ssen
> -Beno?t Panizzon-
> I m p r o W a r e A G - Leiter Commerce Kunden
> Zurlindenstrasse 29 Tel +41 61 826 93 00
> CH-4133 Pratteln Fax +41 61 826 93 01
> Schweiz Web http://www.imp.ch
> swinog mailing list
> End of swinog Digest, Vol 167, Issue 1