LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB Archives

CODE4LIB Archives


CODE4LIB@LISTS.CLIR.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB Home

CODE4LIB  December 2020

CODE4LIB December 2020

Subject:

Re: The IP Registry

From:

Tom Keays <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:31:10 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (296 lines)

Oh boy. MIT Press is migrating to a new platform and they want us to be on
yet another IP registry platform. From the email...

*Sign up for PSI’s IP registry*, if you are not already registered.
https://www.psiregistry.org/
<https://mit.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=7caff40e82d72e9429c33df2a&id=2cb79f8b34&e=4349323911>
.

Does anybody have any experience with them?

Tom

On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 9:30 PM Fitchett, Deborah <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> In my experience, since we signed up, they do email us very occasionally
> to say “Oh we heard such-and-such an IP range is you, can you confirm?” so
> we can login and say “No, no that hasn’t been our IP range for 10 years,
> who on earth still has that on file?”
>
> --More precisely, we can say “No.” But at least that’s something.
>
> It’s… problematic that they’re maintaining ranges for institutions who
> haven’t signed up. I guess they’re thinking then there’s more incentive to
> get publishers to come on board, since it is one of those services that
> will work best if most people are on board, and getting momentum when few
> people are on board is a challenge.
>
> I do really like the idea of the service. I come at this from having to go
> through the “email/login to ALL the publishers to update IP ranges” about
> three times in not very many more years, it was painful and I remain
> traumatised. The idea of just being able to update a single place (or at
> least a single place for most publishers and a few outliers individually)
> is really appealing.
>
> I note a couple of their publishers are now using the IP Registry’s API to
> stay updated with IP addresses, which seems like another great development.
>
> Maybe it’s worth sending them feedback that if they provide IP addresses
> for institutions who haven’t signed up, they need to make it clear to
> publishers that these are non-verified and publishers should always confirm
> with the institution before making changes.
>
> Deborah
>
>
> From: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Lolis,
> John
> Sent: Saturday, 5 December 2020 12:25 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] The IP Registry
>
> It seems to me that they have a glaring omission in not notifying a
> registrant when someone submitted or modified an IP address range for their
> institution. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
>
> As for *publishers* providing IP address ranges to update an institution's
> IP range, *what are they thinking?*
>
> John Lolis
> Coordinator of Computer Systems
>
> 100 Martine Avenue
> White Plains, NY 10601
>
> tel: 1.914.422.1497
> fax: 1.914.422.1452
>
> https://whiteplainslibrary.org/<https://whiteplainslibrary.org>
>
> *When you think about it, *all* security is ultimately security by
> ignorance.*
>
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 at 18:09, Will Martin <[log in to unmask]<mailto:
> [log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> > They portray themselves as offering accurate IP ranges, when what
> > they've got amounts to some guess-work. They don't really have any way
> > to catch errors like the Choopa.net example Tom Keays gave, or the
> > consortium sub-range in mine. Unless, of course, the way they catch
> > those is to rely on people from the institutions to eventually log in
> > and correct those for them.
> >
> > I'm going to go ahead and update my institutions ranges with them
> > anyway, because I think I have to. But I'm not going to like them for
> > it.
> >
> > Will
> >
> > On 2020-12-04 16:49, Tom Keays wrote:
> > > A couple of years ago, when I was reviewing the IP set up for Scitation
> > > for
> > > my institution, I noticed it included an unfamiliar IP range,
> > > 216.155.128.000 - 216.155.128.063. This was not the first time I had
> > > encountered this range (although I don't have a record of what the
> > > previous
> > > vendors were where I found it). After spending some time investigating,
> > > I
> > > determined that it belonged to an internet hosting company called
> > > Choopa.net. Definitely a bogus listing for us.
> > >
> > > Anyway, when I first set up my account at The IP Registry, they also
> > > listed
> > > this range. When I told them about it and asked them how they got it
> > > and
> > > explained that it should never have been there in their records, they
> > > replied, "This IP range was supplied to us by a number of publishers
> > > who
> > > are using it to provide access."
> > >
> > > I don't really know how this range got listed as being valid for my
> > > institution. Was it there because individual social engineered
> > > somebody's
> > > support team in order to get free access to online resources? I have to
> > > assume so. I also don't know if The IP Registry got it from the
> > > e-resource
> > > vendors and accepted it without question or the vendors got it from
> > > them,
> > > again without question. Either way, it made me worry about trusting
> > > them
> > > too far.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 2:33 PM Jeremiah Kellogg <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Yikes, this does sound like we're being forced into a service whether
> > >> we
> > >> want to use it or not. At our institution we're the default owner of
> > >> a
> > >> range of IPs we manage on behalf of a public library consortium that
> > >> we're
> > >> not actually a part of (so the consortium shouldn't be accessing our
> > >> databases). The IP registry had grabbed that range of IPs and
> > >> included
> > >> them in our profile, but had them pending verification from our
> > >> institution
> > >> that we actually owned them before making them available to
> > >> publishers. I
> > >> ended up editing that range to exclude the consortium IPs, and then no
> > >> longer had to verify the remaining range of IPs that were correct.
> > >> Now
> > >> that I really think about this, had I not made those edits, our proxy
> > >> server would have been excluded and we would have faced a situation
