July 1997 - NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Re: Internic does it again
by George Herbert 29 Jul '97

29 Jul '97

Jay writes: >On Mon, Jul 28, 1997 at 12:00:10PM -0700, Sarah Baker wrote: >> Off-topic to nanog. > >It appears that the members of the list feel it's a worthy topic for >discussion. Since you obviously don't, and I can just feel Paul >Ferguson and Randy Baker slavering at the bit, I'm going to try asking >this just _one_ more time, and if I don't get an answer within, say, 48 >hours, I'm going to start plonking people who yell "off-topic": > > ************************** > Would an administrator of this list please compose and post a message > defining in precise terms what topic areas are on- and off-topic for > the NANOG mailing list? > ************************** > >Pay careful attention, folks: the AUP is useless. It has not clearly >forbidden _any_ of the topics I've seen people get screamed at about in >the past month, with the sole exception of my bit of (you'll have to >admit: provoked) ventilation a week or so ago, for which I hereby >apologize publically to the parites involved. [...] IMHO: The key problem here is people not understanding what "operational and technical" means in common parlance, I think. Is InterNIC crashing an operational problem? Yes. Is InterNIC not responding for some time an operational problem? Maybe... Until you know why they crashed, it's definitely on topic to be trying to figure out why and how, if it's affecting operations. Is it still an operational or technical problem weeks later? No. InterNIC's failures and flaws are fodder for a number of other mailing lists related to DNS policy discussions among others. Except as is operationally relevant, however, they're not appropriate for NANOG. They generally are only operationally relevant when something breaks, until it's fixed. -george william herbert gherbert(a)crl.com >From the web site: Mailing list charter & AUP: # Charter # # The NANOG mailing list is established to provide a forum for # the exchange of technical information and the discussion of # specific implementation issues that require cooperation among # network service providers. In order to continue to provide a # useful forum for discussion of relevant technical issues, # the list will now be governed by the following guidelines: # # Acceptable Use Policy # # 1.Discussion will focus on Internet operational and # technical issues as described in the charter of NANOG. # 2.Postings of issues inconsistent with the charter are prohibited. # 3.Postings to multiple mailing lists are discouraged. # 4.Postings that include foul language, character assassination, # and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. # 5.Blatant product marketing is unacceptable. # 6.Postings of political, philosophical, and legal nature are discouraged. # # Individuals who violate these guidelines will be contacted # personally and asked to adhere to the guidelines. If an individual # persists in violating the guidelines, the convenor of NANOG, # Merit Network, Inc., will take action to filter the offender's # messages to the list. # # If groups of individuals persist in introducing topics that # are outside the charter of NANOG, the convenor will send a # request to the entire mailing list requesting adherence to # the guidelines. If the discussion continues unabated, # the convenor will take action to filter all postings on the topic. NANOG Charter: # Objectives of the Group # # The goals of NANOG are as follows: # # * Will hold three regular meetings of network service providers per year. # * Establish a forum for the exchange of technical information. # * Discuss specific implementation issues which require cooperation # and coordination among network service providers to ensure the # stability of overall service to the network users. # * Serve as a focal point for other common activities of the participants. # * Promote and coordinate interconnection of networks within # North America and to other continents.

3 2

Bogus Bounces on the list
by Jay R. Ashworth 28 Jul '97

28 Jul '97

I've just gotten off the phone with Michael Maiten, the postmaster at Energetic Systems. He's most apologetic about the bogus bounce messages we've been getting from his system for the past couple days, and reports that he's disabling the bouncer until he tracks down both the problem, and the reason for the incorrect From_ and From: headers on the generated replies. HTH, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Member of the Technical Staff Unsolicited Commercial Emailers Sued The Suncoast Freenet "People propose, science studies, technology Tampa Bay, Florida conforms." -- Dr. Don Norman +1 813 790 7592

1 0

Re: Internic does it again
by David Stoddard 28 Jul '97

28 Jul '97

Eric Germann writes: > Well our friends at Internic apparently forgot how to update their servers > > *.root-servers.net from here is showing a serial of 1997072500 with no > updates made Friday night showing (11:30am EDT July 27). While is is easy to blame the InterNIC and NSI for all the evils in the world, the InterNIC of five years ago (or even one year ago) is not the InterNIC that exists today. Last week I went to Network Solutions to meet with Dave Holtzman (SVP of Engineering) on an unrelated matter, and while I was there I got a chance to observe first hand the metamorphosis that has transpired over the past year. Here are just a few points that everyone should be aware of: * NSI completely replaced senior level management about nine months ago. Most of those folks were responsible for the arrogant, unresponsive attitude that NSI displayed for so many years. NSI replaced those folks with the most qualified people they could find. For example, Gabe Battista, NSI's CEO, was President of Cables and Wireless before coming to NSI last year. Dave Holtzman was one of IBM's most-talented senior engineers, and also has a substantial business background. There are dozens of other examples throughout the organization. * Since the transistion in the management structure, the call support area has gone from three people to 50 people, and the engineering support desk has gone from two to over 30 (and they are trying to hire more people right now). Hours have been extended from 5 PM EDT to 9 PM EDT, and plans are underway to make InterNIC support a 24x7 operation very soon. * The operations area is much like you would expect any large industrial organization to have -- a controlled environment computer room with raised floors, fire and water detection alarms, racks of equipment and systems, hot spare systems, several large Cisco routers including a spare Cisco 7500, three T3 links to separate backbone carriers, a UPS system with 200 lead batteries capable of running the entire facility for more than 24 hours, and a large deisel generator with enough fuel capacity to run for two weeks. The entire facility is secured with access cards, limiting people to those areas that they work in. [BTW, the entire InterNIC moved from its old location to its new location one month ago without any outage -- this is a true test of the InterNICs resources and expertise to be able to move an operation that large without impacting the rest of us.] * Effort is underway to define and document formal procedures for every activity that goes on in the InterNIC. Systems are being implemented everywhere to make the InterNIC as fault tolerant as possible. Based on what I saw, problems like the partial DNS update two weeks ago will be a thing of the past very shortly. I had the opportunity to talk with Richard Walsh, the Director of Operations, about the DNS problem and I am convinced it will never happen again -- there are too many automated systems and check procedures in place to allow a repeat of the previous partial update problem. * There is a complete focus on customer service in the InterNIC now. With a 1600+ percent increase in customer supprt personnel in just the past few months (which continues to grow as they are able to find and train people), the folks at NSI now talk about quality of service, response time, escalation procedures, and other customer support concepts that were anathma to the organization just one year ago. [Case in point -- before Dave Holtzman started posting on NANOG a few weeks ago, I can't remember anytime when an SVP at the InterNIC cared enough to post anything to the NANOG list.] Before I started US Net four years ago, I spent 16 years managing software engineering projects for KPMG Peat Marwick and American Management Systems (before that I taught CS at UofMD) -- I know what it takes to build, operate, and manage an industrial-strength operations center, and Network Solutions has one. I know what the response to this is -- "These folks are the InterNIC, they SHOULD be doing all these things!". And I agree 100%. The difference is they ARE doing these things now. This is a direct result of the new management at the InterNIC. Also, a lot of folks have made derogatory comments about NSI going public. Frankly, I think this is a good idea -- it will give them the financial depth to be able to support the InterNIC at a level that will benefit all of us. Based on what I saw, and knowing the skills of Battista and Holtzman, NSI is sure to be one of the best stock deals of the '90s. [FWIW, I have no connection to the InterNIC what so ever -- like the rest of you, I rely on them for their domain registration services only.] So if your idea of the InterNIC is two engineers, two computers, and a half-dozen support personnel with an attitude, forget it -- it is not that way anymore. Dave Holtzman wants to make the InterNIC a world-class support organization that puts reliability and customer support first. From what I have seen, he is well on his way ... Dave Stoddard US Net Incorporated 301-572-5926 dgs(a)us.net

6 6

Your mail to nanog@merit.edu (fwd)
by Alex Rubenstein 28 Jul '97

28 Jul '97

Blergola; for the nanog(a)merit.edu admin: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 28 Jul 97 11:55:28 PDT From: nanog(a)merit.edu To: alex(a)nac.net Subject: Your mail to nanog(a)merit.edu Your message was delivered to an email destination which is no longer in service. Please contact Energetic Systems <info(a)energetic.com> for more information. Your Original Message: > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:01:11 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alex Rubenstein <alex(a)nac.net> > CC: > To: nanog(a)merit.edu > Subject: Is this strange, or is it me? > I am showing a route for the Penn NAP; is this normal? > > BGP routing table entry for 192.157.69.0/24, version 262837 > Paths: (1 available, best #1, advertised over IBGP) > 3561 > 204.70.65.53 from 204.70.65.53 (204.70.65.1) > Origin IGP, valid, external, best > > > Sprint NAP Team (NET-ICMNET-6) > Netnumber: 192.157.69.0 > >

1 0

Is this strange, or is it me?
by Alex Rubenstein 28 Jul '97

28 Jul '97

I am showing a route for the Penn NAP; is this normal? BGP routing table entry for 192.157.69.0/24, version 262837 Paths: (1 available, best #1, advertised over IBGP) 3561 204.70.65.53 from 204.70.65.53 (204.70.65.1) Origin IGP, valid, external, best Sprint NAP Team (NET-ICMNET-6) Netnumber: 192.157.69.0

1 0

RE: September COOK Report focus on net governance & IANA authority issues
by Jim Fleming 28 Jul '97

28 Jul '97

On Sunday, July 27, 1997 10:11 PM, Gordon Cook[SMTP:cook@netaxs.com] wrote: @ @ @ INTERNET GOVERNANCE NOT SCALING WELL @ This should not be a surprise to anyone... The obvious solution is for the U.S. Government to remove their Root Name Servers from commercial use and to discourage Universities and non-profit companies from supplying these commercial services. This action would leave the NSI server and the PSI server from the Legacy Root Name Server Confederation. Those severs could be combined with the existing eDNS Root Name Servers to make a Root Name Server Confederation with reasonable connectivity in North America. NSI could change the file that ISPs download to obtain their hints. The eDNS Root Name Server owners/operators and the people on the NANOG list might want to discuss this possible scenario. In light of the recent DNS disasters, it is good to do more advanced planning and of course to keep fixing the DNS software. -- Jim Fleming Unir Corporation

2 1

Another apology (was Re: Kim, where are youuuuuuuuuuu!)
by Eric Germann 27 Jul '97

27 Jul '97

Apparently there is a dead subscriber account (figuratively, hopefully not literally) on the NANOG list. postmaster(a)merit.edu and postmaster(a)energetic.com have been notified. Apologies to to Kim for this one. Pulling the burr out of my ass for the weekend, Eric At 06:58 AM 7/26/97 -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: >At 11:55 PM 7/25/97 -0400, Eric Germann wrote: >> >>>From: kimh(a)internic.net >>>Date: Fri, 25 Jul 97 19:16:56 PDT >>>To: ekgermann(a)cctec.com >>>Subject: Your mail to Kim Hubbard <kimh(a)internic.net> >>> >>>Your message was delivered to an email destination which is >>>no longer in service. >>> >>>Please contact Energetic Systems <info(a)energetic.com> for more information. > >Maybe Kim's favorite procmail recipe got updated by new management at NSI >(see Dr. Farber's IP article this week) > >:0 #regexp attributed to Randy Bush, !BuGless >* ^FROM_PLONKEES >/dev/null > >to generate your response `[8-)) > >And how do I configure my router for that? > > > > >

1 0

Apologies (Re: Internic does it again)
by Eric Germann 27 Jul '97

27 Jul '97

At 01:57 PM 7/27/97 PDT, Randy Bush wrote: >> Since when did InterNIC update their root servers on weekends? Last time I >> checked it was M-F. > >Not update on weekends! Those perfidious bastards! > >I demand my money back. They should be sued. Don't buy their stock. >Pillory them. > > > >Do these fools have no real work that they spend their time trying to catch >others in mistakes and then make asses of themselves on the lists? > >randy > > My gaffe. Around here, every day is a business day. After spending three days trying to jam shit through hostmaster(a)internic.net, when it finally does go through the template changes and you have to retype 50 templates then resubmit, just because they decided to add a 4 page "contract" at the beginning, and eliminate your selection of (P)ostal or (E)mail for invoice delivery :(. So my frustration level is rather high. Beat me, flog me. Sorry for the alarm. Just trying to see if the clients records were updated, after 2 1/2 days of trying. BTW Randy, from http://www.psg.com/clue.html Show some respect for other human beings and act as if you were in adult company. Stop talking about people. Talk about ideas. Do not use adjectives like good, bad, stoopid. If you are still frustrated and can't hold it in, go to Usenet and try k12.jr.chat. I'll abide if you will. Back to tabulating statistics on TCAP... Interesting stories. Best so far, 2 out of a /16 actually in use. And crawling in my hole... ============================================================================ ==== Eric Germann Computer and Communications Technologies ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 Phone: 419 968 2640 http://www.cctec.com Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider

1 0

Internic does it again
by Eric Germann 27 Jul '97

27 Jul '97

Heads up! Well our friends at Internic apparently forgot how to update their servers *.root-servers.net from here is showing a serial of 1997072500 with no updates made Friday night showing (11:30am EDT July 27). Oh well, out of date data is better than no data at all (the alternative), I suppose. Remind me not to buy their stock... Eric ============================================================================ ==== Eric Germann Computer and Communications Technologies ekgermann(a)cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891 Phone: 419 968 2640 http://www.cctec.com Fax: 419 968 2641 Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services A Microsoft Solution Provider

5 4

RE: Non-ISP companies multi-homing?
by jan.novak＠aliatel.cz 27 Jul '97

27 Jul '97

Nice lecture, thanks. But I saw always when thinking about multihoming some other problems also. 2] Multihomed to different ISP without BGP, supposing I need only one /24. It will be PA or PI addressing space ?? With respect to CIDR aggregation effort, make it sense to require /24 PI address block?? How will route the second ISP my PA from the other ISP (he will de-aggregate the block of the second provider to announce more specific prefix??) ?? 2] Multihomed to different ISP with BGP , supposing I need only one /24. Again, make it sense to have my own AS and /24 PI block ?? Supposing to have IBGP to one ISP (to avoid assigning of independent AS) and EBGP to the second ISP, again will my router announce the /24 inside of the first ISP address block to the EBGP peer ?? 2. Multi-homed. Enterprise connects to more than one ISP. May or may not use BGP. Wishes to protect against problems in the ISP routing system, and will accept additional complexity and router requirements to get this. May also have differing service agreements for Internet access for different divisions.

7 15