> > >> where
> > >> our students, faculty and staff were denied access to the services
> > >> they
> > >> should be able to access. So we would have faced the opposite problem
> > >> that
> > >> you experienced, Will, where people would be denied access rather than
> > >> given access they shouldn't have. Either way, the only apparent way
> > >> these
> > >> problems can be fixed is by signing up with the IP registry and
> > >> updating
> > >> things ourselves... and that's kind of underhanded. I'm not sure I'd
> > >> worry
> > >> too much about the legalities because it appears vendors, unlike our
> > >> institutions, participate willingly, and if they're willing to take
> > >> the
> > >> ipregistry's word that our IP ranges are accurate that's on them.
> > >> It's
> > >> just really frustrating to think that we'd face these kinds of
> > >> problems due
> > >> to an outside entity getting things wrong on our behalf, and the only
> > >> way
> > >> to fix them is by signing up with them and making corrections.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think I mind them selling our improved IP data to vendors
> > >> because
> > >> that's the kind of thing most free services need to do to pay the
> > >> bills
> > >> these days. I might be putting the work into it, but it's not so much
> > >> that
> > >> I feel like I'm putting more in than I'm getting out of it. However,
> > >> as
> > >> you point out, Will, there doesn't appear to be a mechanism for opting
> > >> out
> > >> of their system, and that really stinks. I haven't dug too deep, but
> > >> I
> > >> wonder if there's a way of setting things up with vendors who use that
> > >> service to stop using it when we make such a request? I think I'm
> > >> pretty
> > >> much on the same page as you, Will. It's a great idea for a service,
> > >> but
> > >> being forced into it will understandably leave a bad taste in people's
> > >> mouths, and it also casts a bit of shadow on the service's integrity.
> > >> I
> > >> get that participation is important for this kind of thing, but I
> > >> suspect
> > >> there are better ways of getting people onboard!
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 6:02 PM Will Martin <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > I am concerned by the fact that the IP Registry appears to have gone
> > >> > around figuring out the IP ranges for schools based on public
> records
> > >> > from the IANA and a bunch of vendor records. I'm sure that was
> > >> > difficult, and their site says it took four years. When it was done,
> > >> > they announced that 58% of IP ranges were wrong, and began selling
> the
> > >> > service to vendors and telling them what our IP addresses are based
> on
> > >> > their analysis.
> > >> >
> > >> > I claimed the account for my institution and discovered that there
> > were
> > >> > 26 vendors already pulling my university's IP ranges from the IP
> > >> > Registry. Unfortunately, the IP ranges were wrong. To name a few
> > >> > problems:
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) They conflated us with another school in the same university
> > system.
> > >> >
> > >> > 2) They could not know that there are a couple of IP ranges that we
> > >> > prefer to be treated as "off campus" even though they belong to the
> > >> > University.
> > >> >
> > >> > 3) They had no way to know that one particular range of our IPs is
> > >> > assigned to a library consortium in our state, and used for proxy
> > >> > servers that serve the other institutions in the university system
> > plus
> > >> > several dozen public libraries.
> > >> >
> > >> > The third point is critical. By distributing these erroneous IP
> > ranges
> > >> > on my school's behalf, without permission, the IP registry has
> > >> > effectively granted access to 26 of our subscriptions to basically
> > >> > everyone in my state. We are thus in violation of our license
> > >> > agreements and will be at risk of legal action by the publishers
> > until I
> > >> > can sort this mess out.
> > >> >
> > >> > Because this involves multiple institutions -- my own, the broader
> > >> > university system, the aforementioned library consortium -- I am
> going
> > >> > to have to contact and explain the situation to a lot of people, and
> > >> > spend a lot of time checking and re-checking IP ranges, all in
> service
> > >> > of updating the IP Registry's records.
> > >> >
> > >> > Then they get to turn around and charge the publishers for my work.
> > >> >
> > >> > But frankly, their business model feels like extortion to me. We
> have
> > to
> > >> > verify their records, or there's a chance that our resources will be
> > >> > accessible to people who should not have access because their
> analysis
> > >> > was incorrect. They appear to have engineered a situation that puts
> > my
> > >> > institution in potential legal jeopardy, which we can only get out
> of
> > by
> > >> > improving the data that the IP Registry is selling for a profit.
> > >> >
> > >> > I am not happy with them. The basic idea -- a centralized repository
> > of
> > >> > IP ranges for bulk updating publisher records -- is both sound and
> > >> > useful. But their business model leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If
> > I
> > >> > could, I would opt out of the system. But they do not appear to have
> > >> > made a mechanism available to do so.
> > >> >
> > >> > Will Martin
> > >> >
> > >> > Head of Digital Initiatives, Systems and Services
> > >> > Chester Fritz Library
> > >> > University of North Dakota
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Jeremiah Kellogg
> > >> Systems Librarian
> > >> Pierce Library
> > >> Eastern Oregon University
> > >> [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > >> (541) 962-3017
> > >>
> >
>
> ________________________________
>
> "The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) may be
> confidential and/or subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use,
> distribution, or copying of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you
> have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by return
> e-mail or telephone and then delete this e-mail together with all
> attachments from your system."
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

July 2024
June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.CLIR.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager